Thank you for all your diligent work investigating and exposing the cover-up and the suspects behind the crimes of 9/11. Great to have you with us, Mr. Ryan!

My first question concerns an aspect of 9/11 that, although iconic for the day, received little to no attention both from FEMA & NIST and independent investigators: the "dramatic" (FEMA) South Tower fireball(s).

One popular criticism of A&E we often encounter is that more chemists have signed the petition than civil engineers and architects have.

Deflagrations and BLEVEs are well-studied phenomena in the context of storage unit, chemical plant and transportation safety, hazard and risk assessment.^{[1], [2]}

Lihou/Maund, Fay/Lewis, Hasegawa/Soto, Moorhouse/Pritchard, Hardee/Lee, Dorofeev et al, and many others have empirically correlated fireball diameter, duration and rise height with initial fuel mass with good predictiveness^[3] (mostly in the form D = k × m ⁿ , where n mostly ~1/3 and k depending on the fuel).

Instead, Baum/Rehm's "Simple Model", investigating only the first 2.5 seconds, proposes a completely different model (correlating expansion velocity, which all other researchers explicitly treat as constant, with the fuel mass) to conclude that 1500kg is a reasonable lower bound estimate for the amount of kerosene needed for the fireball (Prof. Quintiere raises similar concerns about the novel approach).^[4] FEMA estimates 3000-10000 kg, NIST 4500 kg.

To my knowledge, only Karl Moor gives a "truther" estimate (from the diameter of the burnt-out soot cloud) and arrives at ~13800 kg, and indeed, a lower bound estimate of ~15000 kg seems to be more realistic, if a fireball diameter of ~130 m is assumed and Lihou/Maunds 6.2m^0.32 approximation used. That raises the suspicion NIST deliberately tried to obscure the true nature of the fireball, especially since their simulations indicated that 17% of the jet fuel would have landed outside the building from residual momentum and mechanical deflection alone.^[5]

Do you think independent analysis of the fireball could help answer the question whether UA175 (hijacked by, let's say, "MKULTRAed" suicide patsys) or a drone hit WTC2?

My second question is more speculative in nature, but shorter: overall, do you get the impression that 9/11 went according to plan, or that it was botched (or even sabotaged by dissenters/rivals from within the circles of power) and what we saw was more a "save"/"Plan B"/"9/11 light edition" of what should have been even more "awe-inspiring", devious and obscure, and less suspicious / self-contradictory / "easily" proven a stage magic trick?

I ask because I often find myself wondering how the masterminds could be so sure they would be able to sell Bazants Laws of Motion and Nistonian physics - if they simply didn't care, or if the psychology of "mass hypnosis induction by shock" is truly that well-tested and true.^[6]

A third question: since 9/11 affected not only the U.S. - triggering NATOs first (and, so far, only) casus foederis (Art. 5)^[7], thus compromising all allies as well - shouldn't the adjective "international" not be, by standard, an indispensable part of the call for a new, independent investigation of 9/11?^[8]

^{[1]: Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control, pub.: Sam Mannan}

^{[2]: Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires, and BLEVEs, Center for Chemical Process for Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers}

^{[3]: Fireballs from deflagration and detonation of heterogeneuous fuel-rich clouds, Dorofeev et al., 1995}

^{[4]: A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics, Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., 2005}

^{[5]: NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, p. lxxxiv}

^{[6]: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein}

^{[7]: Collective defence - Article 5, nato.int}

^{[8]: 9/11 As False Flag: Why International Law Must Dare to Care, Amy Baker Benjamin}