Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan

[Peter Presland]

I hesitate to jump in on this given my prolonged posting absence and its antecedents in an an earlier thread of similar complexity and ad-hominem nastiness to another concurrent 9/11 one but, since I have read Kevin Ryan's latest book, from which the articles linked at the start of this thread derive and have never lost interest in the 9/11 geo-political game-changer, here goes.

First: Having arrived at a working hypothesis, which until disproved will suffice for me whilst I focus attention on more productive lines of inquiry and evidence, I have all but lost interest in the minutiae of the 3 x WTC towers collapses. That said, my understanding of Jeffrey's position on the twin towers collapses (from that infamous thread a couple of years ago) was that the impacts and fires were insufficient in and of themselves, to be the 'collapse initiating event' and that a quite separate 'initiating event' - presumably involving explosives - must therefore have been employed. I wonder if that understanding was correct and/or I was wrong/he has changed his position since.

Second: Jeffrey's 'connecting the dots' post is fair enough but, as Magda points out, he is as susceptible to the mechanisms described as anyone else; they are pretty much a universal psychological given. However, I found no particular evidence of confirmation bias in Ryan's book. He does not argue or present evidence for any propositions other than:

1. The existing official narrative is riddled with absurdities,
2. A less absurd (ie closer to the truth of the matter) narrative would result from the 19 people he majors on - together with a good few others - being required to submit to rigorous cross examination under oath and on pain of full legal sanction should they either decline or tell demonstrable porkies, and
3. The masses of withheld evidence with no conceivable detriment to so called 'national security interests' (other than the obvious one of damaging the official narrative) should be released to public scrutiny.

I would have thought there was more or less universal agreement on all of those.

In support of them he has collated a vast amount of startling information about all manner of 9/11 related things, things that cannot be explained by mere coincidence and the existence of an old-boy network for career insiders. He does not say 'look at this as evidence for x's involvement in an inside job'; he simply says 'look at this as demonstrable, verifiable fact' and suggests that it is clearly relevant to ANY genuine investigation aimed a discovering what really happened.

He does indeed go on to say that failure to question these people or reveal these facts or release withheld evidence (like the suppression of all the Pentagon video tapes and the refusal of the Washington DC authorities to release recordings of telephoned info provided by real-time eye-witnesses when the NYC authorities did release theirs + masses of other obstructive actions) is indeed prima-facie evidence of an official determination to hide evidence damaging to the official narrative. But he does so in a forensic manner consistent with genuine investigation, with no 'confirmation bias' that I (with my own recognised propensity to confirmations bias ) can see.

I regard the book as a breath of fresh air in an otherwise moribund and self-absorbed 'Truth Movement' and hope that it may spur further work. My only minor criticism is that it does not do much digging into Israeli connections per se, although several intriguing ones are mentioned. In that respect I personally find Christopher Bollyn's work to be invaluable.

[David Guyatt]

Chomsky argues that terrorism is the inevitable consequence of imperial policies of the West (US) and 9/11 can be understood as blow back. I don't think this is an unreasonable position. Conpiracists then call leftists such as Chomsky gate keepers and diverting the public from the real culprits of world events. It may make sense, but the evidence for this sort of collaboration has not been demonstrated (no dot connecting).

I don't really think Chomsky as a left gate-keeper, but I am convinced he is wrong about 911 being blowback. I also do not really see him as being authoritative about foreign affairs. He got it plumb wrong about Gulf War I and April Gillespie. I even seem to recall he had to change his mind later. He should stay away from deep politics, it's not his strength. Stick to plain vanilla politics about which he is very knowledgeable.

However, there certainly has been a vast amount of blowback because of US hegemony and imperialism. And I think 911 gave Bush Jnr and senior members of his administration, plus other elite types ,what they had been calling for, for a very long time: increased weapon sales, increased state security in the forum of the new US "Stasi", namely Homeland Security. This was to control the people back home, while Bush went for Saddam's head (nothing to do with 911 as is now very clear (Saddam's arrogant mistake was to change policy and sell his oil for euros not the dollar - a crime worthy of execution). He also went after Afghanistan - as well as bringing US control to the other "Stans" via agreements and US bases built there. All part of the Grand Strategy.

A far more insightful professor is Peter Dale Scott. Have yo read his book on 911? This forum's name was co-opted from Peter's coining of the words "deep politics", and Peter was consulted to ask if he had any objections to our use of the title.

You really would benefit by gaining a much greater insight into deep politics Jeffrey.

[David Guyatt]

I hesitate to jump in on this given my prolonged posting absence and its antecedents in an an earlier thread of similar complexity and ad-hominem nastiness to another concurrent 9/11 one but, since I have read Kevin Ryan's latest book, from which the articles linked at the start of this thread derive and have never lost interest in the 9/11 geo-political game-changer, here goes.

First: Having arrived at a working hypothesis, which until disproved will suffice for me whilst I focus attention on more productive lines of inquiry and evidence, I have all but lost interest in the minutiae of the 3 x WTC towers collapses. That said, my understanding of Jeffrey's position on the twin towers collapses (from that infamous thread a couple of years ago) was that the impacts and fires were insufficient in and of themselves, to be the 'collapse initiating event' and that a quite separate 'initiating event' - presumably involving explosives - must therefore have been employed. I wonder if that understanding was correct and/or I was wrong/he has changed his position since.

Second: Jeffrey's 'connecting the dots' post is fair enough but, as Magda points out, he is as susceptible to the mechanisms described as anyone else; they are pretty much a universal psychological given. However, I found no particular evidence of confirmation bias in Ryan's book. He does not argue or present evidence for any propositions other than:

1. The existing official narrative is riddled with absurdities,
2. A less absurd (ie closer to the truth of the matter) narrative would result from the 19 people he majors on - together with a good few others - being required to submit to rigorous cross examination under oath and on pain of full legal sanction should they either decline or tell demonstrable porkies, and
3. The masses of withheld evidence with no conceivable detriment to so called 'national security interests' (other than the obvious one of damaging the official narrative) should be released to to public scrutiny.

I would have thought there was more or less universal agreement on all of those.

In support of them he has collated a vast amount of startling information about all manner of 9/11 related things, things that cannot be explained by mere coincidence and the existence of an old-boy network for career insiders. He does not say 'look at this as evidence for x's involvement in an inside job'; he simply says 'look at this as demonstrable, verifiable fact' and suggests that it is clearly relevant to ANY genuine investigation aimed a discovering what really happened.

He does indeed go on to say that failure to question these people or reveal these facts or release withheld evidence (like the suppression of all the Pentagon video tapes and the refusal of the Washington DC authorities to release recordings of telephoned info provided by real-time eye-witnesses when the NYC authorities did release theirs + masses of other obstructive actions) is indeed prima-facie evidence of an official determination to hide evidence damaging to the official narrative. But he does so in a forensic manner consistent with genuine investigation, with no 'confirmation bias' that I (with my own recognised propensity to confirmations bias ) can see.

I regard the book as a breath of fresh air in an otherwise moribund and self-absorbed 'Truth Movement' and hope that it may spur further work. My only minor criticism is that it does not do much digging into Israeli connections per se, although several intriguing ones are mentioned. In that respect I personally find Christopher Bollyn's work to be invaluable.

Welcome back Peter! It warms the cockles of my heart to see you here again... ::rockon::

[Jeffrey Orling]

Peter,

I have not read Ryan's book, but have listened to several Guns and Butter interviews. There is much that is wrong with the official story. I certainly have never signed on to the official technical explanations of the destruction of the WTC. My sense is that Ryan is making the case the the old boys were positioned to pull off AND cover up the attack. I don't think that one can argue against it, but I don't think that means, motive and opportunity is evidence of actual action. it may make someone suspect and worthy of investigation. I have no problem with that.

Magda's point about everyone having some bias is accepted.

I do believe that Ryan does not accept the fact that the collapses could manifest as they did IF there was sufficient heat present in the critical weak locations in the structure to kick off a progressive cascading series of failures leading to global collapse. In the recently closed thread it became clear that this critical data can not be derived by debate and accordingly more date (accurate) would be required to rule in or rule out heat as the energy which tipped the structures toward global collapse.

I understand that the this site is inspired PD Scott's work... and that most if not all the members accept this as the correct approach to analysis of world events, including 9/11. I do accept that there are forces and agencies acting *behind the scenes* responsible for world events which are attributed to what is effectively a cover story. Things are often not what they appear to be. Certainly we can admit that the powerful and the elite rarely if ever openly admit their agenda or their tactics. At best they present themselves in disingenuous manner which makes it appear to some that they are doing precisely the reverse of what they truly are about. Capitalists talk about policies which will create more and better jobs, for example, when their real motive is more profit and effective means to exploit labor.'

I don't know that Ryan addresses whether he believes there is a basis to accept the notion that radical Islamists could pull of the 9/11 attacks. There remains hardly agreement about what actually happened on 9/11. For example was there a jumbo that struck the pentagon? Was the Shanksville plane shot down or did it crash as the OCT tells us. Were the planes that struck the towers hijacked or drones or some variation of the later?

Ryan's thesis seems to suggest that the powers that be had the means, motive and opportunity to pull off 9/11 and suggests the old boy connections were in play to advance their usual agenda. That agenda was advanced even if the attacks were carried out by the Islamic radicals. Isn't that true?

Is it not possible that the attacks were planned and executed by radical Islamists... AND the USG lied about aspects of the day?

Why the simply dichotomy we are asked to accept... CD/inside job/false flag v OCT?

My position is both are wrong!

My position of fires and impact is and always was:

No single factor is responsible for the destruction we saw. it was a cascading series of runaway progressive (factors/failures/causes) which in the aggregate facilitated the collapse... among those factors was a key one - the designs themselves. Plane strike mechanical damage alone wouldn't do it, fires alone would take lots of time to do it (as in 7), loss of fire protection would not do it, burning fuel alone would not do it, loss of sprinklers alone would not do it. All of them together could and did do it. Could the kick off be accomplished by some devices in lieu of heat weakening? Why not if they technology exists to engineer and *detonate* them. But there is no evidence in support of such devices. Ryan and others offers the idea that it was possible and who may have made it possible. Food for thought... speculation but not evidence.

[Peter Presland]

Peter,
My position of fires and impact is and always was:

No single factor is responsible for the destruction we saw. it was a cascading series of runaway progressive (factors/failures/causes) which in the aggregate facilitated the collapse... among those factors was a key one - the designs themselves. Plane strike mechanical damage alone wouldn't do it, fires alone would take lots of time to do it (as in 7), loss of fire protection would not do it, burning fuel alone would not do it, loss of sprinklers alone would not do it. All of them together could and did do it. Could the kick off be accomplished by some devices in lieu of heat weakening? Why not if they technology exists to engineer and *detonate* them. But there is no evidence in support of such devices. Ryan and others offers the idea that it was possible and who may have made it possible. Food for thought... speculation but not evidence.

Then I did misunderstand your position.

For a whole raft of evidence-based reasons, I cannot accept that ".... all of them together can and did do it". My own working hypothesis is that, at the very least, an external event additional to all those factors would have been required to initiate a possible progressive collapse, but that additional 'insurance charges' were probably also placed at strategic positions well below the impact zones. I accept that the evidence for this is open to different interpretations, but it is evidence nonetheless. Unless and until I come across something new that renders my 'working hypothesis' untenable, I really am not interested in exploring the existing public domain minutiae of the collapses any further, if only because I find the Kevin Ryan approach more challenging and potentially productive.

I have not listened to the Ryan interviews you mentioned. I do however accept that he is in the 'conspiracy' camp. He may well have been making the case you describe, but his book certainly does not set out to make that case. It simply marshals masses of factual information about people and their positions, responsibilities, actions etc, prior to and during the 9/11 events - and pretty startling stuff it is too.

I do believe that Ryan does not accept the fact that the collapses could manifest as they did IF there was sufficient heat present in the critical weak locations in the structure to kick off a progressive cascading series of failures leading to global collapse. In the recently closed thread it became clear that this critical data can not be derived by debate and accordingly more date (accurate) would be required to rule in or rule out heat as the energy which tipped the structures toward global collapse.

And that 'IF' is the crucial condition. I accept that your ROOSD is a well-grounded theoretical possibility were the above impact-zone sections to suddenly free-fall 10-15 stories onto the relatively undamaged floors below but, well-grounded or not, it has no bearing on the evidence Ryan has set out in his book. He says nothing about his belief (if he has one) about the post initiation collapse process.

I don't know that Ryan addresses whether he believes there is a basis to accept the notion that radical Islamists could pull of the 9/11 attacks.

He doesn't put it quite like that. Like myself, I think he would agree that a bunch of hard-drinking, whoring, disaffected 'Islamist' misfits were deeply involved in the events of 9/11. The questions he seeks to illuminate are 'who exactly protected, steered, facilitated, financed and controlled them?' and if they were indeed killed in those aeroplanes, 'did they know that was to be their fate?'. Also who traded foreknowledge of the events?' and who authorised the destruction of the remaining records that would have identified them?

Collectively, the people Ryan identifies certainly did have motive means and opportunity. The Islamic misfits, as I would prefer to describe them, may well have been angry and disaffected enough to WANT to hurt 'The Great Satan', but they could not have pulled it off without either the sustained gross dereliction of duty of the entire US Military, Security, Intelligence apparatus, or the deliberate and determined facilitation of their dreams by elements of that same apparatus. My money remains on the latter.

[Jeffrey Orling]

[quote=Jeffrey Orling]

Then I did misunderstand your position.

For a whole raft of evidence-based reasons, I cannot accept that ".... all of them together can and did do it". My own working hypothesis is that, at the very least, an external event additional to all those factors would have been required to initiate a possible progressive collapse, but that additional 'insurance charges' were probably also placed at strategic positions well below the impact zones. I accept that the evidence for this is open to different interpretations, but it is evidence nonetheless. Unless and until I come across something new that renders my 'working hypothesis' untenable, I really am not interested in exploring the existing public domain minutiae of the collapses any further, if only because I find the Kevin Ryan approach more challenging and potentially productive.

I have not listened to the Ryan interviews you mentioned. I do however accept that he is in the 'conspiracy' camp. He may well have been making the case you describe, but his book certainly does not set out to make that case. It simply marshals masses of factual information about people and their positions, responsibilities, actions etc, prior to and during the 9/11 events - and pretty startling stuff it is too.

I do believe that Ryan does not accept the fact that the collapses could manifest as they did IF there was sufficient heat present in the critical weak locations in the structure to kick off a progressive cascading series of failures leading to global collapse. In the recently closed thread it became clear that this critical data can not be derived by debate and accordingly more date (accurate) would be required to rule in or rule out heat as the energy which tipped the structures toward global collapse.

And that 'IF' is the crucial condition. I accept that your ROOSD is a well-grounded theoretical possibility were the above impact-zone sections to suddenly free-fall 10-15 stories onto the relatively undamaged floors below but, well-grounded or not, it has no bearing on the evidence Ryan has set out in his book. He says nothing about his belief (if he has one) about the post initiation collapse process.

I don't know that Ryan addresses whether he believes there is a basis to accept the notion that radical Islamists could pull of the 9/11 attacks.

He doesn't put it quite like that. Like myself, I think he would agree that a bunch of hard-drinking, whoring, 'Islamist' misfits were deeply involved in the events of 9/11. The questions he seeks to illuminate are 'who exactly protected, steered, facilitated, financed and controlled them?' and if they were indeed killed in those aeroplanes, 'did they know that was to be their fate?'. Also who traded foreknowledge of the events?' and who authorised the destruction of the remaining records that would have identified them

Collectively, the people Ryan identifies certainly did have motive means and opportunity. The Islamic misfits, as I would prefer to describe them, may well have been angry and disaffected enough to WANT to hurt 'The Great Satan', but they could not have pulled it off without either the sustained gross dereliction of duty of the entire US Military, Security, Intelligence apparatus, or the deliberate and determined facilitation of their dreams by elements of that same apparatus. My money remains on the latter.

Peter,

I do not want to steer this to another technical thread. Suffice it to say we witness buildings collapse and in the case of 7 the collapse is compared to a CD so obviously CDs collapse. The issue is what gets them to collapse. CDs typically rely on stored and then released gravity PE for something like 95% of the energy for the collapse/destruction. I don't know how this figure is derived but the take away is that it's a straw that breaks the camel's back concept or the weakest link can cause a mighty failure such as one 1" diameter corroded pin in the Miamus River Bridge which led to a massive section of the bridge to plunge into the river. How much energy did it take to corrode that pin? As I've maintained for years the issue to understand the collapses is how and which forces came together to overwhelm the capacity of the columns and permit tops to drop. And No... it does not take 10-15 floor masses to initiate ROOSD in THOSE structures.

Back to Ryan's guys.

Frankly I don't think the plot was terribly complex or sophisticated IF it was flying hijacked planes into huge targets. I concede that it would require luck and having a confused and non response air defense system would certainly go a long way to non stopping the planes.

However, using off the shelf technology of the day I believe any typical person could punch in the WTC coordinates as a waypoint into the plane's auto pilot after having manually guided the plane visually to the target. I am convinced that hitting buildings as wide as almost a city block was not as difficult as one might imagine and probably simpler.

I don't profess to know the mental state of the hijackers (assuming they did what were told). We do know that there were many suicide bombers in the past so the concept is nothing new. I also don't know nor trust much of the information about the hijackers but it wouldn't surprise me that they would be drinking etc. the night before they were going to commit suicide. Why not? If all they had to do was board a plane, cut some throats of unsuspecting passengers which would scare the sh*t out of the others and then storm the cockpit, do the same to the crew and punch in drive the plane visually to targets one can see from more than 100 miles away from the air before punching a some coordinates... a few drinks the night before would not seem to interfere much if at all. How many people drink and drive and fly planes? Plenty of them sadly. I really don't see this as hard to believe.

I do find it hard to believe and am pissed off that the air defenses was so unresponsive. I wonder if they were even prepared if they scrambled jets got close enough to shoot down the planes. Even if they could and all passengers and crew died as a result a huge plane crashing over an urban area could be quite a larger disaster. My hunch is that the air defenses were completely unprepared with a plan.

The coincidence of the war games is quite curious. This seems to be a convenient cover for the attack... literally do what was being gamed and the gamers would easily be confused. How could they not be? This seems to have been in play in London on 7/7 if I recall.

So if so what can one make of this? Did the terrorists have intel about when the exercises were taking place to use them as cover /confusion? Or was this insiders who wanted the strikes they had good intel on to succeed for their "new pearl harbor" and conducted the games on the date they knew the hijackings were to take place? No matter what this looks awfully fishy and that intel was playing with terrorists... sting operation? Or false flagging it with real Islamic patsies? or was intel blocked from moving the info to the right people do thwart the attack?

Attack twarting is sort of new territory in war... the so called pre emptive strike because you KNOW the enemy is going to launch an attack. You may recall some discussion about this tactic post 9/11. The W crew wanted *permission* from congress to engage in pre emptive warfare tactics. I don't think this was in the play book for 9/11. And so the 8/6 PDB was brushed aside because they may have not even know what to do if it was true.

Then there's the insider trading and the warnings not to fly which circulated to some officials before 9/11. Both of these smack of someone knowing something. I think the no flying was not because of being on a hijacked plane, but of being in the air with the ATC system down... which is kinda like driving in NYC rush hour when the traffic signals go out.

Whatever the admin and the DOD did or didn't do was not examined... or not examined closely enough. At the very least it appears that the system failed to prevent the attacks and was that because of poor procedures, or incompetence or both? Not a single person was held accountable for not preventing or not stopping in progress. That seems odd. But of course all they wanted to do is whip up hatred for the Islamic hijackers and leverage that into invading the ME... why would they want to distract and hold accountable the DOD who they would turn to to kick ass in the ME?

So at best I can see perhaps a LIHOP or LIHOI... because I do accept that Islamic fundies hated the US (with ample justification) and realized that only insurgency and asymmetrical warfare - terrorism would work for them. They had no other options. And those who wanted war in the ME clearly knew that imperial policies grows insurgencies and sooner or later it will strike back at the empire. That's for certain. The characters Ryan identifies were hawks and wanted to pillage the ME... and profit from war... that IS and WAS their business. Democracies don't start wars... they need just provocation and Empires grow provocation as reliably as unhygienic conditions promote disease.

Would these hawks conceive and carry out the false flag? Conceive yes? Would they or could they carry it out? Who knows? I don't believe they planted bombs or even needed the the WTC to be destroyed... 4 hijacked planes would have been a casus belli. Several struck towers even better... but destroying building 7 late in the afternoon? Hardly makes sense as a motive for anyone.

Ryan is a connect the dots guy. But they guys he connects are ... were... already well connected.. pun intended.

[Tony Szamboti]

And No... it does not take 10-15 floor masses to initiate ROOSD in THOSE structures.

You have admitted it would take about five floor masses to cause a self-propagating ROOSD. So what happened in the first five stories where no deceleration is observed in the North Tower?

I have Kevin Ryan's book also and he does a pretty good job laying out the facts concerning others (domestic players), besides the hijackers, who had the means, motive, and opportunity to be involved in 911. In addition to all of the illuminating intrigue Kevin shows in that book, there are also recent discoveries about the structural reports on the buildings. The NIST WTC 7 report has now been shown to have omitted specific structural features which would cause their hypothesis to be impossible.

There has clearly been a lot of covering-up done and a new investigation is highly warranted.

[Peter Lemkin]

And No... it does not take 10-15 floor masses to initiate ROOSD in THOSE structures.

You have admitted it would take about five floor masses to cause a self-propagating ROOSD. So what happened in the first five stories where no deceleration is observed in the North Tower?

I have Kevin Ryan's book also and he does a pretty good job laying out the facts concerning others (domestic players), besides the hijackers, who had the means, motive, and opportunity to be involved in 911. In addition to all of the illuminating intrigue Kevin shows in that book, there are also recent discoveries about the structural reports on the buildings. The NIST WTC 7 report has now been shown to have omitted specific structural features which would cause their hypothesis to be impossible.

There has clearly been a lot of covering-up done and a new investigation is highly warranted.

Tony, I agree with you that J.O.'s theory has no merit - even by his own statements based upon it - though he refuses to admit that; and takes every opportunity to interject and sit at the END of every thread on 9-11 trying to debunk any mention of doubt about the official version. One can wonder why he does this. IMO those who always must have the position of end of a thread are highly suspect, IMO. If one looks over at the EF one will find a Mr. Colby who ended most of the deep political threads. Here, on 911, most end with J.O. Gives one pause.

I also agree that a new investigation is more than highly warranted - ESSENTIAL! That said, I do not, after a lifetime of political and deep political research and reading, believe one is possible this side of 'the Revolution' in the USA. [i.e. one could NOT force the government to investigate itself for a crime it knows it is covering up and certain of the MOST powerful forces behind it (the 'hidden government') instigated!]. This is because they know that the Truth would cause their 'world' and their control to collapse forever - and well it should - as they have not only killed millions based on the false-flag event of 9-11-01, but have been since WWII involved in an intersecting and sequential host of other equally illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, unlawful, deadly, disruptive, coercive, and horrible: assassinations, government overthrows, coups, covert operations, wars for profit, helping the rich at the cost of the poor (domestically and elsewhere), maintaining an Oligarchy under the cover of a dysfunctional 'democracy', bankster operations galore, drug and gun running, passing laws that benefit the rich and powerful mostly, tampering with our democracy, rights, freedoms, militarization of the country and planet, resource and environmental destruction and rape, genocide, mass-murder, war crimes and one could go on. IMO from years of research [see Peter Dale Scotts great works on this subject] there is a DIRECT line from the JFK Assassination to 9-11 in motive, means and opportunity (i.e. the same forces, some of the same people, have done those two and most all of a similar nature in between for the same REASONS!)

A new investigation of 9-11-01 would only be possible IMO with international support and done outside the USA at this time, sadly. I hope to live long enough to see it happen and let the chips fall where they may! 11/22/63 was a coup d'etat and so was 9/11/01. Of this I'm sure.....with each of these we got further from a republican democracy and closer to a totalitarian, militarized neo-feudal state. Much in between (which I've not mentioned to list, but could) were but the ratchet moving one notch along that same path......Basta! We can change the World by exposing the Truth of 9-11 or Dallas & JFK. We will have a neo-fascist state if the defenders of the official lies of 9-11 prevail with a mostly hoodwinked, passive, and confused public in the USA. They know they've been lied to....but dare not 'go there' and force the needed change. I do, however, believe they will follow a clearly defined plan to take back their country from those who stole it with false-flag operations several times, secretly.

Tony, as you are very active in the 9-11 Truth movement, I would ask you and those you know to put your efforts into a formal international investigation of 9-11. It is possible, doable and is, IMO, the only way to have an real investigation - not another cover-up.

[Peter Presland]

I do not want to steer this to another technical thread. Suffice it to say we witness buildings collapse and in the case of 7 the collapse is compared to a CD so obviously CDs collapse. The issue is what gets them to collapse. CDs typically rely on stored and then released gravity PE for something like 95% of the energy for the collapse/destruction. I don't know how this figure is derived but the take away is that it's a straw that breaks the camel's back concept or the weakest link can cause a mighty failure such as one 1" diameter corroded pin in the Miamus River Bridge which led to a massive section of the bridge to plunge into the river. How much energy did it take to corrode that pin? As I've maintained for years the issue to understand the collapses is how and which forces came together to overwhelm the capacity of the columns and permit tops to drop. And No... it does not take 10-15 floor masses to initiate ROOSD in THOSE structures.

We agree all of that. The only question remaining is, as you say, "how and which forces came together to overwhelm the capacity of the columns and permit tops to drop." You appear to exclude anything external to the forces generated by the impacts, fires and possible aging/weakening of structural components. I OTOH do not. In fact I think the evidence points precisely to there being an external cause as the initiator - the practical impossibility of the fires burning hot and long enough to have had any significant effect on the steelwork - fireproofed or not - being my main reason.

As for the rest of your post dealing with Ryan; in summary it is an extended exercise of your own glaring confirmation biases in that it seeks to demonstrate that the the official narrative, with just a few of its better known shortcomings duly acknowledged, could be basically correct. It is also as wildly speculative as anything I have read on the loonier fringes of the 'Truth Movement' - the para on the state-of-mind of the alleged hijackers being perhaps the most glaring example.

I don't want to weary the list with a point by point reply but here are few more examples by way of illustration:

...I am convinced that hitting buildings as wide as almost a city block was not as difficult as one might imagine and probably simpler.

Pilots who have made it their business to study the issue carefully, AND been brave enough to make there finding public, disagree with you. By the time the Twin Tower would have become visible to the 'pilot' of those planes, their altitude/speed combination, as descibed in the OCT, would have rendered them uncontrollable by even the most experienced of pilots.

I do find it hard to believe and am pissed off that the air defenses was so unresponsive.

There is a vast amount of uncontested evidence about the failure of the air defense systems. It points to deliberate actions aimed at effectively disabling them for the duration of the attacks as a far more plausible explanation (to those able shed the need to believe such a thing unthinkable anyway). Virtually none of the relevant questions were asked by either the Congressional investigation or the K-H Commission. You really should read chapter 8 of Ryans book on one General Ralph Eberhart if you don't mind getting REALLY pissed off.

The coincidence of the war games is quite curious. This seems to be a convenient cover for the attack... literally do what was being gamed and the gamers would easily be confused. How could they not be? This seems to have been in play in London on 7/7 if I recall.

There are no genuine coincidences where the major events of deep politics are concerned, much less a whole series of connected ones as is the case of 9/11. It would take several pages to provide even a brief 101 on the engineered gestation of major deep events. Suffice to say that so-called exercises are invariably part and parcel of them.

You credit the alleged hijackers with far more intelligence - both personal and of the SIS kind - than is remotely plausible. They were disaffected angry young men who hated America and, as you say 'controlled' - the question you do not address is 'Controlled by Whom?'. I suggest that 'a guy on kidney dialysis in an Afghan cave using a lap-top and mobile phone' (credit to James Corbett) is somewhat less plausible than Deep-State elements of one or more of the most sophisticated intelligence apparatuses on earth. Again, unthinkable to those with the OCT confirmation bias, but to dismiss the most plausible explanation out of hand without examining the massive corpus of public domain evidence that supports it and to duck and dive with near infantile (no offense intended) explanations instead, it is simply a cop-out.

Then there's the insider trading

Indeed there is. IOW someone had foreknowledge and the wherewithal to trade it. The question again is 'Who?' - In fact that question screams at us and I am not prepared to countenance explanations that claim to show it could all have been just another innocent coincidence - in that long stream of connected ones mentioned earlier. Records that would clearly answer the question have been destroyed and the one individual, Wirt Walker, known to have quadrupled his money on a trade placed immediately before the attacks has never been officially questioned on it because - wait for it..... 'Mr Walker had no conceivable connection to the Islamic terrorists that carried out the attack' - hows that for circular, confirmation-bias reasoning?

So at best I can see perhaps a LIHOP or LIHOI...

I do not accept a distinction between LIHOP and MIHOP. As for incompetence; I confess to getting some satisfaction from Establishment efforts to persuade us of their own gross incompetence - its amusing with just a touch of Schadenfreude - even when the individuals most responsible escape censure and are even promoted for their alleged dereliction. As a credible explanation for events though, it does not cut the mustard as they say.

When the SIS's get to know of a 'terrorist operation in the making' it is pretty much NEVER at the last minute. Mostly they are there from near outset as originator, agent-provocateur, logistics-equipment supplier, protector from legitimate LE interest, financier, etc etc.- Almost always unknown and unsuspected by their dumb angry patsies, whose first inkling is when they find themselves caught-in-the-act at the last minute, or heading for a building in a remote controlled aeroplane while believing they were on some sort of exercise - that sort of thing. IOW, it is the very essence of SIS's activity to control terrorist groups. Where there aren't any but fear of terrorism is deemed necessary to control restive populations, they are manufactured - Operation Gladio being among the most notable post WWII such undertakings.

because I do accept that Islamic fundies hated the US (with ample justification) and realized that only insurgency and asymmetrical warfare - terrorism would work for them....

Those who 'realise that only terrorism will work for them' are the perennially gullible, useable and disposable 'angry young men'. Their leaderships are quite another matter. Islamic world leaders and the notional 'terrorist' leaders (ie those so accused by the US) are not fools. They clearly understand that terrorism against the US/West is dramatically counter-productive to their own interests. So, in addition to 'motive means and opportunity' an equally promising line of inquiry is of course 'Qui Bono?' and it is most definitely not the Islamic world that the 'terrorists' are supposed to be fighting for.

Would these hawks conceive and carry out the false flag? Conceive yes? Would they or could they carry it out? Who knows? I don't believe they planted bombs or even needed the the WTC to be destroyed... 4 hijacked planes would have been a casus belli. Several struck towers even better... but destroying building 7 late in the afternoon? Hardly makes sense as a motive for anyone.

If (when?) you accept that the architects and facilitators of 9/11 were part and parcel of the US Deep State and not just a bunch of pathetic, angry young men controlled by OBL, it becomes blindingly obvious why both the Twin towers and WT7 had to be destroyed; but, when all the available evidence is sifted, understanding the precise mechanisms of their destruction is not necessary to a 'beyond reasonable doubt' verdict that 9/11 was indeed a US Deep State operation from start to .... well to right now.

Ryan's book is unique in that it collates masses of factual and undisputed evidence on key individuals. You may dismiss that as merely demonstrating the connectedness of the Washington aristocracy - easy and trite fare from someone who has not read it. But IMO, any genuinely open-minded person who HAS read it will credit it with doing a lot more than that.

[Peter Lemkin]

Please, Peter P., above, I hope you did not mean to place J. Orling in the camp of 911-Truth - even on the outer fringes. That he has a different non-CD model for the spontaneous collapse is his own sly way to appear not to be firmly behind the official version; however, he is firmly convinced of and/or working for the cover-up/official version - with all of its untruths and impossible physics. Further, his narrowing of the events of the day down to a focus only on the collapse of the three towers [more so two] leads me to believe that he has an agenda, and then finds 'facts' that fit it....rather than the other way around. All the rest of the day is ignored or dismissed as speculative fiction by J.O. It would be equivalent to a study of LHO as the lone 'nut' 'commie' assassin from the sixth floor, without looking at all of his past, the cover up after, the non-investigations, the tampering of the evidence and witnesses - not to mention all of the other operatives present in DP and Dallas/N.O./Mexico/elsewhere connected to Lee, setting him up, or actually involved in the legend of the patsy or committing the assassination itself. Its a divide and try to conquer by selective focus on the events that led up to, were a part of, and were sequellae to 9-11-01. If one can't see the larger picture and integrate it into a logical whole that conforms with the best information, facts, witnesses, photos, documents, etc. - one is either fooling oneself or trying to fool others. IMHO.