http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterTo...
Constructive comments are welcome.
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
Open Letter to Richard Gage (6 posts)
-
Posted 16 years ago #
-
There are clearly problems with the official story and these are well covered by truth movement. However, after spending many 100s of hours examining and discussing evidence, analyses and claims on both sides of the argument, I have found that a large portion of the truth movement’s claims are unsubstantiated or incorrect.
I agree that false explanation have been given, but I think "large portion" is probably an exaggeration. Furthermore, I think this seems to (ironically enough) "miss the point" since the NIST report itself I find to be largely unsubstantiated or incorrect.
Take for example Kevin Ryan's critique: http://video.google.com "Kevin Ryan: New standard for Deception"
Or the fact that the report neglects to mention the reports of structural the sulfidized steel. This is factual evidence that the structural steel, indeed melted. This is evidence that the NIST report ignored. We must take this as an acknowledgment that it cannot be explained, since NIST did not attempt to explain it. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurg...
Or that the report does not even attempt to explain the entire collapse, instead only offering a "collapse initiation" theory with exaggerated computer models that are withheld from the public. http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/new...
Or that the report ignores the fact that it's own tests showed that the steel would NOT fail. http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/new...
I could keep going, but these points show that the critical issue here is that NIST has failed to explain the collapse of the twin towers. Hence the need for a new investigation. Any one of these points alone demolishes the credibility of the NIST report. On this basis alone, there needs to be a new investigation, and we should reject the official explanation for why the towers collapsed, because as you put it, their claims are largely "unsubstantiated or incorrect" .
For the above reasons, I do not find your critique compelling. Although some of your points may have some merit and deserve a proper response, I find that others are not convincing.
On the one hand we have NIST, who in its report only arrives at a conclusion by ignoring the results of their own investigation. On the other, we have a theory to explain what could have happened and it ignores far less of the evidence, has actual evidence to support it, and compellingly explains the observed physical evident. Regardless if some of the arguments are wrong, there is far more evidence to support one theory over another. Everything else is opinion.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Also,
Kevin Ryan has addressed the "squibs" evidence, and how it cannot be explained by the "fire and structural damage" theory. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Rya...
Posted 16 years ago # -
Response to Arabesque,
You forgot the fireproofing which is the linchpin of NIST's theory. I will be submitting a paper on this issue shortly showing fairly rigorously that the extent of fireproofing dislodgement was greatly overestimated. Yes, NIST has alot of questions to answer.
I read Kevin's paper a while back, but recently I took another look and found a number of problems. This came up today at the STJ911 forum and we will probably end up looking at that issue in depth. I'll post our conclusions if we have anything new to say.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Here's a reminder of what a failed controlled demolition looks like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQpb00U6K_g
Interesting how the building stayed intact where the controlled demolition failed. Steel framed buildings don't fall into tiny fragments without controlled demolition for a reason. They are designed that way.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Is there any emprical data to support this statement? "Steel framed buildings don't fall into tiny fragments without controlled demolition."
Posted 16 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.