Podcast Show #57

The Boiling Frogs Presents Kevin Fenton

BFP Podcast Logo

Author and researcher Kevin Fenton joins us to discuss the recent case involving the CIA’s withholding of the release of audio documentary “Who is Richard Blee?” and the extensive research and findings which have resulted in the unmasking of three former top CIA officials and their role in withholding intelligence on two key 9/11 hijackers and subsequent cover-ups. He details the findings on the two key CIA analysts who were instrumental in this cover up - who were recently identified and exposed as Alfreda Frances Bikowsky and Michael Anne Casey. Mr. Fenton discusses the CIA’s Alec Station, and questions the notion of incompetence versus intentional when it comes to the events leading to and making the terrorist attacks possible on 9/11.

Kevin Fenton is an independent researcher and the author of Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI Officials Helped Enable 9/11 and Evaded Government Investigations.

Here is our guest Kevin Fenton unplugged!

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. I think Sibel’s question about fighting against Al-Qaeda and working with Al-Qaeda at the same time can be answered very simply by saying that there are some “good” people in the CIA/FBI and there are some “bad” people in the CIA/FBI. The “good” people do the fighting against Al-Qaeda, and keep the “war” alive or the myth, and the “bad” people work with Al-Qaeda. One is for show/funds from Congress, and one is for covert/usage of Al-Qaeda for geopolitical purposes.

  2. I’d like to add my perspective regarding Sibel’s comments at the beginning of this podcast.

    I admit that, as someone who doesn’t have to sit in the hot seat and face intimidation from the federal government, I am probably very quick to expect that someone, with knowledge that makes them a potential whistle blower, should do so immediately. There are a couple reasons for this kind of expectation.

    For one, the public at large is starved for any realistic information about current events. When someone throws out a tease like “We have the names, but aren’t releasing them yet” or “I know three highly credibly people who say flight 93 was shot down, but they won’t talk because they think it won’t matter”, it drives us absolutely crazy. It does me anyway.

    The other reason is that there is an ethical responsibility and sometimes a legal one (think about the oaths taken by some potential whistle blowers). Yes, I hope for people to abide by these and try to imagine myself doing the same, if it were me.

    I will add that some personal experience in my life and probably most people’s (things on local/personal levels), makes me aware of the courage that it takes to stand up for what’s right. I try to pay respect to the people who do.

  3. To Jon’s Comment/Answer to Sibel’s Question:

    It seems that the “bad” part of our intel organizations are the parts which are connected to the powerful positions in those organizations. Those in powerful positions are connected to the powerful establishment in our society.

    When Sibel asked for the second time about the duality of the CIA (fighting the terrorists and working side-by-side with them) and if the War on Terror was not a farce just like the War on Drugs, I was confused by Fenton’s response about the media and Peter B.’s changing the subject.

    What I think she’s getting at is that there is a powerful establishment with tentacles in the agencies as well as the media that basically are terrorist, drug dealing, war profiteering, liberty hating, slave owning, sociopaths. [Extra adjectives mine.] They are the enemy of America and of it’s intel agencies, media, and citizens. Yet they are in control.

  4. Sibel, your CIA recruitment comments reminded me of The Paralax View.

  5. @ Jon Gold and Xicha
    I have a similar outlook to the matter. But do not consider it a question of good vs bad, but as two factions that are needed to maintain the economic structure of the US.

    A vast (and much bigger now then when Eisenhower warned about it) military-industrial complex needs — per definition — enemies.

    Before WW II, the US did not have a permanent military-industrial complex. After WW II it never abolished its war-economy: it simply created mythological enemies that justified the budget it allocated for “defense”. First it nurtured the myth of Soviet-Union/Communism, since Nixon the additional myth of the War on Drugs, and since the 1980’s the myth of terrorism/islamism.

    Since WW II mythological enemies became economic necessities: there are simply not enough real enemies to justify a military-industrial complex this big. The rest of the world is not stupid enough to oppose the US militarily and is generally more interested in progress through cooperation than “progress through military means” (an oxymoron).

    So unless the US changes its economic and social structure, someone needs to perform the “noble” task of conjuring the necessary believable enemies. The CIA has had a central role in this “noble” task and did so admirably: exaggerating communism, Team B, Al Qaeda, 9/11, Saddam Hussein, etc.

    It is not easy to manufacture enemies. That the CIA managed so well suggests the greatest possible skills in psychological operations.

    So never call these Intelligence failures: they are Intelligence successes of the highest order and huge economic pay-offs!

  6. @Sibel
    You made a remark about pathological lying as prerequisite for a covert operations position with in the CIA. Can you comment on whether or not the description below is about right? Or maybe suggest improvements.

    Candidates must be charming, engaging and verbally facile. Not shy at all and highly convinced of one’s abilities. Self-assurance and a measure of arrogance is welcome. The candidate loves an exiting and risky lifestyle and hates routine jobs. In addition the candidate needs to be cunning and clever and able to manipulate unscrupulously to exploit human assets effectively and dispassionately. The ability for outward gregariousness and interpersonal effectiveness is highly valued as is a clear focus on the goal and not on the means. If need be the candidate should be able to effectively exploit antagonistic emotions (irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse). The candidate does to not need to be in a stable relation, in fact relationships on assignment are encouraged. Juvenile experience compatible with the demands of the job is highly valued. Ideally the candidate flourishes in a nomadic existence without being limited by long-term plans and goals. Courage is highly valued and a measure of impulsivity is allowable insofar it is not impeding with the task. The candidate should able to taking pride in shifting responsibility of problems and failure to others, especially as a tool to manipulate others to get the job done.

  7. This is one of the most important podcasts to come out of BF – so many layers to it. I would love to dissect this podcast minute by minute, but who would want to read a long detailed analysis by some anonymous listener. Still, everyone should listen closely to Sibel’s rants in this podcast. They reveal the depth of her understanding of the “deep state” and her fearless pursuit of the truth.

    This podcast gives us a glimpse of Sibel at her best, showing the qualities which compel me to provide financial support to BF. I monitor many alternative media sources. There are so few of them that actually get what is going on, or are willing to say it publicly. Sibel made several points bluntly in the podcast that were not shared by Peter or Fenton. Perhaps Peter concurs, but if so, he refuses to say it “out loud” presumably for fear of losing subscribers/supporters. But what’s up with Fenton? How can a man who studies the CIA et al. so closely be so naive about why they do? Then again, I can’t know whether he is naive or just unwilling to state the truth for fear of losing financial support. This is precisely why Sibel wants BF to be completely financially independent.

    People have to let go of the decades of programming to which they have been subjected through school and culture in the US. For starters, one cannot assume the first priority of the federal government is to serve the public interest. That priority, if it ever existed, was discarded a long time ago. The federal government is “owned” by private interests who simply use it as a tool to serve their interests and sabotage their competitors’ interests. Bribery and blackmail are the common currency of government, and have been as for long as government has existed. These are basic tools of control.

    But an even stronger, more powerful, method of control is information. This is where the intel agencies come into play. It’s all about controlling the flow of information, which includes gathering, withholding, and disseminating information in a carefully planned manner. If you control the flow of information to a government and its people, and your ability to operate is not subject to significant financial constraints, then you own that government and its people. You have information before they do, and you control what they know and when they know it. In the case of the US, the situation is exacerbated by secrecy laws which make it all too easy for intel agencies to seize information from private citizens and enterprises, silence whistleblowers and critics, and disseminate misinformation. On this matter, there is no significant difference between Nazi Germany and the United States. In the US, a free and independent press was supposed to protect us from such control and abuse. But the US press is no longer free or independent. While in other countries, the people are at least aware their press is not independent, the people of the US still believe they have an independent press that will root out and report insidious government activities. This makes the US situation more dangerous, as evidenced by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    So, when Sibel brings up credibility issues 46 minutes into this podcast, she is on target. I cannot overstate the importance of the implications of what Sibel is communicating here. Sibel comes back at the one hour mark with another test of Fenton, who completely misses the point, or just evades the question entirely. You will notice Sibel does not utter another word after this. Was it because she was completely disgusted or did she have to leave the microphone. Probably the latter since I did not hear her say good-bye. But if she wasn’t disgusted, I sure as hell was.

    Fenton is doing the CIA a big favor by alluding to “intelligence failures” and “turf wars”. This is the cover story for the CIA with respect to 9/11, and Fenton is promoting it, whether intentionally or not. These are not failures or turf wars, this is information control through compartmentalization and covert ops. This is what the CIA does, and they don’t have any “huge failures” except by design. When you want to pull off an event like 9/11, you have to disrupt and suppress the flow of intelligence within and between agencies. This is standard operating procedure, but it had to be done on a much larger scale for 9/11. Therefore, Fenton has to emphasize the word “huge” so that the public will swallow it and look no further.

    This cover story has no down side for the CIA, rather it is a “huge” success in multiple respects. First, it pacifies the masses and channels investigations into a safe pathway. It also allows the characterization of those who argue a more sinister explanation as “conspiracy nuts”. But the real genius of it is that it manipulates citizen and government to send more money and power to the failing agency in order to avoid another catastrophe. This is a bonanza for the CIA. What do they get for their huge failure; more money, more toys, and more ability to control information (Patriot Act). They had a us in a cage before 9/11, now the cage is a lot smaller.

    Somewhere in space between stimulus and response lay our freedom.

  8. jschoneboom says:

    I also loved this podcast because of the way Peter and especially Sibel challenged Fenton on the crucial aspects of how this information should most plausibly be interpreted. Kevin Fenton seems to be a meticulous researcher, and on the one hand I agree it’s frustrating that he seems naive or is seemingly too willing to postulate that the CIA may have had legitimate reasons (WMD or whatever) — some larger goal — justifying all the obstruction of justice in which they quite clearly engaged. If that’s true, then we are left with two choices, neither of them terribly plausible. 1) They allowed to 9/11 attacks to succeed because in some way we can’t understand, disrupting it would have jeopardized an operation against an even worse attack, possibly involving nuclear weapons; or 2) They were protecting them but didn’t intend the attacks to succeed, somebody was supposed to stop it at the last minute, something went wrong somewhere; oops.

    Note that in either case, heads should roll and promotions for key obstructors would be grossly inappropriate.

    In any case, given the history of cooperation with Al Qaeda, not to mention the associated phenomena such as the air defense failures and the obvious controlled demolitions and so forth, 9/11 as black op is the interpretation that requires the least amount of bending over backwards and sheer denial.

    HOWEVER: I’m glad on the other hand for people like Fenton, and Paul Thompson, who leave such questions open. The facts they gather are of immense value, and I frankly don’t care much about their interpretation of them. I can draw my own conclusions. Their fact gathering is made MORE useful by their failure to weave them into an “inside job” theory, because they have a better chance at cracking the mainstream that way. A few naked facts and open-ended questions can probably go a longer way towards getting a foot in the mainstream door than any overt “inside job” theorist could ever do, no matter how compelling his or her evidence is. This Almihdhar and Alhazmi business seems to be coming from a few angles now and might just get a toe or two inside the door. (I mean, probably not, but a guy can dream…)

  9. @Hall 9000

    Thanks for your great analysis.

Speak Your Mind