Ok. I haven’t watched this yet, but when I saw the guest I got really excited because I hoped one day Kevin would interview Dawson. So far I see the comments about Ryan are negative. But at this point at least I don’t agree. I think Ryan is a kick ass researcher who’s done hours of documentaries and studied 9/11 for 2 decades. I know he differs on the “how” the towers fell from other truthers such as Richard Gage and Kevin, but they all agree on the Israeli role in 9/11. Ryan has been deplatformed and demonetized every which way. I am amazed he can still make a living. I’m not saying he gets every single thing right but I highly respect his work. Thank you Kevin for bringing him on. I am really looking forward to watching this.
Uhh... look... it is in the nature of a disinfo operation (a.k.a. limited hangout) that they will sometimes give you some valid information. Even most of it could be valid, sure.
But look at it this way: Suppose you have enemies who want to poison you and they invite you to a banquet. It's a really great spread, including most of your favorite foods.
There is no need for every food item to be poisoned. Let's say your favorite dessert is there, strawberry cheesecake, and you can be relied on to eat a piece of that and go back for seconds. And maybe that's the only dish that is laced with arsenic, say.
And then your famous last words can be: "I just want to say thanks. I just had a fantastic meal and ate all this great food and..."
To flesh out this kind of analysis you need to explain why the 5% the person is wrong about is so important, to who, and why, that they would go to the trouble of paying him to be right about 95% of the controversial issues and wrong about that particular 5%. Since I think the "how" of 9/11 (and everything else) is vastly less important than the "who and why" I doubt very much that anybody cares about spreading wrong theories of the "how." They want to get people fighting, but they would be just as happy to spread true theories as to spread false ones to that end.
"To flesh out this kind of analysis you need to explain why the 5% the person is wrong about is so important,..."
Uhh, no, I should NOT need to explain why it is so important to realize that the Arabs at the flight school are just patsies and did not hijack any planes. Here we are nearly a quarter century after the event and it does NOT make sense to be going around in circles on these kinds of things.
And, more generally speaking, I am not obliged to explain anything to you at all. If I do so, it is as a public service. For example, I separately explained to you that if a plane cannot fly 500 mph at sea level, it is beyond the operating limits of the aircraft whether there is a human pilot in the cockpit or remote control. I did not absolutely have to explain this to you, but I did explain it and you should now understand it, right? Do you understand it?
"that they would go to the trouble of paying him to be right about 95% of the controversial issues and wrong about that particular 5%."
Well, that's just how limited hangout works. I explained that as well.
Again, I should not have to explain such things, but somehow I do, and while I'm at it, let me point out that the question of whether they really flew planes into buildings on 9/11 is a very key issue. If you believe there were real plane crashes, it means that the media was honestly reporting on events as they happened. Once you understand that there were no planes, you start converging on the correct understanding of the event: a mediatic hoax.
Of course, the fact that there were no planes leads to the issue of video fakery as well, as well as the issue of fake victims. And thus, the whole thing, the big honking mystery... basically unravels.
I was there circa 2004-2008 when these debates raged (where were you?) The side that said "those trajectories of steep descent probably COULD take those planes to those speeds, though whether they could be controlled is a legitimate question" won. The winners added that "remote or auto-fly systems would be far better than humans at maintaining control at those speeds" and showed evidence of the kind of last second adjustments in course consistent with auto-fly systems not humans. There is abundant circumstantial evidence supporting the auto-fly hypothesis, as my friend Captian Dan Hanley has been explaining for two decades. And of course the Zakheim stuff IS relevant, and I would be very suspicious of anyone who claims it isn't.
So your claim that those planes "cannot fly 500 mph at sea level" is false—it would only be true if we were talking about a non-steep-descent flight powered by the engines—suggesting that you don't know anything about the actual debate between experts and who won it and how.
Similar problems pertain to your other claims, but since I already wasted far too much time on this kind of thing circa 2004-2008, I'll let others explain why.
"Similar problems pertain to your other claims, but since I already wasted far too much time on this kind of thing circa 2004-2008, I'll let others explain why."
Kevin, you can, of course, do what you want, but I think, for the sake of your own credibility, you should refrain from this kind of sophomoric stuff. Now, I can only talk about my own experience, but my experience has been that when my interlocutor starts saying that he is not formulating much of an argument because he, would be "wasting his time" to do so, it is *invariably* because he is not capable of formulating an argument, and he realizes (on some level, conscious or not) that he's gradually getting cornered. In passing, I would add that, whenever somebody says "we should agree to disagree", it is again, invariably because they are getting cornered in the debate and, by all rights, should simply concede, but... you know... they won't do that, so they trot out this pathetic "let's agree to disagree" gambit.
Now, what we have here is a situation where professional pilots with thousands of hours of experience flying these big passenger jets have said that they would not be able to do this. We also have the testimony (under oath) of John Lear, a legendary aviator, and son of Lear Jet founder, Bill Lear, saying that the planes in question cannot fly that fast at sea level, they would break up. Now, I daresay that you do not have to be an expert on aviation to realize that if the plane would break up when flown by a human pilot at that speed at low altitude, it would also break up if it was being flown by remote control! Now, I guess you just have to argue that you know better than John Lear, but as a betting man, I would bet that you don't!
Again, I don't know anything about aviation really, but there is such a thing as common sense. Every summer, near where I live there is an air show and you can see all these planes doing all these stunts. I would point that, at least as I far as I know:
(1) All of these planes are being piloted by human pilots.
Also:
(2) These planes are NOT massive lumbering Boeing passenger jets.
I mean, regarding point (1), well, if planes can be flown so much better by whatever remote control or autopilot than by a human in the cockpit, how come there are still human pilots? I mean, even now, 23 years later, there are still human pilots in the cockpit! Why?
But regarding point (2) above, a Boeing passenger jet is not designed to do any fancy flying like you see at an air show, so already, it is very dubious that the planners of the operation would base a plan on these planes being able to do such things. It makes no sense.
So, I mean, what you are saying is utterly unconvincing and, frankly, that provides a pretty good explanation of why you are trying to use sophomoric tricks to withdraw from the debate.
But, you know... all of the above is not even the central issue IMHO. The fact remains that the plotters know perfectly well that any video they can show on the TV is seen by many hundreds of millions of people! Moreover, most of those people will not question what they see on the TV. So the whole idea that they engineered the crashing of planes into buildings _for real_ so that a few dozen people (at most) on the ground in Manhattan could see something... this is a story that really just makes no sense. None at all!
On some level (conscious or not) you know damned well that it makes no sense, which is why you're getting petulant and playing these games. "Oh, it would be such a waste of my time to make an argument...." C'mon, man. Increasingly you remind me of a little child who thinks that if he hides under a blanket, nobody can see him!
Of the hundreds of pilots and aviation experts who participated in the "improbable speed" debates circa 2006-2010, John Lear was just about the LEAST credible. I interviewed him and he ranted like a lunatic about US bases with aliens on the dark side of the moon. It's hilarious, and telling, that you pick him, of the 100s of experts, and uncritically believe him!
Yeah he is a kick ass researcher. People who find his sudden stupidity on this one subject too painful to put up with can note that he comes right at the two thirds mark when the topic turns to Epstein. But his idiocy on 9/11 is very clear. It’s been there all the way through since he emerged on the net.
I have been a Kevin for many years. I am new to Ryan. It seemed you two are mostly going in the same direction. I found the interview helpful in that the disagreements that presented themselves didn't bog things down.
Remote flight control systems installed on BOEING planes by SYSTEMS PLANNING CORPORATION (CEO Rabbi Dov Zakheim) connects to PNAC as Zakheim was a founding member of PNAC. The infamous E-TEAM office lighting in the North Tower corresponds to the exact location of the first plane hit. Dawson has been a disappointment in this regard for years.
That in itself might be a bit of a feint. In that if you get the loathsome rabbi these patents or systems this reinforces people thinking they are looking at a plane.
A lot of our guys are dug in on the planes delusion so after a quarter century it may be upsetting to allies for us to talk about it. But a key feature of these deep state operations is they resemble magic tricks. It’s not as important to know exactly how it is the magician makes his trick work. But it’s VERY important to know you are looking at a trick.
Why was Dov Zakheim overlooked for detailed questioning about why his Dept. of Naval Intelligence accounting division was the main area destroyed in the Pentagon. Half the staff were working on the missing $2.3 trillion in Pentagon allocations. This cannot be coincidence.
Because there were no fucking planes you fucking moron what is the fucking matter with you? If you know nothing about acceleration, deceleration the Mohs scale and materials science you now have AI to teach you this stuff at extreme convenience
Dawson. Amazing investigative journalist totally stuck on stupid, to the point of pure idiocy when it comes to this one subject. Like I said once earlier, when I see such a contrast I tend to blame Karl Popper. It’s very hard to explain how you can be so good on every other subject but be a total moron on one subject and maintain the belligerent stupidity for two decades straight.
"We have long records of them going to flight schools."
Note that this Dawson shit-for-brains does not even understand very basic concepts -- - like *prefiguration* for example, how they *prefigure* a narrative. Well, yeah, of course there are records of them having gone to flight schools. Duhh.... "Yeah, mon, dem Ay-rabs went to flight school and so they must have flow dem planes into dem buildings!"
100% Remote Control! In that case, our (?)-'Israel has lodged itself in America's power structures'- to quote Laurent Guyenot, Government Agencies had to be involved! Inside Job for sure!!
No it wasn’t remote control. The Jews hijacked the planes and took them elsewhere. They didn’t crash any planes. The easiest way to kill the passengers was simply to starve them of oxygen by not pressurising the cabin. Ryan thinks they had DNA tests of all the passengers. Well you know. Could be just some Jew typing. But if indeed they do have that it shows they had all the bodies of the Americans they had murdered.
Think of the glee of Danny Lewin when he is killing Americans. He would have been so happy. Danny is still at large and can be scooped up when he visits his now grown up children.
Oh, c'mon, Kevin. You really must be scraping the bottom of the barrel now. This Ryan Dawson guy is either a professional disinfo agent or the stupidest mother****er on the face of the earth. (Though, come to think of it, those two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive.)
It is an interesting interview. Just goes to show that someone can be right, even brilliant, on some issues, but totally wrong on others. But even though he is wrong about a lot of details, he does seem to broadly understand how the world works.
it is funny to hear him say things like, the cars in the basement exploded and the Dollar will always be the reserve currency. Unless one puts a bomb in them, cars only explode in movies. And every fiat currency eventually disappears. The Dollar is backed by faith in the rule of law in the US and not by the labor of its relatively small population.
I always appreciate Dawson's insights, but can't help but feel that he's controlled op in some way. He's clearly following the critical theory herd in terms of his regard for the USA, and seems to be intentionally provocative and divisive when it comes to nearly anyone in the alt media space who's trying to piece together the truth. Christopher Bollyn's analysis on 9/11, to this day, is the most compelling in terms of naming the probably perps, and how they could have pulled it off, from planning the event to closing the investigation and keeping it out of the minds of the sleeping masses for 2 decades.
What matters about 9/11 is who did it and why. On that Ryan and I mostly agree. He says "al-Qaeda" is run by Western intelligence agencies and agrees the whole thing is mostly about Israel. The details about what the patsies thought and did in their capacity as patsies is a relatively minor issue. I think his LIHOPish notion of hands-on patsies competent enough to get control of planes and fly them into buildings at improbable speeds/altitudes is ridiculous for many reasons, and his notion that a few truck bombs in basements could have caused the three most elaborate and difficult and expensive controlled demolitions in history is even crazier, but those are second-order questions. Obviously the Beneficial Cognitive Diversity project has little to gain from promoting Ryan's interpretation, which is actually MORE likely to "contaminate" the only crowd that matters - newbies at the higher levels of the wealth/power/education pyramid - than my interpretation is. So it doesn't surprise me that Ryan is massively shadowbanned and deplatformed, especially given the generally high quality of his work on other topics.
"What matters about 9/11 is who did it and why. On that Ryan and I mostly agree."
Hmm... you "mostly" agree, eh?
Kevin, this Dawson dingbat is affirming his belief that these Arab patsies actually hijacked planes and flew them into buildings!!!
WTF kind of 9/11 researcher is that??? It's about the same as the JFK assassination researcher who affirms that the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, really did shoot JFK with that Carcano rifle. "Yeah, man. We have records of him buying the rifle by mail order! So OBVIOUSLY he shot Kennedy with it!" And then: "We have records of these Arabs attending flight school, so OBVIOUSLY they hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings (at whatever impossible speed...)
Really, what on earth is the point of giving a platform to this kind of shill? Are you purposefully trying to discredit yourself?
The thing is he is no dingbat except on this issue. If I was to have to rank the best investigative journalist of the new century it would be hard to think of many others.
Ryan’s idiocy on 9/11 is a big issue and there is no way to harmonise it away. When he finishes his next can of rice beer he should conduct an experiment by tossing the empty can at the fridge. If the fridge turns to dust that’s still not good enough. The freezer across the room has to turn to dust also.
I have to blame a Jew and last time it was Karl Popper. This time I will blame also Einstein. He has taught small children that energy is a real entity and it gives the impression that in this case materials science doesn’t matter. But energy is more like leaving a slinky at the top of the stairs. It’s not interchangeable with matter. It’s no real thing.
Thanks for your reply. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on Bollyn's analysis. I don't think Dawson (or anyone for that matter) started naming Israel as a likely culprit in 9/11 until Bollyn's tiny presentations started getting traction. It makes more sense now than when I first heard it 10+ years ago.
Greetings - may I offer up an opportunity to debate on the subject of the “planes vs N0-Planes” argument about 9/11/2001 - I know that the planes were fake. . . . what do you say?
Months ago, I stumbled upon a podcast wherein R. D. said "that guy's a piece of shit" about Christopher Bollyn! Therein, he also said, that C. B. plagiarized him! Unfortunately, I didn't save the URL of that podcast. For me, that's all the proof in the world, that R. D. is a 9-11 liar in truther's clothing.
Ryan has staked incorrect positions on key aspects of the 9/11 operation. He is childish and quite idiotic in his manner of defending his positions, to his own discredit. He does not accept the clear evidence for demos, and oddly believes the hijacker story.
He is good for some info on some topics. But at this point he is largely a bull in a China shop, and consistently used childish attacks (without backing) to attack sincere and CORRECT 9/11 researchers.
...interesting. entertaining. I met a man yesterday who said Bin Laden is living in a small city in New Zealand and something about million year old books. listening to Ryan's take on the evidence of demolition and Hopsicker in Florida, kind of fit in.
Just because someone doesn’t agree with everything you think doesn’t make them a “limited hang out shill”. For me, the whole point of listening to conversations like these is to listen and learn.
Exactly! People can listen and decide whether Ryan successfully countered my argument for why there couldn't have been human hijackers. His counterargument is that there were no controlled demolitions, just truck bombs in the basements. I'm pretty sure that people familiar with AE911truth and the demolition debate will be easily able to decide who's right ; - )
"Exactly! People can listen and decide whether Ryan successfully countered my argument for why there couldn't have been human hijackers."
Well, that *sounds* reasonable... I mean, okay it's *superficially* reasonable, but is it really "reasonable"?
For one thing, this is hardly a symmetrical situation. The people who toe the line on the ludicrous official story have the entirety of the MSM (and probably most of the alt-media as well) to put out their message, right? "Yeah man, dem Ay-rabs hijacked planes and flew them into buildings..."
So, given this basic fact, why would somebody in your position feel some need to share your platform (and what minimal impact you can have, realistically speaking) with this Dawson dingbat, people of that nature, so that they can tell people that the Ay-rabs flew planes into buildings. WTF? In the name of some weird notion of *fairness*??? These assholes have the whole of the MSM and so on to put out their bullshit and you have your little substack and a few other places and...
But I would make a further point about all this...
People's circumstances vary. For you, Kevin, this is a full-time job. In fact, I have little doubt that you spend 80 hours (more) a week on this so it is 2 full-time jobs! But regardless, you spend a lot of time on this. I myself am in a privileged position where I can spend a fair bit of time investigating these things.
BUT... that is not the typical person's situation. A lot of people have to work a full-time job (and sometimes more than one) to pay their bills. They have family obligations.... and so on... In short, many people only have a very limited amount of time to devote to getting informed about these sorts of things. Right?
So, given this, the fact that so many people have such limited time, why would you have this kind of idiot on your show to essentially back up the official story, claiming that these Arab patsies really did fly planes into buildings??? "Oh, my audience needs to hear that, just in case they never heard that bullshit before... it's in the interests of even-handedness or fairness or..."
You make a valid point: Most of the people we need to reach, those who don't yet know, probably don't have time to rediscover the work of AE911Truth. But they may still be able to judge the credibility of the arguments to some extent. And since "if you want a crowd, start a fight" it may not be a bad strategy to have debates like this, rather than just having guests who echo my own views.
But you are totally mistaken and arguably committing defamation by saying Ryan "backs up the official story, claiming that these Arab patsies really did fly planes into buildings." Ryan says "al-Qaeda" is branch of the CIA, which is dominated by Israel. So al-Qaeda employees are CIA employees, and whoever pulled off the attacks, in all capacities, was CIA. That would include the Arabs he thinks were on the planes (but who in reality almost certainly weren't, as the Elias Davidsson article I linked showed.)
I look at this conversation and suddenly I am rather disoriented. Like, what are we even talking about? I guess this tends to happen when you engage with extremely argumentative people (I mean YOU) that, after a few iterations, you just end up wondering what you're even arguing about. I mean really...
Finally, what is this about? Suddenly, I am thinking... who is the audience for your show? Actually, I was on your show something like a half dozen times at least. I was tracing it back and I think the first time I was on your show was early 2016, nearly 9 years ago. I can certainly say that it never occurred to me that the purpose of the show was to tell people that the 9/11 fable was nonsense. I just figured that everybody listening already knew that. So I got on your show and just assumed that the audience understood very basic things -- among those basic things would be the fact that the alleged hijackers were just patsies. I just figured (rightly or wrongly) that the people who would be listening to a show like yours understood basic things like this.
Well, all that said, maybe I am the person who misunderstood the situation. Maybe that is what your audience wants or needs... they think (or aren't sure) that maybe these Arabs, Atta and the rest, really did fly planes into buildings, so they need to be disabused of this notion. (Kevin to the rescue!)
Well, okay, maybe... but I would just pose the following question:
Kevin, do you have any feedback from your listeners that supports the idea that this is what they want? I mean, that they want to hear you debate questions like this, whether these people were just patsies or really did hijack planes...
I am not 100% sure, mind you, but my guess would be that your listeners do NOT want that. Look, the current year is 2025. This is not 2005 and it's not even 2015. To me, the whole thing has a Groundhog day feel to it, like you're going to get up every day and explain to people that the patsies were just patsies and...
"But you are totally mistaken and arguably committing defamation by saying Ryan "backs up the official story, claiming that these Arab patsies really did fly planes into buildings." Ryan says "al-Qaeda" is branch of the CIA,"
Kevin, the above is just silly really. Anybody who is, like this Dawson dingbat, upholding the core story that these Arabs hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, is essentially upholding the official story, because that is the very CORE of it. THAT is the racist, islamophobic fable at the heart of the whole thing. At that point, all you're missing as icing on the cake would be Mohammed Atta shouting "Allahu Akhbar" as he steers the plane into the building! I mean, c'mon, if you're upholding the Ussama Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers narrative, then you are upholding the official story, because that is the essence of it. And, certainly, for me to point this out does not constitute "defamation" in any way, shape or form. WTF are you talking about?
Again, I don't know for sure what the opinion of your listenership is, and seeing as it's your show, it's up to you to figure out anyway, but I would say, just judging from people's reactions on this page (not a very large sample granted) most of your audience reacted very negatively to this Dawson guy and his defense of the hijacker story. So, if that is the case, you should really take that to heart, shouldn't you? I mean, fundamentally, that has nothing to do with me!
Yeah, I anticipated that much of the audience, not just no-planers like you but also no-hijackers like me, would roll its collective eyeballs at some of Ryan's claims...which I told Ryan, politely. But I thought the interview actually provided a pretty good model of how to talk with someone you disagree with on some topics but agree with on others. Ryan is barking up a lot of the right trees, while the areas of disagreement are less important now than they were 20 years ago. And I hope at least a few people will discover Elias Davidsson through the link I posted, and better understand why Ryan is wrong about the alleged hijackers.
Ok. I haven’t watched this yet, but when I saw the guest I got really excited because I hoped one day Kevin would interview Dawson. So far I see the comments about Ryan are negative. But at this point at least I don’t agree. I think Ryan is a kick ass researcher who’s done hours of documentaries and studied 9/11 for 2 decades. I know he differs on the “how” the towers fell from other truthers such as Richard Gage and Kevin, but they all agree on the Israeli role in 9/11. Ryan has been deplatformed and demonetized every which way. I am amazed he can still make a living. I’m not saying he gets every single thing right but I highly respect his work. Thank you Kevin for bringing him on. I am really looking forward to watching this.
Uhh... look... it is in the nature of a disinfo operation (a.k.a. limited hangout) that they will sometimes give you some valid information. Even most of it could be valid, sure.
But look at it this way: Suppose you have enemies who want to poison you and they invite you to a banquet. It's a really great spread, including most of your favorite foods.
There is no need for every food item to be poisoned. Let's say your favorite dessert is there, strawberry cheesecake, and you can be relied on to eat a piece of that and go back for seconds. And maybe that's the only dish that is laced with arsenic, say.
And then your famous last words can be: "I just want to say thanks. I just had a fantastic meal and ate all this great food and..."
To flesh out this kind of analysis you need to explain why the 5% the person is wrong about is so important, to who, and why, that they would go to the trouble of paying him to be right about 95% of the controversial issues and wrong about that particular 5%. Since I think the "how" of 9/11 (and everything else) is vastly less important than the "who and why" I doubt very much that anybody cares about spreading wrong theories of the "how." They want to get people fighting, but they would be just as happy to spread true theories as to spread false ones to that end.
"To flesh out this kind of analysis you need to explain why the 5% the person is wrong about is so important,..."
Uhh, no, I should NOT need to explain why it is so important to realize that the Arabs at the flight school are just patsies and did not hijack any planes. Here we are nearly a quarter century after the event and it does NOT make sense to be going around in circles on these kinds of things.
And, more generally speaking, I am not obliged to explain anything to you at all. If I do so, it is as a public service. For example, I separately explained to you that if a plane cannot fly 500 mph at sea level, it is beyond the operating limits of the aircraft whether there is a human pilot in the cockpit or remote control. I did not absolutely have to explain this to you, but I did explain it and you should now understand it, right? Do you understand it?
"that they would go to the trouble of paying him to be right about 95% of the controversial issues and wrong about that particular 5%."
Well, that's just how limited hangout works. I explained that as well.
Again, I should not have to explain such things, but somehow I do, and while I'm at it, let me point out that the question of whether they really flew planes into buildings on 9/11 is a very key issue. If you believe there were real plane crashes, it means that the media was honestly reporting on events as they happened. Once you understand that there were no planes, you start converging on the correct understanding of the event: a mediatic hoax.
Of course, the fact that there were no planes leads to the issue of video fakery as well, as well as the issue of fake victims. And thus, the whole thing, the big honking mystery... basically unravels.
I was there circa 2004-2008 when these debates raged (where were you?) The side that said "those trajectories of steep descent probably COULD take those planes to those speeds, though whether they could be controlled is a legitimate question" won. The winners added that "remote or auto-fly systems would be far better than humans at maintaining control at those speeds" and showed evidence of the kind of last second adjustments in course consistent with auto-fly systems not humans. There is abundant circumstantial evidence supporting the auto-fly hypothesis, as my friend Captian Dan Hanley has been explaining for two decades. And of course the Zakheim stuff IS relevant, and I would be very suspicious of anyone who claims it isn't.
So your claim that those planes "cannot fly 500 mph at sea level" is false—it would only be true if we were talking about a non-steep-descent flight powered by the engines—suggesting that you don't know anything about the actual debate between experts and who won it and how.
Similar problems pertain to your other claims, but since I already wasted far too much time on this kind of thing circa 2004-2008, I'll let others explain why.
"Similar problems pertain to your other claims, but since I already wasted far too much time on this kind of thing circa 2004-2008, I'll let others explain why."
Kevin, you can, of course, do what you want, but I think, for the sake of your own credibility, you should refrain from this kind of sophomoric stuff. Now, I can only talk about my own experience, but my experience has been that when my interlocutor starts saying that he is not formulating much of an argument because he, would be "wasting his time" to do so, it is *invariably* because he is not capable of formulating an argument, and he realizes (on some level, conscious or not) that he's gradually getting cornered. In passing, I would add that, whenever somebody says "we should agree to disagree", it is again, invariably because they are getting cornered in the debate and, by all rights, should simply concede, but... you know... they won't do that, so they trot out this pathetic "let's agree to disagree" gambit.
Now, what we have here is a situation where professional pilots with thousands of hours of experience flying these big passenger jets have said that they would not be able to do this. We also have the testimony (under oath) of John Lear, a legendary aviator, and son of Lear Jet founder, Bill Lear, saying that the planes in question cannot fly that fast at sea level, they would break up. Now, I daresay that you do not have to be an expert on aviation to realize that if the plane would break up when flown by a human pilot at that speed at low altitude, it would also break up if it was being flown by remote control! Now, I guess you just have to argue that you know better than John Lear, but as a betting man, I would bet that you don't!
Again, I don't know anything about aviation really, but there is such a thing as common sense. Every summer, near where I live there is an air show and you can see all these planes doing all these stunts. I would point that, at least as I far as I know:
(1) All of these planes are being piloted by human pilots.
Also:
(2) These planes are NOT massive lumbering Boeing passenger jets.
I mean, regarding point (1), well, if planes can be flown so much better by whatever remote control or autopilot than by a human in the cockpit, how come there are still human pilots? I mean, even now, 23 years later, there are still human pilots in the cockpit! Why?
But regarding point (2) above, a Boeing passenger jet is not designed to do any fancy flying like you see at an air show, so already, it is very dubious that the planners of the operation would base a plan on these planes being able to do such things. It makes no sense.
So, I mean, what you are saying is utterly unconvincing and, frankly, that provides a pretty good explanation of why you are trying to use sophomoric tricks to withdraw from the debate.
But, you know... all of the above is not even the central issue IMHO. The fact remains that the plotters know perfectly well that any video they can show on the TV is seen by many hundreds of millions of people! Moreover, most of those people will not question what they see on the TV. So the whole idea that they engineered the crashing of planes into buildings _for real_ so that a few dozen people (at most) on the ground in Manhattan could see something... this is a story that really just makes no sense. None at all!
On some level (conscious or not) you know damned well that it makes no sense, which is why you're getting petulant and playing these games. "Oh, it would be such a waste of my time to make an argument...." C'mon, man. Increasingly you remind me of a little child who thinks that if he hides under a blanket, nobody can see him!
Of the hundreds of pilots and aviation experts who participated in the "improbable speed" debates circa 2006-2010, John Lear was just about the LEAST credible. I interviewed him and he ranted like a lunatic about US bases with aliens on the dark side of the moon. It's hilarious, and telling, that you pick him, of the 100s of experts, and uncritically believe him!
Yeah he is a kick ass researcher. People who find his sudden stupidity on this one subject too painful to put up with can note that he comes right at the two thirds mark when the topic turns to Epstein. But his idiocy on 9/11 is very clear. It’s been there all the way through since he emerged on the net.
I have been a Kevin for many years. I am new to Ryan. It seemed you two are mostly going in the same direction. I found the interview helpful in that the disagreements that presented themselves didn't bog things down.
Exactly. You can tell who is honest and reasonable by looking at who doesn't get bogged down in relatively minor disagreements.
Remote flight control systems installed on BOEING planes by SYSTEMS PLANNING CORPORATION (CEO Rabbi Dov Zakheim) connects to PNAC as Zakheim was a founding member of PNAC. The infamous E-TEAM office lighting in the North Tower corresponds to the exact location of the first plane hit. Dawson has been a disappointment in this regard for years.
That in itself might be a bit of a feint. In that if you get the loathsome rabbi these patents or systems this reinforces people thinking they are looking at a plane.
Right. That whole Dov Zakheim thing is a red herring. They desperately want you to think that there were really plane crashes.
A lot of our guys are dug in on the planes delusion so after a quarter century it may be upsetting to allies for us to talk about it. But a key feature of these deep state operations is they resemble magic tricks. It’s not as important to know exactly how it is the magician makes his trick work. But it’s VERY important to know you are looking at a trick.
Too many deceivers are ‘dug in’ that there were no planes—including Graeme Bird.
Why was Dov Zakheim overlooked for detailed questioning about why his Dept. of Naval Intelligence accounting division was the main area destroyed in the Pentagon. Half the staff were working on the missing $2.3 trillion in Pentagon allocations. This cannot be coincidence.
Contemporaneous stills and videos show planes. Why do you try to deceive that there were no planes?
Because there were no fucking planes you fucking moron what is the fucking matter with you? If you know nothing about acceleration, deceleration the Mohs scale and materials science you now have AI to teach you this stuff at extreme convenience
Not even once. That’s like claiming that Hollywood movies prove ghosts
Dawson. Amazing investigative journalist totally stuck on stupid, to the point of pure idiocy when it comes to this one subject. Like I said once earlier, when I see such a contrast I tend to blame Karl Popper. It’s very hard to explain how you can be so good on every other subject but be a total moron on one subject and maintain the belligerent stupidity for two decades straight.
"We have long records of them going to flight schools."
Note that this Dawson shit-for-brains does not even understand very basic concepts -- - like *prefiguration* for example, how they *prefigure* a narrative. Well, yeah, of course there are records of them having gone to flight schools. Duhh.... "Yeah, mon, dem Ay-rabs went to flight school and so they must have flow dem planes into dem buildings!"
100% Remote Control! In that case, our (?)-'Israel has lodged itself in America's power structures'- to quote Laurent Guyenot, Government Agencies had to be involved! Inside Job for sure!!
No it wasn’t remote control. The Jews hijacked the planes and took them elsewhere. They didn’t crash any planes. The easiest way to kill the passengers was simply to starve them of oxygen by not pressurising the cabin. Ryan thinks they had DNA tests of all the passengers. Well you know. Could be just some Jew typing. But if indeed they do have that it shows they had all the bodies of the Americans they had murdered.
Think of the glee of Danny Lewin when he is killing Americans. He would have been so happy. Danny is still at large and can be scooped up when he visits his now grown up children.
Oh, c'mon, Kevin. You really must be scraping the bottom of the barrel now. This Ryan Dawson guy is either a professional disinfo agent or the stupidest mother****er on the face of the earth. (Though, come to think of it, those two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive.)
It is an interesting interview. Just goes to show that someone can be right, even brilliant, on some issues, but totally wrong on others. But even though he is wrong about a lot of details, he does seem to broadly understand how the world works.
it is funny to hear him say things like, the cars in the basement exploded and the Dollar will always be the reserve currency. Unless one puts a bomb in them, cars only explode in movies. And every fiat currency eventually disappears. The Dollar is backed by faith in the rule of law in the US and not by the labor of its relatively small population.
Good points. I expect the dollar will collapse sooner than Ryan thinks.
This guy you’re v interviewing is a Fkn idiot. Dump him
This guy is a clown. Obvious controlled opposition of grossly misinformed. Either way he shouldn’t be on this podcast
I always appreciate Dawson's insights, but can't help but feel that he's controlled op in some way. He's clearly following the critical theory herd in terms of his regard for the USA, and seems to be intentionally provocative and divisive when it comes to nearly anyone in the alt media space who's trying to piece together the truth. Christopher Bollyn's analysis on 9/11, to this day, is the most compelling in terms of naming the probably perps, and how they could have pulled it off, from planning the event to closing the investigation and keeping it out of the minds of the sleeping masses for 2 decades.
What matters about 9/11 is who did it and why. On that Ryan and I mostly agree. He says "al-Qaeda" is run by Western intelligence agencies and agrees the whole thing is mostly about Israel. The details about what the patsies thought and did in their capacity as patsies is a relatively minor issue. I think his LIHOPish notion of hands-on patsies competent enough to get control of planes and fly them into buildings at improbable speeds/altitudes is ridiculous for many reasons, and his notion that a few truck bombs in basements could have caused the three most elaborate and difficult and expensive controlled demolitions in history is even crazier, but those are second-order questions. Obviously the Beneficial Cognitive Diversity project has little to gain from promoting Ryan's interpretation, which is actually MORE likely to "contaminate" the only crowd that matters - newbies at the higher levels of the wealth/power/education pyramid - than my interpretation is. So it doesn't surprise me that Ryan is massively shadowbanned and deplatformed, especially given the generally high quality of his work on other topics.
"What matters about 9/11 is who did it and why. On that Ryan and I mostly agree."
Hmm... you "mostly" agree, eh?
Kevin, this Dawson dingbat is affirming his belief that these Arab patsies actually hijacked planes and flew them into buildings!!!
WTF kind of 9/11 researcher is that??? It's about the same as the JFK assassination researcher who affirms that the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, really did shoot JFK with that Carcano rifle. "Yeah, man. We have records of him buying the rifle by mail order! So OBVIOUSLY he shot Kennedy with it!" And then: "We have records of these Arabs attending flight school, so OBVIOUSLY they hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings (at whatever impossible speed...)
Really, what on earth is the point of giving a platform to this kind of shill? Are you purposefully trying to discredit yourself?
The thing is he is no dingbat except on this issue. If I was to have to rank the best investigative journalist of the new century it would be hard to think of many others.
Ryan’s idiocy on 9/11 is a big issue and there is no way to harmonise it away. When he finishes his next can of rice beer he should conduct an experiment by tossing the empty can at the fridge. If the fridge turns to dust that’s still not good enough. The freezer across the room has to turn to dust also.
I have to blame a Jew and last time it was Karl Popper. This time I will blame also Einstein. He has taught small children that energy is a real entity and it gives the impression that in this case materials science doesn’t matter. But energy is more like leaving a slinky at the top of the stairs. It’s not interchangeable with matter. It’s no real thing.
Thanks for your reply. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on Bollyn's analysis. I don't think Dawson (or anyone for that matter) started naming Israel as a likely culprit in 9/11 until Bollyn's tiny presentations started getting traction. It makes more sense now than when I first heard it 10+ years ago.
I think Bollyn is largely right, though his book isn't as well-organized as one might wish. For people unaware of his work, check out: https://bollyn.com/public/Solving_9-11_-_The_Deception_That_Changed_The_World.pdf and https://www.muslimprophets.com/video.php?vid=2366
Bollyn is cool except with mode of building disintegration. Other than that he is the go to for this issue. Ryan good for everything else.
Greetings - may I offer up an opportunity to debate on the subject of the “planes vs N0-Planes” argument about 9/11/2001 - I know that the planes were fake. . . . what do you say?
Months ago, I stumbled upon a podcast wherein R. D. said "that guy's a piece of shit" about Christopher Bollyn! Therein, he also said, that C. B. plagiarized him! Unfortunately, I didn't save the URL of that podcast. For me, that's all the proof in the world, that R. D. is a 9-11 liar in truther's clothing.
Ryan has staked incorrect positions on key aspects of the 9/11 operation. He is childish and quite idiotic in his manner of defending his positions, to his own discredit. He does not accept the clear evidence for demos, and oddly believes the hijacker story.
He is good for some info on some topics. But at this point he is largely a bull in a China shop, and consistently used childish attacks (without backing) to attack sincere and CORRECT 9/11 researchers.
...interesting. entertaining. I met a man yesterday who said Bin Laden is living in a small city in New Zealand and something about million year old books. listening to Ryan's take on the evidence of demolition and Hopsicker in Florida, kind of fit in.
Just because someone doesn’t agree with everything you think doesn’t make them a “limited hang out shill”. For me, the whole point of listening to conversations like these is to listen and learn.
Exactly! People can listen and decide whether Ryan successfully countered my argument for why there couldn't have been human hijackers. His counterargument is that there were no controlled demolitions, just truck bombs in the basements. I'm pretty sure that people familiar with AE911truth and the demolition debate will be easily able to decide who's right ; - )
"Exactly! People can listen and decide whether Ryan successfully countered my argument for why there couldn't have been human hijackers."
Well, that *sounds* reasonable... I mean, okay it's *superficially* reasonable, but is it really "reasonable"?
For one thing, this is hardly a symmetrical situation. The people who toe the line on the ludicrous official story have the entirety of the MSM (and probably most of the alt-media as well) to put out their message, right? "Yeah man, dem Ay-rabs hijacked planes and flew them into buildings..."
So, given this basic fact, why would somebody in your position feel some need to share your platform (and what minimal impact you can have, realistically speaking) with this Dawson dingbat, people of that nature, so that they can tell people that the Ay-rabs flew planes into buildings. WTF? In the name of some weird notion of *fairness*??? These assholes have the whole of the MSM and so on to put out their bullshit and you have your little substack and a few other places and...
But I would make a further point about all this...
People's circumstances vary. For you, Kevin, this is a full-time job. In fact, I have little doubt that you spend 80 hours (more) a week on this so it is 2 full-time jobs! But regardless, you spend a lot of time on this. I myself am in a privileged position where I can spend a fair bit of time investigating these things.
BUT... that is not the typical person's situation. A lot of people have to work a full-time job (and sometimes more than one) to pay their bills. They have family obligations.... and so on... In short, many people only have a very limited amount of time to devote to getting informed about these sorts of things. Right?
So, given this, the fact that so many people have such limited time, why would you have this kind of idiot on your show to essentially back up the official story, claiming that these Arab patsies really did fly planes into buildings??? "Oh, my audience needs to hear that, just in case they never heard that bullshit before... it's in the interests of even-handedness or fairness or..."
C'mon. It's just such a sucker's game, Kevin.
You make a valid point: Most of the people we need to reach, those who don't yet know, probably don't have time to rediscover the work of AE911Truth. But they may still be able to judge the credibility of the arguments to some extent. And since "if you want a crowd, start a fight" it may not be a bad strategy to have debates like this, rather than just having guests who echo my own views.
But you are totally mistaken and arguably committing defamation by saying Ryan "backs up the official story, claiming that these Arab patsies really did fly planes into buildings." Ryan says "al-Qaeda" is branch of the CIA, which is dominated by Israel. So al-Qaeda employees are CIA employees, and whoever pulled off the attacks, in all capacities, was CIA. That would include the Arabs he thinks were on the planes (but who in reality almost certainly weren't, as the Elias Davidsson article I linked showed.)
I look at this conversation and suddenly I am rather disoriented. Like, what are we even talking about? I guess this tends to happen when you engage with extremely argumentative people (I mean YOU) that, after a few iterations, you just end up wondering what you're even arguing about. I mean really...
Finally, what is this about? Suddenly, I am thinking... who is the audience for your show? Actually, I was on your show something like a half dozen times at least. I was tracing it back and I think the first time I was on your show was early 2016, nearly 9 years ago. I can certainly say that it never occurred to me that the purpose of the show was to tell people that the 9/11 fable was nonsense. I just figured that everybody listening already knew that. So I got on your show and just assumed that the audience understood very basic things -- among those basic things would be the fact that the alleged hijackers were just patsies. I just figured (rightly or wrongly) that the people who would be listening to a show like yours understood basic things like this.
Well, all that said, maybe I am the person who misunderstood the situation. Maybe that is what your audience wants or needs... they think (or aren't sure) that maybe these Arabs, Atta and the rest, really did fly planes into buildings, so they need to be disabused of this notion. (Kevin to the rescue!)
Well, okay, maybe... but I would just pose the following question:
Kevin, do you have any feedback from your listeners that supports the idea that this is what they want? I mean, that they want to hear you debate questions like this, whether these people were just patsies or really did hijack planes...
I am not 100% sure, mind you, but my guess would be that your listeners do NOT want that. Look, the current year is 2025. This is not 2005 and it's not even 2015. To me, the whole thing has a Groundhog day feel to it, like you're going to get up every day and explain to people that the patsies were just patsies and...
"But you are totally mistaken and arguably committing defamation by saying Ryan "backs up the official story, claiming that these Arab patsies really did fly planes into buildings." Ryan says "al-Qaeda" is branch of the CIA,"
Kevin, the above is just silly really. Anybody who is, like this Dawson dingbat, upholding the core story that these Arabs hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, is essentially upholding the official story, because that is the very CORE of it. THAT is the racist, islamophobic fable at the heart of the whole thing. At that point, all you're missing as icing on the cake would be Mohammed Atta shouting "Allahu Akhbar" as he steers the plane into the building! I mean, c'mon, if you're upholding the Ussama Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers narrative, then you are upholding the official story, because that is the essence of it. And, certainly, for me to point this out does not constitute "defamation" in any way, shape or form. WTF are you talking about?
Again, I don't know for sure what the opinion of your listenership is, and seeing as it's your show, it's up to you to figure out anyway, but I would say, just judging from people's reactions on this page (not a very large sample granted) most of your audience reacted very negatively to this Dawson guy and his defense of the hijacker story. So, if that is the case, you should really take that to heart, shouldn't you? I mean, fundamentally, that has nothing to do with me!
Yeah, I anticipated that much of the audience, not just no-planers like you but also no-hijackers like me, would roll its collective eyeballs at some of Ryan's claims...which I told Ryan, politely. But I thought the interview actually provided a pretty good model of how to talk with someone you disagree with on some topics but agree with on others. Ryan is barking up a lot of the right trees, while the areas of disagreement are less important now than they were 20 years ago. And I hope at least a few people will discover Elias Davidsson through the link I posted, and better understand why Ryan is wrong about the alleged hijackers.
Meanwhile you asked (impolitely) for names of pilots and aviation experts. Among those I have interviewed: Captain Dan Hanley (best source); Shelton Lankford (interviewed him many times) https://www.consensus911.org/founders-of-the-911-consensus-panel-honor-shelton-lankford/ ; Frank Legge, leader of the yes-planes-could-go-that-fast school https://www.globalresearch.ca/911-truth-remembering-frank-legge/5553839 ; Rob Balsamo; Ralph Kolstad https://kevinbarrett.heresycentral.is/2009/09/767-pilot-ralph-kolstad-governments-911-story-is-ridiculous-heres-why/ ; Ralph Rodehag https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_airline-pilot-ralph-rodehag-discusses-9-11-ufos-and-more/ ; Dwain Deets https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_ex-nasa-engineer-dwain-deets-on-scientists-for-9-11-truth-plane-research/ ; Dennis Cimino; Robin Hordon (countless interviews, one of the best sources); John Bursill; and of course AK Dewdney, a science genius who did the Project Achilles experiments and appeared on my show well over a dozen times.
No is not about some minor disagreement. Ryan is in fact an idiot on this one issue and no others. So he could be under threat.