9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

"Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel" by Kevin Ryan

Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20950

by Kevin Ryan, Sat, 08/22/2009 - 10:03am .

Six days after September 11th, National Geographic Today ( NGT ) published
one of the very first descriptions of the official myth for what happened to
the World Trade Center (WTC) towers.[1] This article exaggerated the little
known facts about the fires in the towers, equated gas temperatures with
steel temperatures, and detailed the long-surviving but incorrect Pancake
Theory of “collapse.” Since that time, millions of people have been killed
or injured in the 9/11 Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that originated from the
official myth about 9/11.[2,3] Fortunately, this week it was announced that
the NGT ’s parent, the National Geographic Channel (NG Channel), is
scheduled to broadcast a new television special covering the science behind
the events of 9/11. We can only assume that this new show is meant to
correct the record and apologize for the company’s false statements that
contributed to the ongoing wars.

Some of the false statements made in that NGT article had to do with an
early version of the Pancake Theory for destruction of the buildings. One
claim was : “As the steel columns at the core of the Twin Towers collapsed,
the floors they supported fell on each other like two stacks of pancakes.”
Another statement was more authoritative, saying: “Once the structural
support of the upper floors is removed, a few falling floors can bring down
an entire building.” The Pancake Theory did not make sense to many people
but was tested by my former employer, Underwriters Laboratories (UL), in
August 2004. The tests showed that the floors in the WTC buildings could not
have pancaked, even when exposed to higher temperatures for longer periods
of time than was actually the case. Two years later, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) finally made clear that its “findings do
not support the ‘pancake theory’ of collapse.”[4]

To date, there have been no apologies from any of the media sources that,
oftentimes arrogantly, promoted the Pancake Theory as a means to prevent
further questioning of the WTC events. But we all know that “National
Geographic” is different, right? Actually, some people are unaware that the
NG Channel is majority controlled (67%) by Rupert Murdoch’s News
Corporation.[5] The National Geographic Society, publisher of the well-known
magazine, was a minority partner in creation of the NG Channel, but does not
have editorial control over what is produced there. Instead, the News
Corporation controls the programming much like it controls Fox News.

In the early article promoting the WTC myth, NGT described how “Jet fuel
fires burn unusually hot, and engineers believe the fire may have led to
temperatures as high as 1,600 degrees Celsius (2,900 degrees Fahrenheit).”
But the truth is that the jet fuel fires at the WTC, which lasted a total of
79 seconds by one expert estimate, and lasted only a few minutes according
to NIST, would have been cooler than the later fires fed by office
furnishings alone.[6] It has since been admitted by NIST that gas
temperatures reached only “as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius.”[7]

With that in mind, it’s important to note that in a structure fire, the
temperature of fireproofed steel lags far behind the temperature of the air
(i.e. gas) in the vicinity. In fact, even in a testing furnace where heat
cannot be conducted away, when the temperature of the furnace is raised to
1000 °C and held at that temperature, it takes two full hours for the
protected steel within to reach 600 °C.[8] Neither of the Twin Towers
remained standing for two hours after aircraft impact, however, and that’s
why NIST evaluated a fireproofing loss scenario for the towers. NIST
suggested fireproofing loss through a mechanism of shotgun-like blasts,
presumably formed from aircraft debris and aimed in all directions
throughout the areas where the planes impacted. Fortunately, in the
1.5-second long video produced by Purdue University , and featured on the
website for the new television special, this shotgun scenario is shown to be
in direct contradiction to the large-scale debris field produced by the
aircraft. Apart from this one valuable refutation of NIST, however, the
micro video from Purdue has been shown to be a poor representation of what
actually happened at the WTC.[9] Hopefully the apology from the NG Channel
will include an interview with Purdue President France Córdova, who can help
to clarify these facts. That is, if she’s not tied up in another SAIC board
meeting.[10]

The website for the new television show also suggests that the NG Channel’s
apology will be offered directly by the Turkish professor Mete Sözen, a
long-time supporter of government myths about terrorism.[11] Sözen is not
just a professor at Purdue but was a leader of the FEMA investigation into
what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. He was also the director of the
Department of Defense’s Blast Mitigation for Structures program, and is
therefore another example of the many explosives experts that came up with
only non-explosive stories for what happened on 9/11.[12] When Sözen is done
helping with the apology from the NG Channel, he might, as a prominent
Turkish person in the US, be able to help clarify the recent claim that some
of our government representatives maintained “intimate relations” with al
Qaeda, through Turkish proxies, right up until 9/11.[13]

In any case, it will be a relief to not see another lame hit piece about
9/11 questions that relies solely on Brent Blanchard for testimony about
demolition techniques. As a photographer for “Implosion World,” Blanchard is
often consulted for these tabloid programs when a “demolition expert” is
needed. But no evidence has ever been given that the real experts allow
photographers to plan and implement their high-rise demolitions. Hopefully,
the NG Channel will feature interviews with experts who actually have
planned and implemented such operations, like Danny Jowenko, who stated that
WTC 7 was a demolition.[14]

The NG Channel’s apology will certainly cover the other false claim in its
NGT article, that: “At temperatures above 500 degrees Celsius, steel loses
its strength and ‘turns to Play-doh.’” By exaggerating the gas temperatures
and then hitting us with the “Play-doh” steel claim, the article falsely
equated gas temperatures and steel temperatures in a structure fire. But
anyone can see from photographs and videos that the buildings did not turn
to “Play-doh” as if they were experiencing an overall softening. To the
contrary, the towers behaved as if they were rigid structures, suddenly
exploding outward and otherwise falling – at nearly free-fall speed --
through what should have been the path of most resistance.[15] Additionally,
tests done by NIST indicated that only 2% of the steel samples saved had
experienced temperatures as high as 250 °C, and steel is barely affected at
all at such low temperatures.

The WTC steel temperature issue is complicated by the fact that the samples
saved for the NIST investigation were pulled by John Gross, an investigator
who has since been clearly deceptive when speaking about the evidence. Gross
specifically selected the steel samples that were saved, from what was said
to be the areas of greatest heat exposure. It’s possible that Gross erred in
his sample selection process, however, because in 2006, he was publicly
asked about molten metal at the WTC site, and he claimed that there was no
evidence of molten metal.[16] The truth is that there were many witnesses to
molten metal at the WTC site, as well as photos that showed molten metal
pouring from one of the towers before it fell.[17]

Since that time, scientific experiments have shown that extremely high
temperatures existed at the WTC. Other peer-reviewed articles demonstrate
that the environmental data at Ground Zero indicate the presence of
energetic materials, and that residues of such materials are present
throughout the WTC dust.[18,19] This strong evidence supports the many
witnesses to explosions and the photographic evidence of demolition at the
WTC. Furthermore, it has been shown through an extensive peer-reviewed study
that unexploded nanothermite is present in the WTC dust.[20] It appears that
the nanothermite materials present in the WTC dust are similar to the
“explosive aerogels” made by US national laboratories for the past ten to
fifteen years.[21]

All of this was explained in detail to the producer of the National
Geographic Channel show long before his production ended, so it will be
great to see it all communicated honestly. The technical details should not
be difficult, considering that the NG Channel produced a show on aerogels
before.[22] But what's more, my colleagues and I have communicated directly
with Robert Erickson, the producer of the show, and made sure he had all the
information he needed on nanothermite and its explosive properties.

Erickson was confused at first, in that he had contacted the folks at Los
Alamos National Laboratories (LANL), and was forced to conclude that LANL’s
only exposure to nanothermite (also called super-thermite) technology was a
recent, poorly received commercial venture. He wrote -- “Their work on
nano-thermite was patented in 2005 – the theory of nano-thermite was in play
by their scientists no earlier than 2004.”[23] But the truth is that LANL
had its own “Super-Thermite Program” years before 2004, and before 9/11.[24]
It must be that the scientists Erickson talked to were way out of the loop,
or were lying to him for some reason, because we all trust that “National
Geographic” would not engage in deceiving the public.

In any case, it is Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) that has
been widely reported to be the leader in nanothermite research.
Unfortunately, Erickson could not contact LLNL because, as he wrote: “My
budget does not provide funds for me to travel to Livermore labs. I just
have a small television production to deal with.” This was a strange thing
to say considering that North Hollywood, CA, where Erickson’s company is
located, is much closer to Livermore, CA than it is to Thibodoux, Louisiana,
where Erickson traveled to shoot an example, illustrative demolition event.
Erickson went on to despair about the subject, stating -- “And apparently –
even if I’m willing to look... No nano-thermite is available.”[25]

This statement is reminiscent of NIST’s reply when questioned as to why it
did not test for explosive residues at the WTC (i.e. why would you look for
something that’s not there?). But it’s possible that Erickson’s pessimism
was correct, and that even if he was “willing to look”, he would not be able
to share what he found. That’s what we heard from BBC producer Mike Rudin --
that LLNL scientists would not cooperate with his “Conspiracy Files” video
production. Rudin told us that LLNL refused to allow the BBC to use of any
of the photographs of nanothermite materials that were readily available on
the web. That seems at odds with the idea that science can so easily
disprove the demolition theory.

But I did give Erickson permission to use my own photos of nanothermite
formulations that had been ignited. Interestingly enough, these looked
surprisingly similar to many of the red chip-like materials found in WTC
dust samples, and both had attached metallic microspheres.[26] Although he
did not respond to this invitation, I’m sure Erickson was excited to have
these resources available for the show.

Some months earlier, Erickson’s assistant, Dieu Pham, had contacted me
several times to set-up an interview in Bloomington because other 9/11
investigators had recommended they do so. At the time I told them that I
would be glad to, and that also – “My advice to you is to contact the 9/11
victim's family members who were responsible for initiating both the 9/11
Commission and the NIST WTC investigation, if you have not done so
already.”[27] Most people know that the WTC issue is only a small part of
the incredible amount of evidence showing that the official myth of 9/11 is
false. In this televised apology, it will be good to see the interviews they
did with victim’s families, and how they handled the conflicts of interest
within the 9/11 Commission, the insider trading, the air defense failures,
the behavior of the Secret Service, and the many other anomalies of 9/11.

In the end, the show's producers suddenly changed their minds about
interviewing me. Dieu Pham wrote back saying – “I was pushing to go there,
but it just wasn't working.” Who knows – maybe they finally drove up to
Livermore , or the photos I provided gave the final touch needed to round
out this science-based program. No matter, just knowing that an apology is
forthcoming is enough for me. It won’t right the wrong entirely, as the
death and destruction caused by the false stories about 9/11 cannot be
undone. But thanks to the National Geographic Channel in advance, for
finally rejecting the trashy tabloid hit pieces of the past, and for being
professional and caring enough to admit its many mistakes in reporting on
the events of 9/11.

[1] Bijal P. Trivedi, Inferno Heat, Not Impact, Brought Down Towers ,
Experts Say, National Geographic Today, September 17, 2001 ,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0917_disasterbuildings.h...
[2] Just Foreign Policy, Iraq Deaths, http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
[3] Unknown News, Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq,
http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html
[4] NIST’s Responses to FAQs, August 2006,
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
[5] FreePress, Ownership Chart: The Big Six,
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main
[6] J. L. Torero and J. G. Quintiere, Fire Safety in High-rise Buildings,
Lessons Learned from the WTC,
Dresden Germany 2002,
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1507/1/WTCLessonsLearned02.pd...
[7] NIST’s Responses to FAQs, August 2006,
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
[8] Structural Fire Protection, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering
Practice no. 78,1992, p 172.
[9] Kevin R. Ryan, Open Letter to Purdue President France Córdova, July 6,
2007, found at 911Truth.org,
http://www.911truth.org/article_for_printing.php?story=20070706155755469
[10] Webpage for SAIC board of directors, including France Cordova,
http://investors.saic.com/directors.cfm
[11] Website for The Channel’s new show, 9/11: Science and Conspiracy,
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspirac...
[12] Kevin Ryan, Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC
“Experts”, Global Research, March 13,
2007,http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RYA2007
0313&articleId=5071
[13] Sözen is a member of the Society of Turkish Architects, Engineers &
Scientists Inc., a group that has among its goals the intention of fostering
Turkish interests in the US through several other organizations.
http://home.comcast.net/~mimusa/mim1986_membership.pdf These organizations
have recently launched an “all out assault” on 9/11 Whistleblower Sibel
Edmonds. See Brad Blog.com for details, http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7358
[14] 911veritas, Danny Jowenko - Dutch Demolition Expert Still Maintains
WTC7 Could NOT Collapse Due to Fire, 911blogger.com, February 22, 2007,
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6400
[15] Jim Hoffman, 9-11 WTC Videos: Video Evidence of the Destruction of the
World Trade Center Skyscrapers, 911Research.wtc7.net,
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html
[16] Stallion4’s blog, NIST Engineer, John Gross, Denies Reports About
Molten Steel at the WTC, 911blogger.com, http://www.911blogger.com/node/6104
[17] George Washington’s blog, Why was there molten metal under Ground Zero
for months after 9/11? , December 6, 2005 ,
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-...
[18] Steven E. Jones, et al, Extremely high temperatures during the World
Trade Center destruction, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 19, January 2008,
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
[19] Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade
Center: evidence for energetic materials, The Environmentalist, Volume 29,
Number 1 / March, 2009,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
[20] Niels H. Harrit, et al, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics
Journal, Vol 2, 2009, doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007,
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000000...
[21] Randy Simpson, Nanoscale chemistry yields better explosives, Science
and Technology Review 2000, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
[22] Stephen Steiner, Zero_Gravity aerogel formation: Research on the
production of aerogel in weightlessness, 2003, National Geographic Channel
Segment Part 1, Summary: All about aerogel, how it's made, why it's blue,
and making it clear in zero-gravity.
http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~aerogel/videos.html
[23] Personal email from Robert Erickson, producer of the new National
Geographic Channel special on 9/11
[24] Danen, W.C., Jorgensen, B.S., Busse, J.R., Ferris, M.J. and Smith, B.L.
“Los Alamos Nanoenergetic
Metastable Intermolecular Composite (Super Thermite) Program,” 221st ACS
National Meeting,
San Diego, CA, 1-5 April 2001.
[25] Personal email from Robert Erickson, producer of the new National
Geographic Channel special on 9/11
[26] Kevin Ryan, Nanothermites and WTC Dust, 911blogger.com, December 27,
2008, http://www.911blogger.com/node/18935
[27] Personal email response to Dieu Pham of Creative Differences
Productions

Views: 55

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

© 2021   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service