Last month my request for revision was published at the International Center for 9/11 Justice, along with Kevin Ryan's rebuttal to it. I have now composed a response to his rebuttal. I originally planned on submitting my response to the IC911J for them to post there. However, they have a maximum word limit of around 2000 words, and I knew my response was likely going to exceed this. So instead, my response is posted here. I encourage readers to consider all of this information and decide for themselves who's right. I also respectfully ask the IC911J to consider what I've written here, and to revise their website accordingly. Kevin Ryan is, of course, more than welcome to respond to what I've said, and if he should produce a response, I will gladly post it here as well.
Rebuttal to Kevin Ryan on Plausibility of 9/11 Hijackings
Adam Taylor
18 August 2023
Introduction In response to my request for revision submitted to the International Center for 9/11 Justice (IC911J), Kevin Ryan argues that my central contention in that paper is false; namely, that it is probable that the four hijacker teams could have overpowered the pilots on each flight, and gained control of the aircrafts on 9/11. He argues that I have not sufficiently demonstrated this, claiming my references do not support my conclusions, and there is evidence I’ve overlooked that contradicts my arguments. Here I show that it is Mr. Ryan’s claims which are false, and not sufficiently supported by the evidence he cites. As we shall see, Mr. Ryan’s response contains numerous factual errors, logical fallacies, irrelevant details, and misunderstandings of what I actually said in my original paper
Roughly a month ago, I submitted a request for revision to the International Center for 9/11 Justice, which they've now published on their Debated Topics Forum. Alongside it, they also published a response from Kevin Ryan. Both papers can be accessed and read at the following link: https://ic911.org/debated-topics-forum. Or, you can access each paper individually at the following links:
They allow a response to be published within three months of the posted rebuttal, which I plan on writing and submitting in that timeframe. For now though, I encourage people to read both papers and decide who they think is right and makes the better arguments. I thank the International Center for publishing my paper. As I mention in the paper itself, I also thank Adam Fitzgerald, who made me aware of much of the information I included in the paper.
This presentation describes some of the ways in which the 2008 WTC 7 report from the National Institute of Standard and Technology is false and unscientific.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the 911 lie we have all been plunged into an endless War on Terror. Only the truth about 911 will end this war and stop the criminals from pushing further atrocities upon the people of this world.
I appreciated the comment by tHoM0r at the You Tube page on 12/7/11:
Deception by computer model. This is not science, this is merely a long winded way of saying "this happened, but we can't back that up with real world observations".
Further, i still don't understand, even if this column expanded enough to fall off, how did this cause global collapse at an initial rate of fall ~9.8ms/2 ?
About a month ago I had a debate with several debunkers at once about the collapse of WTC 7. In particular, we debated about the period of free fall that occured during the collapse. Here are some of the more memorable responses I got from them:
"I'm still gonna say wiping out 30 meters of supports is too fucking obvious for a secret op." -Weirdo10o4 (Apparently it wasn't that obvious, as NIST needed a high school teacher to point it out to them.)
"consider that I can roll a bowling ball down a long flight of stairs. As it rolls down the stairs, it spends time in free fall--between each stair" -EdgemanLL2 (The very obvious difference of course is that when a ball rolls down the stairs, nothing is removed and the ball only free falls for a few inches. Building 7 was in free fall for about 100 feet, or 1/6 of its height.)
"It wouldn't need to give up any of its energy to buckle or crush anything." -CaptMandrake360 (I almost didn't even know how to respond to that.)
The main person I was really debating with was the infamous RKOwens4, who apparently thinks that NIST actually predicted the period of free fall.
"The only point I'm trying to make is that NIST DID predict it and DOES have an explanation for the 2.25 seconds of free-fall. So don't go around saying, 'The 2.25 second free-fall came as a total surprise to NIST' or 'NIST can't explain why the building fell at free-fall for 2.25 seconds.' As I said, the NIST report on WTC7 actually PREDICTED a 2.25 second free-fall of WTC7, due to the buckling of 8 floors near the base of the building." -RKOwens4
I wasn't entirely sure how Mr. Owens came to this conclusion, as there was nothing about the building entering into free fall in NIST's draft report and, as mentioned above, David Chandler was the one who had to point it out to them. But perhaps he believes NIST's calculations did predict the free fall and NIST was just simply unaware of it. This seems unlikely though, when one looks at the differences between the Draft Report and the Final Report:
The Draft Report stated: "The collapse time of the upper 18 floors of the north face of WTC 7... was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. This is consistent with physical principals." -NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Draft for Public Comment, 610
However, the Final Report states: "The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7... was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corrosponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below." -NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (Final Report): 607
Note that the phrase "consistent with physical principals" is completely absent from NIST's newer passage. In fact, "consistent with physical principals" appears nowhere in NIST's final report. There is a "consistent with" statement in the final report, but it says nothing about physical principals. After giving its three stage analysis, NIST states: "The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analyses discussed earlier in this chapter." -NCSTAR 1-9 (Final Report): 603 Basically, what NIST is saying is that its three stage analysis on this page is consistent with its three stage analyses on earlier pages! How nice of NIST to assure everyone that a later part of their report agrees with an earlier part of their report. It's apparently not consistent with physical principals, but it's consistent with their report! In any case, these facts show that there was absolutely no indication prior to publishing their final report that they had predicted free fall at all. It was one thing they said was impossible. However, this too was a detail Mr. Owens disagreed with:
"Can you provide me with a link to where they ever said that any period of free-fall would have been impossible from a fire-induced collapse?" -RKOwens4
I do wonder if Mr. Owens has actually watched NIST's technical briefing.
I also briefly discussed how the fires could not have been hot enough to cause the collapse in the first place. Mr. Owens was (not surprisingly) unconvinced.
"Now, go read the report and explain to me WHY expanding floor beams pushing the core columns out of alignment was not enough to cause the building to collapse. Tell me why, specifically." -RKOwens4
Specifically, because the fires could not possibly have been as hot as NIST stated to do that.
"raising those five floor beams to a temperature of 600°C would require an enormous amount of energy, far more than was available from the burning of the office furnishings underneath the floor beams." -Kevin Ryan
Debunkers can easily hand wave away Kevin Ryan's statement, as he is a "truther" and therefore has no credibility. But unfortunately for them, even Dr. Frank Greening, a long time debunker, agrees that the fires could not have been as hot as NIST says.
"NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300°C [570°F]--a condition that could never have been realized with NIST's postulated 32 kg/m2 fuel loading." -Dr. Frank Greening
While Dr. Greening does not believe the building was demolished, he does agree that NIST's report is false.
The above three videos are basically my response to these debunkers who feel there was nothing strange about the free fall of WTC 7.
Far from solving the mystery of WTC 7's collapse, NIST has done nothing but created more mysteries. And debunkers have certainly not solved them.
So the red-chip paper is out, that proves that not only was there enough high-tech superthermite in the WTC towers to demolish them but there was some left over! No wonder some leaked out!
So either Osama Bin Laden had a high-tech weapons lab in his cave in Afghanistan and his Al-Qaeda elites happened to be controlled demolition experts with unrestricted access to three of the most secure buildings in America or the official story is a complete fraud.
I wonder what those reptiles at the Nanothermite Institute of Scumbags and Traitors are thinking right now...
I've uploaded a copy to rapidshare. Spread it around!
