True Faction's John Bursill Interviews Newly-Minted Disinfo Artist Kevin Ryan
http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1724#
I had really hoped (against hope, I think) that Kevin Ryan would redeem himself in this interview, but in fact it was worse than I anticipated. My first thought was that someone must think that John Bursill's Australian accent gives him an air of credibility, because his interviewing skills seemed to amount to leading Ryan into each of what was clearly a series of pre-arranged talking points.
First, under the pretense of discussing all the great papers that have been submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies of which Ryan is an editor, and after a perfunctory nod to a couple of papers including Graeme MacQueen's excellent analysis of the FDNY's oral histories, Bursill and Ryan tackle that pesky Pentagon issue by lauding Frank Legge's lame apologia for the Big Boeing Hit the Pentagon claim. Ryan says that the debate is separated into those who say a big Boeing hit and those who say a smaller plane hit. Never mind that the real issue isn't the size of the plane that allegedly hit, but whether there is hard evidence of any plane having hit the Pentagon at all, and in the case that it could be shown that it definitely was a big Boeing jet, whether that plane was AA77. I have little doubt that what they have in mind is that if they can convince people it *was* a big Boeing, convincing them that it was AA77 would be comparatively much easier. Ryan then equates the eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon which is very poorly if at all documented with the thoroughly and extensively documented eyewitness testimony at the WTC--the aforementioned oral histories (which may be why he bothered to praise Graeme MacQueen's paper in the first place.)
Ryan follows this by discussing his own work on who had access to the towers. He painfully follows some tortured "logic" to explain how he chose whom to focus on given the huge number of people who of course had access when you include, as he does, any and all tenants of the buildings. Tenants near the impact zone are particularly suspicious for some reason, as is the fact that fireproofing was updated on the floors affected by the impact shortly before 9/11. None of this is of course evidence in itself, but that doesn't stop Ryan from weaving a bizarre series of links involving Paul Bremner, up to and including the fact that Bremner served as a director for the Japanese company Komatsu which he says patented a thermite based demolition device in 1996. I suppose we are to conclude that naturally Bremner's office in the WTC was the perfect place from which to deploy all those thermite-device prototypes he acquired from the Komatsu boardroom? Moind you, I have no idea what role of any Bremner played in 9/11. The point is that Ryan and Bursill use a totally different standard when it comes to their next talking point: Israeli involvement.
Ryan bends over backwards to whitewash any notion of Israeli responsibility for 9/11 from the minds of his listeners. For one, he says, Israel was among the many countries whose governments warned us that al Qaeda was up to something before 9/11. Now why would they do that if it was they who were going to attack us, right? And sure, those Israeli art students who were caught videotaping the burning towers (they were movers, Kevin, not art students) and who turned out to be Mossad agents according to FBI sources quoted by the Jewish Forward magazine (Ryan says he doesn't know if those claims are true!) may have know in advance about the attacks, but, and he stresses this--foreknowledge does not equal guilt! So, sure, Israel may have warned us, and even sent agents to document the event, but to suspect them instead of Bush's former viceroy of Iraq? He hints that people would only do that because of an anti-Israel or anti-Jewish bias.
Incredibly, Bursill and Ryan don't stop there--Silverstein, they claim, probably said they pulled building 7 because he wanted to be able to say that he tried to let the world in on the secret before reverting in fear to the official story dictated to him by the Bush administration about how his buildings managed to collapse and provide him a windfall of billions of dollars.
In summary, there is absolutely no question left in my mind that Kevin Ryan has either turned to the dark side or was always a part of it. His credibility capital is now in the red.
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
Kevin Ryan is just like Jon Gold
Just like Jon Gold, Kevin now appears to be stupid when he says these illogical things. It isn't for lack of brain power however that he argues this way but a twist of trying to weave fiction with reality to misdirect the audience.
As I mentioned in the past, the Mossad operates under the Israeli government. Intel agents have protocols with regards to information. If a Mossad agent knows that the WTC would be blown up, you can be pretty sure the chain of command knows about it, and with something this important likely all the way up to the prime minister unless the system was dysfunctional. Given that more than one Mossad operative was among the arrested movers, I'd bet this participation by Mossad in the moving company was sanctioned by their agency. This was not a lone operator who was on his own (perhaps on leave and earning a sideline as a mover). Now the WTC was owned and managed by Larry Silverstein, a prominent figure not just in the US, but even more so in Israel where he is friends with current and previous Prime Ministers.
So would the Mossad sit back and film as Silverstein's buildings are attacked or would they warn him, have the buildings evacuated and protected as best as they can by US authorities. The only reason they would stand from a distance filming the attacks was that they were part of the attack in the first place.
Ever since Kevin Ryan attempted to divert the blame for the WTC attacks on the Saudis and the Bush family, I sort of knew he has joined the disinfo fold. Just like Jon Gold, everyone is fair game, blame everyone except Israel. The pattern among these disinfo agents is quite common now.
Jon Gold tries to steer people away from controlled demolition altogether to protect Isreali complicity, but failed as other CD deniers/bashers have. Kevin Ryan was later trotted out to attempt to reconcile controlled demolition with a narrative that exempts the complicity of Israeli operators. He is failing as well and sounds just as stupid as Gold in the process.
Previous article from Kevin Ryan blaming Bush and Saudis
Hi Adam,
The following link is for you.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2314
I think ex President Bush was guilty, if not of planning, then of the cover up of 9-11. Kevin pointing at him is fine to me. But I find Ryan's paper carefully tiptoed around the issue of the building's owner who in the end would have ultimate control over building security. Since rigging three WTC buildings with explosives would probably raise some security alarm bells, the fact that none of them rang makes me think that they were disabled or circumvented, most likely with insider knowledge. Does not this at least point a finger at Silverstein as a person of interest? It does to me but Kevin Ryan seems to think not at all about it. Now combine that with the Mossad filming the attack, the PNAC paper which was authored predominantly by Zionists, and the precursor of PNAC, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm which was made for Silverstein's friend Benjamin Netanyahu. I would think the convergence of all these point towards Israeli complicity rather than Saudi Arabia.
Now if Saudi intel agents were caught filming the collapse of WTC while wearing Israeli army uniforms, then things would be different. Maybe Saudis were complicit or not, but for now I consider Arabs and Muslims as the patsies meant to be blamed for the attacks rather than the real perpetrators of the crime.
none of them rang
well put, Juan.
But this reminds me, again, in my disappointment or concern with DRG, also.
Although I understand his adamant stance against pointing the finger at "whodunnit", the fact that he has not written more if anything atall on the anomalies surrounding the WTC security lapses, the finaglings of Silverstein, et. al., i find diappointing and perplexing.
I agree. He seems to
I agree. He seems to purposefully go out of his way not to mention certain individuals(Suter,Zakheim,Silverstein etc.). I personally asked him about this and he got very defensive.
I'll listen to the interview first
but if he indeed invoke Frank Legge's paper as some kind of gold standard of excellence, that is disappointing. Legge's paper is nothing more than an opinion piece and he is a chemist attempting to dismiss the technical findings of pilots. His take that "maybe" the plane hit the building from the North approach and the perps staged the lamp posts just for the fun of it in order to throw off the movement is laughable. Gretavo, you said "the eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon which is very poorly if at all
documented..." Obviously as a CIT supporter I strongly disagree with this. I do not think the eyewitnesses are all part of a massive disinfo conspiracy w/r to the NoC flight path, and as such, regard the mutual corroboration as conclusive.
As for who planted the explosives: we have extremely strong circumstantial evidence the Silverstein-Israel connection. But we also have strong circumstantial evidence that the motive for wanting the crime to happen comes from PNAC. To be fair, I have not read Kevin Ryan's essay so I don't know what evidence he cites to implicate Bush and the Saudis.
I have to say, though, that I'm far from convinced (at this point anyway) that Ryan is a disinfo agent. I also don't know if I agree with the sentiment that suggesting Saudi Arabia was involved is engaging in LIHOPpery while suggesting Israel was involved is MIHOP. Obviously if the criminal faction within the US government conspired with ANY other government to facilitate the attack, it's a case of MIHOP.
poorly documented eyewitnesses
hey Adam, I was actually not referring to eyewitnesses documented by CIT. for better or worse those are well documented--they carry a lot more weight than the ones I was referring to, which were the ones Ryan was referring to, which were the ones allegedly corroborating the official story (you know, the ones that included the plane cartwheeling on the lawn, etc.) I've always said that CIT's eyewitness accounts, faked or not as the case may be (I know you don't think they were faked) have to be taken seriously because they either prove the official story to be impossible OR prove a well planned deception involving Pentagon police officers--a big story either way.
As for PNAC vs Israeli motives, um, PNAC is/was a neocon, read zionist, interest group. The Bush admin certainly enabled many PNAC signatories to enter high levels of government, but PNAC is not the U.S. government any more than the National Organization for Women is. The difference is that the NOW's agenda (Aaron Russo's NWO theories notwithstanding) does not overlap precisely with Israel's goal of globalizing their aggression against Arabs and Muslims who refuse to bend to their will.
The zionist connections to 9/11 are like an elephant in the room and Kevin Ryan's protestations are akin to ignoring that elephant to focus instead on the already dissected frog on the coffee table.
Curious
I see your points.
I'm curious: So you conclude Israeli explosives were in the WTC. What about the ones in the Pentagon? Israeli or American? If the light poles were indeed staged, were they staged by Mossad operatives or U.S. operatives?
Since you believe 9/11 was an "inside-outside" job, exactly how much of it do you think was American and how much of it Israeli?
no no no
I haven't concluded anything about the provenance (or even specific type) of explosives in the WTC. Unlike Mssrs. Ryan and Bursill, I am not fond of speculative theories based on coincidences. :) I don't need to have a theory as to where the explosives came from to know that Larry Silverstein should be thoroughly investigated. I suspect the explosives in the Pentagon could have been placed there under the cover of "renovation work" but that's because the Pentagon in theory has/had much tighter security than the WTC, and unlike in the towers (and building 7) where the devices would have been placed all over the buildings, the explosives in the Pentagon were truly localized in the alleged impact zone and there alone.
Warnings or Set-up?
Israelis were apparently tracking a few of the alleged 'hijackers' and were in the perfect position to set these people up to take the fall for the 9/11 Attacks.
"The paper has uncovered details of a major Israeli spy ring involving some a 120 agents for the intelligence service Mossad operating across America and some masquerading as arts students.
"The ring was reportedly hard on the heels of at least four members of the hijack gang, including its leader Mohammed Atta"
"the Israeli agents were detected by their American counterparts and thrown out of the country, it says.
The US authorities said then that they were students whose visas had expired"
"Just a month before the deadly attacks, the paper said, Mossad handed over to the Americans a detailed report naming several suspects they believe were preparing an attack on the United States.
But it contained no specific indications as to the objective and it was not treated seriously."
The point is that these 'militants' were being set up to take the fall for the 9/11 attacks. It seems likely that the 'warnings' were part of the set-up.
"A senior military officer told me that because of the visas and other documentation needed to infiltrate team members into the United States a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved."
"Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase."
yes, exactly
and those "militants" may well have been U.S. intelligence assets, they may well have been involved in drug trafficking, lap dances, and all night BBQ sessions. but there is no evidence that they did indeed board any planes on 9/11 to hijack them, and much obviously falsified evidence to suggest that we are meant to believe that's what they did.
That's the problem with the story of the visa "express lane" in Jeddah told by J. Michael Springmann. It's entirely possible that people were being given visas who seemed not to qualify (for having "links to terrorists" or what not). Either they were part of an unrelated operation that required this, or a show was made of the visas being granted against the local officials' better judgment precisely to prop up the official story. Of course the fake truthers with their LIHOP agenda will argue that the only reason for these visas being granted was to get the Arab/Muslim suicide hijackers into the U.S. to carry out their deadly kamikaze mission.