The Ryan Dawson Refund Guide, Part 1.5

Ryan Dawson attempts to get to the bottom of why the FBI
sends footage to the CIA at the FBI Academy at Quantico.
(From Da Ali G show, in case you're retarded like Ryan
Dawson)

Yesterday having let almost two months go by since our debate concerning the 9/11 "Dancing Israelis" saga, my opponent Ryan Dawson finally decided to address some of the inconsistencies that I had raised. Well, I guess he tried to do so after blaming a hangover and a "debate ambush" for his poor performance. For the record, the video thumbnail said the word "debate" on it, and I was drinking during the stream. This small mini-addendum to Part 1 is in response to the video at left. It is odd that despite Dawson uploading mirrored copies of many other appearances on other YouTube channels, he has not uploaded our debate to either YouTube or BitChute. I have written two more parts that tear into other topics not yet revealed until a Part 2 happens.

Dawson apparently thinks that when he debates a topic that he's harped on since the mid-2000s, it's unfair to expect him to remember some basic details about his accusations concerning the five Israelis caught on 9/11. Most illuminating of all is the fact that he seems to have an uncanny belief in the FBI report to the letter, even when there are obvious mistakes in it. Even, that is, when the new explanations show off the shallow and desperate reasoning that he needs in order to cling to his ridiculous views. The root of the problem is that when read plainly the FBI file and all of the evidence therein may show a lot of suspicious and inappropriate behaviour by the suspect, but nothing actually incriminating beyond drug and immigration offenses. That is of course conceding as always that there is heavy redaction throughout the document. In order to make the saga seem more spicy Dawson needs to make more mundane details catch the viewer's attention. When he does this it typically results in amateur errors that he later claims are simply misstatements of his overall train of thought that otherwise remains intact. Here a few ones just from the 18 minute clip:

The F.B.Ryyyyy

• Dawson claims that the FBI sending surveillance camera footage to Quantico means that they were interested in what the CIA had to say about the suspects. Quantico is the location of the FBI Academy and apparently the crime lab. Langley is where the CIA is. This is a basic error that shows he doesn't really know much about either organization. He just wants to mention the CIA, because it makes this seem like a bigger deal than the evidences shows. The two sites are 45 miles apart.
• If Ryan would have simply searched for the acronym FAVIAU that appears right before the word Quantico, he would have easily seen that it means Forensic Audio, Video and Image Analysis Unit of the FBI. 
• Dawson also muses as to why the film segment in question was focusing on the time between 8:29 AM and 8:31 to find a license plate. He wonders whether it was from satellite or surveillance footage and why the focus was on a time 16 minutes before the striking of the north tower of the World Trade Center. If he would just look at the previous paragraph (Section 5, Page 65) on that page he would see that this was for an Exxon gas station. 

Dawson overlooks all of these facts in plain sight and wonders if this is referring to when the van was pulling around the side of the building. The report later shows that the FBI film lab could not discern from the footage the license plates of the two vans in the images (Part 5, Page 70). But Dawson is sure that it's the Urban Moving Systems van containing the five "Dancing Israelis". If he admits that the van was at the gas station (which he'll have to), that means that they (or at least the van) was not at the Doric Apartments as early as 8 AM or 8:15 as other witnesses seem to have said and as he himself continues to insist. This is just one more case of him wanting the evidence to show something that isn't there while ignoring the obvious meaning of the text in front of him.

Are you coming or going?

At another point he looks at a different portion of the report (Part 6, Page 94) and concludes that because the van had left the warehouse at 8:55 it could reach the Doric by 9 AM. He is behaving as if this is the FBI's version of the timeline, rather than a restatement of one of the suspects' version of events to the police. And when reading the passage that he's talking about, it doesn't show that the suspect was saying that they arrived at the Doric at 9 AM, it says that they returned to the warehouse by that time. What Dawson should have been saying is that the suspect either lied, or was mistaken, because otherwise his timeline really doesn't make any sense: The text reads "[Name Redacted] and [Name Redacted] were in the parking lot for approximately ten minutes sometime between 8:30 AM and 9:00 AM, but returned to Urban Moving Systems before 9:00". Dawson is misreading the suspect's statement that he returned to work before 9 as instead saying that he left UMS and arrived at the Doric Towers by 9. This only causes more confusion. I will grant Dawson that this isn't necessarily a counterpoint to his theory, but really shows that he has a sloppy and hurried way of reading the text that leads him to conclusions that contradict it.

Unanswered questions

The meandering video does not actually address any of the flaws in Dawson's case that were exposed in the debate. Rather than do that after having over a month to dig them up, he chooses to ignore the following topics:

• Why did he state to Adam Green that Yaron Shmuel, one of the Dancing Israelis, had been essentially shadowing one or more of the Al-Qaeda hijackers in reference to Abdulaziz al-Omari having allegedly been moved by Classic International Movers from New Jersey to Florida? He admits in this video (11:28)  that he misstated the facts by claiming that al-Omari had moved from Florida to NJ (rather than the opposite), but this would mean that - like I've said from the beginning - Shmuel had moved from Florida and al-Omari had moved to there. 
• How come he still cannot state clearly which 9-11 hijacker lived "next door to" which "Dancing Israeli"? During the debate he said that he would look it up "after this interview" (again this was a debate bro). If Dawson is reading this maybe he can print it out, take some crayons and connect the hijacker with the "Dancing Israeli". Then he can finally jot down the addresses of both of them so we can move on.

Another topic that Dawson glosses over once again is that of the two other UMS movers arrested on September 12, 2019 on Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania, Roy Barak and Motti Butbul. I had challenged him during the debate to tell me the distance from the United 93 crash site in Shanksville, PA where they were arrested. In Empire Unmasked (2:41:07) he had clearly stated that it was 2.5 miles away, which was false, as will be detailed in Part 2. But he said he couldn't remember. In reality, the truck was stopped on two separate occasions, once for a traffic violation on the 10th and then for their arrest on the 12th, but neither one was close to the crash site. The only reason 2.5 miles comes up is because the PA Turnpike skirts the Shanksville vicinity from roughly that distance to the south. In two places (Part 5, Page 47 and Part 6, Page 45) it is stated that the two were arrested while travelling eastward toward New Jersey. Dawson continues to insist that they were headed in the direction of the crash site outside of Pittsburgh when arrested as stated on Part 1, Page 36. But if this passage is referring to these two specific drivers, that cannot be true. Every other reference to them holds that they were travelling eastbound, and Montoursville is already east of Shanksville. Dawson is simply pretending the FBI could not make a logical error, because he has no other source for sustaining his theory.