911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news. Blog posts are the responsibility of the poster. Readers are encouraged to check the facts, debate, and form their own conclusions.
Kevin Ryan's blog
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.