Presentation by Kevin Ryan From Chicago Conference - Video Download

Kevin Ryan gave a presentation on Sunday at the Chicago conference. I actually learned a couple of things I was previously unaware of, specifically involving the scientists who worked on both the FEMA, NIST, and Oklahoma City Bombings investigations - and comments they made about the collapses immediately after the events took place. Also, Ryan reviewed the FEMA, NIST, and Silverstein investigations into the World Trade Center collapses proving quite easily that there is no 'obvious' explanation as all three investigations varied tremendously.

For those unfamiliar with Kevin Ryan, here is a brief clip from his Wikipedia entry:

Kevin Ryan is a former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a subsidiary of Underwriters Labs(UL) responsible for water testing. He was fired after publicly challenging UL's conclusions regarding the collapse of the WTC.

Ryan said that in the WTC towers case, UL was the company that certified the steel used in construction of the two towers. However the company's spokesman Paul M. Baker stated "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center".

Ryan has responded to the UL statement, noting that it directly contradicts statements made by UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch

It should also be noted that Kevin Ryan provided further background information on his involvement with Underwriters Laboratories as well.

Please keep in mind that there will be much better copies of all presentations from the Chicago conference in the coming days and weeks, however this recording of mine seemed good enough to share for those interested in getting a first look.

Again, please refer to the regulations here if you intend to make use of this video for other purposes

Thank you! This is the crux

Thank you! This is the crux issue everyones always trying to steer us away from.

Being from OKC...knowing the

Being from OKC...knowing the reports written about the OKC bombing and the WTC bombing is great infoÂ…who knows if his powerpoint will be available?

no tall buildings have ever

no tall buildings have ever collapsed?? what the hell is that supposed to mean? how vague can you get? it begs the question as to what you define as "tall"...very sloppy remark from Mr. Ryan - very unscientific and sloppy

everyone should see this

everyone should see this video, and mr ryan should write up his conclusions in a document for the web. this is a thorough refutation of the govt tests.

Anonymous: Great criticism.

Anonymous: Great criticism. Really. Very good. Very to the point. You totally debunked everything from Kevin Ryan. Thank you for a good job, exposing him.

YOU FU..... MO... GO AND DI..

Go back and hide under the rock you came from. Im so tired of you assholes and your whole perception totaly fucked up by cognitive dissonans.

The sound could have been

The sound could have been better. But I enjoyed this presentation by Mr. Ryan.

It would be nice to have an interactive flash player presentation online to view close-ups of the information presented on the screen during Mr. Ryan's presentation.

There's an interactive flash player presentation online of Mr. Jones's February 1st, 2006, "Why Indeed Did The WTC Collapse?" presentation at Utah Valley State College [ ].

If anyone here knows how to go about creating something like that, of Mr. Ryan's presentation in Chicago, please contact Mr. Ryan and inquire as to whether he will make his presentation information shown on the screen available for such a project.

Thanks for posting this video, 911Blogger.

His presentation was

His presentation was fantastic. If one wants to quibble, he should have said steel-framed, high-rise building instead of tall. Funny how these people don't have a problem with the 9/11 Commission neglecting WTC 7, called the cores of the Towers steel shafts or all of the nonsense NIST tried to pull.

Thanks for the feedback, and

Thanks for the feedback, and for posting this so quickly.

Note that I was using the common definition, used by NIST and others, of tall buildings as being those over 20 stories. Since essentially all such buildings are steel-framed, the redundant phrase "tall steel-framed buildings" is not generally used.

Look for slides posted soon, and maybe another video.

Thanks. Kevin

Thanks for clearly that up

Thanks for clearly that up Kevin. Again, your prersentation was the highlight for me and many others.

Again, please refer to the

Again, please refer to the regulations here if you intend to make use of this video for other purposes

I'd mirror it but can't check the regulations because the link is broken:

What would it say about mirroring if it were working?