Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI officials enabled 9/11 and evaded government investigations, by Kevin Fenton. Waltersville, OR: Trine Day, 2011. 416 pages.

“Enabling 9/11 was a job done at the office, with memos” (15).

It is a non-controversial fact that the NSA, CIA and FBI missed a number of opportunities to disrupt the 9/11 plot. Many, but not all, of these failures were documented by the four main investigations that dealt with pre-9/11 intelligence failures: those by the Congressional Joint Inquiry, the 9/11 Commission, the Department of Justice Inspector General and the CIA Inspector General. The best-known investigation, the 9/11 Commission, ultimately concluded that 9/11 was preceded by “four kinds of failures: in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management” (339). This is the narrative largely held to by mainstream politicians and media, but these explanations do not credibly account for what happened at the NSA, CIA and FBI in the years, months and weeks leading up to 9/11. This has been demonstrated by a number of researchers, but Kevin Fenton’s* book, Disconnecting the Dots, has the most comprehensive documentation and in-depth analysis to date. Primarily using the official reports, the available source records and some reporting by mainstream media and journalists, Fenton documents how specific CIA and FBI officials engaged in deliberate efforts to protect the 9/11 plot from discovery and disruption by FBI investigators, and that the most probable explanation is that this was done in order to enable the 9/11 attacks.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’m retracting the article originally posted here as it has been brought to my attention that threats prosecuted under Section 422 of the California Penal Code are sometimes referred to as “terrorist threats.”

As Bruno Bruhwiler said in a comment at 911blogger after he was made aware of my article: “It took me less than a minute to Google ‘Terrorist Threat’ and ‘California Penal Code’ and I found Penal Code 422. Terrorist Threat and Criminal Threat both fall under California Penal Code 422.” http://911blogger.com/news/2010-06-15/wearechangela-organizer-faces-terrorism-charge#comment-233921

Google is a tool I should have used before posting my article. I apologize to anyone who relied on it, and particularly to Bruhwiler and his associates, as my article implied they may have committed wire fraud by saying he had been charged with making a “terrorist threat.” Assuming Bruhwiler is committed to non-violent activism and that the charges against him are baseless, I wish him the best of luck in fighting them in the court system, and for being recompensed for any injustices and mistreatment he may have suffered in the LA penal system.

A google search for ‘Terrorist Threat’ and ‘California Penal Code’ gets the below as the top three hits: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%27Terrorist+Threat%27+and+%27California+Penal+Code%27&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

“In California, Terrorist or Criminal Threats are Illegal. A terrorist or criminal threat is a threat of violence, threat to hurt, injure or kill others with the intent of intimidating or frightening them, or causing public panic. Examples of terrorist or criminal threats include:… Threatening harm or injury to a neighbor” http://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/criminalthreats.html

“Section 422 of the California Penal Code makes it illegal to make criminal threats (formerly called ‘terrorist threats’)”. http://www.shouselaw.com/criminal_threats.html

“Despite its name, the crime of terrorist threats does not necessarily implicate al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations for their inflammatory speech or their attempts at political blackmail. Instead, the offense has more to do with situations involving domestic violence, hate crimes, bomb threats, and school violence. The question presented as to when is a threat actually a violation of the criminal law presents a tension between an individuals free-speech rights and the government’s duty to protect its citizens.” http://www.criminalattorney.com/news/terrorist-threats/

It does not excuse the fact that my research should have been more thorough, but so that the public can understand why I was led to believe that referring to a charge under Sec. 422 was being improperly characterized as a “terrorist threat,” (which I had associated with the “post-9/11 world”, the “war on terror”, indefinite detention, rendition, Guantanamo, Bagram Air Base, etc.), here’s the text of the code:

CALIFORNIA CODES: PENAL CODE: SECTION 422-422.4

422.  Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison. For the purposes of this section, “immediate family” means any spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household. “Electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=00055010631+7+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Corrected, revised and updated March 27, 2010

Read the rest of this entry »

Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) have cited Shinki and Ed Paik’s witness accounts to support their claims that the plane said to have hit the Pentagon on 9/11 (American Airlines Flight 77), actually flew on a different flight path (‘north of Citgo’) and flew over the Pentagon. Ed Paik’s account appears in their films ‘The Pentacon’, and most recently ‘National Security Alert’ (NSA). In addition, Ed’s account has been cited repeatedly in their articles and online discussions. However, my January 2010 interviews of Ed and Shinki, as well as a 2006 interview of Ed recorded by Dylan Avery, Ed Paik’s drawings and gestures for CIT, and other related material, show that certain facts have been omitted or distorted by CIT in their attempt to make their case for the ‘north of Citgo path’.

I. Summary of Erik Larson 2010 Shinki and Ed Paik Video

II. Ed Paik says he was inside the A-One office when the plane flew past; Shinki says he was outside

III. From inside the office, Ed Paik saw the right wing- and perhaps the fuselage

IV. Shinki Paik said the VDOT tower antenna was “bent over … about 60, 70 degrees”

V. Ed Paik’s drawings and gestures for CIT have been misrepresented

VI. Conclusion

Read the rest of this entry »

Read the rest of this entry »