About

I’m Kevin Ryan and this is my blog.

My work as Site Manager for the environmental testing division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) led me to begin investigating the tragedy of September 11th, 2001.  UL fired me, in 2004, for publicly asking questions about UL’s testing of the structural materials used to construct the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings as well as UL’s involvement in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Since 2006, I’ve been the co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies and a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington.  I’ve also served as a board director at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and co-authored several books and numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject. I’ve given public presentations around the country and continue to do research into the crimes of 9/11 in order to help people come to a better understanding.

More information can be found at ULTruth.com.  You can contact me at kncryan[at]msn.com.

24 Responses to About

  1. Peter D Morse says:

    Kevin, As usual, clear, concise, just-the-facts in plain English. While reading this post describing the changing rationales (lies), the notion of constructing a “lie line” [timeline] struck me. One effect of the shifting rationals is that the public gets confused hearing so many conflicting claims which results a kind of paralysis unless one stays on top of the story which very few people do. I think simple, literal timelines, such as you constructed here, are very effective in promoting understanding of the bullet point facts and – importantly – the progression and relationships from one event to the next. Timelines are very effective in exposing “cui bono” events and relationships around 9/11 and its aftermath. Thank you.

  2. Niels Harrit says:

    Dear Kevin
    At last, I had time to check out your new blog.
    I really like it. Cool. Congratulations.
    Got to get myself something like it some day.
    As to the essays, you’ve had my comments already.
    Many regards
    Niels

  3. Very nice site. You have a unique set of talents and insights to bring to the table in this effort.
    –David Chandler

  4. Thank you for staying on the hunt for truth. Someday the story will be told, and it will be people like you who help put all the pieces together…

  5. Dirk says:

    How was it possible that everything was setup to blow up the twin towers ?

    This is the question I hear all the time , and the answer is much simpeler than you might think.
    I am a Dutch electrotechical engeneer and have worked in construction and renovation of factories and large office buildings.
    The truth is we , as a technical crew, could walk in and out with our locked steel tool carts 3x3x6 feet, without people even looking at us , most of the time totaly ignored like we were invisible..
    We were “just” the builders, the working people …
    On the floors we were working was no security, and when we needed to be on technical floors or tecnical rooms we just got the keys , no questions asked.
    The security passes we were issued by the contractor gave us acces to almost any space because we were the electricians and that is outside the knowledge of most office workers ..
    I tell you, in these tool carts we could have smuggled in bombs , explosives, bags of thermite desguised a concrete , I think even a nuclear bomb , have you ever seen one for real ? I don’t.. and I bet the people working there have also no clue what this would look like..
    diguise it as something electronic and it can be a testing device, like a portable radar for looking up cracks in the concrete ….
    Believe me ,it is childs play to rig a building with explosives , under the cover of building maintainance and you have all the time in the world , especially because there is always some technical maintainence or renovation going on in large office buildings..

  6. Tim Baumgartner says:

    I wish there were more people like you. We need them.

  7. Eric H says:

    I’ve recently seen footage of a phantom f-4 hitting a reinforced concrete wall, upon impact the plane is basically turned to powder, the wall is undamaged. I have heard that the pentagon was made of similar walls; yet the impact left a large hole and massive damage. I must assume that the fighter jet was made of stronger materials than a passenger plane but, it also had less mass. This seems very important. however, I am not a physicists and can make no more than an assumption. I have not heard any real argument upon this subject, only conjecture.

    Also, thank you

  8. Paul says:

    Mr. Ryan,
    I am currently working on a documentary on 9/11 based heavily on your work on the connections L. Paul Bremmer had regarding 9/11 attacks. In my research, I have found numerous patents that Lawrence Livermore holds on these materials relating to the ignition of Nanoengineered explosives, which cites specifically a patent held by Regents of the University of California on nanoengineered explosives, US5505799. The Komatsu patent commonly referred to re: Bremmer seems to describe a process requiring pressured gas to maintain a plasma arc. I just thought the aforementioned patents were a little more interesting considering that gas tubing would be difficult to insulate and protect from uncontrolled fires. Your thoughts on this?

    I am not aware of your mentioning these specific patents previously, and apologize if you have and I missed. Thank you for your great work!

  9. mikecorbeil says:

    Excellent website, with one exception. Whenever I use it, it severely bogs down my computer system or Web browser (Firefox and always kept current), or both. It might be only the Web browser, for CPU usage doesn’t seem to be adversely affected, based on a small monitoring application that I always have running in order to be able to see what the CPU usage of this Core 2 Quad PC is. So, I guess it’s only the Web browser that’s badly affected.

    Speed badly degrades. But, I’m not a Webmaster, …, so this is about all I can say for my own experiences with this website or blog. I use many other websites and there isn’t a speed problem. WarIsAcrime.org might be a bit slow, but nothing like this website or blog. This one is extraordinarily long to load pages. And writing comments is also rather slow. Responsiveness, iow, is problematic; very.

    • mikecorbeil says:

      Update: I believe the problem may’ve been only temporary and it was happening only when I had two or more articles from this blog opened in separate tabs. That might no longer be a problem, but opening only one article at a time should be ok. We can only read one article at a time anyway.

  10. Pingback: The Progressive Mind » FAQ #12: Where are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?

  11. Heya superb blog! Does running a blog such as this require a large amount of work? I have virtually no understanding of computer programming however I had been hoping to start my own blog soon. Anyways, if you have any ideas or techniques for new blog owners please share. I understand this is off topic but I simply had to ask. Cheers!

    • mikecorbeil says:

      Such questions would be better to ask in forums for related help. Kevin Ryan might want to asnwer your questions, but I’ll just say that asking them in a blog like this really isn’t the appropriate approach for what you’re asking. Appropriate for your questions are:

      1) This is clearly a WordPress.com sort of blog, except that the domain name doesn’t have “.wordpress” in it. I say this because the login prompt that I get here is a WP one. So, and assuming that this indeed is a blog based on WP, you should be able to find a Help section at WP. There should be a Help link that’s easy to find; often at the top of the home page anyway.

      2) This is repetition, but do a Web search for forums where you can ask your questions when not finding answers at WP Help. There surely are forums where you can get additional help.

  12. Dredd says:

    Journalistic courage is a rare element in our current press. Thanks for questioning those things that need to be questioned.

  13. Marian Angele says:

    Are you the same Kevin Ryan who had a very close friend Pat Baker at the John Heron Art Institute in Indianapolis?. 1950 to 53/ Pat heard your interview on coast to coast. He lives in Klamath Falls Oregon now. Would love to hear from you. I am a friend of Pats (he is almost blind now) and ordered your book for him. He’s delighted!! Believes you are the same Kevin Ryan he knew years ago. Lloyd Patrick Baker. Great book!!

  14. Many thanks Ryan for the passion you have in doing and delivering your research into the relationships between the various apparent actors in this event. Lyndon LaRouche and team have some thoughts that the British Monetary Empire were ultimately behind the attacks that were carried out by sections of Saudi / British, American and Israeli secret services; ref: http://larouchepac.com/bae911.

    If this is the case, with the power these services have at their disposal, it will require extraordinary efforts on the part of truth seekers to enlighten the public.

    In the knowledge that tomorrow is not a reflection on yesterday, the future is very much in our hands. To know and not to act, is not to know.

    David

  15. A1 says:

    Dear Mr. Ryan:
    The explanation behind the contradictions in Mr. Chomsky’s character on this issue are rooted in another taboo topic, Zionism, The influence of Zionism’s adherents in the U.S. exceeds even your, very reasonable imagination. It comes as no surprise to me that Mr. Chomsky has chosen to ignore the innumerable problems with the official explanations for 9/11. It is a virtual certainty that, even though he understands and agrees with most everything you’ve written on this topic, he is not going to risk what remains of his pleasant life by irritating so many people he relies on.
    I greatly appreciate and enjoy your efforts. Keep up the good work.
    Yours truly,
    A1

    • mikecorbeil says:

      agrosven,

      I don’t know what your intention is, but your post would be far more appropriate for the following article by Kevin Ryan.

      “Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11″, Nov. 29th, 2013
      http://digwithin.net/2013/11/29/chomsky

      In the truthdig.com piece, which is very brief and that you provided a link for, is a link for a video at YouTube for an October 2013 statement by Chomsky replying to a 9/11 truth activist questioning Chomsky about WTC 7. Chomsky, who has often written and spoken against the “ways and means” of “The Establishment” … “elites”, did a rather complete reversal in his October 2013 reply to the 9/11 activist.

      He mocks 2,000 or so architects, engineers, physicists, chemists, demolition experts, plus firefighters and other witness accounts. He has no basis for this mockery, and he also isn’t a scientist of physical sciences. He is a linguist, which is a soft science, not a physical one. His so-called friend, Howard Zinn, a fairly or else very well known activist in the USA, was historian and supported the call for a new and real 9/11 investigation because the official story from Washington is flawed; but, Chomsky can’t even gather a clue from people he’s supposedly friends with. He inherently mocks his friend.

      He’s outlived any usefulness he could bring to this world and, imo, he brought little. Some people praise him for his contribution to the book, “Manufacturing Consent …”, but we certainly didn’t need him to be able to realize that we’re regularly lied to by our govts as well as media and the higher “elites”.

      He mocks honest intentions for real investigation into a truly important event or series of events. He’s burnt out his flame. I haven’t paid attention to him since 2004 because of his bs about US elections, trying to coaxe all “lefties” to go his way, which was to vote for the Dem. Party, which didn’t offer a vettable candidate; other than for Dennis Kucinich, but he wasn’t being supported by the party, for he was banned from fair debates between Dem. Party candidates. Zinn was doing this along with Chomsky, but at least Zinn came around to the realization that a new and, this time, real investigation into 9/11 was (and remains) warranted. Zinn woke up, Chomsky didn’t.

      In any case, Chomsky is absolutely not qualified to criticize AE911Truth.org and many other 9/11 truth seekers. He has absolutely no qualifications for this.

      So why do you post a link that’s essentially for a video of dodo Chomsky speaking two months ago when Kevin Ryan already published a specifically relevant article? What’re you trying to do? What’s your purpose?

      • agrosven says:

        I’m brand new to this site. I wanted to draw people’s attention to the comments section below that Chomsky video on truthdig. There is an active number of debates going on there. Ryan is mentioned in this discussion.

  16. mikecorbeil says:

    agrosven,

    Your explanation is fine and accepted. It wasn’t clear, what you intention was, and I thought you might just be another troll or possibly shill; hence the concluding questions in my first reply.

    You evidently aren’t troll or shill, but I’m not getting the comments in the TruthDig page because Disqus isn’t loading. So, I can’t check out the thread, not with the Firefox profile presently being used anyway. But, that’s all ok. TruthDig isn’t a website I’d have any tendancy whatsoever to consider about 9/11 truth debates anyway. The website is surely fine for some topics, but it’d never come to mind about 9/11. The only thing I could do there is to recommend that others take time to read at this blog by Kevin Ryan, 911review.com and 911research.wtc7.net, plus to use links in the latter two websites for other recommendable websites that’re entirely or else principally about 9/11. Until people do this, there is and will be no need for debate, for trying to debate against views of people who don’t do the necessary readings and/or refuse to be critically objective is very futile, a waste of time.

    Chomsky did ok in saying that he’s not scientifically, … qualified to speak about WTC 7 and possibly other aspects of 9/11. But, but but but; there’s often a but. But, he’s ridiculously wrong to pretend that he’s qualified to be able to say or guarantee, which is what he’s actually inferring that he can supposedly do, that no one in Washington could possibly have been involved in the 9/11 attacks. He’s not qualified either way.

    He basically has made himself a nobody on the topic of 9/11 and he should be able to realize this on his own. Well, he’s a nobody about 9/11 for anyone serious about the topic anyway. Perhaps some opponents of 9/11 truth research think he’s a somebody on the topic, but for anyone serious about it, then he’s clearly not someone to turn to for analyses for this subject.

    Around 50% of the populations in the U.S. and Canada, today, f.e., support the call for a new investigation, but Chomsky wants his followers to believe that he has more wit than these hundreds of millions of people who include architects, engineers, physicists, chemists, firefighters, demolition experts, politicians, former and/or active military people, and the rest of us? One might think that he’s joking, but he evidently isn’t.

    Since the cost for a new, real, thorough 9/11 investigation is trivial in comparison to far larger and more wasteful, destructive, … expenditures of taxpayer $ by Washington, what’s the point of opposing the establishment of a new and thorough investigation for 9/11? If there’s nothing to hide, nothing to worry about, then there’s no ground whatsoever for opposing this. Opposing it when there’s clearly no good reason for doing so is very suspect and should cause ever more people to demand a new and thorough investigation. After all, what’s going on is obstructionism and this should never be permitted in due process of law.

    He should know this and should also know or realize that he’s not a leader. He can speak on some topics very competently, but that doesn’t make him competent on all subjects. No one can credibly pretend that no one in Washington is psychopathic or, if you prefer a different appellation, sociopathic. There’s more than enough proof that Washington is run by such people.

    Paraphrasing Rev. MLK, Jr: The greatest purveyor of evil on this planet is Washington. He didn’t say this just because he was having some weird dream. He was talking about reality.

    Chomsky has stuck his neck out too far and needs to learn to discern between when he’s qualified to speak on a topic and when he isn’t; after which, he should just humbly admit to not being sufficiently knowledgeable on the topic, when he isn’t. Saying, “I don’t know”, isN’T humiliating. It’s being honest; unless, of course, we know and choose to deny it. There may sometimes be honest and good reason for such denial, but it’ll depend on conditions in any particular case, say. For 9/11, no one has any fair basis for denying or opposing the call for a new and thorough investigation. No one has. No one does. No one will in the future, either. There’s absolutely no good reason.

    Why would taxpayers honestly care about 10 or 20 million $ of their money being used for ensuring, for everyone, honest govt when that govt robs taxpayers of hundreds of billions of $ to feed it to rich banks, spends hundreds of millions or else billions on wars that’re Washington-made, etc? No one who’s honest and a true citizen would dare to oppose the call for a new and thorough 9/11 investigation. No one honest would oppose the need for govt accountability. Only dishonest and incompetent people would oppose.

    Again, the middle class is hit much more for tax $ than the rich are. It wouldn’t cost each citizen even 25 cents to pay for this investigation! Not even 25 cents.

    I appreciate things I’ve learned about some of Chomsky’s good work, but he’s flopped with 9/11. He also flopped in 2004, about the presidential campaign races in the US, but this is a wholly different subject, so it won’t be expanded upon in this post or comment.

    He has some backtracking to do, for he steered off onto a wrong course about 9/11.

  17. intp1 says:

    I believe that somewhere on your excellent blog you state that the official line is that none of 4 flight recorders were found but according to Pilots for 911truth the NTSB provided data via FOIA for what they claim is from American 77. PF911T argue is fake information but it was released as genuine.

    • mikecorbeil says:

      The “official line”, that is, Washington’s, is that none of the recorders were found, but it isn’t only a source at the NTSB who’s said that one or more of the recorders were found.

      Quote/Excerpt: ” There are accounts contradicting the official account of the black boxes. Two men who worked in the cleanup operation at Ground Zero claim that they helped authorities find three of the four black boxes in October of 2001. One of the workers, New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi, has self-published a book with other Ground Zero workers in which he describes the recovery of the devices. 5 The book, Behind the Scenes: GROUND ZERO, A Collection of Personal Accounts, can be ordered through SummerOfTruth.org.

      In December 2005, CounterPunch reported that an NTSB source contradicted the official account: …”

      http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/blackboxes.html

      The title for the CounterPunch article, which is actually by Dave Lindorff, is specified in the References of the 911research page, but the title is linked to the CP home page. I copied the title and then used it as a search term for a Web search of CP. The title for the link returned by Google isn’t the same, but it’s the correct link. The title specified in the 911research page’s References is a subtitle, rather than the main title, which is:

      “9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI”

      Excerpt: “Flight recorders (commonly known as black boxes, though these days they are generally bright orange) are required on all passenger planes. There are always two-a flight data recorder that keeps track of a plane’s speed, altitude, course and maneuvers, and a cockpit voice recorder which keeps a continuous record of the last 30 minutes of conversation inside a plane’s cockpit. These devices are constructed to be extremely durable, and are installed in a plane’s tail section, where they are least likely suffer damaged on impact. They are designed to withstand up to 30 minutes of 1800-degree heat (more than they would have faced in the twin towers crashes), and to survive a crash at full speed into the ground.”

      Whenever you have “little” questions like this, then I suggest definitely doing a Web search of 911review.com and 911research.wtc7.net. There’re indexes at these websites, but simply use a search engine. Also, if using the “site:” option for doing a website-specific search with either Google, IXQuick.com, StartPage.com or DuckDuckGo.com, then you can specify wtc7.net, rather than 911research.wtc7.net. F.e:

      flight recorder site:wtc7.net
      or,
      black box site:wtc7.net

      If those will work for finding articles at both 911research.wtc7.net as well as wtc7.net, where I’ve seldom found much of anything. The three websites are maintained by the same editor or editors. They form a one team trio, say.

      I believe that both 911review.com (not to be confused with 911review.org) and 911research.wtc7.net were created by Jim Hoffman, but I haven’t seen anything recent by him, so I don’t know if he’s still involved with these websites he started and maintained certainly for many years himself.

      There’s a lot of good information there, including tips for things to be wary of in the “9/11 Truth movement”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s