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. 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.
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:
February 24, 2012
By Kevin Ryan
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. 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.
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.
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.”
(Now with updated video)
A look at Popular Mechanics and its failed defense of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Tonight, Pacifica Radio (KPFA) is hosting the second radio debate between architect Richard Gage, AIA, and physicist Dave Thomas in New York City. Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff, directors and editors of Project Censored, will moderate.
Pacifica is the oldest public radio network in the U.S. Project Censored, housed at Sonoma State University and now in its 35th year, has been referred to by the Los Angeles Times as “offering devastating evidence of the dumbing-down of mainstream news in America”; as “one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcasting outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism” by Walter Cronkite and as “a terrific resource” by Library Journal.
Physicist Dave Thomas will once again attempt to juggle the discrepancies in the official 9/11 story
Sunday, August 28, 2011
This guest blog is from Kevin Ryan, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Kevin's personal blog can be found at Dig Within.
Recent developments among supporters of the US government’s version of events indicate that they plan to begin blaming Saudi Arabia for the attacks of September 11, 2001. There is, in fact, much evidence suggesting complicity by some elements within the Saudi government. But that fact only further implicates western powers due to the close relationship between the Saudi royal family, which runs the Saudi government, and deep state controlling interests that have partnered with and manipulated the Saudi royal family for many decades. Blaming Saudi Arabia would, however, make a lot of sense if seizing resources, including the world’s greatest oil reserves, was what the war on terror has always been about.
Setting the Stage for Historic Hearings in Toronto
Written by Mike Bondi, PEng - AE911Truth.org
“The media will have to examine this,” says Adnan Zuberi. “They can’t just dismiss it.”
To capitalize on the strategic importance of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the International Center for 9/11 Studies ( http://www.ic911studies.org/ ) is sponsoring a four-day set of hearings, September 8-11, at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada. Officially called “The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001”, this historic gathering of panelists, expert witnesses, and numerous key figures in the 9/11 truth movement is being more commonly referred to as the “Toronto Hearings" ( http://torontohearings.org/ ). Focusing primarily on the scientific forensic and other evidence and eyewitness testimony, with emphasis on the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises, the Hearings will identify some of the best evidence regarding the events of 9/11, thus encouraging and enabling national and/or international legal agencies to pursue formal investigations.
Thanks to RLMcGee for sending this:
James Corbett speaks to Kevin Ryan about the Toronto Hearings:
An excerpt from that interview will also be played in the next episode of my podcast (#197) which will be released Saturday August 27th which will deal with various 9/11 10th anniversary events.
Kevin Ryan will be on NPR Thursday, August 25th, at 10 am ET (7 am PST). Unfortunately they have recently reduced his air time from one hour down to 10-minutes. He will be the only 9/11 skeptic on this 2-hour show about 9/11 skeptics. Instead, they will have Jim Meigs from Popular Mechanics and Johnathan Kay starting at 10 am ET. The show is called 'On Point.' http://onpoint.wbur.org
Call-in number: 1-800-423-8255
The author is indebted to the good people at History Commons for their “Complete 9/11 Timeline.” If a reference is not evident below, it can probably be found there.
A recent interview with former “Counterterrorism Czar,” Richard Clarke, is making a splash in the alternative media. In this interview, Clarke speculates about CIA malfeasance related to the pre-9/11 monitoring of two alleged September 11 hijackers. This interview is somewhat interesting due to Clarke’s vague suggestion that the CIA had courted 9/11 suspects as sources, but it is far more interesting for what was not said with regard to Clarke’s personal history and associations.
Here's a new video in which The NIST World Trade Center report for the Twin Towers is examined and shown to be false and unscientific.
Uploaded by DK1Ryan on Aug 14, 2011
Three years ago, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) put out another episode in its ongoing “Conspiracy Files” series of programs. This series has covered many issues of public concern about government reports on inexplicable events, including the Lockerbie bombing, the 7/07 London bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the mysterious death of microbiologist David Kelly. In every single case, the BBC program concludes that there was nothing to worry about, that the official reports are correct, and that citizens should just go about their business and trust the government.
The 2008 episode was a second such program covering the events of 9/11, this one focused specifically on World Trade Center (WTC) building 7. It was entitled “The Third Tower” and surprised millions of people around the world by stating that the mystery surrounding the collapse of that 47-story building, which fell into its own footprint in 7 seconds, had finally been solved. The BBC told us that the US government investigators would soon put all our minds to rest regarding this inexplicable event. That was far from the truth, however, as this earlier blog post makes clear.
In 2008, I had the opportunity to view a re-run of this program on the internet. After doing so, I wrote to the program’s producer, Mike Rudin, offering suggestions for improvement prior to the revision of the program for world-wide consumption. The letter I wrote is below. Rudin must have been impressed as he asked to speak with me on the phone and we did so later for about 30-minutes. Basically, he is a very nice propagandist who is not willing to address the facts or correct his mistakes.
This year, for the tenth anniversary, the BBC and Mike Rudin are planning another episode on 9/11. Unfortunately, it is not expected to be an apology for the BBC’s promotion of war and societal destruction through promotion of the official conspiracy theories. Instead, word on the street is that BBC will attempt to smear and discredit professor Niels Harrit, whose paper on nanothermite found in the WTC dust has gone unanswered in the mainstream scientific literature for two and a half years. BBC has interviewed at least one known disinformation specialist for the purpose, and has once again declined my offer to help.
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. “