VIEW Recent Articles
Browse by Category
Graphic image for 9/11 foreknowledge
Graphic: unanswered questions
Graphic of paper shredder- destruction of evidence
Graphic: conflict of interest
Cui bono graphic
Alleged Hijacker graphic
9/11 Commission Shield

UL

2 of 2 1 2

Democracy Now! 9/11 Debate

Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors of “Debunking 9/11 Myths”

Democracynow.org
Monday, September 11th, 2006

September 11, 2001 – five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites, articles, books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the government’s account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called “Loose Change.” Now, a book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the magazine Popular Mechanics, it’s called “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.” In a Democracy Now! national broadcast exclusive, we host a debate between the filmmakers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 9/11.

 

Editor’s Note:
Considering Popular Mechanics trotted out its heaviest editorial guns to attack the assertions made in the movie, Loose Change, its young director and researcher defend their major points quite effectively and persuasively. It is interesting to note PM’s repeated contention that immediate testimony from first responders and witnesses on the day of the attack should be ignored or discounted in favor of “expert” opinions and “official” analyses appearing months or years later. We think that may be engineer speak for Groucho Marx’s classic defense, “Who you gonna believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”

 

Democracy Now! 9/11 Debate

 


Amy Goodman: Today, a debate about 9/11.… Continue reading

Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

March 28,2006

“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

Ryan’s Hometown Paper Reports on Letter and Firing

AREA MAN STIRS DEBATE ON WTC COLLAPSE — South Bend firm’s lab director fired after questioning federal probe.

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

What You Can Do!

Re: Spitzer Complaint, Ryan & 911Truth.org news

Dear Readers of 911Truth.org,

What can you do? News on “Justice for 9/11,” the Omissions Hearings, the Kevin Ryan story, and developments at 911Truth.org:

Justice for 9/11

Last week the “Justice for 9/11″ Coalition filed a restated and amended Citizen’s Complaint and Petition with the Attorney General of New York State, Eliot Spitzer, citing probable cause to convene a grand jury on unsolved crimes surrounding the events of September 11, 2001. (See press release. )

The Citizens’ Complaint and Petition is unprecedented. Unlike a few other states, New York law does not provide a formal procedure for it. We are trying to invent a new legal wheel, and we need your help.

Nine highly regarded complainants from among September 11 family members, first responders and New York citizens have signed on, and many others are carefully considering whether to join them.

We are inviting friendly support statements from other groups, in the style of amicus briefs, and looking for new coalition members. And we ask everyone to please sign the electronic Petition of Solidarity at the “Justice” site, and get your friends on board!

This work is by no means finished, despite the weeks of hard work by a team advised by legal counsel Carolyn Betts. We aren’t pretending that we’ve covered every aspect of possible 9/11 crimes in the present version of the Complaint and Petition. As we’ve told Spitzer’s office, this is a living document, of, for and by citizens, and… Continue reading

UL’s Letter Disowning Ryan and 911Truth’s Response

Paul M. Baker Manager
Media Relations Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
Northbrook, Ill., USA
(847) 272-8800 ext. 41001
Cell: (847) 602-2828
Paul.M.Baker(@)us.ul.com

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.


To: Paul.M.Baker(@)us.ul.com
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

2 of 2 1 2