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.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • tom

    It’s an “interesting” justice system that can bring charges against top government officials for spying on their political opponents or for marital infidelity, but not for conspiring to attack their own nation with the loss of 3,000 lives.

  • Merrifield

    Another person to explore would be Ted Olson, whose wife was on the Pentagon plane and whose supposed cell phone calls were the entire basis of the “Muslims with box cutters” story. During the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the FBI (inadvertently?) showed conclusively that even though Mr. Olson said he had several conversaations with his wife as the plane headed to the Pentagon, these did not occur. Not one. He should be confronted with this. I have a feeling that perhaps his good legal work for outstanding causes lately could be an attempt to assuage his guilt about his participation in the fiction of the official story of 9/11, but it’s only my opinion. . .

  • cstahnke

    Look what evidence there is has been gathered and put together by many excellent researchers enough to present a reasonable case possibly for a conviction of obstruction of justice. Certainly it is not a bad idea to do more research but it will go nowhere just as the assassinations of the sixties which all have smoking guns pointed at the government so to speak. For example, forensic evidence that is in the trial record shows that RFK was shot in the back of the head at point blank range therefore Sirhan could not possibly have killed him yet Sirhan is still in prison. We have the facts around all these events but we do not have the country because the country belongs to those who took it from us fifty-three years ago. We need to assert the truths that the propaganda organs forbid us to state and, btw, most “progressive” and alternative sites also refuse to entertain. We have to promote sites like this one and a few others who are willing to allow those of us who champion “conspiracy theories” and attempt to spread these ideas elsewhere even though you will be banned and/or censored from those sites.

    If you aren’t ready to confront 9/11 Truth then your critique of the system half-assed at best. The conventional and more radical left are, in fact, our much more sophisticated version of the East German STASI opposition.

    • nomadfiles

      Right you are. I can’t believe how the otherwise radical left shrink from 911 investigation.
      Look how uncomfortable Chris is.

      • Eol Awki

        Anyone of Chris’s stature, or Chomsky, who reuses to even entertain a doubt about the government’s role in 9/11 or even to allow discussion of it in their presence have to be considered at best naive and at worst a gatekeeper. Neither of these folks can be considered naive.

  • Silverado

    What I’d like to know is WHO placed the bet in the futures market and stood to gain as a result of that bet that the markets would crash as a result of 9/11?? Remember that?? Someone it seems bought a whole bunch of options with that specific bet and then basically cleaned up when the markets did exactly that – they crashed. The govt knows who this was and I wouldn’t be surprised that there’s a lot of others that know who this was as well. Anyone else remember this?? Anyway, I’d bet anything I have that the name of this person and/or company who actually made the bet and the purchase of those options would open up many doors in regards to the truth about what happened on 9/11.

    • sisterlauren
      • Silverado

        Thanks sis!!
        So they don’t really have a name as much as suspicions and in that 2nd link there’s no names mentioned at all. So somebody made the bet and bought the options. But they don’t dare show up to collect because the gig would be up – they’d be…made. Why can’t they find out who specifically made the purchase?? They identify one of the banks that the purchase was made at. At the time my brother was working at Boeing and you should have seen that stock fall as well. The joke around the family involves what everyone of us should have done the very day those planes crashed, in your trading accounts ASAP afterwards. And that was to be betting the farm and backing up the truck and buying all the BA shares you could at about $30 or less and that Boeing would recover. Anyway I found this interesting:

        On September 29, 2001 – in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media – the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.

        “The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors – whose identities and nationalities have not been made public – had advance knowledge of the strikes.” They don’t dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.

        “… October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called “put” options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp.”

        “…The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options…”

        As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks.

    • sisterlauren

      9/11 Attacks: Criminal Foreknowledge and Insider Trading lead directly to the CIA’s Highest Ranks

  • nomadfiles
  • Marv Sannes

    Ehud Barak resigns from PM of Israel and goes to TX to work for a IT company? Kind of a strange career move 10 month before Sept. 2001. “The Jew Call” or Odigo software, the “dancing Israelis”, smirking Michael Chertoff, Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim misplaced 2.3 trillion and his flight termination co., in addition to the co. that refubs 767’s to tankers, Barak shows up on BBC (largest English speaking program on the planet) to tell us of the War on Terror, before either Tower has been destroyed, Zelikow’s masterful management of the 911 Comm cover-up, the history of Likud, the history of Mossad and their pattern of violence and use of terrorism and mass murder as state policy, Hellerstein, Silverstein, and the complete absence of court process, Wolfowitz, Perle, and all those dual citizens sprinkled thru out the Executive, Defense, and especially the Justice Dept.. And, that disgusting, revolting, nauseating spectacle of Netanyahu ordering the US Congress to attention and applause on cue – rats licking the coke spigot of this obscene test in criminality.

    How to explain mass murder for gain? Addiction? Power? Greed? Satanic? Evil? Generations of religious training in being ‘special’, ‘elect’, ‘chosen’, ‘martyr’, ‘saint’. And, most distressing: How can such a seminal event in a culture’s existence remain below the level of dialogue? How can this be? How can this research not discuss the most obvious of all the patterns glaring at us, blasting sirens, bells, whistles, red lights, rifle shots, and a landscape scatted with the broken, burned, and shattered bodies of children? ZIKA virus emergence after Dilma Rouseff kicks the Israeli security co. out of Brazil and the contract for Olympics security. Pattern. State racism encouraged in Israel, Apartheid encouraged in Israel. If one culture possesses the depravity to commit mass murders – the two most likely suspects are America and Israel.

    Oh shit, I’ve just started – Israel was the mastermind, and began putting things in place in America the week the Wall came down in Germany – a Wall 1/2 the height and 40 times shorter than today’s Israeli Wall. The “evil hearts of men” did 9/11 and those men needed a deep state’s planning. ISRAEL. Qui bono. Pattern.

  • Eol Awki

    To examine direct, indirect and negative evidence is simply not enough. It’s not JUST about evidence. There has to be a pattern, a likely scenario, a qui bono. Means, motive, opportunity. Who had the means to commit the crime? Who had motive? Who had the opportunity? Focus on these and you will find a hearty list of suspects. And at the top of that list has to be a small rogue set of highly placed US officials (military, well-placed neocons, FAA, Vice-President, etc), the CIA, Mossad and a highly efficient national and global network of Israeli interests and dual citizens. The Saudis are merely a distraction. You will never bring these people to justice – they are unassailable.

  • Anders Otte

    Kevin Ryan says: “investigate ourselves” and of course he’s right; but I have a practical problem I have been going with several ideas about how to make more evidence available on 9/11, but with all of them I’m not able to do it myself:
    1. I don’t possess the adequate skills or job connections.
    2. As a non US citizen I don’t have access to all the needed informations.
    3. Most of my ideas demand more work than I can lift myself.
    So to get to the point, I suggest 2 methods of making better documentation of 9/11:

    1: The released audio recordings of FDNY’s communication on 9/11
    2: A 3D model of WTC and a simpler 3D model of New York.
    Make a visual timeline of where what communication took place, and add any found media documenting what is being talked about.

    Make a calcutation for all 3 towers in WTC over how much potential energy that could at best be available for destruction of the buildings, considering the rapid fall times (and therefore limited amount of energy that could possibly have been converted/redirected to destructive workloads). Afterwards compare that energy with needed explosive energy to achieve the same effect.

    Best regards, Anders Otte
    (computer geek on early retirement in Demnark).

  • Bob

    There’s enough evidence, or in some cases lack thereof, to warrant a new investigation. But we have run up against the same problem citizenry has faced for centuries. We rarely see the wealthy and powerful investigate themselves when they know they are guilty.

  • ResearchGuy

    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 here, 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 doing 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? Some people knew the 9/11 was an inside job from the beginning, and others have continued to figure it out year after year. Millions now know it. And yet many people keep spending their time arguing about whether the latest attack was another false flag or not, rather than coming to some kind of agreement on what we should do with the evidence on the false flags we agree on. There’s a politician from some years back who was fond of saying “If the First Amendment doesn’t solve the problem, the Second Amendment will.” How long are we going to wait for the First Amendment to solve the problem? How many more innocent grassroots citizens have to die prematurely because of big Pharma or big Agriculture, or have their millions of hours worth of labor stolen from them because of the elites sabotaging the economy, gaming the gold market and other markets, etc.? Some of us used to think that 9/11 was the linchpin issue — that if we could get something done about that, it would carry is a long way toward solving a lot of the other really big problems facing humanity. Maybe that was true, but the successful action we expected never seems to have happened. And the 9/11 truth movement is fragmented not only by different opinions about what really happened on 9/11, but because it brought the Left and the Right together apparently only so that they could fight about what should be done instead of agree on what could be done and just do it.

  • asif

    well Kevin, most reasonable people understand the official account of 9/11 to be an impossible lie. you seem to have investigated any and all aspects of 9/11 as have many many many other highly credible people, yet, the perps still walk free. so what bloody good does it to know we were lied to, know who might reasonably be behind it all? the pertinent questions have been answered it seems, but where is the power to do anything about it? “we can make real progress.” Ha! the only way to have all the answers is to be handed a confession by someone involved, but even if that was handed to you Kevin… what would you bloody well do about it? who you gonna call ffs?

  • Watcher

    Although much has been done so far,…. an impressive amount of investigation actually, this will crime and the criminals will never be brought to justice by staying within the ‘system’. Those who committed this control the ‘system’, so will never let themselves be charged by it. Independent investigators will need to go outside the ‘system’ and find ways to extract confessions and who was involved, out of known key people and start connecting more of the dots from there. We know who many of the key people are. It may mean that investigators will have to do ‘iilegal’ things to extract those confessions, but so be it. This isn’t a fair fight to start with. After the conspiracy finally breaks, the investigators will have to granted immunity for any illegal actions they may have been forced to engage in to pull it off. (same as the Philadelphia students that broke into the FBI offices back in the early 70’s and exposed all the illegal behavior the FBI was engaging in – COINTELPRO, etc.. They had to engage in an ‘illegal act’ to expose the bigger crime)
    The JFK murder has now been pretty much fully solved,( but the known criminals were never brought to justice. We (the human race) can’t let it happen a second time.

  • Mike

    This is good guidance for adding to the anthology of evidence that continually questioning the story that has been fed with the mainstream media. Additionally, when citizen journalists go on missions to find answers, it would lend additional credibility when we cite our sources.

    I particularly agree with your point about not resorting to anti-semitic rhetoric on Israel etc. Not only does diminish the credibility of the investigation but also it brings hates and division among all of us as Americans who are trying to understand true answers. Seeking truths about 9/11 is not un-American, anti-Israel or anti-semitic.

  • Lashay Mara

    Thought-provoking suggestions . I Appreciate the information – Does anyone know if my business might find a sample TSP-1-C form to complete ?

    • AbbieMucci

      Hi Lashay Mara, my assistant located a sample Freddie Mac / Fannie Mae 710 version using this

  • Greg Burton

    There is no statute of limitations for the crimes committed on 9/11, and the subsequent “war on terror” used to shred the US Constitution and pillage the public’s wealth for the transnational criminal cabal behind these crimes: mass murder and treason. Given time, civil society would recover, discover these massive crimes, find a means of bringing these people to justice.

    Which is why the transnational criminal cabal must continue to subordinate the world within a false flag milieu. Continue the Continuity of Government designed by Cheney and Rumsfeld, activated after 9/11, providing the pretext for the police state and their never-ending war against us. Continue the rape and carnage against the nation states of the world. Continue to push for a nuclear confrontation with Russia; by finding the means of placing Hillary Clinton in the White House, as she would be willingly to provide the pretext (false flag) for this war.

    For only a nuclear war will provide them the means of covering up their crimes forever. The destruction of what remains of civil society, the 9/11 evidence, and the murder (depopulation) of billions of people beneath an irradiated rubble-heap.

    Actually, when you consider the suppressed “Iron Mountain Report” and Kissinger’s NSSM-200, it’s really what they’ve been planning all along.