By Michael Kane, March 27, 2004
Case study: How the Commission went easy on Rumsfeld, Myers and Wolfowitz
“I had no idea hijacked airliners would be used as weapons.”
So said Rumsfeld, in his opening remarks to the Kean Commission on March 23, 2004. His final statement on the topic while under oath was, “I plead ignorance.”
Officials at NORAD have said that when the hijackings first occurred, they initially thought it was part of the Vigilant Guardian drills running that morning. Despite some confusion, once Flight 11 struck the World Trade Center at 8:45 AM, everyone should have known this was not a test.
Former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke’s testimony, one day later, was interesting, but amounted to little more than a distraction. There were more cameras on Clarke than on anyone else during the two-day national broadcast of the commission hearings. In reality, his testimony was nowhere near as interesting as the joint appearance by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Myers the day before. I do not question Clarke’s sincerity at this time, just the timing, which he did not choose. His book was released at a time chosen by the White House, and the testimony depended on the book. He had finished it well over 6 months before, but it was held up by the White House security clearance.
As a result, the book came out on the eve of Rumsfeld’s sworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission. Very clever if intentional, because it distracted everyone from two issues completely ignored by the commissioners, and overshadowed by Clarke and his book when they questioned Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:
ISSUE #1 On the morning of September 11, 2001, NORAD was running war games involving the scenario of hijacked airliners, while the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) was running a drill for the scenario of an errant aircraft crashing into a government building, at the exact same time as an identical scenario was perpetrated in reality.…Continue reading
“The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.” - Kevin Ryan
Friday, November 12, 2004
(911Truth.org news service — updated 11/13, 11/14)
An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.
In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to “do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.”
Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. This is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel’s performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company.
While Ryan’s letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses.
Gayle is deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and head of the “NIST and the WTC” team. A draft of the government agency’s final report on the WTC collapses is due in January.
Ryan copied the letter… Continue reading
Paul M. Baker Manager
Media Relations Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
Northbrook, Ill., USA
(847) 272-8800 ext. 41001
Cell: (847) 602-2828
UL Letter text:
On Nov. 11, 2004, a letter from Kevin Ryan, a former employee of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., addressed to the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), was posted on a Web site called the 9-11 Visibility Project (www.septembereleventh.org). In the letter, Mr. Ryan speculated on the causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.
Mr. Ryan wrote the letter without UL’s knowledge or authorization. Mr. Ryan was neither qualified nor authorized to speak on UL’s behalf regarding this issue. The opinions he expressed in the letter are his own and do not reflect those of Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
UL’s Fire Protection Division has assisted NIST in its investigations regarding the collapse of the WTC towers. However, Mr. Ryan was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with UL’s Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST’s request. Rather, Mr. Ryan was employed in UL’s water testing business, Environmental Health Laboratory, in South Bend, Indiana.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. fully supports NIST’s ongoing efforts to investigate the WTC tragedy. We regret any confusion that Mr. Ryan’s letter has caused 9/11 survivors, victims’ families and their friends.
From: W. David Kubiak
Subject: Re: UL’s statement regarding Kevin Ryan
Date sent: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:21:10 -0500
Dear Mr. Baker,
Thank you for the letter, but I notice that neither it or… Continue reading
By JOHN DOBBERSTEIN Tribune Staff Writer
SOUTH BEND — The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center’s twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.
Kevin R. Ryan was terminated Tuesday from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., the consumer-product safety testing giant.
On Nov. 11, Ryan wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology — the agency probing the collapse — challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc., according to Ryan, “was the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.”
Ryan wrote that last year, while “requesting information,” UL’s chief executive officer and fire protection business manager disagreed about key issues surrounding the collapse, “except for one thing — that the samples we certified met all requirements.”
UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is conducting a $16 million, two-year investigation of the collapse of the twin towers. The agency expects to issue a draft report in January, and UL has played a limited role in the investigation.
Ryan wrote that the institute’s preliminary reports suggest the WTC’s supports were probably… Continue reading
Video From KUTV Interview: Click Here
By Elaine Jarvik
The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it’s likely that there were “pre-positioned explosives” in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones’ article is titled, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation “guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.
“It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes ? which were actually a diversion tactic,” he writes. “Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all,” Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, “I don’t usually go there. There’s no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation.”
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to… Continue reading
Four years later, we still have ten big questions
by Jarrett Murphy
The Village Voice
December 5th, 2005
Posted by wdk
On Monday, December 5, the 9-11 Public Discourse Project—a private group formed by 9-11 Commission members after their official mandate lapsed in 2004—held a wrap-up press briefing in Washington, signaling the last gasp of official inquiries into the attacks four years ago. The National Institute of Standards and Technology also recently completed its final report on the twin towers. Already gathering dust are a Federal Emergency Management Agency study, the joint inquiry by Congress, the McKinsey reports on New York City’s emergency response, probes by federal inspectors general, and other efforts to resolve the myriad doubts about the hijackings.
Some questions can’t be answered: People who lost loved ones will never know exactly how the end came, if it hurt, what the final thoughts and words were. But other questions are more tractable. Here are 10 of them:
1. Where was the “National Command Authority”?
There has never been a true accounting of why the nation’s leaders were out of the loop for so long that morning. George W. Bush and his aides even have told different versions of how the president was actually informed of the first plane striking: The president claimed erroneously that he saw it on TV, while chief of staff Andrew Card said it was Karl Rove who told the president. According to the official version, after Rove told Bush, the president
talked to then… Continue reading
In The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d). This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story.
But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all.
In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded… Continue reading
The birth and life of the ’9-11 Truth movement’
by Jarrett Murphy
February 21st, 2006 11:48 AM
Essentially, it’s all about physics and common sense. Cut steel, and buildings fall. Crash a plane, and the Earth gets scarred. Fire a missile; see a hole. What’s up must come down, cause makes effect, and for the truth to set you free, it must be freed itself.
It’s dark in the basement of St. Mark’s Church and dark outside on a mid-December Sunday night, but inside they have seen the light. Among the 100 or so people in the room, many wear buttons that read “9/11 Was An Inside Job.” Others grip the vital texts in their hands — Crossing the Rubicon, The New Pearl Harbor, or 9/11 Synthetic Terror. Most in the largely (but not exclusively) white and male crowd can quote you the important passages from “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” or The 9/11 Commission Report. A few can guide you through the details of concepts like “peak oil” and pyroclastic flow. All of them suspect–and a few simply know–that their government was somehow complicit in the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans four Septembers ago.
They are watching the new edition of Loose Change, a slick, witty documentary featuring a hip soundtrack and a rapid-fire assault on nearly every aspect of the “official” story of 9-11. The work of 22-year-old filmmaker Dylan Avery, Loose Change came out last year to take its… Continue reading
“Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led
to the collapse of the World Trade Center.”–Shankar Nair, as quoted in the
Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2001
Turn on C-Span, or “Meet The Press,” or any other media program presenting federal
officials. Whatever the issue, it always comes back to the same thing. Our government
really has nothing else to offer us but protection from another 9/11. It uses
this painful story to cut public services, eliminate our basic rights, and plunder
the national coffers. But for many of us, it is not entirely clear from whom
we most need protection.1 As our debt explodes and our freedoms diminish, it
would be wise to maintain focus on the origins of our War on Terror. No matter
where this war leads us, we will need to keep the beginning in mind if we ever
hope to see an end.
The Point of Origin: The Collapse of the WTC
Many have found that the 9/11 Commission not only failed to help us understand
what happened; it also omitted or distorted most of the facts.2 But if we really
want to zero in on the exact turning point around which we plunged into chaos,
we need to focus in particular on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.
This is where our hearts were wrenched and our minds were made ready for never-ending
war, torture, and apparently the end of everything that was American.… Continue reading
by David Ray Griffin
This lecture was delivered March 30, 2006, at Grand Lake Theater in Oakland for Progressive Democrats of the East Bay. Abbreviated versions of it were given in San Francisco for the Democratic World Federalists on April 2 and the Commonwealth Club on April 3.
Although I am a philosopher of religion and theologian, I have spent most of my time during the past three years on 9/11—studying it, writing about it, and speaking about it. In this lecture, I will try to make clear why I believe this issue worthy of so much time and energy. I will do this in terms of the distinction between myth and reality.
I am here using the term “myth” in two senses. In one sense, a myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false, failing to correspond with reality.
In a deeper sense, which is employed by students of religion, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizing story for a people, a story that reminds them who they are and why they do what they do. When a story is called as a myth in this sense—which we can call Myth with a capital M—the focus is not on the story’s relation to reality but on its function. This orienting and mobilizing function is possible, moreover, only because Myths with a capital M have religious overtones. Such a Myth is a Sacred Story.
However, although to note that a story functions as a Myth… Continue reading
REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
… An outline in simple talking points …
We are continuing to compile the best documentation links for every single point on this page, and intend to post the updated version as soon as possible, and create teaching tools and more from the info. This is a significant and time-consuming process–if you have useful links, please send them to janice[at]911truth[dot]org. Thanks for your help!
If you use the search function with title key words, you will discover that 911Truth.org is home to articles backing virtually every point made below. Much of the basic research is available at the Complete 9/11 Timeline (hosted by cooperativeresearch.org), the 9/11 Reading Room (
911readingroom.org), and the NY Attorney General Spitzer petition and complaint (Justicefor911.org). For physical evidence discussion, see Point 7.
THE DAY ITSELF – EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY
1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack – George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield, Ralph Eberhart – all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.
New book: 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out
Edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott
Olive Branch Press (Interlink Books)
Pre-pub Review (more follow…)
“This is the most important book of our time. Distinguished national and international scientists and scholars present massive evidence that The 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax and that the 9/11 “terrorist attack” has been manipulated to serve a hegemonic agenda in the Middle East. The book’s call for a truly independent panel of experts to be empowered to bring out the true facts must be heeded or Americans will never again live under accountable government.” — Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration
1. 9/11, the American Empire, and Common Moral Norms
David… Continue reading
By Jim Dwyer
New York Times
September 2, 2006
Faced with an angry minority of people who believe the Sept. 11 attacks were part of a shadowy and sprawling plot run by Americans, separate reports were published this week by the State Department and a federal science agency insisting that the catastrophes were caused by hijackers who used commercial airliners as weapons.
The official narrative of the attacks has been attacked as little more than a cover story by an assortment of radio hosts, academics, amateur filmmakers and others who have spread their arguments on the Internet and cable television in America and abroad. As a motive, they suggest that the Bush administration wanted to use the attacks to justify military action in the Middle East.
Most elaborately, they propose that the collapse of the World Trade Center was actually caused by explosive charges secretly planted in the buildings, rather than by the destructive force of the airliners that thundered into the towers and set them ablaze.
The government reports and officials say the demolition argument is utterly implausible on a number of grounds. Indeed, few proponents of the explosives theory are willing to venture explanations of how daunting logistical problems would be overcome, such as planting thousands of pounds of explosives in busy office towers.
Nevertheless, federal officials say they moved to affirm the conventional history of the day because of the persistence of what they call “alternative theories.” On Wednesday, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued a seven-page study based on its earlier 10,000-page report on how and why the trade center collapsed.…Continue reading
Panelists raise doubts over 9/11
Speakers at CU say government deceiving citizens
By John Aguilar
Monday, October 30, 2006
The idea was to turn the concept of a conspiracy theory on its head.
A panel of scientists and scholars, gathered in a classroom Sunday afternoon at the University of Colorado at Boulder, suggested to several hundred vocal supporters that the true conspiratorial types when it comes to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are the federal government and the mainstream media.
“They pounded a script into our heads that we now know is backed by zero evidence,” said Kevin Barrett, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Barrett was one of a trio of speakers who came to CU to lay out their case that the World Trade Center towers didn’t collapse as a result of jet fuel melting and softening of the buildings’ steel structure, but rather from a deliberate demolition effort perpetrated by the United States government to justify its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and assert its power around the world.
“Three thousand lives were lost at the World Trade Center as a means to global domination,” Barrett said.
He characterized the 9/11 attacks as a “false flag operation” carried out by the United States with the intention of stirring up the passions and buying the allegiance of its people.
“A false flag operation is a contrived event — shocking and spectacular — used to achieve political ends, start wars and justify suppression,” he said.…Continue reading
By Esteban Hernandez
November 29, 2006
Over the years people have become increasingly skeptical of official accounts regarding historic events. After the Kennedy assassination everything changed. It is not so much a question of conspiracy theorists using the smallest margin of doubt to support their theories, but rather the increasing loss in prestige of major institutions, and the effect this has had on their credibility. 9/11 is the perfect example of a historic event whose detailed analysis from several different angles produces conclusions different from the official ones. In Spain, there is skepticism over the Madrid bombings of 3/11; in the U.S. – and in the rest of the world – there is skepticism over 9/11.
This is the belief of Mike Berger, Media Coordinator of 911truth.org, a movement and website whose goal is to seek the truth behind the events we witnessed on our television screens on September 11, 2001. Are there reasons to doubt the official version? Are there solid arguments which lead us to believe there is something hidden amongst the rubble?
The collapse of the towers
In the opinion of Mike Berger, one of the first things to consider is the collapse of the towers: “Before 9/11 no steel-frame skyscraper had EVER collapsed due to fire. And yet on 9/11, 3 WTC buildings collapsed exhibiting many if not all of the signs of controlled demolitions. The physical tests of the WTC steel by UL Labs on behalf of NIST did not fail in less than 2 hours, longer than the towers stood.…Continue reading
by Michael Keefer
December 4, 2006
The first thing to say by way of preliminaries (and I’d better get it in quickly before someone suggests that I’ve turned up late or over-weight for a pre-match weighing-in) is that I’m not overjoyed with the pugilistic metaphor of my title.
But some sort of response to the volley of attacks on 9/11 researchers and activists with which the Counterpunch website marked the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 seems called for.
Michael Keefer strikes just the right tone in responding to Alexander Cockburn’s attempt to banish “conspiracy nuts” from the kingdom of the left.Keefer accounts for Cockburn’s hostility to conspiracy by locating him in the “class of academics and public intellectuals, for whom a migration of power into military, deep-political, and corporate-media hands may…. be difficult to acknowledge.” We’d add that when those intellectuals are wedded to a brand of analysis that cannot satisfactorily account for what they see transpiring before their eyes, that difficulty is only magnified.
Slowly but surely, the academic left is coming to understand that the deep politics paradigm offers the most promising analytic tools for understanding the dynamics of geopolitical struggle. Don’t be surprised by the discomfort associated with the paradigm shift to continue to produce rhetorically overheated, but substantively lacking, complaints like Cockburn’s for quite some time. But really, that’s his problem.
Counterpunch co-editor Alexander Cockburn set the tone of these pieces with an article describing theologian and ethicist David Ray Griffin, the author of The New Pearl Harbor (2004) and of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), as a “high priest” of the “conspiracy nuts””whom Cockburn denounces as cultists who “disdain all answers but their own,” who “seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant,” and who “pounce on imagined clues in documents and photos, [".] contemptuously brush[ing] aside” evidence that contradicts their own “whimsical” treatment of “eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence.”
It’s a characteristically forceful performance, if at times slipshod. One small sign of carelessness may be the manner in which Cockburn slides from calling 9/11 skeptics a “coven” to comparing them, a few sentences later, to “mad Inquisitors” torturing the data (as the old joke goes about economists) until the data confess.” Readers brought up to think that the victims and perpetrators of witch-crazes have not customarily been the same people may find this unintentionally amusing.
Despite the sometimes distinctly nasty tone of this polemic, the idea of exchanging even metaphorical blows with Cockburn and his colleagues is unappealing. The overall quality of the essays that he and Jeffrey St. Clair publish in Counterpunch makes it easy on most days of the week to agree with Out of Bounds Magazine‘s description of it (trumpeted on Counterpunch‘s masthead) as “America’s best political newsletter.” And I’ve admired Cockburn’s own political essays for many years: he’s written movingly, sometimes brilliantly, on a wide range of subjects1 even if his flashes of brilliance sometimes alternate with breathtaking pratfalls: among them his dismissal, as recently as March 2001, of the evidence for global warming; his scoffing, in November 2004, at the rapidly gathering indications that the US presidential election of 2004 had been stolen; and a year later, his mockery of the well-established theory of peak oil and his adherence to the genuinely daft notion that the earth produces limitless quantities of abiotic oil.2 One can forgive a journalist’s slender grasp of the rudiments of scientific understanding. But given his self-appointed role as defender of the progressive left against a horde of fools, It’s dismaying to find him sliding as frequently as he does into positions that seem not just quirky but (dare I say it) unprogressive. Continue reading
Garcia’s avoidance of the demolition scenario may also explain his resorting to what Ryan calls “creative guesswork” in attempting to explain the collapse of WTC 7. Whatever the best explanation is for the still-unsatisfactorily explained collapse of WTC 7, Garcia does not advance our understanding in his three-part bit of speculation.
Another Opportunity to Understand Our Predicament
Over the years we’ve heard from a few educated people who claim to understand and support the latest story given by the US government for the unprecedented destruction of the WTC buildings. Unfortunately, those folks usually turn out to either work for the Bush Administration directly, like FEMA and NIST, or are in some other way profiting from the War on Terror. Some people accept what these Bush scientists say because they have PhDs in scientific fields, or because certain media sources promote the official myths. In a way, the curious behavior of these scientists and media sources allows us to better see the predicament we… Continue reading
What is the Goal in the 9/11 Truth Community? Debates, or Justice?
Steven E. Jones
December 22, 2006 (updated Jan. 9, 2007)
Consider this statement made a few weeks ago by Dr. Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan,
Victoria Ashley and other (previous) members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
“Further, on the Scholars’ web site, positions are being promoted which
are disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences from Scholars
For 9/11 Truth. Attempts to correct this situation have failed. As of this
date the web site continues to promote assertions which are unsupported by
the evidence (ray-beams from space caused the demolitions, mini-nukes were
used in the WTC towers, real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers, etc.).
We feel that the promotion of these ideas functions to distract from and discredit
much of the other basic strong material challenging the official story of
9/11 which already exists – the stand down, the war games, the insider trading,
the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc.”
How do we determine if ray-beams from space or mini-nuclear bombs were responsible
for bringing down the WTC Towers? How do we know whether jets actually hit the
While it is admittedly exciting to come up with fascinating new theories about
9/11, if we wish to bring the perpetrators of the horrific 9/11 crimes to justice,
we have to exert discretion and discipline by ferreting out those ideas repudiated
by the physical evidence. We should consider these ideas, yes, but… Continue reading