The article below points to another bit of evidence (or the lack of it) suggesting that no large passenger planes (or any planes at all) crashed anywhere in the US on 9/11/01, certainly not in NYC, the Pentagon or Shankesville, PA. One can add this to the growing body of the lack of evidence that any planes were employed by that day's terrorists (none of whom were Muslim).
For example: not one bit of independently verified wreckage has been produced; none of the alleged hijackers' names were on the passenger lists; the physics of planes crashing through buildings, leaving an outline of their shape and then disappearing without a trace is simply impossible, and much more.
The two best articles I'm aware of on the subject are Gerard Holmgren,'s "Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11," (2004, revised 2006). www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51; (suitable for 9/11-101 --see below) and Morgan Reynolds, "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories," (March 2006). http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes (also come to think of it, suitable for 9/11-101)
My own essay summarizing their findings can be found at: http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html#note2
Warning/Disclaimer: If the evidence suggesting controlled demolition of the WTC towers and the lack of evidence of a large passenger plane crashing at the Pentagon and in PA can be said to be 9/11 -101, the No Planes Theory is post graduate level research due to the effectiveness of the fake videos of the plane crashing into the second tower at the WTC.
It's difficult to get past the bemused incredulity of most people, even so called 911 Truth people, on the subject. Nor is it clear that the truth will ever come out, vide JFK, RFK, MLK and so on. Many of us know the truth, or perhaps more accurately, No Planers like myself have looked closely at the evidence and are perfectly comfortable with our truth, but since there is virtually no prospect of accountability, we all remain effectively imprisoned deep inside of the official story, despite the widespread awareness of the power of computer generated imagery (CGI) and the long and deep history by now of the ruthless viciousness of the Bush-Cheney regime.
Ronald
***
9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent
http://911blogger.com/node/14081
by Aidan Monaghan
Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 'black boxes' are virtually the only ones without listed serial numbers.
NTSB American Airlines flight 77 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:
http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf
NTSB United Airlines flight 93 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf
The United States government alleges that 4 registered Boeing commercial passenger aircraft were used in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, yet has failed to produce any physical evidence collected from the 3 9/11 crash scenes positively tied to these federally registered United and American airlines aircraft. Despite the release of abundant information regarding the 9/11 flights and the aircraft reportedly used, specific information that would confirm official allegations regarding the identity of these aircraft has been mysteriously withheld or denied upon request.
The federally registered aircraft reportedly used during the 9/11 attacks:
- American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA).
With flight data recorder serial number data that is virtually always provided within NTSB reports of major U.S. commercial airline crashes that occur within U.S. territory, one can trace an installed device to a particular registered aircraft through manufacturer or Federal Aviation Administration records.
The following e-mail was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007, in response to a 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry:
"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon."
A 11/26/2007 Freedom of Information Act request of the Federal Aviation Administration for the last known serial numbers of the flight data recorders and other components contained by the aircraft said to have been used during the 9/11 attacks, was unlawfully denied.
Background:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13149
A 1/3/2008 e-mail reply from a Loren Cochran, a FOIA specialist with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, regarding the FAA FOIA denial reads as follows:
[Read more; http://911blogger.com/node/14081 ]
Showing posts with label Reynolds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reynolds. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Morgan Reynolds: Kevin Ryan on WTC Collapse --Fire NOT!
For those who may be confused about how the WTC Towers collapsed and would like to see credible evidence offered concisely, here is Morgan Reynolds’s two page account, which he presents by way of Kevin Ryan, an environmental engineer who was
the site manager of Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, which had certified the steel components used in construction of the WTC towers for their ability to withstand fires. In November of 2004, Ryan wrote a letter to Dr. Frank Gayle, a metallurgist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Ryan’s letter challenged the preliminary NIST metallurgical findings on the WTC collapses, saying: “This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.”
Explaining his reasons for this statement, Ryan said:
[S]teel components were certified to ASTM E119…[T]he steel applied met those specifications,. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2,000⁰ F for several hours… [E]ven un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3,000⁰ F… [T]he buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
Therefore, the suggestion by one expert, “that 2,000⁰ F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.” Ryan even pointed out that Gayle himself suggested, “that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500⁰ F (250⁰ C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.”
These findings were ignored, Ryan pointed out to Gayle, as the official summary effectively claimed.
that these low temperatures cause exposed bits of the building’s steel core to “soften and buckle.” Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that “most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250⁰ C degrees.” To soften steel for the purpose of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1,1000 C,
four times higher. Ryan thereby rejected NIST’s implication that such low temperatures were able not only to “soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.”
The absurdity of the official story about the WTC collapses being caused by fires weakening WTC steel is further exposed by another fact: “Corus Constructions Corporations performed extensive tests in multiple countries in which they subjected steel-framed carparks, which were uninsulated, to prolonged hydrocarbon fueled fires,” writes Jim Hoffman, “and the highest temperatures they recorded in any of the steel beams or columns was a mere 360 C. At that temperature, structural steel loses only about 1 percent of its strength.” Besides the fact that steel conducts heat extremely well, so that the heat from the fire in any one part of one of the towers would have been quickly diffused throughout the rest of the building, the towers had redundant strength on the order of 600 percent. Another problem with the official story is that if the fires were hot enough to cause massive steel columns to buckle, some of the aluminum façade should have melted, given the fact that aluminum melts at less than half the temperature required to melt steel.
For these and many other reasons, the official theory about the collapse of the WTC buildings is physically impossible.
Morgan Reynolds, from “9/11, Texas A&M University, and Heresy,” in David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, eds., 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, (2007), pp. 112-113.
***
the site manager of Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, which had certified the steel components used in construction of the WTC towers for their ability to withstand fires. In November of 2004, Ryan wrote a letter to Dr. Frank Gayle, a metallurgist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Ryan’s letter challenged the preliminary NIST metallurgical findings on the WTC collapses, saying: “This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.”
Explaining his reasons for this statement, Ryan said:
[S]teel components were certified to ASTM E119…[T]he steel applied met those specifications,. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2,000⁰ F for several hours… [E]ven un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3,000⁰ F… [T]he buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
Therefore, the suggestion by one expert, “that 2,000⁰ F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.” Ryan even pointed out that Gayle himself suggested, “that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500⁰ F (250⁰ C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.”
These findings were ignored, Ryan pointed out to Gayle, as the official summary effectively claimed.
that these low temperatures cause exposed bits of the building’s steel core to “soften and buckle.” Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that “most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250⁰ C degrees.” To soften steel for the purpose of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1,1000 C,
four times higher. Ryan thereby rejected NIST’s implication that such low temperatures were able not only to “soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.”
The absurdity of the official story about the WTC collapses being caused by fires weakening WTC steel is further exposed by another fact: “Corus Constructions Corporations performed extensive tests in multiple countries in which they subjected steel-framed carparks, which were uninsulated, to prolonged hydrocarbon fueled fires,” writes Jim Hoffman, “and the highest temperatures they recorded in any of the steel beams or columns was a mere 360 C. At that temperature, structural steel loses only about 1 percent of its strength.” Besides the fact that steel conducts heat extremely well, so that the heat from the fire in any one part of one of the towers would have been quickly diffused throughout the rest of the building, the towers had redundant strength on the order of 600 percent. Another problem with the official story is that if the fires were hot enough to cause massive steel columns to buckle, some of the aluminum façade should have melted, given the fact that aluminum melts at less than half the temperature required to melt steel.
For these and many other reasons, the official theory about the collapse of the WTC buildings is physically impossible.
Morgan Reynolds, from “9/11, Texas A&M University, and Heresy,” in David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, eds., 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, (2007), pp. 112-113.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
