Support 911Blogger


Questions and Answers with Kevin Fenton (interview by Jon Gold)

I was introduced to Kevin Fenton sometime in 2006. We met on 911blogger.com where he was a contributor for many years. I respected his keen insight and appreciated the fact that he used mainstream media accounts and Government documents for his postings there. Kevin is a contributor to the Complete 9/11 Timeline available at www.historycommons.org, along with people like Paul Thompson.

Eventually, Kevin signed up on my site, and started posting his information there. In September 2007, I started work on something I called the Who Is? Archives that was based on the material of the timeline. Kevin was kind enough to write several of the introductions for people mentioned.

The following is a written interview with Kevin Fenton, answering questions that I asked him. Thank you Kevin for taking the time, and I hope everyone buys your book, Disconnecting The Dots: How 9/11 Was Allowed To Happen. The information in it is essential to understanding the 9/11 attacks, and gives several examples of people that should have been held accountable, but weren’t.
------
Read the interview at: http://911truthnews.com/questions-and-answers-with-kevin-fenton/

Bin Laden was in on 2005 and 2006 London plots

http://news.yahoo.com/bin-laden-2005-2006-london-plots-051022395.html

Bin Laden was in on 2005 and 2006 London plots

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden was aware of the plot in which al Qaeda militants bombed London transport facilities on July 7, 2005, but it was the last successful operation he played a role in, U.S. government experts have concluded.

Circumstantial evidence, including information gathered from the Abbotabad, Pakistan, hide-out where U.S. Navy SEALs killed bin Laden on May 2, also suggests that bin Laden had advance knowledge of an unsuccessful London-based 2006 plot to simultaneously bomb U.S.-bound transatlantic flights, several U.S. national security officials said.

"Bin Laden was absolutely a detail guy. We have every reason to believe that he was aware of al Qaeda's major plots during the planning phase, including the airline plot in 2006 and the London '7-7' attacks," one of the U.S. officials told Reuters. This official and others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss counter-terrorism matters.

Some of the confidence U.S. officials expressed about bin Laden's involvement in the London attacks is based on analytical judgment rather than ironclad proof.

more: http://news.yahoo.com/bin-laden-2005-2006-london-plots-051022395.html

Interesting Q&A and Characterizations

Question: "There are some who claim to be advocates for 9/11 Justice that have a problem with your book ... according to some ... they (the alleged hijackers) were “patsies” and the planes were remote controlled. What do you have to say to these individuals?"

Fenton: "I’m not a pilot and I can’t really add any expertise to the question of whether the alleged pilots would have been able to fly the planes the way they did with only the training the FBI says they had. However, I don’t think much of the FBI’s investigation, so there is always the possibility that they had training the Bureau did not uncover, or even did uncover, but did not make public."

Fenton limits his speculation only to the possibility of undocumented greater "hijacker" training and not consideration of the documented technology that made the attacks possible without human pilot control.

Until this aspect of the 9/11 attacks is better resolved, one should not declare "How 9/11 Was Allowed To Happen" (or LIHOP) (see book's title).

Fenton also seems to imply that Al Qaeda is an authentic terrorist organization with authentic motives, despite the abundant evidence suggesting otherwise:

"It is also clear they were AQ operatives. Almihdhar lived at AQ’s operations hub—how much more connected could you get?"

Show "Flight Training" by rschop

What was the largest plane

What was the largest plane you flew?

Flight training

Size for most planes, (IMHO) is irrelevant particularly when you are not required to take off or doing a normal landing but just fly straight and level. They all fly with approximately the same pilot flight control pressures, typical the bigger the aircraft the slower the controls will be to react to pilot commands. Engine controls on multi-engine airplanes are all ganged and can be moved together. The bigger the plane the more it should be flown, and is flown, by the numbers, the small aircraft can be flown by the seat of the pants. And it is clear the hijackers all used dead reckoning to find their way to the targets.

What is important is to know the magic numbers, in particular max decent speed, this is the critical number because when are descending you have to power down significantly or the wings come off.

Marwin al-Shiehi obviously still had not powered down enough when he made his final turn to the south tower since he was going about 575 MPH when he should have been below 250 MPH, a typical sometimes fatal mistake by a novice pilot. In this case an almost fatal mistake was somewhat irrelevant since he only had a few seconds to live anyway after he started his final turn.

You did not answer the

You did not answer the question directly.

Interesting.

So in your experience driving an 18 wheel truck full of cargo is just the same as an empty Geo....or driving a car at 45mph is no different than 145mph.

I don't know.

rschop, UR quite a guy

Whatever experience you have flying aircraft, your conclusions stand in stark contrast to that of pilots like US Navy Commander and "Top Gun" flight instructor Ralph Kolstad, who has flown F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks and F-14 Tomcats during his 20-year career with the Navy, along with a 27-year career as a commercial pilot flying Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80 and Fokker F-100s. Might I suggest you make an effort to reconcile you perspective with those like Kolstad, who are eminently qualified to be suspicious of the official narrative regarding flying capabilities of the alleged hijackers, before you jump in on forums such as this and accuse people of making ludicrous claims or being disingenuous.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

is an organization without credibility.

Case in point:

"Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says: 'At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757's and 767's and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described"

What "flight path" would that be, Ralph? If Hanjour indeed flew that plane, then he flew it like an incompetent moron. He hit a tree, a VDOT pole, another five light poles, a generator with fence, a concrete foundation and another tree in front of column 14 before hitting the Pentagon, in a section where he would cause the least amount of casualties.

Kolstad then starts nattering about the "absence of physical evidence" at the Pentagon, which tells me all I need to know about the value of Kolstad's "expert" opinion.

rschop: warning, request for comment

rschop, it's a violation of the rules to claim or insinuate another user is lying (or being disingenous). Please review the http://www.911blogger.com/rules

Also, I've replied to your comment on the other Fenton book thread; please provide evidence for your assertions.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-30/kevin-fenton-long-anticipated-book-now-available#comment-251337

And you may be interested in this recent Shoestring article, quoting numerous experts on how difficult it would be to fly the 757/767 planes the way they were flown on 9/11 into the WTC/Pentagon, and on how poor the alleged hijacker pilot's skills were: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who-became-super-pilots-september-11

response to Aidan re Interesting

Aidan: "Fenton limits his speculation only to the possibility of undocumented greater "hijacker" training and not consideration of the documented technology that made the attacks possible without human pilot control."

Fenton: "I’m pretty much interested in all [areas of 9/11 investigation] to a degree. However, I’m not a technical type and therefore focus on non-technical aspects. Obviously, some aspects of 9/11 skepticism are more credible than others."

Seems to me Kevin is sticking to what he knows and can prove; I think that's a good policy - the truth movement has been discredited so many times by people accepting and repeating mis and disinfo as if it were fact. While the technology existed to remotely control planes, and, imho, it seems likely this was done, neither you nor anyone else has provided hard evidence this was done on 9/11 (yes, I'm aware of your UAL 175 paper), so this is also speculation at this point.

I'm about 3/5 of the way thru the book; it's factual documentation and analysis, and primarily concerned with what NSA, FBI and CIA officials did and didn't do with the knowledge available to them, and how wrong doing was covered up in the reports of the subsequent four investigations.

"Until this aspect of the 9/11 attacks is better resolved, one should not declare "How 9/11 Was Allowed To Happen" (or LIHOP) (see book's title)."

This is an error; apparently this was the book's 2010 planned subtitle (release was delayed for a year) and Amazon hasn't updated the link. The correct subtitle is "How CIA and FBI officials helped enable 9/11 and evaded government investigations."

"Fenton also seems to imply that Al Qaeda is an authentic terrorist organization with authentic motives, despite the abundant evidence suggesting otherwise:"

You didn't provide a link or evidence, but I'm aware that US, British, Israeli, Saudi, Pakistani, other intelligence agencies have directly and indirectly used terrorist networks as proxies. These groups and networks are composed of disaffected/violent individuals who may be motivated by ideology, as well as mercenaries, provocateurs, informers and infiltrators/agents. One fairly short and general overview, fleshed out more in his book "The War on Truth":
Nafeez Ahmed - "Ties With Terror: The Continuity of Western-Al-Qaeda Relations in the Post-Cold War Period"
http://911blogger.com/node/2966

Paul Thompson's "The Terror Timeline" and Peter Dale Scott's "The Road to 9/11" also address this subject.

Kevin does not address this in his book, from what I've seen; other than as it specifically relates to the 9/11 plot, and specifically the evidence implicating CIA, NSA and FBI officials. The book has a narrow scope, but it's still 416 pgs, incl. the text, notes, appendices, bib and index.

More Evidence For Autopilot Control Than Hijacker Control

"While the technology existed to remotely control planes, and, imho, it seems likely this was done, neither you nor anyone else has provided hard evidence this was done on 9/11 (yes, I'm aware of your UAL 175 paper), so this is also speculation at this point." 

I would say precisely the same to describe the public perception of the official version of events as it relates to the alleged hijacker control of the 9/11 planes. This aspect of the official story is an allegation supported by almost no evidence except for two Flight Data Recorders with missing inventory control serial numbers, which are essential to establishing authenticity.

On the other hand, this study of UA 175's recorded flight strongly implies autopilot control of UA 175 IMO. 

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

If this final 8 seconds of observed flight were under inexperienced human control, I would equate UA 175's impact with WTC 2, to a half-court shot in basketball - not impossible but less than likely. 

This seems especially true when one considers the projected impact of UA 175 (minus the final 18 degree twist), approximately 40 feet from WTC 2's center. Therefore, UA 175 could even have hit WTC 2, if WTC 2 were only 100 feet wide (less than half its actual 208 foot width). Hijacker impact with a 100 foot wide target via a 1.5 mile constant radius turn, under crosswind conditions capable of generating over 100 feet of drift if not compensated for at turn initiation? Unlikly IMO.

Lynn Spencer is an airline pilot, flight instructor and the author of "Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama that Unfolded in the Skies over America on 9/11". 

http://cleartheskies.com/

I asked her about the possibility of the 9/11 flights being under autopilot control:

###

From: Lynn Spencer
To: Aidan Monaghan
Sent: Sat, March 12, 2011 8:11:52 AM
Subject: Re: 9/11 Flights

...

"It is clear that United 175 was most definitely NOT on autopilot during the last seconds of flight. He was observed banking left and right as he compensated to hit his target."

###

After politely advising Ms. Spencer that there were no visible "left and right" banking compensations during UA 175's final seconds, the correspondence ended and I've not obtained a reply since.

###

From: Aidan Monaghan
To: Lynn Spencer
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: 9/11 Flights

Hi Lynn:

Thanks very much for taking the time to consider my questions. Certainly appreciate the feedback of someone with your expertise.

I may have failed to note previously that the referred-to footage of the final 8 seconds (or one-plus mile) of UA 175's flight at 799f/s does not seem to reveal any left or right banking compensations during its approach, just one 18 degree left roll from a 20 degree left-banked position approximately 2.5 seconds prior to its impact, which was apparently not needed to cause the plane’s impact with WTC 2.

###

(Credit to Nate F. for the video edit)

"You didn't provide a link or evidence, but I'm aware that US, British, Israeli, Saudi, Pakistani, other intelligence agencies have directly and indirectly used terrorist networks as proxies."

I meant to use Fenton's following quote when reporting what seems to be Fenton's seeming belief in terrorist authenticty:

"there is always the possibility that they (the accused hijackers) had training the Bureau did not uncover, or even did uncover, but did not make public."

Believing that the accused hijackers actually piloted the 9/11 planes into their targets implies a belief in authentic terrorists.

Huh?

"Believing that the accused hijackers actually piloted the 9/11 planes into their targets implies a belief in authentic terrorists."

What do "beliefs" have to do with the truth?

Please try to keep research and religion separate.

The audacity

Of the peer pressure and the cultist belief / conformity reinforcement is amazing. Thanks for speaking up, YT.. Investigating the possibility of remote control is fine with me. Asserting either that, "no hijacker" or "no Al Qaeda"-theories as fact is something that rubs me the wrong way completely.

Just because somebody watched "The Power Of Nightmares" doesn't mean they know diddly squat about Islamic terrorism, or how real it is. Actually "The Power Of Nightmares" is pretty misleading after re-evaluating it, a poor series, which completely misrepresents e.g. Jason Burke's position and his book(s).

Never Said No "Hijackers"

Although there is little evidence supporting the claim of the 19 accused being aboard the 4 aircraft, I think its likely they were aboard these planes, if for no other reason than to eliminate them. But otherwise, someone likely had to manually turn off/change the aircraft transponders, strongly suggesting a cockpit presence by the accused.

On September 11, 2001, there were two readily available means for crashing an airliner into the WTC and Pentagon: 1.) under "pilot" control (human); 2.) under autopilot control. Alleged passenger phone calls and one cockpit transmission reports (if they are to be believed) describe still living airline pilots post-"hijacking" and an intention to return to the "airport" following the reported takeovers. This implies the participation of the accused in what were one of the numerous officially sanctioned hijack excercises circa 9/11/01. A return to the airport in full autoland mode was possible circa 9/11. Activation of uploaded autopilot flight plans via SATCOM or VHF, that instead lead the 9/11 planes to their destructions, would be as simple as a few keystrokes of the MCDU.

ACARS traffic could confirm any autopilot disconnects or other Flight Management Computer activity, but the FBI refuse to release this data, which could settle the autopilot question. There is however, evidence that the ACARS records reviewed by the 9/11 Commission were altered. They apparently describe ACARS transmission received by UA 93 from Champaign, IL while near the OH/PA border (a nearly 500 mile distance), even though such transmissions are limited to just 200 miles.

Just because the media and government have alleged repeatedly that the 9/11 planes were crashed by radical terrorists into buildings on 9/11, does not make it so.

Re: "Never Said No "Hijackers""

Aidan: "Although there is little evidence supporting the claim of the 19 accused being aboard the 4 aircraft, I think its likely they were aboard these planes, if for no other reason than to eliminate them."

Glad to see you aren't insisting the NSA monitoring, CIA memos/emails, battles w/ the FBI, and the paper trail the 19 left all over the US, the phone calls from the planes and the subsequent investigation involving hundreds of FBI agents, and the extensive efforts to hide, spin and deflect attention from wrong doing by NSA, CIA and FBI officials were all faked.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe so much effort and expense would be invested in enabling/protecting the alleged hijackers, that the 19 would be trusted to successfully hijack the planes and hit their targets. What if the passengers/crew on one or more of the planes had successfully defeated the hijacking? Or what if they'd hijacked the plane, missed and crashed elsewhere? That could open a real can of worms. But this is not evidence it didn't happen that way; it's reason to be skeptical and it suggests lines of inquiry, as do the official records, which contain evidence of the 19 being protected and the FBI obstructed, and of a subsequent cover up.

Kevin acknowledged that he does not have evidence the 19 did not hijack the planes, or that they were not capable of hitting their targets. You have also acknowledged this. This is quite different from rschop positively asserting that amateurs could do so, and that it is disingenuous to assert that the named hijackers did not do so.

From Aidan's paper:

"There appear to be three possible explanations for the observed final 18 degree roll of UA 175 prior to impact with WTC 2: ... 3.) the roll was a correction by a human pilot to centralize an impact with WTC 2." (p. 5)

"A possible rationale for a final 18 degree roll under autopilot control would be to create an impression of active human control." (p. 5)

You are suggesting the perps figured some expert would notice the 'too-perfect' remote-controlled flight path and use it to prove 9/11 was an inside job, so they made the flight path a little less perfect? But you've acknowledged a human may have been at the controls of UA 175.

From your Discussion: "... human control of UA 175 cannot be ruled out ..." (p. 13)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

Your paper isn't hard evidence of remote control or inside job, it only suggests a potentially fruitful line of inquiry.

Kevin's book has exhaustively documented wrong-doing that cannot be plausibly explained as incompetence or negligence. Rather, numerous specific actions and incidents, and the larger pattern, point to deliberate efforts to enable and protect the 9/11 plot, and cover up these actions afterward. Kevin's work is understated, cautious, rational and credible, and it is hard evidence.

What Do You Consider "Hard Evidence"?

You refer to "plausible" and "point to" within the same paragraph as "hard evidence" to describe Fenton's work. In any event, I don't doubt that the 19 accused were shielded and their activities facilitated by the federal government.

It would seem there is more identifiable evidence for autopilot control of the 9/11 aircraft than of hijacker control? Wouldn't you agree? The official story regarding any hijacker piloting of the 9/11 planes is a virtually unsupported allegation.

Fair questions

Documentary evidence (emails, memos, cables, reports, etc.) is hard evidence.

Aidan: "I don't doubt that the 19 accused were shielded and their activities facilitated by the federal government."

Kevin's book documents this, as well as the cover up of this; it's what the book is about. This shielding and facilitating is documented in official records; certain facts may be openly acknowledged but explained away in the official reports as mistakes, or noted glibly and in passing, or hidden in endnotes or simply omitted, though they're available in the source records. These are available for anyone to find and see for themselves, but it's often difficult to find or see; I can understand what Kevin's written, but I couldn't have written this book - I will write a review.

The book contains a great deal of analysis which is helpful in understanding the context and importance of certain facts, or the relationship between one or more facts. Reading the historycommons profile for just one central character, Tom Wilshire, gives an overview w/o much analysis. http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=tom_wilshire_1

Wilshire, first at CIA and then FBI, was involved in repeated failures in 2000-2001 to pass on information to the FBI or to watchlist people they had reason to believe were terrorists - in certain emails Wilshire explicitly acknowledged this as his belief and that there was a plot, but he continued to obstruct FBI investigators, including by making or authorizing false statements. The Commission, DOJ IG report and Joint Inquiry either don't deal with certain evidence or they spin it, but these explanations are not plausible.

Hijacker or auto/remote control; the claim that amateurs who were rotten Cessna pilots flew those airliners is incredible and there's no hard evidence they did, but there's also no hard evidence they didn't or that the planes were flown by other means. As I said, it's a potentially fruitful line of inquiry.

Assumptions about 'Hijackers'

Belief in authentic super-pilots runs counter to evidence of their skill level and the peer-reviewed paper Aidan published regarding UA175.

Belief that Mohammed Atta was an authentic Muslim jihadist is contradicted by Daniel Hopsicker's book "Welcome to Terrorland," which exposes the cover story of the Florida flight schools and the ongoing cover-up. The whole thing stinks of Iran/Contra and CIA drugs.

Mohammed Atta loved pork chops, and 49 other things you may not know about the 9/11 Florida connection.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1433886

Belief that the alleged hijackers had no ties to the US government is contradicted by the fact that five of the alleged hijackers received training at US military bases. 'Ringleader' Mohammed Atta had gone to the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama; Al-Omari to the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks AFB in Texas; and Al-Ghamdi to the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio in Monterey, CA.
Two of the alleged hijackers rented an apartment from and actually lived with FBI informants. The CIA had operational interest in Nawaz al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. I hope Mr. Fenton pointed this out in his book and didn't assume the authenticity of the OCT regarding these 19 individuals.

The MIHOP thought police

I say there were authentic terrorists with authentic plans and Al Qaeda was and is an actual terrorist organization. I do not feel ashamed one bit for saying that, as I am not part of the MIHOP cult and am thus not subject to its religious "no hijacker" doctrine, which is both embarrassing and baseless, but mostly inspired by fanciful theories such as "voice morphing / cell phone fakery". It is the tragic harvest of years of uncritical acceptation of questionable 9/11 Truth leadership.

Imply a belief in authentic terrorists? Or what? The consequences being what, Aidan? This is the other way around, because it is YOU who should explain your extremely questionable belief in no hijacker theories and your reflexive denial of the entire existence of Al Qaeda and "authentic terrorists". that is, Islamist militants who are pissed off about the military occupation of their lands by American forces.

We once FUNDED and ENCOURAGED those militants. They exist everywhere. 50% of their victims are Muslim. Get real.

We don't owe you an explanation, you owe us one.

P.S. Outside of speculation and falsification, where is your direct evidence for remote control? Do you understand the difference between verification and falsification? Then I'm sure you can point out where in the FDR data of flight 77 or flight 93 the indisputable evidence for remote control resides. Direct, positive evidence. So far, everything is based on incredulity, and evidence-wise, in the historical, journalistic, or scientific method, that can only result in a state of uncertainty, nothing more.

Are U an expert?

"I say there were authentic terrorists with authentic plans and Al Qaeda was and is an actual terrorist organization."

That's fine, you can "say" whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. If you know anything about the history of modern terrorism, you know it's all about the "David vs. Goliath" syndrome -- about repressed/oppressed people who have no other option for either reprisal of grievances or public acknowledgment of their plight and they typically claim responsibility precisely because exposure to their cause is what it's all about. "Al Qaeda" hasn't done that except under extreme torture, unless you think the Bin Ladden videos are authentic. Maybe you do? I am not going to argue about who, precisely, the alleged terrorists were or what they were doing on the planes, but I will ask you if there exists people who are willing to martyr themselves for a cause (in this case against America), why haven't they switched tactics -- like blowing up shopping malls, poisoning water supplies, ad infinitum? Our borders are extremely porous and the only overt counter-security in America takes place at airports and government buildings. There are plenty of places where America is vulnerable, yet we don't see any attacks.

"We once FUNDED and ENCOURAGED those militants."

You forgot to mention that the CIA/ISI also RECRUITED them. More importantly, by using the word "once," you also assert that this doesn't take place anymore. And your certainty on that is..........................? The dismissal of J. Michael Springman's testimony by our government means either he is full of shit or he is touching a nerve that someone doesn't want touched. I happen to think it's the latter, but the verdict is not out, so....... the verdict is not out.

I agree that the notion of "blowback" terrorism is real. I just don't think that left to its own device it would have succeeded on 9/11. There is a plethora of circumstantial evidence that a plot, if it indeed existed, was enabled by powers that could guarantee its success. It is also conceivable that it was hatched by those same people. And those are the real perps --- the ones who's agenda is secret and who we should fear the most.

Beliefs Vs Reality

SnowCrash said..."I say there were authentic terrorists with authentic plans and Al Qaeda was and is an actual terrorist organization."

911Peacenik said...."That's fine, you can "say" whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true."

No, but this does....

"UNITED STATES of America,

v.

Usama BIN LADEN
April 20, 2000"

"The Defendants are charged with numerous offenses arising out of their alleged involvement in an international terrorist organization led by Defendant Usama Bin Laden (“Bin Laden”) and that organization’s alleged involvement in the August, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Presently before the Court is Defendant Al-’Owhali’s motion to dismiss Count One of the Indictment on the ground that it fails to state an offense. For the reasons set forth below, that motion is denied."
http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/93FSupp2d484.html

and
http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs4/91FSupp2d600.html

and

"Before sentencing, Yousef made a rambling, 17minute statement in which he said, Yes, I am a terrorist and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government."

"He denounced the U.S. government as liars and butchers for what he called its support of Israel."
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-01-08/us/9801_08_yousef.update_1_yousef-trade-center-bombing-airliner-bombing?_s=PM:US

I also think the pentagon is an authentic building, Shanksville is an authentic place, flights 77 and 93 were authentic planes, one flew into the authentic pentagon building and the other went down in Shanksville with authentic passengers on board. I realize saying it doesn't make it true. Neither does denying all this make it go away.

BTW there is also a huge connection that the FEDS have tried to keep secret between 9/11 and the embassy bombings. Know what it is? I'll give you a hint, it involves a certain house in Yemen and the NSA..... you can read all about it in Kevin's book.

Ali Abdelsuad Mohamed

Remember him?

Please don't tell me you consider him to be an "authentic Muslim terrorist" ...

And, if the reports are to be believed, he remains in FBI protective custody.

Participating in false flag events does not make one an "authentic Muslim terrorist", it also doesn't rule out the possibility that they thought they were acting on genuine beliefs. After all the best patsies don't know they are patsies (why did Ruby gun down Oswald? Perhaps because Oswald started stating that he was just a patsy?).

The 9/11 false flag was layers over layers and highly compartmentalized by design, that's why certain aspects of it are so difficult to fully deconstruct.

Outside of the clear violation of basic physics with regard to the destruction of the three WTC buildings, there are no easy answers, only more questions that need to be fully answered.

Fortunately, I love solving multi-dimensional puzzles, and this is the most complicated one I've yet come across.

The truth shall set us free, but it can take quite awhile sometimes.

Love is the only way forward, and love begets patience.

Authentic agents infiltrating inauthentic terrorist groups

doesn't make much sense does it?

LeftWright said....."Ali Abdelsuad Mohamed Remember him? Please don't tell me you consider him to be an "authentic Muslim terrorist" ...

Yea, not only do I remember him I wrote this-it's about him.....

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-03/what-gov-deal-ali-mohamed

Please don't tell me he never hung around or trained ""authentic Muslim terrorists" or there is no point to him is there?

hey Jim.....

When UR ready to talk about Sept 11, 2001, I'll be glad to consider what you have to say, but so far your critique hasn't made it past April 20, 2000. I guess you'll get around to it once you've read the rest of what I had to say, since you haven't seemed to make it past my first sentence.

And while UR digging up citations, I can't seem to find one on the al Qaeda organization's official position on the action they took with Flight 93 and Shanksville. Forward it to me when you get a chance, or just post it on this thread. Thanks.

More to 9-11 than 8:46am to 5:20 pm

911Peacenik said...."When UR ready to talk about Sept 11, 2001, I'll be glad to consider what you have to say, but so far your critique hasn't made it past April 20, 2000."

Maybe if you read Kevin's book you'd know what .........

UNITED STATES of America,
v.
Usama BIN LADEN
April 20, 2000.
The Defendants are charged with numerous offenses arising out of their alleged involvement in an international terrorist organization led by Defendant Usama Bin Laden (“Bin Laden”) and that organization’s alleged involvement in the August, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/93FSupp2d484.html

and

"Daily transcripts of the USA v. Usama bin Laden et al trial in the Southern District of New York. Digital files from the Court Reporters"
http://cryptome.org/usa-v-ubl-dt.htm

has to do with 9-11. I'll give you a hint.....
FBI 302, dated 9/9/98 of interviews of Mohammad al-Owali:

"Subject made a series of phone calls to his friend in Yemen, Ahmed al-hazza at phone number 967 1 200 578." page 14/18
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense/767.pdf

911Peacenik said..."And while UR digging up citations, I can't seem to find one on the al Qaeda organization's official position on the action they took with Flight 93 and Shanksville. Forward it to me when you get a chance, or just post it on this thread. Thanks."

Why not just read the transcript from the voice recorder? .....

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/flight93_transcript.pdf

It's as fake as the plane parts at the pentagon right?

I know it's summer, but spare me the reruns

and likewise, spare all of us your silly "I'll give you a hint" mantra and just give us some facts.

Your inability to produce any official declaration from an organization that calls itself al Qaeda on or after September 11, 2001 is precisely what's suspect about the accusation that an organization that calls itself al Qaeda is primarily responsible, unless you accept the Bin Ladden videos at face value, and maybe you do.

Within the voice recorder transcript, the only comment that approaches an official organizational declaration is the following:

"We have a bomb on board and we are going back to the airport and we have our demands."

So following your line of reason, "al Qaeda's" intent behind the Flight 93 hijacking was to hold the plane hostage with a bomb threat (the bomb itself being real or imagined), return the plane to an airport and announce their demands. Sounds reasonable and very much like a typical hijacking. But in the course of their attempt, the passengers storm the cockpit and in the pandemonium, the plane ends up crashing near Shanksville, PA. Sounds reasonable, too.

But what happened to the demands? This "organization" called al Qaeda now has some of it's members martyred for what they consider an extremely noble cause -- one worth dying for. Where is the official veneration and recognition of their martyrs? Where is the announcement of the demands their brave comrades sacrificed their lives for? Where is the proclamation that these brave souls did not die in vein and that the struggle and demands will continue? Is that what the anthrax attacks were, Jim? The Bin Ladden videos?

I'm sure Fenton's book is very good and in-line with the caliber of his contributions to date. And I look forward to reading as much of it as time allows.

Maybe Afghanistan is fake

911Peacenik said...."Your inability to produce any official declaration from an organization that calls itself al Qaeda on or after September 11, 2001 is precisely what's suspect about the accusation that an organization that calls itself al Qaeda is primarily responsible, unless you accept the Bin Ladden videos at face value, and maybe you do."

What's that supposed to mean? That there was no "Al Qaeda"? That Bin Laden and the ISI didn't have training camps in Afghanistan supported by Saudi Arabia? That the USS Cole and Embassy Bombings never happened? Or if they did they were carried out by?,,...what? Jews working for Mossad or Super duper secret agents? You aren't going to suggest Bin Laden is a hologram are you?

911Peacenik said...."But what happened to the demands?"
They're dead. They died when the plane went down. As for demands I'll give you another hint since it bothers you so much. Maybe watch one of the hijackers martyr videos. I guess you didn't notice that according to the transcript they killed themselves. Just like if they were going to fly into a building. You think they might have lied about having a bomb on board? Be careful because if they lied about that maybe they lied about "going back to the airport". I know it's hard to believe fruitcake murderers would lie isn't it? They seem like such nice religious boys wanting to safely fly the passengers back to the airport don't they? Maybe the passengers caused their own deaths by storming the cockpit and should be blamed for the crash...ya think? Or better yet...it's all fake and the pilots shot the plane down during a stand down?

is "fake" your favorite word?

The things we know for sure are not fake, are the lives lost at all of the events you just mentioned. Some of those events we know more about than others.

Ali Abdelsuad Mohamed

Do you think he was the "triple agent" that Peter Lance paints him as?

Of do you have a more plausible explanation for his nearly two decades of activity?

One can create something which is "real" in that it exists, but it is "fake" in that it is not what it appears to be, yes?

This is the very essence of false flag operations/events, yes?

Do you doubt that Brzezinski convinced Carter to form the Afghan mujaheddin BEFORE the Soviets invaded?

Do you question the fact that elements within these same groups have been used as western intelligence assets ever since in multiple theaters over decades?

How do you evaluate Sibel Edmond's statement that she saw documents showing that Osama bin Laden was working for the U.S. on September 10, 2001?

Do you have any doubt that the destruction of WTC 7 was by a controlled demolition of some kind?

Do you have any doubt that the Twin Towers destruction was also aided by the use of explosives and/or incendiaries of some kind?

When you put all the data points together, what exactly is it that you see?

I see a very carefully constructed narrative that supports the endless global war on terrorism and the 9/11 false flag operation that took it to an entirely new level.

If two guys in a crowded theater plot to start screaming "fire" in the theater, and people are crushed and some even killed in the rush to get out, does it matter that there was no fire to begin with and that two guys made it all up (even if the other theater goers honestly and sincerely believe that there was a fire)?

The Saudis were not the only ones funding and supporting the creation of the mujaheddin, and they certainly have not been the ones who have exploited their creation and maintenance the most. Thus, the story does not end or begin there and our investigations should not end or begin there, agreed?

What exactly is your point here with this particular line of rhetoric?

The truth shall set us free, and is best advanced without sarcasm.

Love is the only way forward, and love often requires a great deal of patience and forbearance.

Not interested in Cults

I have no interest in taking your test to determine if I'm worthy of being a "cult member in good standing".

LeftWright said..."The Saudis were not the only ones funding and supporting the creation of the mujaheddin, and they certainly have not been the ones who have exploited their creation and maintenance the most. Thus, the story does not end or begin there and our investigations should not end or begin there, agreed?"

You can blabber all you want about how I insist any investigation should begin and end with the Saudi's and you will continue to be dishonest in your implications on my stance. The following will continue to be a fact....if the President of the United States protects and shields Saudi Arabian involvement in the 9-11 attacks while at the same time tries to convince Americans Iraq was involved - this makes him a devious traitor deliberately assisting 9-11 perps while deceiving the American public, you might not think that is as important as promoting mental patients and their absurd offensive theories but you will continue to be wrong.

LeftWright to Craig Ranke:

"I like your approach, don't be deterred, know that it is an uphill battle all the way, keep up the good work."
http://911blogger.com/news/2008-01-07/trailer-upcoming-cit-release#comment-173815

As you can see I was down-voted in that thread as well, which of course broke my heart.

A number of more reality based books are hitting the markets and along with Kevin Fentons' excellent well researched book is another called "the eleventh day" whose author was recently interviewed by Charlie Rose......

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11800

Have you read "The Eleventh Day -

The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden" by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan?

I have an advance copy sitting in front of me, courtesy of Random House (a review is in the works).

They don't seem to understand junior high science, either, but they certainly can alter the facts with the best of them:

Great chunks of debris had fallen on Trade Center 7, which collapsed into its own footprint in the late afternoon. p.75

That's one of the two sentences they spend on WTC 7 in the body of the book.

Or, perhaps they do understand basic physics and, like the 9/11 Commission and NIST, don't want anyone to look at it.

If understanding Newtonian physics makes me a member of a cult, then you better put my brothers, daughters, parents and a whole lot of other people in that same cult.

Wearing ignorance like a badge has always been discouraged in my family.

Btw, Summers and Swan chose to bury Ali Mohamed in the notes on page 560...

Of course all the cover-ups should be exposed, that goes without saying, what exactly is your point again (other than diversion, distraction and conflation?)?

BTW, I also have the Fenton book, which I am greatly looking forward to reading, as soon as I can make the time.

The truth shall set us free, and the truth includes understanding the laws of gravity on the planet you live on.

Love is the only way forward, and love means having patience and fortitude.

Fake truthers

LeftWright said..."They don't seem to understand junior high science, either, but they certainly can alter the facts with the best of them: Great chunks of debris had fallen on Trade Center 7, which collapsed into its own footprint in the late afternoon. p.75
That's one of the two sentences they spend on WTC 7 in the body of the book. Or, perhaps they do understand basic physics and, like the 9/11 Commission and NIST, don't want anyone to look at it."

So they're "in on it" are they? They mention WTC 7 more than Kevin does so I suppose he's an agent as well according to your line of thinking.

LeftWright said...."Btw, Summers and Swan chose to bury Ali Mohamed in the notes on page 560..."

And Kevin only mentions him once on page 48 where he is described as an "Al Qaeda operative", so I guess they are all "in on it", and anyone who doesn't go along with your conspiracy theories must be ignorant or an agent. That's worked out well for you and your cult hasn't it?

LeftWright said...."Of course all the cover-ups should be exposed, that goes without saying, what exactly is your point again (other than diversion, distraction and conflation?)?"

Perhaps a banning is in order if I am dividing, disrupting and conflating?

LeftWright said...."BTW, I also have the Fenton book, which I am greatly looking forward to reading, as soon as I can make the time."

You wont like it, he ignores your favorite conspiracy theories, and is therefor an "ignorant agent". Or possibly a "fake truther", ...not a "real truther" such as yourself.

Actually, since Kevin Fenton

doesn't claim to tell "the Full Story" on the cover of his book (as Summers and Swann do on theirs), I expect to find a very good presentation of excellent and focused research, which will add to my knowledge of certain areas of the 9/11 false flag operation.

I have no reason to expect otherwise from Mr. Fenton.

Why you continue to introduce extraneous and divisive language to this thread and the site is beyond me, but if it gets to a certain point, you can be sure that moderation will come into play (not by me, however, I recuse myself when I am involved in the thread, as is the case here).

I hope that you and yours are well.

Another Warning?

LeftWright said....."Why you continue to introduce extraneous and divisive language to this thread and the site is beyond me, but if it gets to a certain point, you can be sure that moderation will come into play (not by me, however, I recuse myself when I am involved in the thread, as is the case here)."

The irony of me being warned while I have been called "an asshole" and "an agent" along with other things by members with no warnings from you speaks volumes.

Let me use cult speak -IHOP-LIHOP- MIHOP know what MIHOP is? The anthrax attacks which are connected to the 9-11 event and no Arabs/Muslims were involved in it.

"Shortly after Ivins committed suicide in 2008, federal investigators announced that they had identified him as the mass murderer who sent the letters to members of Congress and the media. The case was circumstantial, with federal officials arguing that the scientist had the means, motive and opportunity to make the deadly powder at a U.S. Army research facility at Fort Detrick, in Frederick, Md."

"On July 15, however, Justice Department lawyers acknowledged in court papers that the sealed area in Ivins' lab -- the so-called hot suite -- did not contain the equipment needed to turn liquid anthrax into the refined powder that floated through congressional buildings and post offices in the fall of 2001."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/2011/07/new-documents-cast-doubt-on-federal-anthrax-case.html#ixzz1SYHcLUow

"In excerpts from one of more than a dozen depositions made public in the case last week, the current chief of of the Bacteriology Division at the Army laboratory, Patricia Worsham, said it lacked the facilities in 2001 to make the kind of spores in the letters."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/2011/07/new-documents-cast-doubt-on-federal-anthrax-case.html#ixzz1SYHcLUow

However it seems as if some want to make "9-11 truth" a vehicle to protect and cover for Muslim terrorists, proclaiming that Arabs/Muslims had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, which is not only untrue it's embarrassing. I'm not going along with it, you don't like it and I will continue to point out that claiming the hijackers were performing "an exercise" or the "Phone calls were fake" are just two preposterous conspiracy theories whose sole reason for existence is to continue this untrue myth of no Muslim terrorists, painting "9-11 truth" as traitors when you have all the evidence already laid out for exposing real treason but are more interested in protecting Arabs/Muslims terrorists, I'm not going along with it and will be willing to be banned from your forum for speaking out against it.

I wish

the legion of critics who wish to repeatedly subject Kevin Fenton to the "9/11 Litmus Test", like they did to John Judge, would just stop. But I guess it's part of the never-ending struggle between those who are indissolubly tied to the DRG-school of 9/11 Truth and those who have come to see and accept the failure of this approach.

Unfortunately, the ideological nature of the first group also compels them to accuse whoever dissents of being "infiltrators", as encouraged by DRG's book "Cognitive Infiltration". That way, critics can be automatically dismissed and the DRG belief system and its subscribers automatically insulate and isolate themselves from 'outsiders'. Sociologically, very interesting, but strategically, very detrimental for an activist group which claims to represent resistance against historical revisionism and is supposedly in pursuit of truth & justice.

Fenton is being attacked, but he should be put on a pedestal. He's one of very few credible researchers left in the mix.

Indeed.The fact that Kevin

Indeed.

The fact that Kevin is a blogger at 9/11 Blogger, has written some well researched articles, and now is publishing a book is exciting - and he does deserve praise.

We should be supporting him, and allow him to take his angle without too much of a barage of complaints and attack, unless fully backed by thorough research and fact.

I agree in the need to know if the planes were controlled remotely, as many here probably suspect. However, if the planes were controlled outside of the hijackers and pilots, that does not negate the fact that "extremism" exists everywhere; Christianity, Islam, Republican, Democrat, etc.

Similarly: We all must agree that claiming Bin Laden is alive (or questioning his death, beyond legality) is as useful as joining the 'Elvis is alive' crowd.

So it does not help us to argue there is no Islamic, or Christian extremists. In fact, because of our foreign policies, I think it is quite a fact we create much of the extremism that is being 'fought." It is terrible.

Ultimately, we need to stop of arguments of beliefs on this site - something I am guilty of too - and continue with our best facts on the front lines, backed by the thorough research of many helping to define those front lines.

Thanks Aidan and Kevin and SnowCrash and Jon Gold and Jimd and Cosmos and so many othes for all your work in those regards.

I wish

that we would stop walking in eachothers way to come to a workable solution. That we all would recognize that this doesn't work, and that we should act differently (how exactly I don't know). The real perps have reckoned well how difficult it is for people to organize themselves and stand up to injustice and oppression.

What I don't get are a number of things:
-Why is there a problem getting the evidence of fraudulent practice by NIST and the 9/11-Commission to court?
-What is it about people that refrains them from working together to protect themselves?
-Why does the movement have a problem raising relative small amounts of money for FOIA-requests and legal representation?
-How are we going to solve this without having to resort to some kind of violence? Are we going to see herds of people letting themselves get slaughtered without a hint of resistance from them? People who will be true to their principles and shall not kill, but instead willingly and consciously choose to be killed?

Nonviolence is a big issue here. It's something that's rarely been done before. How the hell do you start a revolution with nonviolence? What to do if someone will ignore your repeated requests for mere accountability for his/her acions, just say no to them or flat out deny any wrongdoing? How long does one have to stay polite?
Who are these people who think they can bullshit their way out of the trouble they've caused and just walk away?

What I wonder about is:
-What is going to happen when it actually does get to court?
-Who will be the judge?
-Which witnesses will show up to testify?
-Who will go to jail?
-Who will get away with it?

This isn't about a trial, about seeking justice and holding those responsible accountable for their actions. It is about changing the way we think about ourselves and what it means to live on this planet, or "having to survive" if u will.
One cannot get 9/11 to court only to have someone found guilty and then put 'm behind bars, and move on while nothing will actually have changed.

I think Fenton last words were especially interesting. He don't think we'll ever get to impose sanctions on those responsible. Well if that can't happen then what?