WATCH: The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 – Kevin Ryan
In 2011, experts and scientists from around the world gathered in Toronto, Canada to present new and established evidence that questions the official story of 9/11. This evidence was presented to a distinguished panel of experts over a 4 day period.Through their analysis and scientific investigations, they hope to spark a new investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Kevin Ryan worked for Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and was fired in 2004, for publicly asking questions about UL’s involvement in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Ryan is an editor of the Journal for 9/11 Studies and a founder member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Did I say he’s lying? Hope not. Are you being serious? Obviously he can’t ‘lie’ about the location the planes hit. I think you know that. What he called a ‘coincidence’, he seemed to say it ironically, otherwise why mention it at all in this particular context? was the planes ‘accidentally’ hitting the same place the upgrading work was/had taken place. He clearly thought the two ‘facts’ were important, important enough to link and mention here. If what he’s saying is true, then it would have to be much more than a mere ‘coincidence.’ It would be a miracle. A logistical and practical one too. Any pilot that managed it, under those circustances, would have skill sets that are unimaginable and close to unique.
Ryan’s analysis is, seemingly, extremely sober and fact based. It isn’t, as far as the presentation goes, the ‘rhetoric’ employed, too ‘out there’ and the calm nature of his language and the questions and answer section is rational and unforced. All that is good work. However, he then, and nobody picks up on this, unless I’ve not heard it, makes an extraordinary statement which, if accurate, leaves an awful lot hanging in the air.
Ryan talks about the upgrading of the fire protection that was taking place at the Twin Towers, or had already taken place previously and mentions the number of floors where this process of uprading/improving occurred, and then states that it’s a ‘coincidence’ that it was prescisely here the planes crashed into the buildings! I think it sounds, if this statement is accurate or true, to be far more than a mere ‘coindidence.’ It implies, at least to me, and possibly to Ryan too, that these floors acted like a bullseye on a target and the planes were like arrows hitting those bullseyes… twice. Ryan appears to think this is significant and more than a ‘coincidence.’
I, personally, find this hard to believe. Either it’s two extraordinary coincidences, the level of skill and logistics required to hit precisely those floors seems, on the face of it, mindboggling in the extreme… or Ryan is making it up and the audience swallow this piece of ‘rhetoric’ with barely a murmur in total silence mesmerized by a skilled magician. Or perhaps there’s some other explanation?
There are weapons out there where the target is ‘painted’ by a laser or the like. It is quite possible to imagine that where the ‘upgrading;’ was taking place, the target was ‘painted’ in some way or another, which of course requires the planes being flown into the Twin Towers to be guided electronically to a target.
You’d have to ask those with more expertise than me whether you can use the software usually embedded within missiles in a commercial or military airplane.
But if you wanted to come up with a logical and credible hypothesis, this is the one I would present to you……
Of course one can invent unknown secret weapons to explain the terrible events of 9/11, but that doesn’t make Ryan’s statement about the ‘coincidence’ of the planes crashing into the parts of the towers that were refurbished and upgraded/fireproofed, sound anymore probable or even rational.
Are you saying it isn’t true or isn’t a coincidence? Because it IS true. The planes did hit in the same location work was being done. So, if it’s not a coincidence what is it?
I just listened to the section you mention and didn’t get the impression you did, e.g. the coincidence of the planes hitting the towers where the upgrading was being done. You seem to be really reading into what he said, and wrongly so. You have a lot of ‘implies’, and ‘seems to me’ and ‘maybe’s’ in your comment.
But Ryan definitely used the word ‘coincidence’ in relation to his ‘revelation’ that the planes hit the towers in the spots/floors that were being, or had recently been renovated. Are you telling me he didn’t use the word ‘coincidence’ at all? How does he know those floors were being upgraded if, as he also states, the records have ‘vanished’? It’s Ryan that brings one attention to the ‘conincidence’ not me. I only noticed it. It’s not an ‘impression’ Ryan used the term, not me. I just think it’s extremely odd and an extraordinary claim on his part. The reason I used language that doesn’t come right out and say that he sounds like a charlatan who’s making this extraordinary claim up on the spot, is because I’m kinda giving him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was just carried away by his imagination?
Which do you think he’s lying about? The location the planes hit or the location the work was being done?