Visibility911 Welcomes Kevin Ryan, Journal of 9/11 Studies May 17th 2010

Kevin Ryan Returns to Visibility 9-11

Interview by John Bursill

It is a great pleasure to welcome back our regular guest Kevin Ryan to the Visibility 9-11 Podcast. Kevin is arguably the hardest working and most prolific scientific author within the 9/11 Truth Community!

In this show we ask Kevin to look back at the investigative work he and his peers have carried out for the Journal of 9/11 Studies of which he is a Co-Editor and leading author. There are simply too many topics covered in this interview to mention them all here in the notes. Highlights include Kevin’s work on discovering who had access to the Towers, his recent correspondence with 9/11 Commission Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton and we also ask Kevin, “who did 9/11?”

Kevin Ryan lost his job due to the pursuit of truth and justice for the victims of the 9/11 attacks and has dedicated his life to discovering what happened on that dreadful day and will not be stopped until justice is done.

Any that wish to be educated on all matters 9/11, listen closely to what this man
is saying!
To listen to this program, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

Thanks for posting...

It's been a real difficult and busy month for me!

I had a motorcycle crash at the end of last month and lost the use of one hand while a broken finger and a badly sprained wrist was healing. Then a few weeks later I was back into building finishing our new house in preparation for my wife's 40th the weekend just gone.

The good news is that the party was great and my injuries are nearly better, unfortunately now I have a virus and a chest infection...:(

Kind regards John

PS - This show is a little long but full of updates and interesting thoughts from Kevin!

PPS - Joe in future it's helpful if you tag names and topics covered so a search will find these notes and Podcast:)

We have some planes

Does anyone know where Kevin is coming from with his "we have some planes" argument? History Commons lists plenty of reports of it, and even has a recording of it uploaded on YouTube.

From what I gathered...

..there is no actual evidence that proves it was said? Kevin should be watching, so lets hope he can elaborate here. If not I will send him a note...

Regards John

Yes, we need the empirical evidence

...for this claim, not media reports.

I've searched through the hand written notes and personnel statements from the air traffic controllers and none of them mentions this phrase.

The air traffic controllers did mention many things that were never reported in the 9/11 Commission report, but not "We have some planes," as far as I can see.

When asked about this, the chapter's author Miles Kara said "Finally, let me speak briefly to a non-issue, 'we have some planes.' The convergence of evidence, a term with which I am sure you are familiar, is that the term from air traffic control primary sources correlates to American Air 11 and Mohammed Atta."

Yet Kara apparently cannot provide those primary sources.

As for Youtube recordings, I can't say where those might have originated.

"We have some planes" - FWIW

According to Commission MFRs, this phrase was reportedly heard but not understood by AA 11 CPC (ATC essentially) Pete Zalewski, who was in charge of AA 11; he heard a strange transmission, and called for the tape to be pulled and played back. QA guy Bob Jones listened to the tape and reported the phrase and other info to Boston Ctr Deputy Facility Mgr Terry Biggio. It appears at 8:24:38 am (12:24:38) in the Boston Ctr ATCC transcript.

A search of "We have some planes" returns these docs on the first page I would also recommend checking out the least redacted version of Pete Zalewksi's MFR (there's 2 or 3 versions) for additional interesting info on his recollection of the way events went down and were later portrayed.

In any case, there's no hard evidence (just circumstantial) the transmission came from AA 11; as it was over radio frequencies, theoretically, it could have come from other planes, or anyone with the right broadcast equipment.

Zalewski was adamant the mike was not being keyed by the pilot, which was the story in the media at the time.

What does"The mic wasn't keyed imply? How does he know this?

This seems to be significant, but I'm not sure what it implies. Is he saying that the mic on the plane wasn't keyed, or the one at ATC? Why is this important? If he means the mic on the plane, how does he know?

Zalewski, Bob Jones & an FBI agent said a hijacker keyed the mic

according to the MFRs- just to be clear, I'm not asserting that's what happened or that any of the following is true. I'm also not denying this is what happened- maybe this is what happened. I'm saying this is what these MFRs say.

I want all the documents released, and I want all these witnesses and interested parties to testify under oath, in public, in response to real questions. Too much info is still being suppressed to know what really happened, and our public servants have not been held accountable for the lack of transparency and accountability. That is intolerable in a republic.

The following are quotes from the MFRs, except for the parts in ( ) and [ ]:

He is upset about the AA 11 pilot getting a hero's credit for "keying the mike." He knows from first hand listening that the hijacker was speaking directly into the microphone. That understanding is supported by Bob Jones who listened to the tapes and then re-listened to them again in the presence of an FBI agent. According to Jones, the Agent described a man talking, even spitting, directly into the microphone. (6)

(the following was redacted from the above MFR due to "personal privacy"; compare to below; Zalewski was obviously one of the FAA people at that meeting):
He is also upset with his co-workers who did not share his sense of urgency that day, especially after the plane's transponder shut and when the first cockpit communication occurred. He knew at that moment there was big trouble and he literally screamed for assistance. He perceived his supervisor's response as slow and his request for a "D side," a radar associate to assist, as not responsive to his needs.

He wanted to get another supervisor since he did not think Schippani was taking the situation seriously (4)
Jon [Schippani, his supervisor] "had sauntered sense of emergency." (5) (Zalewski had already told him by this time that AA 11 was hijacked, and he told it was hijacked after he'd already told him it was off-course, no transponder and no radio.)

Zalewski also explained that when a transponder goes off the computer will automatically attribute a data tag with a call sign to the primary. (4)

He did not "hear" the phrase "we have some planes" at the time it was spoken. Subsequently, the "FBI didn't talk to him." (5)

Zalewski feels wronged [he didn't like Tom Brokaw's representation of his experience, among other things] and that undue heroic credit has gone to the pilot of AA11, John Olangowski. "The keying part is a myth," Zalewski said. People do not know what happened. Someone in the building had talked to the media about events and Zalewski went to the front office and said, "I want to know who did this, find him and fire his ass." (5)

He volunteered that, minus the cockpit communications, he would not have considered it to be a hijacking until much later. (6)

He said, "You see Mineta on TV saying we shut off traffic. That's not what happened." (6)

In 22 years he "never had an operational error, unusual in this building." (5)

In addition to Loose Nuke's comments

I found the "we have some planes" statement documented in 3 AWA 206 Timeline W-9030p AAL11 at 1224:38, which agrees with the notes of the 9/11 Commission Report claim the statement was recorded in "FAA audio file,Boston Center, position 46R, 8:24:38 and 8:24:56", the first listing the time as UCT and the latter as EST. That's possibly where the recording History Commons uploaded to YouTube originated, and the media reports along those lines.

That said, Kara's response to you is disturbingly scatterbrained as a whole, and with regard to that; I wouldn't trust him to clean my toilets. So, white I consider it possible that the recording was fabricated after the fact, or simply that the transmission didn't come American Air 11 and/or Mohammed Atta; I'm not rightly in a position to accept the claim of that portion of the official story being false.

On the other hand, I've no doubt that the official story of how the WTC buildings came down is flagrantly false. If could imagine otherwise, I'd be working to refine and patent the notion of fire-induced demolition to make a fortune off it, vastly undercutting the prices of those who put so much time and money into using well placed explosives to bring such structures down. However, my understanding of the laws of physics leaves me with no reason to believe such a thing is even close to physically possible, and of course neither NIST nor anyone else has come anywhere close to providing experimental conformation to prove otherwise.

Again, no empirical evidence for this statement.

We're not looking for secondary sources, which are many among the 9/11 Commission documents. To establish "We Have Some Planes", there must be an air traffic controller who recorded it and attributed it to a specific situation.

From the History Commons Timeline:
"Air traffic controller Pete Zalewski recognizes this as a foreign, Middle Eastern-sounding voice, but does not make out the specific words “we have some planes.” He responds, “Who’s trying to call me?” Seconds later, in the next transmission, the hijacker continues: “Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.” [New York Times, 10/16/2001; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; MSNBC, 9/9/2006] Bill Peacock, the FAA director of air traffic services, later claims, “We didn’t know where the transmission came from, what was said and who said it.” David Canoles, the FAA’s manager of air traffic evaluations and investigations, adds: “The broadcast wasn’t attributed to a flight. Nobody gave a flight number.” [Washington Times, 9/11/2002] Similarly, an early FAA report will state that both these transmissions came from “an unknown origin.” [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/17/2001]

Therefore, the 9/11 Commission report begins with four words that have no known origin.


As I said above; "white I consider it possible that the recording was fabricated after the fact, or simply that the transmission didn't come American Air 11 and/or Mohammed Atta; I'm not rightly in a position to accept the claim of that portion of the official story being false."

OK, no offense intended

"I didn't get a "harrumph" out of that guy!"
Governor William J. Le Petomane (in Blazing Saddles)

NYT transcript from October 2001

The "We have some planes" remark appeared for the first time in a transcript of the radio communications between Boston Center and Flight 11, published by the New York Times on 10/16/2001:

8:24:32 — 46R: Is that AAL11 trying to call.

8:24:38 — Unknown: (Unreadable) We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be O.K. We are returning to the airport.

8:24:46 — 46R: And, uh, who's trying to call me here?

8:24:53 — 46R: AAL11, are you trying to call?

8:24:57 — Unknown: Nobody move, everything will be O.K. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.

8:26:03 — 46R: DAL351, Boston center on 125.57.

8:26:08 — DAL351: 2557, DAL351.

This transcript IS the primary source, and I think it's valid. Personally, I have a hard time to believe that the Times or the source where they got the transcript from inserted the "we have some planes" remark.

Just my 2 cents.

Sourced from whom ?

The NYT article reads, "The transcripts were obtained by The New York Times ." Well yes, I would expect so, since they were published in your paper. They were obtained from whom? If the New York Times can't mention its source, then it should at least note that its source wishes to remain anonymous. To provide no source information at all is irresponsible journalism in my view, and it leaves the reliability of the information presented in question.

Hard to believe?

I would agree that the NY Times probably did not invent the information and then publish it. But we know they publish false information, and they do it in conjunction with some of the suspects we are examining.

Less than a year after this transcript was published, on September 8,2002 the NY Times published a "leaked story" in careful coordination with same day TV appearances by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others. This story, which was later found to be completely false, said that Iraq had worked to purchase aluminum tubes for the purposes of developing nuclear weapons. The story was used by Cheney and crew to show that even the "liberal media" was in full agreement of the need to go to war with Iraq.

Those seking 9/11 truth should accept only empirical data, realizing that the 9/11 operation was an intentional deception and that therefore activities to establish the deception followed closely after the events.

I don't trust the NY Times blindly

Being skeptical to the big media is always a good idea, and of course it's theoretically possible that this transcript has been redacted before it arrived at the NY Times. But I don't think that this is likely because the transcript can be cross-checked with other sources - for example, the other planes that the controller is in contact with. You can say at least that this transcript is the most direct and most timely source for the "we have some planes" remark.

Two words for those who believe the NY TIMES....

Judith Miller.

Bremmer's ties

to the Japanese company which patented a method of wireless thermitic demolition... seems especially fishy.

Most incomprehensible of all, to me at least, is how NIST can justify denying FOIA requests for their computer models on the basis of "national security."

They are a govt. agency under the Dept. of Commerce and their "scientfic models" MUST be subject to FOIA. Let's hope a GJ investigation will force this release.

Good work, Kevin.


NIST claims "public safety" as their reason for withholding what they have, which I suppose makes some sense considering the possibility that exposing their fraud to such an extent could provoke armed rebellion.

Prep school

Bremmer, the Bushes (Poppy, W, & Jeb), Libby, and Clay Johnson lll (White House Office of Management & Budget), all went to the the same prep school: Phillips Academy, Andover, though at different times. Perhaps it's just old fashioned cronyism, but it's hard to ignore this relationship. The term "cabal" come to mind. Schools of this sort provide an excellent education, and produce strong leaders in many disciplines, but like Hogwarts -Slytherins exist here along side of the Gryffindors. Winning is everything.


This interview was one of the best that I have ever heard. Kevin Ryan demonstrates that he is one of the most lucid thinkers in the Truth movement. His ability to dissect complex issues and arrive at the most pertinent point(s) involved is invaluable. His analysis of the recent internal rift about the attack on the Pentagon demonstrates the incisiveness of his reasoning ability. Keep up the excellent work, Mr. Ryan.

I have to agree Kevin is simply excellent!

"This interview was one of the best that I have ever heard."

We are so very lucky to have this man on our team!

Kindest regards John

A Reasonable Approach is the Key!

Kevin's approach is so successful because it is reasonable, and that offers the best chance at getting results. For that reason, this episode is already on track to be one of our most popular downloads. Thanks and great job to both Kevin and John!

9/11 Commission documents

Have others been reviewing the documents released by the 911 Commission? There is some interesting information there, although it needs to be reviewed critically.

Here are some of the documents that I noticed.

Deena Burnett on cell phone calls from her husband: Says she destroyed her handwritten notes and made a typed version.

FBI's "investigation" of insider trading: Stratesec mentioned, but no one involved was interviewed.

Huntress reference to phantom 11 and confirmed hijack of "special" flight Delta 1989. The handwritten notes of the ATCs (link above) also have many references to Flight 1989, which was said to be hijacked but apparently the pilot didn't know it (?).

UAL and AAL employees: Contradictions about transponders. ACARS data missing. UAL had radar continuity.

UAL crisis center: UAL 175 disappeared from radar, and was still showing at 31,000 ft when it hit WTC 2. Apparently UAL told UAL93 to beware of cockpit intrusions before the alleged hijacking, and the message was confirmed.

Many of the documents are just cover pages saying the information is still "Restricted". These include interviews of the CIA agents, Prince Bandar, and the first responders.

researchers reviewing the 9/11 records... NARA's site, and the records I scanned at NARA and uploaded to :

Kevin Fenton writes entries for, as well as articles he posts at (sometimes he crossposts here, not always)
Master list
Kevin has also written a book which will be released Aug 2010

Shoestring generally crossposted here

Others at are writing entries based on the records


Mark Gaffney has written a couple articles, but his blog seems to have been removed

Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swann are reportedly working on a book, which, among other sources, will reference the 9/11 records

And Team 8 staffer Miles Kara has an "interesting" perspective, and sometimes posts important info As it is the blog of a former Commission team member, i consider his blog to be significant in the same way the 9/11 Commission report is.


where I make extensive use of various published documents. Properly interpretated, these papers strongly suggest that 9/11 was an operation of the "Operation Northwoods" type. Planes were swapped. Recommended reading (for example): the ACARS messages to UAL 93 and UAL 175. They show that these planes were flying over places where they shouldn't, according to the official story. UAL 93 received messages when it was over Indiana and Illinois; UAL 175 was over Harrisburg.

Planes were likely not swapped

>>They show that these planes were flying over places where they shouldn't, according to the official story

Planes flying over places other than the official story doesn't amount to planes being swapped and passengers being herded into secret locations and disappeared.

Additionally, swapping and disappearing of real people requires that posts like this are just lies:

Dear Friends,
Many of you knew that [my spouse] and I and many [fellow] employees were on an 8 am flight from Boston to LA on Tuesday morning. I am happy to be alive and to be able to tell you of the events of our harrowing journey. Even though it has been only 48 hours since we departed Logan, it feels as though a lifetime has passed. [My spouse] and I and six other fellow [...] employees were on the 8 am flight from Boston to Los Angeles on Tuesday, but we were on the Delta flight [1989], the one out of three 8am flights departing Logan that did not get hijacked. Instead, we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane.

According to a Washington Post story, about 1500 human remains were recovered from Flight 93's crash site.

Lies also I suppose?

Or was FL93 maybe filled with fake people after it was swapped?

These are just a few of the many problems with the theories that planes were swapped, never existed, were actually missiles, on and on.

If you happen to look into them for even just 5 minutes the claims start to fall apart on all kinds of levels. Perhaps the most obvious aspect is how so often when evidence contradicts "no plane", "no Boeing" or "swapped planes" the advocates cry "fake" to everything: the human remains are fake, the coroners were all paid off, the DNA was stolen from a hospital morgue, the pieces of evidence that don't appear appropriately burned as we would expect (despite having never witnessed such crashes in our lives) were dropped secretly by helicopters and no one noticed, etc.

Why is it so impossible to imagine that real planes hit buildings (or were plowed directly into the dirt at hundreds of mph) with the real passengers in them who were killed on impact?

I don't get it.

The Phantom Planes Meme

ERROR: 'Flight 93 Didn't Crash in Shanksville, PA'

I don't get it

You say that the post you quoted from Gray's blog must be a lie if planes were switched on 9/11? I don't see the connection.

The post you quote simply shows that someone's plane had to land because there was a false belief that it was being hi-jacked. This situation is neither dependent on the scenario of the planes being switched or not being switched. It's a non-argument.

You then state that "according to a Washington Post story" 1,500 human remains were recovered from Flight 93's crash site. You obviously think this is strong evidence as you follow this up with a pithy "lies also I suppose", the tone of which suggesting that something printed in a newspaper could never be untrue.

I read in a paper once that all 9/11 conspiracy theories are wrong. Shall we all go home now?

The government releasing a press release making a claim which the press then repeats is essentially what modern journalism is. The Wall Street Journal itself does not have to be telling a lie when it reports something untrue; it is simply trusting it's source. Considering that we both take that source to be the prime suspect of this crime I find your stance puzzling.

Despite your first argument not making the loosest sort of sense, and your second argument being "you can always believe what you read in the papers", you then go on to promise your reader that:

"These are just a few of the many problems with the theories that planes were swapped..."

But stop tantalisingly short of providing even one.

Please tell me these other reasons are significantly more compelling than those you have already put across.

"I don't get it."

Why is it so impossible to imagine that real planes hit buildings (or were plowed directly into the dirt at hundreds of mph) with the real passengers in them who were killed on impact?

Well after what we now know about things like Operation Northwoods, pardon a few of us for being skeptical of the major tenets of the official 9/11 story...

Let's take Another Look at the Shanksville "Crash" Site

Surely there's something missing...

in that photo...

ETA: Domenick DiMaggio has done some admirable CIT style work with eyewitnesses in Shanksville. A glimpse of his work can be seen in this video short, Flight 93 Shanksville Flyover Indian Lake:

Vic is not endorsing the official story

Considering that a plane hit the Pentagon does not equal endorsing the official story, despite your attempts to spin it that way. I suppose agreeing that the events happened on September 11th is supporting the official story too? Maybe you should pick another divisive tactic, nobody is falling for this one.

Show "It's Vic's endless attacks on 9/11 evidence that are "divisive"" by Stefan
Show "Stefan, well stated!!!" by Lillyann

I agree

and would like to add that I don't appreciate it at all if researchers of the Operation Northwoods branch are branded as "no-planers" - something that Victronix and her husband like to do at every opportunity. So in this thread, too.

UAL 93 did not hit the ground intact at 40.050972,-78.904583

The evidence that UAL 93 hit the ground intact near Shanksville is nonexistent. I do believe there were innocent people on the plane which never landed safely. Nonetheless, I have doubts about the forensic evidence reported for the alleged crash site. I have been there and spoken with people in the area. All evidence is that UAL 93 was shot down, probably by a US pilot doing his duty.

Easy to show: planes were swapped

You say: Planes flying over places other than the official story doesn't amount to planes being swapped and passengers being herded into secret locations and disappeared.

First, the question what happened to passengers is completely irrelevant for the evidence that planes have been swapped - I didn't say something like this - why do you mention it then?

Second, if United 93 received an ACARS messages at 10:10 while flying over Champaign, Illinois, it is certainly not the plane - whoever it was - that had crashed down near Shanksville at 10:03, right?

Third, this duplication clearly shows that the identity of United 93 has been tampered with (which is what I mean with "swapped"), doesn't it?

I really wonder why Operation Northwoods is still so controversial in the US 9/11community. Here in Europe (and I think also in Canada) nobody has a problem with accepting Operation Northwoods as the most realistic blueprint for 9/11.

Based on the votes Woody...

It seems that it's not just the Pentagon and CIT/P4T about which some desperately want us to shut up.

I am not shutting up any time soon.

The Shanksville crash site is another big fat smelly lie just like the rest of the official story including the Pentagon. There is no plane in that hole which it seems to me there would be if flight 93 had actually crashed there.

Well Adam ***sigh***

my observation is that every person and every post tending to Operation Northwoods is unlikely to get a positive vote count here. It looks like Operation Northwoods is viewed as nasty disinformation by some people, which I honestly "don't get": Look here f.i.:

Operation Northwoods and 9/11 Misinformation

Although the Operation Northwoods documents are cleary evidence that US military officials are capable of considering plans involving the murder of US citizens in a false-flag operation blaming innocent parties, it is not evidence of how the 9/11 attack was carried out. This distinction is lost by many 9/11 theorists who cite Northwoods' envisioning of substitutions of military aircraft for civilian jetliners as evidence of plane swapping on 9/11/01. For example, the first part of the film Loose Change highlights passages from the Northwoods documents about plane substitution, while later parts assert, without evidence, that the Pentagon and Twin Towers were not hit by jetliners.