Support 911Blogger


Kevin Ryan

More anniversary letters at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

At the Journal of 9/11 Studies, we are sharing a set of 11th anniversary letters.  There are now a total of nine such letters, from the contributors described below.
 
William Pepper is a U.S. attorney and British barrister who has represented governments and prominent people around the world. He was a friend of Martin Luther King and later represented the King family in a wrongful death civil trial. The jury took less than an hour to find in favor of the King family. 
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He has written books that highlight the historical relationship between the U.S. government and Al Qaeda. 
Lee McKenna is a Canadian trainer and activist, preacher, musician and writer.  She is principal of Partera International and works in war zones leading training in third-party non-violent intervention. 
Ferdinando Imposimato is the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy and a former Senator who served on the Anti-Mafia Commission. He is the author or co-author of seven books on international terrorism, state corruption, and related matters, and a Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy. 

Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports?

Posted on by Kevin Ryan

What changes have been made as a result of the World Trade Center (WTC) investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)?  Are tall buildings around the world safe from the risk of global collapse due to fire as described by the official explanations?

In 2008, NIST began claiming that its investigation would help ensure the safety of future buildings.  NIST said that such buildings “should be increasingly resistant to fire, more easily evacuated in emergencies, and safer overall” as a result of the WTC investigation.  Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, the Bush Administration cabinet member in charge of NIST at the time, said –

The lessons learned from the tragic events of 9/11 have yielded stronger building and fire codes for a new generation of safer, more robust buildings across the nation.” [1]

Is this true?  If so, we should be able to see improvements being made to the design and construction processes for tall buildings around the world.  We should also expect that existing buildings would be evaluated for design problems and retrofitted in an urgent manner to ensure that fires do not bring buildings crashing down as they did on 9/11, killing thousands of unsuspecting victims.

Unfortunately, there are no signs that such design evaluations and retrofit projects have occurred. This is a strong indication that the international building community has not taken the NIST WTC reports seriously.

Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects

Posted on
By Kevin Ryan

The Wall Street Journal recently commented on the upcoming military trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM).  The article claimed that KSM and four other terrorists were somehow making a mockery of the U.S. justice system by trying to “use the open military trial to promote jihad and discredit American institutions, including the military system of justice.”[1]  Unsuspecting readers might think that an “open military trial” would actually be less reflective of American institutions than the (actually open) civil trial requested for KSM by many of the 9/11 victims’ families.  But the more important question is – are the right terrorists being brought to trial?

That question is not welcome in polite conversation.

For example, last August I was invited to appear on National Public Radio (NPR) to discuss the lasting phenomenon of 9/11 skepticism.  The show’s regular host was replaced by a woman who had clearly made up her mind about the subject.  Ironically, throughout the show she made snide comments about “conspiracy theorists” when referring to the millions of people who don’t believe the official conspiracy theory.  Her other guests, from the Hearst Corporation and Canada’s National Post, joined her in using some variation of this phrase every thirty seconds during the hour long show.  As the sole representative of 9/11 skeptics, I was allowed five minutes to speak until it was clear the conversation was not going as intended.[2]

From renovation to revolution: Was the Pentagon attacked from within?

Posted on

I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.”  Donald Rumsfeld, September 10, 2001

The official account of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 leaves many questions unanswered.[1]  The work of independent investigators has also failed to address those questions. In an attempt to find answers, an alternative account of the Pentagon attack is considered.

An alternative account would be more compelling than the official account if it explained more of the evidence without adding unnecessary complications.  Considering means, motive and opportunity might allow us to propose a possible “insider conspiracy” while maintaining much of the official account as well.

A few of the more compelling unanswered questions are as follows.

  1. How could American Airlines Flight 77 have hit the building as it did, considering that the evidence shows the alleged hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, was a very poor pilot?[2]
  2. Why did the aircraft make a 330-degree turn just minutes before hitting the building?
  3. Why did the aircraft hit the least occupied one-fifth of the building that was the focus of a renovation plan and how was it that the construction in that exact spot just happened to be for the purpose of minimizing the damage from a terrorist explosion?[3]
  4. Why was the company that performed the renovation work, just for that one-fifth of the building, immediately hired in a no bid contract to clean-up the damage and reconstruct that area of the building?  (Note: The same company was also immediately hired to clean-up the WTC site within hours of the destruction there.)[4]
  5. What can explain the damage to the building and the aircraft debris or lack thereof?
  6. Why were the tapes from the surveillance videos in the area immediately confiscated by the FBI and never released?

These questions should be considered along with the fact that U.S military and “Homeland Security” expenditures since the 9/11 attacks have totaled approximately $8 trillion.[5]  This paints a picture that calls for an in-depth investigation into the people running the Pentagon, to see if they might have had the motivation and ability to plan and execute the attack.

Do we need another 9/11 conspiracy theory?

By Kevin Ryan
Posted on

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were a turning point in world history. We have been told that these attacks were planned and implemented by nineteen Arab Muslim hijackers under the direction of the leaders of al Qaeda. According to the official account, this criminal conspiracy received no help or funding from any government.

Unfortunately, this explanation fails to address a majority of the evidence and leaves most of the critical questions unanswered.[1] In fact, the reports that constitute the official account do so little to explain what happened that it is possible that, to this day, we know very little about who was behind the attacks. That fact is alarming to many people, given that so much war and unprecedented change has been driven by the official account.

On closer inspection, the 9/11 Commission Report provides only 90 pages of discussion about what actually happened on the day of 9/11, found in chapters 1 and 9 of the report. The remainder of the report is devoted to promoting a myth behind the organization called al Qaeda, and suggesting what to do about it.

Occupy Interview Radio with Kevin Ryan Occupy 9/11

April 25, 2012

Kevin is a chemistry laboratory manager with twenty-two years of professional experience. Through his work as Site Manager for the environmental testing division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), he began to investigate the tragedy of September 11th, 2001. Ryan was fired by UL, in 2004, for publicly asking questions about UL’s testing of the structural materials used to construct the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings as well as UL’s involvement in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Listen here

Kevin Ryan
Website: http://digwithin.net/
http://occupybuilding7.org/

9/11 as sequel to Iran-Contra: Armitage, Carlucci and friends

By Kevin Ryan
Posted on

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are among the leading suspects in the crimes of September 11, 2001.  Reasons for this include that they were in the most powerful positions in the U.S. that day, that there is evidence they had foreknowledge of the attacks, and that they did not respond effectively.  Other people who were closely associated with Dick and Don should also be investigated if they were in positions to be involved.  Richard Armitage and Frank Carlucci are two such people.  They both played important roles with respect to the events of September 11, 2001 and, prior to that, both had a colorful history of covert operations which intertwined and was aligned with the careers of Dick and Don.  Armitage and Carlucci both also benefited from the War on Terror by way of profits made after the attacks.

For the twelve years prior to the attacks, Frank Carlucci ran the Carlyle Group, an investment firm with close ties to the most powerful members of the Reagan and Bush I administrations, and to the Saudi Arabian oil industry.  The two major operating subsidiaries of that company were BDM international, for which Carlucci was chairman, and the Vinnell Corporation.  Working for Carlucci at BDM from 1989 to 1996 was its vice president, Barry McDaniel, who left to become the Chief Operating Officer for a an alarmingly suspicious company.  That was Stratesec, the security company that had contracts for so many of the facilities associated with the 9/11 attacks.

On September 11, 2001, Carlucci was meeting with Carlyle investors at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, DC, along with the brother of Osama bin Laden.[1]  Former president George H.W. Bush had been meeting with them the previous day.  Today, McDaniel is business partners with one of Dick Cheney’s closest former colleagues, Bruce Bradley, whose business partner Alan Woods is mentioned below.[2]

Terror Trading 9/11

“Terror Trading 9/11“ by Lars Schall and Michael Leitner is a video dedicated to the topic of the alleged informed trading activities prior to the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001. Funded through "Pirate My Film”, it shows interviews with Max Keiser, Kevin Ryan and Michael C. Ruppert.

By Lars Schall


http://youtu.be/_J3qyDQU7ic

For further information read “Insider Trading 9/11…The Facts Laid Bare” at ASIA TIMES ONLINE under:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html

Kevin Ryan on the Call for 9/11 Transparency

Prolific 9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan of the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington joins The Corbett Report to discuss his recent article, “Secret Service Failures on 9/11: A Call for Transparency.” He outlines some of the unusual behaviours displayed by the secret service on 9/11 and points out discrepancies in the 9/11 timeline. We also discuss the Toronto Hearings on 9/11 which took place last year on the 10th anniversary of the events, a DVD of which is now available+for+purchase.

Listen to the interview:
http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/2012-04-05%20Kevin%20Ryan.mp3

Secret Service Failures on 9/11: A Call for Transparency

Posted on by WashingtonsBlog

Guest Post by Kevin Ryan, former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time, remain unanswered by UL or NIST.

The U.S. Secret Service failed to do its job on September 11, 2001 in several important ways. These failures could be explained if the Secret Service had foreknowledge of the 9/11 events as they were proceeding. That possibility leads to difficult questions about how the behavior of Secret Service employees might have contributed to the success of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Answering those questions will require the release of existing interview transcripts as well as follow-up questioning, under oath, of a few key people within the agency.

The most glaring example of Secret Service failure on 9/11 was the lack of protection for the President of the United States after it was well known that the country was facing terrorist attacks on multiple fronts.The interesting thing about this was that it was not a consistent approach. That is, the president was protected by the Secret Service in many ways that day but he was not protected from the most obvious, and apparently the most imminent, danger.

President Bush had been at risk earlier that morning when Middle-Eastern looking journalists appeared at his hotel in Sarasota, Florida claiming to have an appointment for an interview.A Secret Service agent turned them away in a move that might have saved Bush from an assassination attempt. [1]

Bush then traveled to an elementary school for a community outreach photo opportunity which had been well-publicized for several days. It was reported that “Police and Secret Service Agents were on the roof, on horseback and in every hallway” at the school. [2]Every visitor at the school was required to attend a preparation meeting two days before, and all the phone lines had been tapped.The school’s principal stated – “It was the safest place in the world. If you blew your nose and it wasn’t time for you to blow your nose, they knew it.” [3]

Muslims did not attack the U.S. on 9/11

http://digwithin.net/2012/03/17/muslims-did-not-attack-the-u-s-on-911/

Muslims did not attack the U.S. on 9/11
Posted on March 17, 2012 by Kevin Ryan

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has initiated a number of wars in Muslim countries. These wars, which would be more correctly called massacres, have resulted in the deaths of countless innocent Muslims. In some cases, attempts have been made to present these aggressions in the guise of humanitarian efforts to promote democracy. But the limited public support for U.S. military action around the world goes back to the U.S. government claim that Muslims were responsible for 9/11. This claim is untrue and it is past time for people to recognize that fact.

There are many ways to see that Muslims were not responsible for 9/11. Author David Ray Griffin has previously made arguments in this regard.[1] As time goes on, however, more facts lead people to realize that claims of Muslim responsibility for terrorism in the U.S. should be highly suspect. These facts include that the October 2001 anthrax attacks were blamed on Muslims only to be later traced to a U.S. military facility and to non-Muslim, U.S. scientists. Moreover, a number of FBI-planned acts of terrorism since 2001 have been falsely attributed to young Muslims who were victims of appalling acts of entrapment by the FBI.[2]

According to the official account of 9/11, nineteen young Arab Muslims were responsible for the entirety of the mass murder that day. The FBI accused these young men within 72 hours of the attacks and, although the list changed slightly at first, it has remained the same since shortly after the attacks. To support the accusations, U.S. authorities pointed to passports that were found under implausible circumstances, luggage containing unbelievably convenient documents, and other dubious evidence.

'9/11: What Really Happened and Why?' Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan Present to Nation of Islam Saturday, Feb. 25

Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Kevin Ryan, editor for the Journal of 9/11 Studies will make presentations for the Nation of Islam on Saturday, February 25 / 10 AM at the Rosemont Convention Center in Chicago. This speaking engagement coincides with the Savior's Day activities running from Feb. 24-26.

"Let us separate fact from fiction, rhetoric from reality, and FINALLY challenge the official story of who committed this horrific crime. Compelling evidence will be revealed that 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB."

Here's a link to the program and an opportunity to watch live:
http://www.noi.org/sd2012/911Truth/

KuwAm and Stratesec: Directors and investors that link 9/11 to a private intelligence network

Posted on

The Kuwaiti-American Corporation (KuwAm), parent company of World Trade Center (WTC) security company Stratesec, had some interesting links to royalty in both Iran and Kuwait.  Some of the company’s directors also had connections to U.S. intelligence agencies and at least one was associated with the CIA-funded terrorist financing network that included BCCI.  Through these links we can see that the origins of the War on Terror are related to the origins of the first Gulf War, and to a private network of covert operatives that stretches back for generations.

After the 1993 bombing, a company called Stratesec was responsible for the overall integration of the new WTC security system.  In the few years leading up to 9/11, Stratesec also had contracts to provide security services for United Airlines, which owned two of the planes that were destroyed on 9/11, and Dulles Airport where American Airlines Flight 77 took off.

Stratesec’s board of directors included Marvin Bush, the brother of George W. Bush, and Wirt Dexter Walker III, a distant relative of the Bush brothers.[1]  Marvin Bush joined the board of Stratesec after meeting members of the Al Sabah family on a trip to Kuwait with his father in April 1993.  During this trip, the Kuwaiti royals displayed enormous gratitude to the elder Bush for having saved their country from Saddam Hussein only two years earlier.

But the Bush-Kuwaiti connection went back much farther, to 1959, when the Kuwaitis helped to fund Bush’s start-up company, Zapata Off-Shore.  As a CIA business asset during this time, Bush and his company worked directly with the anti-Castro Cuban groups in Miami before and after the Bay of Pigs invasion.[2]

The Small World of 9/11 Players: LS2, Vidient and AMEC

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.[1] 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.”[2] 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.[3]

The 9/11 Commission claims that “we found no evidence”

Posted on by ultruth

When Underwriters Laboratories fired me for challenging the World Trade Center (WTC) report that it helped create with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), it said “there is no evidence” that any firm performed the required fire resistance testing of the materials used to build the Twin Towers. Of course, that was a lie.

With this experience in mind, I checked to see how many times the 9/11 Commission Report used the phrase “no evidence,” and noted in particular the times the Commission claimed to have “found no evidence” or that “no evidence was uncovered.”  I discovered that the phrase “no evidence” appears an amazing 63 times.  An example is the dubious statement — “There is no evidence to indicate that the FAA recognized Flight 77 as a hijacking until it crashed into the Pentagon (p 455).”

Of these 63 instances, some variation of “we found no evidence” appears three dozen times.  This seems to be an unusually high number of disclaimers begging ignorance, given that the Commission claims to have done “exacting research” in the production of a report that was the “fullest possible accounting of the events of September 11, 2001.”