RON CRAIG

RON CRAIG

Published on Sep 11, 2015, Rebel Media released this video in an attempt to debunk 9/11 theories of controlled demolition. First lets see who Ron Craig before we get into his weak arguments.

Who is Ron Craig?

Mr. Ron Craig, teacher of pyrotechnics and explosives at Ryerson University and fire and explosion investigator, came out as a spokesperson against the controlled demolition hypothesis in 2007.

Ron Craig (I)
Special Effects | Producer | Writer
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0185998/

POWER SESSION: RON CRAIG EXPLOSIONS, BOMBS & IEDs, & SFX RIGGING
http://www.dimersar.com/event-708078

“Ron Craig is a special effects supervisor for the motion picture industry and have consulted to Police, Military, Fire and Rescue, Universities, Colleges and specialists groups. He has traveled and taught globally.”

It’s odd that Ron Craig would have so much experience with explosives yet not see the obvious explosives going off inside the Towers.
———–

Here is the video of Ron Craig debunking CD.

9/11 conspiracies debunked by explosives expert/firefighter
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktfnyC5lR3U

“David Menzies talks with explosives expert and firefighter Ron Craig, who debunks many of the conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11, 2001 Muslim terrorist attacks.

He says theories that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled explosions are based on faulty photo interpretation and personal testimonials of survivors.”
———
“# 1 Myth: Scientific Evidence Explosive were used.”

“There is not one iota of scientific evidence that explosives were used to bring down the towers. Absolutely none.”

Rebuttal:

This is the famous line that debunkers use all the time. However, what they also do is ignore all the evidence.

Throughout this link is EVIDENCE and testimony from Fire Fires, First Responders, media personnel and other notables to explosions. This evidence was omitted from the Final Report and ignored by NIST during their entire investigation.

9/11 Explosions
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911-explosions/
———
“# 2 Myth: Thermite Cut Steel Columns”

“That for steel to melt there has to be constant heat…. Just look at a blast furnace, as long as it’s heated, it’s molten.”

Rebuttal

The WTC were not blast furnaces and Jet Fuel in open air burns at a maximum of 600 degrees and hydro carbon fires burn at 1500 degrees. Let me remind you the steel melts at 2700 degrees. Which means Jet Fuel nor Fire can melt Steel!

Jet Fuel
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/jet-fuel/

Simple Facts of Temperatures
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911-molten-steel/simple-facts-of-temperatures/
——–
@2:40 he shows a misinformation picture of a flashlight that 9/11 researchers have disavowed for years. This is a typical strawman argument attacking the weakest point. How about we discuss the peer reviewed paper?

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/peer-reviewed-paper/
——–
Evidence of Nano Thermite

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/evidence-of-nano-thermite/
——–
“Myth 3: People inside the towers were blown off their feet”

Rebuttal:

I have been a truthers for 10 years and I have never used this claim ever to support controlled demolition. However, there have been witnesses that testified to explosions in the wtc basement and being blown backwards. This is a Strawman argument.

LOBBY/BASEMENT EXPLOSION WITNESSES
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911-explosions/
———-
As for no patients admitted for explosives is absurd but there were many people admitted for burns.

World Trade Center 9/11 Burn Victims – 4 weeks later
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6hdhENfMDE
———–
“Myth 4″ Clouds of dust prove explosives were used.”

“When the world trade center was built, there were no fire sprinklers at all. The fire suppression was dry wall….. so all of this dry wall became dust and it created huge dust balls…”

Rebuttal:

The wtc was not built with sprinklers until after the 1975 fire and….

“By 1993, almost all of WTC2 and 85 percent of WTC 1 had sprinklers installed, and the entire complex was completely retrofitted by 2001.”
———–
As for “dust balls”. We are not seeing only dry wall exploding into dust. In video footage we are witnessing concrete and many other building materials being pulverized mid air… by explosives. The ensuing dust cloud is very comparable to a pyroclastic flow, which the speaker doesn’t even acknowledge.
———–
“Myth 5: Building 7 had no damage but still collapsed proves explosives were used.”

“New photographic evidence has been uncovered that shows there was considerable damage to the building. The rear of the building…”

Watch this video and ask yourself what could have caused this symmetrical line all the way down the building? Let’s not forget that NIST ignored this column (#20) in their reports.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=a94uWPzl3zg

“Everyone was evacuated by building 7”

So I guess there was no one to “Pull”.

“When there is a fire inside an office building, the fire is extremely, very hot and it move quite quickly.”

Hydro carbon fires burn at 1500 degrees. It’s hot but it can’t weaken steel beams to the point of structural failure.

“The joints failed and the building came down on itself.”

This guy obviously does not understand how buildings are designed and brought down. Asymmetrical damage cannot cause a symmetrical collapse.

“The water had been cut off the sprinkler system…”

The official story says the sprinklers on the lower half of building 7 was affected by the towers collapse. The top half was still fully functional.
——-
“Myth 6: No Steel Framed Building has ever collapsed from Fire”

“…but in fact steel framed buildings collapse all the time…… it was a very lightly constructed building…”

“You see the total collapse of that part of the building.”

Rebuttal:

The example he gives of a Fire in Ontario where only the “roof collapsed”. It was also a one story Dollar store.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/11/08/18939096.html

First of all, the Delft building did not Totally collapse, it PARTIALLY collapsed. It also did not fall at free fall into its own footprint. This 13 story building took 7 seconds to partially collapse. The 47 story building 7 was gone in the same amount of time.

The fact remains, no steel framed building has totally collapsed from Fire.
———-
“Myth 7: Stream of Sparks prove high energy event took place outside of fire.”

“Whenever there is fire, you will se mysterious things.”

Rebuttal:

These are not streams of sparks, they are stream of molten metal which looks very similar to steel, not aluminum.

SOUTHEAST CORNER (MOLTEN FLOW)
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911-molten-steel/

It is not Molten Aluminum or sparks, as shown here in this video.

Debunking Thermite: Not Molten Aluminum
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxFXFkN6FaI&;
————
Dave Menzies Conclusion:

“You have adroitly demolished 7 smoking guns that are used by the 9/11 Truthers.”

“Ron Craig has debunked the main conspiracy theories by the 9/11 truthers. Hey folks, consider this…. was indeed a couple of hijacked aircraft flying into those buildings and causing the deaths of almost 3000 people.”

Rebuttal:

Ron Craig didn’t debunk anything. He took weak or infallible arguments and ignored the strongest evidence of controlled demolition. He ignored the free fall, symmetrical collapse, rapid onset of destruction, squibs, steel columns ejecting laterally, mid pulverization of concrete, testimony to Molten Steel and explosions and the many other characteristics of controlled demolition. Ron Craig seems to have different theories that differ from NIST.

Richard Gage debated Ron Craig back in 2010 and it was a clear victory for RG!

AE911Truth Debates Explosive Expert Richard Gage, AIA vs. Ron Craig – Teil 1/11
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLbmA7W2cK0
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-01-07/ron-craig-versus-richard-gage-aia-analysis-controlled-demolition-debate

———–
Ron Craig asked questions by UW 9/11 Research Group
www.youtube.com/watch?v=–2-ljILrZI
————

CONCLUSION:

Ron Craig uses strawman arguments for every rebuttal he offers. He claims there is no scientific evidence, yet he ignores all the scientific evidence. Sorry Ron but a picture of people looking into a hole is so 2005, try getting caught up!