Support 911Blogger


Kevin Fenton: Long Anticipated Book Now Available

Disconnecting the Dots: How 9/11 Was Allowed to Happen
By Kevin Fenton

As reported here in 2010, 911Blogger and History Commons contributor Kevin Fenton has recently released his long anticipated book: Disconnecting the Dots: How 9/11 Was Allowed to Happen which is now available on amazon.com

Description

Questioning actions taken by American intelligence agencies prior to 9/11, this investigation charges that intelligence officials repeatedly and deliberately withheld information from the FBI, thereby allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Pinpointing individuals associated with Alec Station, the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, as primarily responsible for many of the intelligence failures, this account analyzes the circumstances in which critical intelligence information was kept from FBI investigators in the wider context of the CIA’s operations against al-Qaeda, concluding that the information was intentionally omitted in order to allow an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States. The book also looks at the findings of the four main 9/11 investigations, claiming they omitted key facts and were blind to the purposefulness of the wrongdoing they investigated. Additionally, it asserts that Alec Station’s chief was involved in key post-9/11 events and further intelligence failures, including the failure to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora and the CIA's rendition and torture program.
 

About the Author

Kevin Fenton has a degree in law from Liverpool University. He currently works as a translator.

http://www.amazon.com/Disconnecting-Dots-How-Allowed-Happen/dp/0984185852

 

_______________________________________________________

 

Kevin Fenton's blog on 911Blogger:

http://911blogger.com/blog/127

 

more from Kevin Fenton...

Who Is Ahmed Al-Hada? With Introduction By Kevin Fenton
http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=473

Who Is Margaret Gillespie? With Introduction By Kevin Fenton
http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=451

Who Is Michael Maltbie? With Introduction By Kevin Fenton
http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=254

Who Is Sherry Sabol? With Introduction By Kevin Fenton
http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=431

FBI Documents Contradict 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18412

9/11 Timeline Update, Day Of 9/11, Hijackers, Saudi Connection, 3/16/2008
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93073&postcount=1

BCCI And Terrorism Finance – Additions To 9/11 Timeline As Of March 23, 2008
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93169&postcount=1

9/11 Commission, Al-Qaeda in Italy, Hijackers - 9/11 Timeline Additions - 3/30/2008
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93248&postcount=1

Victor Bout, Rich B, GWOT, Pakistan And Much More – Additions As Of April 5, 2008
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93361&postcount=1

Michael Mukasey, Day Of 9/11, Osama Bin Laden - 9/11 Timeline Additions As Of 4/20/08
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93536&postcount=1

Additions To The 9/11 Timeline As Of July 6, 2008
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=94391&postcount=1

Anthrax, Embassy Bombings – Additions To The 9/11 Timeline As Of August 10, 2008
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=94730&postcount=1

9/11 Commission, Anthrax – Additions To The 9/11 Timeline As Of August 31, 2008
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=94989&postcount=1

United 93, 9/11 Commission – Additions To The 9/11 Timeline As Of September 21, 2008
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=95162&postcount=1

Additions To The Timeline As Of 9/28/2008
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=95255&postcount=1

The Co-Conspirators Of Tom Wilshire
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=95276&postcount=1

Reaction To James Bamford Interview About CIA's Protection Of Almihdhar And Alhazmi
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19818

Mixed Reaction To James Bamford's Spy Factory
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20312

Bamford Answers One Question: What NSA IG Report?
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20324

Memo: Government ‘Minders’ at 9/11 Commission Interviews ‘Intimidated’ Witnesses
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20597

Zelikow Failed To Mention Possible Criminal Referral Of False Statements - NORAD/FAA
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=96932&postcount=1

Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijacking Targeting NY
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97093&postcount=1

Awareness Of Military Cell At FAA Headquarters Of Events On Day Of 9/11
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97696&postcount=1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Disagree With Book's Apparent Premise

The book summary seems to assert that the 9/11 attacks were conducted by authentic Islamic terrorists, who's success can be attributed to official U.S. "failures". While it appears that persons who were quite arguably "patsies" were officially shielded from scrutiny, there is little to no evidence of their guilt or Bin Laden's in the 9/11 attacks.

However:

- Residues for explosives developed by the U.S. federal government were located within WTC dust.

- There is little to no evidence of Al Qaeda hijackers behind the controls of the 4 9/11 aircraft.

- There is substantial evidence that the accused 9/11 hijackers were not the extremists they are alleged to have been.

- Evidence of 9/11 plane "black box" authenticity is oddly absent.

- There is substantial evidence supporting the view that the 9/11 planes were quite possibly under covert autopilot control when striking their targets.

- The official WTC building collapse explanations are based on theories that defy science and are not supported by physical evidence that was quickly destroyed.

- The government cannot explain why the WTC towers fell completely to the ground following collapse initiation.

Very good points Aidan

A trend in recent years has appeared (Examples: bin Laden suddenly found and killed, an incredibly ubiquitous Al-Qaeda threat even potentially reaching to the form of a sick 90 year old American woman). Part and parcel to this trend is a "cementing" of elements of the official story. We see the press, some authors, some alternative media, TSA, the government, etc. continue to try very hard to reinforce an official-story concept.
In other words, they are trying to emphasize wrong importances while blatantly excluding other dynamic facts. They are propping up the official 9/11 account, while omitting important evidence.
I won't buy into that sidewinder sale.
When very important significant facts are deliberately overlooked, I raise an eyebrow.

Enabling 9/11 patsies = treason & mass murder

Aidan: "The book summary seems to assert that the 9/11 attacks were conducted by authentic Islamic terrorists, who's success can be attributed to official U.S. "failures""

This is a misinterpretation of the book's title and summary. The book's title is: "Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI officials helped enable 9/11 and evaded government investigations." In the one place closest to what Aidan is getting at, the summary states: "thereby allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon"

I haven't read the book (ordered it) but I assume it's based on the research and writing Kevin's done for http://www.historycommons.org and http://www.hcgroups.wordpress.com. His documentation and analysis has been consistently careful and thorough. He has documented numerous links between the alleged hijackers, intelligence agencies and key MIC-linked entities, as well as specific actions by specific named CIA and FBI officials to protect the alleged 9/11 plot and hijackers from discovery and disruption by other CIA and FBI personnel.

This evidence proves the official story - al Qaeda, bin Laden and no one else - is false. This evidence has been ignored or dismissed by Establishment officials and media - even though this evidence is documented in official records and mainstream reporting - often by burying it in an endnote, at the end of a story, or with careful wording and spin. This evidence points to specific named persons who should have been investigated, but who were instead shielded from scrutiny, were not held to account, and were instead rewarded with promotions, bonuses and increased authority. That this has been the reaction of the Establishment says a lot about the importance of this evidence, and the extent to which our government and press are compromised.

Some of these CIA and FBI officials who "helped enable 9/11" may not have known the extent of the 9/11 plot. Some may not have known the plot would be allowed to succeed; for instance, some CIA personnel may have been told a case was being developed and they didn't want the FBI to screw it up. Most may not have known the towers were mined - or they may have believed foreign and domestic resistance to US imperialist ambitions threatened the American way of life, and the lives of a few thousand Americans was an acceptable price to pay in order to justify and fund a 'war on terror' that the American people would not have supported w/o a "new Pearl Harbor." Some of them may have been paid and not cared.

A full investigation could get to the truth. Kevin's documentation and analysis at History Commons, working w/ very little resources, has revealed a great deal about how the alleged hijackers were able to get into the US and allegedly avoid detection and arrest, despite numerous "missed opportunities." His work exposes the inadequacies and limitations of initial official inquiries, and exposes the 9/11 Commission's account of the alleged "failures" and "missed opportunities" as a fraud. This is valuable.

Kevin has a law degree. I would not expect him to be interested in or an expert on the construction and destruction of the WTC, just as I would not expect architects and engineers to be interested in or expert on the aspects of 9/11 that Kevin focuses on.

If anyone reads this book and finds errors in the documentation or analysis, please point them out. But dismissing this book with claims that it supports the official story, is a limited hangout or that it's bogus because it doesn't include evidence of controlled demolition is not useful, imho.

Book Summary Statements Speak For Themselves

"in order to allow an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States."

"allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

"Alec Station’s chief was involved in key post-9/11 events and further intelligence failures." ("further" implies pre-9/11 "failures")

The word "patsy" is not utilized in the description to characterize the "hijackers".

Therefore, it doesn't seem that the following assessment amounts to a "misinterpretation".

"The book summary seems to assert that the 9/11 attacks were conducted by authentic Islamic terrorists, who's success can be attributed to official U.S. "failures"

LIHOP is Limited Hangout

It's pretty late for a LIHOP analysis. Based on the summary statements I see, this book can only be a limited hangout. There is simply ZERO credible evidence that Islamic terrorists hijacked those four planes and commandeered them to their targets. Period. So I would agree with you Aidan.

Aidan, you've ignored a # of points in the summary & my comment

You're characterizing this book as supporting a coincidence/incompetence/negligence theory, when in the summary you're quoting from it says these "failures" to share info and prevent the attacks were intentional, deliberate and purposeful.

The public record on the alleged hijackers, incl. their motives and personal level of knowledge about the 9/11 plot, is incomplete and unclear in a lot of areas. However, it is clear that persons in the INS, State, CIA, FBI, NSA acted in ways that facilitated their entry into and activities in the US.

As bloggulator and I have pointed out, simply allowing the the 9/11 plot to succeed would be criminal. And, considering the large number of coincidental failures on the part of specific named people at these agencies to disrupt the 9/11 plot, and the efforts of these and other people to obstruct those who were trying to disrupt it, despite clear information that a plot to attack the US was in progress, the coincidence/incompetence/negligence theory doesn't hold up, and Kevin's numerous articles and historycommons.org entries have made this clear.

Documenting and exposing the actions of specific people in the FBI and CIA who were directly involved in facilitating the plot can be used to create pressure for a new investigation.

Are you in favor of only prosecuting those responsible for blowing up the WTC, or would you like to see the entire plot exposed and everyone responsible held accountable?

The official version of events is contradicted, undermined and disproven by info in the official records; do you see no value in this kind of research?

Disclosure; this has been acknowledged many times before at 911blogger, but so it's on the record in this thread, Kevin and I are both history commons contributors and I'm the person who scanned the 9/11 Commission and other records which he's used as sources, among others.

Who's 9/11 Plot? "Al Qaeda's" Or Western Interest's?

Was 9/11 an authentic Islamic terrorist plot or a covert plot directed by western interests that included a cast of protected patsies to be blamed later? I suspect the latter. Therefore I disagree with the book summary that explicitly implies that "Al Qaeda", Bin Laden and the accused hijackers were aided in their desire and effort to attack the U.S. on 9/11.

A western lead 9/11 plot would be much less believable with a cast of patsies in custody instead of aboard the 9/11 flights, thus a motivation to shield them and facilitate their activity. I wouldnt have a problem with a book summary that alleged that the accused were possible patsies who were officially aided to ensure their attendance during the attacks. But the book summary implies that the accused hijackers performed the attacks with little supporting evidence to combat the abundant evidence suggesting their inability to do so.

Once again I ask - who's plot? Al Qaeda's or that of western interests utilizing patsies?

"As bloggulator and I have pointed out, simply allowing the the 9/11 plot to succeed would be criminal."

"despite clear information that a plot to attack the US was in progress."

"Documenting and exposing the actions of specific people in the FBI and CIA who were directly involved in facilitating the plot can be used to create pressure for a new investigation."

More information is certainly needed before we can rationally

determine the true role of the alleged "hijackers", agreed?

My primary working hypothesis in this regard is that the alleged "hijackers" were hijacked once their operation began its final phase in the air. This hypothesis assumes that western intelligence assets influenced the planning of the "Big Wedding" to get teams of "hijackers" to board at least four planes in the domestic U.S. simultaneously and on a specific date (i.e. 9/11/2001), so that they could then be hijacked via remote control of the aircraft and then disposed of within the parameters of the larger 9/11 operation.

Always keep in mind that this operation was undoubtedly highly compartmentalized, especially with regard to the various required elements within the U.S. government.

There is no harm in deconstructing the various compartments individually as long as one remembers that each compartment only tells a limited story and that the full story will only be uncovered when all the compartments are deconstructed fully and those responsible for designing and implementing said compartments can be identified, along with all those responsible for funding and/or benefiting from the 9/11 false flag operation.

The above hypothesis is only the most likely scenario, imo, there are other valid hypothesis based on the same, incomplete information.

I sense that we are in general accordance here, yes?

Enjoy your 4th of July.

Thanks again for all your fine work.

Cheers!

"I suspect the latter." A full investigation could answer.

"Was 9/11 an authentic Islamic terrorist plot or a covert plot directed by western interests that included a cast of protected patsies to be blamed later? I suspect the latter."

You "suspect the latter"; then you are acknowledging you don't know for sure who the alleged hijackers were, what they knew, or what their motivations for entering the US were, taking flight lessons, making calls to the Yemen hub being monitored by the NSA/CIA, going on casing flights, buying tickets for the 9/11 flights, etc. You're also acknowledging you can't prove the latter, thus leaving open the possibility that the whole truth of the matter is different. This is the position the public is in regarding many aspects of 9/11, and a full investigation could answer these questions, as well as the question of who mined the towers and why.

According to the summary and title, this book documents intentional, deliberate and purposeful actions by certain named persons at the FBI and CIA to prevent discovery and disruption of the plot, concludes this was done in order to enable the 9/11 attacks, and that official investigations have avoided addressing this issue, even as the official records document evidence of this. This alone calls for a full investigation into 9/11 as well as the cover up. Dismissing this line of inquiry is a mistake, imho.

Agreed,

and well and simply stated.

I hope that you are enjoying your 4th of July, too.

Thanks.

Problem With Authentic Al Qaeda Allegation, Not An Investigation

Of course an investigation into any and all aspects of 9/11 is quite acceptable. Asserting that authentic Islamic terrorists were behind 9/11 - especially considering contradictory evidence and evidence of U.S. complicity - seems quite implausible.

"you are acknowledging you don't know for sure who the alleged hijackers were, what they knew, or what their motivations for entering the US were".

Correct. Which is why I also disagree with a work that asserts that the accused 9/11 terrorists were authentic, especially given the abundant evidence to the contrary. One should not be forced into a position of accepting the notion of terrorist authenticty in order to be able to support wider investigations.

Cannot Support Any Work Purporting An Unproven "Al Qaeda" Plot

Investigating networks of patsy protectors within the context of an "Al Qaeda" 9/11 plot being authentic, limits the scope of any investigation to exclude a pursuit of those who also caused the 9/11 aircraft to so accurately impact the 9/11 targets and who actually caused the WTC towers to be imploded.

The History Commons cites abundant evidence that the accused were patsies, but the book summary implies that the accused were authentic Islamic terrorists and that patsy evidence was omitted from the book.

Disconnecting the Dots: How 9/11 Was Allowed to Happen

A lot of cherry-picking was done to arrive at this.

If this title was designed to bring people in then leads them to a different conclusion then it is a good thing.
If the author stops short, then he has done a disservice to all of us. I MEAN ALL OF US.

Show "Long awaited? By whom?" by NYCGuy

YES, see above comments

.

I wonder at the remarks

here and the negative bias, without the chance for anyone to have read the book yet. Not very helpful.

What's up guys? Just to blurt something out?

If you read the book and then have critical remarks, so be it. This handling here is unfair and not an usefully approach.

Show "I do not have to read " by NYCGuy
Show "I do agree that the most likely long term result of the " by peacefulwarrior

This book has *some* value.

Outside of the incisively relevant comments and observations from Aidan Monaghan (which cast major doubts as to the *first hand* involvement of "Muslim hijackers") the "LIHOP" type of premise assumed by this book does not render any involved officials within the US (government/military) any less guilty than if they had planned and executed it *without* " Muslim hijackers" playing a part.

If a criminal case was presented in a real US court of law, with various US officials charged with "accessory before (and after) the fact" to mass murder (etc), the charges and possible penalties would be as serious as those potentially faced by the actual perpetrators.

A genuine trial along the lines of the "LIHOP" scenario would allow for the subpœna'ing and cross examination of witnesses, and as a result, the innocence or guilt of the alleged "Muslim hijackers" would very likely be established. Of course, a judge can only accept real evidence to be entered into the hearing, and as Aidan Monaghan stated, pretty much everything we have been told re. "Muslim hijackers" has little of no substance.. ie single sourced, hearsay, arrived at by unbelievable fantasy (such as the indestructible passport), and even outright lies.

Then, on top of all that, we have numerous elements of the 9/11 attacks which the "19 Muslim hijackers", or even their alleged paymasters, could never have organized, for example: The deliberate multi-count obstruction of military intervention that morning by Col. Marr, as recounted in the German video posted above, the deliberate alteration of the NORAD scramble-intercept protocol prior to 9/11 itself, the organizing of numerous war games, drills and exercises at the exact time frame coinciding with the attacks, and the wholesale tampering of 3 crime scenes and massive destruction/removal of vital evidence... amongst numerous others. The overwhelming evidence that explosives (of a very specific nature, only accessible to people of privileged positions in the defense sector) brought down WTC1, 2 and 7..... is the thick layer of icing on a very large cake.

This book is valuable in that it represents an avenue towards 9/11 Truth for those whose comfort zones (amongst other factors) dictate that Islamic people MUST have played a part... and that is likely be a very considerable segment of the (US) population.

Balance

Guys, the whole "no hijackers" claim is extremely weak and damages our efforts.

The rest of what Aiden says is fine, but this claim goes too far.

The fact is, all of America saw airport video showing Arab hijackers walking through the metal detectors -- that is seared into their brains. Unless you have a similar video showing them getting onto other planes or going out a side door, the case is basically not there.

Yes we have the issue of the names, and the old Guardian story that the Guardian later backed away from. 99.99999% of Americans watching fireworks this weekend will have heard nothing about that and will think we are nuts.

As we all know, numerous extremely plausible scenarios could involve Muslim or Arab men who had many reasons to hate the US being led to believe they were simply hijacking planes, or being told they were just getting on flights, or even being asked to sacrifice themselves by being killed on the planes.

We don't know.

To put down anyone who says there were hijackers makes our movement seem rigid and nutty -- seriously.

Erik said:
"Kevin has a law degree. I would not expect him to be interested in or an expert on the construction and destruction of the WTC, just as I would not expect architects and engineers to be interested in or expert on the aspects of 9/11 that Kevin focuses on."

Sounds reasonable, and we need more research in all the other areas.

"The book also looks at the findings of the four main 9/11 investigations, claiming they omitted key facts and were blind to the purposefulness of the wrongdoing they investigated."

Sounds good!

numerous scenariors indeed!

Your comment that ," numerous extremely plausible scenarios could involve Muslim or Arab men who had many reasons to hate the US being led to believe they were simply hijacking planes, or being told they were just getting on flights, or even being asked to sacrifice themselves by being killed on the planes."

I am not aware of any specific evidence that the alleged hijackers had reason to hate the US or were ready to sacrifice themselves. Does some exist?

What if they were just patsies who were unaware that indeed this was their last covert training mission of some sort? That seems plausible with respect to the 7/7 bombing suspects in the UK.

Unfortunately

>>I am not aware of any specific evidence that the alleged hijackers had reason to hate the US

People all over the world have stories to tell about how the US destroyed their lives. It seems unlikely we could necessarily know whether someone had enough reason to hate the US to hijack a plane or believe they were hijacking a plane.

+A+woman+I+know+who+founded+a+Berkeley+Civil+Liberties+Institute pointed out that when she went to the UN conference against Racism in South Africa, so many people had been wronged by the US in one way or another that she was overwhelmed by the response people had to her as a "US" citizen. She decided to instead describe herself as from "Berkeley", and she had more acceptance from the many attendees she met.

Yes I have realized for some time now

that we as a world "grow" real terrorists thru injustice. The massacres by the American military, along with the torture, starvation and abuse sanctioned by the US can only result in a deep hatred of the empire. Obviously not only by this country, for instance a young palestinian who throws rocks at an Israeli soldier which eventually results in his parent's home being bull dozed and his family being homeless as a result could easily spawn a " Terrorist".

Yes--but the question is

does that describe these particular groups? We're supposed to believe that the grievances of oppressed and violated peoples is finding expression in organizations that from their inception have had ties to western intelligence, and have proven very useful to the latter? I have to ask, who benefits--in terms of US public opinion--from, first, accepting the official line of the 9/11 attacks as having been the work of Al Qaeda (which the so-called antiwar movement mostly does) and, secondly, identifying that same Al Qaeda with sympathy for the Palestinian cause (which, again, too much of the antiwar movement uncritically seems to do)? Certainly not the Palestinians, that I can see. All the while the groups that came to be known as Al Qaeda were fighting in tandem with the U.S. and the CIA--in Afghanistan, in former Soviet central Asia, in Bosnia, where was there purported sympathy for Palestinians then?

Why is it when Muslim extremists in Iraq--supposedly the very people animated by anger towards U.S. policy--decided to take a western journalist captive, they chose to capture the Italian leftist journalist, Giuliana Sgrena--an opponent of the U.S. invasion? That's certainly one way to deliver a message to all 'unembedded' journalists.

Motive to strike back at the U.S. (certainly at the U.S. military) has existed in abundance over broad sections of the world, some of which the U.S. is more anxious to gain ( or maintain) hegemony over than others. And none of this anger resulted in anything that came close to instilling the American public with terror as the 9/11 events did. So I think some basic questions are, how credible is the attribution of motive when it comes to the particular individuals that were supposed to have--if not hijacked, then at least been on board those planes planning to do something? And should we be careful lest considerations of motive take primacy over discussions of means and opportunity?

Strategies of tension

It might help to first consider whether whatever group or event you are analyzing best fits within a strategy of tension, these are often overlapping and interlocking, and can shift as on the ground tactics demand.

I always have to smile when folks say, "if 9/11 was to get us into a war with Iraq, how come the hijackers weren't Iraqis?"

The obvious and correct answer is because the Saudis were much easier to recruit and manipulate, beginning with the creation of the Afgan Arab mujaheddin during the Carter years all the way to the present. I believe this is largely due to the fact that the Saudi royals have been totally corrupted by western interests and Saddam was too wise and/or paranoid to fall into that trap. The fact that the Saudi oil fields are much closer to collapse than those in Iraq also plays a part, as this is all part of an end game for the Saudi royals.

Now that we've made Iraq uninhabitable due to our use of depleted Uranium, it will be interesting to see how this changes the long game. It appears that the Saudis are continuing their slant drilling into the Iraqi oil fields (the reason Saddam went into Kuwait, after being green lighted by G.H.W. Bush). They use this oil internally to offset their declining production while maintaining their export quotas and delay the day when the world finally realizes that peak oil has arrived (and all hell breaks loose).

Then, of course, there is the Pentagon's P2OG program, which creates enemies wherever they need them whenever they want.

I'm glad this sad, sick chapter in human history is drawing to a close. Let's all continue working to create the world we want to live in.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

It's the capability--not the will or motive--that terrorizes

'I always have to smile when folks say, "if 9/11 was to get us into a war with Iraq, how come the hijackers weren't Iraqis?" The obvious and correct answer is because the Saudis were much easier to recruit and manipulate....'

Yes--or to paraphrase Rumsfeld's statement that 'You go to war with the army you have,' one might say that 'you go to false-flag operations with the patsies you have.'

And besides, Iraqi Baathists--lacking the religious focus and geographic reach of the remnants of the mujahideen--just wouldn't have been as useful for the purposes of promoting a 'war that will not end in our lifetime.'

Above all, what makes me--not smile, but shake my head--when I hear people ask that question, is how its assumptions fly in the face of reality: The notion that the Bush administration would have needed Iraqis to have been the villains of 9/11 in order to be able to use it to invade Iraq; even though (as people attempting to make this point are well aware) that same administration quite manifestly--and successfully--did indeed use 9/11 in order to invade with Iraqis nowhere to be found among the alleged perpetrators. Such defenders of the official story in effect are attempting to argue that the Bush administration would have needed what it clearly didn't need.

To return to some points above, I think one thing I'm trying to say is this: It is a mistake for the question of 1) whether and to what extent the accused of 9/11 played the roles ascribed to them in the official story to be reduced to that of 2) whether there are actually are people in the world who would like to strike at U.S. targets, acting on motives such as anger towards U.S. foreign policy. Acknowledging that such people do exist is not sufficient grounds for supposing that the roles and actions attributed to those named as 9/11 suspects were as advertised.

It wasn't a willingness to hit U.S. targets that terrorized the sh** out of the U.S. public on 9/11. Again, anger over this or that U.S. policy overseas has been widespread since well before 9/11. What instilled people with a sense of terror, to an extent that is still very ripe for exploitation by politicians, was not a demonstration of motive, but one of capability. What terrorized Americans wasn't just a manifest wish to hit U.S. targets, but the demonstration of an ability to act on this wish, and of a scale of damage that could be inflicted as a result. The questions of who is most responsible for the fact that those targets were struck, and for the scale of destruction that resulted (the spectacle of two immense towers coming downward in a matter of seconds, for example, was, in terms of mass psychology, the greatest shock in a morning full of shocks) are still open as far as I'm concerned.

'Saddam was too wise and/or paranoid to fall into that trap'

Too bad that didn't prevent him from making war against Iran and invading Kuwait ('wise' is not a word I'm accustomed to associating with Saddam).

Ok , sometimes we are growing real terrorists

thru sponsorship of injustice, torture, bombings etc. And of course sometimes we are manufacturing terrorists mostly thru manipulations in the media and false flag attacks etc. Either way the US and the rest of the world are the losers.

Anyone have comments on this

Anyone have comments on this story which may be semi related to this thread:

http://www.iran911case.com/

also this other article possbibly related to this thread:

http://back-spin.blogspot.com/2011/07/fishing-for-truth.html

the second arttice is interesting especially; it has developed more since it's original posting but was originally semi-focused on this claim made in a 9/11 lawsuit:

According to court papers filed yesterday, the lawyers "believe that FBI reports and records show that a call was placed from Julie Ashley's cellphone to hijacker Mohamed Atta's cellphone on or about Sept. 11, 2001."

The court papers also reveal that Ashley's husband, Iranian-born pilot Ahmad Farid Khorrami, was jailed for three months right after the attacks on suspicion of links to some of the Sept. 11 hijackers

Those statements are found in this original article if you don't like the link above:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/suit_eyes_call_to_atta_wdA97IIHvkkDuCf8PQko7O

There are many layers to this onion we are opening.

I just found all this stuff because I was reading into this recent story:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1349242

Quality well researched book

It is very exciting to see a new extremely high quality weapon we have for achieving 9/11 justice. It is downright shocking and offensive to read the basely, negative and ad-hominem comments on this thread. You audacious people who continue to assert conspiracy theories about 'no hijacker' scenario's are currently extremely detrimental to the movement. Asserting that you somehow can see beyond some sort of 'limited hangout' which the FACTS have established. How are what the FACTS can establish a "limited hangout?!" The facts are ALL we have to hang out with. I don't wanna hang out with anything else frankly. Everyone can live in their own heads and imagine up whatever fantastic scenarios they want. However, if you take these imaginary ideas and don't have proof of them, then attack people who don't embrace them, you are not just useless in your assertions, you are hurting the cause of finding the truth. You are hindering the true criminals from being brought to justice. The people who can be held accountable from crimes on 9/11 LOVE you conspiracy theorists. If we had five more books like this which focus only on factual, provable, tangible evidence, we would be much farther along. Instead, a whole group of theorists here would rather read a fantastic imaginary story which sweetens up it's allure with theories that said theorists "KNOW" what happened. How audacious an assertion. You don't KNOW what happened. I KNOW you asserting you do hurts the victims families of the attacks who are truly skeptical for provable real justice!

Were The 9/11 Attacks Carried Out By Radical Muslims?

I'm of the unproven view that the accused were covert assets who removed the pilots from the flight decks of each aircraft and activated autopilot flight plans that lead the planes to their final destinations, while believing that these flight plans would return each aircraft to an airport via full autoland during what they thought were one of the many simulated hijack exercises conducted by the federal government circa 2001 and even the morning of 9/11. This view is supported in part by the CVR transcript for UA 93 and the Susan Olson AA 77 phone call, if they are to be believed. (References within both to still living "pilots" in the passenger cabins and a UA 93 "hijacker" claim of returning to "the airport".). Interesting that patents for such procedures were submitted immediately following 9/11 relying almost entirely on then existing technology.

While some should not assert that the accused were not aboard the 9/11 flights without evidence, others should not claim that the accused were radical Muslims on suicide missions given the evidence to the contrary.

With that said, what supporters of the referenced book do believe that the 9/11 attacks were performed by authentic radical Muslims as alleged?

Thank you for admitting that you are embracing unproven theories

Aidan said : "I'm of the unproven view that the accused were covert assets"

Yep it's not proven. It's a wonderful fantasy dream of yours and others. You acting like others are ignorant for not embracing an unproven theory with no evidence is the part of the audacious nature I described in my previous comment.

Aidan said : "While some should not assert that the accused were not aboard the 9/11 flights without evidence,"

Yep that's right, you said it perfectly. I say you and all of us follow this standard.

" others should not claim that the accused were radical Muslims on suicide missions given the evidence to the contrary."

Wait what evidence to the contrary? The 9/11 attacks were certainly carried out by radical muslims. They were there. They were radical. Even the transcripts you referenced support this reality. We can make up a fantasy to fit another more exciting conspiracy theory we make up, but its not only of NO USE to us to do so, it makes everyone asking questions about 9/11 look like delusion ridden fools.

"With that said, what supporters of the referenced book do believe that the 9/11 attacks were performed by authentic radical Muslims as alleged?"

Why do you ask? What are you after here? You claim to KNOW what happened on that day? Also are you implying that you DON'T support this book? If so why? Is your reason for not supporting this book because they don't embrace the fantastic conspiracy theory which you ADMIT is unproven and at this point is unprovable? Do you feel it wise to perhaps ask the author of this book to add in his or your own fantasy theories and compromise his factual integrity of a published material? Do you assert that there was something "inauthentic" about the radicalism of the Muslim hijackers? They seem completely radical to me.

Were some of the radical Muslim's who hijacked the planes on 9/11 being watched by intelligence agencies? Yep, and we can prove it. How does this imply any inauthenticity of said hijackers radicalism. If your only evidence is more fantasy stories, I'd rather you not waste our time and reputation by speaking of said fantasies as facts or evidence.

Official Conspiracy Theorists Among The Truthers? Interesting!

Jimd & Kdub: "Truth" seeking "official conspiracy theorists"? Tell us about yourselves!

Kdub: 

"Wait what evidence to the contrary? The 9/11 attacks were certainly carried out by radical muslims. They were there."

Really?

Jimd: 

"Susan Olson is an actress that played Cindy Brady on the Brady Bunch and is still alive."

Your knowledge of Nickelodeon programming is impressive! Or perhaps you own the DVD box set?

Jimd: 

"The pilots are dead on flight 77 ... and the pilots of flight 93 were also dead ... There is no evidence they were alive."

The UA 93 CVR transcipt cites an alleged hijacker requesting the "pilot" be returned to the cockpit. Have you ever bothered to read it? And Olson's alleged phone call content refers to her ability to communicate with the "pilot" of AA 77. (Or perhaps you think she was communicating with Hanjour while he was flying the plane?)

Jimd:

"Oh.....in your unproven conspiracy theory it was just an exercise. When these "Assets" were slicing the throats of flight attendants and at least one passenger, was that to make it more realistic?"

And you can PROVE this happened? Yes?

Jimd: 

"Actually the evidence says they are radical Muslims, that is what Bin Laden and the ISI were busy doing in Afghanistan. Most of the world already knows this."

Of course! So there was an exotic conspiracy between the cave dwelling Bin Laden and the bunker dwelling Cheney?

Kdub: 

"Why do you ask? What are you after here?"

Easy Kdub! I was just wondering what the heck a couple of "official conspiracy theorists" were doing at a 9/11 Truth site!

Kdub: 

"Do you assert that there was something "inauthentic" about the radicalism of the Muslim hijackers? They seem completely radical to me."

Since when does gambling, having girlfirends, using drugs, alcohol and adult services (as the accused are alleged to have done) qualify as "radical"?

If nothing else, you two are ... entertaining! 

Now if you two don't mind, I'm going to LIHOP right on out of here and tend to other matters. ; )

IHOPPER

Aidan Monaghan said...... " Jimd & Kdub: "Truth" seeking "official conspiracy theorists"? Tell us about yourselves!"

I've already apologized more than once for not being a conspiracy theorist. And frankly I'm done doing it, it's about time the conspiracy theorists started apologizing for insulting the families and making "9-11 truth" look crazy, and accomplish nothing.

Aidan Monaghan said.....Kdub: "Wait what evidence to the contrary? The 9/11 attacks were certainly carried out by radical muslims. They were there."
"Really?"

Yea, really, 9-11 really did happen on 9-11 and OBL and KSM were not boy scouts.

Aidan Monaghan said....Jimd: "Susan Olson is an actress that played Cindy Brady on the Brady Bunch and is still alive."
"Your knowledge of Nickelodeon programming is impressive! Or perhaps you own the DVD box set?"

I do not own the box set however I do know the difference between a murdered 9-11 victims name and a terrible child actress.

Aidan Monaghan said....Jimd: "The pilots are dead on flight 77 ... and the pilots of flight 93 were also dead ... There is no evidence they were alive."
"The UA 93 CVR transcipt cites an alleged hijacker requesting the "pilot" be returned to the cockpit. Have you ever bothered to read it? And Olson's alleged phone call content refers to her ability to communicate with the "pilot" of AA 77. (Or perhaps you think she was communicating with Hanjour while he was flying the plane?)"

She wasn't communicating with any pilot, because she was in the back of the plane and they were not-they were in the cockpit perhaps they were having tea with the non existent hijackers B Olson was calling about. ..at this point it's clear you have a reading comprehension problem. And the "pilot" returning to the cockpit could have been either the hijackers "pilot" or the US pilot, but one thing is certain "I Don't want to die" was not said by a hijacker. Who do you think was saying that and why?

Aidan Monaghan said....Jimd:"Oh.....in your unproven conspiracy theory it was just an exercise. When these "Assets" were slicing the throats of flight attendants and at least one passenger, was that to make it more realistic?"
"And you can PROVE this happened? Yes?"

Yes, by checking the phone records, and then asking what was said during the conversations.

Aidan Monaghan said....Jimd: "Actually the evidence says they are radical Muslims, that is what Bin Laden and the ISI were busy doing in Afghanistan. Most of the world already knows this."
"Of course! So there was an exotic conspiracy between the cave dwelling Bin Laden and the bunker dwelling Cheney?"

Perhaps according to your conspiracy theory, your conspiracy theories have gotten you no where and will continue to do that.

Aidan Monaghan said....Kdub: "Why do you ask? What are you after here?"
"Easy Kdub! I was just wondering what the heck a couple of "official conspiracy theorists" were doing at a 9/11 Truth site!"

Perhaps we are secret agents sent to ruin your conspiracy theories? Or maybe we don't need to be agents to be disgusted with you covering for murderers and promoting nonsense.

Aidan Monaghan said....Kdub: "Do you assert that there was something "inauthentic" about the radicalism of the Muslim hijackers? They seem completely radical to me."
"Since when does gambling, having girlfirends, using drugs, alcohol and adult services (as the accused are alleged to have done) qualify as "radical"?"

So Jimmy Swaggert isn't really a fundamentalist Christian? He loved hookers so he must have been an under cover Jew right? And he wasn't even promised a free ticket to heaven if he killed infidels.

Aidan Monaghan said...."If nothing else, you two are ... entertaining!"

Not as entertaining as your silly offensive theories,... difference is we aren't covering up and making excuses for murderers.

Aidan Monaghan said...."Now if you two don't mind, I'm going to LIHOP right on out of here and tend to other matters. ; )"

LIHOP MIHOP ZIHOP wrong I am just IHOP -- Obviously the International House of pancakes is behind it all.

OBL and KSM were not boy scouts?

What's your point here? What evidence exists that they were inolved in the attacks of Sept 11th that can be verified from reliable sources? I am sure they had the connections to schedule the war games, order a norad stand down, plant demo charges, and arrange an Israeli camera crew.

Old dead accusations, how about some moderations?

"Official Conspiracy Theorists Among The Truthers? Interesting!"

More of this garbage? Trying to frame 9/11 as either all conspiracy or no conspiracy? That's not how the world works and that's not how 9/11 worked. This is a form of accusation which is offensive and childish. You implying we are in on something? What are you talking about Aidan? Very similar to pontificating on baseless conspiracy theories while acting like you are presenting truth. You think people are gonna trust you when you throw out baseless accusations and use no facts to back up your points? Well I'm grateful the logical people in this world will NOT.

This thread has become out of control with ad-hominem madness and I would appreciate stronger moderation. I have had comments removed for things far less nasty than Nor Cal Truth calling Jim an "ass" over and over again.

Jim has carried some heavy weight for the truth here as he always does and I appreciate it greatly. His responses to you Aidan and to Nor Cal Truth are unfortunately, sadly, far to on point.

Folks immediately trying to jump on a book which presents a factual account of events because it doesn't cover every fact or theory of a particular event is backwards logic, when our goal is to open minds. That is what we are here to do right? Spread the TRUTH on a massive scale right?? Our goal has never been spreading FAKE theories right? Because that would protect the very people who carried out the attack!! Help, protect, shield, assist, any word you take, if you spread a fake theory, you are getting behind murders. You are helping a group of murders who are still at large stay in public, (WHETHER YOU MEAN TO OR NOT, I don't care, it's still what you are doing when you spread your favorite fantasy theory rather than the truth).

I wish many of the skeptics out there could read more form Jim, with his solid research and on point, comical responses. It would convince many debunker types that there are some level heads around here.

It's not surprising that there are STILL people out there attacking those who stick with the facts when attempting to open minds, and insulting them with your weird "lihop" psuedo-framing (this is an old lame dead waste of time practice).

Well THANKFULLY there are logical people out there who will get a hold of a book with real live facts. The strong minds have, and will continue to be able to pick through any unprovable theories which are mistakingly or intentionally inserted. And the truth WILL out. There are a huge majority of thoughtful people who are ready to open up to the truth about 9/11. BECAUSE the people are ready and bright enough to open up about the TRUTH about 9/11, they are equally ready and bright enough that they will reject a FAKE THEORY about 9/11. We aren't stupid so stop trying to drag the truth in fantasy theories and name calling.

It is easy to see with whom the immaturity rests when reading through this thread. If you wanna talk let's talk, if you wanna call people tools, go back to school.

I would like to talk Kdub.

I would like to talk Kdub. Conflict resolution is in order.

It's improper to use guilt-by-association as I perceived Jim to be doing - It is also reckless of me to call him a name. Both are unnecessary tools for good research and communication, lets condemn both tactics huh?

Between Jim and I, I have tarnished this thread too much (Sorry again) so I won't anymore - I have sent Jim a sincere apology.

It seems I can't email you, however you can email me. Please do so if you are serious about talking.

I appreciate reason and responsibility in our approach and reasearch, much as I interperate you, Jim and others do.

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

I found this useful when reviewing your assesment of this thread, and re-reviewing this thread.

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem".

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

More here:
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

EDIT

Done.

Freedom Fighting Evil Doers who hate freedom

Aidan Monaghan said...""I'm of the unproven view that the accused were covert assets who removed the pilots from the flight decks of each aircraft and activated autopilot flight plans that lead the planes to their final destinations, while believing that these flight plans would return each aircraft to an airport via full autoland during what they thought were one of the many simulated hijack exercises conducted by the federal government circa 2001 and even the morning of 9/11.""""

Oh.....in your unproven conspiracy theory it was just an exercise. When these "Assets" were slicing the throats of flight attendants and at least one passenger, was that to make it more realistic? Were the people getting their throats slit part of the exercise as well? Sorry...I forgot...I'm not supposed to believe any of that because of all the non existent evidence of "fake phone calls"....they have to be fake or these preposterous conspiracy theories go away and we certainly can't have that can we?

Aidan Monaghan said..."This view is supported in part by the CVR transcript for UA 93 and the Susan Olson AA 77 phone call, if they are to be believed."

Susan Olson is an actress that played Cindy Brady on the Brady Bunch and is still alive. Barbara Olson was a passenger on the plane so called truthers refuse to admit hit the pentagon and she still remains dead.
Also some people read the following as meaning the pilots were in the back of the plane with B Olson and the rest of the passengers, which they find hard to believe that she would be asking what should she tell the pilots to do? Sure, if someone wants to interpret the following that way I guess they can but IMO they are interpreting it wrong......

"A female passenger called from the telephone located on the back of the airplane seat. Passenger requested to be connected with her husband, a sergeant who resides in Washington, D.C."

"The passenger advised the plane was currently being hijacked. The hi-jackers, armed with guns and knives, were ordering the passengers to move to the back of the plane. The passenger wanted to know how to let the pilots know what was happening. It did not appear as if they were aware of the situation."
page 17/52
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24392516/T7-B19-Key-302s-Fdr-Entire-Contents-FBI-302s

IMO what she is saying is, obviously the plane is being hijacked and the passengers were told to go to the back of the plane (to keep away from the hijackers/cockpit).....and B Olson is wanting to know how to contact the pilots who might not be aware of what is happening, since she assumes they are in the cockpit flying the plane. Obviously if the pilots were with her they would be "aware of the situation". The "idea" that the pilots were back with B Olson and the rest of the passengers is not supported by anything, but just a bad interpretation of the records. The pilots were most likely lying dead on the cockpit floor with their throats slit. She of course wouldn't know that. There is no evidence the call is "fake" or Olson lied about anything.

As for the CVR transcript for UA 93 maybe you should read it again.....

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf

Aidan Monaghan said...."(References within both to still living "pilots" in the passenger cabins and a UA 93 "hijacker" claim of returning to "the airport".). Interesting that patents for such procedures were submitted immediately following 9/11 relying almost entirely on then existing technology."

The pilots are dead on flight 77. saying they are alive is putting a spin on the evidence and the pilots of flight 93 were also dead. In order to take over the cockpit the pilots were killed. There is no evidence they were alive. There are several phone calls that prove the hijackers were killing people on the plane. Saying the calls are fake is a desperate attempt to cover for murderers. I wont be a part of that, and denounce those that are.

Aidan Monaghan said..."While some should not assert that the accused were not aboard the 9/11 flights without evidence, others should not claim that the accused were radical Muslims on suicide missions given the evidence to the contrary."

Actually the evidence says they are radical Muslims, that is what Bin Laden and the ISI were busy doing in Afghanistan. Most of the world already knows this.

"With that said, what supporters of the referenced book do believe that the 9/11 attacks were performed by authentic radical Muslims as alleged?"""

The "authentic radical Muslims" were known to both the CIA and the Saudi Intelligence, before they ever came to the U.S. You might find it in your best interest to start acknowledging this. The "evil doers" who "hate freedom" came from the "freedom fighters" The U.S. and Saudi's supported earlier.

THIS:

"Saying the calls are fake is a desperate attempt to cover for murderers. I wont be a part of that, and denounce those that are."

Whether you know it or not, this is the reality.

I have a hard time believing

I have a hard time believing that box cutters armed by 19 men could succesfully hijack 4 seperate planes at the same time in the US and hit 3 of 4 targets.

Coupled with the fact that "war games" were providing a great cover and confusion, along with FBI and CIA cover-ups along a long road to 9/11 (not to mention the near fact of explosives in NY)- I don't know why we can be so sure about anything in the official story on regarding the scenario on the planes: We don't know what went down on 9/11 compared to the people who were on the planes.

I would not try to argue either way until all others ways are ruled out as there is realms of possibility for the box-cutter scenario, and realms of possibilty for the auto-pilot scenario, or something else. This is not even addressing the fact that 'muslim extremists' even were on the flights, but again, no reason to argue that they were or weren't.

I'm sure we all want a new and proper 9/11 investigation for justice along with an end to the wars and PATRIOT ACt, right?

Once again, this highlights the tension between

the research community and activists.

Activists need certainty to work with the public in a coherent way.

Researchers live in a world of incomplete data and multiple working hypotheses.

The public default position should be the one that is a combination of most defensible AND most accurate to the known facts.

The more unknowns the more difficult this becomes.

When in doubt, default to the government conspiracy theory while providing the requisite caveats.

Make sense?

There are still way too many unknowns about what took place on the planes, imo.

I have no problem believing that most of the alleged hijackers thought they were part of a "terrorist plot" of some kind.

Atta was almost certainly a western intelligence asset of some kind. This is also true of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, btw.

This whole area needs more investigation and discussion to determine the most plausible scenarios, absent a real investigation with 100% access to all the information.

The truth shall set us free, but getting at that truth can be very difficult sometimes.

Love is the only way forward, and love means tolerating different reasonable opinions where there are so many unknowns.

Confessions of an undercover IHOPER

Nor Cal Truth said....."I have a hard time believing that box cutters armed by 19 men could succesfully hijack 4 seperate planes at the same time in the US and hit 3 of 4 targets."

I also have a hard time believing box cutters armed by anything could successfully do anything, however if you arm the 19 men with boxcutters they could slit your throat in seconds as you sit facing away from them and don't expect to have your throat slit.

If you want a new investigation to find out what really hit the pentagon and who was fooling the families with fake phone calls, that is NEVER EVER going to happen because the rest of the world knows that a PASSENGER JET hit the pentagon and the phone calls are NOT fake. Your fantasies and weird theories will continue to do nothing but help with the cover up and marginalize you. But don't listen to me, I'm just an IHOPER.

No you are just as an ass

No you are just as an ass that lumps people into categories and starts typing before you think.

Analytical skills

Nor Cal Truth said..."No you are just as an ass that lumps people into categories and starts typing before you think."

You mean categories like, LIHOP, MIHOP, Fake truther, Real truther, Ass and not an ass? You mean like that? LOL!

Your Analytical skills along with Aidans' are extremely unimpressive:

"President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen on Saturday (the 11th) remembered the victims of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon in a ceremony at the Pentagon Memorial."

"I can optimistically think that this is in direct response to:

"Jesse Ventura's upcoming episode of "Conspiracy Theory" focusing on the Pentagon" --Submitted by Nor Cal Truth on Tue, 12/14/2010
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-14/obama-mullen-gates-hold-war-justification-ceremony-pentagon-911-victims-family-membe...

LOL!

Then we have...

"In the process of discovering the "truth" about 9/11, Ranke and Marquis may have alienated many of their former allies in the conspiracy movement, but their relentlessness has won a few converts. "When I first heard of Craig and Aldo's alternate flight path for American Airlines 77, I was very skeptical and tried very hard to prove that their view was in error," says fellow researcher Aidan Monaghan. "However, after carefully viewing all of their witness interviews, I have concluded that the 'official' flight path is arguably in question."
http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/213848/

LOL!

An example of using non conspiracy non bats**T crazy analytical skills while studying the records:

"Do the Orders Still Stand?" Who was he?
He seems to be Naval Aide Douglas Cochrane.
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-28/do-orders-still-stand-who-was-he

You will continue to accomplish nothing but painting yourselves as people who can't deal with reality, as long as you keep playing your conspiracy theory games and refuse to acknowledge planes flew into buildings and radical Muslims exist and the ones that were involved in 9-11 shouldn't have even been let into the country, but it's a fun hobby I suppose for some of you, and a nice cult/club to meet friends and have little get togethers. How quaint.

Right. So, when you can quote

Right.

So, when you can quote me on "fake" anything, then something you write on this thread may be legitimate.

Otherwise, you are an ass. And you can quote me on that.

Like this?

Nor Cal Truth said...."So, when you can quote me on "fake" anything, then something you write on this thread may be legitimate."

You mean like this.......

"Disposal of 9/11 Evidence Continues: Bin Laden Body Dumped at Sea
May 2, 2011

Nor Cal Truth May 2, 2011

related: U.B.L. Burial at Sea NOT Typical Islamic Tradition

related: Dead Bin Laden photo is admitted fake. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

http://norcaltruth.org/2011/05/02/bin-laden-body-dumped-at-sea/
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-02/destruction-911-evidence-continues-bin-laden-body-dumped-sea
Submitted by Nor Cal Truth on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 4:42pm

Oh my god.... Do you want to

Oh my god....

Do you want to argue that the FBI did NOT photoshop a photo from a Spanish lawmakers photo on the web. DO YOU WANT TO GO THERE, or do want to read before you try to insinuate something?

Nice try, but no way bucko: Again, you are making illegitimate claims.

illegitimate claims.

Nor Cal Truth said......"Do you want to argue that the FBI did NOT photoshop a photo from a Spanish lawmakers photo on the web. DO YOU WANT TO GO THERE, or do want to read before you try to insinuate something?"
"Nice try, but no way bucko: Again, you are making illegitimate claims."

Actually it is you who are making illegitimate claims. The link has nothing to do with the FBI Photoshopping the Spanish lawmaker. It was the photo that appeared after Bin Ladens killing. Try clicking on the link here is what it takes you to and anyone can see you are not telling the truth when you try and say it was about the FBI and the Spanish Lawmaker.......

Disposal of 9/11 Evidence Continues: Bin Laden Body Dumped at Sea

Nor Cal Truth May 2, 2011

related: U.B.L. Burial at Sea NOT Typical Islamic Tradition

related: Dead Bin Laden photo is admitted fake.
http://norcaltruth.org/2011/05/02/bin-laden-body-dumped-at-sea/

related: Dead Bin Laden photo is admitted fake<<<<<<<< - >>>>>>>>>>that is a link that takes you here...........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DywpYUgPQMo

OH thats right, I Reported on

OH thats right, I Reported on the fact that a fake bin laden phtot was being circulated.

Isn't that a good thing? The story that it was a real photo picked up enough steam for some news agancies to carry it if I remember.

But none-the-less, you are right. I reported on the story, and the story was about a fake bin laden photo.

Should i gove you credit for legitimate claims? I don't know...

You are trying to put me into a fake planes, fake crash, fake reality, fake tv, fake everything category.

I do think there is quite a difference. When I asked you to quote me on saying "fake," IO should have been more specific.

Quote me on a "fake plane", "fake crash", fake tv", "fake bin laden death" and you may have a point...OK?

Otherwise, I love how you treat aspiring writers/researchers in your free time.

Ever hear of constructive criticism?

Spare me

Nor Cal Truth said..."No you are just as an ass that lumps people into categories and starts typing before you think."

Nor Cal Truth said....."Otherwise, you are an ass. And you can quote me on that."

Nor Cal Truth said...."Otherwise, I love how you treat aspiring writers/researchers in your free time."

Nor Cal Truth said...."Me calling you an ass seems to me to be ok because you are such a blatant ass in how you treat people around here."

And now for the punch line......

Nor Cal Truth said....."Ever hear of constructive criticism?"

Jim, I would like to turn

Jim, I would like to turn this around. I respect you for your research, my thoughts on your attitude are apparent and highlighted by you above.

I will stop calling you an ass when you stop insinuating false-postulations or insinuations of me, or many others here, in the sense that we don't believe "planes hit the towers", or any of the other sny comments you know you make.

In that spirit, let me ask you seriously:

If radicial muslims did indeed have full control of the events in the sky on 9/11 as I believe you are asserting, and those radical muslims hit their targets on the first try (as is what was witnessed besides PA) was the damage point in the towers coincidental; to the point of hitting the Towers where they started to be demolished?

In that question I am assuming we can agree that the most plausible event in the WTC towers was demolitions and explosive in nature.

So, with the WTC 1 and 2 - it seems the demolitions (if that was the case, which I do think it was) were started at the points of contact to the towers by the planes.

Is that coincidental in your opinion?

Enough! please take it else where if you must continue

Consider this the equivalent of a verbal warning in soccer.

Your next fouls will result in a yellow card (24 hours in moderation), then a red card (indefinite moderation).

I'm sure you both have far more productive uses of your time, yes?

Thanks.

Sorry to all and thanks for

Sorry to all and thanks for stepping in.

I will try to resolve this through email, something I should have done 10 comments ago.

Apologies.

And because your like a

And because your like a killtown mashing up my words and context, allow me to provide the small details you left out of my tiny, little article. You state:

"President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen on Saturday (the 11th) remembered the victims of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon in a ceremony at the Pentagon Memorial."

"I can optimistically think that this is in direct response to:

"Jesse Ventura's upcoming episode of "Conspiracy Theory" focusing on the Pentagon" --Submitted by Nor Cal Truth on Tue, 12/14/2010
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-14/obama-mullen-gates-hold-war-justif...

But my article states this, a far cry from your absurd insinuations:

I can optimistically think that this is in direct response to:

1 The Truth Action campaign for 9/11 truth awareness every 11th of each month
2 Jesse Ventura's upcoming episode of "Conspiracy Theory" focusing on the Pentagon
3 Growing anger about the wars
4 Growing distrust of the official 9/11 story
5 All of the above

The truth of the Pentagon may not be as obvious as the WTC demolition job in NYC; but none-the-less there are many unanswered questions regarding what did or did not hit the Pentagon, how it hit the Pentagon and why it was allowed to. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the mysterious Pentagon incident on 9/11.

I supported Jesse until his recent turn on knowledge...Just as I support Truth Action, but you didn't want people to know that - did ya?

So again, quote me on fake - and we will talk. Until then.....

LOL!

Nor Cal Truth said...."I supported Jesse until his recent turn on knowledge...Just as I support Truth Action, but you didn't want people to know that - did ya?"

No I wanted to keep it a secret but I'm so dumb I supplied the link for people to go to. I didn't quote everything on the page...gee ya got me again. So you still think they had the ceremony because of "all the above?" You still wondering if planes flew into buildings on 9-11? LOL!

You still wondering if planes

You still wondering if planes flew into buildings on 9-11?

No Jim, you incredibly smart man. You are so intelligent and profound in your analysis.

You blow me away each time.

And you are able to speak in such socially tolerable ways, you really hit the nail on the head with your immaculately acccurate assesment of someone you don't know.

Please post more, I can't wait for the next sermon.

Thanks for all your hard work.

Me calling you an ass seems to me to be ok because you are such a blatant ass in how you treat people around here.

Gee that hurts...

Nor Cal Truth said... "No you are just as an ass that lumps people into categories and starts typing before you think."

Am I reading the rules of the board wrong? Looks like you are in violation. .........

"Keep your comments relevant to the blog entry. Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults."
http://911blogger.com/rules

If I am in violation, a

If I am in violation, a moderator will let me know.

Otherwise I'll assume my description of how you talk to many of us here is apparent and factual and not a violation.

About the book:

I can't wait to read this Kevin. I have enjoyed many of your past articles and enjoyed them.

I am sorry Jim and I have entered a 2 year-olds playground, I'm going to try to raise it up - but I admit my fault of being perhaps to blundt in calling Jim an ass.

Thanks for putting out this book though, I know it takes a TON of work.

The FBI and CIA cover-ups are a crucial part of 9/11, and are integral in the day of 9/11 transpiring.

Otherwise I'll assume my

Otherwise I'll assume my description of how you talk to many of us here is apparent and factual and not a violation.

Still here ;)

Jim, You try to mash-up what

Jim,

You try to mash-up what I say and you do a horrible job. For instance, in this attempted mash-up you say:

"I also have a hard time believing box cutters armed by anything could successfully do anything, however if you arm the 19 men with boxcutters they could slit your throat in seconds"

Is that statement a major contradiction or what? Your games you play on Blogger are very annoying.

Olson References To Nearby AA 77 "Pilot"/"Pilots"

Jimd: "IMO ... B Olson is wanting to know how to contact the pilots who might not be aware of what is happening, since she assumes they are in the cockpit flying the plane ... at this point it's clear you have a reading comprehensions problem."

IMO ... you are wrong:

"A passenger on Flight 77, Barbara Olson, calls her husband, Theodore (Ted) Olson, who is solicitor general at the Justice Department. [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/23/2004] ... A few days later, he will recall: She mentioned that the pilot had announced that the plane had been hijacked.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=barbara_olson

In your opinion, did Olson's VIP status also afford her special access to the cockpit intercom system? Or were the pilots simply removed from the cockpit and relocated near the other AA 77 passengers? Murderous hijackers sparing the pilots? Apparently.

"According to one account, Barbara Olson calls her husband from inside a bathroom. [Evening Standard, 9/12/2001] But in another, she is near a pilot, and in yet another she is near two pilots. [Boston Globe, 11/23/2001]."

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=barbara_olson

“She told me that she had been herded to the back of the plane."

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=barbara_olson

If Olson is at the back of the plane and near the pilots, then the pilots are at the back of the plane.

Quite an excerise

"If Olson is at the back of the plane and near the pilots, then the pilots are at the back of the plane."

Saying the pilots were with her in the back of the plane doesn't make it true. If they were they would "be aware of the situation". She was asking how to make the pilots "aware of the situation", because she is in the back of the plane, the pilots were not, and besides, why are you going along with some parts of this phone call and not others? Gosh...it sounds like the plane was hijacked doesn't it? Was she part of the exercise? Were the others on the plane part of the exercise or did they just get unlucky by being on a flight that is going to cause them to be extremely late and ruin their day because it was involved in an exercise with civilian passengers who are not aware of said exercise? How about this theory........it wasn't an exercise.

BTW;

"Official Conspiracy Theorists Among The Truthers?" --

Trying to imply "I support" the official story means nothing to me. Calling me "an agent" in a roundabout way is nothing new - I don't care about your paranoia.

I think this "discourse" has run its course, yes?

Have either of you actually read the book (the topic of this blog, btw)?

I think it fair to say that each of you are being somewhat selective regarding the content of the phone calls to support your positions (unless of course you, like me, have multiple hypotheses and are awaiting more and more credible data before narrowing the possibilities down). Evaluating contradictory data is almost always fraught with difficulty.

That is known as confirmation bias, something analysts need to avoid at all costs.

In any case, please take your back and forth to email or start a more appropriate thread.

Jimd3100, are you familiar with the document known as the "Finn list" ? If so, how do you incorporate that into your understanding of the roles played by the alleged hijackers? If not, then I'd be curious to know what you think about it (via email is fine).

Sometimes I think we should start a boxing league, there is so much sparring going on in these threads.

Cheers!

Kevin Fenton's new book on 9/11

Your comment

"If we had five more books like this which focus only on factual, provable, tangible evidence, we would be much farther along. Instead, a whole group of theorists here would rather read a fantastic imaginary story which sweetens up its allure with theories that said theorists "KNOW" what happened. How audacious an assertion. You don't KNOW what happened. I KNOW you asserting you do hurts the victims’ families of the attacks who are truly skeptical for provable real justice!"

Well you have at least one other book already on this same subject, “Prior Knowledge of 9/11” and I will bet many more in the next few months. Several authors have called me to get some additional information I have in “Prior Knowledge” to add to their books. “Prior Knowledge of 9/11” was first released in January 2007, and it has been up dated several times, just before September 11, in 2008, 2009 and 2010 so it would have the very latest information.

I am sure Kevin’s book says the pretty much the same thing, although if Kevin’s book is based on the HisoryCommons time line it may have a number of mistakes in the information, that would make seeing the whole conspiracy of 9/11 more difficult.

It was finding accurate information that in effect corrected those mistakes that essentially unraveled the entire criminal conspiracy that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

Just to mention a few;

Fahad al-Quso was never at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting and was never in any Kuala Lumpur photograph.

Wilshire at no time ever acted alone or by himself, he always acted under orders from Richard Blee, orders which came from Cofer Black and George Tenet.

And Sherry Sabol’s account of the meeting between her and FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi on August 28, 2001 is the correct account of what had taken place at the meeting between these two.

Finally it was not Dina Corsi who asked at the June 11, 2001 meeting between the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, the CIA and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, “ Do you recognize Fahad al-Quso in these photos”, but CIA officer Clark Shannon who asked Bongardt and his team, “Do you recognize anyone in these photos?” These were the photos of Mihdhar and Hazmi, the two al Qaeda terrorists on AA77 that hit the Pentagon.

The book “Prior Knowledge of 9/11” concluded that it was criminal actions at the CIA and FBI HQ agents and managers, that the CIA had subjugated, Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton, perhaps Maltbie and Frasca, that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place, the same conclusion I am sure Kevin Fenton has come to. They first withheld the information that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, actually planning the Cole bombing. But what is more horrific, is that these FBI HQ managers and agents that were acting under orders from the CIA, shut down FBI Agent Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when Bongardt found out on August 28, 2001 that these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US and knew that they were here to take part in an al Qaeda attack.

The CIA including Blee, Black and Tenet were also aware of this same information on August 23, 2001, and allowed Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton to continue not to only hide this information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from Bongardt and this team, but allowed them to actually shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when they knew that by doing so would result in allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of Americans.

It is now also clear that he 9/11 Commission was created for no other reason than to pretend to investigate why the attacks on 9/11 were allowed to take place, and prove to the American people that no one had committed any crime, when it is clear that there had been a massive criminal conspiracy to allow the al Qaeda terrorist to carry out the attacks on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission carefully left out key details so they could show, no one had actually committed any crime and to prove to the American people that the attacks on 9/11 had not been intentionally and deliberately allowed to take place by the CIA.

When you go through the 9/11 Commission report and compare to actually what had taken place that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place, you almost have to admire the tremendous skill of the people behind the 9/11 Commission hearings and report to carefully navigate through all of the potential mine fields and present a conclusion to the American people to show that no one was to be blamed for the attacks on 9/11.

What is even more telling is that Tenet had a six hour meeting with President Bush on August 24, 2001, after he knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and knew they were here to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans. Tenet by August 24, 2001 even knew Moussaoui had been arrested when the Minneapolis FBI thought he was a terrorist and was getting flight training on a B747 so he could fly a large airliner into the World Trade Center Towers.

So the big question is what did Tenet tell Bush in the August 24, 2001 meeting, a meeting that Tenet tried to keep secret at the April 14, 2004 9/11 Commission public hearings, so that Roemer would not ask him what he told Bush at that meeting. If you can imagine that, the White actually listed this meeting and the fact Tenet was present right on their web site while Tenet was lying to the 9/11 Commission saying he had attended no such meeting. This just goes to show what happens when you have so many lies that no one can keep them all straight.

So you have two books already and will have at least four books and perhaps 6 books that I know of on this exact same subject by September 11, 2011, the 10th anniversary of the attacks on 9/11.

“Prior Knowledge of 9/11”

rschop said..."The book “Prior Knowledge of 9/11” concluded that it was criminal actions at the CIA and FBI HQ agents and managers, that the CIA had subjugated, Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton, perhaps Maltbie and Frasca, that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place, the same conclusion I am sure Kevin Fenton has come to."

BTW- I've read your book and would recommend it however IMO most in the so called "truth" community are more interested in conspiracy theories than documented facts that you and Kevin have both done (And yes, I have read Kevin's book as well.) You do deserve to be recognized as putting out a lot of what is in Kevin's book 5 years ago.

rschop, please provide evidence for your assertions

you've made a series of claims; what is the evidence to back these up? Links would be best, and/or title and page numbers.

rschop said:

Fahad al-Quso was never at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting and was never in any Kuala Lumpur photograph.

Wilshire at no time ever acted alone or by himself, he always acted under orders from Richard Blee, orders which came from Cofer Black and George Tenet.

And Sherry Sabol’s account of the meeting between her and FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi on August 28, 2001 is the correct account of what had taken place at the meeting between these two.

Finally it was not Dina Corsi who asked at the June 11, 2001 meeting between the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, the CIA and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, “ Do you recognize Fahad al-Quso in these photos”, but CIA officer Clark Shannon who asked Bongardt and his team, “Do you recognize anyone in these photos?” These were the photos of Mihdhar and Hazmi, the two al Qaeda terrorists on AA77 that hit the Pentagon.

Reply to loose nuke on mis-information in Fenton's book

Here is the following Information to back up the following claims:

"Fahad al-Quso was never at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting and was never in any Kuala Lumpur photograph."

The DOJ IG report says that Quso got stuck in Bangkok on his way to Kuala Lumpur on January 6, 2000 in his attempt to deliver money to Bin Attash . Two days later Bin Attash flew over to Bangkok, on January 8, 2000 to get the money Quso was bringing to him in Kuala Lumpur. If Quso had gotten to Kuala Lumpur, Bin Attash would never have been required to travel to Bangkok to get the money Quso had for him.

Quso had been stopped in Bangkok because did not have any visa for Singapore, a pass through stop on the way from Bangkok to Kuala Lumpur. It is inconceivable he could have gotten this visa for Singapore in less that one day.

"Wilshire at no time ever acted alone or by himself, he always acted under orders from Richard Blee, orders which came from Cofer Black and George Tenet."

Looking over all of the available information I could find, I found it inconceivable that anyone at the CIA does anything that is not approved of by the very people at the top of the CIA. They almost appear to me to be like a tightly knit military organization. Since many CIA people actually came from the military this would explain their military like discipline and tight control over this organization.

But the bigger questions is, what would motivate anyone in taking independent actions at the CIA? They get raises from their boss for doing a good job, but only if this job that had been approved of in advance by their boss, not for being rouges. I think rouges are actually thrown out of the CIA. Further more the fact that Wilshire was sending emails back to his CIA managers in July 2001 asking to for permission to transfer the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI on July 13, 2001 and July 23, 2001 clearly shows he was requesting and then getting his orders at the FBI at his new FBI job, directly from his former bosses at the CIA . He was the Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit and reporting to Michael Rolince, and was liaison between the FBI and the CIA, but he was still secretly reporting directly to his former managers at the CIA.

"And Sherry Sabol’s account of the meeting between her and FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi on August 28, 2001 is the correct account of what had taken place at the meeting between these two."

The 9/11 commission report lists the testimony Sabol gave to DOJ I investigators on November 7, 2002, see page 538 footnote 81. I believe the 9/11 Commission report on this testimony is correct. Since Corsi had lied many times about her actions on what had taken place at meetings she had attended, I put absolutely no wait an anything she says, ever.

It was not Dina Corsi who asked at the June 11, 2001 meeting between the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, the CIA and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, “ Do you recognize Fahad al-Quso in these photos”, but CIA officer Clark Shannon who asked Bongardt and his team, “Do you recognize anyone in these photos?” These were the photos of Mihdhar and Hazmi, the two al Qaeda terrorists on AA77 that hit the Pentagon.

The quote by Corsi in the DOJ IG report is clearly just another lie. When you carefully go through the DOJ IG report you can see that Wilshire and Shannon were lying on why the meeting in New York between the CIA, Corsi and the FBI Cole bombing investigators was set up set up in the first place. Wilshire is saying that Shannon had posited that Quso was at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, as his justification to give Corsi the Kuala Lumpur photos of Mihdhar and Hazmi and request she set this meeting up. But this is ridiculous.

First both Wilshire and Shannon knew that Hazmi was already inside of the US and that Mihdhar has a multi-entry visa for the US. They are also were aware that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been indentified with Bin Attash at the Kuala Lumpur meeting actually planning the Cole bombing. They also know that this information has been withheld from Bongardt and his team in a massive criminal conspiracy.

How can you legally withhold the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing from the very agents on this investigation when this FBI criminal investigation of this bombing is still gong on. This is a serious crime and both Wilshire and Shannon knew it. So to suggest that Quso who was already in a Yemini jail, was at Kuala Lumpur and would be important to the FBI Cole bombing investigators when the CIA was criminally withholding this much more serious information is absurd.

Finally the CIA knew exactly what Mihdhar and Hazmi looked like. So why would anyone ask "do you recognize Quso in these photos" when one photo only had Mihdhar and Hazmi in it?

What had happened was that FBI Agent Ali Soufan sent an official request in April 2001 to the CIA asking for any information on any meeting in Kuala Lumpur and an information the CIA had on Walid Bin Attash. At this point the CIA thought that the FBI Cole bombing investigators had found out about Mihdhar and Hazmi, and their planning of the Cole bombing in their search for Bin Attash . The CIA thought that since the FBI Cole knew that Bin Attash had flown over to Bangkok on January 8, 2000, that they had also searched the passenger manifest and had found Mihdhar and Hazmi sitting right next to Bin Attash on that flight. But unfortunately the FBI Cole bombing investigators had never done this and they were still unaware of either Mihdhar or Hazmi. Since the CIA had been desperately trying to keep this information as an absolute secret to hide their culpability in the Cole bombing, they wanted to find out what the Cole bombing investigators knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi. Did these investigators know that these two al Qaeda terrorists had taken part in the planning of th Cole bombing?

It is now clear that they first moved Wilshire over to the FBI in mid-May just after the got Soufan's request for information and Wilshire was made second in command of the FBI ITOS unit. His job was to find our what the FBI Cole bombing investigators had found out about Mihdhar and Hazmi. This is exactly what he did when he enlisted Corsi to set up the June 11, 2001 meeting in New York City and asked her to take the photos of Mihdhar that he, (Wilshire) had obtained from the CIA to this meeting. When she presented these photos to Bongardt and his team, Shannon asked "Do you recognize anyone in these photos". This last bit of information is contrary to the DOJ IG report, but is backed up by the fact that was information given to Wright for Looming Tower by Bongardt. Bongardt is much more credible that Corsi.

Bongardt

rschop said...."Bongardt is much more credible that Corsi."

From all the research I've done Bongardt seems like an exceptional and dedicated FBI agent who was trying to prevent terrorist attacks and was thwarted by the CIA.

Bongardt

You are right. What happened to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and to FBI Agent Ali Soufan is a horrific shame, and cost almost 3000 people their lives on 9/11.

When Bongardt found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 28, 2001 and even knew they were here in order to take part in a massive and horrific attack, his investigation of these two al Qaeda terrorists was complete and illegally shut down by Corsi and Middleton. Bongardt even told Corsi, that if she shuts down his investigation, people will die, and he was correct. I can't imagine what he must have gone through or how mad he must have been after the attacks on 9/11 to know that his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, the one investigation that could have prevented the attack on 9/11 had been shut down with no legitimate reason by these people at FBI HQ.

But Bongardt never knew the half of it, he was never made aware of the following information:

That Corsi had known from August 22, 2001, six days before she shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi , that these two terrorists were inside of the US and even knew that they had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing.

She also knew on August 22, 2001 that the CIA was in possession of the photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, knew this directly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the Cole bombing, and even knew the CIA had been hiding this photo from Bongardt and his team so he and his team would never the evidence they need to start any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

That Corsi’s request to pass the Kuala Lumpur information on Mihdhar and Hazmi, and the fact that they had been at Kuala Lumpur had been approved on August 27, 2001 by the NSA the day before she tells him on August 28, 2001 that he has to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi because he is not allowed to have the NSA information in her EC because she has not yet been given permission to pass this information to him.

That Corsi had fabricated Sherry Sabol’s testimony at a meeting between her and Sherry Sabol, the NSLU attorney on August 28, 2001. Corsi told Bongardt on August 29, 2001 that Sabol had ruled he could not be part of any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when the attorney had ruled just the opposite and told Corsi that Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. This lie alone cost 3000 people their lives on 9/11.

That Middleton had been sent this photograph of Bin Attash at Kuala Lumpur on August 30, 2001, so he also had the information in time to have alerted Bongardt to start an immediate investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi and never did.

That Tom Wilshire who was over both Corsi and Middleton had known from mid-May 2001, that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing. Wilshire was number two in the command chain at the FBI ITOS unit. It is clear that Wilshire was directing Corsi and Middleton’s efforts to criminally obstruct and then shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. It is also clear that Wilshire in his efforts to criminally obstruct and then shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi had been under direct orders to do this from the CIA management hierarchy, including Blee, Black and Tenet.

That when FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie found out on August 22, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and took this information to Corsi and Wilshire that Wilshire knew immediately that these terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans. His email back to Blee, Black, and Tenet on July 23, 2001 say exactly this. Yet Wilshire kept this information secret and never alerted Bongardt or anyone else in any FBI field unit that could have stopped this attack to this horrific information, when it was his explicit duty to do this.

Bongardt was never aware that this information on Mihdhar and Hazmi being inside of the US was given to the CIA hierarchy including all of their top level mangers on August 23, 2001 and that they also kept this horrific information secret from him and his team.

The FBI to this date has kept all of this information complete secret from Bongardt for obvious reasons.

Harry Sammit is another FBI

Harry Samit is another FBI agent everyone should know about, and is metioned in the upcoming comic book.

there's a difference only on one point

Kevin's book notes that summit attendance of al-Quso and some others "cannot be verified" (p.89), and also notes that an FBI agent tentatively ID'd him or someone who looked like him in a Malaysia photo.

Wilshire under orders; seems likely, considering all the other things that went "wrong" that enabled 9/11, that Blee was acting with the knowledge and approval of others, and that he and Wilshire would not have acted on their own. You haven't provided evidence that Tenet and Black were involved; you stated that you find it inconceivable that they weren't, and the CIA appears a certain way. It's conceivable that people Blee knew, who may have been CIA alums or highly connected in the MIC and/or Bush administration, had made it clear they wanted the attacks to succeed and that Blee would be rewarded if he made it happen as far as Alec Station was concerned, and protected from any fallout. Blee could then have brought Wilshire on board. A full investigation could reveal the truth. Kevin's book documents a number of false statements by Tenet, as well as false statements to Black by Blee. He doesn't make a judgment on whether or not Tenet or Black consciously facilitated the plot, he just lays out what's known and isn't and examines possible scenarios.

"And Sherry Sabol’s account of the meeting between her and FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi on August 28, 2001 is the correct account of what had taken place at the meeting between these two."

This is also Kevin's conclusion (pp. 327-332)

"Finally it was not Dina Corsi who asked at the June 11, 2001 meeting between the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, the CIA and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, “ Do you recognize Fahad al-Quso in these photos”, but CIA officer Clark Shannon who asked Bongardt and his team, “Do you recognize anyone in these photos?” "

Yes; this is what it says in Kevin's book (p.248)

Does the timeline at historycommons.org say otherwise? Unless the entry hasn't been updated, there should be contextual info provided documenting Corsi's lack of credibility. Kevin has also written an article examining this incident.

Related to the malaysian summit

found something interesting

By circumstance:

At historycommons we can check the participants:

About a dozen of bin Laden’s trusted followers hold a secret, “top-level al-Qaeda summit” in the city of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Attendees of the summit are said to include:
Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Hambali, Yazid Sufaat, Fahad Al-Quso, Tawfiq bin Attash, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri,
Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, Salem Alhazmi, Abu Bara al Taizi, Mohamed al-Khatani
13 people.

Others - Unnamed members of the Egyptian-based Islamic Jihad are also said to have been at the summit. [COX NEWS SERVICE, 10/21/2001] Islamic Jihad merged with al-Qaeda in February 1998. [ABC NEWS, 11/17/2001] However, according to the Wall Street Journal, bin Attash and al-Quso are suspected of being Islamic Jihad members at one point, so this may just be a reference to them. [WALL STREET JOURNAL, 10/8/2001]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a010500malaysiameeting#a010500malaysiameeting

Recently, it was when a London Al Qaida defector speculated about Saif Al-Adel as new head of Al Qaida, I stumbled about this picture:

I asked the source, what's that about, and where he did have it from. To me the date looks photoshopped some way, but you can clearly establish " 8.. 2000". Maybe it was 08.01.2000. He said the picture was taken in Khandahar, Afghanistan, but that was all- not by whom, how, why it was taken. And through whom he got it. So I think it's possible that Al-Adl was at the Malaysian summit, too, because that date fits to the Malaysian summit. Note, the videos and pictures of the surveillance had never been made public. Why not, we may ask!

Al-Adel has all the hallmarks of Ali Mohammed- same egyptian unit, which murdered Sadat, whole life terror as business. And he fleed to Iran after the Afghanistan invasion of US troops, so maybe they will present him one day as reason why Iran has to be punished (on the other site, you may wonder why they hadn't tried it all along- Al-Adel is not well known)
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=saif_al_adel_1

Congratulations Kevin

You deserve praise and lots of credit for this effort.

This book has two and a half stars on Amazon...

thanks to the efforts of two self-proclaimed "real truthers" who admit they haven't even read the book.

Meanwhile, Judy Wood's spacebeam opus "Where Did The Towers Go" has four and a half stars.

That's a pretty sad reflection on the state of 9/11 truth.

That is horrible - hopefully

That is horrible - hopefully with time that will change. This (probably really good) book by Kevin has only been out a couple weeks, no?

As for the state of 9/11 "truth":

I am trying to resolve my frustrations with Kdub and Jim via email - *response received, thanks.

We all need to look into the mirror when we say what we think is wrong with something, because we normally have plenty of our own faults.

Somehow, commenting, without putting a theory out, onto this thread - I was lumped into "batshit crazy."

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-30/kevin-fenton-long-anticipated-book-now-available#comment-251184
then:
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-30/kevin-fenton-long-anticipated-book-now-available#comment-251198

Everone knows where I took it after that. My bad. I can only apologize so many times, are any other apologies due to move on and UP?

*edit

Why don't you change that?

Writing some sentences for a book review and deliver stars is not rocket science.

I do review most of the 9/11 truth books here in germany and the Amazon reviews clearly do have an impact!

Questions and Answers with Kevin Fenton

Questions and Answers with Kevin Fenton
July 12, 2011, Author: Jon Gold
http://911truthnews.com/questions-and-answers-with-kevin-fenton/

[Edited for length; please only post excerpts in comments. Visit the link above to read the interview. Also see discussion here: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-13/questions-and-answers-kevin-fenton-interview-jon-gold - loose nuke]

Harry Samit

Great questions, great answers.

Thanks Jon and Kevin for making it happen.

Thanks Jeff for posting.

On another note:

I am trying to find the original source for Harry Samit''s claim of trying to have a FISA issued with over 70 attempts (or warnings) - can anyone help?

I looked throught the Maussaouii trial logs, but I havn't found it yet. If it is there, do you know the page number?

Rely to lose nuke

In reply to your post:

"Kevin's book notes that summit attendance of al-Quso and some others "cannot be verified" (up.89), and also notes that an FBI agent tentatively ID'd him or someone who looked like him in a Malaysia photo."

This unfortunately is misinformation by Corsi and by the DOJ IG in their report. I found a number of instances where the DOJ actually assisted Corsi in her testimony. They actually made up facts and then added them to the DOJ IG report, to give her credibility when she had none and in this case assisted her testimony to give it credibility on why she set this meeting up in New York City.

After carefully going over the DOJ IG report with a fine tooth comb, I found that the excuse that Fahad al-Quso was at Kuala Lumpur to be nothing but a complete ruse on the part of Wilshire and Shannon, and later by Corsi, to provide a reason, in this case even a ridiculous reason, to the FBI agents working for the DOJ IG, when they were interviewed on why they had set that in New York City meeting up on June 11 2001. I found in mid-May 2001, that both Wilshire and Shannon actually had FBI Agent Ali Soufan' request for information from the CIA , on any al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur and on any information the CIA had on Walid Bin Attash, the mastermind of the Cole bombing.

It turns out knowing that Wilshire and Shannon had Soufan's request for information, is what ultimately unraveled this entire criminal conspiracy at the CIA.

Instead of giving Soufan the information that he had requested, Wilshire, it clearly looks like under orders from his CIA higher level managers, was moved over to the FBI by the CIA, and then set this meeting up just so the CIA could find out what the FBI Cole bombing investigators had found out about the Kuala Lumpur meeting. Did they know that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at this meeting with Bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing? This was in fact the horrific secret that the CIA wanted to keep hidden from the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

The fact that Bin Attash along with Mihdhar and Hazmi came over to Bangkok on January 8, 2000 to get the money from al-Quso is proof that al-Quso was not at Kuala Lumpur, there would have been no need for this trip if al-Quso had gotten to Kuala Lumpur. The fact that Quso was stuck in Bangkok on January 6 and Bin Attash came over on January 8, left no time for al-Quso to get to Kuala Lumpur. Hence I concluded that there was no possible way al-Quso could have been in any of the photos taken at Kuala Lumpur.

So why is this important. It is this fact that is almost the very heart of understanding this massive criminal conspiracy at the CIA

It shows the massive criminal conspiracy not only to hide the information that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing, but shows the immense efforts that the CIA went to find out what the FBI Cole bombing investigators had found out about that meeting. When the CIA got Soufan's request for information in April 2001, they thought that the FBI Cole bombing investigators had found out about Mihdhar and Hazmi in their search for Bin Attash.

At that meeting on June 11, 2001, Corsi presented one photo with just Mihdhar and Hazmi in it along side a tree. At that point CIA officer Shannon asked Bongardt and his team "Do you recognize anyone in these photos?" But the CIA knew exactly what Mihdhar and Hazmi looked like so what were they thinking? That al-Quso had turned in to a tree. Understanding this meeting is again almost central to under standing this entire criminal conspiracy at the CIA and FBI HQ.

Your post "loose nuke":

"Wilshire under orders; seems likely, considering all the other things that went "wrong" that enabled 9/11, that Blee was acting with the knowledge and approval of others, and that he and Wilshire would not have acted on their own. You haven't provided evidence that Tenet and Black were involved; you stated that you find it inconceivable that they weren't, and the CIA appears a certain way. It's conceivable that people Blee knew, who may have been CIA alums or highly connected in the MIC and/or Bush administration, had made it clear they wanted the attacks to succeed and that Blee would be rewarded if he made it happen as far as Alec Station was concerned, and protected from any fallout. Blee could then have brought Wilshire on board. A full investigation could reveal the truth. Kevin's book documents a number of false statements by Tenet, as well as false statements to Black by Blee. He doesn't make a judgment on whether or not Tenet or Black consciously facilitated the plot, he just lays out what's known and isn't and examines possible scenarios."

I had come to the conclusion in late 2006 that Blee, Black, and Tenet were equally involved from a number of things. One the meeting at the White House involved Blee, Black and Tenet. This shows the very close relationship amongst these three high level CIA managers. Second information in the CIA seemed to pass right to the very top very quickly. The fact that the Minneapolis FBI called the CIA for help about Moussaoui and this went right to Tenet by August 23, 2001, very quickly, shows how quickly information moved up the line right to the very top of the CIA and Tenet.

Long after I had come to this conclusion, the article in Harper's on January 2007 sealed the deal. This article describes "James" as the head of the Bin Laden unit and if you can imagine this, the head of the CIA Rendition unit, more why this is so horrific in this in a later post. This article said it was illegal to actually know "James" real name, but is was immediately clear that "James" was none other than Richard Earl Blee. It also said Blee and Black were very close, they were close friends. So it is inconceivable that Blee would have been holding anything back from Black, any miscommunication over Mihdhar and Hazmi and the fact they could not be found in Bangkok for a few days, in my opinion had been inadvertent and not a sign Blee, or Wilshire for that matter had ever acted in any way on their own.

Note you said: "You haven't provide evidence that Black and Tenet were involved.

The analysis of the identification of Bin Attash from the Kuala Lumpur photos on January 4, 2001 shows that Tenet and Black were totally involved. Why is that?

Because the groups that were criminally withholding the fact after this date, that Bin Attash had been identified in Kuala Lumpur photos, were the Yemen CIA Station, the Pakistan CIA Station, and the CIA Bin Laden unit.

The CIA Bin Laden unit was under Blee who was under Black. The Yemen Station and the Pakistan CIA Station were under I believe, John Gannon, who was under Tenet. Both Black and Gannon in fact were under Tenet. Not only did all of these different groups take part in this massive criminal conspiracy, but even the cables that went back to and from these groups, had information on Bin Attash and his identification at Kuala Lumpur when they went to the CIA, but had Bin Attash and any mention of a meeting in Kuala Lumpur left out when they went to the FBI. To carry out this massive criminal conspiracy had to have taken Tenet himself, since many of these managers were actually in completely different groups which ultimately only reported to Tenet. This ties all three of the highest CIA managers to this massive criminal conspiracy at the CIA. Note on February 1, 2001 the CIA Pakistan alat was standing right next to Soufan as Soufan was having the Joint CIA/FBI source identify Bin Attash from the Yemen provide passport photo.

I am sure the entire CIA was on needles and pins praying that this CIA alat and the Joint source kept their mouths shut and said absolutely nothing about the Bin Attash identification just the prior month from the Kuala Lumpur photo or even any mention of the meeting in Kuala Lumpur. That would have destroyed this entire criminal conspiracy immediately and exposed the CIA's criminal culpability in allowing the Cole bombing.

When Tenet and the CIA found out that Bin Attash had taken part in the Kuala Lumpur meeting and knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at that same meeting the CIA knew that all three had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing. At that point the CIA instituted a massive criminal conspiracy to hide this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators to prevent the fact that the CIA itself had been criminal culpable in allowing the Cole bombing to take place from ever coming out.

That unfortunately was heart the criminal conspiracy that had ultimately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.