Interview 975 - Field McConnell Introduces Abel Danger

12/08/201454 Comments

Field McConnell of AbelDanger joins the program today to discuss his life, background and investigation into the Octopus that connects Serco, the Senior Executive Service, Barry Soetoro, 9/11, MH370, MH17, the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot and much, much (much) more.


As mentioned in the interview, Corbett Report members are encouraged to compile show notes for this interview in the comments section below. Please post any links to any information that corroborates any of the information presented in this interview.

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (54)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Corbett says:

    Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot – 66 page document referred to in the interview with information on patents:

  2. Corbett says:

    ZoomInfo on Field’s sister:

    The link confirms she is a “Charter Member of the Senior Executive Service and An Elected Fellow” of the National Academy of Public Administration.

    Independent confirmation of the relationship of Kristine (nee McConnell) Marcy to Field:

    Zoominfo also confirms she is an “Executive Consultant” for McConnell International, founded by Bruce McConnell:

    Bruce McConnell is also a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration:

    • Richard-Fitzwell says:

      And here is info posted in comments section of this interview on F. McConnell’s website

      SERCO and US Gov’t contracts
      (links obfuscated and shortened)

      Total Dollars:

      Top 5 Prime Award Recipient Locations (States)
      1. Virginia $2,749,775,513
      2. Colorado $871,431,605
      3. New Jersey $315,064,972
      4. Unknown $18,120,340
      5. Unknown $3,670,718

      Top 5 Prime Award Major Agencies
      1. Department of Defense $3,027,639,638
      2. Department of Health and Human Services $492,553,143
      3. Department of State $176,198,309
      4. Department of Transportation $176,025,724
      5. Office of Personnel Management $40,439,461

      Top 5 Prime Award Sub Agencies
      1. Department of the Navy $1,216,522,255
      2. Department of the Air Force $979,040,305
      3. Department of the Army $836,543,191
      4. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services $440,151,746
      5. Department of State $176,198,309

      List of Gov’t agencies as SERCO clients

      Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
      U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service (USCIS)
      Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
      Department of State (DOS)
      Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
      Department of Labor (DOL)
      US Coast Guard (USCG)
      OTHERS: North American Aerospace Defense Command Headquarters (NORAD HQ), Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Air Force, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, Department of Veterans Affairs, General Services Administration, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Central Intelligence Agency, Congressional Commission on China, Congressional Research Service, Director of National Intelligence, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Energy, Government Accountability Office, Government Printing Office, International Trade Commission, Library of Congress, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Social Security Administration

    • Richard-Fitzwell says:

      More on SERCO, formerly a UK division of Radio Corporation of America (RCA)

      List of 38 Subsidiaries and 106 Shareholders

      A short sampling…

      FMR LLC via its funds
      LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC via its funds
      GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE via its funds
      DEUTSCHE BANK AG via its funds
      BNP PARIBAS via its funds
      BARCLAYS PLC via its funds
      GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC via its funds

    • Richard-Fitzwell says:

      One more for today, sorry to clutter it up.

      SERCO Group PLC Annual Report 2011 (7.15mb)

  3. Corbett says:

    Regarding scrambling of jets to Whiskey 386 on 9/11, see this:

    Interesting confirmation of flight path crossover between Quit 25 and Venus 77 from 9/11 Commmission researcher Miles Kara (who predictably claims this detail is unimportant):

    Interesting (if tangential) paper about the radar anomalies of 9/11 and Miles Kara’s handwaving over these “coincidences”:

  4. Corbett says:

    Reddit’s own hivemind investigation into the BUAP idea (predictably anti-conspiracist in nature, but a lot of interesting links and details):

    An investigation from a very different perspective on this information from the PrisonPlanet forum:

  5. Richard-Fitzwell says:

    Senior Executive Service (SES)

    The Senior Executive Service (SES) is comprised of the men and women charged with leading the continuing transformation of government. These leaders possess well-honed executive skills and share a broad perspective of government and a public service commitment which is grounded in the Constitution. The keystone of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the SES was designed to be a corps of executives selected for their leadership qualifications.

    Members of the SES serve in the key positions just below the top Presidential appointees. SES members are the major link between these appointees and the rest of the Federal work force. They operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies.

    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) manages the overall Federal executive personnel program. OPM staff provides the day-to-day oversight of and assistance to agencies as they develop, select, and manage their Federal executives.

    I found the emphasized part mildly humorous.

    Wikipedia notes that members of the SES are analogous to the rank of general or admiral in the armed services.

    • Corbett says:

      Thanks for that Richard-Fitzwell. Does anyone have any good overviews of this organization from an alt media source or are there any examinations of specific ways the SES “transforms government”?

    • Richard-Fitzwell says:

      Looks like they get nice bonuses on top of the handsome salary (capped at same pay as the Vice President)…

      by Martin Tolchin; New York Times; June 24th, 1980

      The Senate Appropriations Committee today approved $15.9 billion in supplemental appropriations for the current fiscal year, $200 million less than the House voted last week.


      The committee approved $484 million for Cuban and Haitian refugees, as against $200 million in the House-passed bill. Unlike the House bill, the Senate committee voted not to freeze the pay of the 30,000 highest-paid Government workers, or to limit severely the $20,000-a-year bonuses to which 7,000 top civil servants in the Senior Executive Service are entitled.

    • BuddhaForce says:

      Senior Executive Service Announcements
      Release No: NR-287-15
      July 20, 2015

      Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has announced the following Department of Defense Senior Executive Service appointments:

      Debbra M. Caw has been appointed to the Senior Executive Service and is assigned as the deputy regional director, Central Region, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Irving, Texas. Debbra M. Caw previously served as supervisory auditor, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

      Kenneth J. Saccoccia has been appointed as deputy director, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Kenneth J. Saccoccia previously served as the regional director, Mid-Atlantic Region, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

      James H. Baker has been assigned as director of net assessment, Office of Director, Net Assessment, Washington, District of Columbia. James H. Baker previously served as principal deputy director and strategist to the chairman, Joint Staff, Washington, District of Columbia.

    • BuddhaForce says:

      Sibel Edmonds on how CIA shut down FBI terrorism cases.

      In this interview Sibel talks about how the CIA and State Dept. would exert pressure on FBI terrorism investigations to get them shut down. She specifically mentions that the people who were leaned on, and who subsequently pulled the plug on the cases, were SES level employees.

      Going back to the idea of “stovepiping,” or funneling intel up the chain through a narrow and tightly controlled channel, SES employees who sit just below the executive-appointed positions of 74 federal agencies, would seem to be the perfect position for an agent to filter any intelligence going to the top.

  6. “Members of the Senior Executives Service are represented by the Senior Executives Association.”

    Check out who’s on the front page of the Senior Executives Association – former Fed chairman Paul Volcker:

    “The Volcker Alliance and Senior Executives Association to Engage Award-Winning Public Officials to Help Government Work Better”

    “The Volcker Alliance President Shelley Metzenbaum noted … ‘The Volcker Alliance is proud to include the Senior Executives Association among our growing network of government, educational institutions, business, and public interest enterprise partners we are working alongside to promote effective execution of public policies and to rebuild public trust in government.'”

    A bit about Paul Volcker’s current work, from Wikipedia:

    “As of October 2006, he is the current chairman of the board of trustees of the influential Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty, and is a member of the Trilateral Commission. He has had a long association with the Rockefeller family, not only with his positions at Chase Bank and the Trilateral Commission, but also through membership of the trust committee of Rockefeller Group, Inc., which he joined in 1987. That entity managed, at one time, the Rockefeller Center on behalf of the numerous members of the Rockefeller family. He is former chairman and an honorary trustee of International House, the cultural exchange residence and program center in New York City. He is a founding member of the Trilateral Commission and is a long-time member of the Bilderberg Group.”

  7. Jangaboo says:

    Was hard to listen to this one, guest went on a long rant about his parents history and how they were bad asses in the military to what sounded like me building rapport with the listeners who are sympathetic to that obey and kill resume. He didn’t give out much of his own history other than his phone number and address lol and his sister apparently works for the shadow government, ok, and he had a strange way of talking to James like he was quizzing him. This was almost half-way into the interview so I’ll have to look over the notes above to see if he finally started talking about the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot.

    I’m not sure who these many people who wrote to get this guy on but I wasn’t one of them. Sorry I don’t have much else to provide other than what I thought when listening this morning.

    • Richard-Fitzwell says:

      Agreed mostly. The interesting stuff I plucked out of there:

      the SES – Interesting little program I hadn’t heard about. From what I have gathered so far, sounds like they sit at the top of 74 federal agencies just below the executive-appointed posts. I suppose from a purely theoretical view, if you were seeking to control an agency through ‘stove-piping’ then this could be a way to inject your people in there. However, from what I have read, they seem to have high turnover and get shuffled around with a fair amount of frequency.

      Serco – Never heard of them but I watched the video and they sound pretty big, especially in the UK. However I’m not sure how exactly they stand apart from other large MNC’s, and the speaker never really explained exactly how he came to the conclusion they were the “shadow gov’t”, except for the fact that his sister works there (who he seems to have a vendetta with).

      Other than that, the guy seemed super-excitable. Maybe it was his first interview or something? His website is sort of confusing and its hard to extract information from the posts there. He made a lot of bold claims, threw out a bunch of catchy words you usually see in the “SMOKING GUN PROOF” videos, but went fairly light on the supporting details. He also hit on Casolaro, that was a nice touch, although I have a copy of ‘The Last Circle’ by Cheri Seymour right here and Serco doesn’t come up in the index at all.

      Hopefully next time he can slow down a bit and flesh out the information a little better.

      • JennyDel says:

        I wonder if it would be a better way to interview him off-air, summarize his responses, with important quotes taken out. Kind of like a newspaper reporter would do in writing a story.

        I can’t imagine that even having a set list of questions would help for another radio interview because you’d only get to the first question. I would love to hear more in depth information, though. I can see that he poses no danger to the establishment because he can be immediately written off due to his personality/style, which is where a community like this one can come in to verify and flesh out and add credence to some of his claims, if true.

  8. n.riva1989 says:

    James you are by far the most gracious host I’ve ever listened to. That introduction went in every single direction possible. Very hard to listen to. Maybe a future pod cast about some of the information presented in this? Most intriguing, the documents that refer to this auto pilot technology. How many other pilots are aware of this? I am, as you said, flummoxed! I have to sleep on this one and analyze tomorrow.

  9. Although there were many interesting tidbits in Field McConnell’s speech, I agree with Jangaboo that it was rambling and hard to keep track of. We need some of the falsifiability approach here, to nail down what his claims are and then evaluate them critically.

    His claims about 9/11, starting at 30:00 in the audio, as I hear them, are:

    1. The 9/11 targets were struck by remote-controlled drones, that were converted airliners, not by the officially-reported commercial flights.

    2. The drones had an appearance such that they were “eye-candy” for Americans, to believe that they were normal commercial airliners.

    3. The drones were not Boeing 757s.

    4. The drone that hit the Pentagon would have been instantly recognized by the 3 fighter pilots as being a drone, instead of a normal commercial airliner.

    5. American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, and American Airlines Flight 77 were “vaporized” in W386-A airspace.

    6. The Senior Executive Service and Serco were responsible for destroying the aforementioned 3 flights.

    7. The Senior Executive Service scrambled 3 fighters to W386-A airspace, before a drone struck the Pentagon. The 3 fighters were redirected to Pentagon airspace, but did not arrive until after the drone struck the Pentagon.

    I have a few questions and observations about these claims (please correct me if I have misinterpreted anything he said):

    1. There seems to be a contradiction between the idea that the drones looked like commercial airliners and at the same time did not look like commercial airliners.

    2. If AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 were vaporized in W386-A airspace, they would have had to travel from Boston to Washington DC, significantly farther than to New York City. Were the published flight paths inaccurate? What paths did these flights take?

    3. Why were fighters scrambled to W386-A airspace if the 3 commercial flights were also directed there? Were the 3 airliners there before or after the fighter jets (or at the same time)? Did the jets “vaporize” the flights before they headed back to DC? (This seems unlikely because Field McConnell stated that the fighter pilots would have reported seeing a drone hit the Pentagon had they made it back in time.)

    4. How were the 3 flights “vaporized”?

    5. How were the 3 commercial flights driven to W386-A airspace? How was communication to and from the planes blocked? (There were cell phone calls from the planes before their alleged crashes into the WTC towers.)

    6. If the 3 commercial flights were remote controlled, why was there any need to replace them with drones? This seems to complicate the plan infinitely for no benefit.

    7. Why didn’t anybody find any wreckage or bodies from these flights wash ashore in the Washington DC area? These were huge vehicles.

    8. Why were the SES and Serco especially suited or motivated to carry out this attack, compared to other agencies or factions? Were the whole organizations involved, or just certain individuals within them?

    • toonearthemaddingcrowd says:

      Since no one else has tried answering these questions, I’ll have a go at some of them, for the most part basing responses on what I’ve learned from a French documentary (originally Italian, I believe) on 9-11. Here is the link: It’s an excellent film, worth learning French for!

      1. My impression was that the drones would be identifiable to an expert, but that laymen could easily be – and were – fooled by them.

      2. The flight paths were completely bogus, in that they gave the flight trajectories not of the actual airliners, but of whatever hit the buildings that day. Field is the first person I’ve heard claim to have knowledge of what happened to the real planes, though others have conjectured along the same lines as what he states as fact.

      3. Field stated that the fighter jets were sent there to get them out of play temporarily, and that seems quite plausible. Unless one believes that the US government had nothing whatsoever to do with these attacks, that is. As for the commercial flights (pure conjecture here) one could guess that they were sent to this highly-controlled area so that they could be destroyed in relative secrecy.

      4. Scary to think about that one….

      5. This goes to the crux of Field’s claims: that there exists technology which can divert planes and control them absolutely, via remote control. It seems eminently plausible given the multitude of far more advanced technologies that exist, and has been invoked as the cause of two Malaysian airline catastrophes in recent times as well.
      As for the cell phones, I thought it had been well established that those could not have been made had the planes been flying as claimed in the official narrative.

      6. That’s what I thought originally; it made no sense! But according to the pilots for 9-11 truth, it was physically impossible for commercial airliners to have flown along the trajectories they are shown (in the official version) to have followed.

      7. I take “vaporized” to mean “no recognizable remains”, but beyond that have no idea.

      8. No clue! Except that the Board of Directors of both seem to include some nefarious characters.

      • Thanks too near (or toon earth?), for responding to my questions. The one that sticks out most to me is: why was there a need for drones, if commercial airliners were remotely controllable?

        Even if the official trajectories were physically impossible for commercial airliners, that doesn’t answer why the attackers didn’t use commercial airliners, in trajectories that they could accommodate.

        Also, this is a strange rebuttal, if one also makes the claim that the official trajectories were inaccurate. If they are inaccurate, then maybe the actual trajectories were entirely compatible with commercial airliners.

        Also, Field McConnell made the claim that the drones were converted airliners, which means they would have the same physical limitations as commercial airliners.

        So, within the reality of Field McConnell’s claims, it makes no sense whatsoever to replace the actual commercial airliners with drones, since it complicates the plan immensely, for absolutely no benefit.

      • toonearthemaddingcrowd says:

        I agree that using drones seems to add unnecessary complications, but this podcast isn’t the first place I’ve heard that claim. In fact, it seems certain that one was used for the Pentagon attack, so there must have been a reason (however warped) for doing it that way. Drones would be far more durable than unadapted planes, however – reinforced in many ways.

        Were the official trajectories inaccurate? I haven’t heard that argument. Supposedly the flight trajectories were switched at some point so that the drones were being followed, and the real planes dropped off everyone’s radar. After that, the NYC drones climbed to an insane height before diving almost vertically toward the twin towers – which would have ripped a normal plane to shreds. But the pilots for 9-11 truth explain all this far better than I could.

        And it’s Too Near (the Madding Crowd) – a bastardization of one of my favorite Thomas Hardy novels. In the event that you weren’t just joking 🙂

      • johnd.jasper says:

        “I’ll stop there and…”

        To help inform the discussion, drone technology was being used back in the 70s for fighter pilot training targets and reducing pilot fatalities in Vietnam. among others.

        An unmanned military aircraft has the advantage of better maneuverability and stress capacity with no humans who might just find a way to interfere with the mission. Even though the autopilot itself might not be interruptable, a wily pilot might figure out how to shut down the engines, dump the fuel load or a host of other tricks available to someone with access to the circuit breakers!

        As for the original aircraft, there’s the Cleveland airport mystery which can be read about here (😉 as well as other interesting snippets about the flight take-off times and boarding anomalies. Planes landing and disgorging passengers in a remote area of the airfield? Pretty mysterious!

      • johnd.japser, thanks for your addition to the discussion.

        Field McConnell’s claim was that the drones were converted airliners, not military drones. If the converted airliners were somehow reinforced to withstand the stresses of the officially-reported trajectories, in such a way that they would not be easily differentiated from normal airliners, why wouldn’t the attackers have simply reinforced the commercial airliners in such a manner?

        If the uninterruptible autopilot can be circumvented in the manner you describe, then that also defeats the claims in his 9/11 and Malaysian flights scenarios. After all, once the pilots realized their planes had been remotely hijacked, they would have dumped their fuel to prevent their being used as a weapon. But according to Field McConnell, they didn’t, since they flew all the way to W386-A (outside Washington DC), where they were “vaporized”. In other words, the potential circumvention of the autopilot system makes the drones scenario equally as unlikely as that of using the commercial airliners themselves, since in both cases the control of the airliners is a necessity.

        Long story short, Field McConnell’s claims seem to be self-defeating. Let’s look at the risks to the attackers of using the commercial airliners to conduct the attacks:

        1. The uninterruptible autopilot might be circumvented by the pilots (something the system was expressly designed to prevent, and which would also equally disrupt the drone plan, since it also relies on remotely controlling piloted planes).

        Now the risks of using drones for the attacks and redirecting the commercial airliners to W386-A:

        1. The commercial airliners would leave wreckage in an unexpected place, which could be found by many people since the area would be too large to effectively control.

        2. Experts looking at the drones could spot modifications and identify them as drones.

        3. The commercial airliners could be detected in flight, as having deviated from their flight paths.

        4. The expected wreckage from the airliners would not be present at the WTC and Pentagon crash sites and would have to be fabricated.

        5. Instead of coordinating 4 airborne vehicles, they have to coordinate 8 vehicles.

        6. The scrambled fighter jets could have made it back to DC in time to spot the drone that smashed into the Pentagon.

        Given the disparity in risks, why would the attackers choose the drone scenario? I think a comparative risk analysis serves to clarify this issue, not just relying on what is possible, since many things are possible that may not be probable or desirable.

      • johnd.jasper says:

        Apollo Slater,

        “If the converted airliners were somehow reinforced to withstand the stresses of the officially-reported trajectories…”

        Although the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks probably had unlimited resources, converting 1 to 4 commercial airliners to military specs would have been unnecessarily costly and time consuming. They already knew that they could control the narrative based on their or others’ experience of Pearl Harbor, the JFK, MLK, and RFK assasinations, Waco, Oklahoma and the ’93 WTC attack to name a few. All they needed was a close approximation moving too fast for clear identification.

        “…the potential circumvention of the autopilot system makes the drones scenario equally as unlikely as that of using the commercial airliners themselves, since in both cases the control of the airliners is a necessity.”

        “…drone plan, since it also relies on remotely controlling piloted planes).”

        The more likely scenario in my opinion is military aircraft piloted by on-board computer which would have no one on board to interfere with the controls once activated. Navigation systems have been in use for decades that fly the aircraft on a pre-programmed route sometimes only 1000 ft from the ground right to the target and back. The pilot, if there is one, can override it but would only do so if they suspected a fault. The modern day remote control drone serves a completely different purpose and a remote pilot would be no more capable of executing the 9/11 manuevres than an on-board suicide pilot.

        I’m new to Field McConnell but after listening to this podcast twice, I’m of the opinion that his rantings should be taken with a grain of salt. Regardless of his sincerity, he serves the same purpose as many other truthers who give some good information mixed with crazy stuff and tar the lot of us as tin-hats.

        Back to the uninterruptable, the ability to take over the controls probably doesn’t require on-board activation. If you were building such a system, would you deny yourself a backdoor to take over an aircraft remotely? So many aircraft have mysteriously strayed off course into doom and what better way to do this nefariously than to secretly adjust the course settings while the pilots think the autopilot is working normally? Just a thought.

        “Given the disparity in risks, why would the attackers choose the drone scenario? I think a comparative risk analysis serves to clarify this issue, not just relying on what is possible, since many things are possible that may not be probable or desirable.”

        ‘Ours is not to ask why?…’ IMO, computer-guided military aircraft is the only scenario that makes sense for WTCs 1, 2 and 7 (yes, 7 too!) The difficult trajectories that the 3 aircraft made into 1, 2 and the Pentagon were by many accounts impossible for humans as well as commercial airliners. Hell, I’ve tried similar using jet fighter simulator software at home and that was next to impossible. The Pentagon was clearly not hit by an airliner, the cell phone calls were clearly not made from moving aircraft, a hijackers passport clearly didn’t survive the impact. The facts keep stacking up and Field McConnell only adds to muddy the water.

        Back to WTC 7. I agree with Scott Creighton ( that WTC 7 was probably the grand finale for the day but didn’t happen because the final aircraft was taken out before completing its mission. If so, it would have happened shortly after the twin towers crumbled. We know that 7 was wired up for demolition similar to 1 and 2? You could even guess where the plane was going to hit by noticing which floors were burning. But hey ho, the show must go on so down it comes. We know from the late Barry Jennings that they’d already weakened the structure with bombs earlier in the day and that evidence could not be left exposed.

        Anyway, happy hunting and Happy Holidays to you all!

  10. hoppers says:

    This is the way Field is. He cannot be tied down, and it would take many hours to get everything you intended from him. Impossible in 40 mins.

    I’ve listened to Abel Danger for a long time now, so to me it’s like listening to a couple of friends. – You learn to cut through if you know what I mean, and focus on the nuggets.

    If you want, email me and I’ll send you a brief precis of the various theories that Abel Danger subscribe to, some of which are crystal clear to me and others which leave me somewhat baffled.

  11. Algorithm of Consciousness says:

    I must say, this was difficult to listen to, only because the guest (while noble intentions he may have) rambled about what appeared to be mostly a family vendetta. He literally hijacked the microphone, so to speak.

    Aside from that, I wasn’t very blown away by his revelations. While interesting they may be, I don’t think they are groundbreaking in and of themselves. They are more like terms and connectors or conduits between other memes or ideas, but not much stand alone gems.

    I do wonder where he is getting his legal advice on the wrongful death suit against Obama, since he likely no standing to file a wrongful death claim and cannot show some sort of damage or irreparable harm. Also, that’s based on the concept of negligence, so presumably, he is asserting Obama was negligent for 911? Then he says his friend (the pilot) was murdered, which is intentional. So there’s some problems there. I wouldn’t hold much hope for that law suit getting beyond a motion to dismiss, and if lucky, a motion for summary judgment.

  12. toonearthemaddingcrowd says:

    To be fair, Field did ask that he be interrupted at any point during his introduction. I’ve never heard him before, but I felt a strong sympathy for the guy at the 40-minute mark.

  13. anne says:

    No offense to those who requested his presence on the podcast, but the rather confusing information presented here seemed more distraction and disinformation than anything else. There are an infinite number of red herrings to follow if one is so disposed and this discussion seemed to touch on so many herrings that I was left wondering … whaaaa?

    • anne says:

      After having listened to the entire interview again, I can only come to the uneasy tentative conclusion that this man is someone who may be speaking small points of truth while couching it in terms, phrases and accusations that wholly discredit that truth. In other words, is he a disinformation artist? Is he someone who comes across as ‘crazy’, thus tarnishing information that may, in fact, be valuable – information that may be helpful if presented clearly and by someone who doesn’t come across as so unstable? I can’t know for sure, but it sure seems that way.

      • We can’t really know someone’s motivation, so it’s not fair to label him as a “disinformation artist”. But, it’s fair to ask whether he makes coherent claims and whether those claims can be tested. His style of speaking is not very coherent, so we’re still left asking basic questions he never answers, like what does “vaporized” mean?

      • hoppers says:

        100% no way is he a disinformation artist.

        Confusing at times? – definitely.

        Dishonest? – definitely not.

      • Jrandom says:

        A 100% no way he could be disinfo??? How can you say that about anyone?

        I am very suspicious of the guy. He just happens to have all of these connections, including family who are involved in the shadow government? And that is just a coincidence? More likely that he and his sister were born into a military MKUltra family and he is being trotted out as “the good cop”. If you do some research on the guy, no one mainstream or otherwise is calling him crazy, no one is trying to undermine him. He has one of the cleanest profiles out there for a truthers.

        He is going to take down Obama? Nice timing, now that he is finishing up his last term. The PTB always poop on their disposable presidents at the end of there 8 years.

      • hoppers says:

        Au contraire, the US Pilots Union certainly believe him to be crazy, ‘troubled’ as they describe it.

        He jacked in a Northwest Captains job and attendant salary for his beliefs in 2007, which doesn’t exactly fit the stooge profile.

        His hatred of Obama is deeply and long held, way before lame duckery.

        I think that the obsession with Serco is somewhat unhealthy, I believe that may be more a David Hawkins thing to be fair.

        He suggests that his rather ‘different’ style of both speaking and writing is because otherwise the whole thing would depress him too much.

        There is much about Abel Danger that I find ‘Fringe’ to say the least, but Field knows a lot about aviation, and is worth listening to – If he can be tied down that is.

      • Jrandom says:

        He could also be rejected by MKUltra where his sister was a successful project. Which could account for his scattered way of delivering info.

        He also just happens to know one of the main guy’s in NORAD.

        When I talk about “character assassination”, you can see the level of attacks going against Alex Jones. He has been called everything under the sun. Also more recently, you have Scott Strapp of “Creed”, who spoke normally in his videos, but all of the media is painting him as a lunny and the court is after him for a psych-evaluation. Now that is “character assassination”.

      • hoppers says:

        I don’t think that a brain fried MK Ultra reject would be allowed to spend the next 35 years flying mach 2 fighters and Captaining big jets for a major airline. Just my opinion.

        The guy’s eccentric.- That’s all. I’ve listened to him long enough to work that one out.

        This whole ‘Controlled Opposition’ thing is the new big boring thing in the AM movement.

        “You don’t agree with my way of thinking?….You must be controlled opposition.”

        Really tired of it. Hope it goes away soon.

  14. n.riva1989 says:

    Agreed, I don’t believe it is fair to label him a “disinformation artist”. He clearly is passionate about these topics, and it seems they really hit home. After all, his own sister is apart of the deep state that orchestrated 911.(According to Field). I`d enjoy listening to him again, if we could parse through the forest of tortuous information, while narrowing and pinpointing some of his interesting claims. What say you Corbett report members, would it be worth trying to have him back on

  15. KeithTexas says:

    I have listened to Mr. McConnell a few times and re-listened to the interview again today.

    I believe he is spot on with his information and analysis.

    Just like the professor in Groenigan introduced James as a “one man research and information synthesis agency”, Mr. McConnell’s unique qualifications and experience provide him the understanding to piece together data regarding how drone planes actually DID hit the twin towers and Pentagon on 9/11, and where the actual flights were shunted to another area and disappeared or vaporized.

    I also believe his information regard Mr. Soteoro is spot on. I would LOVE to hear more about where Barry was during his formative years, his college years, and how and by whom he was groomed and ‘handled’ to become the manchurian candidate we all know and love. 😐

    Please have Mr. McConnell on again soon; his information and insight is critical to the 9/11 (and MH17) truth.

    Keep up the good work James.

    • bobdole_1 says:

      We know where Barry was during college, the whole weed smoking ‘gang’ he was in sporting a 70’s afro and all. It’s the part before that. Also I remember hearing on CBC Radio that his grandma died the day he really became President, Jan 19h or 20 or 21st (I forget the exact date), grandma from the black side of his family, because again, ‘Obama’ is a excuse the allcaps, a MULLATO, he is not black. Look up at Obama in western africa(when he went there, surely before Ebola got around there (and is it still there, it’s disappeared from the media now, that must mean it’s over, even Guinea has not many cases anymore and it all seems concentrated in Liberia and Sierra Leone), the people with him are really blacks, he looks as white as bread in such pics/videos.

  16. EYEisBloke says:

    Firstly, thanks for doing this interview James. I was delighted that your forensic looking glass was peeping into Field’s world even if the outcome was a tad blurry to say the least…

    Your website has been a beacon of both credible journalism and general sanity since I started my journey down the rabbit hole around the time of the UK’s 2012 peadogeden media storm and subsequent Lord McAlpine led social media lock down.

    I came across Field & Able Danger fairly early on in this journey when trying to negotiate a decade worth of independent research / speculation on 9/11, as well as take in the jaw dropping number of coincidences, facts and generally accepted laws of nature that have to be dismissed, debunked or more often ignored by anyone still seeking comfort from the official narrative.

    Subscribers who haven’t seen it may be interested in his 60 min film Captain Sherlock Solves 9/11 (Link 1). I wasn’t convinced by every aspect of his theory but I did find much of it compelling, especially his thoughts on the pentagon strike (about 2/3rds way part 3).

    Field obviously has some interesting things to say but like much of this interview I find his abledanger postings fairly impenetrable. Many of these articles read like they’ve been created by some sort of ‘conspiracy theory random generator’ (for example: sam-cam-and-tricky-wag-dog-chat-room [Link 2]). The example provided either barks or wags a particularly random and unconvincing allegation about one of my favorite musicians [Link 3] so I would be wary of blind alleys. That said I think there would be much value to be had in following up with a more structured interview once the Corbertt hive mind have done their thing…?

    Hope this helpful. EyeB

    Link 1:
    Link 2:
    Link 3:

  17. morphwvutuba says:

    My head hasn’t spun like that since Project Constellation.

  18. nosoapradio says:

    He speaks feverishly like a man invested with a mission, with too little time and afraid of meeting death at every street corner. A man who feels alone, patching up his ego and his heart. A man in need of allies and recognition. He reminds me of myself broaching Palestine, 9/11, predictive programming or Gladio B with my mostly yawning college students.

  19. oeo says:

    Fascinating and extreme interview. Nothing about it should be walked away from. The wealth given us in wide but coherent stream reminds me of reading Al Martin ‘The Conspirators’. Insiders know what they know .
    is an extraordinary document.
    James. If you could possibly get Mr. McConnell to further explain W386A ‘vaporization’ scenario he was trying to get to when time ran out. We need to hear that.

    • hoppers says:

      Vaporization. Field is referring to SmacSonic

      SMACSONIC is a visco-elastic layer recently developed by SMAC to reduce vibrations and induced noise created by a structure. This material which is claimed to be a modified rocket fuel, is an effective, light and compact high tech insulation against thermal, sound and vibration used in airplanes, helicopters, vehicles, electronic containers, machines, trains and possibly buildings.

      FORENSIC ECONOMICS: Under normal operating temperatures as SMACSONIC is designed to function in is a highly effective insulation, however, if detonated for example by an incendiary, SMACSONIC burns at 5800 degrees and is alleged to have been used in the Twin Towers as insulation surrounding the elevator shafts after the elevators were upgraded prior to 911. SMACSONIC is also used in Boeing, Bombadier and Airbus aircraft as an insulating material. – See more at:

      My understanding is that Abel Danger believe that the SmacSonic in the 9/11 aircraft was detonated, and that detonation failed in the case of MH17

      • hoppers says:

        Further info (from Abel Danger)

        Captain Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame was of American Airlines Flight 77 that is supposed to have plowed into the Pentagon on 911 killing all on board including Captain Burlingame, his crew and passengers.

        FORENSIC ECONOMICS: On the morning of 911, Captain Chic Burlingame’s American Airlines Flight 77, it is alleged, taken over by a Boeing uninterrupted autopilot and as a ‘drone’ with a GRS 11 Gyrochip, illegally installed outside of American RICO laws, flown out over the Atlantic Ocean and detonated using SMACSONIC when this visco-elastic ‘insulator’ was ignited as an incendiary turning the aircraft, passengers and crew into a plasma destroying all evidence fitting the parameters of a typical FC KU crime scene as discussed by Hawks Café.

      • Is there any independent evidence of SMACTANE turning into a 5,800 degree plasma when ignited? My brief Google search did not turn anything up – maybe you have more luck.

        I’m very skeptical of this claim, short of independent experiments verifying it. SMACTANE is used in extreme environments such as spacecraft launches and F1 racing, where unexpected ignitions and explosions are very much a risk. It’s hard for me to believe that this material would be chosen for these applications if it indeed has the properties claimed by Field McConnell.

        “In space, special SMAC materials are used to reduce pyrotechnic shocks – basically, the explosions that jolt a satellite when it’s launched atop a rocket or when explosive couplings release.”

  20. oeo says:

    sol-gel. LLNL type thing.

  21. theresamprice says:

    James, as always, a wonderful job. Kudos to you for remaining so gracious while McConnell ran every which way but loose and used 45 minutes to introduce himself.
    I’d love to hear a follow up interview, delving into these topics a little more.
    Keep up the excellent work… so many of us count on you to expose the truth!
    Cheers, T

  22. f4k9h says:

    Field McConnell was all over the map. You need to reign him in, as he will take you to Timbuktu and back, and never get on topic. Imagine a military scout reporting to his commanding officer in such a manner!

    Lots of interesting information here, but all of it needs validation.

  23. scpat says:

    9/11 Unmasked, Part 2: A Coversation with Dwain Deets about Able Danger

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top