Fenton, Kevin
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2631
Description of his book 'Disconnecting the dots'...
"Questioning actions taken by American intelligence agencies prior to 9/11, this investigation charges that intelligence officials repeatedly and deliberately withheld information from the FBI, thereby allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Pinpointing individuals associated with Alec Station, the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, as primarily responsible for many of the intelligence failures, this account analyzes the circumstances in which critical intelligence information was kept from FBI investigators in the wider context of the CIA’s operations against al-Qaeda, concluding that the information was intentionally omitted in order to allow an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States."
- Login to post comments
I love that there are still real truthers at 911blogger!
Respectfully Disagree With Book's Apparent Premise
The book summary seems to assert that the 9/11
attacks were conducted by authentic Islamic terrorists, who's success
can be attributed to official U.S. "failures". While it appears that
persons who were quite arguably "patsies" were officially shielded from
scrutiny, there is little to no evidence of their guilt or Bin Laden's
in the 9/11 attacks.
However:
- Residues for explosives developed by the U.S. federal government were located within WTC dust.
- There is little to no evidence of Al Qaeda hijackers behind the controls of the 4 9/11 aircraft.
- There is substantial evidence that the accused 9/11 hijackers were not the extremists they are alleged to have been.
- Evidence of 9/11 plane "black box" authenticity is oddly absent.
- There is substantial evidence supporting the view that the 9/11
planes were quite possibly under covert autopilot control when striking
their targets.
- The official WTC building collapse explanations are based on
theories that defy science and are not supported by physical evidence
that was quickly destroyed.
- The government cannot explain why the WTC towers fell completely to the ground following collapse initiation.
Very good points Aidan
A trend in recent years has appeared (Examples:
bin Laden suddenly found and killed, an incredibly ubiquitous Al-Qaeda
threat even potentially reaching to the form of a sick 90 year old
American woman). Part and parcel to this trend is a "cementing" of
elements of the official story. We see the press, some authors, some
alternative media, TSA, the government, etc. continue to try very hard
to reinforce an official-story concept.
In other words, they are trying to emphasize wrong importances while
blatantly excluding other dynamic facts. They are propping up the
official 9/11 account, while omitting important evidence.
I won't buy into that sidewinder sale.
When very important significant facts are deliberately overlooked, I raise an eyebrow.
Enabling 9/11 patsies = treason & mass murder
Aidan: "The book summary seems to assert that
the 9/11 attacks were conducted by authentic Islamic terrorists, who's
success can be attributed to official U.S. "failures""
This is a misinterpretation of the book's title and summary. The
book's title is: "Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI officials
helped enable 9/11 and evaded government investigations." In the one
place closest to what Aidan is getting at, the summary states: "thereby
allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon"
I haven't read the book (ordered it) but I assume it's based on the research and writing Kevin's done for http://www.historycommons.org and http://www.hcgroups.wordpress.com.
His documentation and analysis has been consistently careful and
thorough. He has documented numerous links between the alleged
hijackers, intelligence agencies and key MIC-linked entities, as well as
specific actions by specific named CIA and FBI officials to protect the
alleged 9/11 plot and hijackers from discovery and disruption by other
CIA and FBI personnel.
This evidence proves the official story - al Qaeda, bin Laden and no
one else - is false. This evidence has been ignored or dismissed by
Establishment officials and media - even though this evidence is
documented in official records and mainstream reporting - often by
burying it in an endnote, at the end of a story, or with careful wording
and spin. This evidence points to specific named persons who should
have been investigated, but who were instead shielded from scrutiny,
were not held to account, and were instead rewarded with promotions,
bonuses and increased authority. That this has been the reaction of the
Establishment says a lot about the importance of this evidence, and the
extent to which our government and press are compromised.
Some of these CIA and FBI officials who "helped enable 9/11" may not
have known the extent of the 9/11 plot. Some may not have known the plot
would be allowed to succeed; for instance, some CIA personnel may have
been told a case was being developed and they didn't want the FBI to
screw it up. Most may not have known the towers were mined - or they may
have believed foreign and domestic resistance to US imperialist
ambitions threatened the American way of life, and the lives of a few
thousand Americans was an acceptable price to pay in order to justify
and fund a 'war on terror' that the American people would not have
supported w/o a "new Pearl Harbor." Some of them may have been paid and
not cared.
A full investigation could get to the truth. Kevin's documentation
and analysis at History Commons, working w/ very little resources, has
revealed a great deal about how the alleged hijackers were able to get
into the US and allegedly avoid detection and arrest, despite numerous
"missed opportunities." His work exposes the inadequacies and
limitations of initial official inquiries, and exposes the 9/11
Commission's account of the alleged "failures" and "missed
opportunities" as a fraud. This is valuable.
Kevin has a law degree. I would not expect him to be interested in or
an expert on the construction and destruction of the WTC, just as I
would not expect architects and engineers to be interested in or expert
on the aspects of 9/11 that Kevin focuses on.
If anyone reads this book and finds errors in the documentation or
analysis, please point them out. But dismissing this book with claims
that it supports the official story, is a limited hangout or that it's
bogus because it doesn't include evidence of controlled demolition is
not useful, imho.
Book Summary Statements Speak For Themselves
"in order to allow an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States."
"allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."
"Alec Station’s chief was involved in key post-9/11 events and further intelligence failures." ("further" implies pre-9/11 "failures")
The word "patsy" is not utilized in the description to characterize the "hijackers".
Therefore, it doesn't seem that the following assessment amounts to a "misinterpretation".
"The book summary seems to assert that the 9/11 attacks were
conducted by authentic Islamic terrorists, who's success can be
attributed to official U.S. "failures"
LIHOP is Limited Hangout
It's pretty late for a LIHOP analysis. Based on
the summary statements I see, this book can only be a limited hangout.
There is simply ZERO credible evidence that Islamic terrorists hijacked
those four planes and commandeered them to their targets. Period. So I
would agree with you Aidan.
Disconnecting the Dots: How 9/11 Was Allowed to Happen
A lot of cherry-picking was done to arrive at this.
If this title was designed to bring people in then leads them to a different conclusion then it is a good thing.
If the author stops short, then he has done a disservice to all of us. I MEAN ALL OF US.
Long awaited? By whom?
MRS. Kevin Fenton?
I'm sorry but everything about this smells bad. Smells REAL bad. Allowed to happen: my ass.
More lies and distortions supported by this site? Does anyone else get that sickening feeling?
YES, see above comments
.
my review, right after Jon Gold's :)
Vote me up! :)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0984185852/ref=cm_cr_mts_prod_img
Customer Reviews
Not Genuine 9/11 Skepticism - Caveat Lector!,
To begin with, I will be perfectly honest and admit that I have not read
this book, nor do I intend to. I base my review on my long term
involvement in the 9/11 truth movement, and my understanding as a result
of where this book and author fit in the pantheon of "9/11 Truth".
Those who question (or pretend to anyway) the events of 9/11 fall
into various camps, some of which are one anothers' sworn enemies. It
is a fact, therefore, that the term "9/11 truther" may mean a number of
things. The most outrageous of the self-proclaimed truthseekers fall
into the category of "blatant disinformation". These are the people who
say that 9/11 was perpetrated by lizard people, that no planes hit the
twin towers, that the twin towers were destroyed by space-based energy
weapons, etc. Some of those associated with these views and whose work
should be avoided like the plague are Judy Wood, James Fetzer, and David
Icke. Their books on Amazon tend to have the lowest ranks of any 9/11
truth books and online searches will result in troves of critiques from
within the truth movement.
A second category of "truther" related to the first is composed of
those who like the author of this book and its first reviewer, Mr. J.
Gold, claim that the "real truth" about 9/11 is that the Bush
administration knew al Qaeda was planning an attack and deliberately
stood down so that the attack would succeed, or worse yet, actively
assisted the hijackers in order to have an excuse to launch wars for
oil, strategic regime change, etc. Those in this category are in the
habit of denouncing those who go farther than they as "conspiracy
theorists" despite the fact that in the mainstream that is a term
applied equally often (and actually more accurately) to them. They
point to those in the first category as examples of what they are up
against--lunatics who "muddy the waters" by making absurd claims
intended only to discredit 9/11 skepticism and discourage people from
asking questions about the attacks.
The third and last general category, to which I admit that I belong,
is made up of those who take issue with the official explanation for
the destruction of the World Trade Center, specifically with the
official position that the proximate cause of the "collapse" (explosive
disintegration is a better word) of the twin towers was the combination
of damage caused by the plane impacts and the subsequent jet-fuel
ignited fires. We base our skepticism of this account on a number of
facts including dozens of first responder eyewitness accounts of
explosions including in the basements far from the impact zones, the
presence of molten iron in the rubble piles (also attested to by
firefighters) as well as flowing from the south tower pre-collapse, and
most importantly on measurements of the rate of acceleration of the top
(above impact-zone) sections of each tower that show there was
insufficient resistance from the lower portions if we assume a purely
gravity driven collapse. This is actually most evident in the collapse
of WTC7, the third building that collapsed, at 5:20 p.m. that day. The
47 story skyscraper is observed to be accelerating literally at free
fall for 2.25 seconds, a fact that the NIST was forced to admit after a
physics teacher in California, David Chandler, published measurements of
the descent speed that he made using videos of the collapse and physics
software he uses in his courses. Those in this category often
speculate as to who *may* have been involved in these illicit
demolitions but most agree that what is needed first and foremost is
general awareness of the physical impossibility of the official account
of the WTC demolitions, following which the public will be less inclined
to accept the rest of the government's claims in the absence of
evidence more solid and credible than what has to this day been offered,
including evidence regarding the nature of the hijackings themselves
and especially the role allegedly played by genuine Islamic terrorists.
I hope that by breaking down these distinctions for people they may
be able to better understand the phenomenon of 9/11 skepticism, whether
or not they agree with any of the points made by the growing number of
skeptics of the official account.
no voting buttons? We don't let customers vote on their own reviews, so
the voting buttons appear only when you look at reviews submitted by
others.
A Must Buy,
(REAL NAME)
Kevin Fenton has been a contributor for years [...], and the "Complete
9/11 Timeline." He has provided countless pieces of helpful information
for anyone concerned about the "official account" of 9/11. I highly
recommend this book.
No
| Permalink