Kevin Ryan paradox: accept as much of 9/11 official story as possible

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein gets a pass from Ryan.

August 3, 2013

By Adam Syed (Special to Truth and Shadows)

Kevin Ryan says the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to “accept as much of the official account as possible.”
In his new book Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects (the title alludes to the official nineteen alleged al Qaeda hijackers), Ryan says he favors this strategy for the sake of “simplicity” and to avoid “adding unnecessary complications.” The problem is that he often achieves just the opposite – adding complications and muddying the waters.
My first tinge of alarm came upon reading the book’s introduction: “For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes.” (p. 14)
This is not the book’s only such passage.  On the first page of Chapter 10, which deals with the Pentagon portion of 9/11, he says:  “Considering means, motive and opportunity might allow us to propose a possible insider conspiracy while maintaining much of the official account as well.” (p. 152)
Ryan acknowledges other peoples’ research in declaring that the official story’s falsity has already been exposed (and hence no need for such exposure here):
“This book does not cover the falsity of the official account of 9/11 in great detail.  That work has been done and today the information is widely available.  See the bibliography for resources in that regard.”  (p. 13)
However, much of this research, to which Ryan alludes, has already demonstrated the implausibility of many aspects of 9/11 that Ryan believes we should accept.
Specifically, Ryan says we should accept the idea that “the alleged hijackers were on the planes.”  Notice that he does not say “Middle Eastern-looking men;” – he refers to the “alleged hijackers” in particular.  But there are MANY problems with the list of alleged hijackers.
To name just one example: several of these alleged hijackers turned up alive after 9/11, and the FBI never amended the published list of hijackers.  Ryan himself briefly acknowledges the case of one such alleged hijacker: Waleed Al-Shehri.  While discussing how Al-Shehri and another alleged hijacker, Saeed Alghamdi, were said to have attended flight school at Embry-Riddle University, Ryan states:
“Ten days after the attacks, Embry-Riddle was relieved by reports that Al-Shehri was alive.  Unfortunately, the reports that some of the alleged hijackers had turned up alive were never investigated by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission.” (p. 207)
Indeed, how “unfortunate” that the government agencies in charge of the official whitewash didn’t investigate this topic of Waleed being alive.  But since they didn’t, I suppose we should take Ryan’s advice and “accept” that Mr. Al-Shehri was really on the plane.  (I’m still scratching my head trying to figure this one out.)  Incidentally, those two sentences on page 207 are the only mention in the entire book of the reports of alive hijackers; one can confirm this from the index.
Some 9/11 researchers, particularly David Ray Griffin, have provided strong cumulative evidence that there were no hijackers on the alleged planes.  One example that shows Griffin to be superior to Ryan as an analyst of evidence involves the issue of “hijack codes,” namely, the code that a pilot would “squawk” back to the FAA in the event of an actual hijacking.
In his New Pearl Harbor Revisited, Griffin addresses this issue.  He quotes a passage from the 9/11 Commission Report that says: “FAA… assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller via radio or by “squawking” a transponder code of “7500” – the universal code for a hijack in progress.”
Griffin then goes on to explain how all four planes did not squawk the hijack code.  He then alludes to a famous Sherlock Holmes mystery story, “Silver Blaze,” in which a famous racehorse disappeared the night before a big race.  Holmes disputed a police investigator’s belief that an outside intruder had stolen the horse: the guard dog never barked during the night.  Had an outside intruder stolen the horse, the dog would have barked.
Griffin then concludes: “Just as the intruder theory was disproved by the dog that didn’t bark, the hijacker theory is disproved by the pilots who didn’t squawk.” (NPHR, p. 178)  (It is important to remember that while I am isolating this issue of the hijack codes, it is just one of many pieces of evidence presented in Griffin’s research which points to a “no hijacker” scenario.)
So how does Kevin Ryan address this same issue?  Looking at the index of Another Nineteen, we find one mention of the hijack codes on page 125. On this page, the issue is mentioned in the context of a list of facts as to why NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart should be a prime suspect for 9/11 culpability:
8. For whatever reasons, Eberhart also gave false information about the NORAD response to others.  General Richard Meyers, acting CJCS that morning, said that Eberhart told him there were “several hijack codes in the system.” Yet none of the four planes had squawked the hijack code on 9/11 and therefore it is not clear how such codes could have been in the system.
While Griffin’s analysis makes perfect logical sense (and in so doing, achieves the kind of “simplicity” that Ryan professes to desire), Ryan’s analysis muddies the waters and leaves the readers scratching their heads in confusion.
Ryan’s analysis seems to hinge on the idea that real hijackings were taking place, and that of course the hapless pilots would indeed have squawked the codes if only they were in the system.
While Ryan stated at the book’s outset that we should accept that “the alleged hijackers” were on the planes, passages like the above go further, and promote the idea that these Middle Eastern men were conducting a genuine terrorist hijacking.  (Without stating it explicitly, Ryan’s analysis seems to insinuate that the hijack codes might have been disabled or removed from the four flights in question so that the hijackings could be successful; in other words, a “LIHOP” [let it happen on purpose] scenario, whereby US officials took steps to allow a terrorist hijacking to take place.)
Ryan’s scenario is quite confusing: exactly how much credit is he giving the alleged hijackers?  So far, he’s indicated that they got onto the planes (despite lack of credible security video showing any of them boarding planes anywhere) and that they successfully hijacked them.
Ryan accepts the fact that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosive demolition, and hence, that the plane crashes and resulting fires/smoke served as cover for the demolitions. The next logical step is to realize that the planners would not take such a risk as to leave the control of the planes to human chance.
What if the suicide pilot had a change of heart, or what if he decided to suicide bomb the plane into another target, or what if he missed the Trade Tower and ended up crashing into another building/s or the Hudson? One obvious answer is: the demolitions wouldn’t be able to go forward, and the whole psy-op would be ruined.
Ryan seems to understand this, and as such he appears to be on the same page as many 9/11 truthers who believe that the planes were, in the greatest of likelihoods, flown by remote control, using an advanced GPS system, into their targets.
Citing Operation Northwoods, as well as the research of Aidan Monaghan, Ryan proposes this possibility.  While he certainly deserves credit for sharing Monaghan’s information, his proposed scenario involving U.S. insiders as well as “the alleged hijackers” only serves, unfortunately, to complicate and confuse: where does the actual hijacking cease and remote takeover begin?  If the plan is to use remote control, why bother with a “hijacking” at all?

The Pentagon: the weakest point

Ryan’s chapter on the Pentagon is the weakest in the book, and it certainly does not serve “simplicity.”  Ryan starts by acknowledging that the official account of what happened at the Pentagon “leaves many questions unanswered.” However, his next sentence is an outright falsehood:
“The work of independent investigators has also failed to address those questions.” (p. 152)
This statement sweeps under the carpet numerous researchers and their organizations, such as Pilots for 9/11 Truth (P4T) and Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), who have shed MUCH light on the issue of what really happened.  Their work has been extensively covered at this blog, the P4T and CIT websites, and elsewhere.  Not surprisingly, Ryan doesn’t provide an endnote reference to back his bold assertion that independent investigators have failed to shed light on what happened at the Pentagon.
In addition, Ryan goes on to state: “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.”
Unfortunately, maintaining the official account, in some instances, makes for a laughably absurd proposed scenario.
One of these “unanswered questions,” which he insists independent investigators have failed to answer, is: “What can explain the damage to the building and the aircraft debris or lack thereof?” In wording this question, Ryan seems to acknowledge that there is a “lack” of aircraft debris.
However, he repeatedly affirms his belief that a large 757-size aircraft DID hit the building, referring to “the moment of impact” all throughout the chapter. But in the world of actual simplicity, and not adding unnecessary complications, the most obvious answer would be: “The lack of aircraft debris is explained by the fact that there was no plane crash at the Pentagon.”  Instead, Ryan proposes a scenario that is as outlandish as NIST’s scenario of Column 79 being responsible for the total ‘collapse’ of WTC7.
Regarding what happened at the moment the plane approached the Pentagon, here is what Ryan proposes, after citing testimony concerning the smell of cordite inside the building:
The use of well-timed explosives at the moment of aircraft impact could explain why so few parts of the aircraft were visible outside the building. Some eyewitnesses testified that the aircraft “seemed to simply melt into the building,” or that it “sort of disappeared.”  One witness said that the plane went into the building like a “toy into a birthday cake,” and another said “it was in the air one moment and in the building the next.”
These witness accounts suggest that explosives were placed in the building in such a way that, when triggered, they created an opening to absorb and destroy the body of the aircraft. The renovation project would have been perfect cover for placing the explosives in such an exact configuration. Again, the three officially unrecognized and completely destroyed construction trailers, located immediately in front of the impact area, might have served a role in triggering the explosives upon impact.  (pp. 171-2)
There are so many problems with this proposed scenario.  Certainly, it does not jibe with Ryan’s apparent call for simplicity.  First, if the perpetrators were planning to actually crash a plane into the Pentagon, and since that scenario is the official one, why would they go out of their way to make it appear as though a plane hadn’t crashed there?  Why the need to create an opening to “absorb and destroy” the aircraft?
Remember, Ryan advocates the idea that a real passenger plane with the alleged hijackers crashed into the building (on page 167, when citing Monaghan’s research on remote control, Ryan speaks of “how Flight 77 might have hit Wedge 1.”), so to my question, we can rule out the answer “To cover up the fact that it was an unmanned drone with no passengers.”
Another problem is that while explosives might pulverize a plane into many tiny pieces, rather than a few large ones, it still won’t make vanish the material of that plane; there should still be, whether outside the building, inside, or both, the wreckage of 80 tons of airplane.
Hundreds of witnesses saw multiple surface-to-air missiles shoot down TWA 800.  However, that plane was able to be mostly reconstructed inside a hangar.  Yet, Kevin Ryan’s brand of explosives simply make a plane disappear into virtually nothing.
Next, Ryan’s proposal doesn’t take into account the fact that if the fuselage impacted the building, the engines would have hit the ground; yet photos show no damage to the lawn.  Finally, Ryan’s scenario (explosives creating an opening to absorb the body of the aircraft) doesn’t take into account the lack of wing marks on the building, nor the lack of two large holes where the engines would have penetrated.  (I wonder if he supports Mike Walter’s contention that the wings “folded back.”)

Cui bono?  Not Larry Silverstein, apparently

The issues of hijackers and the Pentagon aren’t the book’s only problems.
A 9/11 truth activist at 911blogger, “Percosin Rat,” created the following graphic to simplify what Ryan proposes in his 318 pages of text.  As valuable as this information is, does anyone notice any names missing?
WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein’s name is mentioned in passing on two consecutive pages in the book. But for whatever reason, he does not seem to make Ryan’s list of top suspects for 9/11.
The only context in which Silverstein is mentioned is regarding a planned meeting at WTC7 on the morning of 9/11. Ryan quotes a source that said, “[Silverstein] was reportedly planning to hold a meeting at 7 World Trade Center to discuss terrorism prevention efforts. The meeting, which was set for 8 a.m., was canceled when one of his executives could not make it, said one market player who has spoken with Silverstein.” (p. 232) This meeting was apparently going to be between Silverstein and the Demolition-Ordnance Disposal Team from the Army’s Fort Monmouth.
On the next page, Ryan writes: “It appears that the explosive disposal/terrorism meeting was not entirely a request of Larry Silverstein, but was organized by the U.S. Secret Service field office.” (p. 233)
That is the entire extent of mention of Larry Silverstein, in 318 pages of a book that purports to spotlight the guilty parties of 9/11.
No mention of Silverstein’s infamous “pull it” statement, where he let it slip on a televised documentary that he had given the go-ahead to demolish WTC7, and has subsequently told provable lies to cover this up.
No mention of how Silverstein would spend “every morning” at the Trade Center, beginning with breakfast at Windows on the World, and then spending several hours meeting with tenants, yet was absent on 9/11.  His suspicious excuse for not showing up to work that morning was that he had a dermatologist appointment, and while he insisted he had a lot of work to do at the office, his wife laid down the law and insisted he see his doctor.  However, Silverstein’s two children, Roger and Lisa, also worked at the WTC and ate at Windows every morning, and they too were “running late.”  So all three Silversteins who worked at the WTC “got lucky.”
No mention of how Silverstein leased the property for $3.2 billion, had an insurance policy of $3.5 billion for terrorism, and attempted to claim $7 billion, claiming that each airplane strike constituted a separate terrorist attack.  While the insurance companies did not take this view and challenged Silverstein in court, a settlement was reached whereby Silverstein was paid $4.577 billion.  Incidentally, this insurance policy was for WTC 1, 2, 4, and 5.  There was a separate insurance policy for WTC7, to the tune of $700 million, which he collected.
recent article by Kevin Barrett sums up the Silverstein situation well:
*Lewis Eiseinberg, Chair of the New York Port Authority in 2001, engineered a sweetheart deal to give his fellow alleged mobster Larry Silverstein a 99-year lease on the Trade Center – the deal that was consummated just six weeks before 9/11.  Eisenberg, Chair of the Republican Party National Finance Committee, was the top Republican money-man behind the stolen-presidential-election coup d’état of 2000, and Silverstein was a leading Republican money-man from New York.
*Silverstein immediately doubled the insurance on the World Trade Center and hard-balled his insurers into changing the policy to “cash payout.” Six weeks later, this would look…prescient.
*Silverstein and certain family members, who ate every morning at Windows to the World Restaurant at the top of the North Tower, suddenly remembered various improbable “appointments” on the morning of September 11th, and didn’t show up for breakfast. Everyone who did eat at Windows to the World that morning was pulverized in the demolition that turned the North Tower to sub-100-micron dust in ten seconds.
*Silverstein quickly collected the 4.5 billion dollar insurance payout on the buildings he had only “owned” for six weeks, then went back to court looking for another 13 billion dollars from other insurers. Larry’s personal investment in the World Trade Center was less than $20 million dollars, while his partners had thrown in just over $100 million…a tiny fraction of the cash payout bonanza reaped by the 9/11 demolitions.
*Bottom line: Silverstein – a radical Zionist and close friend of Benjamin “9/11 is very good” Netanyahu – bought a worthless, condemned property, doubled the insurance, conspired to blow up his own buildings six weeks later, and walked away with billions of dollars in cash, plus the valuable right to rebuild at the World Trade Center site.
And on top of that, the US declared eternal war on Israel’s enemies. Talk about win-win.
Unlike Barrett, Ryan seems to only focus on the potential assassin who pulled the trigger, and merely glosses over the person who ordered the trigger to be pulled.  Ryan’s brief mention of Silverstein is in Chapter 13, whose title is “Barry McDaniel and Stratasec.”  On page 228, Ryan states:
In his role as COO for Straesec, McDaniel had unparalleled access to the entire WTC complex.  Because his company implemented the electronic security systems, McDaniel was in a position to grant the access needed to place the explosives.
And in the chapter’s summary/conclusion, Ryan says:  “In summary, Stratesec and Barry McDaniel call out for investigation for the following reasons.”  And the first bullet point to follow is: “Explosives were used to bring down the WTC.” (p. 238) However, for this same reason, Larry Silverstein does not get Ryan’s top billing as a suspect.
If a person brand new to 9/11 research were to start their journey down the rabbit hole by reading Ryan’s book, they would get the impression that Silverstein was an inconsequential figure who just happened to have the bad fortune of being WTC leaseholder when the ‘attacks’ occurred; nothing more.  In fact, by the end of the book, she/he would likely not remember Silverstein’s name at all.
So regarding the demolition of the towers, who does Ryan speculate was responsible?  This portion of his research can be found in a two-part essay here and here.  Toward the beginning of part 1, he actually seems to imply that we should suspect Muslims [bolds are mine]:
 Evidence suggests that the period of interest should include the years between the 1993 WTC bombing and September 11th, 2001. This evidence includes the warning from 1993 bombing conspirator Nidal Ayyad, who reportedly wrote – “next time it will be more precise.” Additionally, evidence of a multi-year plot included the detailed information that FBI informant and mafia kingpin Gregory Scarpa Jr. received while in jail, as early as 1996, from Al-Qaeda operative Ramzi Yousef, while imprisoned in the adjacent cell. Yousef described plans to “bring New York to its knees” by blowing up the World Trade Center with American-owned “flying massive bombs.”Scarpa Jr. provided this information to Assistant US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and FBI Counsel Valerie Caproni, who were apparently not interested. Another example is the recorded conversation between FBI informant Randy Glass and Pakistani ISI agent Raja Gulum Abbas, in which Abbas claimed “Those towers are coming down”, indicating that a plan was in progress as of July 1999.
And then in the conclusion for Part 2, he begins:
Several facts are clear from this review of the companies and people responsible for revamping the security systems for the WTC buildings, and securing New York City, on 9/11. One is that many of the people involved were deceptive and/or corrupt, and appeared to have benefited from the attacks. Another is that many of them were connected to each other and to the investigations into previous acts of terrorism and the terrorist financing bank BCCI. Yet another striking similarity among these organizations is that they all did major work for the Saudi Arabian government, or the royal family of Kuwait. Finally, the history of some of those involved, like Terry McAuliffe, shows a level of greed and corruption that overshadowed all preconceptions about US politics.
It seems that Ryan leans toward the idea that the Bushes and their corporate and government friends in the US, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were responsible for the towers’ destruction.
As for Ryan’s apparent shyness regarding the spotlighting of either Israeli or pro-Zionist forces being involved in 9/11, he says on page 14 (one paragraph below his declaration that we must accept as much of the official account as possible):
The official account claims that OBL, KSM, and the alleged hijackers went to great lengths to plan and implement the 9/11 operation for reasons of symbolism. This explanation does not make a great deal of sense considering that the Arab Muslim world has suffered enormously as a result of the attacks.”  [So far, true.]  “The only ones who have benefited in that region are the ruling royal families of countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait, who have long collaborated with the West… because it has temporarily protected them from regional threats like that posed by Saddam Hussein and from other challenges to their positions of power.
Are those really the “only” ones who have benefited, Kevin?  Why no mention of what Benjamin Netanyahu said shortly after 9/11?
“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.” 
Going back to Silverstein for a moment: while he’s American-born, he has close ties to the who’s-who of Israel.
“His friends in Israel were happy for him. Silverstein has ties of various kinds in Israel. He is a donor to Tel Aviv University and to the Tel Aviv development foundation. He held a few fundraising events at his home in New York for the foundation with the participation of the then-mayor of Tel Aviv, Roni Milo. […]  Silverstein is also a member of the joint American-Israeli commission for housing and community development, which was established by former president Bill Clinton. In the early 1990s, he was involved in projects to build housing for new immigrants. The Israeli political world got to know Silverstein when he tried to create a free-trade zone in the country. He became friendly with Yitzhak Rabin, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon.”
Certain ventures of Silverstein’s, like his attempt to create a “free trade zone” in Negev, did not come to fruition. However, the plan was very strongly backed by Netanyahu. Of course, if he had succeeded, it would not have benefited ordinary Israelis, but would have benefited Lucky Larry, who would have been using the state of Israel for his own personal gain.
At any rate, it is quite remarkable that Ryan explores, for example, Richard Clarke’s deep connections to the United Arab Emirates, but not Silverstein’s to Israel.

Saudi Arabia mentioned on 20 pages, Israel, on 3

On the Israel question, Kevin Ryan saves one last whopper for his concluding chapter.  On page 312, he says:
Israel has also been discussed in terms of the possibility that elements of its government were involved.  Unfortunately, such claims are often made without supporting evidence and coherent reasoning.  Although there is evidence that Israeli intelligence knew details about the attacks in advance – the story of the “Dancing Israelis” verified this foreknowledge – many governments had advanced knowledge of the attacks as indicated by the warnings issued.
As with his claim that independent investigators have failed to shed light onto the Pentagon, his claim that those who speak of Israeli involvement do so “without supporting evidence and coherent reasoning,” lacks either an explanation or an endnote reference.  He also omits crucial facts in his attempt to minimize the importance of the Dancing Israelis story.  First, there were no Pakistani, or Saudi, or Kuwaiti, or British, or any other nationality other than Israelis arrested and detained by the FBI for blatantly celebrating the ‘attacks.’  Next, from this 9/12/01 report:
About eight hours after terrorists struck Manhattan’s tallest skyscrapers, police in Bergen County detained five men who they said were found carrying maps linking them to the blasts.
The five men, who were in a van stopped on Route 3 in East Rutherford around 4:30 p.m., were being questioned by police but had not been charged with any crime late Tuesday. The Bergen County Police bomb squad X-rayed packages found inside the van but did not find any explosives, authorities said.
However, sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot.
“There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted,” the source said. “It looked like they’re hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park.”
Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives, although officers were unable to find anything. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said.
This circumstantial evidence is far stronger than a mere report that some official, thousands of miles away in a foreign country, received a note in their office that an attack on New York was impending.
As with the passing mention of Silverstein, so too does Ryan briefly gloss over a major player as far as companies with connections go: ICTS International. He mentions how “Huntleigh USA Corporation performed the screening of passengers related to Flight 175” and then quickly mentions how “Huntleigh was bought out in 1999 by the Israeli company ICTS International.” (p. 235) This would, of course, mean that in 2001 the company was under Israeli influence.  What Ryan does NOT mention, this from ICTS’ own website:
Following the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, ICTS International N.V. stepped up its activities in the development of advanced technological security systems for the homeland security market in general and the transportation industry in particular.
Surely, this Israeli corporation stood to gain from 9/11, as they acknowledge themselves.
More suspicious than mere financial profit, however, is that in addition to the 9/11 connection, this is the company responsible for the “failure” of security with regards to both Richard Reid, the 2001 “Shoe Bomber,” and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 2009 “Underwear Bomber,” allegedly boarding their respective planes.  This company seems to “fail” on so many occasions where the official story is used to further curtail our basic dignity at airports.
Ryan fails to mention the information compiled and reported (Preview) in late 2001 by Carl Cameron on Fox News regarding Israeli spying and intelligence gathering in the US.  This report includes information that the “art students” were actually infiltrating US agencies [2:10 on the video].
This report, but not Ryan, mentions Israeli phone records company AmDocs, and its connections to America’s NSA.  Another company, Comverse Infosys, was an Israeli company that subcontracted the installation of the automatic tapping equipment built into America’s phone systems.
And then there was Odigo Messenger, the company purchased in 2002 by the aforementioned Comverse.  Two of its employees received warnings about the ‘attacks’ two hours before they happened.  This is significant in that it shows that not just government intelligence services, but also workers in private Israeli companies, were warned.  It was never resolved who the original sender was.  However, this information should have been included alongside all the other information Ryan included in linking possible involvement of other countries to the events of 9/11.
Certainly, Ryan’s words that talk of Israeli involvement is “without supporting evidence or coherent reasoning” surely does not sit well with me, in light of this news graphic, one of the extremely few times Fox News has done honest investigative reporting:
This should all surely be included in Ryan’s call to investigate the suspicious.

Swipes at legitimate activists?

We have already seen Ryan insist that independent investigators have failed to shed light on the truth about the Pentagon. In fact, Ryan is at odds with the majority of truthers who don’t believe a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, based on photographs as well as witness testimony against the official flight path (required to knock over the five light poles).
He has referred to some individuals who focus on what really happened at the Pentagon (which he fallaciously frames as “what hit the pentagon”) as “intentional disruptors.” In 2010, he wrote an article accusing CIT of being “intentional disruptors.” What was CIT’s sin? They had simply sought statements of praise, i.e. “endorsements,” for their National Security Alert presentation.
“Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done. There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.”
In light of Ryan’s current book, the hypocrisy is astounding. The back cover, as well as inside front two pages feature exactly this same kind of praise from two 9/11 family members as well as David Ray Griffin and others. Ryan clearly sees nothing wrong with seeking praise for his own work, but when others he disagrees with do the same thing, they are condemned as being “divisive,” and possibly guilty of “intentional disruption.”
Retired Vietnam veteran Lt. Colonel Shelton Lankford, a core member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, agrees that (1) the plane flew over the Pentagon rather than into it and (2) that there has been a co-ordinated disinformation effort by some individuals within the movement to marginalize this evidence.  Ryan is well aware that this is Lankford’s position.
In his Pentagon chapter, Ryan discusses the history of the Pentagon Renovation Project which started before 9/11.  In this section, there is a paragraph that reads as follows:
At the time of the 9/11 attack, a dozen PNAC signatories worked in leadership positions at the Pentagon, including members of the Defense Policy Board like Fred Ikle and Richard Perle.  It was known that Rumsfeld deferred to Perle on many issues in 2001, sometimes in an obsequious manner.  Coincidentally, Shelton Lankford, a leading voice in the call for truth about the Pentagon attack, worked for Ikle and a “who’s who” of Perle associates at Telos Corporation from 1990 to 2002. (p. 158)
Why would Ryan feel the urge to mention this “coincidence?” Is this a subtle stab at Lankford?  “He promotes the Pentagon flyover theory, and if that’s not dodgy enough, he worked for Ikle and Telos!  Suspicious!!! Could he be an intentional disruptor???”  (Cue the Twilight Zone music.)


Ryan’s book, while it certainly draws enough connections to make any reasonable person raise an eyebrow, nonetheless contains numerous problems of omissions, contradictions, and speculation.  I have highlighted a few of these in my review.
While it falls considerably short of a piece of truly superior research like David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Ryan’s book might serve to crack the door open for a complete neophyte to 9/11 research. For me, that door was cracked open in 2004 when I saw Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which, on a shallower level, goes into many of the same connections Ryan does: the Carlyle Group, the Saudi Royals, etc.
However, if the shortcomings of Another Nineteen are evident to long-time 9/11 truth activists like me, they should ultimately be of serious concern to all those who seek 9/11 truth.


  1. Adam, Thanks for the helpful review. You note:
    1. “The back cover, as well as inside front two pages feature exactly this same kind of praise from two 9/11 family members as well as David Ray Griffin and others.”
    2. “it falls considerably short of a piece of truly superior research like David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking”…
    The obvious question is if Griffin’s work is judged truly superior to Kevin Ryan’s, why would Griffin lend his name to an endorsement of Ryan’s book? You have come close to “debunking Ryan”, not quite, but close. Griffin is doing the opposite, “promoting Ryan”.

    1. I sent DRG an email last night, alerting him to this review. His response slightly surprised me: take from it what you will:
      “I’m glad you were able to do this, especially since I have not had time to write anything (except for my little blurb).”

      1. I wonder how much of the book the people who praised it actually read.
        And if they did perhaps scan through it, how much thought they gave to it?
        I do hope someone checks in with us here. Or will they just huddle on their own little click sites?

        1. Somehow I missed this the first time around Dennis.
          Kevin Ryan’s response to Shelton Lankford is truly ugly and dismal attempt at character assassination via “guilt by association:
          “It was an interesting coincidence that we find you worked for Ikle and Perle’s associates for all those years. And contrary to your remark here, you told me (and many others) that you met Ikle on several occasions. Frankly, most people who had worked for 12 years as “IT Manager” or “Director of Communications” (depending on reference) for a small company like Telos, which only had about 600 employees, would certainly have met and would know all of them.
          Anyway, it’s just another interesting coincidence to me.”~Kevin
          Meanwhile Kevin dismisses what Lankford says about the proofs from CIT.
          Not even acknowledging their merit or disputing such. This form of none too subtle ad hominem is striking and dismal from a “Truth Leader”.
          Yes I’m appalled. Kevin Ryan’s stairway to stardom just vanished from under his feet with that one.

        2. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
          July 1, 2014 at 4:06 am
          That was a cheap shot of “guilt by association” ad hominem Kevin. But to leave it at that and dismiss the substance of Shelton’s comment is utterly deplorable.
          I have very high regard for your work on the WTC aspect of the 9/11 case, and am truly disappointed to see this sort of illogic and disproportion coming from you, as well as your clique orbiting Frank Legge and his utter spurious nonsense attacking the CIT evidence.
          Whether it is ego and attendant hubris, or there are darker forces at work here I cannot tell. But something very strange is going on and you and your gang are instigating it.
          Willy Whitten – \\][//

  2. Thank you Mr Syed, for your excellent review of Ryan’s new book. It is both baffling and disturbing to read, especially this: ““accept as much of the official account as possible.”
    My first question is WHY?
    Why begin with such an acceptance when the official account is simply absurd on the face of it? As one who has been on this case from the very first day, like many others here I find the proposal to “accept as much of the official account as possible,” to be preposterous.
    Undoubtedly Ryan’s earlier work on the destruction of the WTC has a lot of value. But he has certainly “lost it” somewhere between then and now.
    Is he perhaps ‘kinky’? Something only his hair-dresser would know? Think about the NSA for a moment now, a group that would know a person’s intimate details…an agency that it is said to have ‘blackmailed’ even high-end politicians. I know it can only be supposition on this aspect, but one has to wonder what may be in the closet of some of these people who were at one time such a viable force for Truth, who have seemingly turned into frogs.
    Like I have said before, we need to leave room for a certain amount of differences in opinions, as to what the evidence means. But there is a point, and Adam has touched on quite a few in his critique of Ryan’s book, that an opinion is so twisted as per the bulk of the evidence that suspicions are well heeded.
    I do not see Ryan as someone who started out as a mole, and built a legend before ‘turning’ as I do see others – whom I have expressed that opinion of. I see Ryan as someone who must have been compromised along the way. He is floating backwards now, and therein lies a mystery.

  3. The fact that the pilots of the planes on 9/11 did not change the transponder code on the instrument panel in front of them would be because two or more people had burst in to the cockpit behind them and were actively engaged in trying to kill them. While that was happening the plane had not been hijacked, since they were actively engaged in trying to prevent it being hijacked. When they failed to prevent it being hijacked they were unable to change the transponder codes. If they had somehow managed to prevent them being hijacked they would have put in another emergency code and not the hijacking code, since the plane would not have been hijacked.
    When you were writing that article ,if two people had burst into the room behind you and started to stab you , I can just imagine you saying ‘Hold on, just let me save this article I’m writing here…file/save as/ etc…” If you had managed to fight them off and survived, I can imagine the people on this forum saying
    “That must have been a terrible experience Adam, but what I can’t understand is when these guys with the knives burst into the room, why didn’t you save that article you were writing?”

    1. A really stupid analogy Wright. You assume that the pilots were jumped immediately, as if breaking through the door would have taken zero time. In fact, that the “hijackers” could have broken through locked cabin doors is a problematic hypothetical in itself.
      This of course is not the only problem of accepting the hijacking scenario. But in your position of sublime ignorance there is no reason to go through that with you.

      1. Also, the Flight Data Recorders indicated that none of the cockpit doors opened during any of the flights. The FDRs are very likely inauthentic, but whether they are genuine or not they don’t support what Wright is saying. I agree with HR – one of your dumbest points yet.

  4. Adam, thanks for this excellent review. Will you be putting it up on Amazon? I hope so. David Chandler and Aidan Monaghan have posted glowing reviews there. My two cents follows.
    At Amazon, we can see exactly what David Ray Griffin (DRG) said about “Another Nineteen” (by clicking “Click to LOOK INSIDE”): “Kevin Ryan has taken a unique approach, dealing with 19 men who [in Ryan’s view] probably actually [sic] were responsible for the attacks. Perhaps no reader will agree with everything, but Ryan has pioneered an approach that will likely move researchers closer to the truth. . . “ I wonder if in this instance, DRG, whom I truly admire, is exhibiting a trait that he has identified among many 9/11 Truth deniers as being the reason for their denial, namely, a pre-existing world view that cannot be shaken by the evidence.
    Obviously, DRG strongly believes that Ryan is on the side of 9/11 Truth. Thus, it seems, he is predisposed to ignoring the idea that a person (like Ryan) who espouses the view that we default to the official story—as ridiculous as that story is—is inherently siding with the corrupt officials (accessories after the fact to mass murder) who gave us that preposterous story. Espousing this pro-official view is a very strong indication that the person is actually an enemy of 9/11 Truth, in my opinion.
    Another tipoff that an ostensible “9/11 Truther” is actually working against 9/11 Truth is when he or she dismisses out of hand (or especially attacks) what might be called the Citizens Investigation Team (CIT) position on the Pentagon, as Ryan has done (on page 152 of his book, viewable on Amazon, as Adam has pointed out in his review).
    A third indication is whether of not the person was part of the 911blogger attack on DRG when he was near death. As I remember that sorry scenario—which came about soon after I had gotten banned from 9/11blogger for implying that John Bursill was acting against 9/11 Truth for recommending that we default to the official position on 9/11 unless we could prove exactly what happened, which is what Ryan is essentially advocating in “Another Nineteen”—Ryan, to his credit, was one of the few people to come to DRG’s defense which, I would suspect, is part of why DRG’s positive view of Ryan remains unshakeable now.
    So, as per my own personal tests for determining who is true and who is false among so-called “9/11 Truthers,” Ryan fails on two out of three counts. Failing on one is bad enough, but failing on two is all but conclusive that a once-true 9/11 Truther has gone over to the other side, or perhaps was there all along. Add in Ryan’s ignoring the whole Silverstein/Dancing Israelis scenario, as Adam has pointed out, and it seems beyond any reasonable doubt that he is dancing to a cover version of the official tune, I am very saddened to say.

  5. Nice work Adam! Thanks for writing the review, and thanks to Truth and Shadows for posting it. Kevin’s work here is pretty mind boggling, especially given the detail and accuracy of previous work that he has done and the real sleuthing required to obtain it. It seems that he would be able to grasp and report on things that are just blatantly obvious. But, you also missed a few blatantly obvious items that I think should have been included.
    1) The audio recordings of NYPD radio traffic that day and the mainstream media reports of the apprehension of suspects from a van with a mural painted on the side of it of airplanes diving into NYC, (Between 7th and King St.) and the van blowing up- fortunately while the officers were well away from it, having chased down the 2 suspects on foot. Other reports also, New Jersey turnpike, George Washington Bridge, kinda confusing, but still, the reports were made.
    2) The suspected Mossad agents who went on a TV talk show in Israel and said, “Our purpose was to document the event.”
    3) Zim Israeli American Shipping Company broke its lease, paid a $50,000 fine to do so, and moved out of the WTC shortly before 9/11.
    Unfortunately, it is necessary to call attention to these incredible blind spots that Kevin Ryan and others have- namely the Pentagon and Israel. The censorship and purging at 9/11 Blogger speaks volumes for the suppression of evidence in these areas. I am proud to stand with David Ray Griffin and 99% of the movement on the overwhelming evidence for what did and did not happen at the Pentagon and on the strong evidence of Israeli involvement. Though Dr. Griffin has been fairly disappointing of late, he has not retracted any of his earlier work. I think that the move towards “consensus” is well intended but poorly executed.

  6. It should be made crystal clear that what we are faulting Kevin Ryan for is not the information regarding the perpetrators so named in this new book, but the information he chooses to ignore, and worse lambasted out of hand.
    How many of us knew this information already? Is it really anything new? Not for us who have studied the 9/11 events closely over these long years. Kevin has made good efforts throughout those years – AND YET – all of the critiques here against him for his unfathomable stubbornness in disregarding the Israeli connections and the Pentagon evidence brought forward by CIT and P4T, are valid and must be weighed against the positive.
    His earlier reviews of the NIST personnel with links to the SOL-GEL industry and the nanothermites is critical information – but must be balanced with such oversights as not including [Lucky] Larry Silverstein on his list of inside perps.
    I understand how clicks work, and I cannot be so harsh to those who have endorsed his book, as they have been close for many years, and it is a matter of ‘personal friendships’ for many. But I do criticize them nevertheless, even though I understand their personal ties and motives.
    We shall see how this all shakes out as time goes by.

  7. Hahahaha…did anyone notice this unfavorable review of Ryan’s book on the Amazon thread?
    “Oh! Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my!, July 18, 2013 By Emmanuel Goldstein”
    Typical Goldstein hooting ululations. But we have been through that here with the oinkenator in person….

  8. Dear Mr. Syed,
    Good work. Loved how you point out the skew (e.g., swallow as much of the OCT as possible) in the aims of the book. It sounds like the improvement he could make to version two of his book is to begin each chapter with a disclaimer: “For this chapter, assume X was real; suspend your disbelief; therefore…”
    He did the same skew in the thermic papers with Dr. Jones, whereby they get the focus on thermite be able to account for the several spikes (in the releases of gases), but ignores what was maintaining under-rubble temperatures between spikes.

    1. I’m guessing he was accusing both of us, at least that’s what my ego wants to think. You don’t really think you can run the whole War Machine Disinformation Program (WMDP) by yourself, do you? There’s a lot of paperwork involved not to mention those endless meetings at Langley.

      1. so adam and craig are part of wmdp? that’s a hoot. another level of kevin’s credibility shattered by himself.

      2. This is a free and open forum. Let the people who want to defend this position of “accept as much of the official account as possible,” make that case here.
        I would like to see such an argument made, and I would very much like to take part in a counter argument to that.
        So as Alex said in Clockwork Orange, “C’mon and get one in the yarbles, if you’ve got any yarbles.”

      3. I’ll answer Hybridrogue’s calling to “accept as much of the official [9/11] account as possible.” I shall begin with a disclaimer: this calling does not necessarily go as far as defending the official 9/11 myth against dissident research that undermines its plausibility. Indeed, going back to and commenting on Adam’s analysis, it is usually an error, and almost always a waste of time, for a 9/11 researcher to buttress the plausibility of any aspect of the official myth. This work is best left to the Master 9/11 conspirators and their bully pulpits, who excel at it anyway.
        Instead, I narrowly claim that clinging to the affirmation of the 9/11 myth as a truth as long as humanely possible is the most effective way to teach the existence, scope and urgency of the 9/11 conspiracy. It simply boils down to a rigorous demonstration by contradiction. The demonstration’s preamble, available at, affirms Building 7’s mythical disintegration by an office fire, drives the 9/11 beginner’s mind through a mild emotional roller-coaster, establishes the respectability of 9/11 dissidence, and finds a serious TV lapse that deserves further investigation. Our own A. Wright may testify to this method’s effectiveness, as (s)he has not yet reacted to my provocations on it. Even (s)he may have no choice but to understand it.
        The background of this “the official 9/11 narrative is true until conclusively proven otherwise” approach is the astonishingly solid 9/11 censorship, the worldwide, ongoing, cross-disciplinary process that makes almost all principal leaders and groups who would greatly benefit from denouncing 9/11 treat the “Osama bin Laden’s fanatics did it all with their hijacked airplanes” fairy tale as an absolute, axiomatic, undisputable truth. Because reasonable 9/11 skeptics tend to trust these leaders and groups, starting to teach them 9/11 by stating that the fairy tale is false is often difficult, akin to engaging fundamentalist Christians — no offense meant to anyone — by stating that Jesus’ resurrection is a myth.

  9. Again the obvious needs to be reiterated:
    WTC destroyed by Thermite is_not_ part of OCT.
    Any sane person paying attention knows that NIST rejected the explosive demolition angle.

    1. So, HR, just to clarify: you’re saying that because Ryan promotes thermite, which is so NOT the OCT, he’s hypocritical in also asking us to accept so many of the official story’s bullet points?

      1. Yes Mr Syed,
        That is part of my point indeed.
        Any addition to that is bound to be cryptic to the majority of the readers here.

  10. I failed to mention the work of Enver Masud, when mentioning the individuals and organizations (CIT, Pilots) that Ryan says have failed to shed light on the Pentagon. Masud actually just left two comments at my FB sharing of this article:
    Enver Masud: Kevin says, “The work of independent investigators has also failed to address those questions.” (p. 152) WRONG, see AND/OR
    Enver Masud: I’ve found, when presenting to an audience not familiar with the research, the Pentagon case is the easiest to make — and it’s made largely with the government’s own records.

  11. Great work, Adam. I am grateful for young eyes, like yours, that can read this kind of tepid hogwash, the apparent intent of which seems to be to multiply the questions while never providing any coherent theory of the crime that would interest anyone seeking actually to solve it. I won’t attempt to guess what Ryan’s motive would be in bending himself into pretzel form to steer 9/11 research into blind alleys.
    His associating my name with a prominent alleged neo-con through my former employer, stating that I “worked for” Fred Ikle, when I only had one brief encounter with him in a work capacity – that of setting up the company e-mail at his home computer, seemed a bit of a stretch. This was known to Ryan, since I told him what the relationship was – namely none at all. I was also tapped to act as one of the ceremonial honor guard when JFK visited the campus of UNC at Chapel Hill during my freshman year. So, with ties like that, and by that standard, obviously, I would also be a suspect in his subsequent assassination.
    Ryan was one of the earliest and most vocal of the CIT critics, and what I noticed when his criticism first emerged was that it was disproportionately hostile and negative from a person who would be logically assumed to be an ally of the Truth movement or at least intrigued by research that was well documented and which opened some lines of inquiry that seemed stalemated before. What I also found to be odd was the dyspeptic manner in which Ryan and the “greek chorus” of CIT criticism, 911Blogger seemed to be acting out of personal animus toward CIT instead of challenging the key points of the evidence that they developed. The attacks got personal very quickly and it was never made clear why that should be.
    At the time of the inception of the Consensus Panel debacle (in my opinion) I had an email conversation with a colleague of Dr. Griffin’s. I was talking about the fact that were we to prove that the “body of the crime” of 9/11 was proven to be what CIT evidence shows it to be, a faked plane crash, and a deception that could not happen without the witting cooperation of key parts of the U. S. Government, media, and the Pentagon. It would be easy to imagine such a revelation bringing down the entire government.
    According to several accounts of the deliberations of the Warren Commission following the 1963 coup that removed John F. Kennedy from the presidency, aborting his apparent intention to withdraw advisors from Vietnam and end U. S. involvement in that region, Lyndon Johnson played a key role in convincing the Commission members that pressing forward with investigating JFK’s death would reveal involvement of the Soviets and Cuba and could easily touch off a nuclear exchange resulting in a massive nuclear conflagration killing millions on both sides. The coverup was necessary to avoiding that so there was no public notice taken that Allen Dulles might have a conflict of interest, since he was fired by JFK and that LBJ himself had a great deal to gain by JFK’s demise.
    Is it possible that some of the effort to throw water on some of the hottest 9/11 evidence is done in the name of preservation of the status quo? “We don’t know who was behind it and we really don’t want to know because things are fine just as they are.” Everyone is making money off the GWOT, we are stealing the oil, and reworking the maps, so just let things lie. No need to stir up things with evidence that your own M-I complex assisted by “our greatest ally in the Middle East” killed off thousands of our citizens and committed massive fraud on the American people and the world in general. Just let the 9/11 conversation simmer along, complicate it so much with false leads and “experts” who strangely don’t seem all that expert, and who strangely don’t also seem to have much interest in learning any more so just STFU – and that particularly goes for CIT who had the nerve to put out evidence without a single PhD to their name.
    So, thank you, Adam, and Craig (both of you) and the others who don’t just roll over and let the purveyers of fog and official story fuzz cloud the picture. Instead of maximizing the use of the official story, I really think we ought to question everything we can.

    1. Shelton, thanks for the reply.

      His associating my name with a prominent alleged neo-con through my former employer, stating that I “worked for” Fred Ikle, when I only had one brief encounter with him in a work capacity – that of setting up the company e-mail at his home computer, seemed a bit of a stretch. This was known to Ryan, since I told him what the relationship was – namely none at all. I was also tapped to act as one of the ceremonial honor guard when JFK visited the campus of UNC at Chapel Hill during my freshman year. So, with ties like that, and by that standard, obviously, I would also be a suspect in his subsequent assassination.

      That is quite revealing. By the way, regarding his mentioning of your name, he has an endnote. Here is what that endnote says:
      Lyndon LaRouche reported that Telos’ board of directors was a “who’s who” of Richard Perle associates,
      If we click on that link, and then use the CTRL+F function, we do not find “Lankford” anywhere on the page, nor do we find it on the PDF link that’s linked to on that page.
      Googling “Shelton Lankford Telos Corporation,” we find, from Shelton’s own LinkedIn profile. Past work experience includes: “Information Technology Manager at Telos Corporation.”
      His example concerning you, Shelton, only makes me wonder of the solidity of the many other “connections” he makes in the book.

    2. My history with Kevin Ryan is as follows: I did not view him skeptically until mid 2010. I admired him, and was on his FB friend list, and all the rest. I had no idea whatsoever where he stood on the Pentagon, but I assumed he would naturally support researchers and evidence which got us closer to the truth.
      Readers here will probably remember when Barrie Zwicker published a video of himself sitting in his office, reading a statement of endorsement for CIT. Furthermore, they will remember that this video was not published at 911blogger. As such, I was getting the word of it out on FB. I posted it on Kevin Ryan’s wall, using the heading “Barrie Zwicker Endorses CIT, denounces critics as tricky and unreliable.”
      Later on that evening, I was chatting on FB with a 9/11 truth activist, and I mentioned that I had posted the Zwicker video on Ryan’s wall. He said, “Where is it? I don’t see it.” That’s funny, I thought. So I pulled up Ryan’s profile, and… lo and behold, up in that top right corner, the button “Add Friend.” He had deleted the Zwicker video and my friendship to boot!
      Having his personal email address, I sent him an entirely civil email, apologizing if my post had offended in any way, and if so, asked what specifically about it did he take exception to. I reiterated how saddened I was to see the “unfriending,” and how much I admired all he had done for the truth. He never replied.
      It was very shortly after this occurrence that he started to go public with his sympathy towards Legge, Hoffman, etc. with his “A Dozen Questions about the Pentagon that May Lead to Justice (and one that won’t)” article which was meant to be a (not-so-)subtle swipe at CIT and supporters. That was the article in which he accused people of being divisive by seeking endorsement for their work.
      Then a few months later, he wrote his “Up A Crooked Creek” article in response to the RCFP article about 911blogger. In that article, he insisted that anyone/everyone who had been banned at 911blogger had been banned for good reasons.

      1. I just read “Up A Crooked Creek” last night. As well as all of the holier than thou commentary that followed, which is recently proven hypocritical by Ryan’s very first response to criticism of his new book – that of calling Tand S and all of us here ‘disinformation agents’.
        Shall we make a count of how many commentators have been banned here compared to Blogger? I only know of a couple here, and one of those for a most egregious and insane comment.
        I would hope that our detractors would have the wherewithal to attempt an argument defending this idea that we should “accept as much of the official account as possible,” as well as defend the contention that a large aircraft could have actually impacted the Pentagon. But it seems to me that if they were capable of such arguments they wouldn’t have banned all of the people they have in the first place.
        In such an instance I don’t suppose there is much chance of a dialog with any of them at this point, as the Pentagon is a “non-issue” for them now. [Bizarre].

    3. Adam Syed,
      I appreciate what you have done here and the time it took to do it. It is very important that we speak up about this kind of stuff (Ryan’s book) and express the issues with it. If none of us do speak up it gets cemented into the movement as credible and accepted. I find myself lacking the time and energy to say all these things that need to be said. Your review is therefore invaluable and important for all of us and I for one appreciate you taking the time to do it.
      I will add to the discussion of Kevin Ryan by expressing what to me seems to be the biggest red flag of all about him. Namely that Ryan refuses to debate those he backhandedly attacks. To me this is the mark of a dishonest and cowardly person, to level charges at others and make claims about them and then refuse to discuss it in the open with them or with anyone. What real truther does not want to uncover the facts and evidence about 9/11, a fake one that’s who!
      Look I am not going to mince words here. Ryan’s Pentagon position is a provable load of crap, easily refuted, and he is way too smart to not know that. Why would someone as smart as Ryan promote provable garbage and simultaneously attack the NOC evidence? Why? Because he is NOT a truther and his agenda is something else entirely. If his position had any merit whatsoever he would embrace debate just like he did with Popular Mechanics (by the way I was NOT impressed with that debate and he seemed to let golden opportunities to crush PM slip right by). If his attacks on CIT had any basis in fact he would confront them in public and expose them for what they really are in order to advance the truth and the cause. But he refuses to face CIT or any of us in the light of open debate instead hiding like a cockroach he lobs his garbage from behind an electronic Berlin Wall. Chandler and Cole do the same and so I have come to recognize this characteristic of refusing debate to be one of the strongest signs that the person is not a genuine truther.
      Another issue with Ryan and his laughable Pentagon position is that he appears to think that his background in chemistry somehow makes him an expert on the Pentagon evidence. It doesn’t. He is no more of an expert on the issues we are dealing with at the Pentagon than a plumber or a cardiologist or a TV weather man. Where did ANYONE in the movement get the gall to even try to list people like Ryan and Legge and Chandler as “experts” on par with P4T and the CIT who actually conducted the investigation themselves? None of those men have any particular skills or experience that makes them authorities on the Pentagon. Why is their opinion important at all concerning the Pentagon? The answer is it isn’t! The only reason Ryan and the others I mentioned have not simply been laughed off as cranks similar to our resident crank A.Wright is because of their work on the CD evidence and their college degrees.
      In point of fact what is going on here is that some in the movement including DRG are trying to pigeon hole 9/11 truth by suggesting that PhD truthers are the only real truthers. In fact it was even suggested by DRG’s assistant that the CIT evidence needs to be peer reviewed! Really? Peer review is what is needed to validate the NOC evidence? What a giant load of crap and what a cowardly excuse to avoid the powerful NOC evidence, totally unacceptable and fraudulent line of reasoning. Ryan, Woodworth, and DRG should be ashamed of themselves for even going down that road in the first place.
      This whole meme about peer review and publishing in a scientific journal is GARBAGE! I don’t need a peer review (especially from a chemist) to tell me that the NOC witnesses are authentic nor do I need a peer review to validate the implications of the NOC flight path. I can do it all on my own. To make it even more maddening is the fact that Ryan and others are pushing this meme about “expert” peer review and journal papers while NOT having the relevant expertise to conduct the reviews or write the papers. The P4T do have the relevant expertise and they endorse the NOC evidence whole heartedly. So the idea being pushed here by Ryan and DRG and others is that “experts” are the only ones who have anything to contribute to the truth movement and it is they alone who shall decide what is truth and what isn’t and they will come to a “consensus” among themselves and present that as representing the truth movement. Not only that but that they themselves are THE experts even when we are dealing with issues and evidence that has nothing to do with chemistry or physics. Hell we are supposed to accept them as THE experts over and above P4T on aviation questions! They aren’t and I don’t.
      Ryan doesn’t represent me nor does the consensus panel represent the truth movement. Ryan is a chemist so according to his own rules of “peer review” and scientific journalism we should disregard his opinion about the pentagon as worthless since he does not possess the relevant scientific credentials to evaluate the aviation issues at play here nor does he have the relevant criminal investigation skills to properly evaluate the NOC witness testimony. By his own rules his opinion is worthless. By my own rules his opinion is worth as much as a plumber’s opinion when it comes to the Pentagon.

    4. As long as everybody is piling on poor Mr. Kevin Ryan, I might as well contribute my feather-of-weight by starting with something Mr. Adam Ruff wrote:

      The only reason Ryan and the others I mentioned have not simply been laughed off as cranks similar to our resident crank A.Wright is because of their work on the CD evidence and their college degrees.

      Regarding their work (e.g., Dr. Steven Jones and Mr. Ryan) on the CD evidence, this ties in with the words of Mr. Daniel Noel with his “9/11 censorship” claims. You see, their framing of the discussion around super-duper nano-thermite was one of those so-called “limited hang-out’s” out of which they got lots of mileage despite parking “further research” in a cul-de-sac. The high school chemistry and math extrapolated backwards from the evidence (e.g., pulverization energy, long duration under-rubble hot-spots, tritium, correlated elements in dust indicating nuclear involvement, 1st responder ailments, etc.) was always eventually going to expose the inapplicability and non-Occam Razorness of super-duper nano-thermite with any combination of [name your] chemical explosive CD mechanisms (as primary).
      All along, they have known of the weaknesses of their postulated mechanisms, which is why they never produced papers with even “back-of-envelope calculations” of ball-park guestimates on chemical CD (including thermite) quantities. All along, they have known that they needed to be looking towards other sources for the energy and destruction. Dr. Judy Wood’s “disinformation vehicles” comes closest from the other direction regarding at least “thinking out of the box” into other sources of destruction.
      “9/11 censorship?” Yep, neither Mr. Ryan, Dr. Jones, Mr. Chandler, Dr. Legge, nor Mr. Cole have ever offered up a detailed “good, bad, and ugly” book review on Dr. Wood’s “disinformation vehicles”. Why, because certainly one can find some “bad and ugly?” Why was it mostly off-hand dismissals and hand-waves of “looney” aimed at low-hanging disinformation fruit (that I call “get-out-of-assassination cards” played by Dr. Wood) like Hutchison Effects and Hurricane Erin?
      The reasons for their silence may have been (1) out of respect to keep the “limited hang-out” efforts of Dr. Wood in play while running down the clock on the public’s attention span; and (2) to ~NEVER~ call attention to the good in Dr. Wood’s work, because the good are valid anomalies that all 9/11 theories-du-jour must address to be complete, and their thermic aspirations couldn’t.
      They have acted as part of 9/11 Censors against the fact that 9/11 was nuclear, which has its very own figuratively “nuclear” connotations with regards to how the public would, should, or could react with respect to the status quo, leadership, government, government institutions, banking institutions, etc. This is in addition to the literal “nuclear” connotations with regards to what the military reaction would, should, or could be with respect to nuclear responses to those framed as the aggressors. The spoils of war that they hoped to gain would go up in mushroom clouds. What profit $$$ is there in that?
      I have no doubt that the PTB could have nuked us and blamed someone else in a very false-flag sense. They could have even kept with the meme of 19 Muslim extremists. And the nation and I would have been eager to believe that fairy-tale, too. I suspect that the PTB through its MIC institutions were squashing this — “9/11 censorship” –, because the ground-swell from the FOX & CNN viewers to “nuke them into a parking lot because (according to the fairy-tell) them foreign rag-head SOBs done nuked us first” would be counter-productive with the war-profiteering.
      In fairness with the nuclear theme, the USA did “nuke them foreign rag-head SOBs” with depleted uranium weapons against the better judgment of just about anybody. [My mocking of the sentiments of FOX-style Hawks is not mine; it is an indication of how “the enemy was de-humanized” in the PSYOPS perpetrated on us.] The USA instigated rendition, torture, enemy combatant legal limbo status, indefinite detention without trial, drone killings, and a host of other autrocities against our nation’s laws, its Constition, and its moral & religious underpinnings.
      Nuking of Iraq and Afganistan via depleted uranium is another one of those dots in the trend line that says, “if their morals & ethics permits them to nuke their alleged enemies, then a 9/11 nuclear Pearl Harbor event at the WTC isn’t beneath them either,” particularly if it furthers the PNAC goals.
      A gem to be plucked from all of this is that the PTB nuked us, and then went to great effort to tell us via the media and lots of “authority figures” it was something else: gravity driven pancaking pile-driver. Jonesian Thermite and Woodsian DEW were back-stops to prevent full nuclear revelation and its subsequent “hair-on-fire panic.” And I believe it is why lots of 9/11 Censors who were late to the game and should’ve (or did) known better but played ball anyway: to preserve status quo. And it was probably “personally insentivized” upon them as well in a “deal with the devil” sense. Those who didn’t play didn’t last very long in Congress.

      1. I think that smearing Professor Jones with the same black brush as the one Ryan is deserved of, is a matter of ‘guilt by association’.
        The argument for nukes at WTC is so flawed that, and the assertions framing Jones in this respect so spurious, that I make this comment despite the hysterical response I know that it will receive from the anonymous entity calling itself, “Señor”.

      2. Mr. Rogue’s spinning carousel squeaks its lack of understanding between “critical review of work” and “smear on an individual.” Yet again. Ho-hum.

        Review: an evaluation of a publication, product, service, or company… A peer review is the process by which scientists assess the work of their colleagues that has been submitted for publication in the scientific literature.
        Criticism: the practice of judging the merits and faults of something or someone in a sometimes negative, sometimes intelligible, (or articulate) way.
        Smear: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively.
        Smear tactics: differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual and to attempt to undermine their credibility. … Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and are often distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip spreading.

        Mr. Rogue’s “smearing Professor Jones” accusation against me is unfounded. Using URLs, Mr. Rogue should document where I might have used smear tactics against Dr. Jones. For any cherry-picked quotations that he may deem to be uncharitable descriptions of Dr. Jones, prove that the context did ~not~ provide substantiation in the form of critical review of Dr. Jones’ work and found it with faults.
        In other revolutions, Mr. Rogue’s carousel has squeaked about my alleged “character assassination” and “smearing”, yet when confronted for specifics (as above), his substantiation was MIA. Spoiler alert: Mr. Rogue’s carousel squeaks about “smearing” can be proven (yet again, ho-hum) to be themselves “smears.” Oh the games he plays!
        Or is everything that was written in this thread and was critical about Kevin Ryan’s work “character assassination” and “smearing” as well?
        “Guilt by association?” Ha! Mr. Ryan and Dr. Jones were co-authors on the nano-thermite paper, which has some malframing in purpose & limiting of scope and doesn’t account for what maintained the hot-spots in between the measured spikes in output of gasses. A rather glaring omission. And when cornered, Dr. Jones admits (Sept 2012) that “something maintainted those hot-spots (not just NT)” yet offers no speculation into what that something was!
        On the surface, a carousel cranker would say that “it is forgivable that Dr. Jones, Mr. Ryan, et al did ~not~ speculate further.” However, scratching below that surface, a critical reader realizes that the paper was itself a speculative effort into attributing six spikes in the hot-spots to super-duper nano-thermite. They succeeded! Even I can believe! The issue remains from which their efforts side-track: “something maintainted those hot-spots (not just NT).” Their subsequent PR tours to promote this work pre-maturely parks in the nano-thermite cul-de-sac further public thought & research into explaining the rest of the anomalous evidence.
        Seems to me that Dr. Jones was first author, but none of the authors including chemist Mr. Ryan have been able to publicly provide calculations into the requisite quantities of thermite (with any combination of conventional chemical explosives) that can account for pulverization AND hot-spot duration AND audio signature. Another glaring omission. Why would they neglect this simple little exercise that is second nature to their professions? I submit that they have performed the math, so Dr. Jones’ and Mr. Ryan’s true negligence is in not making it publicly known. Why? Because the calculations suggest massive quantities that ain’t Occam Razor.
        As for Dr. Jones’ “no-nukes” paper, it starts off on the wrong foot by accepting without question or qualification the stilted commissioned work by the govt on “potential” sources for the tritium measured in the run-off from WTC-6 at haphazard measuring locations & times and stops taking samples when the levels were found to be miniscule and not hazardous to health. Then Dr. Jones implies those stilted findings were the complete story on the actual tritium at the WTC, when clearly (1) no samples were taken at ~any~ of the hot-spots and (2) few samples were taken in a systematic or timely fashion, like before dilution with water. Then the acclaimed BYU Nuclear Physics Professor frames everything as large nuclear devices and does not even mention neutron bombs, which is a variant of fusion. Pretty damning omission.
        Mr. Rogue has Dr. Jones’ email address, and they have exchanged emails in the past. Dr. Jones has never addressed the deficiencies in his work.
        For the record, the above is a valid critique of Dr. Jones’ work. It is Mr. Rogue who twists that as being a smear on the man. Mr. Rogue tries to start a flame war with:

        The argument for nukes at WTC is so flawed that, and the assertions framing Jones in this respect so spurious, that I make this comment despite the hysterical response I know that it will receive from the anonymous entity calling itself, “Señor.”

        In closing this “hysterical response”, I point out that the flaws are the other way around: they are in the works of Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan. Mr. Rogue — hypnotic writer that he is — gets tripped up by an imaginary garden hose of several hundred THOUSAND miles and by the significance of correlated elements measured by the USGS in the dust. In a Tetris sense, the anomalous 9/11 evidence stacks with fewest gaps when considering “neutron nuclear DEW”.

        1. Señor, Hygridrogue1 and others,
          While Kevin Ryan does pop up in this comment a few times, I do not want it to lead us back into a debate about Steven Jones, Judy Wood, or 9/11 nukes. As you all know, I’m very open to virtually any 9/11 topic, but I don’t want this comment stream to turn into a two-person argument about something that has nothing to do with Ryan’s book, particularly because it will lead others to drop out of the discussion. I know most of us haven’t read Ryan’s book (Adam Syed was the brave one who “took one for the team” there), but there are plenty of things we can debate that are on topic.
          Thank you.

      3. “Mr. Rogue should document….”~Señor
        No, Mr. Rogue is not going to waste this forum’s time, not one more time with this bullshit argument about your lunatic “nookeedoodoo” hobbyhorse.

      4. Connecting my postings with the topic:
        Mr. Syed has found Mr. Ryan’s premise on the Pentagon very wanting and offers lots of examples.
        If the Pentagon is one instance of scope-limiting leading to false conclusions in Mr. Ryan’s work, could there be others?
        Lo and behold, there is! In his nano-thermite (NT) work done with Dr. Jones.
        The problems in that NT work has already been alluded to in my previous posting, but Mr. Ryan’s Pentagon-misdirections only underscores the importance of revisiting the misdirections in that NT work.
        P.S. Mr. Rogue has not proved his hypnotic allegations of my “smearing” of Dr. Jones while at the same time avoiding my valid criticisms of Dr. Jones’ and Mr. Ryan’s work. Ergo, I’ve earned the right to have him STFU.

    5. Shelton: You are obviously a smart man. I write this not for the effect of flattery but as a matter of clarity. Not only do I agree with you that the 9/11 Truth Movement has fizzled due to its censorship by the elites in many sectors motivated by unbridled greed. I go further. 9/11 was the catalyst for not only the NWO, but the last NWO; namely for Greater Israel and for the world’s capitol to be in the days of woe, Jerusalem.
      As far as Ryan, he has either gone ‘wet’ or he is in this gig purely for financial gain.

  12. The omission of CIT and ZION from the book is now one of its largest parts.
    The facts are not being presented. and that is not right.
    I feel very bad about it.

    “RCFP feels free to benefit, financially and otherwise, from the work of honest 9/11 truth investigators, and feels free to use the standing it achieved through that work as a vehicle to attack the very people who have kept them in business.”~Kevin Ryan
    “I hope that we can return to a place of civility on the non-issue of “what hit the Pentagon.”
    ~Kevin Ryan
    “For those folks who are really interested in the Pentagon, here is where you can put some coin…”~TomT [9/11 blogger Sat, 10/30/2010 – 9:48pm]
    . . . . . . . . . .
    It has been my observation that every site I have had “banning” problems on, just happen to be sites that have the tin-cup out…
    I have never thought of the search for 9/11 Truth as “business” as in a for-profit exercise.
    Or even “non-profit” in the sense of “money to keep doing our valuable work”…
    I have put from 8 – 12 hours a day 24/7 for years and never once thought about being paid for my time.
    ‘Controversy’ and ‘money’ are fickle friends of one another. You can ‘sell’ controversy, but it will often bite you in the ass. You can avoid controversy for profit, and that can also bite you in the ass. If you have the integrity to leave money out of the equation, your opinions may be up for criticism, but never can you be targeted as looking to be a profiteer.
    Do I see “profiteer” writ large in the quotes I posted above? [Subtext rarely lies]
    One man’s “civility” is another man’s jackhammer.

  14. Ryan’s swipe at me by making a bogus conflation of my former job and Fred Ikle had its inception when Ryan was shopping around for a pilot to say something nice about Frank Legge’s Pentagon analysis. I had reviewed it from a pilot perspective and found it absurd. It was much like the other critiques of CIT in that it begged the central question and the thorny problem that a NOC aircraft cannot get close to the approach path that the official story requires in order to demonstrate validity.

    1. @Shelton Langford
      ” It was much like the other critiques of CIT in that it begged the central question and the thorny problem that a NOC aircraft cannot get close to the approach path that the official story requires in order to demonstrate validity.”
      Does the evidence of where the plane flew have any relevance to whether it hit the Pentagon?

      1. It matters a great deal. The plane had to follow the official path exactly or it wouldn’t have created the damage path we saw. So if the path was different (as CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth have conclusively shown) then the light poles and C ring “exit hole” were faked. Why would you fake the damage path if you were going to fly the plane into the building anyway? Had the plane hit after travelling along a North of Citgo path, there would have been other poles knocked over.

      2. Craig, if I may add to your post to A. Wright:
        If the plane hit the Pentagon at the angle it comes in, that makes the trajectory wrong for the damage that actually occurred.
        The only possibility then is that the plane did not hit the building. It had to have flown over.
        It is then postulated that this plane, a remote controlled full size Boeing, had a beacon that set off explosions inside the Pentagon. The first to go off are smoke bombs creating a smoke screen that the plane flies through and disappears creating the illusion that it must have hit the building.
        Keep in mind that this moment is split seconds.
        Think, David Copperfield.
        Why not actually fly a real plane into the Pentagon as with the towers?
        Because the damage had to be perfectly selective…no chances taken with error, the military brass is housed there. So the damage was totally controlled, taking out the Navy accounting office [the main target]
        This wedge of the Pentagon had just undergone “hardening reconstruction”…
        it is posited that the internal explosions were built into the walls and pillars inside along with the “renovation”.
        Remember 2.3 Trillion dollars of the Pentagon budget had “gone missing” as announced by Rumsfeld just the day before; Monday, September 10, 2001.
        The financial aspects of the whole combined 9/11 event is one of the major keys to solving this crime.

      3. Ah the clouds part finally and A.Wright has asked the first relevant question about the Pentagon. While the question does illustrate the fact that A.Wright knows virtually nothing about the Pentagon evidence at least it is a relevant question. The answer to your question A.Wright is a resounding YES! In fact where the plane flew proves two things: 1. That it did not and could not hit the Pentagon. 2. The damage at the Pentagon (downed light poles etc.) was staged.
        Welcome to your very first peek at the truth A.Wright. I have a strong feeling you are not sincere at all in your quest to learn the truth of 9/11 but we will see what we see won’t we?

      4. Of course when speaking to the 2.3 trillion in missing Pentagon dollars, we have to take into account one Dov Zakheim, the comptroller general for the Pentagon at that time, and his connections light up like a pinball machine.
        Especially interesting is his company which supplied the Boeings to Elgin AFB to be outfitted as in-flight tankers. Add that to his ownership of another company that made the “flight termination” module that is clearly visible on the jet that was captured on film from so many angles hitting the second tower, and we got a “Bingo” as per one of the major players in this PSYOP.

      5. Here’s another tidbit for you, bub: A commercial airplane cannot fly at 510 knots at sea level without some major damage happening to the plane.

  15. On this page is my own interpretation of the flight path of the flyover plane at the Pentagon on 9/11, according to what I hear from the North Path witnesses [CIT]. {Bold Red Line}:
    If anyone is interested in giving input as to adjustments to this path, I would appreciate it.
    There is a comment box at the site.
    I am sorry to map ended up so small on the WordPress page there. My original of this is huge. I can’t seem to find a happy medium in publishing this illustration.
    Thanks, \\][//

    1. Hi Willy,
      The map size is just fine (you have to click on it for it to enlarge).
      I added a comment at your blog. Good job mate!

      1. Oh thanks to getting back to me on that OSS. I’m glad to see you make an appearance here.
        Thanks for adding a comment on the blog. I do keep that rather low profile.
        You should give the story just before that page a gander as well. I think you would appreciate it as well.

      2. Hmmm…You say you added a comment there?
        Weird, I just checked the page out, I only see my three initial comments.
        Did you have any advice on what you might alter in my flight path?

      3. @ HR1
        There’s apparently a step you need to take for the comments to show up. I also left you a comment earlier today which, when I checked just now, said it was still awaiting moderation.. I think it’s a WordPress thing. Perhaps a seasoned Wordress administrator like Mr. McKee could suggest the action you need to perform to complete the process to allow comments.

      4. Yes, what hadmatter said. I think you have to check your email and it gives you a link to allow the comment to be posted.

      5. Thanks to all of you who looked at the flight path map and commented, and for alerting me to the need to moderate…I had no idea it was on automatic moderation mode…
        I will have to keep up with it because I found I can’t just turn the moderation off and let everything through—at least I don’t know how to.
        Anyway, your comments all show now. Thanks again,

  16. My reply to David Chandler’s review of Ryan’s book on Amazon:
    Ryan’s book promotes an absurd and provably false scenario of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. His theory shared by you Mr. Chandler will not withstand public debate vs. the North of Citgo evidence compiled by CIT and P4T. You and Ryan have been debunked decisively regarding the Pentagon and you have both utterly failed to issue the proper retractions and failed to debate the issue in an open public venue with the real experts on the Pentagon event. Ryan’s book and your paper Mr. Chandler are both provable hogwash regarding the Pentagon and therefore the book may actually do more harm than good to the truth movement. It is just too bad that so many so called truthers engage in hero worship of figures like Ryan instead of engaging in critical thinking. If they did use critical thinking they would quickly discover that Ryan’s book may not be worth the paper it is printed on.
    Of course you or Ryan himself can debate the Pentagon issue at the Truth and Shadows blog with me or any number of real truthers or you can simply accept the challenge to debate CIT on the issue which would be the very least any honorable person would do after the attacks you launched against them. Considering that you have not acted honorably to this point I do not expect you or Ryan to man up now but I wanted it on the record here that you were fairly and honorably challenged to debate the issue by CIT and you refused. It is easy to attack others from the safety of your home keyboard it is quite another thing to face those you attack in the open, eye to eye, and debate it for all to see.

    1. RT aka Gretavo from WTCDemolition responded to my above comment with the following:
      I too find Mr. Chandler’s unqualified endorsement of this book disappointing, as I do his insistence that we should not doubt that the crash of a large passenger jet is what caused the damage to the Pentagon on 9/11. Despite these disagreements I would never question his sincerity in his beliefs or his contributions to the truth movement, that are rivaled only by those of David Ray Griffin. Mr. Chandler can of course speak for himself on the subject, but it is likely that his increasingly entrenched position on the subject of the Pentagon was motivated at least as much by his analysis of the facts as it was by a seemingly coordinated campaign by the Citizen Investigation Team to engage him, among others (myself included) in an extremely vitriolic debate in which if you did not agree that their work was iron clad, let alone correct, you were publicly lambasted in ways echoed by the above comment by Mr. Ruff. Kudos are owed to Prof. Griffin, who does not believe AA77 flew into the Pentagon, for rising above the fray to form the 9/11 consensus panel to attempt to undo the harm done by the kind of factionalism exhibited by CIT and others. All that we of good faith and conscience can do is hope and pray that others like Griffin and Chandler will continue their good work with the least amount of interference by those characters of less than good faith who vastly outnumber us in the organized movement for 9/11 truth.
      I replied to RT aka Gretavo with the following:
      Chandlers paper on the Pentagon was carefully and fully responded to by CIT. They tore his sloppy paper to shreds and Chandler failed to address in any way the gaping holes in his logic and his argument that were exposed. If there was any real merit to his paper he could have and would have responded decisively. Also your comparison of Chandler to DRG is ridiculous. DRG has by far outdone Chandler in every way. Let us keep in mind that Chandlers main contribution was proving step by step what the truth movement already knew and was saying long before Chandler ever got interested in 9/11, namely that WTC 7 came down at free fall speed. I commend Chandler for that but it was hardly an original concept. As to your suggesting that challenging bad information and it’s purveyors to a debate equals a “coordinated attack” I say you and Chandler both need to grow some back bone and face your critics in a real debate and hash it out until the truth emerges. Frankly I have no respect for people who will not defend their position vs. critics especially in the truth movement. If he had a valid Pentagon position he could articulate it and defend it in public. Same goes for you RT, if you have a valid position about the Pentagon you could articulate what it is and defend it decisively against critics of it. Your hero worship of Chandler has clouded your judgement of his Pentagon work which is sloppy and wrong.

      1. The saga continues with this reply from RT to my post above:
        RT says:
        I came to the conclusion long ago that neither CIT nor the core (not including Chandler who was dragged into the mud) anti-CIT crowd at 911blogger are sincere. Much more likely to me is that they are yet another example of a manufactured false choice dilemma whereby the CIT makes a hash of defending a reasonable proposition (flyover) in order to push people into the camp of the anti-CIT crowd, who while wrong in insisting a jumbo jet must have hit the Pentagon, at least do so in a slightly more civilized manner. The real problem with CIT’s work is that it could easily have been faked by simply enlisting through bribery or other methods the services of a group of people who could claim to have witnessed a specific flight path from their vantage point. Does it not seem odd that among their witnesses are Pentagon police officers who apparently were cooperative enough to not just contradict the official story to a couple of random guys on camera but also to then allow said guys to use the footage in their movies? Please. Add to the weirdness their obnoxiousness and that of their fanboys in spreading their “with us or with the perps” gospel, and the ensuing coordinated response from the controlled crowd over at 911blogger, and the whole thing starts to become as painfully obviously fake as a pro-wrestling rivalry. It’s the ‘big lie’ at work over and over–the bigger the spectacle, the more players involved in the farce, the less likely any given person is to believe it really is all a huge piece of theater. But theater it most certainly is.
        To which I replied:
        Adam Ruff says:
        Make whatever excuses you want for refusing to debate the Pentagon evidence but know this: that they are excuses that don’t hold any water at all. Paranoia like yours takes a long time to get this bad but once it does all attempts at reason are doomed to fail so I will not bother to explain why this fantasy of yours that everyone but you is an operative is so ludicrous. It is ridiculous to imagine CIT as operatives simply because they have exposed the most dangerous (to the perps) evidence that there is, namely the staged crime scene at the Pentagon. Why paid operatives would ram a dagger into the heart of the perps is beyond me but whatever man you are going to believe what you are going to believe. I think you are disingenuous though and using your own paranoia as an excuse to avoid real debate which will expose how untenable your position on the Pentagon really is. Simply put the correct position which is supported by the most evidence will rise to the top in a debate and win the day. You and Chandler and Ryan cannot handle the fact that you are wrong and that someone else uncovered such important and damning evidence. It is an ego problem for Ryan and Chandler and somewhat for you as well mixed with extreme irrational paranoia. I feel sorry for you RT because for whatever reason the fact that you do not personally like the CIT guys has caused you to take yourself down this irrational path where everyone and everything is a lie. I recommend you swallow your pride and embrace the truth that the plane flew over the Pentagon as CIT and P4T have proven. Admitting your mistakes does not make you look smaller it makes you more of a man. Good luck to you. I will refrain from “attacking” you by challenging you to debate your position. What is your position anyway? Oh yeah I forgot “everyone is a liar” is your position.

      2. So Adam, let me get this straight, this argument with RT is taking place on the Amazon Reviews section? Or is it on an Amazon forum?
        Can you post the URL for this exchange?
        I’d like to read it there, even thought I cannot comment at Amazonia no mo no mo no mo…

      3. Yes it is taking place on the Amazon review by David Chandler for Ryan’s book. Here is the link:
        The plot thickens as Chandler himself has responded with the following:
        David Chandler wrote:
        My general policy is not to feed the trolls. However I would like to apologize to the unsuspecting general public that may have wandered into this inappropriate, off-topic, venomous, one-way flame war. The CIT and Judy Wood groupies have a long history of sowing disruption in the 9/11 Truth Movement. You are witnessing the kind of behavior we have to put up with all the time. Please don’t respond to them, or if you feel you must, please do it elsewhere. This should be a forum about Kevin’s book.
        To which I responded:
        Adam Ruff wrote:
        Mr. Chandler,
        First of all the time line will show clearly that it was in fact you and Ryan and the anti-CIT crowd at 911Blogger who did the attacking FIRST in each case. Your attempt to paint CIT as the aggressors falls flat on it’s face. You and Ryan both choose to attack CIT and their work and they defended themselves very well which you obviously find troubling. Your Pentagon paper was responded to respectfully and in great detail by CIT and they ripped your sloppy attack piece to shreds. You know it and I know it. You have refused to address the massive errors in your paper in any way shape or form which in my estimation makes you dishonest sir. This whole meme you are using as an excuse to avoid a legitimate discussion/debate is bull. Just because someone disagrees with you that does not make them a troll and you have no excuse whatsoever for refusing to address CIT’s careful and detailed response to your paper. I find it very hollow indeed that the only defense you seem to have for your bogus Pentagon paper is to call anyone who disagree’s with it a troll and refuse to debate the real issues with it. Your second line of defense seems to be to lump CIT in with the Judy Wood crappola which is dishonest of you to do. Neither CIT nor myself endorse or accept ANYTHING from Judy Wood. That is a guilt by association disinformation tactic you just used Mr. Chandler and it stinks. So if you consider a challenge to debate an “attack” then you need to find some back bone and either stand behind what you said in a public debate or retract it. Oh and as to suggesting to have this discussion elsewhere, I find that to be a hypocritical statement since neither you nor Ryan nor any of the other anti CIT crowd will step forward to debate the issue AND all the CIT supporters have been systematically blocked from posting at that cess pit of censorship 911Blogger. I say this is the only venue where you cannot gag us so it is the perfect venue to have the discussion. A discussion by the way which has everything to do with Kevins book and the factual errors in it related to the Pentagon. This discussion is on topic and on target sir.

      4. Excellent Adam,
        Thanks for the link. So Chandler hits back with the “Troll” smear right off the bat, while sitting on the high-horse claim that CIT are the uncivilized nimbus heads in this debate.
        Your answer to Chandler was very well constructed.
        These guys are really circling the wagon to protect their little click, and are loosing perspective. They are going to say things they will surely regret by shooting from the hip like this. For them this has all become political, and no longer has anything to do with the discovery of truth.
        I have read all of their work. They are at a disadvantage because they fail to read ours.

  17. Sorry I returned to the conversation a little late. Mr Wright is the first of the anti-CIT group to actually ask a relevant question and for that he should be commended. Let’s see where this conversation goes. As I said before somewhere, my experience as a pilot of both fighter and Transport category aircraft doesn’t make me smarter than non-pilots but it did imprint on me a very good feel for how an aircraft has to maneuver to get from point A to point B. Hours spent in shooting approaches teach pilots what is and is not possible and if you ever wind up trying to land an airplane on short final with a big angle between the runway and the axis of the aircraft, you know why it’s called an overshoot and why you have to go around and start all over. The North of the Citgo aircraft had badly overshot his staged approach path and could not recover without going around again. The aircraft position agreed to by every one of the witnesses in NSA placed it North of the Citgo, and that is the fatal mistake that makes it a staged “accident” scene, because someone pre-positioned the light poles and the squibs were set to rip through the building. Rob Balsamo over at Pilots for 911 Truth actually modeled in a simulator graphics package what it would look like if a 757 type aircraft tried to get from that position to the first light pole and duplicate the necessary path to knock down the poles and fly into the Pentagon. It could not be done, but if it were attempted it would be the most god-awful whifferdil ever attempted in an airliner. Rob actually shows in an animation what it would look like if it were attempted. Wingtips in the dirt are among the results. The aircraft would have been a ball of aluminum and smoking rubble well outside the Pentagon. That’s why I call it impossible.
    So thank you for the question.

      1. Yea, Wright is here as an apologist for the official story.
        He thinks that Flt 77 had to have hit the Pentagon because the authorities told him so. And of course they would never lie about anything of such importance…{grin}

      2. Mr Syed,
        Can you give us just the list of these 19 people that Ryan exposes in this book? Or who all is mentioned if it is actually more than 19.
        Thanks, Willy

    1. @Shelton Langford
      I haven’t come back on this for a while, apologies.
      Just a couple of points on how I see this and where I think CIT have conducted a flawed assessment of the evidence.
      1: Addressing all of the evidence: When someone is conducting an investigation into anything , a crime , a plane crash , whatever it is , then when reaching a conclusion based on the evidence , all of the evidence has to weighed up when reaching that conclusion. If you watch CIT the conclusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon is reached without addressing the evidence that contradicts that conclusion. If you watch ‘NSA’ there is hardly a suggestion that it exists.
      2: Contradiction is mutual: If one piece of evidence contradicts another piece of evidence then the second contradicts the first. Things contradict one another. The term ‘fatally contradicts’ is itself a contradiction – the person using it has already come to a conclusion about one piece of evidence and is now declaring another piece of evidence false on the basis that it contradicts – or rather is ‘fatally contradicted’ by – this conclusion. This is evidence against the original conclusion that wasn’t part of arriving at that conclusion so therefore all of the evidence has not been weighed up in arriving at the conclusion.
      3: Working hypothesis: When someone is conducting an investigation and they find evidence that suggests some conclusion they form a working hypothesis that it is true and they then test that hypothesis by comparing it with other evidence and weighing up the possible scenarios and explanations for events, going back and forth over the evidence. This means that all evidence gets to be objectively assessed and not just dismissed because it contradicts an already arrived-at conclusion. This potentially skews the assessment of evidence of the whole event. CIT talk to eyewitnesses who say the plane flew to the north of the gas station and they then come to a conclusion about it. They use this conclusion to judge the rest of the evidence and come to a conclusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon even though the vast majority of evidence of the event contradicts this conclusion, evidence that plays almost no part in arriving at it.
      These are a few of the logical errors that I see in this whole CIT thing, and there are more. I think it’s fairly obvious a result of a flawed assessment of evidence leading to seemingly logical conclusions. They obviously believe it themselves or they wouldn’t be promoting it so enthusiastically. The fact that they find it difficult to understand that everyone doesn’t agree with their conclusions which they think they have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, should be an indicator to them that maybe they are mistaken about the way they have assessed the evidence.

      1. Wright, as per: AUGUST 9, 2013 – 5:07 PM:
        Again you don’t know what you are talking about. It is not simply CIT’s first film. It is all of the rest of the research that follows as well__and that research does indeed assess all of the known witnesses.
        Not only that, the ongoing research has countered successfully all of the fatally flawed criticisms of the ongoing research as it takes place.
        I could say more, but it is all wasted on you anyway…

      2. @Hybridrogue1
        ‘It is not simply CIT’s first film’. I presume you are talking about National Security Alert , which I mentioned. So what I said about this NSA dvd using flawed evidence assessment is correct? Are CIT presenting to people ,in their NSA dvd , their conclusions about what happened at the Pentagon and the logic that they use to arrive at those conclusions or are they not? Are CIT saying something different in their other videos? Do they use some different logic and line of reasoning to come to their conclusions, for instance in ‘The Pentacon’ or ‘The first known accomplice”?
        At the start of NSA it says:
        ” In the following presentation we will expose to you independant verifiable evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the 9/11 attack was a state sponsored false-flag “black” operation, involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception at the Pentagon.
        Relying on detailed interviews with eyewitnesses to the event , the flight path of the jet that allegedly struck the Pentagon and was seen flying treetop level over Arlington that day is conclusively established.
        As you will see, this flight path is very different from what the government reports, and we will explain the significance of this discrepancy momentarily.”
        Do you mean they are going to expose to people evidence proving something beyond a reasonable doubt but they are not going to expose to them the evidence that contradicts it? – the evidence that, to put it mildly, raises the reasonable doubts?
        Are the eyewitnesses to the event that they rely on the only eyewitnesses to the event or are there others that they haven’t mentioned?
        Are they conclusively establishing the flight path of the jet using these witnesses and then declaring evidence that contradicts that conclusion to be false? – a linear evidence assessment starting with a conclusion based on part of the evidence, instead of a working hypothesis? -an initial conclusion that dictates their entire conclusion , ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ , about the event?
        i.e. NOC equals flyover
        This outline of NSA is
        A. A prima facia case for deception
        B. The required south side approach as per official data, reports, and the physical damage
        C. The north side approach evidence
        D. The flyover/flyaway evidence
        E. Taxicab driver Lloyde England and lightpole #1
        I don’t see much mention there of evidence, from eyewitnesses even just for starters, who said that the plane hit the building. The reason there isn’t much of a mention of them is that they weren’t involved in the assessment of the evidence so it’s not surprising they wouldn’t be there. It is surprising though that a presentation about an investigation which concludes that a plane flew over a building practically ignores all the evidence that it didn’t fly over the building.
        Quote the end of NSA :
        “We know that the implications of the evidence presented in this video are very disturbing and frightening, however hiding from this information is not an option for any of us.”
        If this presentation is supposed to present a conclusion based on a logical analysis of evidence and leaves out the vast majority of that evidence – evidence that contradicts that conclusion – then it is patently flawed analysis.

      3. In reply to A.Wright AUGUST 11, 2013 – 9:00 AM:
        No Wright I am not saying any of the things you ask, nor am I insinuating any such things. All I meant was that the first video NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT has been followed up and built upon since it’s appearance.
        The rest of your squabble babble can be likened to complaining that Edgar Rice Burroughs published TARZAN OF THE APES, as a stand alone novel rather than waiting to write what became a whole series of Tarzan novels.
        CIT found the first of what would become an ever larger body of evidence is all I was saying. As far as your continuing pretense as a “critical thinker” and writing these long drawn out commentaries based on a slick tile floor and covering it with slippery excrement…Wow, a stinky skating rink my man…

      4. Let me add this Wright,
        I did not address any of your commentary specifically, and you could come back with a complaint as to such — so let me preempt such disingenuous remarks here and now.
        I have pointed out to you numerous times, that speaking in these seemingly rational generalities is just a veneer of bullshit. You have never once picked out one specific ‘witness’ to discuss…in all of the time you have been here squawking about this.
        I and we have shown you where to look for assessments given for every known witness. I have provided you with the link to the ‘Witness Spreadsheet’. Yet still you banter on from a position of utter ignorance speaking to an empty ‘general theory’ of critical investigation.
        We are just so tired of this jejune bullshit Wright. Get a clue or take a hike.

      5. @Hybridrogue1
        All this evidence from the eyewitnesses you refer to , a whole spreadsheet of them, and it is left out of the CIT evidence assessment, and left out of the NSA dvd – where they conclude that the plane flew over the Pentagon and present their evidence and explain how they reached that conclusion.
        ” In the following presentation we will expose to you independant verifiable evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the 9/11 attack was a state sponsored false-flag “black” operation, involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception at the Pentagon. ”
        What do they say about this evidence ,omitted from NSA which reaches this conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt?
        “And the relatively small number of witnesses who were in locations from which they may have been able to see the alleged impact spot and who do genuinely believe that they saw the plane hit the building were fooled by a carefully planned deception, executed with military precision, as revealed by the conclusive evidence that the plane flew over the Navy Annex and then banked to its right on the north side of the Citgo gas station.”
        Evidence of eyewitnesses which was excluded from an evidence assessment, is then declared false because it contradicts the conclusion of that evidence assessment.
        Other people know they have to include and weigh up all the evidence when reaching a conclusion and not reach a conclusion first and then dismiss that evidence.

      6. Response to A.Wright – AUGUST 11, 2013 – 8:56 PM:
        Why do you continue this useless banter Wright?
        You still continue these gross generalities.
        I have given you every opportunity to learn some specifics that you can challenge, but you still continue with your same tired line of bullshit.
        Mount yourself on a spindle and spin, but leave me out of it.

      7. @Hybridrogue1
        This ‘useless banter’ and ‘gross generalities’ as you describe them are about the principles of proper investigation, not just of what happened at the Pentagon but of any event under investigation. Anyone doing an investigation should realize the importance of them and how to apply them. Similar principles apply to court cases – people don’t present a prosecution case to a jury and then tell them to go and reach a verdict. They let them hear the defense case as well. People on juries don’t listen to a group of eyewitnesses presented by the prosecution, retire to the jury room, decide that what these witnesses are saying is correct and then listen to all the rest of the evidence in the case, deciding whether that evidence is true of false by comparing it to the conclusion they reached about this initial evidence.
        Like that cartoon of the people examining the elephant, people need to step back and see the overall picture, which only becomes clear when you do step back.

        1. How any sincere person can, in good faith, step back and look at the big picture of 9/11 and conclude that it was a terrorist attack by 19 fundamentalist Muslims is beyond me. It seems that the only way to do that is by accepting the official story as the default truth and then fighting like hell against anything that contradicts it – regardless of what the evidence shows.

      8. Wright,
        Do you honestly believe that those of us here don’t know the proper stages of investigation?
        I would remind you that this is not a ‘court case’ – we are not ‘trying’ anyone. We are attempting to find the truth of a matter that has been obfuscated by the powers of the state.
        I warned you about speaking in generalities because it leaves you stuck in the muck, and you don’t have any idea of the issues you are dealing with – just this vague general theory of investigation. You are like a punk kid that has Criminal Law 101 under his belt trying to argue with hardened detectives about how to go about solving a case.
        Anybody stupid enough to buy the utterly absurd official story of 9/11 is already standing there with their pants around their ankles after shuffling onto this forum with a lollipop in their face. You say preposterous things – you are a preposterous person.

      9. @Hybridrogue1
        Quote : “Do you honestly believe that those of us here don’t know the proper stages of investigation?”
        I’ve outlined them here and shown how CIT have failed to follow them. You have responded with personal abuse and failure to address the points I made. You have bought in to them without apparently thinking those principles do exist or should be applied, and now attack me for pointing them out. What else can I assume but that you don’t recognise these principles. If you do, then you agree with me. If you don’t, point out what you think the proper stages of investigation are.
        Quote: “I would remind you that this is not a ‘court case’ – we are not ‘trying’ anyone. We are attempting to find the truth of a matter that has been obfuscated by the powers of the state.”
        You don’t have to remind me this is not a court case. If someone is investigating something and says they are going to present people with evidence that is going to prove to them , beyond a reasonable doubt’ that something happened , then they are presenting a similar scenario to a court case – ‘here is the evidence and here is our logical evaluation of that evidence and we will demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt a particular conclusion based on it is true.’ I presume they are going to present a logical case, since they are talking to people in general and the case they are going to make is therefore one that they think other people , in general , are going to agree with. In fact they think other people can’t disagree with it, which is obvious when you read what they say about the idea that anyone could disagree with it. If they are not going to present the evidence against their conclusions but are at the same time talking about proving something ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ then they obviously don’t recognise that concept as applied to a court case or an investigation.
        Quote: “I warned you about speaking in generalities because it leaves you stuck in the muck, and you don’t have any idea of the issues you are dealing with – just this vague general theory of investigation. You are like a punk kid that has Criminal Law 101 under his belt trying to argue with hardened detectives about how to go about solving a case.”
        Thanks for the warning. ‘Vague general theory of investigation’ that you seem to think is not important, that in the case in question, doesn’t? shouldn’t? apply. Is it too vague for you? I don’t know how I could be more specific in applying them to this case.
        Quote “Anybody stupid enough to buy the utterly absurd official story of 9/11 is already standing there with their pants around their ankles after shuffling onto this forum with a lollipop in their face. You say preposterous things – you are a preposterous person.”
        Are you trying to intimidate me?

      10. Wright,
        One LAST TIME, if you want to address something specific about a particular witness, I will attend to that. I am sick of your attempt to make the same point over and over again. I don’t give a flying trapeze fuck what you think of my investigative prowess, nor whether I understand the stages of forensic investigation or not.
        I am telling you that every single issue you accuse me/us of not attending to has indeed been assessed – every single known witness, all of their known positions at the time of the incident. What they could and could not have seen from their vantage points….etc etc etc…for keyryste sake.
        The fact is; the bulk of the witnesses who were in position to see the actual approach of the plane clearly put the aircraft as flying over the Naval Annex and to the north of the Citgo station. That is ALL you need to know to conclude that it could not have caused the directional damage that is clearly and unequivocally on the official record.
        Can you grasp that simple fact?

      11. @Hybridrogue1
        Quote: “I am telling you that every single issue you accuse me/us of not attending to has indeed been assessed – every single known witness, all of their known positions at the time of the incident. What they could and could not have seen from their vantage points….etc etc etc”
        This is all the evidence absent from line of reasoning used by CIT to arrive at their conclusions because they don’t address it in arriving at them. The more you say about all this evidence the more you are reinforcing the the fact that they failed to address it before their conclusions were arrived at.
        Quote: ” I am sick of your attempt to make the same point over and over again.”
        I am pretty tired having to repeat it when the only response is to not address it and resort to the the kind of dismissive ” I don’t give a flying trapeze fuck what you think of my investigative prowess” comments that you think , apparently, qualify as argument. My original comments weren’t addressed to you in the first place.
        Quote: “The fact is; the bulk of the witnesses who were in position to see the actual approach of the plane clearly put the aircraft as flying over the Naval Annex and to the north of the Citgo station. That is ALL you need to know to conclude that it could not have caused the directional damage that is clearly and unequivocally on the official record.”
        The very flawed logic that I point out. All you need to know is part of the evidence and then you judge the rest of the evidence using this evidence – evidence that unilaterally or ‘fatally’ contradicts other evidence but cannot be contradicted itself. A conclusion is arrived at about it as if it doesn’t affect other evidence , that it is a ‘simple claim’ , ‘a simple detail’ , and then when a conclusion is arrived at about it , suddenly it does affect everything else. A second conclusion is now drawn from this first conclusion and that is contradicted by all these witnesses that you talk about , but that almost universal contradiction has no influence on that second conclusion, so much so that It doesn’t even have to be mentioned or addressed apparently. As CIT say themselves in their FAQs, talking about the DNA evidence for example,
        Quote CIT:
        “These “DNA reports” are not valid evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence.”

      12. Popular History is a Modified Limited Hangout. Government is a racket. Gangsters and pirates run the world. And naïveté is not innocence.

    1. I agree Shelton, this is a very valuable analysis…Thanks for the PDF
      NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS – 01/02/2010 -By: Rob Balsamo
      “Conclusion – It is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole approaching from directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station. The flight paths illustrated by the witnesses would require G forces beyond the physical limitations of any aircraft for it to transition to an approach that lines up with the physical damage. Additionally, a hypothetical least challenging scenario at low speed would require bank angles that are irreconcilable with the physical damage, as well as the witness statements, and require an instantaneously performed roll that is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft.”

  18. Nice summation of Gretavo’s irrational paranoia, Adam. It’s pretty silly that he reaches that far.
    However, one may want to consider that he himself may be something more than a truther. His constant attempts at casting doubt and confusion when it comes to CIT/NOC may be purposeful misdirection. I’ve heard that he graduated from Harvard and where there’s Ivy, there may also be cloaks and daggers as well.

    1. I have my suspicions about RT aka Gretavo also which closely resemble your own. I find that when people start doing verbal and mental cart wheels to avoid the crux of the discussion that they are no longer trustworthy. When they do it repeatedly and avoid debate at all costs then I know there is a serious issue with that persons credibility. RT has crossed that threshold.

  19. Although there is no question there is something shady about the alleged hijackers and there is evidence of body doubles and framed-up patsies – the “hijackers were alive after 9/11” has been misdirecting, straw man disinfo from the start.
    Please see all the debunks. Although they are obviously biased and wrong in some areas, they did an efficient job of untangling the hijackers – alive and “dead”.
    If you want valuable pieces of evidence regarding the hijackers. I would start with the Two Ziad Jarrah’s…

    1. Broken Record,
      I recommend you read Jay Kolar, “What We now know about the Alleged Hijackers”, Chapter 1, The Hidden History of 9-11, 2nd paperback edition, Seven Stories Press. The issues of some being alive after 9-11 are not “disinfo from the start”.
      Does anyone have an opinion about Chris Emery et al.’s work, cited, that claims that Atta and five other alleged hijackers were in Oklahama the weekend before 9-11? My problem with it is that no actual evidence is provided, only the statement that the evidence exists and will be revealed at the appropriate time. Thanks.

      1. Paul Z,
        It would be my position that there is simply no evidence whatsoever that there were any hijackers on the planes. That it is all a ‘legend’ – rumors and lies and stories they made up.
        I would say that there were patsies on the ground in the US, leaving a red herring trail. Some of these had ‘stolen’ identities, a few were actual intel assets. As I understand it Atta himself is playing a part of someone with that name that was truly a devout Muslim. [Names for psychological effect — Mohamed Atta = Mohamed Attacks]
        It is a complex mess as all red herring trails are. That is their purpose. However, I think this can all be dismissed because it seems fairly certain that these planes were all decoys flying by remote control, and were switched to the “attack” planes shortly after takeoff.

      2. Paul,
        Did you review any of the links on 911myths? Just because they have the same names, it doesn’t mean they are the same person. The key is matching faces with names and dates and places.
        My point is that NONE of the alleged hijackers were alive after 9/11. These were not the same people. They may have been involved and helped sow confusion, but they were not the pictured hijackers that were alive after 9/11.
        It’s really too late now. Any type of untangling of the hijackers would have had to have happened 5-6 years ago, if not longer. Witness memories fade and it would require going to foreign countries.
        NONE of it can be untangled from reading news reports about people with the same name.

    “No doubt there will be some who dismiss this photograph on the grounds that it cannot be proved that the debris came from a 757. Such people have failed to understand the logic of this paper. The essential point is that there is no proof that the debris is not from a 757.” ~Frank Legge
    . . . . . . . . .
    But that is not “logic” – logic demands positive proofs. Demanding negative proofs is a form of rhetoric, not logic. This is elementary logic, yet Legge presents himself as a PhD..
    A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
    X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
    The truth of the matter is that “such people” have recognized the illogical nature of this paper by Legge.

  21. I asked Mr Syed who Ryan names as 9/11 perps…
    Meanwhile I found this list of names:
    Kevin Ryan’s named perps:
    Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Frank Carlucci, Armitage,Louis Freeh, George Tenet, Richard Clarke, Canavan, Sliney, Ralph Eberhart, Carl Truscott, John[?], Paul Bremer, Peter Jenkins, Wirt Walker, Barry McDaniel, Rudy Giuliani, Duane Andrews, Porter Goss…
    . . . . . . . .
    Well, I don’t have any argument with these people’s likely involvement…it’s just that there is a huge gap of missing names that we are all already aware of. And the mighty coincidence is that these are mainly known Zionists…
    Such as Dov Zakheim, who we already discussed on the blog.
    Another point is that these named characters are far from being left in the shadows by 9/11 researchers in previous works. But all of Ryan’s cheerleaders seem to be pretending this is some sort of revelation.

  22. I also have the book and agree with Kevin Ryan. — Avoid conflict on the niggling details and continue to push the idea that Isaac Newton agrees that explosive demolition was necessary to destroy 3 skyscrapers. In fact, this very point was successfully used by AE911 Truth physics instructor, David Chandler to convince NIST to admit a period of free-fall acceleration in the collapse of Bldg-7. This is a tiny step in a sea of attempts to force the truth that have failed. — The 10 powerful books by David Ray Griffin stand ready to provide a mountain of forensic evidence if we should live so long.

    1. So Mr Hsaive,
      You propose that we:
      “Avoid conflict on the niggling details” and “accept as much of the official account as possible,”?
      And you assert that the fact NIST had to admit a period of free-fall acceleration in the collapse of Bldg-7, is enough after coming on 12 years of independent investigation?
      You add that, “This is a tiny step in a sea of attempts to force the truth that have failed.”
      I’m sorry, but are you actually expecting the perpetrators to come out and admit that this was a systemic act, a PSYOP? Is this really what you are saying?
      Now let me ask you this; do you actually believe that it is a “niggling detail” as to whether that jet crashed at the Pentagon or not? Are you agreeing that the event at the Pentagon is a “non-issue”? Or are you saying that you have enough study into the Pentagon event to assert that an aircraft actually crashed into the building?
      I appreciate you giving your opinion regarding Mr Ryan’s book. But on this forum, we do not find it sufficient to simply state an opinion. We would like for you to defend your position, if you think you are capable.

      1. You know, Rogue, your comment to the above poster was fantastic until you ruined it with “If you are capable.” Can you suspend this bully persona you have on this blog, and act like a professional such as those like Griffin, Craig, Noel, etc.?
        Providing accurate information to the GP is not enough; it has to be delivered with tact, civility and diplomacy. Telling people to f*** off and other tactics of bait undercut your authority to be a credible representative of 9/11 Truth. Even Craig, when correcting A. Wright, does it in a soft and fair-minded way.
        Are you not familiar with the stages of change model? People cannot be bullied and bludgeoned into changing from either a position to another one or having no position to a new one. Nudging others is much better than shoving them.

      2. Dsn6,
        Regarding your comment of August 15, 2013 – 3:12 AM:
        I understand you give such advice with good intent. But seriously, I do not need a nanny. I don’t need to be lectured on etiquette, whether it is your opinion that I need finishing school or not.
        “bully persona” you say….you seem to be asking for it, why provoke me?
        Tend to your own manners and style, and I will tend to mine.

    2. Hsaive,
      The niggling details? Do you have anything to offer in terms of feedback on my analysis of the book? And Ryan himself is particularly guilty when it comes to “conflict.”

  23. While its clear Ryan’s approach is a bit confusing and bordering on hypocritical, there is something to be said for his “accepting as much of the official account” as possible. A very common defense used by 911 deniers is that once you start denying aspects of the official story, things get hypothetical and complicated quickly. Too many parties become involved in the cover up, someone would’ve talked, etc. Further, when you introduce the possibility of CD of the WTC and alternate theories for the Pentagon attack, no hijacker theories, most people think you’ve crossed into conspiracy nut territory. It’s hard to suggest all this to those who are unable or unwilling to reconsider their worldview. Anyone involved in spreading the truth movement must know the frustration of “lalalala fingers-in-their-ears” deniers. What Ryan does with his book is attempt to adhere to the narrative that a majority of the public believe, while constructing an alternate theory for government complicity without opening Pandora’s box of unanswered questions. The fact is many people will not change their opinions on things like whether thermite was used or if the plane hit the Pentagon. Ryan’s approach with this book is that these debates are not going to be decided conclusively any time soon, and thus it behooves us to push the investigation of legitimate suspects, regardless of mini-nukes, pentagon missiles, super thermite, or remote controlled planes. While the criticisms of Ryan on this page are justified, I think some here are misunderstanding why the book is significant and why Kevin Ryan’s seemingly paradoxical approach can be important in swaying opinions of deniers who will outright dismiss theories of pentagon missiles and the like. Even though anyone who has researched 911 knows the official story is BS, there is some use in constructing an alternate theory that attempts to accept as much of the official narrative as possible while still outing the guilty parties. Despite its shortcomings, Ryan’s book is not trash as some posters here would have us believe.

    1. Ethan,
      I don’t think it’s “trash” either, just that from my perspective it had some serious shortcomings.

      A very common defense used by 911 deniers is that once you start denying aspects of the official story, things get hypothetical and complicated quickly. Too many parties become involved in the cover up, someone would’ve talked, etc. Further, when you introduce the possibility of CD of the WTC and alternate theories for the Pentagon attack, no hijacker theories, most people think you’ve crossed into conspiracy nut territory.

      Ah, but he does promote CD of the WTC and goes on to mention a bunch of people he theorizes were involved. He also promotes that the planes were taken over by remote control and flown into their targets, as well as the alleged hijackers getting onto the planes and hijacking them. And, indeed, what you say about how things get hypothetical, quickly, this is also the case with Kevin’s book. As far as a big conspiracy involving a lot of people, look at all the names in the book Ryan mentions, as well as all the connections he makes. (In the case of Shelton, a non-existent connection.)

    2. Ethan,
      What are you blabbering about? “Posters here” have a good idea of what the “official story” is. There is only one truth about what happened at each event. No subplots. No contradictions. Right?
      Either 19 hijackers hijacked four aircraft, bringing three towers down with two of them, made a very slick ground floor entry into the Pentagon at cruise speed with another and rammed another into the ground leaving nothing behind. That’s it. End of story.
      That is the mother of “conspiracy nut theories”!
      The way I see it is that the Pentagon and Shankesville evidence are seen as obstacles to the dragging of 9/11 into that little darkened room of limited hangout. Where a mix of well intentioned individuals (but very naieve and incredulous to just how black and psychopathic the powers that be really are) are being led by the nose by gatekeepers and out and out disinfo merchants pretending to be guardians against those nasty folks at P4T and CIT. It’s what Cointelpro would do. It’s not up for debate. Limited hangout is more easily influenced, controlled and destroyed.
      “Forget about the reams of evidence that proves the Pentagon and Shankesville OCT to be a crock of shit, let’s distract and follow the OCT breadcrumbs”
      I personally think, though I could be wrong, that David Chandler is one of the good guys but is either obnoxiously stubborn or has been set up as the punchbag in all of this. I’ve never once seen him mention the “trolls” at the now defunct (or retired?) TruthAction website where his own work and achievemnets were being pissed on and that it was left to the “trolls” here to defend him!
      I know for a fact that his mindset towards the Pentagon has been tarnished by the likes of Legge and Ryan because he most definitely hasn’t read the “niggly detailed” counterarguments that show these two up for what they are. Liars.

  24. “What Ryan does with his book is attempt to adhere to the narrative that a majority of the public believe, while constructing an alternate theory for government complicity without opening Pandora’s box of unanswered questions.”~Ethan
    Really Ethan? Then WTF are these perps supposedly complicit in if you aren’t going to point out the facts that destroy the official narrative?
    Frankly your apologia here is a load of doubletalk bullshit. I did not assert that Ryan’s book is trash, but I do assert that your comment is.

  25. A Cumulative Whole…
    That is; the Truth__THE WHOLE TRUTH__and Nothing but the Truth.
    Let me begin with stating that I do not see Ryan’s new book as “trash” as one commentator here asserts is the basis of this thread. The suspects Ryan deals with are certainly viable suspects, and his background information regarding them is indeed valuable. A preview of this type of work from Ryan can be viewed here:
    ‘The Case Against Ralph Eberhart, NORAD’s 9/11 Commander’ by Kevin Ryan
    ‘Why Louis Freeh Should Be Investigated For 9/11’ by Kevin Ryan
    These are good pieces. But they are also derivative, as the notes section shows. This is in the main drawn from previous works. But that is not such a detriment in itself. Tying it all together into one solid indictment is always valuable.
    So let us be clear in what it is that the problem we have with Ryan is, for it is not the positive exposition of the suspected perpetrators that I have any trouble with. It is the subtle antagonistic rhetoric that continues in the pages of this book, that Ryan has been pushing since he and others took a stance against the CIT and P4T. It is the hypocrisy of this “call for unity” via an equally if not more adversarial attitude on the part of this click who reject the “flyover hypothesis” and insist that the Truth Movement “accept as much of the official account as possible.”
    Ryan, Legge, Chandler, et al, continue to throw down a gauntlet and then dart into the shadows.
    Enough of this pussyboy bullshit. If these guys want to sort this out, it is high time they stand and deliver in honest debate.

    1. Hybrid rogue, it seems to me that you are more butthurt that Ryan doesn’t share your flyover theory or the “it was Zionist Jews!” stance. Big whoop. Most of the free world disagrees with you there. The book is more of a thought experiment punctuated with facts and evidence. No one is saying that we should be “pussy boys” or that we should accept most of the official narrative as truth. But if one can retain most of the bullshit narrative while still implicating the US govt in a reasonable alternate theory – as Kevin Ryan has done, and as Michael Ruppert has done in Crossing the Rubicon – we can move past bickering over whether this WAS a false flag and actually get to investigating the guilty parties who pulled it off. Is it a perfect premise? No. Is it miles ahead of anything youve contributed to the truth movement? Absolutely. While you’re masturbating to conspiracy sites and your own intellect, these people are attempting to move the discussion forward. And guess what: even if everything you say is true, good luck getting the general public to listen when you’re condescending and start spouting off things about pentagon flyovers and Judy wood death lasers.

      1. Ethan,
        Virtually everyone involved in 9/11 was a Zionist. Zionism simply means the support of a Jewish state in Palestine. Practically everyone in the US govt is a Zionist. Try campaigning for public office on a platform of “ending the Zionist apartheid state” and see how far it gets you.
        Also, it’s not a matter of “agreeing.” Ryan omitted some very ironclad evidence of Israeli involvement — namely, people who belong to the state of Israel, not just merely “Jews,” “Zionists” or “Zionist Jews.”
        So your wording is very disingenuous.
        As far as the “facts and evidence” presented in the book, some of it is tenuous. For example, Ryan created a non-existent link between 9/11 activist Shelton Lankford and PNAC, based on Shelton’s employer. If all the rest of the dot-connecting in the book is on a par with the paragraph concerning Shelton, then the book would truly have no merit whatsoever.
        Also, Ryan has, in the past, used his “leadership” position to steer people away from legitimate evidence, particularly concerning the Pentagon. How hypocritical of him to chastise others for seeking endorsements for their work, when he did the exact same thing with his book!
        You’ll notice how in my book review I took the high road and simply let the analysis speak for itself. I did not accuse Ryan of any sinister intentions.

      2. >”Most of the free world disagrees with you there.”~Ethan
        Yea? Where’s that pal? Are you writing from an alternate universe or living in contemporary Amerika?
        How much has this “general public” listened to any of your heroes here Ethan? It has been 12 years – they don’t give a shit. That should be obvious to even neophytes such as yourself.
        >”No one is saying that we should be “pussy boys” or that we should accept most of the official narrative as truth. But if one can retain most of the bullshit narrative while still implicating the US govt in a reasonable alternate theory…”~Ethan
        Contradict yourself much? Read those two sentences back to yourself a few times. Then look into some courses on critical thinking.
        And then this: >”pentagon flyovers and Judy wood death lasers.”
        Why don’t you explain to the readers here what the two have in common? Can you parse the difference from the two propositions?
        >”masturbating to conspiracy sites and your own intellect…”
        Yea know bucko, it is always a dead giveaway when someone throws the “conspiracy theory” slur into the mix. You are knocking yourself out here boy, give us some more to work with. Show us the depth of your jejune foolishness.

      3. Ethan,
        There are several red flags in your posts above which I will point out. First of all in your August 8, 2013 – 3:55 pm post you say:
        “Hybrid rogue, it seems to me that you are more butthurt that Ryan doesn’t share your flyover theory or the “it was Zionist Jews!” stance.”
        I will put aside for now the snotty “butthurt” remark and move on to the statement that “Ryan doesn’t share your flyover theory” First of all that is correct although very misleading. Ryan rejects the overwhelming evidence that flyover is what took place on 9/11, true. Therein lies the problem with Ryan who promotes a provably false narrative of what took place at the Pentagon in his book while also continuing to attack CIT and their supporters such as Shelton Lankford. To support a book which contains disinformation and underhanded and unjustified attacks on other truthers is not an acceptable position for a “truther” to take. So the question becomes is Ryan a truther and are you a truther? How can you be a real truther while doing that?
        Your characterization of flyover as a “theory” is very misleading and problematic in that it attempts to minimize the strength of the flyover evidence. It is akin to calling the controlled demolition of the towers a “theory” at this point. CD is not a theory and neither is flyover because there is overwhelming evidence that both CD and flyover are what actually happened. You may be unaware of the massive evidence and why it is so conclusive but that does not change the fact that it is conclusive. The only way to resolve the dispute is for those involved to step forward and debate their position with the other and see which position wins the day in that debate. Ryan refuses to debate and I surmise that you too will refuse to test your position that flyover is a “theory” in a debate. I would love to be proven wrong though and see you put your position to the test and I would like to see if you can disprove flyover or offer a better alternative that fits the evidence. Are you up to the challenge? We will see.
        You also said in your August 8, 2013 – 1:02 am post:
        “there is something to be said for his “accepting as much of the official account” as possible. A very common defense used by 911 deniers is that once you start denying aspects of the official story, things get hypothetical and complicated quickly. Too many parties become involved in the cover up, someone would’ve talked, etc.”
        This statement and line of reasoning is a red herring on your part because we have to accept that the truth should be tailored to the sensibilities of the very people who refuse to accept the truth, the “911 deniers” as you call them. That is illogical and wrong in every possible way. The truth is the truth no matter how many believe it and no matter how many don’t believe it. The moment you start tampering with that you have gone off the rails. Kevin Ryan has gone off the rails by taking this approach and so have you by accepting it as a valid approach. Keep in mind that this is the 9/11 TRUTH movement not the 9/11 Public Relations movement. Real truthers should accept only as much of the official story as is proven to be true by the evidence and not one tiny bit more. The entire premise of “accepting as much of the official account as possible” is as bogus as a three dollar bill and therefore the foundation of Kevin’s book is cracked and I question if it is worth the paper it is printed on. I have to wonder now about everything he says in the book and I have to do my own research to verify each item in the book because Ryan cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the pentagon so what else is he misleading us on? See the problem? Probably not.

      4. Ethan: I am no moderator here, but even in disagreement, all parties should be civil to each other. Some of the things you just wrote to HR I can concur. What I angst over is the lack of tact used in correcting him. Take it for what it is worth.

  26. And if theres’ no evidence of hijackers, what do you make of Betty Ongs phone call? Or the cockpit recording of a hijacker? Or the fact that one plane didn’t hit its target? They managed the sneakiest friggin maneuver ever with a missile and a flyover of the goddamn pentagon, but what, their remote control plane #4 malfunctioned? Or even if it was shot down, why did this flight take longer to hijack if it was being remotely controlled? And where did the flyover plane go? And the people? And why even bother in the first place? What do they stand to gain with this added risk? Once you step away from the official story you have logical gaps and new questions to answer. It doesn’t mean the topics brought up are false, it just means your explanation needs to be more complex and you’ll need more evidence that, gee shucks, nobody has. So in the interest of not alienating people through complex, unproven conspiracies, we throw out the thermite debate, the no hijacker theories, etc. and focus on proving a conspiracy that doesn’t require explanations for these things.

    1. Ethan, thank you. What do I make of Betty Ong’s phone call? Well, considering that the official story is that Muslim hijackers armed with boxcutters did the deed, Ong’s phone call is quite interesting in light of the fact that (1) while she mentions a couple flight attendants as having been stabbed, there is no description of the suspects as being Middle Eastern (or any description). Also, she says that in business class they can’t breathe because someone’s using mace.
      Not positive proof of Muslim hijackers.

      1. Mr Syed,
        Ms Ong gives the seat numbers of the passengers she assumes have intered the cockpit. Do you remember what the first class seat numbers are? Do we have names from the manifest of those supposedly seated there?
        I know that the manifests as published are not above suspicion themselves, but what do they tell us anyway?

        “On May 16 2004, I published an article entitled “media published fake passenger lists for American Airlines flight 11?. The article was revised on Sept 20, 2006. The article revealed that the mainstream media had fabricated passenger lists for the alleged flight American Airlines 11. I say “alleged flight”, because official flight data from the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics indicates that no such flight existed on the day.
        Of course, if no such flight existed, then the passenger lists can’t possibly be real. But lets put that aside and hypothetically concede that the flight existed. If so, then many media outlets published lists purporting to be official passenger lists when in fact they were not. The reason we know this, is because there can only be one official passenger list for a flight, and the media collectively gave us many different and conflicting lists, with differences too great to be transcription errors. Someone was just making the lists up…”~The Decider
        “If those anomalies weren’t suspicious enough, the manifests released on a website of Moussaoui trial exhibits in 2006 raise even more red flags…
        Remember, the FBI’s initial investigation began by searching the names on the flight manifests for possible suspects. Adnan Bukhari’s name reportedly appeared on Flight 11’s manifest, and a trail of evidence led investigators to Adnan Bukhari’s house…
        What is the most likely explanation for these discrepancies? Well, right now two words spring to mind – fabricated evidence!”~Beached
        . . . . . . . .
        Personally I am convinced that the flight was faked as the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics indicates that no such flight existed on the day.
        This is a complex story, but the IP information shows tampering with WIKI by American Airlines itself.

    2. >”Betty Ongs phone call?”
      As there is the proven technology for “Voice Morphing” and it only needed be used in a few instances, and as there is no photographic evidence of any hijackers at ticket counters for those flights or anywhere on the airport surveillance cameras, that can be said to be real beyond a reasonable doubt. I would have to posit that Ong’s phone call is a fabrication.
      United Airlines Flight 93 was delayed on the ground and did not take off until 08:42. It is my assertion that the planes were switched as “attack Boeings” – a delay on the ground for the actual flight from the airport put this flight out of the running. There are more possibilities involving this flight that I won’t go into here – which could account for the “where did the passengers go” question – which is not essential for researchers to answer at any rate.
      And also if you know what Flt 93s initial target was, perhaps you can enlighten the readership here.
      >”So in the interest of not alienating people through complex, unproven conspiracies, we throw out the thermite debate, the no hijacker theories, etc. and focus on proving a conspiracy that doesn’t require explanations for these things.”~Ethan
      Preposterous; throw out 12 years of solid research to propose an anemic, skeletal THEORY, to satisfy a general population that is zombified by propaganda? I would say, ‘surely you jest?’ – but it is quite obvious that you are serious.

    3. Ethan,
      Let’s take this on one question at a time rather than taking on 20 questions at once which will only lead to a confused discussion that leads nowhere. Make ONE logical argument at a time, let us respond and then you can respond to our reply. Sound fair? Then we ask a question or make ONE point and you respond to that etc. That is how a legitimate debate works. Do you want to have a legitimate debate or do you have something else in mind?

    4. “where did the flyover plane go? And the people?”
      Destroyed and bumped off. Will that do?
      “Once you step away from the official story you have logical gaps and new questions to answer. It doesn’t mean the topics brought up are false, it just means your explanation needs to be more complex and you’ll need more evidence that, gee shucks, nobody has.”
      Manure. The more you look at the OCT regarding the Pentagon, the more it falls apart.
      Videos gone. Aircraft parts unidentified. A serial number void black box the data of which actually supports a flyover based on the PA parameter but GLs point to another parameter allegedly recording data well outside its limitations (and only after some guy came out of the blue and twisted the nipples off of it!) Seen flying over Washington DC making the radar data a bunch of bull. Flying well above its limitations. Alleged passengers identified with a 95% success rate even though they were allegedly obliterated and came to rest in an area that is claimed to have reached temperatures of over 1000°C (cremation point) for an hour.
      Allegedly identified by a corrupt forensics lab. Etc, etc.
      And you need to define “explanation”. Is the previous question on the plane and passengers an example of just how detailed the explanation has to be? Ask the impossible?
      It’s the authors of the OCT that have to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. They are the people who have the answers so any discrepancies must be ironed out by them!
      The NOC witnesses are an evidence set Ethan. And considering that in almost 13 years not one unambiguous witness has described the official path, I’d say something’s up. Wouldn’t you? Even when detractors went to the area themselves, or phoned any witness in the area they found the exact same trajectory being described. They not only verified what CIT had been repeatedly finding but they actually (unintentionally) uncovered more NOC witnesses!
      The onus is on others to explain the corroborative witness statements. I’m not being dogmatic on this. I’m simply waiting on a reasonable response to what these people saw and how the trajectory damage was caused.

  27. Okay, let’s get back to some basics here as to the ‘Official Story’ and where it has gone since the 9/11 Commission Report, and the NIST reports.
    Dealing with the first it should be common knowledge now within the truth community that Hamilton and Kean wrote a whole book outlining how the committee was “set up to fail”.
    In other words, in the words of the commission’s own chairing members the 9/11 Report is not trustworthy.
    Anyone who has followed the NIST 9/11 reports has to admit these were scientific frauds.
    The first report on the towers didn’t even complete its mandate to explain global collapse, but modeled the impact and structural effects only to the point of ‘collapse initiation’. And even with that the conclusions do not jibe with the actual interior data within the report.
    The tardy report on WTC7 has been torn to pieces by researchers and is as bogus as the first report on the towers.
    So now 12 years later we are being asked to accept “as much as the official story as possible” — when it is obvious that we cannot in any sane manner accept one whit of this absurd and fraudulent tale. As far as I’m concerned only nitwits and charlatans are going to fall for this lank of putrid ham-bone.

  28. Ok so ill just skip the internet tough guy bullshit and get to my points.
    1. I stand by the approach to this book, and you all seem to at least agree that Ryan put together some worthwhile info on some of the most likely perpetrators.
    2. The general public is conditioned against “conspiracy theories” and even broaching this subject is tough in everyday life without people tuning you out or the usual dismissals. Despite hybridrogue’s best efforts, the population is still dismissing 12 years of conclusive research. Dang neophytes!
    3. This book attempts to avoid as many problems with the official narrative as possible while still giving a plausible theory for government complicity. This seems like bullshit, and in a sense it is. It is not the full story, but it doesn’t claim to be. while you guys claim proof, evidence, whatever smoking guns you think you have about the flyover, explosives, etc. Most people dont fucking care. The more you stray from the official story, the more they dismiss you offhand, and the more you have to convince them of. Short of video footage of Rumsfeld shooting a RPG from the pentagon lawn, you will not change many people’s opinions on those subjects.
    4. Because of this aversion to alternate theories, i believe that the best way to change the stance of 911 deniers or those who are undecided is to lay out a scenario that ignores every possible chance for them to yell “conspiracy theory!” but also uses facts and evidence to show means, motive, and opportunity for the “other 19”.
    5. Please will one of you give me the readers digest version on why youre so convinced of a flyover. And how it could plausibly be achieved. Same for no hijacker theory. Please dont link me to a 2 hour youtube doc.
    6. Assuming betty ong’s call is real: regardless of identifying muslims, its clear some shit is going down. If the conspirators can remotely hijack the plane, why have anyone on the plane at all? Sure, the call could have been faked. Just like Osama’s voice recordings could have been. But you can’t prove it. Same with the cockpit recording. In the minds of people that don’t frequent 911 conspiracy sites, her phone call and the other recordings are conclusive evidence of hijackers until proven otherwise. Therefore, when trying to convince someone of the government’s involvement, it is more effective to concede that there could have been hijackers, but still prove your overall point. Watch any courtroom drama ever.
    7. For the 911 truth movement to succeed, the average person doesnt need to be convinced of explosives in the towers, missiles, remote control, whatever. They only need to accept that elements within the US and other governments played a role in the attacks, that they have gone unpunished, and that they need to be independently investigated. (And you get a subpeona! And you get a subpeona!…)
    8. A true investigation wont happen without massive public support/pressure and this book, despite its shortcomings, is another step of the uphill battle.

    1. Ethan,
      I do see where you’re coming from, in terms of reaching people. I do make it clear in the conclusion of my review that a person brand new to 9/11 would definitely come away, after reading the book, with raised eyebrows. Like I said, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 cracked my mind open in 2004.
      I think you’re addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon. There is the “justice” movement and then there is the “truth” movement. What is our end goal? When would the truth movement be satisfied and declare victory?
      Many people would say they’re satisfied on the “justice” side of things if we were to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al in jail. But honestly, information that the MSM already accepts and that much of the public knows about would, in an uncorrupted system, be enough: lying about WMDs. Remember the Downing Street Memo leak in 2005, where it was revealed that “the facts were fixed around the policy?”
      That stuff right there is strong enough, in a just world, to get all those people jailed for life for high treason: sending troops off to die based on lies. I always felt the info contained in Fahrenheit 9/11 was enough evidence to get those crooks in jail. You don’t need any of the “inside job” evidence.
      So the real question is, what is the truth movement’s goal? My own personal goal is to spread the ripple effect in any way I can; I use different materials to reach out to different people. The film “Press for Truth” does a great job with those who might be initially resistant to looking at the physical evidence, since it focuses on families and the Commission.
      My experience in real life is that people resistant to the physical evidence are simply resistant at the idea of a conspiracy; Ryan’s book almost certainly would not sway them. Look at how many people on “the right” refused, in 2004, to even see Michael Moore’s film, dismissing it as anti-American propaganda without seeing it. That film merely advocated the “incompetence” theory, whilst at the same time spotlighting many people who benefited from 9/11 (leading many viewers to come to the LIHOP conclusion on their own). And as I have shown, Ryan does advocate for controlled demolition, as well as remote controlled planes; he simply tries to make those things co-exist with actual terrorist hijackings.
      (It should be noted that in the book, as well as virtually all of his public articles, Ryan repeatedly refers to the “terrorist attacks” of 9/11.)
      As far as the Reader’s Digest version of the Pentagon flyover: the official, physical damage path (shown in all the photos) is a very specific, straight line. The plane is said to have knocked over five light poles. From the furthest light pole, to the other 4, to the E ring of the Pentagon, to the C ring, there is no room for deviation in this flight path. However, ALL the witnesses in the area with a good vantage point said the plane flew on the opposite side of the Citgo gas station than the side required to knock over the poles. This means the damage was staged. And why would they stage the light poles if the goal was to actually fly the plane into the Pentagon? Finally, the evidence about the flight path is what seals the deal; however, the earliest 9/11 researchers were saying that the photos clearly showed no plane crash, and for years, speculation about missiles, Skywarriors etc. was rife. However, this was hard to reconcile with so many witnesses who saw a plane. As such, the flight path evidence is key because it proves that while there was a large plane, it flew in a location, on a path, incompatible with the physical damage. How would it be pulled off? Remote controlled plane. Now that I’ve given you the RD version, I will refer you to YouTube. “National Security Alert – Sensitive Information” is 80 minutes and goes into greater detail, showing the interviews with the witnesses, including one who saw the plane flying away after the explosion.

      1. I realize I’m kind of contradicting myself with these two statements in my above comment:

        I do make it clear in the conclusion of my review that a person brand new to 9/11 would definitely come away, after reading the book, with raised eyebrows.


        My experience in real life is that people resistant to the physical evidence are simply resistant at the idea of a conspiracy; Ryan’s book almost certainly would not sway them.

        I say “kind of,” because in the first, I’m talking about people brand new to 9/11 truth, regardless of whether they have a 30% vs. 95% open mind, whereas in the second, I’m talking specifically about people who are resistant. (A lot of people who mainly get their world view from TV and only use the internet for entertainment might actually be very open minded, just unaware of the truth movement’s volume of work over the years. I know many such people where I work.) I guess it’s a matter of how much of an open mind the person has. Obviously, many people who believe the truth movement is hogwash wouldn’t read one word of Kevin’s book. Others might be resistant for the most part, but might gingerly open Kevin’s book to see what it contains. As David Griffin says, all you need to start going down the rabbit hole is a 30% open mind.
        For them, Ryan’s book might do the trick. Or, conversely, it might actually serve to reinforce the idea that too many people would have to be involved for it to happen.

    2. Ethan: Some of your points are not logical. How can something be evidence if it is not proved? You get stuck on this phone piece as being evidence believed by the GP without any proof by you or someone else. Evidence isn’t determined based on someone saying it is so.

  29. Ok it is clear to me that Ethan does not wish to have a rational debate taking on one issue at a time and instead prefers to have a free for all where multiple unrelated questions and issues are thrown together so as to confuse and tangle up the whole discussion. I am not going to participate in that sort of circus because it leads nowhere. We can say flyover witness and he will respond with what about Betty Ong. We will say look at the Lloyd england story and he will respond with what about the witnesses who say the plane hit and around and around we go never resolving a single point. I have been there done that too damn many times I know how it goes.
    The other reason I am not going to deal with you Ethan is that you are apparently too lazy to look at the evidence under discussion, namely the CIT presentation. You are apparently put off by the 2 hours you would have to spend watching it and want us to put it into little bite size chunks for you, spending our time and effort to do that, when you should spend your time to do by simply watching the videos CIT produced. Nice! Well my answer to you is hell no, do it yourself, if you are a genuine truther you would want to look at the evidence, you would seek it out all on your own and consume it as fast as you could and then consider it and evaluate it. The fact that you can’t be bothered to spend the two hours tells me a whole lot about you. By the way to really get a handle on all the evidence from P4T as well it would require more than two hours so I guess that cuts you out huh?
    Since you are not familiar with the evidence and apparently will not spend any time getting familiar with it I see no point whatsoever in any of us continuing to engage you on this topic. You literally don’t know what we are talking about. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the pentagon evidence BEFORE you engage us and tell us all how wrong we are about it and Kevin Ryan.
    As to your statement that: “I stand by the approach to this book, and you all seem to at least agree that Ryan put together some worthwhile info on some of the most likely perpetrators.”
    I repeat what I said above in response:
    “This statement and line of reasoning is a red herring on your part because we have to accept that the truth should be tailored to the sensibilities of the very people who refuse to accept the truth, the “911 deniers” as you call them. That is illogical and wrong in every possible way. The truth is the truth no matter how many believe it and no matter how many don’t believe it. The moment you start tampering with that you have gone off the rails. Kevin Ryan has gone off the rails by taking this approach and so have you by accepting it as a valid approach. Keep in mind that this is the 9/11 TRUTH movement not the 9/11 Public Relations movement. Real truthers should accept only as much of the official story as is proven to be true by the evidence and not one tiny bit more. The entire premise of “accepting as much of the official account as possible” is as bogus as a three dollar bill and therefore the foundation of Kevin’s book is cracked and I question if it is worth the paper it is printed on. I have to wonder now about everything he says in the book and I have to do my own research to verify each item in the book because Ryan cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the pentagon so what else is he misleading us on?”

  30. I am glad Adam Syed took the time to answer Ethan, because frankly I think anyone who mentions the possibility of “subpoena!” is living in a delusional world. I would suggest that Ethan jump just two threads back to:
    I suggest he read the whole thread, the original article and all of the commentary. If he wants to partake in this forum, he should at least familiarize himself with the overall take we have here, and get a taste of the diversity of the commentators.
    There are also some valuable links to the Pentagon information there besides viewing the whole National Security Alert video, although I recommend it as well.
    More than anything though, I think the whole truth movement had better face a hard ground truth: this so-called “government” they are hoping will finally investigate itself is nothing but a criminal syndicate, one of a global scale, and 9/11 is just one aspect of a long series of events that should make this central truth apparent.
    Those who fail to learn that they have been sold a turd lollipop for history aren’t going anywhere, but to the prefab future prepared by the perps who run this planet.

  31. Ethan, you were the one acting “tough” when you landed in here like an arrogant prick indirectly labelling everybody “conspiracy nuts”. Almost like our old fruity friend Snowcrash. So chill out.
    You honestly think that “the masses” will awake by following a long winded, misinfo/disinfo laden breadcrumb trail? Look at TWA800 and Oklahoma for Christ sake!
    The FBI answer to the multiple witnessed missile(s) was to censor, deny and through the media label everyone a “conspiracy nut” through the whore media.
    Even a very qualified and credible witness to the tampering of the aircraft debris was dismissed.
    The FBI answer to the existence of a John Doe 2 (and 3) was to deny his existence and remove all video tapes (sound familiar?). They even introduced the alleged moment of detonation of the van in court taken from one of the said “missing” videotapes.
    The multiple reports by the media itself (and by some first responders and bomb blast victims) to more explosive devices within the Murrah Building after the event were just arrogantly dismissed as if it was just another “conspiracy theory” even though the media was the source of the information!
    The “masses” don’t give a flying turd. I mean, if they still haven’t been shaken out of their stupor having had the banks/govt cartels literally screw them sideways, or by the fact that those they trust with their safety (and take their word as gospel) against the terrarists, are spying on every single one of them, how do you propose to stimulate their curiosity without exposing the operational flaws of the 9/11 narrative to those few who may be sitting on the fence? Those few that have actually sat up lately and said wtf?
    Let’s cut the crap here. Ryan and Legge (and that dickhead Snowcrash ;)) can have their own pet theories about remote controlled planes (which there is no evidence for although I don’t rule it out) and controlled demolition (which I believe) but as soon as the NOC witnesses are mentioned we are entering “conspiracy nut” territory? We have to accept the entire LIHOP premise coupled with “explosives to allow the aircraft entry into the Pentagon” bs (which again there is no evidence for – in fact the evidence contradicts this scenario)?
    Here’s a hint. You’re never going to know the full truth about 9/11. Ever. If I or anybody here choose to actually use the Pentagon official narrative and measure it against what witnesses say, what investigators who actually went there reported back, what the alleged FDR data doesn’t say, what people who’ve actually flown a f***ing plane say, I think that I/we are much less “conspiracy nuts” as the cowards who won’t even debate the subject from the safety of their keyboard. That I/we are basing our conclusions on independently gathered, on the ground evidence. That the only way to put the perps’ feet to the fire is to tear their censored, contradictory fairy tale to pieces detail by detail.
    What people such as yourself and Ryan/Legge need to do is solve that little equation of how witnesses overwhelmingly place the aircraft on a trajectory that can’t physically cause the damage from the lightpoles, through the generator trailer, through the building and out that “punch out hole”. Instead of blowing smoke up people’s asses, endless (and pointless) defence of the OCT Frankenstein theories that fall at the first hurdle.
    I don’t insist that people accept a flyover. I expect a viable, realistic alternative of how the aircraft struck that building the way ot allegedly did given the NOC evidence. No “they were all wrong” á la TWA/OKC please.

    1. OSS,
      Do you believe human pilots were flying the planes? You say there’s no evidence of remote control. Could you elaborate (and get this thread into the triple digits for comments)?

      1. Hi Adam,
        I qualified that statement by saying “which there is no evidence for although I don’t rule it out”.
        In all likelihood the Manhattan op were drone type devices. I base this on the accuracy of the hits, the issue of pilot control and the aerodynamics that suggest modification.
        The Pentagon is another kettle of fish. No way in hell would the risk be taken of the proposed low level multiple g pull up by a drone in a multiple obstacled, topographical nightmare. Or for the flyover for that matter.
        The Shankesville “crater” speaks for itself.
        My point was that we can make hypotheses and use logic as to whether the aircraft were manned or not but we have no evidence for this. And that’s what pisses me off. Certain folks playing smoke and mirrors and relying on the OCT and wordplay when the NOC witnesses are mentioned, while totally contradicting themselves when they slip off the OCT bandwagon to play the drone and/or preplanted explosives to “ease entry into the Pentagon” cards.
        I mean, if they claim that a drone was used at the Pentagon, which would involve a swap, they must reject the alleged FDR data and all bastardizations of it by the likes of Legge.
        If they insist that drones were used in Manhattan then they have choices to make.
        1. Were the aircrafts swapped? Then they must accept that the radar data is corrupt.
        2. Were the aircraft taken over by remote control with patsies in the cockpits? At what point? How can communications from these fully compromised aircraft be accepted at face value? Were the alleged passenger communications part of a drill that also lured the alleged patsies?
        It just spirals out of control. And it’s a theory based on other theories. Whereas the NOC testimony and P4T’s evidence based work is pissed on.

  32. I often speak to what I call “Lollipop History” in my commentary here. I thought that some might like to read a counter to the bullshit view of history of postmodern Amerika:
    [A teaser from my article GOVERNMENT 101]>
    Two of the authors mentioned above, Bernays and Lippmann, became actively involved in the propaganda of what became “The War to End All Wars”, which was to “Make the World Safe for Democracy”.
    This was in the Administration of Woodrow Wilson, who was elected on a platform promising to keep America out of the European war that began during his term as president. Bernays was a specialist in the field of ‘Public Relations’, a term that he himself coined. He is known in his field as the ‘Father of Spin’. Initially his clientèle was commercial businesses. Lippmann was a ‘journalist’ of some great renown in his day, and is still held in much regard.
    Bernays, although his influence is tremendous, is virtually unknown.
    The history of the propaganda campaign against “The Hun” is deep and fraught with intrigue.
    But this is told many times over in other works. What I want to do with this essay is address the question; Why Democracy? Because the propaganda, being war propaganda against the Germans is one thing. The subtle campaign to promote the republic as a democracy is another, having deep political repercussions at a key moment in this nation’s history.
    Cui Bono?* Who benefits from a democracy as opposed to a republic? The first answer that may pop into your mind may be, ‘the Majority’? But is this actually the case when popular opinion is now being scientifically manipulated by ‘Public Relations’? It may be argued that those who benefit from such a system are in fact those who control the message of the propaganda. After all, it is a historical fact that the United States government is actually a constitutional republic.
    This subtle psychological shift in language gives power to the majority that is ‘ultra vires’, meaning, “beyond the law”; to the majority group in their minds, but in actual practice , this puts the purveyors of the propaganda beyond the law. More precisely , above the law. What law? The law of the republic, the Constitution which contains restraints on majority rule.
    As the practical effects of this situation are “politically”complex, and drenched with intrigue, it is much more simple to consider the effects on actual “government”; keeping in mind the distinctions that began this essay.

    1. Welp you guys were all right and I’m the stupidest person on the internet. Came here with a serious comment about the approach of the book, was promptly dismissed and insulted by hybrid rogue and others. Threw some insults back, and now I’m the one who came here like an arrogant prick. The cognitive dissonance of some fedora wearing pseudointellectuals here is pretty ridiculous. Let me know how your flyover investigation is going in 50 years. The truth ought to come out right after the JFK files.

      1. I say Ethan,
        You are taking this all rather melodramatically__don’t you think?
        “..fedora wearing pseudointellectuals”… Lol __ Really. How old are you son? How much do you know of how this world really works? Why do you choose to stomp out in ignorance. Truth is a harsh master my man. It will never reveal itself to someone so easily slighted.
        Would you demand that advice is delivered unto you sugar coated, like the lollipops you seem so accustom to? Well then, go back and fawn to your masters. You are likely more now to lick their boots, having been rebuffed by their enemies.

      2. Ethan,
        I, as the author of the article, have been more cool-toned, dare I say friendly, towards your comments, and have even stated that on the one hand, I know where you’re coming from regarding trying to reach a dumbed down public.
        However, in defense of those who are coming down harder on you: you didn’t help yourself by injecting rhetoric into the conversation like: “masturbating to conspiracy websites.”
        Thanks for your participation in the comments section of my article. I did give you the Readers Digest version of the Pentagon. Do you have any further questions? Can you acknowledge that the flight path reported by the witnesses does not align up with the physical damage?

      3. “Let me know how your flyover investigation is going in 50 years. The truth ought to come out right after the JFK files.”
        You almost seem to take joy in that. The only difference here is that these witnesses are all still alive and were completely unaware of the implications what they saw when they gave their interview. Many would testify to what they saw.
        How come you or Kevin Ryan won’t speak with these witnesses about the north side flight path?
        Why do you act like this is a theory when it is something people actually saw? Why do people like you and Kevin Ryan act as if these are inanimate objects? Why is it that NO ONE has approached these witnesses and specifically asked them about the north side flight path?
        Your tactic is to turn it into some “wild theory”. For others it is to shift attention to CIT and away from the witnesses. What those people saw is not a “theory”.
        Why is so hard to believe that the north side flight path and the story/deduction/concept of an impact could have existed at the same time? Lagasse and the rest clearly weren’t focused on light pole paths or official data, they simply deduced there was an impact which fits perfectly with the official story – which also just happened to be a south of citgo path through 5 light poles and into the first floor that was hardly even touched on in the public arena.
        The media and public was conditioned to believe plane impacts were happening that day already. The overwhelming force of the controlled media and everyone, who couldn’t see the Pentagon, but saw the plane as it approached the area and those who were fooled by the explosion would end up outweighing/overwhelming those who saw the flyover/flyby and were able to put two and two together. Those flyover witnesses didn’t have the luxury of knowing one another enabling to them band together as force to be dealt with in the media. Plus
        North side of Citgo flight path + pull-up/pivot up ascent over highway before Pentagon wall + silver airliner banking just feet above the light poles in south parking seconds AFTER the explosion = FLYOVER.
        This, along with their own data, represents hard evidence.
        If you notice there has been a push to move Honegger and other crap theories/disinfo to the forefront because they have to keep as many shells as they can out there to help keep your eye off of the one that has the ball under it.

  33. Ethan was not sincere in the first place so don’t worry about him stomping off all “butt hurt”. If he were legit he would review the evidence, simple as that.

  34. There is powerful research in the book. And all due respect Mr Ryan for compiling it.
    But this is the 911 conspiracy we are speaking of here. Brutal -egregious- resource and race War is taking place in its name.
    A classic false flag attack, 911 is the designed trigger for full spectrum dominance and has changed our world.
    The thousands upon hundreds of thousands of souls murdered at its behest absolutely demand all known facts to be presented…that is what this discussion is about. Presentation of fact.
    The book is an ID parade of many terrorists involved. Neoconazionist terrorists. PNAC and GLADIO terrorists. Wall street terrorists, Gatekeepers and Generals; those who benefited. Were promoted or who lost tapes and ‘drove slow’. Their deep associated revolving door connections and ‘corruption at the heart of the Amercian Justice system’ clearly exposed,
    SO how can zion’s part in the conspiracy, as obvious as the neocon -and by the same associative method – get a pass? Wherefor art thou ODIGO and ‘Urban Moving systems’ and Michael Goff of PTECH as exposed by the excellent work of C.BOLLYN ? The Israeli art students ‘recording the event’? This is not right.
    And not to introduce the population to CIT? how can any overview of 911 not introduce the enormity of deception as revealed by north side flight path? it is no authors right in discussing this atrocity to leave this evidence out. Because it IS evidence ! These extraordinarily crucial eyewitnesses said the plane was north side Of citgo and this DEFINES just what a deep state fuck you conspiracy LOOKS like. Why would we accept any part of states evidence if we know the entire atrocity was ‘state sanctioned’? Which we know it was by virtue of the FAILURE of state agencies to properly contend evidence anomalous to their OCT and the cover-up – the obvious depth and breadth of cover-up admits the deep state conspiracy.
    This book has intense discovery in it, but is ultimately dissapointing because of these crucial omissions.
    And yes. I have read it., and must admit, for me, the gap left by its reading was only filled by this article identifying its lack.

  35. “You did not answer my question, Mr. Ruff.”
    Submitted by gretavo on Wed, 2013-08-07 16:07.
    “Did the Pentagon police officers give CIT explicit permission to use the footage of them in the videos they are distributing? It seems strange to say the least that William Lagasse, for example, who is made in the video to look like a liar by saying he saw the plane hit the building when the premise of the video is that it could not have, has not asked that the footage of him be taken out. Unless he signed a release he has every right to control how his image is used, and the fact that he seems to have no problem with being CIT’s star witness is highly suspicious in my book.”
    . . . . . . . . .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    One must ‘Log In’ to this site to leave a comment. I am not willing to jump through such hoops to deal with these characters, especially since they don’t have the guts to show up here after so many cordial invitations.
    However, I do wish to address this question put forth by “gretavo” {Greta? a woman?}.
    What is the issue here? It is not the actual testimony of William Lagasse. Is it? No it is whether he “gave permission” – in reality a legally-pigally issue of “copyright” – and NOT the issue of what the truth of the Pentagon event is.
    In fact the questioner has no idea of whether Lagasse signed a release. Perhaps he did, and there might be reason to assume such, as Lagasse certainly hasn’t sued to have the footage removed, although he has complained publicly that he stands by his testimony that he witnessed the plane crash into the Pentagon; even though it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that from his vantage point he could not have witnessed any such thing.
    But what Lagasse and the other Citgo witnesses DO prove beyond reasonable doubt, when in combination with a score of other witnesses is that the plane witnessed flew north of the Citgo station.
    Obviously such a turn of events upsets certain parties, and one of these is ‘Greta’ who now compensates with this dishonest inquiry, obviously meant to defuse the import of these revelations.
    We know that Hemphill was extremely distressed as well when he realized the consequences of the entirety of his testimony, that what he was saying also proves a north approach. His testimony to Jeff Hill reiterates it regardless of how unsuccessful the leading of this witness was in that instance.
    The wish to strike such evidence from the record on a ‘technicality’ reminds one of the antics of a crooked judge.
    Every witness who makes it clear that the plane that day flew over the Navy Annex proves that it is physically impossible that they actually saw impact, no matter what they tell themselves they saw…the trajectory is impossible – it is that bloody simple.

    1. Willy
      The wish to strike such evidence from the record on a ‘technicality’ reminds one of the antics of a crooked judge.
      Every witness who makes it clear that the plane that day flew over the Navy Annex proves that it is physically impossible that they actually saw impact, no matter what they tell themselves they saw…the trajectory is impossible – it is that bloody simple.

      That’s it in a nutshell.
      That pathetic argument by Gretavo (he) is no different to the tactics used by detractors on every fiorum they’ve turned up.
      Myself and “Snowcrash”/Michel deBoer/_fill blank and a few cheerleaders had a long drawn out “debate” about what Terry Morin had seen, the nuts and bolts of the GL claptrap debunk can be found here:
      ….in fact I’ll link to all of the alleged “SOC witnesses” that these people trot out (worth a look)
      I hooked them all in to admit that they believed Morin was (at least) describing a flightpath over the edge of the Navy Annex, quoting an old (ambiguous) online statement of his. They completely ignored the aerodynamics that makes this an impossibility in regards to the directional damage (a 72° right bank followed by a 72° left bank and levelling out – all within 2.5 seconds!).
      I then beat them over the head with Warren Stutt’s “banking data”. They’d been defending this guy’s “work” (but none of the alleged pilots I was debating had the balls to put their name to it after Legge had appealed for somebody to do so). No left bank was recorded. In fact the highest bank allegedly recorded was a 7° right bank 12 seconds before the explosion. Job done? No. 2 days later I saw that he was repeating the same garbage on another forum.
      Now if Gretavo saw this post he’d be on his high horse claiming that this post proves his assertion that supporters of the NOC evidence have a “with us or against us” dogmatic approach. No Gretavo, detractors have never been honest or consistent in their so called “debate”. They chop and change, switch arguments, multiple posters argue from all angles and they either lie or run away. That’s a proven fact.
      It’s not that there are those who believe that an impact occurred are automatically in one camp and that there is a clear dividing line to those who believe that there was a flyover. It’s that those who argue regularly for impact are generally dishonest and evasive.
      My challenge to Gretavo (and Ethan if he’s not still sulking) is to find any instances where CIT or myself have ever used false information regarding this evidence anywhere on the web. Anywhere. Hypothesize? Yes. Based on valid and verified evidence? Most definitely.

    2. My last comment on Amazon told Gretavo that I would not be continuing the discussion on his forum but that he could come here and discuss it. I am not going to his forum he will have to come here. The reason for that is that Gretavo is dishonest and is using various disinformation and evasion techniques in his arguments and I would not put it past him at all to post something, let me respond, and then edit what he originally said in order to make me look bad or crazy. If he comes here he will have no such options for trickery. So the ball is in his court. FTR here is my comment to Gretavo aka RT on amazon in which I make this point clear:
      Yeah it is “disruptive” and an “attack” to question Mr. Chandler and his Pentagon work. What a joke you are RT for even going down that road. To top it off you go right into an off topic rant about Jeff Hill and Chandlers association with him following your scolding of CIT and Judy Wood supporters for going off topic. Wow that is some hypocrisy there RT. At any rate my comments were not off topic to begin with since they focused on Ryan’s book and specifics about the Pentagon position he espouses in the book. My other comments were directed towards Chandlers review of Ryans book. So stuff it RT you don’t have a leg to stand on and neither does Chandler after calling us trolls and disinformation operatives and then having the gall to call us the disruptive ones. Hypocrisy all around it seems. The truth is neither of you guys can handle valid criticism. It isn’t an “attack” to point out the massive gaping holes in Chandler’s paper or Ryan’s book it is valid and proper criticism of sloppy work that just happens to be dead wrong.
      I will not be continuing the conversation with you on your blog RT but you and Chandler and Ryan can come to Truth and Shadows and discuss the Kevin Ryan book review posted there if you wish. Or you can talk about any of the other blog entries you wish. I don’t expect to see any of you but the option is available and unless you flagrantly violate the rules of free speech with threats or nonsense like that you will not be censored in any way shape or form unlike the cess pit of censorship 911Blogger.
      So by posting this reply on his own blog which I said I was not going to Gretavo is again demonstrating dishonesty. He is attempting to paint me as the one running from debate when in reality it is him doing so.

  36. Ethan — I don’t know if there’s any point in addressing you further as you use the same tactics of pigeonholing, generalization, ducking and dodging — but…
    “Please will one of you give me the readers digest version on why youre so convinced of a flyover. And how it could plausibly be achieved”
    You have to step back right there. The alleged impact begins at lightpoles 1 and 2 and ends at the C Ring “punchout hole”. Not at the facade.
    Step back even further. The aircraft was allegedly travelling at cruise speed at low level flight (in of itself a ridiculous notion but hey, that’s the OCT – the most “alternate theory” that there is). The alleged standard 757 must therefore be in level flight at a constant 61.5° trajectory as the official flightpath depicts, to have any chance of running through the lightpoles, strike the generator and exit through that neat hole in C Ring.
    Even a 5° tilt will result in the first lightpoles being undamaged. The lightpoles were allegedly clipped at roughly the same height either side. There can be no manouevring.
    There can be no “banks” as many witnesses described. No “tilts”. No “slightly off” the directional damage path as not only can a standard 757 not shift its heading at that speed to line up with the damage, but the alleged FDR data records no left bank.
    Again, nobody describes this smooth level flight nor the alleged trajectory.
    Again, it’s up to you and others who deny the validity of a flyover to explain how the very specific nature of the damage could have been caused when the entire witness pool on record (independently) contradict the necessary trajectory and manouevre.
    The only alleged physical evidence of the aircraft interacting with lightpoles was the cab driver Lloyd England who denies to this day that he was on the directional damage path, even though he was pictured there. Whatever his reasons, the entire scenario is highly suspect. Just like Hess denying his early recorded statement of hearing explosions along with Barry Jennings in WTC7.
    The actual physical damage to the building, particularly the facade, columns that were and weren’t damaged along the internal directional damage path is provenly suspect. And there is evidence of internal explosions.
    Those who designed the retrofit had also done multiple “mini” explosive experiments (“100s of them”) to see what damage would be caused and how the building would hold up.
    Here are the original NOC witnesses (there are much more now). Watch it. How can you dismiss evidence that you haven’t even reviewed?

  37. “It was David Ray Griffin who provided the trigger for this paper. He set out to assemble the evidence for and against the plane impact theory in Chapter 7 of his recent book “9/11 Ten Years Later“. It seemed to me that he had done so in a way which left the reader with the impression that it was likely that there was no plane impact. I had previously thought that the matter had been settled to the satisfaction of any scientist by the publication of papers co-authored with Warren Stutt and with David Chandler. Griffin is not a scientist but he has written many excellent books on the subject of 9/11 and is highly regarded and influential.”
    ~Frank Legge
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    I want everyone to let this settle in, and let it settle in good. Legge wrote this “last paper on the Pentagon” for the express purpose of rebutting David Ray Griffin.
    Legge, as we all know here, puts a lot of emphasis on being a “scientist”…that is an appeal to authority. However Legge, as several other “scientists” have displayed their lack of critical reasoning skills. Even Jim Fetzer, who is supposedly a professor of ‘scientific logic’, has shown on these very pages of T&S to know nothing of simple physics, and is a stumbling juvenile when it comes to critical thinking and rational argumentation.
    To dismiss David Ray Griffin because he is “not a scientist” is the height of hubris for someone like Legge, who makes some of the most tortured and twisted arguments I have ever read on any subject.

  38. In Stage Magic, each trick has three parts;
    [1] The Pledge, where the audience is presented with an ordinary object;
    [2] The Turn, where the object is turned into something extraordinary;
    [3] The Prestige, where the object is brought back.
    If the third element of a magic act is missing, doesn’t occur, it results in dissatisfaction and disappointment, as well as uncertainty.
    The event at the Pentagon is analogous to a Magic Act that only gave the audience the first two elements of a satisfactory magic act. It is missing the Prestige: “Where did the plane go if it didn’t hit the Pentagon?”
    For this answer of course, one would have to ask the Magicians. Unfortunately they aren’t talking. It is disingenuous to demand members of the audience who have detected that the plane did not actually hit the Pentagon for the Prestige. It is enough that such members of the audience have proved that it was illusion, they have no part in the Pledge, but have only explained the Turn. The plane was not the Turn, the pyrotechnics were…the distraction was the Turn. The plane remained and ordinary object, just a prop, and a missing Prestige.

    1. Well put HR1 and to demonstrate your point we can look at this Chris Angel illusion where he vanishes a Lamborghini. Note how the same technique used by Angel in this video could have been adapted to “vanish” the plane as it flew over the Pentagon.
      Also pay close attention to how the spectators are convinced that the car actually vanished. Watching this video, in my opinion, is the closest thing you are going to get to explaining just how the flyover was actually accomplished. Watch it a few times and see for yourself why the witnesses at the pentagon had almost no choice (psychologically speaking) but to believe that the plane struck the building because otherwise their mind has to accept what their own eyes say is impossible “that the plane vanished into thin air”. In actuality of course the plane just flew past or even through the giant explosion and fireball which drew everyones attention to it while simultaneously blocking the view as the plane flew over the pentagon and away. Very straight forward illusion really and any magician could tell you how and why it worked to fool almost all the witnesses into believing the plane struck the pentagon. Rosevelt Roberts not being able to see the fireball from his vantage point is not distracted by it and what do you know he sees a plane flying away. Funny how that works huh?

      1. Hey Adam,
        I had the pleasure to meet Chris Angel when I was working on FX in the studios. He is quite the charismatic character and showman. Casually in person a very down to earth guy, easy to talk to.

      2. AdamR
        Also remember that those participating in the illusion had their eyes focused on the event. They knew that a trick was to occur. Those people to the west of the Pentagon were taken by surprise either sitting in cars, very close to the event, or had a limited view through a window. The testimonies habe a recurrent theme when the explosion occurred. They did what anybody else would do at such a surreal and violent event. They ducked, flinched and freaked.
        By the way, love reading your posts man!

  39. I think a lot of the comments here in response to Kevin Ryan’s book are off the mark, and miss the point and intention of this work. As he indicated in his introduction, this book is not intended to disprove the official account of 9/11. If anyone doesn’t realize the OCT is BS by now, they just plain don’t want to know. Of all the volumes of evidence that disprove the official story, many details have failed to achieve consensus in the community that follows these investigations, however, I think we all (here) can agree that 9/11 was the biggest Black Op in history, designed to engender an epoch defining myth that would justify a global security state to further enrich and protect the ruling elite; the masses be damned. This could not have been accomplished without the cooperation of key players in the highest positions of authority in the intelligence communities, the military and security services. In other words, the very individuals who were entrusted with making sure something like 9/11 never happened. I think Kevin’s work here is extremely valuable, as it points out exactly who many of these people are, what their past connections and relationships were prior to 9/11, and their motives. I think Kevin is approaching his research from a criminal justice angle, and believes that if we could bring these suspects before a grand jury, or indict them for already provable crimes (such as perjury), a lot of the details that we can’t agree on may be cleared up by the testimony of the actual perpetrators, or at least by underlings who may be withholding information under duress. (Anyone remember the anthrax messages?) A few actual prosecutions could open the floodgates if lower level operatives (or witnesses) felt they could testify without fear of reprisal, or could at least cut some plea bargain deals.
    The 9/11 Myth is ruling the world, and will continue to unless it is dealt a death blow through the courts so precedent can be set and legislation can be initiated to disempower the criminal overworld that created it. The first victories need to be in the court of public opinion, and we should be cheering Kevin for his contributions. We may not agree with every statement he makes or opinion he has, but we should celebrate the common ground that we stand on concerning the pursuit of justice. In-fighting over details that just can’t yet be proven one way or another will not help the movement, only open it to more disinformation and the divide and conquer strategies that are working so well for the PTB. Maybe nano thermite AND directed energy weapons were used at the WTC. Maybe Flight 77 AND a missile hit the Pentagon. Who knows for sure? Somebody does. I’m with Kevin on getting some of these perps and their minions into court. Somebody’s bound to come clean, if for no other reason than to relieve their conscience. They can’t all be psychopaths. Right now, increasing public awareness is the key, as the controlled media has held sway long enough. I applaud Kevin and the work currently being done by many others who are dedicated to educating the uninformed, like the Rethink 9/11 campaign.
    I’ve been following Kevin’s investigations for quite a while and was looking forward to this book. It is definitely not the encyclopedic be-all and end-all of 9/11 reporting that some would like it to be, but it is what it is, and I think he’s done a great job, considering that a lot of this information should have come out a long time ago if there was still such a thing as real investigative reporting at the media organizations that had the resources to do it right from the beginning.

    1. “I think Kevin’s work here is extremely valuable, as it points out exactly who many of these people are, what their past connections and relationships were prior to 9/11, and their motives. I think Kevin is approaching his research from a criminal justice angle, and believes that if we could bring these suspects before a grand jury, or indict them for already provable crimes…”~Mark Petrie
      Mark your commentary makes perfect sense in a false paradigm. But in the one we actually inhabit, it is a delusion. You again appeal to the idea that the authority of the state is legitimate. You seem to miss the very center of the situation, as Kevin R does himself. These suspect perpetrators are not at the top of the food chain. Those who actually control these operators of the shadow government are at the very pinnacle of the power pyramid, far removed from the action men.
      There will be no justice from within this system. It is this system itself which made 9/11 happen. It is the MO of the very system itself. This whole fairytale of “rogue elements” is part of the illusion.

    2. Mark,
      I think much of your argument here is very sound indeed and if it were applied to the NOC (North of Citgo) evidence which is conclusive and damning proof of an inside job by the way we would be on the same page. I note that you applaud Kevin and the rethink 9/11 campaign for educating the uninformed but I note that CIT and P4T who have uncovered the most damning evidence of all are not mentioned by you. Why is it that they are not mentioned by you and why is it that Kevin is quite active in his opposition to this damning evidence?
      With undeniable evidence of a staged crime scene at the pentagon could we not bring many of these suspects before a grand jury as you mention above? Would not conclusive proof that the government (very specific individuals BTW) lied about the pentagon event and covered up the truth bring the whole black op down like a house of cards? I think it would which is why your argument is more suited to support of the NOC evidence considering it is absolutely lethal to the insiders who covered up what really happened at the pentagon. With CD the slime who did it could still blame patsies however you cannot blame a patsy for staging the crime scene at the pentagon can you? How could a patsy control the operation on the grounds of the pentagon itself huh? They couldn’t. Only controllers at the highest level within the pentagon could pull that off and manage the “investigation” as well.
      Your argument in favor of Kevin’s book falls flat for me because I cannot trust the information in the book. Look at his fabricated “connection” he drew about Shelton Lankford in the book. How can I trust the rest of the information and connections he makes in his book if he is willing to do that kind of shoddy and may I say underhanded work regarding Shelton? How can I trust that he is even a real truther when he denies and actively opposes the most damning evidence we have of an inside job, (the NOC evidence)? How can I trust his book is solid and true when he promotes a provably false scenario of the pentagon event inside it’s pages? I can’t trust it or recommend it.
      Kevin needs to hash out these issues IN PUBLIC and resolve them before I can champion his work. It is FAR to important to brush off this issue and I for one won’t do it. If Kevin can show in an actual public debate/discussion where the “doubt” is about the NOC evidence then he needs to do that. His refusal to discuss it is VERY suspicious to me and many others who are thorougly familiar with the pentagon evidence. You see we KNOW that Kevin is wrong, very wrong, about the pentagon, and the longer he refuses to discuss it and issue the appropriate apologies and retractions the more suspicious we all get about his motives.
      Suppose I wrote a book and exposed a wide array of solid evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and carefully documented all of it but I also said in the book that WTC 7 did NOT come down at freefall speed. Now even though 99.9% of the book was right on the money could you and would you still support it knowing that the info on WTC 7 was totally wrong and contradictory to the evidence? Would you call me out on that kind of mistake? Of course you would. So that is why I do not give Kevin Ryan’s book a pass.
      Out of curiosity Mark how familiar are you with the NOC evidence?

  40. Mark
    “Of all the volumes of evidence that disprove the official story, many details have failed to achieve consensus in the community that follows these investigations”
    There’s the problem right there Mark. Exactly who decided what “achieved consensus”? To what standards? Were they viewing all of the evidence in an unbiased fashion? Did they even view it at all after it had passed through the gatekeepers?
    I’m referring to the NOC evidence (the video is posted above). This evidence wasn’t even discussed because of a campaign of censorship and disinformation so how could there have been a “consensus” on it in the first place?
    I’ll decide for myself and the over 15 to 1 difference in likes to dislikes given to the video that contains the evidence, the very detailed information and facts available if some people would bother their arse to read them and the quality of counterargument (which is severely wanting – even worse than the arguments used by the “deniers” that Ryan claims to be aiming for).
    By the way, no missile struck the Pentagon. There’s no proof whatsoever that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. And the NOC evidence points to no airborne object striking the Pentagon.

  41. Speaking of consensus, the 9/11 Consensus Panel uses the “Delphi Method” as their approach to determine “best evidence.” The Delphi Method comes from the RAND Corporation. (Disclaimer up front: I’m NOT saying I’m suspicious of David Griffin because he’s administrator of it!) I find this to be one of the ironies of the book.
    Kevin repeatedly speaks in the book of how so-and-so worked for the RAND corporation, which, according to one website, is the “think tank that controls America.”
    Here is one example. Chapter 5, “George Tenet at the CIA.” Ryan says:
    “In 1999, the CIA under the direction of Tenet began a new venture called In-Q-Tel. Through the CIA’s Directorate of technology, this semi-private corporation sought to find and purchase companies with applications related to intelligence work. Among those working with Tenet at In-Q-Tel was:”
    Then Ryan lists 3 people, two of whom worked for RAND. Of the second, Ryan elaborates:
    “Norman Augustine, the CEO of Lockheed Martin. A director at the Center for Security Policy and at Riggs Bank, Augustine was also a member of a RAND Corporation task force led by Frank Carlucci that outlined “A Global Agenda” for incoming President George W. Bush.”
    Not trying to draw any sinister connections between the Panel and the 9/11 perps; but the irony is quite thick.

    1. When I was on the 9/11 Consensus Panel and asked the organizers WHY the Delphi method would be applicable (knowing that it came originally out of Rand), the only answer I got from Elizabeth Woodworth is that it has been used in the medical field. I did not receive from her nor DRG any explication whatsoever.
      I don’t think they want discussion of the Delphi method. However, maybe someone else would have more luck trying to get an answer. If interested, I would recommend asking DRG.
      I do know that their requirement of 85% agreement to constitute “consensus” combined with their choice of WHO is on the Panel excludes NoC and P4T evidence from ever getting out of their box. It is that simple.

      1. Paul,
        I agree, and this is more certain now than ever. There are now three members of the Consensus Panel who are on record as believing a plane hit the Pentagon: one is David Chandler, who has been a member for some time. That number increased with the conversion of Dwain Deets to belief in large plane impact. Then the addition to the Panel of Jonathan Cole (who works closely with Chandler) pretty much sealed the deal.
        For any Consensus point on the Pentagon favorable to CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth positions to be adopted (meeting the 85% threshold) the Panel’s other 21 members must be unanimous in favor of it. This does assume that Deets would oppose all elements of the no-large-plane-impact evidence. His position is not that clear: for example, he appears to believe that a North of Citgo approach could be compatible with impact.
        While the reversal of Deets may have come as a surprise, the addition of Cole to the Panel was a mistake and a blow to the panel’s credibility – at least on Pentagon-related questions.

      2. Paul and Craig,
        The Delphi Method does NOT originate in the medical field however. It in fact was developed for assessment of military matters. I don’t have the information right before me at this time, and would have to re-access the sources, but I am sure of Delphi’s genesis as a military assessment technique. The Delphi predates it being adopted by Rand as well.

      3. “The Delphi method was developed at the beginning of the Cold War to forecast the impact of technology on warfare.[8] In 1944, General Henry H. Arnold ordered the creation of the report for the U.S. Army Air Corps on the future technological capabilities that might be used by the military.”
        Perhaps Ms Woodworth considers the medical field as some benign entity and thus cites it for that reason. I would counter that NO corporatist entity is a benign entity in this current paradigm.
        Be that as it may, the whole approach seeped in mythological trappings as it is, I see as one of the errors of hubris that the madmen running this planet suffer from. I would posit as I have before on these pages, that ‘consensus’ itself is a myth, one with a very limited shelf life.

    Radar loss on 9/11 – by Paul Schreyer
    “Thus, when the controller lost the transponder signal and switched to “primary radar” on his scope, the computer started displaying the radar data received from Lynch. The problem: Lynch operated poorly. For unknown reasons it did not “see” American 77 in the precise area where the transponder was turned off. That is why the plane got lost for about 8 minutes, exactly when it turned.”
    . . . . . . . . . .
    This is a very interesting exposition. Although it is not alluded to in the article, I would say there is some circumstantial evidence here for a switch of aircraft during this ‘radar blank of 8 minutes’: The original flt 77 landing as a decoy craft took off and took its place to come up on the Bedford signal.
    Although this isn’t proof in itself, it certainly offers a window of opportunity for such a switch to have occurred.

  43. Suppose I wrote a book and exposed a wide array of solid evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and carefully documented all of it but I also said in the book that WTC 7 did NOT come down at freefall speed. Now even though 99.9% of the book was right on the money could you and would you still support it knowing that the info on WTC 7 was totally wrong and contradictory to the evidence? Would you call me out on that kind of mistake? Of course you would. So that is why I do not give Kevin Ryan’s book a pass.

    Well said, Adam Ruff! That sums it up very well.
    In fact, your comment reminded me of a little truth movement history. In 2009, Michael Ruppert, renowned for his exposure of the the War Games, took a blatant crap on controlled demolition:

    The building demolition crap will not be injected into my list — ever. From a legal standpoint nothing of what your posts are about is legally admissible evidence and proves nothing. Even if thermite were used, this so-called evidence (which wouldn’t be considered by any court) does nothing to prove who put it there does it?
    This is a distraction I won’t permit. Your intelligence and loyatly and friendship are valued here. But the timing of this is highly suspect to me. If Jenna doesn’t stop posting this thread I will.
    I learned a long time ago that if COINTELPRO isn’t nipped in the bud early it gets real “expensive” later on.
    Go back and read FTW and what I wrote about physical evidence for the last eight years. Did you read Rubicon?
    That’s the last 9/11 physical evidence post I’ll allow here. There are many other places more suitable for that. This is a blog that does things.
    This rightly made a lot of truthers angry; I would say the following comment is quite representative of the comments as a whole (this was before blogger had been completely taken over and lots of good truthers were still posting there; this was more than one year before I was banned):

    I’ve just informed Mr. Ruppert and Ms. Orkin
    that unless they reconsider their position and, at least, take a neutral position; I will no longer recommend Crossing The Rubicon to anyone.

    And, the very next comment comes from our man of the hour, Kevin Ryan himself:

    and strangely suspect.
    How disappointing.
    Kevin Ryan on Wed, 04/22/2009 – 3:49pm.

    So, the circle of irony comes 360. This serves to underscore Adam Ruff’s point. Ruppert did a lot of good, and woke a lot of people up with Crossing the Rubicon and his documentary appearances exposing the “War Games” aspect of the inside job. But for all the good he did, his “building demolitions crap” blew his credibility, and made people wonder if he was working for some gatekeeping entity.
    Ryan is not so overt when taking a sh*t on legitimate evidence. He doesn’t refer to the “Pentagon flyover crap” the way Ruppert referred to the “building demolitions crap.” He is a bit more subtle. He says re the Pentagon: “The work of independent investigators has also failed to address those questions.” As well as siding with Legge and associates in a fraudulent call for “consensus,” which is all a bunch of BS especially considering that Legge’s paper calling for “consensus” on the Pentagon actually had a working title of “debunking no plane at the Pentagon.” He has said that the NOC evidence is unimportant, and a dead-end for 9/11 justice, and the “least useful” line of inquiry. And, in a rather Orwellian twist, he actually accused the people who uncovered that evidence of being divisive for seeking praise for their work! And finally, there’s Ryan’s fraudulent claim that claims of Israeli involvement are due to sloppy research and poor reasoning.
    Just like Ruppert, Ryan must be called out for his shortcomings as long as people perceive him as a “leader.” I also think, in light of Ryan’s 2009 comment (about Ruppert’s words being “strangely suspicious” coming from a 9/11 truther), it’s fair game to now wonder aloud the obvious question some have probably been privately pondering: Who exactly HAS Ryan been working for since 2004 after he got fired from UL? His FB profile merely says, “Worked at: Peace; Studied at: Truth.”

  44. Adam S
    The TruthAction Forum (RIP) in its final years blatantly took a “crap” on CD. They used the GL tactic of labelling Chandler a “simple physics teacher”. But they suspiciously didn’t mention Legge. Nor Hoffman. Nor his wife (where the hell are these people these days??). They also had a pop at Ryan because of his “drone” theory. A theory which Bursill also espoused. DRG was at the receiving end too because he hadn’t fallen into line at the time.
    Now am I being paranoid or “divisive” if I point out that no accusatory fingers were pointed at this forum when the most vitriolic attacks were aimed at these people yet were completely in goosestep formation when the Pentagon disinformation campaign was in full swing?
    A forum that was founded by a fake 9/11 victim family member.
    The people who were attacked there had always used the mantra “the strongest evidence”. That the Pentagon “undermined” the “strongest evidence” (ie CD).
    So if the “strongest evidence” was directly under attack by this forum, why no “joint statements”? No banning from 911Blogger? No mass censorship? Why no raised eyebrows regarding the cosy relationship between members of TruthAction and the GL Rand Forum?
    Why the grovelling and pandering to these people?

    1. OSS,
      Classic case of “First they came for the communists, but I did not speak out because I was not a communist” etc.
      They inched out all the Pentagon research supporters until only LIHOP and CD-only* folks remained. Then, go after the CD folks, as TA did in its final year or so, get the forum to be a ghost town, then close it down. I’m not sure how much of it is theater vs. genuine fighting, but in the end, many of the people at that forum who were united in their anti-CIT quest ended up turning on each other, w/r to CD. Eventually, the forum was a complete ghost town, then shortly thereafter, it was closed down.
      Seems like a perfect Cointel strategy to me.

      1. Here’s a really blatant example of someone I’m convinced is an infiltrator: John Albanese. He made a LIHOPpy film that went viral called “Everybody’s Gotta Learn Sometime.” He got lots of praise for this and spoke at several conferences, also becoming a prominent poster at blogger and truthaction. However, his real colors show in this facebook comment he made to someone when trying to howl down someone promoting CD:

      2. What year was this Albanese comment made Mr Syed?
        Did anyone confront him? Like how do you mean “up close”? When he is talking about the videos that supposedly “have no bangs”…
        I have heard similar arguments about lack of “bangs” by those who do not understand audio recording, and attenuated mics, etc. Did Albanese then blatantly discount all of the eye and ear witness testimonies as well?
        Did anyone challenge his empty assertions that the Thermite Paper has been “PROVEN a fraud”?
        Well it’s good this oinker Albanese has dropped off the radar…

      3. Someone sent me that screenshot about 2 years ago or so. I didn’t see the whole thread. It was definitely around the time the TA posters were dumping on CD and also going after DRG when he was near death.

    Subject: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention
    in Cuba (TS)
    Page 13 — Appendix to Enclosure A
    7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft
    should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the
    government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban
    civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.
    8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate
    convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down
    a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to
    Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would
    be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba.
    The passengers could be a group of college students off on a
    holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to
    support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
    a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and
    numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
    aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the
    Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
    subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
    loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
    carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered
    aircraft would be converted to a drone.
    b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
    aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
    Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
    aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
    into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
    have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
    aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft
    meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
    over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
    national distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he
    is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission
    will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
    be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio…

  46. Craig, Paul and I were discussing the Delphi Technique above earlier today.
    I got these two leads from the CIT letter that Mr Wright gives the URL to just above.
    I am fairly sure I have read the Stuter essay some time ago, but am going to review it and the Burns essay again today:
    Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus – How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation by Lynn Stuter

    Let’s Stop Being Manipulated! – The Delphi Technique by Albert V. Burns

    1. Willy
      Craig pointed out earlier (and it blew me away)
      “For any Consensus point on the Pentagon favorable to CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth positions to be adopted (meeting the 85% threshold) the Panel’s other 21 members must be unanimous in favor of it.”
      That is so corrupt. It basically means that the panel heading the consensus will have a majority rule over all other members. Or would take a small clique to overrule and/or demand amendments.
      And what a tangled web Matt Sullivan and Barbara Honegger have woven, huh?
      Where did Deets come out with the “NOC impact” nonsense?

      1. onesliceshort,
        I am as baffled as anyone else concerning what prompted Deets to do this about-face. He writes about it on his blog:
        He also talks about it on the last 9/11 Truth Teleconference call (July 31). That explanation – which has to do with him learning about remote control technology that he hadn’t been aware of – left most of us more puzzled than ever.

      2. OSS,
        On the most recent teleconference call, Deets was all over the place: in one instance he said he’s 99% convinced the NOC witnesses are genuine, with a 1% chance they’re all actors, so he said he’s just about convinced of NOC. He mentioned that he believes a plane can still hit NOC. Then, a few minutes later, this same Dwain Deets said that he believed the light poles were planted, BUT… that the plane flew on the SOC path, but above the poles. And yes, he mentioned how his conversion has to do with his epiphany to the existence of super advanced remote control technology.
        It was the most incoherent thing I’ve ever heard from someone in the truth movement. In her January 2007 interview with Greg Jenkins, Judy Wood seems lucid and coherent in comparison.
        Maybe he’s under the influence of subliminals or mind-zapping. Don’t forget, this is the same guy who, on Jesse Ventura, said that a 757 causing that kind of damage is “just nonsensical. We should not accept such an explanation…” I believe that was the original, uncorrupted Dwain. Maybe someone at the Vancouver Hearings got to him.

      3. “which has to do with him learning about remote control technology that he hadn’t been aware of…”? ~Craig
        You are talking about Deets here? But he was intimately involved in the development of drone technologies!!
        WHAT? Has Deets had brian salad surgery? WTF?

        1. He “explains” this on that recording I linked to. If you want to listen to his section you have to go to the second half (if not third third) of the recording – item 2 on the agenda (sponsored by Paul Zarembka).

      4. “The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.”
        This is from the Northwoods document…1962. They are talking about converting a passenger aircraft into a drone – back then! And we are supposed to believe this technology isn’t advanced to a point where it could be used as late as 2001??
        Gimme a break kimosabe!
        So much is revealed in this document that is directly relevant to 9/11. I am sure it never collected dust, sitting forgotten on a shelf for half a century.

      5. No Craig,
        I think that must have been before I began here…I asked for a connection to that broadcast you said you linked to – in an email to you just a few moments ago.
        If you can answer that email with that link, please give me the URLs to the Northwood pieced on T&S as well, if you would.
        Thanks, \\][//

  47. The latest from Ryan (albeit from several days ago), sent to me by a mutual friend (I, of course, have not been “friends” with him on there since 2010).
    Scott Ford —>Kevin Ryan
    August 5
    In my opinion, there is no book review greater than a half-handed, poorly-written, convoluted and straight-up boring hatchet job from Madame Syed. I’m jealous. I want a “paradox” named after me. Too bad I’m blocked by him for some strange reason 😉
    Kevin Ryan Yes, “paradoxically” his nonsense attack is a a good sign that I’m on the right track.
    Somehow, I don’t think Ryan is going to publicly respond to the review. Funny how the “responsible truthers” can dish it out but can’t take it.

  48. “Madame Syed”? — this is Scott Ford speaking I take it.
    Well Scott certainly isn’t blocked here on this blog. Come on Scott, speak up here. Begin by defining “half-handed”. Then explain how an article critiquing an author using that authors own words as a “hatchet” is “poorly-written”.
    I do think however that Scott is indeed truly jealous.
    I would also like to read Kevin Ryan explain how this review of his book is “a a good sign that [he’s] on the right track”…[does he often stutter when he writes? Lol]
    These people KNOW that this review is RIGHT HERE! But they want to whisper in the shadows among themselves, rather that having the balls to visit this site and confront their critics.

  49. After listening to the teleconference just now, I have very vile thoughts pulsing in waves about Barbara Honegger…which I shall with great restraint now decline to offer the forum.

    1. When I finally got to speak at the teleconference (the recording may have stopped by that point) I said that Honegger’s Pentagon position had not been vetted or debated at all and she interrupted immediately (as she did throughout the call) and said her theory had been vetted and debated. I know of no vetting or debate whatsoever of her small plane impacting the heliport theory. Perhaps Barbara or someone else can enlighten me about this vetting or debate process she claims took place concerning her theory.
      I found it very irritating that Barbara kept interrupting others as they spoke. My suspicions of her are based on more than the teleconference but the teleconference is a good illustration of her tactics and evasiveness. My e-mail discussion with her convinced me she is at the very least tricky and evasive. I do not trust her as far as I can throw her. Her shameless and excessive self promotion is also very irritating to me.

      1. Yes Adam,
        Honegger is very rude. Even when the facilitator reminded her she was out of order, all she did was spool up into higher bitchpitch whine. She yapped so much that the recording ended before any wrap-up could come about. So I didn’t hear what you had to say as closing words.
        “Her shameless and excessive self promotion…” indeed, self proclaimed “Premier Pentagon Researcher.” A legend in her own mind.
        After hearing this phone conference, and reading Ranke’s statement on why he would not attend; I can sure relate to his concerns.
        And she is one of those who calls CIT rude and uncivilized…Lol
        Too bad she can’t be caught in an actual debate, her attitude when she gets hot is what would shoot her own self down. I’d be willing to debate her, given time to prepare.
        I know exactly how to play someone like this….I’ve been married three times to aggressive uppity Alpha females: Tick them off and then speak softly. They inevitably go into a banshee fit. You end up with everything, including the kitchen sink flung about the stage, as you look on with genuine innocent surprise.
        I have seen a few spectacular meltdowns in my day.
        Frankly I believe that this conference in DC is going to be a disaster. It could flame into another conflagration like the Fetzer – Honegger – Tarpley row. It might be entertaining, but it sure isn’t informative.

        1. FYI, the recording ended in the middle of the call because everyone was disconnected (inexplicably) and the recording wasn’t resumed when everyone called back. So you missed quite a bit.

      2. Yea Craig,
        I could tell, it just ended abruptly mid sentence….
        These sorts of “technical difficulties” occurring at “opportune moments” for certain parties is very strange as well. Even though someone began to talk, all I could hear was the echo of Honneger bouncing around in my head. What a drag.

      3. Willy,
        I note your August 11 message that you’d be willing to debate Honegger, given time to prepare, and that you could take her down. Do you think you could be effective against her at the D.C. conference as it appears to be shaping up (three hours Sunday morning and one additional hour Sunday afternoon with the moderator being Kevin Barrett + plus Honegger also presenting Saturday afternoon, listed under a separate topic)?
        I am intrigued because I think there is more than one avenue for addressing Honegger’s case. We don’t need to wait for Ranke to do it nor need his permission.
        I note that Domenick DiMaggio is a speaker on Shanksvillle. He is listed on the CIT Research Forum with CIT after his name, implying an official connection, at least at some time. See So, at least one (former?) CIT person is participating, albeit not vis-a-vis Honegger on the Pentagon event. This is in spite of Ranke’s July 31 declination to participate and advising others, “Furthermore, we are urging any ‘supporter’ of CIT to do the same, and want to make it crystal clear that we do not in any way encourage or endorse their participation. If anyone does accept it will be against our wishes and they do not in any way speak for us.”
        You comment that you anticipate a disastrous in-fight at D.C. But as it stands I expect Honegger to come out ahead of Deets and Sullivan, as I don’t expect either of them to take her on.

      4. Paul,
        I am surprised, honored and humbled by your proposal.
        As much as I would love to make such a presentation, I regret to say that I don’t think there is sufficient time. This must be a well thought out audiovisual presentation, relying on a lot of collected imagery crafted to a coherent script. It would take a coordinated team effort to put something like this together.
        I would like to work towards such a thing for some future date, I think there is a team here that could create such a presentation. This current deadline is impossible in my view.

  50. Electronic Voodoo__why you cannot communicate with TVZombies
    And why rational argument cannot reach them on 9/11 or anything else:
    “Back in 1969, a man named Herbert Krugman conducted a series of experiments regarding the effect of television on a person’s brainwaves. What he found was pretty startling:
    Krugman monitored a person through many trials and found that in less than one minute of television viewing, the person’s brainwaves switched from Beta waves — brainwaves associated with active, logical thought — to primarily Alpha waves. When the subject stopped watching television and began reading a magazine, the brainwaves reverted to Beta waves.”

    1. @Craig

      there might have been a way to pass north of CitGo and still strike the Pentagon at the location of damage, and another 10% as Sgts. Lagasse and Brooks might have been lying.
      Dwain Deets

      Wrong. Completely wrong.
      Not only do the in tact lightpoles along the northern path rule this out…
      But the visible damage seen just beyond the facade clearly contradicts a “passenger jet” ploughing through this area:
      Then we have the directional damage along the path where nobody described the aircraft. More specifically the generator trailer. If Deets is claiming “NOC impact”, how did the trailer get damaged? The wingtips wouldn’t even have reached from an NOC trajectory:
      And this is bizarre, me having to explain to a NASA guy why an NOC aircraft can’t line up with the damage:
      And they “may be lying” Dwain? You’ve covered every ridiculous, GL bullshit ploy against this evidence over the past 7 years all in just one page!
      Again, bizarro…talking of the Stutt nonsense…

      If these additional seconds of data are valid, the radar altitude measurement indicates the airplane did level off at a low enough altitude to strike the Pentagon. There are reasons to be cautious of the FDR, as it has no identifying numbers to authenticate it as having been installed in a particular aircraft, or even that the data came from a plane in flight. All the recorded parameters could have been outputs from of a very complete simulator. Nevertheless, I think these additional 4 seconds of decoded data warrants adjusting my 80% confidence level downward by about 30%, lowering my overall confidence in an overflight to about 50%.
      – Dwain Deets

      Hmmm…let’s see….
      1. RA – PA Correlation, proving the “Altitude Divergence” calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
      2. Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt’s theory false.
      3. More confirmation supporting RA Tracking Capability referenced is in fact a longitudinal velocity, and not the vertical velocity as speculated by Legge/Stutt

      Beyond 330 fps and all bets are off. The RA can no longer be relied upon for accurate measurement although it will still function for the GPWS as I explained in my post you quoted. This is probably the reason the NTSB listed the LRRA as “Not working or unconfirmed” as the LRRA was attempting measurements at more than twice the speed of it’s tracking capability, while the Pressure Altitude is listed as confirmed and working since the static system is rated to Mach .86. Also keep in mind, GPWS is not required for IFR flight either. There are charts which give you precise altitudes to avoid the ground and rising terrain while in cruise.
      – Rob Balsamo

      And for the laymen amongst us (including myself) a conversation between Rob and Stutt that makes it clear as day why Stutt’s interpretation of this alleged data should be in the bin — start reading from the link posted for 4 or 5 comments:

      More recently, I have come upon an article reporting on a careful examination of the photographic evidence of damage to the face of the Pentagon. I find it difficult to come up with explanations other than a 757-sized airplane that would cause the damage photographed.
      Dwain Deets

      Here’s another article Dwain.
      The very first area discussed at the article you linked to was concerning the “left wing damage”. Have a look at it from a far more “careful” indepth angle:
      Or the “right wing damage”:
      Or the curiously missing “stabilizer damage”:
      I’m seriously tired of chasing after these people but I’ll have a look at Babs’ nonsense tomorrow.

  51. “..there might have been a way to pass north of CitGo and still strike the Pentagon at the location of damage, and another 10% as Sgts. Lagasse and Brooks might have been lying.”
    ~Dwain Deets
    Yea, OSS hearing that come out of Deets’ mouth hit me like a taser!
    Doesn’t a former NASA man know anything about trajectory?
    But this grasping for straws that “Sgts. Lagasse and Brooks might have been lying.”
    It is a blast of anal hurlant.

    1. Deets is reading from the same script as professional obfuscationists Brian Good and Chris Sarns.
      “The NOC testimony is valid, they may be lying, the plane flew SOC/caused the directional damage, the damage can physically be caused from the NOC trajectory, the plane crashed from NOC and internal explosives caused the internal damage, preplanted explosives to ease penetration, aerodynamics doesn’t matter…..yada yada yada”
      “Anal hurlant” (lmao) doesn’t even begin to describe these fools’ tactics. This is exactly why these people won’t debate.
      I’m also sure Deets and Honegger have read posts like my last one but haven’t the decency nor courage ro step up to the plate to defend their nonsense.
      Dwain, what have they got on you? Sarns? Good?

  52. Craig,
    During the first part of the phone session someone suggested that Mark Basile look into the work of, T. Mark Hightower.
    Do you recall that exchange? Do you recall who advised Hightower be considered?
    I think it is unfortunate that Hightower is given any credence. As you might recall, he is a Fetzer sidekick, who was mainly concerned in defaming Professor Jones and the Thermate discoveries. Both were interrogated thoroughly on T&S quite some time ago.
    Although Hightower wasn’t so disingenuous as Fetzer when backed into a corner, and did finally admit that nano-thermate is an explosive; it took a lot of hemming and hawing from him, plus page after page of testimonials from scientist that I had posted, where said scientists from Livermore and other facilities described and defined their work on super thermates and other sol-gel materials.
    I would note as well that even after Hightower admitted that nano-thermate is an explosive, Fetzer would have none of it – even though Hightower was billed as Fetzer’s ‘adviser’ on the technical aspects of this subject.
    During our discussions here on T&S it became clear that Hightower had not studied the sol-gel materials in depth, and was just beginning to during my interrogation. I think it also became clear that it was via Fetzer’s urging that Hightower had spoken beyond his knowledge base in his confrontations with Steven Jones.

      1. Thank you Craig,
        Dwain Deets…ah so, now that makes sense.
        Deets, Fetzer, and Hightower were collaborating on several things that were published on Veterans Today back during the time period I speak to in my comment you just answered.
        Deets put together a Brisance scale showing the need for and explosive to exceed the ‘sound barrier’ of various materials in order to blast them apart. He addressed the pressures needed for both steel and cement.
        This issue was discussed before in the threads I made mention of. So I won’t go into any details on this, but will only note: It doesn’t matter how brilliant your math skills if you answer the wrong questions.

  53. I’d like to hear thoughts on why the – Silverstein’s – insurance company didn’t investigate demolition theories . . . I’ve always wondered about this.

  54. Clresu,
    Cui Bono?
    I think the answer to your question as to Silverstein’s insurance fraud has to do with one of the central reasons for the destruction of the WTC – it was a huge monetary scam, Billions if not trillions of dollars changed hands — Look into Richard Andrew Grove.
    The mistake many make is looking at this event as a simple “conspiracy” between “rogue elements” — this event was systemic, yes meaning the whole system was involved. Now that doesn’t mean everybody and his step brother “KNEW ABOUT IT”… it was compartmentalized and all actors on a ‘need to know’ basis.
    The insurance companies themselves are indemnified by larger economic powers. It was the largest economic powers on the planet that gave the go-ahead for this plan.

    1. Do you know who should have been hounded? And I don’t know why he wasn’t? Jeffrey Scott Shapiro.
      Read this link and the one or two that follow

      Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

      Camera and microphone in his face.

      1. OSS,
        Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, must be incredibly ignorant of what it takes to do a controlled demolition of a building! He doesn’t squelch the demolition theory of #7, he outright verifies it! Utterly bizarre.
        He claims to have been present when the building fell. Where exactly is not mentioned. But we know the whole crowd of bystanders were moved back by the police. His memory of not hearing any noise during the fall is the only thing I would dispute. Just the sound of the building falling would have made an incredible racket.
        Another head shaker…how could a guy like that be so dumb?

      2. As per Shapiro’s assertion of a silent fall of Bldg 7, here is but one example of testimony to the contrary:
        “We were watching the building as it was on fire – the bottom floors of the building were on fire. And we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. We turned around and we were shocked to see that the building was, what looked like a
        shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busting out. It was horrifying. And then, you know, about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.
        – New York University medical student with the name Daryl, interviewed on 1010 WINS NYC News Radio immediately after the collapse of WTC 7 (example video clips one, two, three and four).

  55. Well, this critique of Ryan’s book has been up for nine days now, and not a single peep from any of his clique of pals who support him…just a few folks that are obviously not from his inner circle who like the book.
    So one wonders if there is to be any acknowledgement of this critique on other blogs, and what sorts of slurs we will get from them there. Has anyone found any such banter anywhere?

    1. Ah yes, maybe parallels with Dr. Judy Wood are to be drawn regarding “the BOO-oook! Read the fookin’ BOOK!”
      Don’t have “the fookin’ BOO-ooook” [from Kevin Ryan]?!! Then get it and “read the fookin’ BOOK”, preferably before trying to put together fookin’ BOO-oook reports about it.
      I recently purchased the Kindle version of Kevin Ryan’s “BOO-oook!” I am now “reading the fookin’ BOO-oook,” but ain’t too far and expect it to be a slow-go, because I got a life. Using a Kindle while family camping just don’t feel right. But it also don’t feel right to have a dead-tree book on my shelves for years after cracking its cover.
      So far, so good. No issues. His preface and intro are preaching to a choir boy.
      I commend Mr. Adam Syed for having purchased and read the book before offering his review. I hope to be able to follow in his noble footsteps.

      1. SEO,
        You said: “So far, so good. No issues.” Well how about the whole premise of the book that says: “the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to “accept as much of the official account as possible.”
        How about that giant elephant in the room? You see no issue with that huh? WOW just WOW.
        By the way I do not want to put any money in Ryan’s pocket which is one of the reasons I am not getting his book. If Ryan or anyone else thinks Adam Syed’s review is wrong then they are not speaking up about it that is for sure. Until I have reason to NOT trust Adam’s review I am basing my comments on it.

      2. Dearest Mr. Adam Ruff,
        “Got ignorance much?” Because, man, you are exceptional at displaying it. Paraphrased:

        “I am such a high and mighty Truther that I don’t even have to crack a book, much less read it, in order to be able to pass my holy judgment and declare it unfit for consumption. And this concludes my book report sans having read the book.”

        To repeat your actual quote:

        You see no issue with that huh? WOW just WOW.

        Sure, I’m allowed to say “so far, so good” because in my reading (now somewhere in Chapter 2) I have literally not come across the context for the cherry-picked quote that has your panties in a wad:

        the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to “accept as much of the official account as possible.”

        I’m not saying that I won’t find any fault with Mr. Ryan’s work (or that cherry-picked premise). I’m already a bit annoyed at the style of writing that resembles in some ways a fiction mystery writer, where he writes eloquent passages that foreshadow some nefarious connection that he’ll make in detail in some later chapter. I’m unhappy with some of his innuendo like into Rumsfeld’s two years at an investment company in the early 1960’s before a tour in Congress or into Cheney’s deferment years where he “had other priorities.” I would have preferred to have substantiation right then and there, but this is all pre-mature nit-picking at this point; Mr. Ryan might pull it off. I am more annoyed with my ancient & faulty-scroll-button Kindle that makes it difficult to follow footnotes that I usually love to read.
        At least I am open minded enough to give this a go.
        You, Mr. Ruff? Won’t read Mr. Ryan’s book. Won’t read Dr. Wood’s book (to strip that disinformation vehicle of still valid and useful nuggets of truth.) Won’t consider a nuclear 9/11 without an official government report that states “alpha, beta, and gamma radiation were way out of whack,” the very same report that coincidently is missing-in-action for documenting the “alpha, beta, and gamma radiation were at or below expected trace background levels” to alledgely prove “no radiation.”
        Dr. Fetzer writes 2013-08-14 on that neu nookiedoo theme but also applicable to Mr. Ryan’s (and Dr. Wood’s) work:

        Ruffadam is a great example of a core problem within 9/11 research: those who take strong stands and shoot off their mouths when they haven’t done their home work and don’t know what they are talking about.

        Maybe if you put on lipstick and kiss Mr. Ryan’s ass, he’ll comp you a copy of his book so you don’t have to worry about putting money into Mr. Ryan’s pocket and instead would be taking it out of his pockets.
        I’m such a nut, I’ve been known to purchase people copies of a controversial book so that — TOGETHER — we can get on the same literal page and discuss it point-by-point in a rational manner and perhaps come to be on the same figurative page. [Mr. Chandler, Mr. Shack, Mr. Jayhan, Mr. Cole, and dearest Mr. Rogue have failed this simple test of their integrity and objectivity.] You, Mr. Ruff, have already given ample evidence that you would fail it, too, so I’m not even extending the offer. “Pearls before swine” and all that jazz, ya know.
        Nothing quite like shooting a hole into the foot of your 9/11 Truther reputation so handily, eh, Mr. Ruff.
        “Read the fookin’ BOO-oook, or STFU with your lame-ass fookin’ book reports.”
        P.S. This response is no reflection — positive or negative — on Mr. Syed’s book review. Maybe I’ll find myself in Ethan’s camp and validating Mr. Ryan’s approach. One thing for sure, if Mr. Ryan’s book unravels to be just another “disinformation vehicle”, I’ll be found stripping it of re-useable nuggets of truth (some of which have been found in my reading to date) and be glad of my objective efforts.

      3. SEO,

        Sure, I’m allowed to say “so far, so good” because in my reading (now somewhere in Chapter 2) I have literally not come across the context for the cherry-picked quote that has your panties in a wad:

        the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to “accept as much of the official account as possible.”

        It’s on page 14. He doesn’t really give much of an explanation other than for the sake of “simplicity.” On page 152 he says we should “maintain as much of the official account as possible” so as to “avoid unnecessary complications.” Take it to mean what you will.

      4. Dear Mr. Syed,
        Thanks for the hint in where it is located. Does the printed book have preface material in roman numerals, because that would assist in me locating it? Kindle doesn’t do page numbers in any shape or form that correlates to the paper document. Also, where Kindle opens a “book” upon first reading isn’t always predictable (e.g., it wasn’t the title page.)
        Would you be so kind as to also indicate what chapter it was in and how close to a bolded subheading it may have been? Maybe the first sentence of the paragraph containing it?
        Maybe Kindle skipped over it, or I read over it, or I ain’t got to it yet.
        This being said and assuming it was me who missed it, I’ll take that cherry-picked quote — “the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to accept as much of the official account as possible” — and place it up on my “belief fence” that straddles “validated” and “invalidated” in the hopes that my further reading will nudge it to one side or the other.
        In my present ignorant state (that slowly changes each opportunity I get to sit in “the throne room sanctuary” to sneak in reads), I will say that Mr. Ethan did have a point. Making too much hay out of this premise can be misleading.
        By that, I mean that in discussing 9/11 with others, often, you’ve only got so many minutes to punch significant holes in the foundation of the belief in the official story before interests & opportunity fade. I have often couched my 9/11 discussions “assuming 19 hijackers got on the planes, assuming the planes even took off, assuming the planes flew the routes proposed, assuming this or that, here’s a major anomaly…”
        It really can be a useful strategy to “accept as much of the official account as possible” in order to target large low-hanging fruit elsewhere. Dispensing with that proves the first crack in the pile of lies; it opens the audience’s mind to an instance of deceit that they previously may not have been aware of. If the discussion flow merits, you can later double-back and explain why the assumption was actually invalid.
        The gist of this tactic is that by first finding common ground with the audience (or debate partner), you work from various angles to take out or unravel the rug beneath their feet, which can sometimes be more effective than systematically starting in a far corner and sequentially unraveling a row at a time in painstaking details and well outside their interests or scope of expertise. When you unravel what is directly beneath their feet (e.g., where they are coming from, their interests, their knowledge, their paradigm) and then unravel it everywhere they subsequently step (e.g., flow of the discussion), maybe some hope exists that their beliefs will trip, instill reflection, and lead to a change. [Alas, not my experience of late on FBI_book.]
        You wrote:

        [Kevin Ryan] doesn’t really give much of an explanation other than for the sake of “simplicity.” … Take it to mean what you will.

        I find Mr. Ryan a bit wordy in a crafty, teasing sense with lots of fluff, innuendo, and cliff-hanger foreshadowing, mostly because I’m part of the choir maybe not his primary audience (and I’m still not very far.) I know how intro material sometimes gets written (like after you’ve figured out where the rest of the chapters are going) and re-written (like after lots of suggestions by others) such that it can become a different beast from the rest of the work.
        Obviously, if I’ve read over it and missed it, it didn’t impress me in context to be foreshadowing a major flaw in his work… but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise; your analysis already taints my perceptions.
        Because I’m still so early in the book, I can’t really say where I’ve found instances of that initial “accept as much as possible of the official account” premise leading me astray. I’m still mulling “deep state”, “Continuity of Governmnent” name dropping, various dangling of potential connections between major players, the edited history of Rumsfeld & Cheney, and other things that he teases me with in the early chapters to be validated either in later chapters or from exploring the sources of his footnotes.

  56. One of the COTOettes, a gal named Dawnatilla has been in contact with Michael Aquino, the author of the Psywar manual and a new book called Mind War…
    She is going to be interviewing him for a story on the site. It should be quite interesting. I’ll let y’all know how it turns out , and where to read the interview if it all comes together.

    1. Wow that is interesting. The MindWar document is very revealing. Especially when you watch Cliff Carnicom’s documentary ‘Aerosol Crimes’ regarding the ELF, EM and ionization warfare on the American population…
      ” This, however, is only the sociological dimension of target receptiveness measures. There are some purely natural conditions under which minds may become more or less receptive to ideas, and MindWar should take full advantage of such phenomena as atmospheric electromagnetic activity (12), air ionization (13), and extremely low frequency waves (14). ” ( his footnotes will be at bottom of excerpts)
      (12)Atmospheric electromagnetic(EM) activity : The human body
      communicates internally by EM and electrochemical impulses. The EM field displayed in Kirlian photographs, the effectiveness of acupuncture, and the body’s physical responses to various types of EM radiation(X-rays,infrared radiation, visible light spectra, etc.) are all examples of human sensitivity to EM forces and fields. Atmospheric EM activity is regularly altered by such phenomena as sunspot eruptions and gravitational stresses which distort the Earth’s magnetic field. Under varying external EM conditions, humans are more or less disposed to the consideration of new ideas. MindWar should be timed accordingly.[…]
      (13) Ionization of the Air: An abundance of negative condensation
      nuclei(“air ions”) in ingested air enhances alertness and exhilaration, while an excess of positive ions enhances drowsiness and depression. Calculation of the ionic balance of a target audience’s atmospheric environment will be correspondingly useful. Again this is a naturally-occuring condition-caused by such varying agents as solar
      ultraviolet light, lighting, and rapidly-moving water- rather than one which
      must be artificially created[Detonation of nuclear weapons, however, will alter ionization levels]
      (14) Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) waves: ELF waves up to 100 Hz are once more naturally occurring, but they can also be produced artificially (such as for the Navy’s Project Sanguine for submarine communication). ELF-waves are not normally noticed by the unaided senses, yet their resonant effect upon the human body has been connected to both physiological disorders and emotional distortion Infrasound vibration (up to 20 Hz) can subliminally influence brain activity to align itself to delta, theta, alpha, or beta wave patterns, inclining an audience toward everything from alertness to passivity. Infrasound could be used tactically, as ELF-waves endure for great distances; and it could be used in conjunction with media broadcasts as well. See Playfair, Guy L. and Hill, Scott, The Cycles of Heaven. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1978, pages 130-140.
      Here is info on his co-writer…
      Paul E. Vallely is a retired US Army Major General and senior military analyst for Fox News. […] he claimed ‘that the war on terror is a war between Islam and Judeo-Christianity: “That’s what’s going on. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t get it.” ‘ […] ‘General Vallely has recently lent his support to an organization called “Veteran Defenders of America”, which encourages US civilians (veterans) to be “eyes and ears of freedom (neighborhood spy network), because we know freedom isn’t free.” ‘[…] Vallely toured the Camp Delta detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba in 2006 while collecting material for a book he intended to co-write with LTC Gordon Cucullu, entitled The Myths of Gitmo: Torture, Abuse or the Truth. Vallely and Cucullu later participated in an interview with FrontPage Magazine in which he blasted allegations of detainee abuse as “myths of the left-wing press”. […] Vallely is also a supporter of the Jerusalem Summit organization and an advocate of the organization’s proposal to “relocate”/”resettle” Palestine and the Palestinian people to surrounding Arab countries as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to bring about the organization’s belief “that one of the objectives of Israel’s divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets.”
      Vallely made the following statement to World Net Daily on November 5, 2005 regarding the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s CIA affiliation:
      Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Joseph C. Wilson mentioned Plame’s status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel’s “green room” in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts….Vallely says, according to his recollection, ‘Wilson mentioned his wife’s job in the spring of 2002’ — more than a year before Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as “an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.”]
      Vallely later said that only one such conversation had occurred:
      After recalling further over the weekend his contacts with Wilson, Vallely says now it was on just one occasion – the first of several conversations – that the ambassador revealed his wife’s employment with the CIA and that it likely occurred some time in the late summer or early fall of 2002.
      Joseph C. Wilson denied ever having disclosed his wife’s CIA status to Valelly, and his attorney wrote to Valelly and World Net Daily demanding a retraction, as reported in that publication [11]

    2. Willy,
      Aquino. (IF you can contact this person?) Can the COTO member throw a curveball and ask him how one of the kids from Presidio called Kinsey (3 years old) knew where he had abused her (just two blocks from her house but quite a distance for a 3 year old), described the exterior as a “blue grey” colour, that he had a room with black padded walls and a large picture of “lions” on an Egyptian throne, masks, guns, a computer, cameras and a “robot”? A kid who positively identified him in the local mall?
      Ask him how it felt to watch this kid play “poopoo baseball”, bugger her, paint her with “blood” and lick it off.
      I know, I know he’ll say that he got off but because of a technicality (smart pups these kiddy defilers) in that he was sure to do the “dirty deed” off base. Tell the interviewer not to let him drag the conversation off into Luciferian hooha. That we already know that the mask and garb are really just to make the poor kids’ testimony more unbelievable in a court of “law” where in all likelihood the judge is another kiddy defiler given a way out by the whore media and a bunch of other kiddy defiler pseudopsychiatrists in the FMSF (who were “advised” at one point by “The Amazing Randi” aka JREF forum founder James Randi).
      Tell the interviewer to ask him about his links with European Gladio “leaders” in Belgium (specifically), Holland, Portugal and Italy and the debauchery and unspeakable acts done to kiddies (child porn, torture, elitist hunting parties, snuff movies, rape, trafficking, blackmail)
      He’ll have a script ready for every possible curveball question so the interviewer will have to ask “yes/no” type questions. Corner the bastard!

      1. Actually OSS,
        We at COTO are all counseling Dawn to back off from this. We want her to drop the whole thing. She is a young – 30ish gal, a bit too adventurous to my thinking. And she lives in San Francisco…a little too close for comfort to my thinking.
        I don’t know what is going on yet at this point. She hasn’t made any commentary today yet…
        But yea, yea, we are all well aware of what a demonic shit this guy is. That is why we are advising she back off. This guy is too connected and able to locate someone, just knowing their email address or phone number.
        But If she comes back on, determined to do this interview, I will copy and paste your inquiries and forward them to her.

      2. Willy
        Definitely mate. I would advise against it if she’s not accompanied. And even if she is, San Fransisco is a dodgy hole for anybody causing waves.

  57. A. Wright,
    It seems you are completely unaware of CIT’s work and base it solely on the few minutes of NSA that you watched.
    You do realize there are only a handful of published witnesses who could actually see the Pentagon and that many of the witnesses and alleged witnesses merely deduced an impact because they saw the plane headed toward the Pentagon and heard a boom or saw a cloud or fireball in the distance correct?
    You do realize that the all of the witnesses CIT interviewed were on the alleged impact side and are the ONLY logical choices for witnesses that would be able to determine which side of the gas station the plane was on, right?
    You do realize that there is ABSOLUTELY not one single witness in existence, EVER, that placed the plane on the south of Citgo flight path, right?
    You do realize that not one single witness or alleged witness corroborate ANY details about the alleged impact correct?
    You do realize that nearly all of the north side witnesses in NSA said they would testify in a court of law to the plane being on the north side of the Citgo or on the north path even after learning the implications of what they saw, correct?
    Don’t you think you should actually research this matter before commenting on it?

  58. I’d also like to say that just a few posts ago Dwain Deets’ “various theories” that all end in an aircraft winging its way like a balsa wood kite and stuffing itself into the Pentagon hole like a custard pie (splat!) have been torn to shreds.
    That post and others like it will be lost after a while and Dwain or Barbara or “A Wright”/ Aye Right will pop up somewhere else repeating the same horsewind.
    What a joke. They say that a flyover would be hard to swallow for the “public” even when the NOC evidence can only lead to one conclusion. Can you imagine these people repeating the same horse manure to the “public”?
    “Yeah, urr, the witnesses saw the plane on a different trajectory, a smaller plane simultaneously hit the huilding while another FLEW OVER it, or maybe it hit from the witnessed trajectory but the damage was caused by explosives both to aid entry, like vaseline, and more explosives caused the inner damage (and extra explosives caused damage to the generator for no apparent reason and..oh yeah, the internal explosives were detonated 6 minutes beforehand (and nobody noticed)
    Seriously? Who the hell do you guys think you’re kidding? Which scenario would the “public” reject more?

    1. To both OSS and Broken Record,
      Yes and yes to both of you. First of all A. Wright isn’t interested in doing any research. He just wants to pontificate on “general theory” — it’s all “bla bla bla” circle jerking for this clown.
      Like I said at the very beginning of the thread on the DC 9/11 Conference, it has been my opinion that Deets is a mole, from the first time I read anything from him. He is a frickin’ yoyo, up and down and all around, a one clown circus. Well now he gets to ride in another circus with Honneger and her three ring act. New Wave 9/11–“alternative radio” all brought to you by the usual sponsors from the military-media complex. They are in the same category as the “no-planes at WTC”, the CGI nonsense of Shack and Onebornfree, the DEW hokum from Wood, the Nuke shit from Fetzer, Hightower, Prager and that whole crew.
      It’s a full court press of flatulence from an army of charlatans.
      I know I am likely to be setting myself up for another hysterical rant from a certain so-and-so that frequents these threads, but fuck it, let it be.

      1. HR,
        You said in another comment it’s been your long held suspicion that Deets was a mole. Prior to his about face on the Pentagon, what else made you suspicious? Advocating the nukes hypothesis in Vancouver? Certainly when he endorsed CIT in 2010, he seemed like the real deal.

      2. Mr Syed,
        My suspicions of Deets were solidified by the positions he took on the Nuclear aspects at Vancouver, indeed. But before this I was aware of his entanglement with the military industrial complex, NASA in particular, and involvement with the unmanned drone technologies. There are also certain political connections that are, in my view, damning. But I would have to review a lot of very old word docs to articulate these.
        I am not so interested in putting any special efforts into revealing Deets, I think his current yo-yo machinations seem to me to have betrayed himself.

      3. I spent some time with him in San Diego in Jan 2012. I was there on business. It was actually me that contacted him. (In other words, it’s not as if he got wind that I was coming, and contacted me to hang out with the intent of zapping me with a mind control gun; I certainly didn’t fly home from SD with a new position on the Pentagon!)
        I was interested in the possibility of actually staying with him, to save hotel money. He originally said: Yes, consider yourself invited! That was about a month before the trip. Then, about 2-3 days before departing, I sent him an email to remind him of the plan; no reply. I got to SD and checked into the company hotel. A mutual friend had Deets’ phone number, and suggested that I try calling him in case he simply hadn’t gotten my last email; I was tempted to think that Dwain had done an about face and was rejecting me; turns out, he simply didn’t check that email address often anymore; he showed up at the hotel the next morning and picked me up. That day and the day after, we spent considerable time just “hanging out” with him driving me around the SD area.
        I would say that IF he’s a mole, he’s a pretty benign one. In 1/12, he gave me no indication of being so. He did mention in passing that he was not conclusively convinced that a nuclear component at the WTC had “been debunked,” and given the censorship and excessive thought policing at 911blogger that had also howled down the NOC evidence, I deferred to his opinion, said to him, “Maybe you’re right, perhaps there was a nuclear component” and left it at that.
        At the time, he seemed 100% certain no plane hit the Pentagon, just as he did on the Ventura show.
        The thing is, his about face on the Pentagon has gotten virtually no traction, perhaps because it is even less coherent than the arguments of Legge and co. Also, the “cred cops” who insist a plane hit the Pentagon are dead against WTC nukes; perhaps this is why 911blogger has been silent about him. Certainly, Hoffman, Legge and the rest didn’t even mention, let alone celebrate, Deets’ Pentagon reversal.
        He’s an enigma at this point. Perhaps there’s some esoteric reason for why he’s doing what he’s doing.

      4. Well Mr Syed,
        As I said, I have no interest in outing Deets, as I think his own current actions speak for themselves. If he wants to yo-yo all the way to his deathbed, I could care less.
        Many people can be “nice” and personable. He likely is, I have no reason to doubt your take on him in a social setting such as you experienced him.

  59. The forum here has just been chastised for “giving a book report on a book that hasn’t been read”.
    I have heard these charges before by some chance of fate, in the not too distant path.
    Of course the charge was not true at that time, nor is it true here and now. I have not pretended to “give a book report” on Kevin Ryan’s new book. I have responded to a book report given by Mr Adam Syed, whom I feel I know well enough that he would not tell flagrant lies, nor misquote anyone on purpose.
    My various criticisms of Mr Ryan are simply not founded on what he has said in this particular book. Mr Ryan is no more a mystery person than Judy Wood is. Their works are adequately represented on the Internet. One needn’t read either one of their books to assess their various qualities and ideas – unless those ideas are exclusive within the new work of a particular book.
    I have not, and have not read anyone here addressing the book Ryan has just written in a manner that criticizes him for his take on these new 19 “suspects”…and I earlier made a remark that we should be clear that that is not what our problem with Ryan is.
    I can say as well as far as Judy Wood’s book is concerned, that it is simply false advertising to claim that she addressed anything unique in her book that was not already on her website. One did not need her book to address her assertions. And one did not need to pretend to be giving a “book report” in order to criticize her “science”.
    The charges made here against the larger portion of the commentators here, that we lack integrity, or are in some way hypocritical for criticizing Mr Ryan for his out of hand dismissal of the Pentagon flyover hypothesis is preposterous and based in self indulgent arrogance.

    1. It seems simple enough for out detractor to verify, Kindle in hand the words herein:
      “For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes.” (p. 14) – the book’s introduction.
      This is not the book’s only such passage. On the first page of Chapter 10, which deals with the Pentagon portion of 9/11, he says: “Considering means, motive and opportunity might allow us to propose a possible insider conspiracy while maintaining much of the official account as well.” (p. 152)

    2. I can say as well as far as Judy Wood’s book is concerned, that it is simply false advertising to claim that she addressed anything unique in her book that was not already on her website. One did not need her book to address her assertions. And one did not need to pretend to be giving a “book report” in order to criticize her “science”.

      I guess Mr. Rogue has consulted with his bird’s brain in regurgitating this tripe, because he’s already admitted not having read Dr. Judy Wood’s “disinformation vehicle” to completion. He has produced nothing that indicates any form of a detailed analysis or review. His criticism has always relied on others (e.g., Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Legge) yet from well before the publication of her book and much of that skewed (e.g., Smash ’em up Derby: Disinformation vehicle versus Disinformation Vehicle). And he has violently defaced that 500-page full-color, hard-cover book for the benefit of his bird’s poop leaving nothing that he can refer back to today in order to substantiate his assertions.
      When accepting the free gift, he was told of the overlap with her website, but also of the differences which were many — some good, some bad. No false advertising given, just faulty expectations & analysis on his part. And he even expressed gratitude at one point for the consolidation of destruction images and correlation to map positions in her hefty tome.
      Yep, it is easy for me to call her book a “disinformation vehicle” while at the same time blatantly stealing her hubcaps and wheels, and chopping & stripping sundry valid & viable materials from within for re-use in another jalopy. Mr. Rogue’s inability and unwillingness to do the same speaks — like a rapper from a low-rider — volumes about him.

      The charges made here against the larger portion of the commentators here, that we lack integrity, or are in some way hypocritical for criticizing Mr Ryan for his out of hand dismissal of the Pentagon flyover hypothesis is preposterous and based in self indulgent arrogance.

      I don’t know about the integrity of others, but I do know about Mr. Rogue’s. Hypocritical for sure. If Mr. Ryan can be faulted for “his out of hand dismissal of the Pentagon flyover hypothesis,” does he have other work requiring a revisit with a more critical eye? Yes, can we say: “nano-thermite?” Co-authored with Dr. Jones (lots of issues with his work on NT not adding up & his no nukes conclusions not considering neutron devices) and Dr. Jenkins (the very one with whose outdated stilted work Mr. Rogue tries to debunk Dr. Wood’s more recent work). If Mr. Rogue doesn’t see a pattern, he isn’t paying attention.
      P.S. Kindle isn’t in hand. Maybe later tonight after bedtime stories. Maybe on this weekend’s camping trip.
      Woes to us all that Mr. Rogue has fallen from such artistic cinematic heights on the California coast near the turn of the century to the level of a starving artist a decade later within the nation’s bread-basket & bible belt, for his inability to afford to stream lengthy videos or to purchase (or acquire) books to which he might read and offer his witty, first-hand, and knowledgeable commentary. We are so handicapped.

  60. Well, what do you know, ten days later 911blogger has received its first comment critical of Ryan’s book.

    NEOCONAZIONIST conspiracy.
    The book deals with the NEOCON. The NAZI. The NIST.
    What is missing?
    “The US Government was and still is penetrated and controlled by a Zionist/Israeli fifth column that took over the white house, congress, the Military’s civilian superstructure key military officers and intelligence personel and the mainstream media leading up to, on, and after 911. The level and extent of this penetration is unprecedented in history, and amounts to an invasion by an un-American and Hostile Force.”
    B. Honegger attributes this quote to General Wesley Clarke, 2003 .
    In reading this book, have Christopher Bollyns ‘the original articles’ alongside and read in tandem.
    remo on Tue, 08/13/2013 – 11:37pm.

    I got the screenshot in case the censors delete it.

    1. I have oft wondered if “remo” is not indeed our friend fremo, who is not only and elegant writer, but a fantastic visual artist as well…{???}
      The post remains at this moment, but has received zero votes from the others there…

      1. It does appear to be the same person. From his/her user profile:

        About Me
        outraged from the moment it happened. concern for future immediate. That concern continues and grows with each understanding reached.with each death recorded in the vile slaughter produced by the lie of 911.This is a global issue. This is criminality at its highest level. I am artist and I work on this matter daily. read what i can. watch what i can. write what i can. PAINT what i can.
        new zealand
        Member for
        5 years 27 weeks
        View recent blog entries

        Yes, I noticed the comment late last night. It’s been at “0 votes” this whole time. However, with their vote system, that doesn’t mean no one has voted, just that the net total balances out. Perhaps while neither of us were looking, one person voted it up and another voted it right back down. Or perhaps it’s received 10 votes with 5 either way. Way back in the old days, I tried to lobby the site admins to change the vote system to either show total ups and downs, or no vote system at all. (After having spent lots of time at McKee’s blog, I’ve come to the conclusion no vote system at all is needed. Allowing ones’ self to be influenced by the way a majority of other users have voted on a comment is a poor substitute for actually reading the comment and deciding, using your own smarts, if the comment has merit. And of course, a vote system, particularly the kind blogger has, is a wide open door for cognitive infiltrators to game the majority opinion.)

    2. HA!!!!!
      The censors did indeed delete it. For posterity, here it was (too bad we can’t embed images into comments here):
      Just a quiet deletion. The comment didn’t violate any of the site’s rules.
      This is simply the latest example of how 911blogger stifles real dissent and uses its platform as a vehicle to promote movement “leaders” in an atmosphere where they receive only fawning, uncritical praise and hero worship, and are immune from having to answer to criticism.
      Of course, just about all of us here knew that for years. But still good to document new examples as the process goes on.
      I’ve been pretty polite (albeit critical) to Kevin Ryan but I’m taking off the gloves now:
      (1) You are a coward. You can’t even face criticism on your own controlled turf.
      (2) Who HAVE you been working for ever since getting fired from UL?

      1. Mr. Syed,
        I replied to your Amazon comment with the following:
        911blogger is a cesspit of censorship and controlled opposition. Orangatan along with the other moderators at the cesspit are a laughing stock among real truthers. If any of them were for real they would come to truth and shadows and debate us on the pentagon issue for starters. See here they will not be censored BUT we will not be censored either so it would be a fair playing field. On that fair playing field where the opposition has not been silenced they would be exposed very quickly as charlatans. Kevin Ryan himself could discuss our criticism of his book there and address them or even debunk them if they have no validity. He will not debate his critics though because his critics will win the debate hands down. So Ryan and Orangutan will only be seen “debating” things among themselves and their pre-selected clique on 911Blogger where all the opposition has been silenced or their posts deleted because that way they can still appear to be credible to the newbies.

  61. yes. fremo is remo is rogermorris. My work on 911artists too. f remo bcause wordpress already has remo registered by the time i got there. post just removed from blogger.

    1. Hi Rogermorris,
      Thanks. Given my past experience with 911blogger, I was waiting for a critical comment to arrive there, to see if it would get voted down, deleted or both. I am curious: have any of the moderators emailed you with an explanation as to why they deleted your comment? If so, would you mind sharing? I just carefully read their site rules again and your comment didn’t violate any of them.
      Also, try posting an innocuous comment on another thread and see if you can still post in real time or if you’ve been put in moderation.

    2. Hey Roger,
      I have always loved your style and commentary – as far back as COTO 2 where you seemed to show up just as I was banished to take over in whipping Albury Smith’s ass with your well reasoned bashing of his perpetual nonsense.
      I hope you continue your efforts here, and we see you more often.
      ~Willy – \\][//

  62. Alright, I am still stumped with the presumed logic of this statement:
    “For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes.”
    Now I can see as a strategy for revelation, not beginning a conversation with a 9/11 newbie with something complex, such as the absurdities surrounding the hijackers. But this isn’t the same thing as “accepting” the official account of the hijackers.
    I also don’t understand how the approach of showing the interlocking directorates of the suspect perpetrators is viewed as a “simple proposition”. This is actually quite a complex web. And as many of these suspects are viewed as “upstanding leaders” by the majority of the TV watching public, it certainly seems to me a much harder egg to crack — perhaps equal to or harder than the hijacker scenario.
    As an example; “Did you know that Osama bin Laden isn’t listed as a suspect by the FBI for 9/11 on their own web site?” Pretty straight forward, simple and easily proven. Or even more simple, as the new Architects campaign for Building 7, which I assume all here are aware of: “Did you know that a third building fell at the WTC on 9/11?”
    Both of these are more simple than attempting to draw a picture of a complex web of inside conspirators. Neither asks the Truth activist to “accept as much of the official account…”
    So, for “simplicity,” what’s up with that?

    1. The answer is simple HR1 Kevin Ryan’s information is not simple or easy to digest for people new to the truth movement. The whole premise of the book is cracked. By the way I have read a whole lot of Ryan’s work in the past and I am very aware of his untenable position on the Pentagon so I can indeed comment about Ryan and his position from a place of knowledge. I don’t need to put money in his pocket to know that he is completely full of crap about the pentagon. I also do not need to get his book to know he ignores much of the evidence implicating Israeli involvement in 9/11. So SEO’s criticism is just a lot of hot air. Concerning Judy Wood’s book I can say all the same things, in fact I have looked into her DEW theory extensively and can say with total confidence that her book really isn’t worth the paper it is printed on. It is disinformation in fact. So SEO can stuff his snide remarks where the sun doesn’t shine. If Ryan or Wood have something to say to me or to us they can show up any time they want and confront us with their best evidence and arguments. If they expose errors in what I have said about them I will issue a public written apology and retract all errors I have made. So really quit with the BS SEO they have every opportunity in the world to make their case and confront their critics. They won’t do it!

      1. Mr. Adam Ruff (and others) have a tendancy to completely misinterpret the assignment of the sincere truth seeker in a movement that has been infiltrated and where nary a single publication can be trusted 100%. Honest mistakes will be present in all endeavors, and material will be omitted for a host of reasons ranging from the author’s low confidence level in its viability (or their expertise on the subject) or its rabbit-hole nature requiring never-ending effort to document or being a distraction from other more obvious things. One could argue that purposeful mistakes and omissions are made, maybe at the behest of an agenda orthogonal to truth, but the bottom-line is that criticism should still focus on what is printed.
        In such an environment, the assignment becomes to classify each published nugget as (1) true, (2) false, or (3) don’t-know. Then one studies each classification pile to see what structure it builds or if the intended larger structure of the endeavor still stands when various pillars are knocked out.
        No question, lots of “Disinformation Vehicles” are at hand. The perfect ride isn’t available. And Mr. Ruff sounds like the petulant teenager: “I ain’t touching that mint condition Porche 911 and driving it nowhere, because it has orange carpeting and an 8-track player, and doesn’t have an MP3 jack, fuzzy-dice on the mirror, or an ‘I (heart) NY’ bumper-sticker.”
        The intelligent, objective, and resourceful truth seeker will be ever the cannibal, chopping & stripping those “Disinformation Vehicles” of truth in the creation of the jalopy that can go the distance.
        I am not far enough into Mr. Ryan’s book to label it disinformation, but I am far enough to have picked up facts here and there that are memorable. Kudos.
        As far as Dr. Judy Wood’s “Disinformation Vehicles” goes, it should be pointed out the crafty nature with which information is presented and then left dangling with no connection or supposition that ties it together into anything resembling “a cohesive theory.” Because Mr. Ruff does not have and has never had Dr. Wood’s book in his grubby little fingers — much less read it or gawked at its collection & correlation of pictures –, a rational person must naturally raise an eyebrow to his boastful ability to “say with total confidence that her book really isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.”
        How “extensively” could the over-confident Mr. Ruff actually have look into Dr. Wood’s “DEW theory?”
        More importantly from a chop-shop perspective in considering the true, inherent value of Dr. Wood’s “Disinformation Vehicles” and its components, what should be preserved from a “DEW theory?” How about the meaning of the DEW acronym: direct energy weapon? Any shaped-charge consisting of chemical explosives (including nano-thermite) fits into this category. As do unique configurations of neutron nuclear devices that I have been championing. All in all, her “DEW theories” ain’t far off.
        Other components worthy of preservation are the images of the totality of the destruction; her chapters that debunk with cascading pool balls the official theories (of that day) of gravity collapses; her pointing out the media black-out of hurricane Erin and its anomalous movement; …
        Astute thinkers would do well to approach Mr. Ryan’s “(dis)information vehicles” in an equally fair and objective manner, keeping a keen eye out for components worth salvaging, those pesky nuggets of truth.
        Mr. Adam Ruff charges:

        If Ryan or Wood have something to say to me or to us they can show up any time they want and confront us with their best evidence and arguments.

        Hello?!!! Anybody home, Mr. Ruff? Their words are published in their books. That’s what they have to say to you. Are you listening? Are you reading?
        Maybe if Mr. Ruff read their works and could talk knowledgeably about what is (right and) wrong in them, maybe those authors would have cause to come here to defend themselves. Until he puts up with specifics, (in Mr. Ruff’s words) his “criticism is just a lot of hot air.”
        At this premature stage in the reading & digestion of the works, Mr. Ruff comes across like a cheapskate trying to avoid purchasing the books in the hopes that the authors will come here and essentially re-post their whole books, a posting at a time.
        In any event, sweeping & openly ignorant dismissals of their work without having read them… well… Mr. Adam Ruff’s own words apply:

        So [Mr. Ruff] can stuff his snide remarks where the sun doesn’t shine. … So really quit with the BS [Mr. Ruff, you] have every opportunity in the world to [read their works and] make your case… [You] won’t do it!


      2. Adam Ruff,
        You sir, “have completely misinterpreted your assignment as a truth seeker,”
        according to the sublimely arrogant Mr Eleven….Lol
        Uhu..aha ahaha….ahahahahahahaha…whatta cheese burrito.

      3. SEO,
        The main point of your lengthy lecture seems to be to take what is good and solid out of these two books in question and discard the rest. I reject that totally. The reason I reject it is simple. Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer. If someone tries to pull a con job on you once you should not give them a second chance because they might just succeed the second time.
        Mistakes are one thing, they can be overlooked and/or forgiven but intentional disinformation cannot and should not be overlooked because it is evidence that the person has an agenda other than truth. It is foolish and a waste of precious time to spend hours and days pouring over information from a disinformationist to look for “nuggets of truth” that may or may not be in their book. Even if I did find something in their work that seemed to be true I could not trust the information until I verified it from another source. You see it could just be another deception from a clever disinformationist, another con.
        Instead of following your foolish, naive, and time wasting philosophy of research my philosophy is to reject everything from those who intentionally spread disinformation and instead spend my time studying the information from sources I can trust because of their track record of honesty and integrity. If you choose to lie down with dogs you are going to come up with flees. I choose to avoid flees whenever possible because I don’t like them, they are itchy and carry disease.
        You choose to spend your time studying information from known liars and as a result you have gotten some flees such as the DEW flees and the Nuke flees. Since you have those flees on you I choose to stay away from you and the (dis)information you promote, perhaps unwittingly. I will spend my precious time looking at and studying information I choose from sources I can trust, or at least from sources I have found no reason to distrust. I will also spend my money purchasing books and/or videos from credible sources such as CIT and P4T. My money will NOT be used to line the pockets of disinformationists such as Wood and Ryan. No way in hell buddy, you will NEVER get a penny out of me to go in their pocket. I have read enough of their information that is freely available to conclude that they are spreading disinformation and therefore their information can and should be rejected as untrustworthy.
        You can wallow in all the flees you want SEO but I will not be joining you.

  63. I thought that the members of this forum might appreciate this example of the wit and eloquence of our friend Fremo, from November 29, 2012, on COTO 1:
    “True Black magic . A creatioNIST algorithmic. A ‘new phenomena’ in building destruction science. Invented by Shyam ‘Pinnochio’ Sunder, a gifted LIAR who, with his team of professional data-benders created the otherwise UNKNOWN destructive ‘Normal Office Furnishings Fires”[LS-DYNA] to completely destroy complex steel framed high rises in seconds. [You need LSD to figure it out] Able to initiate complete sudden destructive FREE FALL [colloquially known as ‘the speed of deceit] of three of the tallest steel framed high rises in the world; in one case [WTC7] by a fire able to heat mass beams and girders while already OUT at the time of critical collapse initiation, oops, yet even so, a mystical fire able to thermally ‘walk’ one girder to break on one column seat, on one floor. A ‘break’ which spread contagion at 400 cold breaks per second until the complete instantaneous removal of 81 vertical columns over an 8 storied block of FREE FALL was achieved.
    A totally new sequential building collapse phenomena EXACTLY mirroring controlled demolition explosive/implosive action/reaction by decree to be known in high-rise construction engineering as ‘Thermal Expansion´®™.con or ‘the magic bolt’ .
    The greatest insult to science ever recorded.”
    . . . . . . . .

    1. Yeah that was a great comment by Fremo. I love the reference to the magic “bolt” because it cleverly alludes to the magic bullet crappola from the Warren Commission. “Thermal expansion” what a load of crap, Sunder and his fellow liars should be in prison.

      1. Adam Syed,
        COTO stands for Coalition of the Obvious, it is a blog that I have been with since 2008, when I and the other members were purged from OEN for lack of proper political correctness. It has a very esoteric outlook. Likely a bit far out in some areas for your tastes as I have come to know them.
        There is C1 and C2, both share a main page. The original blog is the one designated “Blog” in the menu, “Coto Report” is the rather estranged sister site.
        If you are curious, your browser aught to do ya. But here is a recent sample page:

  64. That is very kind. Thank you.
    I have posted since on Blogger without any problem. I guess if you just don’t mention Israel…..

    1. Fremo,
      If it is Israel and Zionism which is off base at Blogger, that is very troubling. Aye?
      After all, with the architecture of modern political power as it stands…that puts the elder’s boot heel right down Blogger’s throat.
      Yup, Amerika is in a real fix…mainstream and webwise.
      All the manipulated little widgets…

  65. @Paul.

    You comment that you anticipate a disastrous in-fight at D.C. But as it stands I expect Honegger to come out ahead of Deets and Sullivan, as I don’t expect either of them to take her on.

    What’s Sullivan’s take on the Pentagon?
    Honegger claims that a small aircraft struck the building but that the NOC evidence is solid? Two planes plus impact? Plus internal explosions? Plus explosions to “ease entry”?
    Deets’ “theory”, whatever the hell is it today, involves “anything goes” (physics and aerodynamics be damned) as long as an aircraft struck the building.

    1. The only problem I see with Honegger’s second plane theory is that there is no evidence to support it. Other than that it seems like a theory as good as any other untested one.

    2. Sullivan? Well, Sheila Casey had a significant article in Rock Creek supporting CIT and Matt Sullivan was editor. In his titling of it, Matt actually dramatized her article beyond what the article actually said. I have not heard anything to indicate that he changed his mind and he is accepting to make a presentation in favor of the CIT evidence. Craig Ranke won’t like it, you can be sure, but how it comes down, we’ll just have to see.
      I wouldn’t be surprised if Matt is less than fully convincing on flyover and isn’t able, or doesn’t want, to take on Barbara. Again, we’ll see.
      For those just listening without careful thought, Barbara comes across as convinced of her own importance and her evidence. If she were truly confronted at D.C., she would probably be interrupting the person, etc. and it could get interesting. But, dealing with her requires careful preparation and I don’t expect Matt to be interested in that. Again, we’ll just have to see.
      It is not a question only of what happens at D.C. It will be how it will be packaged afterwards in the DVD. The fact is that someone already listed her as “preeminent” Pentagon researcher; that is, until the resolution against that wording, among other issues, was introduced at the July 31 teleconference (by myself, seconded by Barrie Zwicker) and the wording was removed. That earlier “preeminent” is indicative of what is going on behind the scenes.
      Adam, when Barbara makes her presentations she starts with quoting folks like DRG who support her work. She quotes quite a number. Now this is not genuine vetting, but it gives the appearance of being so. But, even these quotes have to be checked. For example, Robin Hordon is cited by Barbara. But Robin reported at a teleconference that she had misled folks in how she quoted him and he asked her several times to remove her citation to him. He reported that she never answered him and the citation remained. This is documented via a tape of the call, but I cannot remember now which month it was (about 6 months ago) and is not worth my time now to dig it out.

      1. I would think it would be obvious by now, who and what Honegger is. I highly suggest people research her role in the October Surprise situation and her strange ties to Gunther and Rae Russbacher. She has been a constant peddler of bizarre and self-discrediting disinformation. It is what what she does as she is clearly a long time spook.
        It’s amazing people still take her seriously. I wouldn’t have anything to do with her except exposing her.

      2. Paul,
        I had a lengthy e-mail debate with Honegger and found her to be extremely evasive and disingenuous. She used the “play dumb” disinformation technique a lot with me in order to avoid many of the arguments I made altogether. I explained myself simply and clearly yet she “played dumb” as though she missed my points entirely or missunderstood them completely. After this back and forth with her on e-mail I was convinced that she is not to be trusted at all. I would be VERY suspicious in my examination of her video and particularly her claimed witnesses. Who are these witnesses and where are their statements from way back, close to the time of 9/11, is an issue I would look into for sure. I have heard about or read the statements of virtually every witness or claimed witness out there from the pentagon area and I never heard of this second plane impact at the heliport theory until Honegger brought it up. If she has supporting witnesses I want to know how far back their testimony goes. If they have just emerged I would not trust them either as far as I could throw them. Many of the CIT witnesses gave similar testimony on record years before CIT was even created. So we will see just how legit these witnesses are and how and by whom they were interviewed.
        Broken Record,
        I agree with you that Honegger has pushed self contradictory stuff and stuff that has no evidence to support it too. As I said above to Paul my suspicion censors are blinking red concerning Honegger. I think even small details in her presentation need to be verified at this point and if I am correct many things she says will turn out (after researching them) to be either misleading or false in much the same way Ryan’s information about Shelton Lankford is both misleading and false.

  66. Mr. Deets, can you tell us which agency assigned you to CIT and the NoC evidence? Was it an old CIA friend you made through NASA connections?

  67. ‘Build the car’ with all evidence available. Accepting agreement/disagreement with the author in part does not preclude information veracity . That is certain and agreed.
    And by the same token ‘direct energy ‘weapons can describe cutting charges, so too does ‘thermal expansion’ describe explosive/incendiary reaction.
    Ms Honegger presents time-line first internal explosions beginning 9:30 followed by airstrike at heliport firehouse 9:32 by smaller AA logo painted global hawk exploding feet before impact with building. composite material wing fragment evidence by her and Mr Bollyn is compelling.
    This airborne explosion burned out heliport firehouse, spreading aircraft confetti on the lawn – that area is at minimum 100′ to the ‘left’ of the major ‘inside job’ building damage created by a series of demolitions minutes later, demolitions leaving lawn untouched by aircraft detritus outside critical building damage zone. Dov Zakheim ‘Systems Planning Corp’ SPC cited with technologies available for remote control and proven ability for exploding missiles airborne , thus the missile is presented as the ONLY aircraft witnessed and contends there were NO other airborne strikes on the building. So no ‘eased entry’. No ‘south path’ . Planted explosives pre-selected [ONI/Army audit etc] blowing floor UP and column damage inconsistent with external impact blowing columns out with HAWK as decoy.
    Evidence of Israeli/mossad involvement not presented on blogger and in book is disturbing, yes. But Bollyn covers it. And others.

  68. “internal explosions beginning 9:30 followed by airstrike at heliport firehouse 9:32 by smaller AA logo painted global hawk exploding feet before impact with building.”~Fremo
    Then these “internal explosions” have to been contained with no external clues for two minutes…. I am having a hard time featuring this in my mind…{???}
    I just received a copy of Honegger’s DVD; ‘BEHIND THE SMOKE SCREEN’. I will give my thoughts on it after viewing…

      1. Here’s a quote from Honegger’s video

        “I believe the interpretation of what the NOC witnesses described is incorrect….as there is no evidence of any plane destruction other than the white plane that exploded near the heliport at 09:32,
        [image shown of line that has nothing to do with what witnesses drew themselves]
        if the plane that a dozen or so witnesses saw approach to the north of the centre line to the north of the citgo gas station which is on that centre line and to the north of the Navy Annex which is on that centerline…if that plane flew over, which many 9/11 researchers believe, falsely believe, it cannot be the right plane, which was destroyed. It didn’t fly over the building, it was destroyed…it would have to be a different second plane, or the white plane could have come around twice.
        As these north side witnesses however themselves didn’t believe that the plane
        that they saw flew over. They believed it did hit because they heard this huge explosion…the plane they saw coming in on whats called the north path…it would have had to have approached simultaneously with the white plane. Basically two planes coming in from two directions at the same time.
        And the plane that CIT claims went through the fireball of the white plane being destroyed near the heliport. Or the plane that the NOC witnesses saw could have been the official plane that the Official story claims came in at 09:37.
        [OSS: You guys keeping up with this fistf*ing of the English language?]
        For the CIT interpretation to be true, there would have had to have been a second explosion, which was in fact reported by many witnesses at the Pentagon as it flew through a preexisting smoke cloud.
        [Shows clip of reported 10:10 explosion…]

        Dribble. There are so many inaccuracies and lies about the actual operation itself but the twisting, turning and Goodesque wordplay about the NOC evidence?
        Barbara, I’m going to bury your disinfo once and for all.

      2. Yup, it is indeed Craig.
        I was in a bit of a rush to get it in my DVD player…

      3. Wow, OSS. Thanks for going through the video and extracting that.
        So she gets to go last, pushing such nonsense, and then a “unity statement” then gets signed by all three “sides” demanding that the govt release the videos? Incredible.
        Are you working on a posting to “bury” her once and for all?

      4. Well what can I say about that little dance down obfuscation lane from the intrepid Honegger. I guess all I can say is that her theory seems to be a bit muddled and seems to lack supporting evidence. I guess I should also point out that I understated that last sentence as much as was humanly possible. I look forward to your expose OSS.

      5. @AdamS
        Yeah mate, didn’t mean to be so melodramatic signing off that last post lol but I’m going to tear it up (the operational side of it). It took me two hours to watch the first hour because there’s so much dis/misinfo. And I had to listen to her “logic” repeatedly.
        Actually, just before the section I quoted (around the 50+min mark) she said that she was going to “honour” the witnesses.
        She sandwiches that gobbledegook between valid info on the neocons and interesting info.
        I’ll post the debunk at Pilots and CIT forum and link to it here.
        Sorry Craig if this is a little off topic.

      1. Yes Fremo,
        Indeed very interesting…long and exhausting. I have to review this a couple more times. One thing is more certain than ever — Flt 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
        More later…

  69. The Honegger presentation is so complex that it is hard to say anything definitive about it from one viewing. There are parts of it thought that are self contradictory – I will just mention one:
    We have this one piece of wreckage supposedly found inside a witnesses car, that is made of this composition material. Dwain Deets is involved with the identification of this as similar to the composites that stealth aircraft are made of, the inner surface looks like red-orange fiberglass. But we are all familiar, I suppose with the larger piece photographed on the Pentagon lawn, that has the typical green inner surface of an aluminum airplane skin.
    I always took the piece on the lawn as part of planted evidence.
    So why does Honegger take the “composite” part as genuine, and doesn’t note the discrepancy in the obviously aluminum part, but simply shows it as part of the “white plane” wreckage?
    The detail of the damage at the heliport was new to me. That something explosive happened there is very plain to see. But I think the evidence that it was “the white plane” is the weakest part – again relying on a small sampling of witnesses. A lot of inference and nothing quite for sure…The two firemen who saw the plane coming at them and ducked for cover, saw so little so fast, that it could very well have been the NOC plane, an internal explosion and ‘supposition’ on their parts as to it being the plane that blew up.
    I have to go back through this presentation again with fresh eyes…she moves so fast, that everything blurs into itself. That in itself bothers me.

    1. Exactly Willy, if anybody new (even somebody who knows the nuts and bolts of Pentagon research) were to hear this, they would be really confused.
      She makes some interesting points on the inner damage/explosives (somebody has been reading my damage thread at Pilots ;)) but then she plops a steaming one on top of this valid information.
      She claims that a helicopter took off “seconds before” the explosion. That this helicopter actually destroyed the incoming “Global Hawk” in the split (fraction of a) second before the Pentagon facade. Quite a feat.
      She also claims that firefighter Alan Wallace at the heliport area saw the aircraft approach yet nowhere in his very detailed interviews/online statements does he mention this helicopter. Quite a detail to omit, no? BS.
      I’ll have that debunk up later tonight hopefully.

      1. Thanks OSS,
        The helicopter business is another flopping fish for me as well…3 seconds from an explosion that blew debris as far out laterally as the HWY? Explosions are radial. If that helicopter was only three seconds above an exploding airplane it would have acted more than a little erratically…it would have been blown to bits as well.
        So many of these details turn to WTF? on closer examination.
        I am of course going to be viewing the “white plane” part of Honeggers video time and again. As ‘The Unique’ portion of her hypothesis it goes by awfully quickly on the video presentation.
        As I mention to Craig in an email this morning, I wish hostilities hadn’t bloomed so quickly between CIT/P4T v Honegger. It would be great if a cooler, reasoned debate and back and forth could take place between these sides. They are SO close and yet so far away emotionally.

        1. That’s true but CIT believes that Honegger is peddling disinfo.
          It’s funny that this thread has gone so much into CIT, Honegger, and Deets because the article I’m currently trying to finish is about the collapse of the Pentagon event at the DC conference. So I hope people don’t run out of things to say about this before I get the article posted.

      2. OSS,
        I heavily commend you and once again look forward to the debunk. I’ll say to you what AdamR said to me in an email re the Ryan book:
        “…you are a trooper for wading through this crap, I don’t think I could do it without throwing up every other page.”

  70. I think I have an idea of what Deets might be up to – perhaps a “fall-guy” for Honegger.
    They may have it set up for him to “take a dive”…like in a boxing match. So when Barbara delivers her “knockout punch” presentation…the referee holds her hand up as she bounces around the ring — ‘World Heavyweight Champion Pentagon 9/11’.
    Can’t prove it…but intuitively it makes sense to me.

    1. Wow, she is all over the place in that text link. On one paragraph she promotes the crash of an A-3 Skywarrior into the Pentagon:

      As remnants found in the Pentagon wreckage have been identified as the front-hub assembly of the front compressor of a JT8D turbojet engine used in the A-3 Sky Warrior jet fighter,[5] and as Air Force A-3 Sky Warriors -normally piloted planes- were secretly retrofitted to be remote-controlled drones and fitted with missiles in a highly compartmented operation at an airport near Ft. Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport in Colorado in the months before 9/11,[6] the question further arises as to whether Pentagon auditors and their computerized data were intentionally targeted on 9/11.

      Her footnote no. [5] is a link to an obsolete Fetzer page. doesn’t have a cap of it either.
      Shortly further down, she says:

      Indeed, if a heat-seeking missile hit the building after the bomb(s) went off, the heat from the explosion(s) would become the target for the missile. Recall that the A-3 Sky Warrior planes were retrofitted shortly before 9/11, not only enabling them to be remotely controlled but also fitted with missiles. The round-shaped exit hole in the inner wall of the “C” Ring is evidence that a missile or a piloted or pilot-less remote-controlled plane significantly smaller than Flight 77 also struck the building subsequent to bombs going off and penetrated the inside of the third ring, as bomb detonations would not have resulted in such a near-symmetrical round-shaped opening.

      All of this, PLUS a small plane exploding outside the heliport!
      I’d love to write more but perhaps I should hold off til Craig’s next article. 😉

  71. Mr. Adam Ruff writes:

    The main point of your lengthy lecture seems to be to take what is good and solid out of these two books in question and discard the rest. I reject that totally. The reason I reject it is simple. Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer. If someone tries to pull a con job on you once you should not give them a second chance because they might just succeed the second time.

    I would agree with Mr. Ruff if he were talking about a math or science book that had lots of other competing volumes available that didn’t have “intentionally misleading or deceptive information.”
    But that is not what this discussion is about. Our sources of 9/11 information aren’t as cut-and-dried and logically accurate as textbooks, and we don’t have alternative textbooks to reference that can be considered closer to 100% accurate and that put the faulty ones to shame to be relegated to the $1 table of Barnes and Noble.
    No. As much as our good citizenship upbringing would have us wanting to trust the government’s publication efforts, a small army of intelligent internet researchers puts them to shame. Not to be outdone, the government has a documented history of meddling with media and infiltration, such that once trusted “alternative” websites — like 9/11 blogger — suffer, and we bemoan the censorship. Yet still, the 9/11 keyboard warriors hoist cries of “mole” for the efforts of researchers, leaders, and speakers when they go “off-” (or “on-“) script about some niche topic.
    To take the ignorant and boastful stance of “rejecting” the totality of someone’s work based on the discovery of untruths or outright deceit WHEN a void exists of valid alternative explanations for EVERYTHING presented in the foundation of truthful evidence isn’t just short-sited. I’d be inclined to call such actions “playing right into the hands of disinformation.”
    If honest & sincere 9/11 Truthers don’t reach into the maw of disinformation sources to rescue and re-purpose the valid truthful nuggets, who will? The government? The PTB? The true perpetrators of 9/11? Seems to me they are ecstatic when ignorant slobs like Mr. Ruff brush the whole works into the fire so that there is no more rememberence among fellow citizens of anomalous nuggets lacking explanations, no, not from even in the few trusty truthy sources remaining.
    The expression goes, “you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.”
    The issue isn’t about the inaccuracy of the opinions uttered in the sources that you label “disinformation.” The issue is about collecting and preserving the facts that are independent of the opinions.
    Such should be the case for both Mr. Ryan and Dr. Wood (and Dr. Jones, Dr. Legge, Dr. Jenkins, the NIST reports, the 9/11 Commission Reports, the USGS dust data, etc.)
    Mr. Adam Ruff continues:

    Mistakes are one thing, they can be overlooked and/or forgiven but intentional disinformation cannot and should not be overlooked because it is evidence that the person has an agenda other than truth.

    No one is recommending “overlooking intentional disinformation,” assuming that intentional motive can be proven. In fact, if it can be so indentified, the intentional disinformation should be studied precisely to gleam their “agenda other than truth” so that proper weighting can be assigned to their other opinions or skew.

    It is foolish and a waste of precious time to spend hours and days pouring over information from a disinformationist to look for “nuggets of truth” that may or may not be in their book.

    No, it is not foolish, particularly not in the 9/11 environment where valid information can be torpedoed and sunk with nary a rescue publication that presents, let alone (properly) analyzes, those nuggets. A simple example is Dr. Wood highlighting the pictures with the horseshoe, the arches, and the steel doobies. What other 9/11 publication accuratly accounts for these?

    Even if I did find something in their work that seemed to be true I could not trust the information until I verified it from another source. You see it could just be another deception from a clever disinformationist, another con.

    Exactly. Verify it from another source. If that other source isn’t available, what do you do? Your ignorant solution is to bury it anyway.
    Moreover, I should point out that you conflate the presentation of evidence and facts with the analysis or interpretation thereof. Are you playing disinfo games that you refuse to see the difference? If you — as a leader of sorts in the 9/11 Truth Movement (moreso than I) — want to make it easy for the lazy truthers, you should lead and be investigating the material thoroughly first hand and then documenting “the good, the bad, and the ugly.” But this, apparently, you can’t be bothered to do. You’re happy with the second-hand, lame assessments of others … even after those assessors are found wanting and dishonest based on other endeavors. [Don’t get me wrong, the overall assessment could remain valid. But given a proven dishonest agenda of an assessor, what might their previous assessment of a work be hiding in its dismissal?]

    Instead of following your foolish, naive, and time wasting philosophy of research my philosophy is to reject everything from those who intentionally spread disinformation and instead spend my time studying the information from sources I can trust because of their track record of honesty and integrity.

    What if your trusted source lacks the time, energy, or capacity to assess some new work? Do you ignore that new work?
    What if your trusted source suddenly becomes untrusted? How do you circle back and make sure his agenda didn’t con you in some other way? Dr. Jones is one such example. “For simplicity” let’s assume the involvement of nano-thermite; the fact remains that it cannot be ascribed all of the anomalous features of the WTC destruction that he has purposely led the entire movement to believe; high school chemistry & math disproves it handily. His “no-nukes” dismissal relies on a skewed tritium report and didn’t even mention neutron devices. September 2012, he admits “Something maintained those under-rubble hot-spots (not just NT).” And Dr. Jones led the charge against Dr. Wood, “looney beams from space.” Where is his review (or that of any leader of the 9/11 truth movement) of Dr. Wood’s book for the good, the bad, and the ugly? M.I.A. Dr. Wood got more right than she got wrong, period.

    If you choose to lie down with dogs you are going to come up with flees. I choose to avoid flees whenever possible because I don’t like them, they are itchy and carry disease.

    If you lie down with dogs, you can enjoy their warmth on cold winter nights. The dogs accept you and might even defend you from attackers. Regular doggy baths can rid them of flees.

    You choose to spend your time studying information from known liars and as a result you have gotten some flees such as the DEW flees and the Nuke flees.

    Guess what? Because Dr. Jones has never corrected the record with regards to the true limits and capabilities of nano-thermite and skewed his no-nukes report, he enters into the category of “known liar.”
    As for the flees who have taken up residency in my crouch hair, his actual name is “neu nookiedoo”, which is short for Neutron Nuclear DEW (directed energy weapon).
    And you have not debunked it. You have not even addressed it. You have taken a stilted position that you don’t have the gonads to defend — “No radiation = no nuke” — when it is served back at you for why it is stilted and unfair, while at the same time misinterprets and malframes… my poor, iddy-biddy little flee “neu nookiedoo”. Where’s your proof of “no radiation”? M.I.A. Maybe you should have a chat with the sick 1st responders.

    Since you have those flees on you I choose to stay away from you and the (dis)information you promote, perhaps unwittingly. I will spend my precious time looking at and studying information I choose from sources I can trust, or at least from sources I have found no reason to distrust.

    Did you read the NIST reports on the towers and WTC-7? How about the 9/11 Commission Report? I bet you did. OH SNAP!!! I wager all of the money in my wallet that these happen to be from sources that you do ~NOT~ trust. Does this make you a liar, Mr. Ruff?
    So why did you read them if you didn’t trust the government sources? To gain information. You spotted both the truth and the stilted lies. You made hay out of both in your online battles, didn’t you?
    Oh, and please, please, pretty please list all of the sources on 9/11 that you trust implicitly (other than Dr. David Ray Griffin, cuz I like him too.) What are their works of outstanding integrity, quality, research, and complete truth?

    I will also spend my money purchasing books and/or videos from credible sources such as CIT and P4T. My money will NOT be used to line the pockets of disinformationists such as Wood and Ryan. No way in hell buddy, you will NEVER get a penny out of me to go in their pocket. I have read enough of their information that is freely available to conclude that they are spreading disinformation and therefore their information can and should be rejected as untrustworthy.

    Hey, dude, Mr. Ruff, man, if you weren’t such a pompous dick, it would be worth EVERY penny for me to purchase those books and send them to you for review — GRATIS! No charge! … Just to get us on the same literal page and validate or debunk each point LEGITIMATELY. [And I have a proven track record of delivering on such promise.]
    And because I am reading Mr. Ryan’s book at the moment, I know that your ignorant, off-hand, dismissals-sans-review is giving Rumsfeld and Cheney (among others) a free-pass. You’re too stubborn to read the book and validate the (valid) sorid history of these people that makes them viable candidates for Mr. Ryan’s alternative conspiracy.
    And don’t get me wrong on the topic of Mr. Ryan. I have reason to ~not~ trust him, because of his nano-thermite work with Dr. Jones. Or more correctly stated, for the nano-thermite work he didn’t do (e.g., calculations into quantities needed for pulverization or hot-spot durations, and mixtures with other things, that might make it a tad unreasonable.) On this venture, though, I don’t have reasons (so far) to find fault.

    You can wallow in all the flees you want SEO but I will not be joining you.

    You can walloo in all of the closed-minded ignorance you want, Mr. Ruff, but I will not be joining you. I prefer to read things for myself and make my own assessments (albeit often times influenced by reviews of others to see thing I might have missed.)
    +++++++++ Here’s me being lazy and pissing off Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue with a single mondo posting. Consider it a test of your reading ability. Consider it also a blessing, because why suffer from TWO postings from me, when ONE posting is so much easier to scroll over.
    While we are on the subject of both Mr. Ryan and his book, I went back and found the quote-mined passage that got everyone’s panties in a twist.

    “For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes.”

    The entire context of this does not make this nefarious. Mr. Ryan writes that his book’s purpose isn’t to debunk aspects of the official conspiracy theory, because many other works are present (and referenced in his footnotes) that already do that handily. His purpose is to identify potential members of the alternative conspiracy (e.g., not the 19 patsy hijackers). To aid in this effort, he would look into (paraphrased) “the things that didn’t happen but should have, as well as the things that did happen and shouldn’t have”, because these hint at the levels of power and authority that could effect such. Also, who benefitted ultimately from this?
    The official conspiracy was four planes and the damage wrought. For the purposes of identifying potential members of the alternative conspiracy, it doesn’t matter whether a plane hit the Pentagon or whether it flew over it. Either scenario still points out systematic failings that point to the same conspirators. For the purposes of the book in getting at the the alternative conspiracy group, you can simplify the task by accepting the official account and then doing the old questioning “what should have happened but didn’t [e.g., to prevent aspects of 9/11], or what shouldn’t have happened but did [e.g., to cover it up]?” The clout it takes to get numerous agencies to published flawed works is telling, as is getting the media to propagate it and suppress the tough questions.
    Mr. Ryan mentions often in that introductory chapter the phrase the alternative conspiracy. Meaning the conspiracy other than the 19 patsies. Meaning it is a speculative effort, and other alternative conspiracies could be drawn up, but would most likely overlap or outright include everyone Mr. Ryan identifies, where for the sake of simplicity he limits himself to 19.
    P.S. Another blessing I give you is that I’ll be off-line at the beach and camping starting the moment this goes up and lasting ALL WEEKEND LONG. Means you have time to compose INTELLIGENT and not so ignorant responses on the fronts where you’re confronted. Means no postings from me, and might also mean more time with my nose in my Kindle getting further along in Mr. Ryan’s book. Have a good weekend, all!

    1. O failed kubernētēs, prone and wailing magister ludi, tried and wanting, heavy of carne who hath cast thy spirit into Hades’ fire. Take thine damned meat-package and cast it therein as well. Taunt us no more with thy empty boasts of wisdom. Languish with the swine from whence thou spawned. We care not to drink from thy bladder of urine flavored vinegar. The puss that crusts and seals thine eyes is not worth an empty wager.

    2. I find your arguments unconvincing and WAY too lengthy. I have better things to do with my time than read your book length crappola.

      1. Book Report Progress on Kevin Ryan’s latest
        Before I share my good vibes from being partway through Kevin Ryan’s book, it is with sadness that I highlight the actions of a respected 9/11 Truther in being less than truthful.
        In an earlier posting, Mr. Adam Ruff was boastful about his ignorance:

        Instead of following your foolish, naive, and time wasting philosophy of research, my philosophy is to reject everything from those who intentionally spread disinformation and instead spend my time studying the information from sources I can trust because of their track record of honesty and integrity. … I will spend my precious time looking at and studying information I choose from sources I can trust, or at least from sources I have found no reason to distrust.

        I poked at his ignorance with:

        Did you read the NIST reports on the towers and WTC-7? How about the 9/11 Commission Report? I bet you did. OH SNAP!!! I wager all of the money in my wallet that these happen to be from sources that you do ~NOT~ trust. Does this make you a liar, Mr. Ruff?

        The entirety of Mr. Ruff’s response (below) is a statement of self-contradiction and admitted ignorance:

        I find your arguments unconvincing and WAY too lengthy. I have better things to do with my time than read your book length crappola.

        How is that Mr. Ruff had “better things to do with his time than read” my posting yet could boast from this self-admitted strong-hold, argumentative position of ignorance that he finds my “arguments unconvincing?” Evidently, Mr. Ruff doesn’t need to read anything to remain unconvinced. Evidently, Mr. Ruff doesn’t need to read anything, period. He knows what’s inside every book without even seeing its cover, such is the progress of his brand of ignorance.
        Mr. Ruff, I do not believe it was Mr. Rogue’s intention to foreshadow your subsequent actions with his uncredited quotation from Magus Maverik: “The puss that crusts and seals thine eyes is not worth an empty wager.”
        Here’s a brief detour just to keep readers in suspense about my assessment of Kevin Ryan’s book (so far), it should be pointed out that (2013-08-09) Mr. Ruff laid down what he and Mr. Rogue thought was an impregnable gauntlet for neu nookiedoo with his statement: “no radiation = no nukes.” However, Mr. Ruff has been exceptionally silent on my response that said essentially “prove that the left-hand side of the equality is valid” for 9/11. Where is the official report that systematically, thoroughly, and timely measures alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation at the WTC, tabulates the results, analyzes it properly, and publishes this for public consumption?
        *Oh SNAP!* This “no radiation” publication must come from a source that Mr. Ruff cannot “trust because of their track record of (dis)honesty and (lack of) integrity,” namely the US Government. Ergo, he has not wasted his precious time on it, has not read it, has not found it, and is therefore spouting off about “no radiation at the WTC” from third- or fourth-hand sources who haven’t been vetted and he can’t recall.
        So, dear readers of this forum, when this same Mr. Ruff passes off his judgment concerning Mr. Kevin Ryan’s new book from his strong-hold, argumentative position of ignorance, … well, enough said, eh?
        Without further delay, MY ASSESSMENT (so far) THRU CHAPTER 5 OF MR. KEVIN RYAN’S BOOK.
        This book is going to be a silent best-seller among those in the know and the powers-that-be. You see, every individual has an ego; everyone wants to be recognized for their deeds. The problem with (auto)biographies is that, if they were deep and truthful, they throw away the subject’s fifth amendment rights about self-incrimination and would probably get themselves “suicided” before publication. Plus, the subjects have a lot of thanks and praise to bestow upon others for helping them achieve the heights of their noted fame.
        So after a long tenure on the world’s stage, what does great-grandpa do to impress upon his lineage of his truly unbelievable exploits “for freedom and democracy?” Why, gramps lets the likes of Kevin Ryan research as many sources as he can, mine them for nuggets of truth, amass them as data points, publish them creatively next to one another, and let readers create the trend lines in their minds into what a bad-ass, tricky, mother-fucker they really were.
        The trend line is nothing short of “kick ass,” and a manual for domestic (& foreign) terrorism that puts to shame the Germans of the 1930’s and early 1940’s. We’ve all heard about the real Gold Rule: “He who has the gold, makes all the rules.” Mr. Ryan’s book proves that if you have all of the watchdogs of politics sucking on your teet of cash or favors — from Congress to Committees, to judges, to the press — you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want, and change the rules as you go along, and propagate works of complete fiction that literally writes the glorious history of the victors that the majority of the public still sheepishly believes. This is literally a stunning achievement akin to the use of tazers to get protesters into the “free-speech zones”!!! Yet without the likes of “fringe 9/11 truther” Kevin Ryan writing about it, few would know the depth of their exploits. Few would know how long these stars were toiling to pull off the con of all cons.
        The 9/11 Truth Movement has spent all of its time saying “insiders did 9/11”, but other than Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, the movement has refrained from detailed finger-pointing under the belief (a concession) that just listing the anomalies of what happened would be sufficient to motivate representatives to escalate it into a new, thorough, and accurate investigation, trials of those charged, and justice. Hasn’t happened. So Kevin Ryan’s book pushes the notion of who a bit further with example of those back-slapping college buddies, frat brothers, and secret society pledges who had finnigled their careers to be in a position of responsibility and authority where their purposeful actions (or conveniently timed in-actions) assisted the 9/11 (domestic) terrorists’ acts and/or its cover-up.
        Mr. Ryan’s book is an example of what real power can accomplish. [Just saying this doesn’t mean I agree with the goals or the means to the goals of the 9/11 endeavors.]
        If Mr. Ryan’s book is disinformation as Mr. Ruff speculates (without reading), well it is disinformation that theoretically (in a very “conspiracy theory” sense) would not be flattering to the careers and lives of those hoisted up by the juxaposition of data points from their own careers. It should wind them up in jail awaiting trial. But because his book demonstrates how thorough the infiltration, those named in Mr. Ryan’s book with lots of substantiation have the influence to keep the wheels of justice from running them over.
        Meanwhile, though, they remain proud of all of the secret, world-changing actions that they contributed to make (so the “conspiracy theory” goes) offspring for several generations proud. I expect Mr. Ryan’s book to be a hot-selling Christmas stocking stuffer for the well heeled and connected, particularly those named, in giving hours of “bad-ass grandpa (or grandma)” reading pleasure for the entire extended (crime) family.
        Those of us not in their family tree? Well, time-and-time again we get to have our noses rubbed in how the rules are made to govern us, but not those making the rules. Ethics and honor applies to us, but those of our “superiors” seemingly gloat that “the ends always justify the means.”
        I won’t bore people with lots of interesting data points that I did not know before reading Mr. Ryan’s book. One that comes to mind from these early chapters is that a particular securities trading firm had been in trouple for some of its 9/11 associated transactions (like put options against airlines, never redeemed but I may have this transaction confused with another.) Former FBI Director Louis Feech and former CIA Director George Tenent both managed to snag slots on its board of directors on that same firm after leaving their respective agencies. The world is small.

  72. I just found this interesting item in that article by Jim Marrs
    “Key quotes from New York Times articles during the 1961 NORAD exercise are eerily similar to stories appearing on 9/11 [text in parentheses and italics added]:
    “It is not so much the fear of collisions with military aircraft that has caused civilian planes to be ordered out of the skies, as it is the knowledge that inadequate [civilian FAA] electronic flight controls will be available during the exercise to guide them. Strategic Air Command (SAC) bombers, playing the role of the marauding forces, will seek to foul communications and radar. They will drop tinsel-like pieces of metal called “chaff” overhead [like the myriad small pieces of metal scrap found on the Pentagon lawn and Shanksville, Pennsylvania “crash” site on 9/11?]…that will throw radarscopes [including the FAA’s] into a confusion of false signals.” ~Jim Marrs
    This is a much smarter explanation for the bits of metal Honegger claims is from the exploded ‘white jet’:
    “They will drop tinsel-like pieces of metal called “chaff” overhead [like the myriad small pieces of metal scrap found on the Pentagon lawn and Shanksville..”
    . . . . . . . . . .
    Also can we get verification of the chain of custody of this fragment of “stealth aircraft composition” that Honegger is saying dropped into someone’s car? Did this perhaps originate from Deets? __ Just asking here, not making allegations.

  73. In Barbara Honegger’s presentation, which as far as I’m concerned is mainly a load of nonsense, she shows a photo at 1:46:34 supposedly showing damage futher down the building. This is a photo that she just took off the internet that she doesn’t know the origin of and one that had already been altered, illustrating a plane hitting the building. She then cut out the part showing the empty lawn, apart from the plane, and just presents it as an aerial photo showing damage at the Pentagon, which would give the impression that it was some kind of genuine unaltered photo, which it obviously isn’t. There are a lot of other photos of this area that show none of this damage.

    1. “In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.” – Zbigniew Brzezinski

  74. Regarding the pictures of the charred debris on the left side of the ‘impact’ point. Honegger repeatedly suggests in the video that pentagon truthers always refer to the images of the pristine lawn on the right side of the ‘impact’ area to highlight the lack of airplane debris. As per the OCT the Flt. 77 impacted at ground floor level at a 45 degree angle therefore any debris remaining on the outside of the building resulting from such an impact would deflect to the left. Try throwing an egg at a wall at a 45 degree angle. Of course no eggs or planes impacted at any angle and i don’t buy Honegger’s drone or helicopter theory but believe there were explosions either from the inside of the pentagon or from the construction equipment outside to produce the visible debris on the left of the ‘impact’ area and leave the right side lawn ‘pristine’ as per the official flight path damage story.
    Whilst in the south of Thailand about 2004 the US were playing their war games in operation cobra and indeed our beach was littered with hundreds of pieces of thick tin foil which had rained down after the airforce were performing above.

  75. It’s taking me a while longer to work through this. I had sworn to myself that I wouldn’t touch the “09:32” claim and would stick to the operational side of her claims But I couldn’t help myself. That and the bizarre “logic”.
    I myself don’t trust any official or media timeframes and so am looking for independent or (outside the box) sources. Trust me, if I were to find corroboration to the alleged stopped timepieces I’d be all over it like a rash but as I said, the nonsense that has been handcuffed to it by Honegger is complete disinfo.
    Let me ask you this. Honegger is adamant that a Skywarrior/Global Hawk was destroyed just before the Pentagon facade by a helicopter (uh huh). So if she also claims that the lightpoles would have “blown up” any aircraft that struck them, completely ignores the generator trailer and dismisses the alleged impact zone which all constitute the OCT directional damage path, why does she insist on saying that the aircraft came in “south of the Navy Annex”?? Why does it matter which direction the aircraft came in if it was going to be “zapped” before hitting the building? That should give you a clue as to her intentions.
    And Neils Harrit being quoted at the beginning of the presentation as saying that Barbara Honegger is the most “honest” Pentagon researcher?? DRG giving her kudos? Wtf man?
    Can’t wait to finish this now.

    1. After watching the Honegger video several more times, and concentrating on the portion about the ‘white plane’ – I see that it is very disjointed. The evidence is slim and forced, in my opinion. The helicopter part is almost impossible to believe. Another craft so close to an exploding jet would not have survived either.
      Air Traffic Controller Sean Boger’s 9/11 testimony is that the plane came over the Navy Annex. I don’t recall anything from him about a helicopter on the pad just as the plane was coming in at him. Anyone else? Is that in his testimony somewhere?

      1. You can see clearly from the pics of that day that the windows of the heliport tower were not blown out. This simply does not jive with an aircraft exploding just next to it.
        I still see no reason to accept this Global Hawk story…
        Looking at this photo, it looks more like a flash bomb went off just to the right and in front of the red fire engine. More like the power of a smoke bomb. The trees are scorched but are still standing with a lot of smaller limbs still attached:

    2. And Neils Harrit being quoted at the beginning of the presentation as saying that Barbara Honegger is the most “honest” Pentagon researcher?? DRG giving her kudos? Wtf man?

      And Harrit has also spoken against the NOC evidence, and has even stated that he thinks CIT is deliberately working in tandem with Frank Legge in a sort of “theater” to divide the movement… i.e. that Ranke and Legge are secretly on the same side. Here is a brief quote from an email from him about 2 years ago:

      You know my take on the Pentagon issue – that Craig Ranke and Frank Legge must share credits for the division in the movement is has caused.


      I care about hard evidence, not witnesses.
      I consider the flyover an unsupported hypothesis and – as such – a digression to the discussion of whether a Boeing hit the Pentagon.
      Obviously, CIT sets up people very aggressively, revealing their real assignment.
      Frank Legge – not me – claims that CIT is wrong because he is right – and vice versa.
      I now learn, that your way of reasoning is no better.

      So Craig Ranke is an agent while Honegger is the most honest Pentagon researcher???
      Can you say ORWELLIAN

      1. Wow Adam…WTF???
        The thot plickens __ everybody’s headbangin’.
        No witness testimony counts? That is not proper investigative protocol by any means.
        Hahahaha….the “Truth Movement” is having a free-for-all at the OK Corral.
        What was it I said about con sensus? We’re conning ourselves to think it possible.

  76. Mr Paul Zarembka,
    If I am not mistaken it was you who were inquiring about the seismic signals from Palisades, during the discussion on the Judy Wood thread – quite some time ago.
    As you may or may not recall it was my argument that these signals had nothing to do with the mass of the buildings hitting the ground; because at no time did the entire mass of any of these structures strike the ground as an intact mass.
    You had attempted to contact Judy Judy Judy at the end of our discussion, and I assume you were never successful.
    I want to now point out this article from Journal of 9/11 studies that addresses the seismic data:
    “They are particularly intrigued by the presence of seismic “peaks” before the collapses. (See MacQueen, 2009). This text focuses on the study of the seismic signals from Palisades. The new interpretation presented here renders the assertions of the seismic analysis of the events at the WTC, as presented by the government in the NIST and other reports, null and void. On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.”

  77. Yes, you are correct. Judy Wood wouldn’t answer specific questions about her book without my asserting that I had read it all (actually I have read much of it). I felt that the seismic evidence would be critical in either allowing her case to go forward, or undermine it. So, thanks for this article by André Rousseau. I don’t expect to read Wood’s answer to it.
    By the way, Wood and Ryan seem to share a similar operational structure: don’t respond to serious critiques.
    The link you provided in another message to is written by Joël v.d. Reijden who seems to have a very different personality from Ryan. He argues that Osama began the idea of attacking the WTC but the real operation was an inside job and he lists a lot of names. AA 77 did hit the Pentagon and offers extensive analysis of the location but doesn’t seem to have run into CIT or P4T.
    His understanding does not seem much different from Ryan’s but my impression, given his non-dogmatic style, is of an honest guy one could communicate with to and get responses and perhaps have opinions be changed. Anyone tried?
    For the Kennedy assassination Reijden principally names “All leads point to [CIA] Ted Shackley (and superiors)”.

    1. Thank you for your reply Paul,
      As per, Joël v.d. Reijden; I find a lot to agree with in this paper, I find quite a bit more to disagree with. I was mainly concerned with his take on the WTC witnesses to bombs.
      But yes, there are so many instances of him being flat out wrong. He may have evolved from the time this article was posted. I have payed little attention to him since. It would be excellent if he could be gotten ahold of and invited here to hash things out.
      One thing I disagree with him strongly is the assertion that the planes that hit the towers were the original commercial aircraft. I think there is a lot of evidence to support these being military planes painted to appear to be the official flights. I think the “pods” are in fact very real – and proven so by photographic forensic investigation.
      I would also point out that it is two separate issues as to whether a Boeing aircraft could fly so close to the ground at sea level as per the Pentagon verses the height flown at WTC.
      Even though I would assert that the WTC planes were military and likely had special fans in modified engines for flight in the thicker air, I also think a standard Boeing gaining speed in a dive and quickly leveling just at the last quarter mile or so before impact is within the realm of possibility. BUT, as I say, it is my final position that these were special military decoys that actually hit the towers, and that one flew over the Pentagon – but never came close to ground level as the official story would have it.
      Now as per Judy Wood:
      Wood’s argument revolved around the seismic signals from the Kingdom Dome demolition. She argued that the WTC seismic signals were insignificant compared to the Kingdom Dome, and therefore the amount of mass that should have hit the ground at WTC should have caused a much larger signal – therefore she asserted that the mass of steel had been “dustified”. That is her argument in a nutshell as per seismic signals.
      My argument at the time was that there would be no single mass impacting the ground intact at any time during the WTC event, and that her argument was thus bogus. I used the allegory of the fractured beams “raining down” as many separate pieces, or even portions of box units, but never as a single intact mass. That was my argument in a nutshell.
      I have always felt that the seismic signals must have been due to bombs in the basement areas. The impact of the planes would have caused a vibration that would have dispersed into a very faint signal long before reaching the surface – an allegory would be that of the buildings as giant Tuning Forks. The original plane impact would be like the tap of a tuning fork that sets it humming…this is an argument I made here quite some time ago, but cannot say what thread it may be in.
      A seismic signal must originate with a coupling to the ground.

      1. ADDENDUM to my last post to Paul – from November 27, 2012 at 5:37 pm
        Since I have “THE BOOK”, I decided to read Wood’s chapter challenging explosive demolition. It begins on pg. 95. By pg. 96 I had to slam to book shut in disgust again…as I do every time I try to read it..
        Where Did The Towers Go?
        Pg. 96 ; Wood’s argument against conventional explosives is asinine. It is all based on the assertion that the building would “slam to the ground” as one event. The video evidence – and she is so hep on facing that evidence – shows that the materials hit the ground throughout a period of time, not all at once.
        Her assertion that the material would ‘slam to the ground’ all at once as one event in an explosive demolition is obviously false. The material was blown laterally for hundreds of feet, raining down as an event taking somewhere near 12 to 13 seconds for each tower. The largest peak of the seismic event was at the very beginning of each tower’s destruction, indicating an explosive event at sub-level, which is typical of explosive demolition.

    2. Far be it from me to defend Dr. Judy Wood’s book to the death, but Triple-W misframes her work. And this is in part Dr. Wood’s fault for re-purposing many of her earlier submissions to her website without first upgrading them to address errors, criticism, new thought, etc.
      In a conventional controlled demolition, energy is added to take out supporting columns underneath to get the building in motion downward. Thereafter, most of the destructive energy comes from gravity slamming the left-over structure into the ground. The amount of charges, therefore, can be reduced to what is essentially necessary to achieve the goals of the demolition, such as landing it within a specified footprint or area, breaking it in chunks that can be easily removed by equipment, etc. In a conventional controlled demolition, bigger blocks of intact structure hit the ground and give off resulting seismic signatures.
      Lots of people (like “a bellowing sphincter”) try to turn the 9/11 towers into an unconventional controlled demolition with chemical based explosives and nano-thermite. Ignoring for a moment the valid evidence of explosions in the basement at the start of the tower’s demise, the unconventionality of 9/11 had it decimate upper-levels to keep with the ruse that this is the consequence of a plane impact. The official account(s) used theories of pancakes and pile-drivers.
      The pile-driver itself might not have been a bad idea, except that a 20 or 30 story block according to physics & demolition practices cannot decimate 80 to 90 lower floors. 50 or 60 upper floors, maybe might be able to decimate 50 or 60 lower floors, but even that is a stretch given that the lower levels are stronger than the upper ones. The real issue becomes that the larger the pile-driver, the more likely it will topple out of the path of greatest resistance into the path of least resistance, thereby (a) creaming neighboring structures or more importantly THE BATHTUB and (b) leaving lots of floors still standing and (c)_ also registering as a seismic signal.
      In fact, this danger of the 20-30 floor pile-driver falling outside the path of greatest resistance is an observational nugget of truth from Dr. Wood. She explained why its decimation from the earliest phases of the collapse (as observed) was necessary. Decimated, pulverized remains falling from great heights would not damage the bathtub as much as larger blocks of intact structure. Damage to the bathtub could have brought the flooding Hudson into not just the lower levels of the WTC, but to many other buildings connected by the subway. The NYC damage from a BATHTUB failure would have been catastrophic.
      Thus theorizes Dr. Wood, decimated, pulverized upper floors and cascading down was a design goal of the unconventional demolition. (In both towers, the supposed upper pile-driving block was decimated into itself before proceeding significantly below “the impact” levels; it even arrested angular momentum from one tower before it could topple over.) Ergo, calling it a pile-driver is a misnomer.) Pulverized content cascading to the ground would reduce seismic signals.
      The age old questions: how much conventional chemical explosives (including nano-thermite) is required to pulverize content, which already smacks of overkill? Not a trivial amount. Now imagine that MANY MANY times that already overkill amount was left unspent from its pulverizing assignment to maintain those hot-spots of duration many weeks. It ain’t very Occam Razor from a logistics point of view.
      [It should also be pointed out that NIST’s Dr. Sunder was able to say with a straight face that the decibel signature of the tower’s decimation was too quiet to have been conventional explosives doing a controlled demolition. Of course, he wanted to park thinking at gravity-driven-pile-drivers, and he side-steps that such could happen at free-fall speeds without energy being added somehow. There is, however, validity to the “too quiet” assertion of fact. Had conventional chemical explosives been used to achieve what was observed, the result would have been quite deafening. Severe hearing loss was not one of the ailments of the 1st responders.]
      Dr. Wood got it right in questioning conventional chemical explosives and in getting readers to think outside-the-box into the source of the destruction. She points at DEW, directed energy weapons. What she trips over with a disinformation agenda is (a) she can’t power in any real-world operational sense her DEW devices, (b) she added spins through Tesla energy, Hurricane Erin energy, and Hutchison Effects, and (c)_ she doesn’t address all forms of nuclear devices and gives the nuclear evidence short-shrift.
      Neutron nuclear DEW. Between half to a full dozen per tower. Easier to install. Easier to account for all of the massive energy sinks, like pulverization, spewing debris large distances, and free-fall speeds. Easier to account for under-rubble hot-spots (failed but fizzing nuclear devices). Radiation is short-lived and quickly dissipates. Plenty of energy. Wouldn’t have the same audible signature or even seismic signature. Tower tenants report lots of construction on other levels, but one snoopy tenant did not find anything. (I speculate they were building something to contain nuclear side-effects, like a detonation flash.)

      1. Señor Eleven can not pretend that there is any independent verification for any such weapon as he describes, other than what has arisen from his imagination. As such the tale he weaves is Speculative Fiction.
        He is in the same position as Wood, a circular argument that it’s use at WTC is proof of it’s existence.
        On top of this, by adding this additional nuclear aspect to the DEW hypothesis, it does not indemnify him from the already extant proofs of Wood being an utter charlatan. All of the critiques made against her are equally applicable to his proposition.
        Having said this, I will NOT be drawn into another circle jerk of debating the nuts and bolts of this lunatic proposition.

      2. Triple-Dubya on 2013-08-19 wrote so convincingly and so eloquently regarding neu nookiedoo:

        I will NOT be drawn into another circle jerk of debating the nuts and bolts of this lunatic proposition.

        The primary reason is that he has lost the debate in more than one way by being (1) unwilling to debate (2) objectively & (3) fairly. [Even his COTO colleagues are becoming increasely aware of his irrational, unhinged demeanor and are no longer blindly kissing up.]
        #1, #2, and #3 are demonstrated quite handily by referencing the comments to my posting 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW versus the comments to his posting PROLOGUE New Wave 9/11. The very fact that two threads have to exist to give the complete picture of the “debate” stems entirely from Triple-W.
        The first thing one should notice is that my comments do not appear under Triple-W’s hypnotic PROLOGUE, because he deleted them sometimes before they could be see the light of day and sometimes after-the-fact: a clear demonstration of his level of #2 objectiveness and #3 fairness. My rational comments could not exist in juxtaposition with his own (ad hominem) while handily proving his premise wrong. [As a safety measure to avoid loss to a cheating weasel, deleted comments from me were double-posted under my thread.] On the flip-side, many of Triple-W’s (rational) comments from his PROLOGUE do appear graciously under my article: either double-posted by him, re-posted by me on his behalf, or quoted by me as I addressed his (rational) concerns point-by-point.
        The fact that Triple-W explicitly called me out or critiqued my hobby-horse (or me) in various instances, yet did not (double-)post them under my thread where they were applicable nor permitted my (rational) responses to survive further displays his cheating nature. Of course to be fair, Triple-W has suffered having some of his comments deleted for reasons owing to the next point.
        The second thing one should notice is the level of clever & witty ad hominem & insults directed at me remaining on PROLOGUE. They deviate from his demeanor on T&S. Further, they often substitute rational argumentation & substantiation for a hypnotic provoking bent.
        The third thing one should notice is that Triple-W has neither debunked neu nookiedoo effectively nor has he convincingly championed nano-thermite, the alternate.

        Señor Eleven can not pretend that there is any independent verification for any such weapon as he describes, other than what has arisen from his imagination.

        Such a great hypnotic statement, but my imagination was tweaked by researching the publicly available material. Those with access to classified material would have an easier time of it. The facts of the matter are (1) that X-ray lasers [Project Excalibur] were “imagined by the experts” in the hayday of SDI (1980’s) and involved nuclear detonations in space that directed specific wavelengths of the yield to achieve goals before the devices were decimated and (2) that the publicly available literature on neutron devices discusses (oh so briefly) the ability to target the neutrons.
        It isn’t just my imagination, either. Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager

        As such the tale he weaves is Speculative Fiction.

        It is clearly a pity that the tale of nano-thermite (in any combination with other chemical explosives) is even more so “Speculative Fiction.” And for this reason, honest truth seekers must continue to look for another mechanism of WTC destruction.
        Unlike Triple-W’s unhealthy marriage to super-dooper nano-thermite, I’m not married to neu nookiedoo. I’ll be happy to proven wrong and to change my tune, providing reasoned and convincing argumentation & substantiation is given. But this I know for sure, it won’t be nano-thermite that displaces neu nookiedoo as a reasonable explanation for the observed destruction and its anomalous after-effects at the WTC.

        He is in the same position as Wood, a circular argument that it’s use at WTC is proof of it’s existence.

        Huh? Circular arguments? Nonsense. Neutron bombs exist, and have for a very long time.
        Ever used dental floss for something other than cleaning teeth? Ever used a pen for something other than writing on paper? …
        Just because the fear-mongering literature of the day hyped the potential of neutron bombs in a certain way does ~not~ mean that inventive thinking can’t make minor modifications that make them applicable to other tactical situations and usages.

        On top of this, by adding this additional nuclear aspect to the DEW hypothesis, it does not indemnify him from the already extant proofs of Wood being an utter charlatan.

        Au contraire, Triple-W. I’m “indemnified,” because I proved myself fair, objective, and open-minded in my search for nuggets of truth in her work [and many other sources, including those labeled (not always fairly) “disinfo”.]
        Triple-W, on the other hand, lacked the gonads and intelligence to identify “the good, the bad, and the ugly” in her work; this task he left to his bird’s shit. Were he to bring up specific instances of the bad and ugly, I’d probably be in agreement, because I ~never~ championed her work 100%. It is the missing understanding of the good from her work as well as acknowledgement of the bad from Dr. Jones that frags Triple-W’s sorry ass as being an utter charlatan in his own right.

        All of the critiques made against her are equally applicable to his proposition.

        Nope. His hynotic suggestion comes up quite short.
        First and foremost, notice the crafty game played by Triple-W, whereby he wants to apply “all of the critiques made against her” — Dr. Wood, the person — to a premise. Most of those critiques are ad hominem and insults.
        Second, “all of the critiques made against her [work]” have to be validated on a case-by-case basis. Many were, and many weren’t.
        Third and more importantly, Triple-W should put his money where his mouth is by halting the empty hynotic suggestions and instead by actually gathering up all of the critiques made against her [work]” and applying them to my neu nookiedoo proposition. Let’s see where the chips fall.
        The extra “Dubya” appended to his initials refers to “the weasel.” And he does not disappoint. If he were sincere in his statement…

        I will NOT be drawn into another circle jerk of debating the nuts and bolts of this lunatic proposition.

        … If triple-W were sincere in that statement, he would have STFU instead of drawing me out by posting it, of all places here.

  78. I am not going to comment on recent Book Report updates on this thread, as it seems a dangerous prospect to make counter arguments to said reviewer.
    But I would like to point out that Mr Ruff hardly needs to read Kevin Ryan’s recent book to understand what is turning out to be the prime message of that book; that those who hold political power believe and act on the meme of, “the ends justify the means.”
    Even the main characters in Ryan’s book have been highlighted in the last {close to} 12 years of intensive study. Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall have done an extensive job of connecting the dots of this power matrix. Both of their works in toto being far more complete and expansive than Ryan’s. And I base this assessment on the named suspects of Ryan’s book – admitting to have not read it. As is noted Ryan seems particularly shy in addressing the dual citizenship Israeli/American suspects. Others have filled in this glaring blank spot in great detail.
    Again, I do not fault Ryan for the work he has done in the book – I and some of the others here fault him for the issues he consistently avoids – the Zionist aspect.
    If one wants to find the bible of the cult of ‘Ends Justify Means’, the elders of Zion is the place to look. I regret the standard need to add that the Zionists and the religious Jews are two separate entities, but there it is nevertheless.
    Now, having been a researcher on these very topics long before 9/11 came about, that is the topics that fall under the rubric of ‘The Architecture of Modern Political Power’; I must say that it is this uber-topic that is what is missing for most of the 9/11 truth movement who just came awake as blowback from this particular Psyop.
    I have left bibliographies here too many times to repeat that. I will only mention the names; Antony Sutton, Carroll Quiggly, Eustace Mullins, and Douglass Reed. For historical background.
    Post 9/11, again; Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall are the best sources.

    1. Triple-W wrote:

      I am not going to comment on recent Book Report updates on this thread, …

      But he does anyway.

      And I base this assessment on the named suspects of Ryan’s book – admitting to have not read it.

      Kind of says it all: “have not read it.”

      Again, I do not fault Ryan for the work he has done in the book – I and some of the others here fault him for the issues he consistently avoids – the Zionist aspect.

      I’ve got the book but haven’t read far enough to know whether or not he avoids the Zionist aspect. Let’s assume this assessment is valid. So what?
      The Zionist aspect is a rabbit-hole and tar-baby. It isn’t needed for the limited scope that Mr. Ryan offers in order to get at naming 19 individuals in the “alternative conspiracy.” Moreover, his work in no ways excludes subsequent research efforts that names yet another 19 of the PTB behind the “alternative conspiracy” and might document the Zionist connection.
      I like dictionaries, particularly those to go between foreign languages. When I had an assignment that demanded accuracy, I’d use the hefty ones from my book shelf. When I was out-and-about, I found the pocket-size versions to be more than adequate for the translation tasks.
      Maybe by the end, Mr. Ryan’s work will be the pocket-size version of the “alternative conspiracy”, where the other authors listed prove their works to be the book shelf encyclopedia versions. Both have their purposes and intended audiences.
      I find criticism coming from the peanut galleries to be a bit too vigorous, too frequent, too superficial, and “a bellowing sphincter headfuck” (to re-use Triple-W’s venacular) particularly when those peanut gallery critics themselves ain’t got it and would use it to line their bird cages before reading it if they did have it.
      Triple-W, when he isn’t writing his own memoirs, ought to write the definitive 9/11 book.

      1. My best advice is for Mr Eleven to take his lame nookeedoodoo stalking horse to a nice quite pasture and do the humane thing, of putting a bullet into it’s poor tortured head.
        I doubt if there is a single person here that pays the slightest attention to this boring neurotic bullshit he continues to spew, thread after bloody thread the same monotonous bumble.

  79. “Señor is like a tar baby that once it gets stuck to you – you can never get it off.”~Keenan Roberts

    1. Mr. Rogue is sounding a bit too worried, a bit too frazzled, a bit too scattered, a bit too desperate, and a bit too repetitive. A 2013-08-20, B 2013-08-20, and C 2013-08-20:

      “Señor is like a tar baby that once it gets stuck to you – you can never get it off.”~Keenan Roberts

      Now that the clerical work is completed, let’s advance to some substance from his monologue that deletes rational debate (2013-08-21):

      And so in answer to this post about the nookeedoodoo weapon that Maximouse has made up, he points out that “neutron bombs” have been known about for a long time. But that is not the weapon that he is describing. He is claiming that these neutron bombs have been combined with some speculative coupling to generate a focused beam weapon.

      First of all, I ain’t the only one who thinks this is possible. Here’s something from 1999: China Test-detonates Kiloton Neutron Bomb

      [Retired nuclear physicist Sam Cohen who originated the idea of the neutron bomb] said it would take a specially designed bomb to direct radiation more to one side than to another.

      A shaped nuclear charge isn’t so far-fetched, and is even “speculated” for the Orion propulsion system for space travel. Check out this cool nuclear calculator. With regards to 9/11, maybe you should revisit the Writings of a Finnish Military Expert:

      While looking for a bomb with a small size and a strong effect, a pure hydrogen bomb was an obvious solution. When no atomic device is needed for igniting, the size of the hydrogen bomb gets even smaller and the yield (effect) can be set within a wide range, for example between from 1 to 100. This succeeded in the 1980’s, as well as the neutron bomb, which kills only living things and leaves most material untouched.
      The former Soviet Union is said to have had more than 500 command centers durable for a small nuke. That led into the developing of different types of bunker busters. A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990’s. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.

      Mr. Rogue puts a bit too much emphasis on “a focused beam”, because in the tactical 9/11 implementation, the beam wasn’t aimed with the purpose of “destruction or death” (which is the standard framing of a neutron bomb) but instead with the purpose to get those highly energetic neutrons “safely” out of the way so they doesn’t turn everything radioactive while allowing for a tactical size blast and heat wave to accomplish “surgical” deeds.
      Mr. Rogue continues:

      [SEO] has essentially “designed” Wood’s power source for her DEW hypothesis {stretching the word hypothesis to breaking point}.

      Indeed. Good point. And if I might add some further speculation, I believe that Dr. Wood has the intelligence and research chops to have come to this conclusion, too. Only, the student responsible for her website was killed in a strange and unsolved manner, leaving much of her website largely under construction since 2006. Like “The Godfather” scene with a horse’s head in its owner’s bed, we don’t know what “offers that couldn’t be refused” were extended to Dr. Wood, Dr. Jones, et al. to STOP their 9/11 nuclear musings premature of nuclear neutron devices and to even get them to actively promote disinformation.
      Mr. Rogue continues:

      Again, there is no independent verifiable proof that such a weapon exists now or did then. Maxo is dealing in pure speculation, regardless of his spinning hyperbole.

      Meh. See above. Lots of nuclear secrets are public; lots more probably aren’t.
      Coincidence that the premier nuclear physicists in the 9/11 Truth Movement did not discuss neutron bombs or shaped nuclear charges while at the same time advancing “pure speculation” into the capabilities of super-duper nano-thermite in addressing the massive energies of pulverization and hot-spot durations?
      Mr. Rogue continues his losing battle:

      To add an even more ludicrous flavor to this bullshit lollipop he cites the cast of charlatans such as Prager and that whole lot as being in agreement with him! So what??

      So what about this “charlatan” Sam Cohen, who invented the neutron bomb? His 1999 statements about the then-capabilities of a neutron bomb are in agreement.

      They are twat heads that have been debunked just as thoroughly as Maximaze and Judy Judy Judy… Maxifuckanus should try to get published in some modern science fiction magazine. He is down the shitter as far as valid science.

      Says the man without the intellect, fortitude, or integrity to read the entire textbook from Dr. Judy Wood, let alone compile any report (let alone a convincing one) on the good, the bad, and the ugly chapter-by-chapter.
      Let’s throw some of Mr. Rogue’s advice back at him with modifications in [square brackets]:

      My best advice is for [Mr. Rogue] to take his lame [super-duper nano-thermite] stalking horse to a nice quite pasture and do the humane thing… of putting a bullet into [its] poor tortured head.

      Pre-mature and immature are Mr. Rogue’s middle names:

      I doubt if there is a single person here that pays the slightest attention to this boring neurotic bullshit he continues to spew, thread after bloody thread the same monotonous bumble.

      Not a single person? So easy to debunk. Mr. Rogue himself seems to pay me a tad more than “the slightest attention… thread after bloody thread.”
      Thanks to Mr. Rogue for being my foolish foil. Couldn’t have made a better argument (by) myself without him.

  80. For those still following this thread, Kevin Ryan has just published a new letter at Journal of 9/11 Studies:
    Political Warfare and the 9/11 Commission
    By Kevin Ryan
    “Late last year, I put researcher Paul Schreyer in contact with former 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara, after Kara had written to me about Schreyer’s October 2012 article in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.1 Kara has since been offering Schreyer a number of opinions related to the questions addressed in the article, although no new evidence has been offered. As a result, Schreyer sent the Journal a letter thanking Kara for his willingness to discuss the issues and for contributing additional information. Although the idea of civil discourse among independent researchers and those who produced the official account is encouraged, it is prudent to insist upon factual evidence when presented with new explanations from sources known to have been unreliable. It is also important to keep the background and history of participants in focus.”

  81. Craig McKee I am so grateful for your articles. I have many issues with anyone trying to silence issues surrounding the Pentagon. There are so many facts that prove a blatant cover up by the FBI and NTSB.
    I recently asked Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 911 Truth if he thought the FDR data found at the pentagon from Fight 77 was fake? This was his response…
    “Those who claim the FDR data is “fake” need to be careful when using such a term. Such a term diminishes the importance of the FDR Data.
    The FDR data was provided by the NTSB through the Freedom Of Information Act. It is claimed the data came from N644AA (American Flight 77). There is no evidence linking the data to N644AA. In fact, the data does not support the government story, showing the aircraft too high to hit the Pentagon.
    If the data were fabricated on a bench – it is a crime as distributing intentionally false information through the FOIA is a felony.
    If the data came from an aircraft which was not N644AA – it is a crime as distributing intentionally false information through the FOIA is a felony.
    If the data came from N644AA on the day of 9/11 – it is a crime as the data does not support the government story of an impact with the Pentagon.
    No matter how you slice it… the FDR data presents an explosive problem for the official narrative regarding 9/11 and for those who provided such data.
    The NTSB/FBI refuses to comment.”
    Rob Balsamo ~ Pilots for 911 Truth
    I have to wonder, being very new to issues concerning 911, why anyone would want me to ignore the facts Rob Balsamo is claiming?

    1. Thank you for those kind words, kimmc5674, and I agree with your points concerning the Flight Data Recorder. Frank Legge and his shredder-worthy paper notwithstanding, the FDR data does not support the official story (or more specifically, the official flight path) – even if it is authentic, which there is great reason to think it isn’t. So no matter how you slice it, the official story does not hold up. (I wrote about the FDR and how it contradicts the official flight path back in September 2010.)
      Glad to have you as part of this forum.

  82. For the record Kevin Ryan was a guest on Coast to Coast radio with John B. Wells September 1, 2013. On the show John (the host) asked Ryan about the pentagon and some of the things that did not add up about the official story such as the small hole (too small to fit the aircraft through) in the facade. Ryan didn’t really address his questions directly or honestly in my opinion. What Ryan did do however was to repeatedly state that the aircraft struck the pentagon and not only that but that it struck where the official story said it did. The audio of this interview will establish without question that Ryan is promoting the official impact narrative at the pentagon. Coast to Coast is a very big show with a large audience. John B. Wells seems like a truther but he is new to it and I think he does not have all the information at his disposal nor is he aware that Ryan’s pentagon position is a big fat lie. Perhaps some of us could contact John and fill him in. I have already done so on another issue where he had a pilot on his show who disputed P4T info. Anyway here is the link to John and to the show audio with Ryan.
    Johns website:

  83. Thanks Adam Ruff,
    I sent an email to John through the website you give above, and left this page’s URL asking that he read it.
    If he wants cutting edge, he should have Craig Ranke, Balsamo, or OSS on about the Pentagon. But this could all be about promoting books and authors and the same old same old “Advertising Game”…[??]

  84. I’ve gotten further in Mr. Ryan’s book. The chapter on L. Paul Bremer was most interesting. I highly recommend it. When his administration utterly destroyed Iraq, I knew something else was up with his character.
    For all of the 9/11 carousel rides that I have been on where the operator says “ain’t no way for us to know who was behind 9/11”, Mr. Ryan is making a pretty damning case for how it was carried out and some of the by whom.
    I am also very much intrigued by his hints of a “private intelligence network” and being separate from the CIA (in cases and the same in others). It reminds me of a nugget of truth from various congressional studies and whistleblower testimonies into 9/11 that REDACTED whole chapters on Saudi Arabia & Kuwait. Wasn’t it like 15 of the 19 hijackers were of Saudi nationality, yet Saudi Arabia gets off with OBL relatives and nationals on flights when everyone else was literally grounded?
    Those Middle Eastern royal families are very rich. What do the rich do with their money? The money connections between those rich royals and a couple of generations of Bushes and spooks really paints a different picture in Mr. Ryan’s book.
    For all those who are up in arms about Mr. Ryan leaving off the Israeli angle, it doesn’t take way from the Saudi/Kuwait money trails directly into the failing businesses of spooks who used those funds for black ops.
    I have to complain about the nano-thermite innuendo in Mr. Ryan’s book. If McDaniels could procure massive quantities of such, I’m sure he could procure specialed nukes, too.
    I also must complain about his footnotes. Certainly, it is good that he has references to cite, but sometimes I wish that he would not just give where he got the info but also surrounding context from that source that might be a distraction to the normal flow of a chapter if given there, but not the footnote. I love meaty footnotes, but Mr. Ryan doesn’t do that.
    Those “private intelligence networks” as nuggets of truth shine brightly. Things to contemplate.
    I trudge on in my reading. Slowly.

  85. The podcast interview by James Corbett at the following URL, addresses the same topic as the Ryan book being reviewed here. I recommend everyone to listen to this:
    “Today we are joined by Jeremy Rys of and WarCrime911 to discuss his research into the people and corporations behind 9/11, including his landmark work, “9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed!” We talk about Project Hammer, AIG, Marsh & McLennan, Stratesec, Kroll Associates, L. Paul Bremer, Joseph Kasputys, Bernard Kerik and many more. We also discuss the possibility that these suspects will eventually be indicted for their actions on and around 9/11.”

  86. 2013-09-09
    Unless noted otherwise, the following are quotes from Kevin R. Ryan’s Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects. I apologize that I cannot give meaningful page numbers from the book, because I’m using a Kindle. However, when a quote includes an endnote number, this should help locate the exact position in the book.

    … [T]he Bremer Commission essentially wrote the USA PATRIOT ACT. Sonnenberg boasted that 20 of the Commission’s 25 recommendations made it into the controversial and poorly reviewed legislation.

    I learned a lot from the chapter on L. Paul Bremer and how his WTC tower office was one floor above where the impacts occurred.

    Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) first helps define the problem of terrorism and then profits from that problem through contracts worth tens of billions of dollars. … [SAIC] has become a private business that cannot be distinguished from a permanent form of government. In short, SAIC is the “fraternal twin of teh intelligence establishment.” [849]
    [849] Donald L. Barlett and james B. Steele, Washington’s $8 Billion Shado, Vanity Fair, March 2007
    Therefore, LTC Blirtch of SOCCOM and SAIC had the means and opportunity to neutralize any unwanted explosives that might have been buried in the pile at Ground Zero.

    I’ve learned a lot from the chapter on SAIC. The above is a true Helgian Dialectic stoke: “an interpretive method in which some assertible proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by an equally assertible and apparently contradictory proposition (antithesis), the contradiction being reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis).”

    … {the response had the appearance of a} careful rescue operations. [802] But the facts also align with the hypothesis that authorities were actually in a hurry to remove evidence that pointed to the use of explosives.
    [802] Suzanne Mattei, Pollution and Deception at Ground Zero: How the Bush Administration’s Reckless Disregard of 9/11 Toxic Hazards Poses Long-Term Threats for New York City and the Nation, Sierra Club,

    This is where I take issue with Mr. Ryan, one of many instances where he frames the discussion to be “the use of explosives.” However, remnants of nuclear devices (like multiple neutron nuclear DEW) would exhibit the same “hurry to remove evidence.”

    … shipped out of the U.S. Some of the citical pieces of steel — including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns — were gone. … bargain price, the WTC debris was considered highly sensitive. … The recycling of the most important steel evidence was done in a hurry, … done so fast that the City took much less than market value for the scrap metal.

    My apologies for the imcomplete and disjointed quotes above. [The above was just what I high-lighted.] What struck me was that they were in such a “hurry to remove evidence”, they sold it as scrap at below-market (bargain) prices. Note the critical pieces that “were gone”, either by removal and/or the demolition means.

    During the five-month cleanup effort, there were unprecedented measures taken to control access to the site. The site was restricted, and photographs were banned, by order of Rudy Giuliani. [808] Anthony Mann of E.J. Electric, one of the contractors for the WTC towers, said that “Security is unbelievable. It’s really on a need-to-be-down-there basis.”[809]
    [808] Jim Hoffman, Access Restrictions: The Closure of Ground Zero to Investigators,
    [809] Amy Florence Fischbach, CEE News, September 20, 2001.
    … Evidence Recovery Teams (ERTs) involved in the sorting process stole pieces of debris, and kept or disposed of them. This removal of debris was condoned and encouraged by the FBI agents in charge. … The claim that these were merely souvenirs seemed unlikely considering the volume of materials stolen, and considering the WTC building 7 was the focus of much of the theft.
    The restrictions on FEMA investigators and photographers and the extensive site security are all indications that something was being hidden.
    … highly secure site, as well as the authority to hire suspected crime syndicate companies to perform the actual cleanup.

    The above quotations sets the scene. If the outcome was as the official conspiracy theory spins, there would have been no reason for the unprecedented and tight security at Ground Zero. Pictures of a gravity collapse would not be damning to anyone. On the other hand, if the truth is something else, pictures of anomalous would have to be controlled. And the ERTs would have to purge damning pieces of evidence.

    … hypothesis that unexplained explosive or incendiary events were occurring at the site during the cleanup efforts. The fires in the debris pile, which were violent and long-lasting, could not be extingished even through extreme firefighting efforts, and indicated the presence of energetic materials. [901]
    [901] Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trace Center.

    I agree that “unexplained explosive or incendiary events occurred at the site during the cleanup efforts.” The cited paper notes a half dozen or so of these; spikes in the release of toxic gases. Yes, this indicates the presence of energetic materials (e.g., chemical explosives or incendiaries). The issue is that these spikes were different than what would be required to maintain the long-lasting nature of the fires.
    If we’re talking remnants of nuclear devices — maybe even nuclear fizzling — then this explains the ineffectual “extreme firefighting efforts” on the “violent and long-lasting” “fires in the debris pile” as well as the “unbelievable security.”
    At any rate, Mr. Ryan’s book is providing lots of insight into the important questions of WHO and WHY, and HOW in the sense of entities that could be coordinated to pull it and its cover-up off. Unlike Mr. Ruff, just because I have found some skew in Mr. Ryan’s work, I’m not “all his work” but I am approaching it initially with high levels of distrust.

  87. The ever “charming” Señor say’s, and I quote:
    “If we’re talking remnants of nuclear devices — maybe even nuclear fizzling — then this explains the ineffectual “extreme firefighting efforts” on the “violent and long-lasting” “fires in the debris pile” as well as the “unbelievable security.”
    . . . . . . .
    My question would be ‘who’s “we” in this quote’? I can’t think of another person here who is “talking remnants of nuclear devices” aside from Señor Nookeedoo!
    What does the “unbelievable security” have to do with specifically a nuclear device? This is a National Security State, one that is culpable of the crime scene of 9/11, of course the security would be total as they could possibly manage.
    While the rest of the commentators on T&S find fault in Ryan’s treatment of the Pentagon issue, there is no one else here “talking remnants of nuclear devices” as an angle to criticize Ryan’s work. And I yet again deplore the fact that every single thread has to get this sales pitch from Señor about this.
    So now, I am liable for another one of his encyclopedic belches of irrelevant blabbergrind for pointing this out. Disgusting.

  88. Excellent article. I have to say I smell a rat. How in the world anyone who is knowledgeable about 911 and the wars that followed could say that a bunch of muslim middle east countries benefited from 911 AND not even mention Israel stinks bigtime. Or maybe it’s just a coincidence that he somehow manages to completely ignore all of the zionist perpetrators and cleaners. NOT! I think the 19 he fingers ARE suspects, but the avoidance of the zionists is really remarkable. For gods sake we have mossad agents with explosives in their vans with pictures on them of planes crashing into the WTC and explaining on Israeli TV that they were there to document the event!? Funny isn’t it, the guy you would least expect, Mr. joe lunchpail, fired from his job, a real trustworthy looking guy, maybe he’s the best guy of all to carry water for the zionist perps.

  89. I posted the following comment on Kevin Ryan’s blog today:
    “I wonder if you have the courage to NOT censor me Kevin. I notice you did censor Adam Syed so I expect you will censor me too. Funny that you allow such an obvious shill as A.Wright to post garbage all over your blog but you block genuine truthers such as Adam Syed and myself from posting here. It is a shame that you do not have the personal courage or integrity to face up to your critics. At Truth and Shadows we have an article and discussion all about you and your book called the Kevin Ryan paradox. I will pretend for the moment that you are willfully blind about it. Perhaps you should consider responding to it or at least not censoring your critics here? A real truther is not afraid to face critics and that Kevin is how I know you are not a real truther. Anyway I don’t expect anything but continued censorship and silence from you but if you do decide to become a real truther and face up to your errors such as ignoring the truth about the Pentagon and actually working against that truth I can be found at Truth and Shadows blog.”

  90. Adam Syed: Great article!
    As to David Ray Griffin’s endorsement of the book – DRG thinks that the 9/11 Truth Movement is stronger and more effective together – than separated into fragments and fighting among ourselves.
    All in all, the point is to let the majority of the population know that “something” is terribly wrong with the official story of 9/11 and get more people to be willing to examine he evidence.

  91. It’s clear that you aren’t aware of the massive cooperation of Saudi Arabia and other gulf states (except Oman, they are Ibadi muslims and so-called terrorists are never from Oman and they keep to themselves a hell lot) with Israel in a strategic way, especially on how they wanted to destroy Arab Socialism (Baathism). They started with Nasser in Egypt, probably killed by Israelis dressed as arabs.
    Since the GWOT started, if your country is a secular arab republic, you will be a target, it’s this simple, Israel hates such countries, especially Syria who almost beat down Israel to a pulp once. But Saddam also threw Scud Missiles at Israel when the US betrayed him, some falling very close to that demonic Dimona “research” nuclear facility. Not the brightest move by Saddam but he had every reasons to be mad at Israel for destroying his legit nuclear power plant in the making in the early 80’s.
    Their goals join at several places. Saudi Arabia doesn’t care if Israel eats away Syrian land even more than the Golan Heights. Right now Israel has spy bases in Iraqi Kurdistan, Israel makes friends with Kurds, and will stab them in the back, like any nation who sided with the landless kurds. Israel have all these spy bases to spy on Iran, literally on their border.
    Also I’d like to bring to your attention, the Domneh. Jews pretending to be Muslims. Saudi Arabia’s wahhabism/salafism is a british invention to keep the arab population around the huge oil field of a peninsula by keeping them down with this distortion of Islam. It’s very taboo to speak of the Domneh(who also are called by another name which I forget right now) in Turkey. Ataturk was a Jew and so were the rest of the Young Turks. They had to be, so that the Turkish population would accept Israel’s creation by the barrel of a gun if the need arised. You can’t speak of the Domneh in Turkey because it would destroy 90 years of an illusion Turks have been living in, so not many know of this.
    9/11 was made by people of all caste to bring about major change, they didn’t anticipate how stronger Russia and China would get. S-500 anti-missile system protecting the whole Russian airspace, Russia has a Mediterranean base on the Syrian shore since Syria are their allies since a long time (USSR promoted Arab Socialism). So today, we have the Russians going to fight Daesh since the US just plays pretend. Ex DIA Director Michael Flynn said that it was in the US’ strategy to have a Salafist Principality in Eastern Syria. They won’t take the rest of Syria down that’s for sure, unless the US is insane enough to provoke the US directly (Russian troops, Russian navy, Special Forces etc. are all in Syria). Ukraine was an indirect coup, Putin took the oppurtunity and sent in weaponsless mercenaries to watch over the Crimean elections so that no special US interest NGO and other random angry rabble creating forces would interfere with the wish of Crimeans to join back Russia without a gun shot, Crimea was always Russian, it was given by the USSR to the Ukrainian SSR by Krushcev as a fig leaf to the Ukrainians in the 50’s to apologize for Stalin. The USSR doesn’t exist anymore, so much land was lost, the land that was given to the Russian SSR to another SSR should have come back, it was already complicated to manage their Naval base there.
    I’m surprised you haven’t figured this out yet. It was the most complicated operation of the 21st century (still is) and not only Mossad participated, ISI, CIA, French equivalent of the CIA, MI6, fooled muslims turned into Islamists, arabs faking being believers, spies, etc. It’s clear Israel benefited, but many others did too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *