Investigating 9/11 and Naming Suspects

When people ask me what more can be done to achieve 9/11 truth and justice, I tell them to spend less time calling for a new investigation and more time investigating. Even without subpoena power, independent investigators can make a lot of progress. To help with that effort, here are three steps for an independent investigation and an objective way to evaluate suspects in the 9/11 crimes.

The first step is to ask specific, well-formulated questions. What do we need to know? We need to know things like how explosives got into the WTC, how the North American air defenses failed, how the U.S. chain of command and communication systems failed, how the alleged hijackers got away with so much, and how the planes were hijacked.

Here are examples of specific questions that will help answer these questions.

  1. What more can we learn from the official accounts about transponder and autopilot use on 9/11?
  2. Who was invited to the explosive disposal/terrorism meeting at WTC 7 on the morning 9/11 and what was the agenda?
  3. What do the strip clubs, bars, and other businesses frequented by the alleged hijackers have in common?

The second step is to collect information that might help to answer the questions. Good sources of information include the following.

It also helps to interview people who have detailed knowledge about the events. Most of the people who were present at the time of the attacks and during the official investigations are still alive and some of them will answer questions.

Additionally, useful information can be obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Direct requests to federal, state, or local agencies using resources like these:

The third step to investigation is to collect the information, analyze it, and then communicate it clearly and objectively. Collecting the information is relatively easy. Analysis might include categorizing or framing the information in ways that help to see linkages. Examples include creating a timeline of events or a matrix of people and events, and considering if the new information fits into the existing body of knowledge. Once new information is ready to communicate to others, there are a lot of venues for doing that. A good example is 911Blogger.

Naming Suspects and Evaluating Evidence

evidenceAs answers are found or proposed, it becomes clear that there are people who can be named as legitimate suspects in the 9/11 crimes. Things can get a bit tricky here and it’s easy to be misled. What makes someone a legitimate suspect? To answer that, it helps to understand three different types of evidence: direct, indirect, and negative. Let’s start with five examples of what I would cite as direct evidence related to 9/11.

Direct evidence

  1. The suspect was in a position on 9/11 to directly facilitate the crimes.
  2. Evidence exists that the suspect did something on 9/11 that directly facilitated the crimes.
  3. Evidence exists to charge the suspect with a crime related to 9/11.
  4. The suspect was in a position prior to 9/11 to facilitate the 9/11 crimes.
  5. Evidence exists to charge the suspect with having done something prior to 9/11 that facilitated the 9/11 crimes.

All of the suspects in my book, Another Nineteen, were named based on direct evidence. An example is Wirt Dexter Walker. As the CEO of Stratesec, he was in position to provide access to those who planted explosives in the WTC, as well as prevent that access from being detected. Walker can also be charged with 9/11 insider trading.

Another example is Ralph Eberhart, who sponsored the military exercises that obstructed the air defenses on 9/11. Eberhart also appears to have lowered the Infocon (communications defense) level just hours before the attacks, and gave orders that directly obstructed the interceptors. He also lied to the U.S. Congress about having received documented notification of the hijackings (a crime).

When one or more of pieces of direct evidence are established for a suspect, it makes sense to evaluate indirect evidence. Here are five types.

Indirect evidence

  1. The suspect had foreknowledge of the 9/11 crimes.
  2. The suspect benefited from the 9/11 crimes.
  3. The suspect failed to cooperate with the official 9/11 investigations, obstructed those investigations, or lied to investigators.
  4. The suspect was an expert in the technologies that were required to make 9/11 happen (e.g. communications systems, remote control technology).
  5. Evidence exists that the suspect was involved in other terrorist acts or previous U.S. deep state events.

An example of a suspect for which both direct and indirect evidence exists is Barry McDaniel, the Chief Operating Officer of Stratesec. Besides having the power to grant access to those who planted explosives in the WTC, McDaniel also had expertise in the distribution of explosives from his days as the U.S. Army’s director of Materiel Readiness. That same previous position makes him a suspect in the Iran-Contra crimes. McDaniel benefited from 9/11 by starting a police-state supply company with Dick Cheney’s old business partner, Bruce Bradley.

Similarly, Ralph Eberhart is a suspect for whom there exists both direct and indirect evidence. As CINCNORAD and CINCSPACE, Eberhart was an expert on the air defense, communications, and possibly related space, systems. He also failed to cooperate with the official investigations, telling his staff to just change their responses to investigators as those responses were shown to be invalid.

Is it enough to use only indirect evidence? For example, is it enough to say that the suspect benefited from the crimes? If so, there are millions, or maybe billions, of suspects. This includes everyone who profited from the 9/11 Wars or the police state policies that have resulted. It might also include anyone who was threatened by the countries that the U.S. has attacked since 9/11: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. That would be a huge number of people so the answer is no, benefiting from 9/11 is not enough to make someone (or an entire country) a legitimate 9/11 suspect.

Is foreknowledge of the attacks enough to name someone as a legitimate suspect? If so, the governments of at least a dozen countries are all suspects. Therefore the answer is no, in the absence of direct evidence foreknowledge is not enough to name a person (or an entire country) as a 9/11 suspect.

For instance, some people are convinced that Israel committed the crimes of 9/11. When asked why they think this, the answer is usually that Israel had foreknowledge as indicated by the “Dancing Israelis” and that Israel benefited because of the countries that were attacked after 9/11. However, as indicated above this reasoning is not convincing and would certainly never stand up in a court of law.

Both foreknowledge and benefiting are examples of indirect evidence. And although indirect evidence can be helpful, direct evidence is needed to charge someone with a crime. Moreover, the direct evidence must focus on what actually happened on 9/11 that should not have happened, and what did not happen that should have happened. And that means we must focus on the specific people who were in position to make those things so.

Once direct evidence exists for a suspect, negative evidence can also be used to build the case. Negative evidence related to the 9/11 crimes includes the fact that some people did not do their jobs, either in defending the country or in investigating the case afterward. For example, Ralph Eberhart, for whom there exists both direct and indirect evidence that he was involved, failed to implement military control over U.S. airspace when he should have.

In the end, it’s possible that only independent investigation will reveal more of the truth about what happened on 9/11. But that power exists within people who spend considerable time today calling for others to investigate or posting strongly worded messages on social media. If we can harness that power and direct it toward the logical and objective answering of pertinent questions, we can make real progress.

This entry was posted in 9/11, 9/11 Suspects. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Investigating 9/11 and Naming Suspects

  1. Excellent post, thank you.

    • Gary Youree says:

      The proof is incidental. The premeditated plot obvious.Even without science the idea that two jets, one after the other, could insure that both buildings would fall, causing the biggest buzz – I mean imagine if one missed and the one hit was left half standing. The falling of the two buildings was insured to start and quickly push the largest empire building by destruction in history and all that will follow and all preceded with a clearly stolen election … it all reeks of intention, done for profit, power, and clearly demonstrated the public’s exhaustion with the lies – with it easier to just go along, like believing in god, than accept that we were orphaned by a government that was never ours.

  2. What about a clearing house for information on the whereabouts and addresses of the family members of those who were (supposedly) killed in the planes, and then sending citizens committee investigators who live nearby to go and visit them, if they can be found, interview them, and check all the available records on funerals and memorials held for those supposedly dead people. This could be done one-by-one and with a couple of dozen citizens involved could amass a large amount of information in 6 months to a year. Those “Passenger lists” stink to high heaven and are at least one Achilles heel.

  3. PecosinRat says:

    Kevin, great analysis. I’d like to add an example of where public research combined with the discovery of linkages between the results of that research with other known persons-of-interest could create a much tighter case than now exists for specific persons. This idea comes from the observation that the perpetraitors of 9/11 went to a lot of extra trouble and risk to bring the towers down into their own footprints. Why did they do that, when most of whatever was the desired outcome of that act (no matter who one chooses to call “the terrorists”) could just as easily have been created by blowing the tops off of the two buildings. This suggests that among the conspirators for 9/11 were “significant” owners of real estate surrounding the WTC. Research into real property records for owners of buildings close to the WTC in 2001 might well identify people already potential persons-of-interest in the crime. Real property ownership records are normally a public record, so compiling a list of owners of buildings close to WTC is well within the grasp of 9/11 activists working in NYC. I’m sure this is harder than I’ve made it seem here, and perhaps it’s already been done with no interesting results. But, your article inspired me to offer it up, just the same. Thank you for all that you have done!

  4. With all due respect to the many suspects you’ve identified in your book, and the additional good points you make here, where is all this supposed to lead? As someone else commented at Washington’s Blog in response to this post, undeniable evidence of deep state involvement in various crimes has not prevented further such crimes from occurring. After a while we have to ask, what’s the point of all this work? Or at least what’s the point of doing any more work like what’s gone before, if the perps don’t eventually suffer for it?

  5. Kevin, there is more evidence on Israel than just the foreknowledge, which they obviously had, and benefiting from the crime, which they obviously did. They have 3 PRIORS: the Lavon Affair, the Attack on the Liberty, and the Marine Barracks. In addition, the Israeli NSA controlled the billing services for cellphones, instant messaging and all FBI wiretaps as described in a Fox News report shortly after 911. Plus there is the King David Hotel bombing making a FOURTH PRIOR. So they have FOREKNOWLEDGE, BENEFIT, MULTIPLE PRIORS WITH THE SAME MO. Then there is the Oded Yinon Plan for the 911 WARS leaked by Gen Wesley Clark on national TV. They are eyeball deep in this crime and therefore the prime subject. Then there is the Albert Einstein letter to the NYT on Dec 4, 1948. Finally the Anthrax Attack connection confirms the fact that The Crimes of Sept 11, 2001 were an Inside Job.

  6. Randy says:

    Thanks for this article. I have been a professional investigator for most of my adult life, yet I must admit that I am guilty of posting strongly worded articles on social media and doing little investigating of my own.

  7. Wonderful piece of writing! Thank you!!! –Paul

  8. mikecorbeil says:

    Excellent, very fine article. It’s the first time I’ve read about direct and indirect evidence, as your article explains anyway, and you’re right, including about Israel. tt’s a very good example. I weary of people who’re constantly fault Israel for all of the problems in this worldI There’re too many people who’re therein guilty and it’s very annoying. So, it”s great that you referred to these people’s lack of hard evidence. Again, I’m neither Israeli nor Jewish. I just just weary of people who accuse Israel for all ill things western govts do, as if there couldn’t be other explanations, let alone more realistic ones.

    • Sorry, but it’s hard to make sense of this.
      Israeli foreknowledge, prior events, personell central in the execution of 9/11 ( inclusive media coverup)and technology in use ALL indicate Israeli involvement.
      Of course that does not mean Israel as a country is a suspect.
      But strategic positioned leaders inside USA with Israeli sympathies as well as Israeli personell that were close to the execution of 9/11
      These coincidences therefore need to be investigated.

      • Tonya Miller says:

        I believe the invitation/suggestion/request to investigate it is there if you or others feel strongly enough to take the time to focus and find that direct evidence and source it, etc.

  9. Alison says:

    Read this over at Global Research and found it to be a great article — what a refreshingly common sense approach to broaching the search of truth. Glad to have found your blog.

  10. mikecorbeil says:

    In addition to, which is a very good or else excellent resource, there’s also the “sister”, say, website, Of course people who go to the Links or Recommended Links page or index at either website will get the other website link, but I thought it worthwhile to mention it here.

  11. mikecorbeil says:

    Very strange. If I come to this article, then I don’t see my prior comments and this is unusual to me, for this didn’t happen in the past. But, once I’m logged in with and then reload the page for this article, then my comments are included. This is something new, and while I now see my prior comments, after logging in at WP, I don’t see anyone else’s comments, so I wonder if no one else has commented with respect to this article by you. It’d be surprising that no one else has commented to at least say “Thank you”.

  12. Colin Doran says:

    @Kevin Ryan If the idea is to collect information and analyse it, with the Norman Mineta and the supposed ‘standdown order’ by Dick Cheney, which is surely one of the most discussed and mentioned aspects of 911, how is it that this obvious falacy has survived the 14 year long scrutiny of the 911 truth movement, since the evidence that it is not true is not that hard to find?

    • mikecorbeil says:

      @Colin Doran : Just curious as to why you bring up the Norman Mineta testimony about Cheney having at least appeared to give a standdown order to prevent interception of AA 77, for apparently nothing about it is mentioned in this article by Kevin Ryan. It says nothing about Mineta and doesn’t use the word “standdown”, which you put in quotes, leaving an impression that you meant to be citing extact words from this article. Therefore, why do you ask Kevin about this as if he’s responsible for what every person who claims to be part of the “9/11 truth movement” has ever said about 9/11?

      Anyone who’s learned a lot about what plenty of different people claiming to be 9/11 truthers have said and still say, but while also knowing plenty about what Kevin Ryan, AE911Truth,, or, for shortness,, f.e., have published and said in other ways about 9/11 should definitely know that these people definitely don’t endorse everything said by every so-called 9/11 truther. But, we should all be mature enough to be able to realize that they can’t prevent this from happening; the lies, distortions, etc, that is.

      Lastly, what sources do you rely on for claiming that it’s proven fact that Mineta’s testimony was fraudulent; unless, of course, you mean that it only would’ve been either misinterpreted or distorted by “9/11 truthers” who claimed and possibly continue to claim that Mineta’s account really did inherently mean that the order Cheney had given was for “standdown” when the testimony, as I heard it in videos at YouTube anyway, doesn’t have Mineta at all clearly claiming that Cheney’s order was unquestionably for “standdown”? As I heard the testimony, video-recorded copy, Mineta wasn’t absolutely certain what the exact initial order from Cheney was, having admitted to have entered the scene only afterwards, only having overheard the controls operator ask Cheney if the order still stood.

      Either way, please clarify your meaning, and provide source references that you’re depending on. After all, if you agree with the last part of the above paragraph, then I’ll tell you this and it’s that it’d be very easy to understand why many “9/11 truthers” would interpret the testimony as inherently or necessarily meaning that the order from Cheney was a “standdown” one, for it evidently is fact that there were no attempts to intercept AA 77 when the US had the capabilities to do so using military jets that were stationed nearby, enough. And, it also seems that the Pentagon is the most defended place in the USA, including with missile defences; unless, people who said this, such as former though 27-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and USAF Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, f.e., are wrong about Pentagon defence capabilities.

      Etc. Please explain what you precisely mean and include your source references, as any pro. would do; svp.

  13. Colin Doran says:

    @Kevin Ryan I posted a comment here but it is not showing – can I ask are you deleting my comments ?

    • mikecorbeil says:

      @Colin Doran : Your comment was surely just put in a moderation waiting queue for Kevin to verify it before accepting it. This often happened with plenty of my comments in the past and still often does whenever I include links, but it happens less often now when links aren’t included. Still, however, although my response to your comment was just submitted about a minute or two ago, it contains no links, was immediately posted, and the start provides a temporary message saying that the comment is awaiting moderation. Iow, Kevin has possibly decided that I’ve submitted enough comments at this blog for … I don’t know, maybe a couple of years now, that he’s “flagged”, say, my comments that don’t contain links as ok to immediately post; but, he’ll still moderate them. If ever I come to say anything he disapproves of accepting for this blog, then the comment will be removed.

      He wants to have a blog that minimally is sensible. He doesn’t want nonsense, say, posted, here, and all users of this blog definitely should appreciate this fact. Think, f.e., of YouTube, where the comments sections for MANY videos are often full of garbage, to say the least, spoiling an environment that also often contains good comments. It’s very frustrating. Well, Kevin wants a sane blog, and it’s one of the reasons why I greatly appreciate that he provides it.

      Anyway, since I responded to your comment, yours finally passed moderation verification. If you’re new to this blog, then the information, above, will hopefully help you to understand that this isn’t like what is often, regularly experienced with comments sections at YouTube.

      Kevin informed readers a year or two ago that his time for moderating comments submitted is limited, for he certainly has much more to do than this moderation. So, we just need to be patient about this; and, let us not forget, that this important blog that he provides is free to use for anyone who wishes to use it.

  14. Leon says:

    All of this wonderful research that is being done by everyone some how needs to be archived some place outside the internet. If they get their way one day we will loose this tool and everything recorded about that day will be lost.

    • mikecorbeil says:

      I don’t think it’ll be totally lost; surely not, or so I hope anyway. How it can be preserved is another thing. We can save copies of the artitcles and videos, sure, but that can be problematic, for hard disk drives, f.e., don’t last forever. I’ve gone through plenty of them over the past 20+ years. Reporting from Kevin Ryan, AE911Truth, and (two “sister” sites), and possibly some other sources, such as, f.e., should be well archived. Otherwise, there’s a risk of losing this material, say.

      I don’t need in order to know that 9/11 isn’t what Washington continues to want to fool us into believing, for Washington’s story has always been rather incredible, and the launching of war on Afghanistan only made this all the more clear. I enlisted in the USN at age 18 of my own will or volition and it was without any desire for war. No one recruited me. During boot camp, we were taught what our first oath is and it’s to defend the Constitution. Well, Washington “elites” don’t care about the Constitution.

      They don’t.

      So, decades later, I haven’t become exempt of my military service oath. I haven’t been in the military for many years, but what I refer to is the philosophy, which is to say that we need to defend our countries against criminal predators, and we have an awful lot of them; sick “elites” who want to treat the rest of us as if we’re nothing more than a bunch of dumb fools, etc. It’s every voter’s responsibility to not support these corrupt “elites”.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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