Kevin Ryan credits himself for the NIST report delay

ref · 20th August 2007, 01:10 AM

Kevin Ryan seems to have brushed off his loss in court. He does his usual ranting at 9/11 blogger. This time he even credits himself for delaying the NIST report for 7 months.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10744

Originally Posted by Kevin Ryan

When I challenged them on this, noting that steel softens at around 1000 °C, they started having closed door meetings and put their report off another seven months. Interestingly, the word “softened” does not appear anywhere in NIST’s final report.

He also states that around million people have been killed in the US wars after 9/11. I guess, when you have some figures wrong, you have them all wrong.

Travis · 20th August 2007, 01:30 AM

When you don't require any "facts" to begin with, who cares if you invent new ones?

jaydeehess · 20th August 2007, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by ref

He also states that around million people have been killed in the US wars after 9/11. I guess, when you have some figures wrong, you have them all wrong.

He is using , and exagerating numbers that include civilian deaths obviously.

The estimates I have seen elsewhere put the numbers in the hundreds of thousands and include deaths due to such things as lack of medical care, lack of clean water,disease, etc.

Ryan is rounding rather severely. His point would be better served had he simply said "hundreds of thousands", or "over a hundred thousand". Then again Ryan knows he is preaching to the converted and the uninformed.

ref · 20th August 2007, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

He is using , and exagerating numbers that include civilian deaths obviously.

The estimates I have seen elsewhere put the numbers in the hundreds of thousands and include deaths due to such things as lack of medical care, lack of clean water,disease, etc.

Ryan is rounding rather severely. His point would be better served had he simply said "hundreds of thousands", or "over a hundred thousand". Then again Ryan knows he is preaching to the converted and the uninformed.

I have seen them use 600 000 a lot, which to my understanding is not even close. But million is even farther. Of course, every single one is too much. But this is a point of exaggeration they very eagerly use. Has anyone ever seen a truther underestimating? I seriously doubt it.

T.A.M. · 20th August 2007, 12:42 PM

Sounds like Fetzer. Didn't Fetzer claim to be the factor behind some aspect of the mineta testimony thing?

TAM

jaydeehess · 20th August 2007, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by ref

Has anyone ever seen a truther underestimating? I seriously doubt it.

"no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire"

ref · 20th August 2007, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

"no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire"

Ok ok you win

uk_dave · 20th August 2007, 01:01 PM

Whatever happened to the proposed radio debate between ryan and gravy?

Or was it all just a dream.....

kookbreaker · 20th August 2007, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Whatever happened to the proposed radio debate between ryan and gravy?

Or was it all just a dream.....

Ryan made up a bunch of 'tests' that Gravy had to pass before he would consider debating him. Its a classic conspiracy nutter tactic, a few Apollo hoaxer beleivers have tried it.

Its avoidance covering their cowardice.

Segnosaur · 20th August 2007, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by ref

I have seen them use 600 000 a lot, which to my understanding is not even close. But million is even farther. Of course, every single one is too much. But this is a point of exaggeration they very eagerly use. Has anyone ever seen a truther underestimating? I seriously doubt it.

The 600,000 figure probably comes from a 2006 study done by John Hopkins that was published in the medical journal The Lancet. This study claimed that, upon doing surveys in Iraq, the number of people killed there was over 600,000. However, there were a number of problems with that particular study:
- The study used 'clusters', and there were relatively few clusters used in their study (compared to similar studies done by other groups)
- They did not ask for death certificates in all cases
- Their data appears far outside the estimates done by other groups.
- Many of the people who participated in the study were vocal anti-war critics. While that does not guarantee that they were biased, it does raise a few suspicions.

~enigma~ · 20th August 2007, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The 600,000 figure probably comes from a 2006 study done by John Hopkins that was published in the medical journal The Lancet. This study claimed that, upon doing surveys in Iraq, the number of people killed there was over 600,000. However, there were a number of problems with that particular study:
- The study used 'clusters', and there were relatively few clusters used in their study (compared to similar studies done by other groups)
- They did not ask for death certificates in all cases
- Their data appears far outside the estimates done by other groups.
- Many of the people who participated in the study were vocal anti-war critics. While that does not guarantee that they were biased, it does raise a few suspicions.

Not exactly much surprise. The truthers often jump on initial or overexaggerated or just plain non-scientific numbers. Someday hopefully they will learn...

ref · 20th August 2007, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The 600,000 figure probably comes from a 2006 study done by John Hopkins that was published in the medical journal The Lancet. This study claimed that, upon doing surveys in Iraq, the number of people killed there was over 600,000. However, there were a number of problems with that particular study:
- The study used 'clusters', and there were relatively few clusters used in their study (compared to similar studies done by other groups)
- They did not ask for death certificates in all cases
- Their data appears far outside the estimates done by other groups.
- Many of the people who participated in the study were vocal anti-war critics. While that does not guarantee that they were biased, it does raise a few suspicions.

Thanks for clearing that up.

uk_dave · 20th August 2007, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Ryan made up a bunch of 'tests' that Gravy had to pass before he would consider debating him. Its a classic conspiracy nutter tactic, a few Apollo hoaxer beleivers have tried it.

Its avoidance covering their cowardice.

Yeah I knew about the test. But did the radio station ever get back with a firm offer to host the debate? Or did it just all go silent when Gravy refused to jump through the hoops?

~enigma~ · 20th August 2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Yeah I knew about the test. But did the radio station ever get back with a firm offer to host the debate? Or did it just all go silent when Gravy refused to jump through the hoops?

Last i heard Gravy had contacted or was contacting the host with his agreement. Ryan's hoops really have nothing to do with the debate as far as the host is concerned.

jaydeehess · 20th August 2007, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

Last i heard Gravy had contacted or was contacting the host with his agreement. Ryan's hoops really have nothing to do with the debate as far as the host is concerned.

That is what I thought.
If Gravy agrees to debate but Ryan will not do so without conditions (the 'tests') then it will be Ryan who is refusing to debate, not Gravy.

However, wanna bet on how it would be spun on CT forums? They will have Ryan 'winning' a debate that never occured due to Ryan 'proving' that Gravy did not know what he was talking about despite there never having been a discussion.

Brainster · 20th August 2007, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Sounds like Fetzer. Didn't Fetzer claim to be the factor behind some aspect of the mineta testimony thing?

TAM

Uncle Fetzer claimed on Alan Colmes' radio show that his appearance on Hannity & Colmes resulted in Mineta resigning from the administration:

Quote:

Fetzer: Yes. We have testimony from Norman Mineta to that effect, and did you know this, Alan, the night before, on Thursday night, I explained that on your show and the next morning he resigns.

Colmes: Well, are you suggesting that Norm Mineta resigned because of your appearance on Hannity and Colmes?

Fetzer: I’m suggesting Norman Mineta resigned because the administration didn’t want him in a public position where he’d have to respond to questions from reporters. By having him resign he becomes a private citizen and he’s no longer obligated to respond to public inquiries.

maccy · 20th August 2007, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The 600,000 figure probably comes from a 2006 study done by John Hopkins that was published in the medical journal The Lancet. This study claimed that, upon doing surveys in Iraq, the number of people killed there was over 600,000. However, there were a number of problems with that particular study:
- The study used 'clusters', and there were relatively few clusters used in their study (compared to similar studies done by other groups)
- They did not ask for death certificates in all cases
- Their data appears far outside the estimates done by other groups.
- Many of the people who participated in the study were vocal anti-war critics. While that does not guarantee that they were biased, it does raise a few suspicions.

The Iraq Body Count site estimates the deaths at between 70 and 76 thousand, approximately. Their response to the Lancet study is here.

~enigma~ · 20th August 2007, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

That is what I thought.
If Gravy agrees to debate but Ryan will not do so without conditions (the 'tests') then it will be Ryan who is refusing to debate, not Gravy.

However, wanna bet on how it would be spun on CT forums? They will have Ryan 'winning' a debate that never occured due to Ryan 'proving' that Gravy did not know what he was talking about despite there never having been a discussion.

True but even among truthers there are some that are beginning to recognize that type of spin and are refusing to believe it.

Cl1mh4224rd · 20th August 2007, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by ref

Kevin Ryan seems to have brushed off his loss in court. He does his usual ranting at 9/11 blogger. This time he even credits himself for delaying the NIST report for 7 months.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10744

Originally Posted by Kevin Ryan

When I challenged them on this, noting that steel softens at around 1000 °C, they started having closed door meetings and put their report off another seven months. Interestingly, the word “softened” does not appear anywhere in NIST’s final report.

He also states that around million people have been killed in the US wars after 9/11. I guess, when you have some figures wrong, you have them all wrong.

Err... Is the NIST's report on WTC7 out?

Answer: No.

What the hell is that goofball talking about?

JimBenArm · 20th August 2007, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Err... Is the NIST's report on WTC7 out?

Answer: No.

What the hell is that goofball talking about?

He got an advance copy for peer review, obviously.

Max Photon · 20th August 2007, 10:23 PM

---

You guys sound like a bunch of 5th graders.

Kevin Ryan is not the point.

The point is that someone sees inconsistencies and is groping for an answer.

The inconsistencies are glaring.

UL tests of floor assemblies showed deflections of just a few inches.

NIST nudges the decimal place over, to 42" !!!

Why?

Because NIST desperately needs floors to sag if the pre-engineered narrative that sagging floors pulled perimeter panel columns inward is to survive (NIST FAQ #2).

This desperation is also readily apparent in NIST's needing to invoke the loss of fire protection, because this was needed to get the floors to sag.

Note that NIST couldn't get the towers to collapse in their models without such this arbitrary and unsubstantiated assumption.

(It is truly pathetic if you really let it in. It is also truly pathetic how many at JREF take the NIST reports are gospel.)

Furthermore, remember that NIST found conclusively that inward bowing columns initiated the collapse. (NIST FAQ #2)

What caused the columns to bow inward?

Visco-elastic creep.

What caused visco-elastic creep? (Bazant's model inputs 800 C steel temperatures - steel, not air. And don't forget heat transport.)

So Kevin is justified in trying to reconcile 4" vs 42" sagging floors, visco-elastic column behavior, metal fires, metal flows, building fires, imbecilic shotgun tests to prove the displacement of fire protection material, and other oddities.

What Kevin, you - everyone - is failing to understand is that thermite placed in perimeter panel box columns and spandrel splice gaps was used, not to cut the steel (as Ryan and Jones believe) but to heat the steel to 600-1000C to induce the visco-elastic creep.

In fact, NIST FAQ #12 kindly tells you that it takes 0.13 lbs of thermite to heat WTC steel to 700 C to substantially weaken the steel.

Though NIST may not have used the word "soften", Kevin might want to note that NIST does imply using heat-weakening as a mode of controlled-demolition in NIST FAQ #12. You just need to use Paul's Magic Filter.

So before you bash on Kevin, take a good look in the mirror.

You guys are completely and utterly lost - far more so than Kevin.

What's worse, you actually think you know what you're talking about.

Max

---

boloboffin · 20th August 2007, 11:22 PM

Max --

These cows are small, but those cows are far away.

The UL tests were of shortened floor assemblies. There are actual photographs of the severe deformation of the floor assemblies on 9/11.

Kevin gropes for the answers -- a blindfolded man stumbling along a cliffside. Do not follow him.

Peephole · 21st August 2007, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The study used 'clusters', and there were relatively few clusters used in their study (compared to similar studies done by other groups)

A similar study done in Kosovo used about the same amount of clusters.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

They did not ask for death certificates in all cases

The families produced death certificates in 90 percent of all cases.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Their data appears far outside the estimates done by other groups.

Who rely on completely different methods. For example, I wouldn't consider IBC as accurate since they only count reported fatalities.

Who knows, maybe the death toll isn't that high. But I wouldn't dismiss this study too quickly. There simply isn't that much other data to rely on.

peteweaver · 15th December 2007, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by ref

Kevin Ryan seems to have brushed off his loss in court. He does his usual ranting at 9/11 blogger. This time he even credits himself for delaying the NIST report for 7 months.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10744

He also states that around million people have been killed in the US wars after 9/11. I guess, when you have some figures wrong, you have them all wrong.

Obviously Kevin Ryan knows nothing about the temperature at which steel begins to soften (which is 300 degrees C).
(source: http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...el/default.htm )

Here's something else that Ryan won't have seen:
http://www.cablefireresearch.org/cabling/risk.asp

Quote:

Cabling in commercial buildings is frequently in close proximity to structural steel beams – which can lose structural integrity at fire temperatures as low as 800 degrees centigrade. Combustible cabling can burn at temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees centigrade — sufficient to cause the collapse of tall buildings under certain conditions.

Quote:

The average ten-story commercial building with 100 office workstations per floor can contain more than 1 million feet of combustible "exception" cabling in concealed spaces; equivalent to the fuel load of 1,500 gallons of gasoline.

Think how many plastic coated electrical cables, cat five cables, telephone cables, etc will have been present in the towers.

Gravy · 15th December 2007, 05:25 PM

Interesting find about the cables, Pete. I had raised this issue once before, and wasn't able to find that NIST accounted for cabling in their fuel load estimates. It's possible that they considered most of the cabling to be somewhat protected, and that it wouldn't have contributed greatly to peak heating rates. But it seems possible to me that many miles of cabling in the core and in the under-floor runs would have been exposed to fire by the aircraft impacts.

Hyperviolet · 15th December 2007, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Ryan made up a bunch of 'tests' that Gravy had to pass before he would consider debating him. Its a classic conspiracy nutter tactic, a few Apollo hoaxer beleivers have tried it.

Its avoidance covering their cowardice.

Can you blame him?
He knows Mark would waste him.

These 'tests' are the only excuse preventing that.

peteweaver · 16th December 2007, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Gravy

Interesting find about the cables, Pete. I had raised this issue once before, and wasn't able to find that NIST accounted for cabling in their fuel load estimates. It's possible that they considered most of the cabling to be somewhat protected, and that it wouldn't have contributed greatly to peak heating rates. But it seems possible to me that many miles of cabling in the core and in the under-floor runs would have been exposed to fire by the aircraft impacts.

Found it in a random google search last night, it wasn't quite what i was looking for, but the link seemed interesting, and so I investigated further.

http://www.cablefireresearch.org/

geni · 16th December 2007, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The 600,000 figure probably comes from a 2006 study done by John Hopkins that was published in the medical journal The Lancet. This study claimed that, upon doing surveys in Iraq, the number of people killed there was over 600,000. However, there were a number of problems with that particular study:
- The study used 'clusters', and there were relatively few clusters used in their study (compared to similar studies done by other groups)
- They did not ask for death certificates in all cases
- Their data appears far outside the estimates done by other groups.
- Many of the people who participated in the study were vocal anti-war critics. While that does not guarantee that they were biased, it does raise a few suspicions.

They followed a widely accepted protocol that has seen use of decades and has no past history of issues. If it has a problem then we have no meaningful estimates for deaths in say Darfur.

liverleef · 16th December 2007, 08:36 AM

Max thats an interesting comment about placing thermite in perimeter panel box columns and spandrel splice gaps. How many box columns and splice gaps do you suspect would need thermite in order to induce the visco-elastic behavior you speak of. And how would the thermite be ignited? Just curious.

20th August 2007, 01:10 AM	#1
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	Kevin Ryan credits himself for the NIST report delay Kevin Ryan seems to have brushed off his loss in court. He does his usual ranting at 9/11 blogger. This time he even credits himself for delaying the NIST report for 7 months. http://www.911blogger.com/node/10744 Originally Posted by Kevin Ryan When I challenged them on this, noting that steel softens at around 1000 °C, they started having closed door meetings and put their report off another seven months. Interestingly, the word “softened” does not appear anywhere in NIST’s final report. He also states that around million people have been killed in the US wars after 9/11. I guess, when you have some figures wrong, you have them all wrong.
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	__________________ 9/11 Guide homepage Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

20th August 2007, 12:38 PM	#4
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	Originally Posted by jaydeehess He is using , and exagerating numbers that include civilian deaths obviously. The estimates I have seen elsewhere put the numbers in the hundreds of thousands and include deaths due to such things as lack of medical care, lack of clean water,disease, etc. Ryan is rounding rather severely. His point would be better served had he simply said "hundreds of thousands", or "over a hundred thousand". Then again Ryan knows he is preaching to the converted and the uninformed. I have seen them use 600 000 a lot, which to my understanding is not even close. But million is even farther. Of course, every single one is too much. But this is a point of exaggeration they very eagerly use. Has anyone ever seen a truther underestimating? I seriously doubt it.
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	__________________ 9/11 Guide homepage Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

20th August 2007, 12:48 PM	#7
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	Originally Posted by jaydeehess "no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire" Ok ok you win
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	__________________ 9/11 Guide homepage Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

20th August 2007, 01:01 PM	#8
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Whatever happened to the proposed radio debate between ryan and gravy? Or was it all just a dream.....
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

20th August 2007, 01:21 PM	#9
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,161	Originally Posted by uk_dave Whatever happened to the proposed radio debate between ryan and gravy? Or was it all just a dream..... Ryan made up a bunch of 'tests' that Gravy had to pass before he would consider debating him. Its a classic conspiracy nutter tactic, a few Apollo hoaxer beleivers have tried it. Its avoidance covering their cowardice.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,161	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

20th August 2007, 01:30 AM	#2
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,937	When you don't require any "facts" to begin with, who cares if you invent new ones?
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

20th August 2007, 06:20 AM	#3
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by ref He also states that around million people have been killed in the US wars after 9/11. I guess, when you have some figures wrong, you have them all wrong. He is using , and exagerating numbers that include civilian deaths obviously. The estimates I have seen elsewhere put the numbers in the hundreds of thousands and include deaths due to such things as lack of medical care, lack of clean water,disease, etc. Ryan is rounding rather severely. His point would be better served had he simply said "hundreds of thousands", or "over a hundred thousand". Then again Ryan knows he is preaching to the converted and the uninformed.

20th August 2007, 12:42 PM	#5
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Sounds like Fetzer. Didn't Fetzer claim to be the factor behind some aspect of the mineta testimony thing? TAM

20th August 2007, 12:42 PM	#6
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by ref Has anyone ever seen a truther underestimating? I seriously doubt it. "no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire"

20th August 2007, 01:22 PM	#10
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	Originally Posted by ref I have seen them use 600 000 a lot, which to my understanding is not even close. But million is even farther. Of course, every single one is too much. But this is a point of exaggeration they very eagerly use. Has anyone ever seen a truther underestimating? I seriously doubt it. The 600,000 figure probably comes from a 2006 study done by John Hopkins that was published in the medical journal The Lancet. This study claimed that, upon doing surveys in Iraq, the number of people killed there was over 600,000. However, there were a number of problems with that particular study: - The study used 'clusters', and there were relatively few clusters used in their study (compared to similar studies done by other groups) - They did not ask for death certificates in all cases - Their data appears far outside the estimates done by other groups. - Many of the people who participated in the study were vocal anti-war critics. While that does not guarantee that they were biased, it does raise a few suspicions.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

20th August 2007, 01:26 PM	#11
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by Segnosaur The 600,000 figure probably comes from a 2006 study done by John Hopkins that was published in the medical journal The Lancet. This study claimed that, upon doing surveys in Iraq, the number of people killed there was over 600,000. However, there were a number of problems with that particular study: - The study used 'clusters', and there were relatively few clusters used in their study (compared to similar studies done by other groups) - They did not ask for death certificates in all cases - Their data appears far outside the estimates done by other groups. - Many of the people who participated in the study were vocal anti-war critics. While that does not guarantee that they were biased, it does raise a few suspicions. Not exactly much surprise. The truthers often jump on initial or overexaggerated or just plain non-scientific numbers. Someday hopefully they will learn...

20th August 2007, 01:36 PM	#12
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	Originally Posted by Segnosaur The 600,000 figure probably comes from a 2006 study done by John Hopkins that was published in the medical journal The Lancet. This study claimed that, upon doing surveys in Iraq, the number of people killed there was over 600,000. However, there were a number of problems with that particular study: - The study used 'clusters', and there were relatively few clusters used in their study (compared to similar studies done by other groups) - They did not ask for death certificates in all cases - Their data appears far outside the estimates done by other groups. - Many of the people who participated in the study were vocal anti-war critics. While that does not guarantee that they were biased, it does raise a few suspicions. Thanks for clearing that up.
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,663	__________________ 9/11 Guide homepage Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

20th August 2007, 01:37 PM	#13
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by kookbreaker Ryan made up a bunch of 'tests' that Gravy had to pass before he would consider debating him. Its a classic conspiracy nutter tactic, a few Apollo hoaxer beleivers have tried it. Its avoidance covering their cowardice. Yeah I knew about the test. But did the radio station ever get back with a firm offer to host the debate? Or did it just all go silent when Gravy refused to jump through the hoops?
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

20th August 2007, 01:41 PM	#14
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by uk_dave Yeah I knew about the test. But did the radio station ever get back with a firm offer to host the debate? Or did it just all go silent when Gravy refused to jump through the hoops? Last i heard Gravy had contacted or was contacting the host with his agreement. Ryan's hoops really have nothing to do with the debate as far as the host is concerned.

20th August 2007, 01:58 PM	#15
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by ~enigma~ Last i heard Gravy had contacted or was contacting the host with his agreement. Ryan's hoops really have nothing to do with the debate as far as the host is concerned. That is what I thought. If Gravy agrees to debate but Ryan will not do so without conditions (the 'tests') then it will be Ryan who is refusing to debate, not Gravy. However, wanna bet on how it would be spun on CT forums? They will have Ryan 'winning' a debate that never occured due to Ryan 'proving' that Gravy did not know what he was talking about despite there never having been a discussion.

20th August 2007, 02:15 PM	#16
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,408	Originally Posted by T.A.M. Sounds like Fetzer. Didn't Fetzer claim to be the factor behind some aspect of the mineta testimony thing? TAM Uncle Fetzer claimed on Alan Colmes' radio show that his appearance on Hannity & Colmes resulted in Mineta resigning from the administration: Quote: Fetzer: Yes. We have testimony from Norman Mineta to that effect, and did you know this, Alan, the night before, on Thursday night, I explained that on your show and the next morning he resigns. Colmes: Well, are you suggesting that Norm Mineta resigned because of your appearance on Hannity and Colmes? Fetzer: I’m suggesting Norman Mineta resigned because the administration didn’t want him in a public position where he’d have to respond to questions from reporters. By having him resign he becomes a private citizen and he’s no longer obligated to respond to public inquiries.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

20th August 2007, 02:24 PM	#17
maccy Dalek-Reptilian Hybrid Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 2,094	Originally Posted by Segnosaur The 600,000 figure probably comes from a 2006 study done by John Hopkins that was published in the medical journal The Lancet. This study claimed that, upon doing surveys in Iraq, the number of people killed there was over 600,000. However, there were a number of problems with that particular study: - The study used 'clusters', and there were relatively few clusters used in their study (compared to similar studies done by other groups) - They did not ask for death certificates in all cases - Their data appears far outside the estimates done by other groups. - Many of the people who participated in the study were vocal anti-war critics. While that does not guarantee that they were biased, it does raise a few suspicions. The Iraq Body Count site estimates the deaths at between 70 and 76 thousand, approximately. Their response to the Lancet study is here.
	__________________ "To the rational mind, nothing is inexplicable, only unexplained." Doctor Who: Robots of Death by Chris Boucher. Also, Stop Sylvia Browne; and all the 9/11 Conspiracy links you could ever need.

20th August 2007, 02:27 PM	#18
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by jaydeehess That is what I thought. If Gravy agrees to debate but Ryan will not do so without conditions (the 'tests') then it will be Ryan who is refusing to debate, not Gravy. However, wanna bet on how it would be spun on CT forums? They will have Ryan 'winning' a debate that never occured due to Ryan 'proving' that Gravy did not know what he was talking about despite there never having been a discussion. True but even among truthers there are some that are beginning to recognize that type of spin and are refusing to believe it.

20th August 2007, 04:22 PM	#19
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by ref Kevin Ryan seems to have brushed off his loss in court. He does his usual ranting at 9/11 blogger. This time he even credits himself for delaying the NIST report for 7 months. http://www.911blogger.com/node/10744 Originally Posted by Kevin Ryan When I challenged them on this, noting that steel softens at around 1000 °C, they started having closed door meetings and put their report off another seven months. Interestingly, the word “softened” does not appear anywhere in NIST’s final report. He also states that around million people have been killed in the US wars after 9/11. I guess, when you have some figures wrong, you have them all wrong. Err... Is the NIST's report on WTC7 out? Answer: No. What the hell is that goofball talking about?

20th August 2007, 05:37 PM	#20
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 12,967	Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd Err... Is the NIST's report on WTC7 out? Answer: No. What the hell is that goofball talking about? He got an advance copy for peer review, obviously.
	__________________ *"JimBenArm is right"* Hokulele Mom

20th August 2007, 10:23 PM	#21
Max Photon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spacetime Posts: 1,554	Finding your inner Kevin Ryan. --- You guys sound like a bunch of 5th graders. Kevin Ryan is not the point. The point is that someone sees inconsistencies and is groping for an answer. The inconsistencies are glaring. UL tests of floor assemblies showed deflections of just a few inches. NIST nudges the decimal place over, to 42" !!! Why? Because NIST desperately needs floors to sag if the pre-engineered narrative that sagging floors pulled perimeter panel columns inward is to survive (NIST FAQ #2). This desperation is also readily apparent in NIST's needing to invoke the loss of fire protection, because this was needed to get the floors to sag. Note that NIST couldn't get the towers to collapse in their models without such this arbitrary and unsubstantiated assumption. (It is truly pathetic if you really let it in. It is also truly pathetic how many at JREF take the NIST reports are gospel.) Furthermore, remember that NIST found conclusively that inward bowing columns initiated the collapse. (NIST FAQ #2) What caused the columns to bow inward? Visco-elastic creep. What caused visco-elastic creep? (Bazant's model inputs 800 C steel temperatures - steel, not air. And don't forget heat transport.) So Kevin is justified in trying to reconcile 4" vs 42" sagging floors, visco-elastic column behavior, metal fires, metal flows, building fires, imbecilic shotgun tests to prove the displacement of fire protection material, and other oddities. What Kevin, you - everyone - is failing to understand is that thermite placed in perimeter panel box columns and spandrel splice gaps was used, not to cut the steel (as Ryan and Jones believe) but to heat the steel to 600-1000C to induce the visco-elastic creep. In fact, NIST FAQ #12 kindly tells you that it takes 0.13 lbs of thermite to heat WTC steel to 700 C to substantially weaken the steel. Though NIST may not have used the word "soften", Kevin might want to note that NIST does imply using heat-weakening as a mode of controlled-demolition in NIST FAQ #12. You just need to use Paul's Magic Filter. So before you bash on Kevin, take a good look in the mirror. You guys are completely and utterly lost - far more so than Kevin. What's worse, you actually think you know what you're talking about. Max ---
	__________________ MAX-MIHOP: Thermite - an incendiary - was used to heat-weaken WTC steel connections, to initiate collapse. Jets served as ambiguity-reducing deception to make all of the experts certain, decisive and wrong that the WTC fires were solely jet-induced. The experts were so bewildered by deception planners' use of feedback - of hiding fire in fire - that no one thought to investigate for arson. That is how the WTC demolitions-by-heat-weakening were - and still are - hidden in plain view.

20th August 2007, 11:22 PM	#22
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	Max -- These cows are small, but those cows are far away. The UL tests were of shortened floor assemblies. There are actual photographs of the severe deformation of the floor assemblies on 9/11. Kevin gropes for the answers -- a blindfolded man stumbling along a cliffside. Do not follow him.

21st August 2007, 08:38 AM	#23
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,242	Originally Posted by Segnosaur The study used 'clusters', and there were relatively few clusters used in their study (compared to similar studies done by other groups) A similar study done in Kosovo used about the same amount of clusters. Originally Posted by Segnosaur They did not ask for death certificates in all cases The families produced death certificates in 90 percent of all cases. Originally Posted by Segnosaur Their data appears far outside the estimates done by other groups. Who rely on completely different methods. For example, I wouldn't consider IBC as accurate since they only count reported fatalities. Who knows, maybe the death toll isn't that high. But I wouldn't dismiss this study too quickly. There simply isn't that much other data to rely on.
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,242

15th December 2007, 04:54 PM	#24
peteweaver Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK Posts: 1,005	Originally Posted by ref Kevin Ryan seems to have brushed off his loss in court. He does his usual ranting at 9/11 blogger. This time he even credits himself for delaying the NIST report for 7 months. http://www.911blogger.com/node/10744 He also states that around million people have been killed in the US wars after 9/11. I guess, when you have some figures wrong, you have them all wrong. Obviously Kevin Ryan knows nothing about the temperature at which steel begins to soften (which is 300 degrees C). (source: http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...el/default.htm ) Here's something else that Ryan won't have seen: http://www.cablefireresearch.org/cabling/risk.asp Quote: Cabling in commercial buildings is frequently in close proximity to structural steel beams – which can lose structural integrity at fire temperatures as low as 800 degrees centigrade. Combustible cabling can burn at temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees centigrade — sufficient to cause the collapse of tall buildings under certain conditions. Quote: The average ten-story commercial building with 100 office workstations per floor can contain more than 1 million feet of combustible "exception" cabling in concealed spaces; equivalent to the fuel load of 1,500 gallons of gasoline. Think how many plastic coated electrical cables, cat five cables, telephone cables, etc will have been present in the towers.
	Last edited by peteweaver; 15th December 2007 at 04:56 PM.

15th December 2007, 05:25 PM	#25
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Interesting find about the cables, Pete. I had raised this issue once before, and wasn't able to find that NIST accounted for cabling in their fuel load estimates. It's possible that they considered most of the cabling to be somewhat protected, and that it wouldn't have contributed greatly to peak heating rates. But it seems possible to me that many miles of cabling in the core and in the under-floor runs would have been exposed to fire by the aircraft impacts.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

15th December 2007, 06:17 PM	#26
Hyperviolet Damnum Fatale Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Glaschu Posts: 988	Originally Posted by kookbreaker Ryan made up a bunch of 'tests' that Gravy had to pass before he would consider debating him. Its a classic conspiracy nutter tactic, a few Apollo hoaxer beleivers have tried it. Its avoidance covering their cowardice. Can you blame him? He knows Mark would waste him. These 'tests' are the only excuse preventing that.
	__________________ The English are worried about the Euro being brought in because of loss of national identity and rising prices. In Scotland, people are just worried in case they have to close Poundstretcher.

16th December 2007, 02:42 AM	#27
peteweaver Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK Posts: 1,005	Originally Posted by Gravy Interesting find about the cables, Pete. I had raised this issue once before, and wasn't able to find that NIST accounted for cabling in their fuel load estimates. It's possible that they considered most of the cabling to be somewhat protected, and that it wouldn't have contributed greatly to peak heating rates. But it seems possible to me that many miles of cabling in the core and in the under-floor runs would have been exposed to fire by the aircraft impacts. Found it in a random google search last night, it wasn't quite what i was looking for, but the link seemed interesting, and so I investigated further. http://www.cablefireresearch.org/

16th December 2007, 02:49 AM	#28
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,554	Originally Posted by Segnosaur The 600,000 figure probably comes from a 2006 study done by John Hopkins that was published in the medical journal The Lancet. This study claimed that, upon doing surveys in Iraq, the number of people killed there was over 600,000. However, there were a number of problems with that particular study: - The study used 'clusters', and there were relatively few clusters used in their study (compared to similar studies done by other groups) - They did not ask for death certificates in all cases - Their data appears far outside the estimates done by other groups. - Many of the people who participated in the study were vocal anti-war critics. While that does not guarantee that they were biased, it does raise a few suspicions. They followed a widely accepted protocol that has seen use of decades and has no past history of issues. If it has a problem then we have no meaningful estimates for deaths in say Darfur.

16th December 2007, 08:36 AM	#29
liverleef Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Kentucky Posts: 137	Max thats an interesting comment about placing thermite in perimeter panel box columns and spandrel splice gaps. How many box columns and splice gaps do you suspect would need thermite in order to induce the visco-elastic behavior you speak of. And how would the thermite be ignited? Just curious.
	Last edited by liverleef; 16th December 2007 at 08:37 AM.