The 9/11 Commission Claims That “We Found No Evidence”

November 6, 2011

by Kevin Ryan    source: UL Truth      Nov 5th, 2011

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.”

The number of times these “no evidence” disclaimers appear in the report is doubly amazing considering how infrequently some of the most critical witnesses and evidence are referenced. For example, the FAA’s national operations manager, Benedict Sliney, who was coordinating the FAA’s response that day, appears only once in the narrative (and twice in the notes). And the FAA’s hijack coordinator, Michael Canavan, appears only twice in the narrative, with neither of those citations having anything to do with Canavan’s assigned role as the key link between the military and the FAA, a role whose failure the Commission says caused the attacks to succeed. Similarly, the testimony of FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who says Bin Laden worked with the U.S. government up until the day of the attacks, is mentioned only once in the notes. William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor who has publicly testified to basement level explosions, is not mentioned at all despite having given testimony to the Commission.

It seems a good idea to look more closely at the instances in which the attorneys, myth experts and military intelligence operatives who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report said that they did not find evidence. Here are a few of the most interesting examples.

  • We found no evidence, however, that American Airlines sent any cockpit warnings to its aircraft on 9/11.” p11
  • Concerning the hypothesis that one of the alleged hijackers was sitting in the cockpit jump seat since takeoff on Flight 93: “We have found no evidence indicating that one of the hijackers, or anyone else, sat there on this flight.” p12
  • Within minutes of the second WTC impact, Boston Center asked the FAA Command Center (Benedict Sliney’s team) to advise aircraft to heighten cockpit security, but the Commission said: “We have found no evidence to suggest that the Command Center acted on this request or issued any type of cockpit security alert.” p23
  • With respect to requests to warn aircraft to heighten cockpit security — “While Boston Center sent out such warnings to the commercial flights in its sector, we could find no evidence that a nationwide warning was issued by the ATC system.” p455

These first four examples highlight the little discussed fact that the 9/11 Commission did not explain how any of the alleged hijackers entered the cockpits of any of the four hijacked planes.

Read the rest of this entry »


Experiments with Nano-Thermite by Kevin Ryan

July 24, 2011

Nor Cal Truth    July 24, 2011

In this recently uploaded video by Kevin Ryan:

Scientific evidence for thermitic materials at the World Trade Center is discussed, and an experiment in production and ignition of nanothermite is performed.

Jonathan Cole made a video a while back that displayed thermite’s destructive potential specifically to steel. By directing and concentrating the direction of the combustion, he was able to cut through steel with some ease.


The Explosive Nature of Nanothermite

June 24, 2011

The explosive nature of nanothermite

By Kevin Ryan   source: Dig Within    June 24, 2011

In the last few years, a series of peer-reviewed scientific articles has been published that establish the presence of thermitic materials at the World Trade Center (WTC). [A-D]

Although we know that nanothermite has been found in the WTC dust, we do not know what purpose it served in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It could be that the nanothermite was used simply to drive fires in the impact zones and elevator areas – fires which would otherwise have gone out too early or not been present at all – and thereby create the deception that jet fuel-induced fires could wreak the havoc seen. Nanothermite might also have been used to produce the explosions necessary to destroy the structural integrity of the buildings.

Nanothermite, also called superthermite, is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nanothermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent that are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. Such nano-energetics are produced for various applications including propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

There are various ways to make nanothermites. They can be made as solid mixtures of aluminum and metal oxides which are typically produced using techniques like dynamic vapor phase condensation and arrested reactive milling. These mixtures are much like typical thermite mixtures, but with the components introduced on a much smaller scale. Alternatively, nanothermites can be made in a liquid solution that later gels, capturing the reactive components in an intimately mixed composite which is dried before it can be ignited. These are called sol-gel nanothermites, also known more generally as energetic nanocomposites.

Read the rest of this entry »


Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11: The Wall Street Lawyer and the Special Ops Hijack Coordinator

April 27, 2011

by  Kevin Ryan    source: 9/11 Blogger     April 27, 2011

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 in 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).”[1]

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. “ 

The hijack coordinator would then “contact the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center (NMCC)” and “the NMCC would then seek approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance.  If approval was given, the orders would be transmitted down NORAD’s chain of command [to the interceptor pilots].”[2]

Read the rest of this entry »


The Evolution of the Fire-based Theory for Building 7 by Kevin Ryan

April 15, 2011

source: 9/11 Blogger    April 15, 2011

“Investigate Building 7 “, the Univ. of Hartford, W. Hartford, Ct 3/26/11

The Second in A Three-part Presentation: “The Case for a New Building 7 Investigation”
Introduction and Commentary by Dr. William Pepper

This presentation will examine the attempts by government-sanctioned investigations to provide a theory for the fire-induced, non-explosive destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. In particular, the presentation will cover the process of investigation conducted by NIST and the final explanation given by NIST for initiation of collapse. NIST’s concept of fire-based collapse initiation will be scrutinized in light of the publicly available evidence.


Guns and Butter – “Demolition Access To the World Trade Center Towers” with Kevin Ryan

January 13, 2011

Nor Cal Truth     Jan 13, 2010

Guns and Butter show, 1/12/11 - “Demolition Access To the World Trade Center Towers” with Kevin Ryan.

This is a great show by the one-and-only Bonnie Faulkner of KPFA’s Guns and Butter program!

From the Guns and Butter show description:

WTC tenants, both companies and employees; security and design firms and their board members involved in redesigning and implementing the new security system after the 1993 basement bombing; companies and individuals involved in the clean-up of ground zero. Who had the means, access, motivation and who profited.

To open the show in a Windows Media Player format please click here. Or click the link below:

http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20110112-Wed1300.mp3

To visit the KPFA show archive and listen to it there, click below:

http://kpfa.org/archive/id/66755

Download this clip (mp3, 10.27 megabytes)


The Psychological Implications of 9/11 by Laurie Manwell

January 3, 2011

source: 9/11 Blogger        1/3/11

The Psychological Implications of 9/11 Presented by Laurie Manwell

Peace Through Truth

Part 1 of 6

Part 2 of 6

Read the rest of this entry »


Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11

November 21, 2010

by Kevin Ryan    source: Foreign Policy Journal Nov 21, 2010

Just after September 11th 2001, many governments began investigations into possible insider trading related to the terrorist attacks of that day.  Such investigations were initiated by the governments of Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United States, and others.  Although the investigators were clearly concerned about insider trading, and considerable evidence did exist, none of the investigations resulted in a single indictment.  That’s because the people identified as having been involved in the suspicious trades were seen as unlikely to have been associated with those alleged to have committed the 9/11 crimes.

This is an example of the circular logic often used by those who created the official explanations for 9/11.  The reasoning goes like this: if we assume that we know who the perpetrators were (i.e. the popular version of “al Qaeda”) and those who were involved in the trades did not appear to be connected to those assumed perpetrators, then insider trading did not occur.

That’s basically what the 9/11 Commission told us.  The Commission concluded that “exhaustive investigations” by the SEC and the FBI “uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.”  What they meant was that someone did profit through securities transactions but, based on the Commission’s assumptions of guilt, those who profited were not associated with those who were guilty of conducting the attacks.  In a footnote, the Commission report acknowledged “highly suspicious trading on its face,” but said that this trading on United Airlines was traced back to “A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda.”[1]

Read the rest of this entry »


September 11th and the National Debt

November 5, 2010
by Kevin Ryan     source: 9/11 Blogger    Nov 5, 2010
For the victim’s families, the costs of the September 11th attacks were incomprehensibly high. There were many other costs apart from precious human lives, however, and people often forget just how much we are all paying on an ongoing basis due to the attacks which originated the “Global War on Terror.” 
An organization linked to former CIA director James Woolsey estimated that the damages associated with the attacks were on the order of $2 trillion. Those costs included losses in property damage, lost production of goods and services, and losses on Wall Street. [1] Others have estimated the damages to be much lower, [2] and some have reported that the stock market was largely unaffected by the attacks. [3] The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation was given an amount closer to the lower estimates in order to help rebuild the immediate area.[4]
The current US military costs resulting from the wars that were started in response to the September 11th attacks are over $1 trillion.[5] Of course, other countries have also incurred significant costs to support the US led wars. A few years ago, mainstream media sources were estimating that the Iraq War alone would cost the US more than $3 trillion.[6] If the same logic is applied to the Afghanistan war, using the same rate, that war will cost the US at least $1 trillion. Of course, there is no end in sight for US military operations in either of these occupied countries, so these figures should be seen as minimum estimates. Additionally, these war cost estimates are called incremental costs, meaning that they are above “military salaries, training and support activities, and weapons procurement” as well as military construction.[7]
Read the rest of this entry »

We Need to Continue to Seek the Truth About 9/11

August 8, 2010

We need to continue to seek the truth about 9/11

by Kevin Ryan   source: Bloomington Herald Times  (via Visibility 9/11)  August 8, 2010

This guest column is by Kevin Ryan, a member of the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington.

Over the past three years, a group of concerned Bloomington citizens has worked to raise the public consciousness about the need for 9/11 truth. These folks are sometimes called “conspiracy theorists” because they do not believe the official version of events. Once people get by their initial reactions to 9/11 questioning, however, much can be learned in the process.

To begin with, we all understand the definition of a conspiracy to be a secret plan, among two or more people, to commit a crime. Yet when faced with emotionally charged events like 9/11, many of us pretend that the definition of the word has changed.

Read the rest of this entry »


Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence

December 13, 2009

source: Kevin Ryan, 9/11 Blogger

 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.[1]

Read the rest of this entry »


Top 10 Connections Between NIST and Nanothermite

October 22, 2009

source: World for 9/11 Truth

 Top 10 Connections Between NIST and Nanothermite

by Kevin R. Ryan

Original paper available here (PDF)

Note: for better readability, we have removed important references to this online version of the paper. The original published version contains several pages of  references.

“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? … NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11. But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials. Read the rest of this entry »


Response to 9/11 Commission Staff Member Miles Kara

October 8, 2009

source: 9/11 Blogger

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.

For six years now, I’ve been focused on the work of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the ongoing independent investigation into what happened at the World Trade Center (WTC). The WTC reports finally generated by NIST have been shown to be dismally weak, highly inconsistent, and completely false. Frankly the NIST reports are a shameful excuse for science. Add to this the independent discovery of explosive residues in the WTC dust, which NIST did not test for or even consider, and we must suspect that a cover-up has been intended with regard the events of 9/11.

Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 99 other followers