911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news, posts in the blogs section are the responsibility of the poster, readers are encouraged to check the facts and form their own conclusions.
Kevin Ryan's blog
At the Journal of 9/11 Studies we have a new letter from Professor Lance de-Haven Smith.
The letter is titled Conspiracy Denial in the U.S. Media. Here's an excerpt:
"Many American journalists appear to be locked into a peculiar way of thinking that makes them blind to signs of political criminality in high office. This mindset is characterized by an apparent inability to differentiate groundless accusations of elite political intrigue from legitimate concerns about the integrity of U.S. political leaders and institutions. For some reason, when it comes to popular suspicions of schemes involving the nation’s political elites, many journalists in the United State make no distinctions. They categorize all such suspicions as “conspiracy theories,” which they assume are not only untrue, but wacky and paranoid."
We would like to announce the publication, in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, of Matthew Witt’s article, “Morewell than Orwell: Paramilitarization in the United States post-9/11”. Matthew Witt is well known as a member of the group of scholars that has encouraged the study of “State Crimes Against Democracy” (SCAD). In this article he looks, not at the events of 9/11 themselves, but at the crisis of legitimation that the U.S. state faces and the way it has, since 9/11, chosen to respond to this crisis. The Occupy Wall Street movement is taken as the central example of state response and repression.
As we announce this publication we also want to announce our intention to broaden the scope of the Journal. The historical importance of the Journal lies in detailed, critical examination of the events of the day of 9/11, and we have no intention of abandoning this focus, but there are many disciplines we would like to invite into the conversation and we would like to include studies of the context and meaning of 9/11. We are aware that there are other journals that attempt to deal with these issues, but with few exceptions these journals accept the official narrative of 9/11 and tend to exclude the writings of authors with a critical perspective. In our view this means that the interpretations of 9/11 developed in these journals are bound to be faulty. We want to create a space where researchers working in the humanities, such as John McMurtry, whose recent article on the moral decoding of 9/11 has drawn a good deal of attention, and Matthew Witt can write without the usual pressure to adhere to flawed accounts of 9/11. In this process we also hope that people who have not traditionally read our Journal will find themselves drawn to it and to its critical perspective on recent history.
Please post links to these articles on all relevant websites so that we can invite as many people as possible into a dialogue on these important events.
Kevin Ryan and Graeme MacQueen
Professor Graeme MacQueen and I are pleased to announce two new, peer reviewed articles that have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
The first is from German journalist Paul Schreyer and is titled Anomalies of the air defense on 9/11.
This paper identifies six major, simultaneous anomalies that occurred on September 11, 2001 with regard to the national air defenses. Here is an excerpt:
“The official explanation for the detour is that air traffic controllers at Langley had sort of a standard flight plan, sending all jets generally to the east and that this standardized eastern heading somehow replaced the original NORAD scramble order. But this seems to be a dubious claim. Because how could that have happened? The pilots knew the original scramble order. They knew which direction NEADS wanted them to fly. And then they somehow forgot? But, same as with the Otis scramble, there seems only little chance to dig deeper because ‘Giant Killer’, the responsible control facility, deleted all its tapes from the communication on 9/11."
The second article is from licensed structural engineer Ronald H. Brookman and is titled A Discussion of “Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse.”
This paper discusses a recent article published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, authored by a team including several of the primary NIST WTC report authors. Brookman’s discussion reviews how the NIST authors continue to ignore facts related to the construction of WTC 7 in their computer models, and how the basic information needed to verify those computer models remains unavailable to independent researchers. Here is an excerpt:
“The destruction of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001 and the final NCSTAR reports issued in 2008 raise many questions in addition to those outlined here, but one thing is certain: Thousands of hours of computer simulation are no substitute for a forensic investigation based on published national standards and well-established principles of scientific inquiry. “
For the 11th anniversary of September 11, we at the Journal of 9/11 Studies would like to share a series of letters from thoughtful people who have reflected on the tragic events of that day. Five letters are being published today, from the following individuals.
Lorie Van Auken is a founding member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee. Without her dedication there would never have been a 9/11 Commission investigation.
Gregg Fishman is Secretary of the World Trade Center Rescuers Foundation. Like others he represents, Gregg risked his life and health in an attempt to rescue and recover victims following the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.
Father Frank Morales is an Episcopal priest, activist, and author from New York City. He was present at Ground Zero shortly after the 9/11 events, offering prayers for the victims and support for the first responders.
David Johnson is Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Tennessee. Dr. Johnson served as a panelist at the Toronto Hearings on the tenth anniversary of 9/11.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has investigated the events of September 11, 2001 and his writings on that and other subjects have attracted a worldwide following.
A similar number of letters from other contributors will be published later this week. We hope that the words and sacrifice of these great people will make a difference on the anniversary of 9/11 and into the future.
Sincerely, Graeme MacQueen and Kevin Ryan, co-editors
We have a new format at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. As before, there are over 60 peer-reviewed articles, nearly 70 letters, and a section for those just beginning to look into the unanswered question of 9/11.
There are two new entries in the letter section.
The first is a detailed paper by Dr. Frank Legge entitled The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus.
The second is a letter written last year by the board of directors of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, addressed to Sir Paul Nurse of the Royal Society of London.
Unfortunately, Sir Paul and the Royal Society could not be troubled to respond. If you're wondering why, the Society's contact page is at this link.
People from around the world came together at Ryerson University in Toronto, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, to present evidence challenging the official accounts of that day. A DVD of the proceeding of the "Toronto Hearings" is nearly complete. Here is a preview.
Detailed investigation reveals unexpected connections among people who played critical roles related to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Earlier articles have covered some of those connections with respect to the World Trade Center (WTC) and the official reports which were produced to explain the WTC events. This article will begin to outline a wider set of connections that encompasses more aspects of 9/11. Readers may find that, with respect to the 9/11 attacks and those who were responsible for protecting us from terrorism, it is a small world after all.
Barry McDaniel came to the WTC security company Stratesec, in 1998, to become its Chief Operating Officer. In the years before 9/11, Stratesec had contracts to provide security services not only for the WTC, but also for United Airlines, which owned two of the planes hijacked on 9/11, and Dulles Airport, where American Airlines Flight 77 took off that day.
At the WTC, McDaniel was in charge of the security operation in terms of what he called a “completion contract,” to provide services “up to the day the buildings fell down.” McDaniel came to Stratesec directly from BDM International, where he had been Vice President for nine years. BDM was a major subsidiary of The Carlyle Group for most of that time. When Barry McDaniel started at BDM, the company began getting a large amount of government business “in an area the Navy called Black Projects,” or budgets that were kept secret.
Public Lecture - The Collapse of the Seventh Tower: A Physical & Chemical Analysis
Niels H. Harrit, Copenhagen University
When: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 @ 7:15-9:15 p.m.
Where: Morrison Hall 007
Departmental Sponsors: College of Arts and Sciences, American Studies Program
To most people, the image of the World Trade Center (WTC) is confined to the famous twin towers, which dominated the New York skyline until September 11th, 2001, when they collapsed after each one being hit by an airliner. However, the trade center was an assembly of seven buildings around a plaza. The youngest of these, WTC7, was a huge office building, reaching 186 meters and 47 stories into the air. The ground-plan area was little less than a soccer field.
WTC7 was not hit by an airliner. Still, it collapsed seven hours after the twin towers in a totally symmetric movement with free-fall speed. It was the most unexpected collapse in the history of modern building construction.
The talk outlines the factual circumstances around this event. These facts are held up against the official account of the event as it has been presented in a report from National Institute of Standards and Technology. According to this report, WTC7 collapsed due to fire. But never before - or since - in history has a steel-framed high-riser collapsed due to fire.
In the second part of the talk it is proposed that the collapse of WTC was due to controlled demolitions using explosives. In addition, unambiguous evidence points to the use of thermite, which is an energetic material used to cut and weld steel. The newest findings in the dust include still-reactive remains of so-called nano-thermite.
On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the International Center for 9/11 Studies will sponsor four days of citizen hearings at Ryerson University in the city of Toronto, Canada. These international hearings will be commonly referred to as the Toronto Hearings and more information can be found at http://torontohearings.org/ .
The objectives of the hearings are as follows:
1. To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.
2. To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.
3. To submit a record and a summary of the Hearings, together with signed Statutory Declarations by witnesses, to relevant governments, groups and international agencies with the request that a full and impartial investigation be launched into the events of September 11, 2001, which have been used to initiate military invasions and to restrict the rights of citizens.
4. To engage the attention of the public and media through witness testimony as well as through public talks and media events during the four day event.
For more information, contact the steering committee at http://torontohearings.org/about/ .
The organizers of the Toronto Hearings have received a large number of inquiries from people who want to attend the Hearings. As a result, we’re pleased to offer approximately 100 seats to members of the public to attend as non-participant audience members. Seats may be reserved for all 4 days of the Hearings for a donation of $200 per seat. Click here to make that donation and reserve your seats.
For those who are attending, various hotel accommodations are listed at the site as well.
Daily attendance at a lower cost may be available at a date closer to the event, depending on what seating remains available.
Since announcing the Hearings nearly one month ago, we have raised one-third of our $25,000 funding target. Work continues on finalization of the witness list and the panel.
We wish to thank everyone who has offered to help and all those who have expressed interest in attendance. Please check back with us for further updates.
Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11: The Wall Street Lawyer and the Special Ops Hijack Coordinator
Of the many unanswered questions about the attacks of September 11, one of the most important is: Why were none of the four planes intercepted? A rough answer is that the failure of the US air defenses can be traced to a number of factors and people. There were policy changes, facility changes, and personnel changes that had recently been made, and there were highly coincidental military exercises that were occurring on that day. But some of the most startling facts about the air defense failures have to do with the utter failure of communications between the agencies responsible for protecting the nation. At the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), two people stood out in this failed chain of communications. One was a lawyer on his first day at the job, and another was a Special Operations Commander who was never held responsible for his critical role, or even questioned about it.
The 9/11 Commission wrote in its report that – “On 9/11, the defense of U.S. airspace depended on close interaction between two federal agencies: the FAA and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).”
According to the Commission, this interaction began with air traffic controllers (ATCs) at the relevant regional FAA control centers, which on 9/11 included Boston, New York, Cleveland, and Indianapolis. In the event of a hijacking, these ATCs were expected to “notify their supervisors, who in turn would inform management all the way up to FAA headquarters. Headquarters had a hijack coordinator, who was the director of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security or his or her designate. “
When I was fired by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) for publicly questioning the company’s testing related to the World Trade Center (WTC), and its role in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), UL claimed that there was “no evidence” that any company had tested the WTC steel components.
Of course, that was a lie. The company had already admitted that it was responsible for the fire resistance testing related to the WTC buildings, in an April 2002 letter to the editor of the New York Times. Below is that letter. UL had also certified the fireproofing material and had consulted with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey throughout the life of the buildings.
The author of the letter to the editor, UL’s manager of its Fire Protection division, Tom Chapin, wrote in defense of ASTM E119, the standard test UL had used to ensure fire resistance of the buildings. The NYC code, which UL’s CEO had confirmed to me was used to guide the testing, required two hours of fire resistance for the steel columns and 3 hours of fire resistance for floor assemblies. One of the buildings fell in 56 minutes.
Two new papers have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
The first is called "Why Australia's Presence in Afghanistan is Untenable," by James O'Neill. Here is an excerpt:
"The events of 11 September 2001 provided a nominal casus belli for the attack and occupation of Afghanistan, heavily promoted by the mainstream media, which particularly in the United States is closely linked to the major armaments manufacturers. The same mainstream media have uncritically accepted and promoted the US government’s version of events about 11 September 2001, not because that account is plausible, which it manifestly is not, but because to question the rationale for military intervention is to question the whole of post World War II US foreign policy. If US foreign policy is seriously flawed then that in turn must raise serious questions about the level and extent of Australia’s adherence to the policies of its powerful ally."
The second paper is by Aidan Monaghan. It is called "Review of Analysis of Observed and Measured In-Flight Turns Suggests Superior Control of 9/11 Aircraft." Here is an excerpt:
"Although human control of UA 175 cannot be ruled out, small margins for error are evident in the number of available degrees of bank that could generate impact with WTC 2 via a constant radius turn from approximately 1.5 miles distant. An error of 5 degrees of bank left or right seems largely indiscernible to an observer, but would generate substantial distances from a given target. To achieve impact via a mile-long plus constant radius banked turn, within an acceptable margin of error would seem to be a substantial challenge to a reportedly inexperienced pilot without aid. The CWS function would apparently provide an in-flight automated stability that would permit a pilot to apply greater attention to the course of an aircraft and consider whether additional maneuvers would be required."
A new paper by Dr. Frank Legge and Warren Stutt has been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is entitled “Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon.”
Here is an excerpt:
“There have, however, been other interested parties who looked at the available data and came to different conclusions. Researcher John Farmer concluded that there was indeed a defect in the file and that about 4 to 6 seconds of data was missing from the end. If this is true it would be easy to find a flight path which would permit the plane to descend and pull up safely. Despite this finding the adherents of the contrary theories have remained adamant that the plane flew over the building or could not have survived the final pull-up. They continue to maintain that the official account of the path of the plane, which necessarily includes impact with the Pentagon, is false. A number of analyses have been presented which indicate that there are elements of the official account of the attack on the Pentagon which are false but it is our purpose to show that the FDR data is not one of them.”
Pentagon investigation leader, Paul Mlakar, obstructed investigation in New Orleans, according to UC Berkeley professor
In October of 2007, a letter was written to Dr. William F. Marcuson, President of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), by Professor Raymond B. Seed of the of the UC Berkeley department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Professor Seed was very concerned about the ASCE and obstruction of the investigation into the breakage of levees in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. That obstruction was coordinated by Dr. Paul Mlakar of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), who claimed that his assignment was to "spar" with the independent investigators.
Mlakar is well known by independent investigators, as he was one of the four engineers who conducted the FEMA "investigation" into the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. The other three were Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, later of the NIST WTC Advisory Committee, and Mete+Sozen, who has been a leading spokesman for the official story about the WTC.
Mlakar also led+the+ASCE+investigation+at+the+Pentagon+after+9/11, along with Sozen.
Professor Seed, who led one of the independent investigations into the breaking of the levees in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, claimed that Paul Mlakar obstructed his investigation. Below are some relevant quotes from the letter, but the entire letter is well worth reading.
"These past two years, both the USACE and ASCE have been dishonored by the unacceptable, and even unfathomable, actions of a few. These are two of the most important civil engineering organizations in the world. If that cannot be reversed and repaired, and if recurrence cannot be prevented, then the ethics and the very soul of the Profession are in peril."
World Trade Center (WTC) security company Stratesec has been a topic of considerable discussion among independent 9/11 investigators. One point of discussion has been the possible familial relationship between Stratesec’s CEO, Wirt Dexter Walker III, and its director Marvin Bush, whose brother was President of the United States on 9/11. Although Wirt and Marvin are distant relatives, these ties are inconsequential relative to each man’s family connections to old drug money, deep state operatives, and the wealthy, powerful people who have controlled such money and operatives over the last two centuries.
Stratesec was a company that provided security services for several facilities that were central to the crimes of 9/11. In the years leading up to 9/11, the company had security contracts with the organization that managed Dulles Airport, where Flight 77 took off that day, and with United Airlines, which owned two of the other three hijacked planes. Stratesec had also run security for Los Alamos National Laboratories, where, at the time, scientists were developing super-thermite explosives of the type that have been found in the WTC dust., Stratesec worked at the WTC and was developing the security system for the buildings in the period leading up to, and including, the day of 9/11. These connections are important considering the substantial evidence that insiders were involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Dusting-off Corley: Is this the official response to the discovery of energetic materials in the WTC dust?
This week, ABC's Nightline televised an excerpt from an interview with Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission. The purpose of the interview excerpt was to suggest that those who produced the official reports of what heppened on 9/11 are willing to openly examine all evidence related to those crimes. Since I've met with Mr. Hamilton privately before, I exchanged a few messages with him to follow-up on my previous attempts to get him to examine the evidence in a public forum.
Due to the critical nature of this question, I'm posting the exchanges here for the record.
Author and activist Don Paul has written an introduction to my final article on Demolition Access to the WTC. It's entitled "Good Riddance to the Big Lie: Kevin Ryan’s ‘Demolition Access …’ Lights the Shadows." This can be found can be found at PuppetGov, along with related media, and also at 911review.com
Here's an excerpt.
"Who could have committed so awful a crime? So calculated and cold-blooded a crime? Why? And what more might they do? What more might they do to everyday people such as ourselves? Now that we know, what can we do?
Contemplation of what the fact of the three World Trade Buildings’ demolition means may be as unsettling to one’s gut as were the shocks that we suffered in the first hours of ” ‘9/11′". Fear of what the fact means may be as premeditated and vital a part of the the Rule of Terror as any other part of this vast, complex and ongoing psychological-operation."
Careful investigation leads one to notice that a number of intriguing groups of people and organizations converged on the events of September 11th, 2001. An example is the group of men who were members of Cornell University’s Quill & Dagger society. This included Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Advisors Sandy Berger and Stephen Hadley, Marsh & McLennan executive Stephen Friedman, and the founder of Kroll Associates, Jules Kroll. Another interconnected group of organizations is linked to these Cornell comrades, and is even more interesting in terms of its members being integral to the events of 9/11, and having benefited from those events.
After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC), a company called Stratesec (or Securacom) was responsible for the overall integration of the new security system designed by Kroll Associates. Stratesec had a small board of directors that included retired Air Force General James Abrahamson, Marvin Bush (the brother of George W. Bush) and Wirt Walker III, a cousin of the Bush brothers. Other directors included Charles Archer, former Assistant Director in charge of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, and Yousef Saud Al Sabah, a member of the Kuwaiti royal family.
Here is the highly redacted intinerary of Pakistani ISI general Mahmud Ahmed, from his visit to Washington D.C. the week of 9/11. It was received last year via FOIA request by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington.
Apparently Ahmed's activity that week included meetings with the following people or groups.
Unidentified representative(s) from The State Department
Unidentified representative(s) from The National Security Council
Peter Rodman, PNAC member and former assistant to Henry Kissinger
The Direcor of the DIA (at the time - Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson, who was briefed on Able Danger in March 2001)
Senator Bob Graham, who with Porter Goss would lead the Joint Inquiry into 9/11
Rep.Porter Goss, who would lead Joint Inquiry with Graham and then become CIA Director
General Tommy Franks, CENTCOM Commander
Paul Wolfowtiz, PNAC member and Deputy Secretary of Defense
Douglas Feith, decribed by Tommy Franks as "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet" (according to Franks' autobiography)
Dear Mr. Kara,
Thank you for your “Open+Letter+to+the+9-11+Working+Group+of+Bloomington.” As a member of that group, I’m glad to see you express interest in our work and I appreciate your invitation to further discuss the 9/11 Commission report in a public forum. It’s unfortunate that you’re not willing to engage in Q&A, however, as the questions are many and, to this day, the answers are very few. It is also unfortunate that you are not willing to debate the facts, because we would be happy to have you come to Bloomington for a public debate. But a dialogue of any sort is a welcome start.
Presentation by Peter Phillips, September 10, 2009 at the 9/11 Truth Film Festival
9/11 has become an American enigma. For many, 9/11 remains a puzzling, inexplicable, phenomenon that defies understanding in its complexities and misinformation. Most people doubt the full truth of the 9/11 Commission’s report, but are unable to accept that people inside the government could be so evil as to allow the deaths of 3000 Americans.
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. 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.
The Journal of 9/11 Studies has published a new paper by Dr. Frank Legge, entitled "What Hit the Pentagon?"
Here are some excerpts:
"The most logical inference from the Pentagon attack evidence is that the perpetrators of 9/11
knew that there would be many members of the public who would become suspicious for one
reason or another. The perpetrators realized that a powerful technique for weakening the
arguments of the skeptics would be to have them arguing against one another."
"There are two essential points to note:
1. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies a stand down order existed, as
appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission.
2. The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not."
A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called "Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?" Here are some excerpts.
"In the debate over the collapses of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the shaking of the earth that accompanied these collapses has played an important role. This shaking registered clearly on seismographs. Less clear, however, are its causes and the times it began. The National Institute of Standards and Technology emphasizes the role of the debris from the collapsing buildings in producing the seismic signals. In assessing NIST’s hypothesis I focus on the collapse of the South Tower and attempt to determine the time the collapse began, the time the debris from the Tower struck the ground, and the temporal relation of these events to the shaking of the earth that accompanied the collapse. I consider both the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s seismic evidence and the evidence provided by a less studied form of seismic instrument, the video camera. I also draw on witness testimony. I conclude that key statements by NIST are false. Major shaking of the earth, and corresponding seismic signals, started well before the debris hit the ground. In fact, it seems certain that the shaking of the earth started before visible signs of building collapse. This evidence is incompatible with the official NIST hypothesis of the cause of the collapse of the Towers."
Thanks to Professor MacQueen for this interesting new work, and for his other great papers at the journal.