New Book From Kevin Fenton: Disconnecting The Dots: How 9/11 Was Allowed To Happen
Source: amazon.com
Questioning actions taken by American intelligence agencies prior to 9/11, this investigation charges that the CIA and NSA repeatedly and deliberately withheld information from the FBI, thereby allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Pinpointing a CIA deputy unit chief, Tom Wilshire, and his manager, Richard Blee, as being 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 Blee 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.
- Jon Gold's blog
- Login to post comments
Looks great
Can't wait to get a copy.
Yes it does...
I look forward to it.
Edit: Kevin was kind enough to write some of the introductions for me for this.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
He did a nice job, Jon.
He did a nice job, Jon.
Yes he did...
This one is my favorite introduction. No offense to Kevin... :)
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
awesome!
Just pre-ordered it.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Sign me up for one
I was hoping Kevin would come out with a book, he is one of, if not, the most knowledgeable, individuals regarding the intelligence failures and subsequent cover-ups. But am I reading the Amazon site correctly, it is not due out until August of this year (i.e., the publish date)?
Actually, I think the other Kevin on this blog needs to write a book too. ;)
Kevin Fenton
at the Journal of 9/11 Studies in June 2008...
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/FentonWTCInitiationFloors...
My pre-order is
on, Kevin!
Don't words mean anything anymore?
Perhaps it's the editors at amazon.com whom I should take issue with; but what's this constantly referring to 'failures' in one breath and to 'deliberately withheld information,' 'information...intentionally omitted,' and 'the purposefulness of the wrongdoing' in the next? If their actions were deliberate, intentional, and purposeful; and if their deliberate actions achieved their intended purpose, then could someone please explain to me where the supposed 'failure' occurred?! This is the kind of double-speak we already get too much from the major news media.
And what's with these references to 'allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon;' 'allow[ing] an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States;' 'the CIA's operations against al-Qaeda'? After eight years, are we suddenly satisfied with what the U.S. government has told us regarding the critical question of WHO actually carried out the attacks on those targets that day? And regarding the actual relationship between U.S. intelligence and the organization thus accused'?
I'll let Kevin...
Answer any critiques you may have, but I can guarantee that Kevin Fenton IS NOT "satisfied with what the U.S. government has told us regarding the critical question of WHO actually carried out the attacks on those targets that day." This book focuses on his 9/11 expertise which is the intelligence agencies, and their relationship to 9/11. I look forward to it.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Kevin's documentation & analysis speaks for itself
The foundation of this book is in the articles he's written here:
http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/
and the hundreds of entries he's written for The Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
and the descriptions for the documents at the 9/11 Document Archive
http://www.scribd.com/911DocumentArchive
Kevin's degree is related to law, not architecture, engineering or physics. This book, judging by the description and his previous work, will name specific people and document their words, actions and inactions, and provide insights into how certain elements of the 'larger than Al Qaeda' 9/11 plot were 'made' to happen, and how specific people were responsible for those elements. Some of the lower level operatives and managers may have been led to believe the plot would be disrupted once it was 'allowed' to proceed to a certain point (intelligence and investigative agencies do that sometimes, in order to gather info, identify additional people, build a case. etc). Some of them may have believed doing so would bring themselves, others and their agency glory, promotions and budget increases (and for some, it did).
Others certainly knew the plot would not be disrupted, as the larger goal was to foment a 'clash of civilizations' and an endless 'war on terror' which would include consolidation of power in the hands of the PNAC-types and their friends, massive funding for the MIC, a domestic surveillance/security state and justification for imperialist wars. Some of the latter must've known the WTC towers were mined with explosives. This book will, at a minimum, destroy the OCT and make a credible case for investigating specific people, and many who read it will likely come to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. A full investigation is still needed to determine all the knowledgable parties, who knew what when, what they did and why.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
While some in the "movement"
While some in the "movement" like to talk about all the "planted" evidence, that they will never prove was "planted", and some like to say there were no hijackers, no phone calls, and even some saying "no planes", none of this has ever been proven, I presume Kevin is aware that official and MSM reports things like......
"Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."-Pres G Bush
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
"Gen. Avelino "Sonny" Razon, one of the lead investigators in the Bojinka case, was so shocked at what he saw on September 11 that he jumped on a plane in Cebu, where he was now police chief, and flew to Manila to convene a hasty press conference. "We told the Americans about the plans to turn planes into flying bombs as far back as 1995," he complained to reporters. "Why didn't they pay attention?"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bust_and_boom.html
"One of the FBI’s best sources in San Diego informed the FBI that he thought that al-Bayoumi must be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power." page 226/858
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf
"Newsweek said, however, the FBI uncovered financial records showing payments to the family of al-Bayoumi from a Washington bank account held in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States and daughter of the late King Faisal."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71273,00.html
"Government officials told U.S. News that Butler disclosed that he had been monitoring a flow of Saudi Arabian money that wound up in the hands of two of the 9/11 hijackers. The two men had rented a room from a man Butler had used as a confidential informant, the sources say. According to officials familiar with his account, Butler said that he had alerted his superiors about the money flows but the warning went nowhere. "Butler is claiming ... that people [in the FBI] didn't follow up," says a congressional source. Adds another: "He saw a pattern, a trail, and he told his supervisors, but it ended there."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/features/saudi_021129.htm
"People familiar with the report and who spoke on condition of not being named said that the two Saudi citizens, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan, operated in a complex web of financial relationships with officials of the Saudi government."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E3DB133EF931A3575BC0A...
"2. Al-Bayoumi has been determined to have co-signed for hijackers
Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar when they rented an apartment at the Parkwood Apartments complex and to have sometimes paid rent for them." page 1/8
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-10-03-FBI-penttbomb-bayoumi.pdf
This paragraph alone from the Senate and Congress Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks shows you that Bush is not concerned with truthers saying a Missile hit the pentagon. What he is concerned about though.... is going down this road of inquiry.......
"The Administration has to date objected to the Inquiry’s efforts to interview the informant in order to attempt to resolve those inconsistencies. The Administration also would not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant. Instead, written interrogatories from the Joint Inquiry were, at the suggestion of the FBI, provided to the informant. Through an attorney, the informant has declined to respond to those interrogatories and has indicated that, if subpoenaed, the informant would request a grant of immunity prior to testifying." page 51/858
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf
"It was the only time in my senatorial experience that the FBI has refused to deliver a legally issued congressional subpoena. What that tells me is the FBI wasn't acting on its own but had been directed by the White House not to cooperate."
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/08/graham/print.html
When was the last time a President refused to allow Congress to issue a subpoena, and then rewarded that person for refusing to cooperate in a congressional investigation?
"In July 2003, the asset was given a $100,000 payment and closed as an asset." {footnote number 197}
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbi-911/chap5.pdf
So while Saudi Intelligence assets and American Intelligence assets worked together to assist the hijackers, Prince Bandar (friend of the Bushes and brother in law of head of Saudi Intelligence) was saying it's to bad Saudi and American Intelligence didn't work together.....
"Speaking to the Arabic satellite network Al-Arabiya on Thursday, Bandar -- now Abdullah's national security adviser -- said Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the September 11, 2001, plotters "with precision."
"If U.S. security authorities had engaged their Saudi counterparts in a serious and credible manner, in my opinion, we would have avoided what happened," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/01/saudiarabia.terrorism/index.html
A terrible attack on the U.S. would be pretty much the only way the Wolfowitz Doctrine could be implemented.....
"Although the initial release was denounced at the time it was leaked, many of its tenets have since re-emerged in the Bush Doctrine."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
"WASHINGTON, May 16, 2002 - President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/
Right on!
I also have a problem with 'allow[ing] an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States' and 'the CIA's operations against al-Qaeda'.
I don't think it does any good to refer to Al Qaeda without a reservation as an actual bona-fide terrorist organization which had both the intent and the capacity to commit a 9-11-style terrorist attack. Of course, I would have to read the book first in order to see how the author actually treats Al Qaeda, but the abstract does not look promising in this regard.
I guess, one way to castrate the Truth Movement is to move it closer to the official theory, inch by inch. The irrefutable evidence for "assisted collapses" of WTC buildings is way too "extreme", I guess, so there is a need by some to pull a few fangs out of The Movement and move it closer to the OCT. Just like Dems vs. Repubs.
With these trends, I can see the agreement with 9-11 Commission findings looming on the horizon -- it was all an inter-agency miscommunication, nothing to see here, let's move on... Of course, it takes a few more steps to go that far, but assuming the existence of a bona-fide Al Qaida is certainly the first step in that direction.
Kevin Fenton, "pulling a few fangs out of the The Movement"?
smoothie: "I guess, one way to castrate the Truth Movement is to move it closer to the official theory, inch by inch. The irrefutable evidence for "assisted collapses" of WTC buildings is way too "extreme", I guess, so there is a need by some to pull a few fangs out of The Movement and move it closer to the OCT. Just like Dems vs. Repubs."
smoothie, just to be clear, are you suggesting Kevin's book and prior research/writing is based on establishing a 'limited hangout', which itself is based on false information? And that the motive is to reinforce the myth of 'Al Qaeda' as an organization wholly and exclusively run by Islamic radicals- and to deny evidence of Western support for terrorist organizations and use of them as proxies? And that another motive is neuter the 9/11 Truth Movement by dividing it and getting it to focus on bogus and incomplete info, and dead end lines of inquiry?
Different but related questions;
Roughly how many of Kevin's posts have you read?
How much time have you spent studying The Complete 9/11 Timeline?
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
No offense...
To anyone critiquing Kevin, but I've noticed those critiquing him haven't done jack shit for this cause. Why is that?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
naaa....
another way of discrediting the movement is to continually criticize and undermine the credibility of those among us who work to expose the amny unanswered questions from that day.
i've been in this movement for 6 years and NOTHING is EVER good enough for the anonymous peanut gallery of absolutists who INSIST that THEIR language and ideas and opinions and theories trump all others.
there are such precious FEW among us who have anything real to contribute in terms of books and films and community organizing. but one thing can be certain - anyone who DOES immediately get criticized and attacked - simply for trying/
you will see this same sort of divisive taxonomy coming from the no-planers and the exotic weaponry folks and the antisemitic crowd and CIT and on and on and on... trolling the movement - waiting to pounce on anyone who is not MIHOPish enough or uses unapproved 'syntax' in their approach.
but - ONE thing is universally CERTAIN. these people who do the most criticizing generally claim to possess a monopoly on the truth - and as such lack all credibility.
"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA
Well done!
Well done to Kevin on this. Good to see all his hard work paying off.
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shoestring911.blogspot.com
I had thought most people by
I had thought most people by now had rejected LIHOP (vs MIHOP) with the discovery of thermitic material in the dust samples.
Someone
didnt get the memo.
________________________
DEFEAT THE NWO!!1!!
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein
Damn
I hate it when that happens. Please post the memo so we're all in the 'know'.
The MIHOP Memo
"Please post the memo so we're all in the 'know'."
We can't post it. We never got it. Besides...I heard it was fake anyway.
Jeez, alright
It goes like this:
MIHOP vs LIHOP is a false premise BECAUSE
If government officials were instrumental in acting to let the attacks happen, then it logically follows that they made decisions for the attacks to be successful.
Since MIHOP and LIHOP have proven to be divisive terms (that in the end mean the same thing anyway) its best to steer clear of them.
EDIT:
In other words, how can LIHOP be rejected in favor of MIHOP when they mean the same thing (regardless of reports that thermitic derivatives were found in WTC dust)?
________________________
DEFEAT THE NWO!!1!!
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein
To 'Allow' something and to
To 'Allow' something and to 'Do' something are not the same thing. You don't allow yourself to kill 3000 people. 'Allowed' is passive, like 911 was done to us. It was not.
One more time...
They couldn't have "let it happen" because protocols in place would have prevented the majority of the attacks. It seems they had to take an active role in order to make sure the attacks were the success that they were. Whatever that active role was, I don't know, but I do know that the divisive labels of LIHOP and MIHOP have been nothing but destructive towards this cause, and I WISH people would stop using them. They are no different than the false dichotomy that is Democrat/Republican, or Liberal/Democrat, etc... and so on. It is the "false left/right paradigm" of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and it needs to go away.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Ok, once more, and with feeling
The problem with your logic is this:
To allow something like 9/11 to happen you have to act or make a decision to take people off of the right trail, or to alter SOP -- these are all actions.
Therefore in order to let something happen, you have to make it happen.
Good luck, I will also do my best not to cling to outdated and divisive ideas.
________________________
DEFEAT THE NWO!!1!!
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein
Thank u......(geoffritchey)
they are completely different....
Cooked up & Made it the USA.....& blamed on someone else....a whole group of people, now getting bashed daily in the MSM.
Not going back to "allowed" it to happen.
It was not?
It was not?
Step right up folks!! we have someone with all the answers here!
you are stating your own opinions as a fact, sir.
you seem to want to water down a very complex topic into one simple acronym. MIHOP. Made it happen on purpose? Who made what happen? What aspect of 9/11? The funding? the hijacking itself? the military air force response - or lack therefo? controlled demolition? the training of the pilots (whether real or faux)? ignored warnings? money wires? lax immigation?
WHO exactly made WHAT happen on purpose?
let me guess - Dick Cheney hatched the entire operation out of the White House basement and personally oversaw and coordinated all of its operational needs like Dr. Evil?
and - should the thermite in the dust prove to be true - who exactly was responsible for planting the charges? do you have any direct evidence that would hold up in a court of law that it was elements of the US government that planted the charges? or just assumptions? i don't know anyone who has credible evidence on that question - yet you state - as fact - that thermite proves MIHOP.
i'm not trying to beat up you here - i just think these are legitimate issues to reflect on.
one of the reasons why a movement to demand accountability on 9/11 has degenerated into what is now PERCIEVED as a tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorist's private clubhouse - akin to the birther movement - is because so many people who speak on behalf of 9/11 Truth insist that they know all the answers - and demand that everyone adhere to their own fundamentalist viewpoints and assumptions - and state opinion as fact.
They made it happen on purpose? its a meaningless phrase that is frankly embarassingly simple-minded., considering the complexity of the issue.
it reminds me of religious fundamentalism
unfortunately, fundamentalism and a TRUTH movement do not mix.
"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA
God....
Excuse me for expressing my embarrasing, simple-minded view.
What was i ever thinking....posting my view?
And, i'm not a "sir".
~ Martha
i was responding to geoffritchey
not you
and everyone is entitled to opinions. i know i have mine.
"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA
Everybody's...
Got one. Which is why they're like...
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
belly buttons
"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA
I think you just got caught in the cross-fire.
I do appreciate your support.
This...
Hasn't helped how people perceive us... the mentality that you must believe what I believe, or you are a this, or a that hasn't helped either.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Not at all. This term MIHOP
Not at all. This term MIHOP is ridiculous. I want to get rid of it, as well as LIHOP. Please lets not argue over the absurd! The problem I have is the term "allowed" in the title of the book because it sounds like a throw-back to 'THEY' attacked us (those evil foreigners) and we let it happen. The very fact that our political leaders will not discuss the thermate paper when thrust under there nose shows clear evidence to me that 'THEY' are WE!
Yes,
"THEY" R US....(For reasons other than thermite).
And for some of us, it's definitely sliding backwards to suggest it was only somehow "letting & allowing".
This book...
Will probably be more incriminating than any book before it.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Consistency
Yes--we don't know. That's the point. By all means, let's be vigilant against having ANY insufficiently substantiated notions from gaining undue influence over our understanding of 9/11. Among these, I would include the examples which I cited above:
'allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon;' 'allow[ing] an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States;'
Are certain aspects of the government's story to be regarded as some kind of truth-by-default, until such time as that same government graciously decides to disclose all that it has been hiding? If your answer to this is 'no,' does that mean you're 'pretending to know everything'?
Look--the aforementioned examples are from a blurb on amazon.com, not the book itself so far as I know. And there's only so much you can get across in so many words. I understand that. I simply wish that, in our efforts to dismantle certain lies, we are careful not to make such unwarranted concessions to the official story, which might get in the way of our (and others') being able to hear those 'facts speaking for themselves' (to allude to a favorite phrase of Jon Gold's). I hope that, where this book is concerned, any such apprehensions prove to be as groundless as some of the respondents in this thread apparently expect.
interesting; when does gray become black and white for everyone?
Where's the middle ground between 'everything could be faked' and 'official sources are acceptable'? And who's to make the judgment call?
This is a legitimate question; Kevin's research and analysis frequently uses official or mainstream sources to document facts which are denied/hidden or distorted/misrepresented in official/mainstream pronouncements. What if these sources are in error or fraudulent, however? And how can the public know? Did the patsies even exist? Did they really get Visas with the help of the CIA and State Dept officials, did they really enter the country, enroll in flight school, make phone calls, get speeding tickets, leave and reenter the US on expired Visas, hang out w/ probable Saudi intel agents, get listed in the phone book, spend money on porn, lap dances and drugs, buy plane tickets, board the planes? Did some supervisors and agents at the CIA and FBI really obstruct other agents from disrupting the plot; or is that a red herring to distract us from space beams, holograms and mini-nukes?
The public is going to see some of the evidence presented at the KSM trial- but much of it will be kept from any truly meaningful analysis; will the public really get a chance to go thru the hard drive some evidence was allegedly recovered from? And even if we hire our own team of independent computer experts, do we know for sure that the evidence wasn't planted on said hard drive- or that the experts we hired weren't actually moles that infiltrated our independent investigation to sabotage it by giving it a veneer of authenticity?
Pursuing questions like this to their extreme 'logical' end might be likened to a debate over whether the light in the refrigerator really does go out when the door closes- but in this universe, when quantum holograms are the substrate that physical reality is built on, i dare say we can't entirely rule out the possibility that it may not.
However, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and those in power are drawing it; "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create reality" - Senior Bush Admin official, according to Ron Suskind. Sounds like something Rove or someone like him would say- but did Suskind make it up? How can we know?
If Bush goes on TV and tells the world, "How I Did [9/11]", can we believe him? Can we know it's not CGI- or that he's not really a reptile (or a demon) in human skin? Can you know for sure that I'm not Dick Cheney?
These are interesting questions, but I'm still interested in reading Kevin's book, seeing what he's documented, and seeing how the public, and power brokers, policy makers and legislators, and indy and mainstream media react. Probably the public and some indy media will give the book a favorable reception. Probably the Establishment will try to ignore the book, even though it's one more nail pinning them to the wall, along with everything else already public.
The emperor has no clothes; are you sure?
EDIT:
It occurred to me that one reason so many are fixated on the WTC destructions is cuz, in addition to it happening on live TV in front of the world, there's numerous videos. Clearly, it would be nigh impossible to fake the videos, and clearly these are not 'collapses'. However, after that comes the more difficult question of establishing who did it and how, and how to hold them responsible. And at this point the same thorny mess of questions over who do we trust, and how can we trust the evidence and the process comes into play.
Many who are promoting Jones et al have not read and understood the published papers, they're simply trusting Jones et al, because what they say reinforces what they discern to be true about the WTC. However, many people on the 'outside' are looking at the truth movement and the alleged 'proof' of controlled demolition the same way some here are questioning the veracity and usefulness of the kind of research Kevin Fenton does. Even the measurement of freefall at WTC 7 for 2.25 seconds; how many actually verified that themselves, using at least a few different independently obtained videos? And, no doubt, some are saying, OK, i see what you're saying, but is this actually 'proof' demolition is the ONLY possible explanation? And, even if it is- then, what??? What about the rest of the plot; how was it pulled off? Who were the patsies, why did principals in the Bush Administration, FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD, etc. do and not do certain things that led to the success of the alleged hijackings and the planes hitting their targets? What support for the plot was there from Mossad, GIB, ISI, etc.?
To those who it's not 'obvious' the WTC towers were demolished, they're seeing inconclusive evidence promoted as absolute proof, and seeing 2 or more groups of experts promoting different conclusions based on evidence, science and theories they don't have the experience for evaluating.
Raising awareness the OCT is a fraud is a major part of establishing truth and justice, not just for 9/11, but in government, history, society and for posterity. If the Democrats, Republicans, and third parties are all going to continue pretending the Emperor's got clothes, they're no good. But all of those saying he's naked, aren't necessarily good. And if the Dems and Reps are going to be turned out of government, they need to be replaced w/ people who really do have integrity- and again, it's back to the same issues of trust.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
I knew it was...
Only a matter of time before we saw Nico Haupt's creation of the false dichotomy "LIHOP/MIHOP" in this thread.
Pay no mind Kevin...
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
It seems like most people in the
911 truth movement agree that at least some element of the US government took part in "making 911 possible to happen on purpose". With all the evidence we have now, "letting it happen" seems very unlikely.
See...
I think bashing a person who has committed A LOT of time and energy into writing a book that I will GUARANTEE is incriminating based on terminology that doesn't mean anything anyway, because no one in the 9/11 Truth Movement knows for certain what happened on 9/11 (do you hear that 9/11 Truth Movement? You DON'T KNOW for certain what happened on 9/11. That is the TRUTH. Deal with it), is absurd. However, I could be wrong.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
You're right Jon, the important thing is
Kevin Fenton wrote what looks like an amazing and important book. I was just trying to add to the discussion that seemed to take a turn away from the books content and onto speculative matters. Kevin Fentons book should be the topic of discussion. In the future, if someone writes something that offends someone else, please address that person privately via e-mail rather than in the comment area where everyone can see. The back and forth thing takes away from the story and is counterproductive.
Unnecessary Rudeness In This Thread
Jon, how exactly do you know that those critiquing the use of the term “al-Qaeda” in this book have done nothing for the “truth movement”?
That’s a good question to start with. The second would be why would it matter if they had not?
Does a new-comer who has just realised that we don’t know the truth about 9/11 have an opinion which is any less valid than an old hand? The same could be asked of a non-productive official story doubter.
People chose their own level of involvement as a campaigner, and choosing to take a back seat does not strip someone of their right to issue an opinion on this or any other issue, or make it any less valid.
I don’t think elitist comments like this have any place in this online community.
To people critiquing the use of the term al-Qaeda I would ask that you wait to read the book. For all we know at this point Fenton does make a disclaimer before any further discussion regarding what we do and do not know about al-Qaeda. I hope he does.
To those rubbishing this view then let me remind you that the view (that al-Qaeda is a fantasy; an illusory umbrella term to refer to all Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist Groups and indeed all Islamic Militias whose aims have never extended beyond removing corrupt governments in their own nations at once which creates the false impression of a unified global organisation where there is none) is not a “far out” position to take and has been brought to light by the late MP Robin Cook as well as discussed in detail in the BBC documentary The Power Of Nightmares (part three). There is much documentation to suggest this is the case and discussion of this idea should not be stifled.
As for the involvement or not of Hijackers, this is something we may never be sure of. While it may not be 100% helpful to act as though it is confirmed that Islamic Terrorists played a role in 9/11, we do not know that they did not, so those attacking Fenton’s claim they did, while simultaneously speculating they did not are committing the same crime of guess work. It would be best for people to avoid discussion of the topic and only discussion of the evidence surrounding it. But this is just my suggestion, as I said, everyong is free to express an opinion here, or should be.
Let’s wait and see what this new book actually says about this topic before jumping down the throat of the author, who should be congratulated (for now at least) for bringing another book on this subject to press and the issue further into the mainstream, and let’s allow all views on “al-Qaeda” to be aired and disagreements issues respectfully.
Stefan...
It has been my experience that any time someone promotes something that doesn't have to do with Controlled Demolition, or a missile hitting the Pentagon, critiques like the one in this thread are plentiful. It happens every time. Like clockwork. Words like LIHOP are used, people act as if they know exactly what happened on 9/11, insinuations are made, etc... and so on... it's nonsense, and I responded to the nonsense. Instead of addressing the rudeness that happens as a result of these games, maybe you should address the game itself that is constantly played.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Jon...
Critiques against all sorts of views are commonplace here, and happen everytime, like clockwork. Against Pentagon theories just as much as against let-it-happen scenarios. I think it's fair comment to suggest it is mildy hypocritical to be so sensitive about people critiquing ideas you favour when you get so involved in critiquing the ideas of others. You frequently pop into threads to berrate me for speaking about Pentagon evidence which you openly admit to not having even looked into - am I rude to you? Do I combat your nonsense with nonsense? No. I try to appeal to you as a human being and start a proper conversation… not that I ever have any luck with that.
What "game" should I be addressing? What are the rules of this "game"?
Rule 1 - If people disagree with your in-group on any issue, they are to be treated with a sub-human level of respect...
Rule 2 - There is a good chance if any one disagrees with you in-group on any issue they aren't expressing a beleif they hold but are playing a "game"...
Rule 3 - The only genuine beleifs which should not be disrespected at every turn are those held with by your in-group
No Jon I don't want to play.
I'd rather we stop playing and start acting like grown ups and treating each other like human beings. If there are disagreements, they should be discussed civilly, the debate kept of record and allow the neutrals to make their own minds up. Why should that be a problem?
Where did I openly admit...
To not looking into the Pentagon? I have extensively looked into the Pentagon, and found that there are major contradictions to the idea that a plane did not hit it. You say I "get so involved in critiquing the ideas of others" but what you neglected to mention is that most times I critique an individual is when they are stating theory as fact. ESPECIALLY theories that have major contradictions to them. I doubt very much that individuals will be able to "debunk" Kevin's work because of "major contradictions" to it.
You failed to address my major concern "that any time someone promotes something that doesn't have to do with Controlled Demolition, or a missile hitting the Pentagon, critiques like the one in this thread are plentiful." The "force CD and the Pentagon down your throats, and if you don't accept it, you don't belong here" mentality. Sorry, but that's bs.
Kevin Fenton has given this movement countless amounts of GOOD/INCRIMINATING information pertaining to the 9/11 attacks. He has been a tireless volunteer for www.historycommons.org which houses probably the most important tool the 9/11 Truth Movement has, the "Complete 9/11 Timeline." He deserves a little more respect than is being shown in this thread.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Perhaps "openly admit" was too strong a choice of words
Perhaps "openly admit" was too strong a choice of words so I'll retract that, what I would say is that when you are pressed to explain your reasoning you have stated in response that you trust the researchers who oppose these findings. You don't seem equipped or capable to outline the reasons against or for the CIT evidence, and your "snap-back" to stating how reputable the people opposing it are, or claiming bad conduct on the part of those who present it, strongly suggest to me and others you are not well grounded in the subject. Your past linking of Arabesque articals on the subject as a response to discussion which, when opened in fact do not relate to the points being discussed, also speaks volumes.
As discussed before your so-called "major contradictions" are little more than government claims presented to us with no evidence in support. We are asked to accept these often absurd pronouncements as though they were evidence because you do, but they are not evidence, they are claims.
Your failure to grasp the difference between the two continues to puzzle me. I'm afraid that as long as you continue to mix up these two separate concepts you will never understand why no one else takes that much-hyperlinked blog of yours seriously. But this is digressing, there is plenty of time to discuss the Pentagon on a thread dedicated to the subject.
There is a serious point to be made about serious contradictions with the stance of following the government provided "al-Qaeda" narrative - namely that there is evidence to suggest the group itself does not exist, instead being an unbrella term to draw together any militant Islamic group into the same breath and give the flase impression to the public that a nebulous global network exists where really there is none. This is a position serious books have been written on, BBC documentaries have been dedicated to and British MPs publicly stated. Why should these contradictions not be pointed out? They are certainly of a stronger variety than those you throw up in objection to serious Pentagon evidence.
Regardless of this, you don't have to convince me that Kevin Fenton should be shown more respect than he has been on this thread. I have already said so in my first post on this thread. I have also said since the commentators have not read the book yet, they are being premature to criticise Fenton when for all they know he could make the above very clear in an early chapter.
Fenton deserves respect. But this is not at all because he has contributed to the 9/11 timeline but because he is a human being. This is the exact same reason you should show respect to those you are extremely rude to without any provocation, simply because they disagree with you.
It doesn't matter is someone has healed the sick and fed the hungry over seven continents; they can still be wrong and they should be prepared for and accept criticism of anything they publicly put forward. Equally someone can be a layabout who has achieved little and still be right.
Your tendency to judge strength of evidence based on your assessment of their character of the parties presenting it is not rational. It is a reverse ad hominem argument and as such a logical fallacy.
Whether or not the circumstantial evidence you favour is strongest is a matter open to debate. Many have found that focusing on these particular issues will lead to the person you are trying to convince waving away the claimed discrepancies as a display of "incompetence" rather than complicity. Others believe that conclusive evidence, such as proof of nano-thermite in the WTC dust, and proof of a flight path of the Pentagon jet to the north of Citgo are better topics, since these are un-spinnable unlike the circumstantial "foreknowledge" arguments.
Who is right? Well luckily neither needs to be right. People can promote the evidence they feel best suits their target audience and all evidence is important.
Perhaps the best advice I could give you would be to relax. To stop trying to stifle other people from using the evidence they favour and to continue to use the evidence you find strong. Agree to disagree. Would that be difficult?
Are you honestly talking to me about CIT?
I don't have time for it. You want me to show respect for individuals that use sockpuppets to sell a theory, put themselves on a pedastal, bash individuals like me, etc... sorry, no.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
No I Don't Want To Talk To You About CIT
Not on this thread anyway.
I want to talk about your treatment of other people on these comments sections.
I read through this thread and I don't see any of the behaviours you describe. Demonstrate this with some evidence of it will just be a further demonstration of your tendency to defame others.
I don't see great behaviour from either side, but overwhelmingly it is you who is engaging in insulting others.
I want you and everyone else to debate civilly when you find a disagreement. This will provide a good record for others to make their own mind up, and will also give a good impression of this online community as one capable of adult discussion and open to internal disagreements as a positive means to getting closer to the truth through debate.
You seem to want everyone to agree with you or face seven lashes of your tongue if they don’t.
You don't see any of the behaviors I describe?
First of all, an insinuation was made that Kevin is "satisfied with what the U.S. government has told us regarding the critical question of WHO actually carried out the attacks on those targets that day," and that is simply not the case. I responded to that. Then we have the insinuation that Kevin is trying "to pull a few fangs out of The Movement and move it closer to the OCT" because "irrefutable evidence for "assisted collapses" of WTC buildings is way too "extreme." Then we have someone saying that "most people by now had rejected LIHOP (vs MIHOP) with the discovery of thermitic material in the dust samples."
And you don't see the "behaviors I describe?" Ok.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
No, I Don't
Which of those behaviours do any of those comments exhibit? Specifically?
They are criticisms of the view which, at first glance, Fenton is putting forward with this book: That 9/11 was an al-Qaeda attack which was allowed to happen. I say at first glance because I haven’t read the book yet (and neither have the commentators) which is why I made the point that the comments against Fenton were premature. But none of these comments constitute "use sockpuppets to sell a theory, put themselves on a pedastal, bash individuals like me" do they?
But if it does transpire that he is putting forward a scenario were al-Qaeda is as we have been told, or an exclusively “let-it-happen” scenario; then of course people have every right to legitimately challenge that, which they were above.
You then have a perfect right to legitimately bring forward counter points, which seemed to be the way this thread started off, before quickly you were muddying the waters with sideways comments at people.
If you don't see a problem...
With individuals whose contributions PALE in comparsion to Kevin's making insinuations about Kevin's intentions behind this book, then I don't know what to tell you. As I said earlier, this book will probably be more incriminating than any book before it. I make that assumption based on everything else Kevin has put forward over the years. Since we don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, bashing a book that hasn't even been released yet, is absurd.
I also think putting CIT's work on the same footing as Kevin's is absurd.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Jon,
Well you’ve gone and bought CIT up again… but I’ll stay focused on the thread topic.
I agree judging Fenton’s book before it is released is unfair, I have already stated that, but what has been posted here regarding that book has strongly suggested that it could be of a nature which would understandably upset some.
I disagree that judgement of Fenton’s book should be based on anything but the contents of said book. It doesn’t matter what someone has said or done before, it stands or falls on its own merits. Equally someone doing good work in the past does not make their ideas untouchable, and you cannot say that criticising Fenton’s positions is invalid simply because he has been productive as a researcher. That’s reverse ad hominem and not at all rational.
I also have a fundamental difference of opinion with you over what is and what isn’t incriminating. Most of what you propose as the best evidence I have found to be easily waved away by people I approach as indicative of incompetence and not complicity.
You can show they had hundreds of warnings, you can show the air defence should have stopped the attack, you can show the intelligence services had been following hijackers, that the hijackers should not have been able to enter the country. It’s all good stuff and I have given a public lecture based around this evidence myself. But without accompanying evidence which actually proves a deception, it can and will be dismissed by those not ready to believe with a wave of the hand and a pronouncement that “governments are incompetent”, and you must admit all this evidence could be explained by this reasoning just as well as it could criminal intent.
I also think it is completely legitimate for people to take issue with the promotion of the picture al-Qaeda provided to us by the authorities. Jon, it is entirely possible Islamic Terrorists were involved in some way, having no evidence of what happened on those planes it is speculative to make a positive statement on that one way or the other. Even if there was no one on the planes (which is a possibility that can’t be ruled out) some extremists could have been used to generate back-story; again, there is no way to confirm this one way or the other so it remains a speculative area to comment on.
What can we say about the involvement of Islamic Terrorists regarding 9/11 that is not speculative? Well we can state as I have above that we cannot know one way or the other and then credibly question whether or not such an organisation as al-Qeada actually exists. We can also question Bin Laden’s role in the events and look into the history of al-Zahawi and Bin Laden pre-9/11. An excellent resource for this is the BBC documentary “The Power Of Nightmares” which I mentioned above.
Certainly an aim of this online community is to convince people that the measures which are claimed to be combating this threat – foreign wars and domestic attacks on our civil liberties – are unwarranted, a full and frank discussion of the spectre of al-Qaeda is as called for as a discussion of evidence showing 9/11 itself to be fraudulent.
In this light, I can understand why a lot of people would be aggravated by a book which took on face value that this nebulous and powerful terror network actually exists; it supports the frame work we are trying to combat. That is not to say Fenton’s book does this, I am just trying to provide some context to people’s reactions. Neither is it to say that I am not open to listening to people’s arguments for the existence of this organisation. I would love to see a comprehensive debate on this issue and think it would be of great value. So allow that to happen please; relish diverse opinion within this community as a strength and not a detriment and remember this is about the truth and “party lines”.
Jon and Stefan, that's enough
You each made 5 comments and have made your points- if you wish to continue this debate, do it by email or on another forum.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Fair Enough Erik
Although this is probably one of the most civil discussions that's taken place here in a while so I don't know why it should be closed down, although I do agree that I at least have made my point.
Jon, if you'd like to continue the discussion via email indicate so and I'll try and find some way to un-publicly get an address to you.
That's it folks,
The referee has stopped the fight after just 5 rounds. Go ahead and copy me in on anymore of this exchange, I found it interesting. Thanks
Disconnecting the Dots: How 9/11 Was Allowed to Happen
I just noticed Kevin Fenton's book came out recently. Should be a good read...
http://www.amazon.com/Disconnecting-Dots-How-Allowed-Happen/dp/0984185852