The Criminal Destruction of 9/11 Evidence - Part 1

A person commits the federal crime of tampering with evidence when he or she knowingly alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to interfere with an investigation, possible investigation, or other proceedings by the federal government.

Compiled by Kevin Brant

Fire Prevention & Protection

January 1, 2002 – Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire?  Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire?  Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire?  Of course not.  But essentially, that’s what they’re doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap.  Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Editor of Fire Engineering, Bill Manning

Kevin Ryan is a 9/11 whistleblower and the author of “Another Nineteen,” published in 2013, which identified 19 individuals—all high level US government officials—who he believes were more likely a driving force behind 9/11 than the 19 alleged hijackers identified as culprits by the FBI.  The book also shows how the “19 hijackers” were brought to USA.

Kevin Ryan was also on the research team led by Professor Niels Harrit, an Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry University of Copenhagen, that produced a peer reviewed research paper that established the presence of thermitic material In the WTC dust.  Thermite, or more specifically nanothermite, can account for the enormous amount of energy required to demolish the 3 towers which fell at near free fall speed on September 11, 2001.

“The fragility of the NIST report is astonishing, it literally self destructs after subjected to the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny.”  – David Ray Griffin: 9/11 and the Evidence

September 2013 / Kevin Ryan:
The official account of the Twin Towers’ destruction was produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and released in September of 2005. Unfortunately, NIST’s report provided only a hypothesis of the events leading up to the initiation of the collapses, or the “collapse initiation sequence.” NIST did not attempt to explain how, once the collapses initiated, the upper sections of these 110-story skyscrapers would continue falling downward through the path of greatest resistance, instead simply asserting that, once each building was destabilized, “global collapse ensued.”

The report states that “The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.”

NIST’s only test for fireproofing loss, never included in the draft reports, involved shooting a total of fifteen rounds from a shotgun at non-representative samples in a plywood box.

These shotgun tests actually disproved NIST’s findings. One reason is that there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts. Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides. Moreover, there is no indication that fireproofing could have been stripped from beneath the aluminum cladding on the exterior columns, but in subsequent steps of its explanation, NIST depends on this.

NIST’s shotgun tests indicated that 1 MJ of energy was needed per square meter of surface area to shear the fireproofing off. …the extra energy needed would be several times more than the entire amount of kinetic energy available to begin with.

The problems with NIST’s explanation continue… where high temperatures were said to have softened the columns and floors. NIST did tests for this as well, but then abandoned the results.

The first test… showed that less than 2% of the samples had seen temperatures above 250 °C. Another test gave the one-sided result that no samples saw temperatures above 600 °C. The obvious problem was that steel does not soften or lose significant strength at the low temperatures indicated, yet NIST’s story depends on the softening or weakening of vast quantities of structural steel.

Fire resistance tests for the steel components used in the Twin Towers were performed by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) at the time of construction, and the results verified conformance to the New York City code requirements for multiple hours of fire resistance at the temperatures expected in a building fire.

On 9/11, according to NIST, the fires in the failure zones did not actually last very long. NIST’s estimates indicate that the fires in the failure zones of the towers lasted for only about 45 minutes in each case, much less than the 3 or 4 hours of fire resistance required by the NYC code.
…UL performed additional tests as part of the NIST investigation in order to establish the fire resistance of models of the WTC floor assemblies. The results were that the floor assembly models not only didn’t collapse, invalidating the longstanding “Pancake Theory,” but the floors barely sagged―only about 3 inches―despite the use of double the known floor load and two hours of fire exposure. NIST then added this 3-inch of sag result to its computer model, and by way of an unknown transformation, it suddenly became 42-inches of extreme sagging. This appears to have been a direct falsification of test results.

[NIST contended] sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward. To support this, NIST…had to take a computer mock-up of a 9-story high by 9-column wide section of steel wall and perform manipulations that had no relevance to the events at the World Trade Center.

NIST removed the virtual steel from its web of support by “disconnection,” stripped off all the fireproofing, exposed it to twice the known fire time (i.e. 90 minutes), and then applied an unspecified, utterly miraculous inward pull.

NIST’s final collapse initiation step states that, after all of these unscientific manipulations, “instability spread” around the entire building. Since the buildings came down uniformly into their footprints, and did so in approximately 10 seconds, there was precious little time for instability spread.

After providing a false collapse initiation sequence, NIST left us to ponder the idea that “global collapse ensued.” With this statement, NIST avoided analyzing the actual collapse dynamics, perhaps because they knew the observed phenomena violated everything we know about physics and the performance of steel skyscrapers, unless the use of explosives is allowed for consideration.
In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible. NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: “The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th.”


The Top Ten Connections BetweenNIST and Nano-Thermites
“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.” — NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

June, 2008 Kevin Ryan:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11… But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
…when reading NIST’s reports on the WTC… one might get the idea that no one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is, many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC investigation were not only well aware of nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and in some cases expertise in, this exact technology.
911 Review Articles by Kevin Ryan
Kevin Ryan’s Blog

Abby Martin interviews Kevin Ryan (2013), co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies and author of ‘Another 19’, a book that explores 19 alternative suspects that he alleges had the real means and motive to pull of the 9/11 attacks. Kevin Robert Ryan is a chemist and laboratory manager, who was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 11 September 2001. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time, remain unanswered by UL or NIST.

Access For Demolition Crews to the WTC Buildings

In 2001 Kevin Ryan was the site manager at… a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). UL had certified the steel in the World Trade Center buildings which were demolished September 11, 2001. In 2003 Ryan developed professional interest in the official investigation by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and by 2004 began questioning NIST directly.

This led to his termination after he went public with his findings. Why did not one or two, but three modern, steel-frame buildings completely collapse due to fire on 9/11 given that such an event had never taken place before?

Given the extensive evidence for demolition of the three towers on 9/11 assembled by Kevin Ryan and others, in 2009 and early 2010 Kevin Ryan authored four papers called “Demolition Access to the Towers” which attempt to address the issue of “Who could have placed explosives in the World Trade Center towers?” (The 4th paper will be an independent post). This post includes extended excerpts from this series.

Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part One – Tenants – August 2009 – Kevin Ryan:

The Twin Towers and WTC 7, all highly secure buildings, were most readily accessed by tenants, security and building management staff, and construction-related contractors.

Throughout the life of the WTC buildings, modifications were made to each structure. The modifications included upgrades to electrical, fire protection, and elevator systems, as well as general construction activities. As a rule, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) was responsible for initiating the modifications in the public access areas, and the tenants were responsible for completing the modifications throughout the leased spaces.

The North Tower Impact Zone

On 9/11, American Airlines Flight 11 hit the north face of the north tower (WTC 1) between floors 94 and 99. In a stunning coincidence, these floors bracket those that had been upgraded for fireproofing shortly before 9/11. This coincidence was amplified by the fact that one tenant occupied all of those floors – Marsh & McLennan (Marsh), which at the time was the world’s largest insurance brokerage company.

Marsh was a large company, with a number of subsidiaries… Marsh was also known to be notoriously secretive, and had been likened to the CIA. Its chief executive on 9/11 was Jeffrey Greenberg, a member of the Brookings Institution, the Trilateral Commission, and the son of the chairman of American International Group (AIG), Maurice Greenberg. AIG has been reported to be at the center of a number of CIA operations.

One month after 9/11, [Paul] Bremer would become the CEO for a new division called Marsh Crisis. Interestingly, the Yale graduate Bremer had been working to complete the National Report on Terrorism, and prior to that had been managing director for Kissinger Associates. Bremer was also a member of the board for Akzo Nobel, the parent of International Paint, a company that produced a fireproofing application for skyscrapers called Interchar.

Bremer was on the international advisory board for the Japanese mining and machinery company, Komatsu. The Komatsu-Dresser mining division… patented a thermite demolition device that could “demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.”


Here are some of them on the team

Help Spread 9/11 Truth Online
Mike Arnold
Help Spread 9/11 Truth Online
Carolyn Fifi
Help Spread 9/11 Truth Online
Kevin Brant
Michael Atkinson, U.S. Army Veteran for 9/11 Truth
Michael Atkinson
Help Spread 9/11 Truth Online
Claudio Marty