The Conspiracy To Rewrite 9/11

Rewrite or expose?

Dylan Avery has a theory that he says casts doubts on Mark Bingham's actions on Sept. 11, 2001. According to Avery, the San Francisco public relations executive never called his mom on a cell phone from the cabin of Flight 93, and never told her that "some of us here are going to try to do something." Instead, says Avery, someone using a voice synthesizer -- possibly a government official -- called Alice Hoglan on the morning that Flight 93 -- and Bingham -- became part of Sept. 11 lore.

"The cell phone calls were fake -- no ifs, ands or buts," Avery says in "Loose Change," a film he wrote and directed that's one of the most-watched movies on the Internet, with 10 million viewers in the past year. "Until the government can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that al Qaeda was behind Sept. 11, the American people have every reason to believe otherwise."

Avery is one of perhaps millions of Americans who believe the U.S. government -- or rogue elements within it -- either orchestrated the attacks or tacitly supported them for nefarious reasons.

As the five-year anniversary of the attacks approaches, the clamor of Avery and other conspiracy theorists has gotten stronger -- and more widely accepted. According to a poll by Ohio University and Scripps Howard News Service, 36 percent of Americans believe that government officials "either assisted in the 9/ 11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East." Twelve percent of Americans believe a cruise missile fired by the U.S. military -- not an American Airlines jet hijacked by Arab terrorists -- slammed into the Pentagon. Sixteen percent of Americans, the survey indicates, believe that "secret explosives" -- not two planes and the resulting damage -- brought down the World Trade Center towers.

Conspiracy fans are viewed by most people as gullible, opportunistic, disgruntled or simply suspicious. It's widely believed that conspiracy theorists emanate from the margins of society, that they're a combination of paranoid, powerless, undereducated and desperate (at least desperate to assign blame). But Avery and other prominent Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists claim to represent society's mainstream, which is skeptical of the Bush administration's rationale for the Iraq war and Washington's version of what really happened that day.

Some of them reject the term "conspiracy theorist," instead calling themselves "truth activists" -- people who want to expose hidden facts that the major media ignore or downplay because of their corporate ties. While many conspiracy theorists are politically liberal, they also include people on the right, including members of the John Birch Society, who imply that the Sept. 11 attacks were part of a continuing plan by U.S. elites to create a "New World Order" and impose greater control over Americans.

Some conspiracy theories are fantastical (CIA agents orchestrated the attacks; Israel planned them.) -- the epitome of preposterous beliefs that start with a conclusion and work backward to find evidence. Each new month brings a deluge of crackpot theories, but a growing number of people say there are too many improbabilities -- too many illogical holes -- in the government's version of what happened.

Robert Bowman, who directed the "Star Wars" defense program under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, reached his own conclusion after questioning (among other things) why the American military hadn't intercepted the hijacked planes before they hit the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, why the FBI had ignored repeated pre-Sept. 11 warnings that Zacarias Moussaoui wanted to fly a plane into the World Trade Center, why the Pentagon didn't release surveillance tapes of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the military complex, and how, within hours after the attack, the government could so quickly produce the names and photos of the 19 hijackers.

A former U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel with a doctorate from the California Institute of Technology, Bowman says Vice President Dick Cheney and other top government officials may have had advance knowledge of the attacks. Bowman theorizes that Cheney and other officials stood to benefit financially (in Cheney's case, through Halliburton). Labeling these officials "neo-cons," Bowman says they had a long-standing desire to control Iraq's oil and to use the country as a strategic hub for controlling the entire Middle East. The Sept. 11 commission, he says, neglected to investigate these possible connections, leaving a huge gap in the official account.

"It's hard to believe that somebody at some (government) level wasn't complicit in this thing," Bowman said in a phone interview from his home in Florida. Bowman, who publicly turned against the "Star Wars" system because he believed the Reagan administration secretly considered it a first-strike option and not merely a defensive weapon, says, "How could someone in the FBI turn down requests 70 times from somebody (FBI agent Harry Samit) who said he thought Moussaoui was going to fly a hijacked plane into the World Trade Center? ... I'm calling for a (new) independent investigation that will clear up everything. If the investigation shows that there were people in the United States who were involved in some way, that's the story of the century, and the American people need to know it."

Like many on the left and the right, Bowman points to pre-Sept. 11 documents he says foreshadowed the attacks, including a paper published in 2000 by the Project for a New American Century, a conservative think tank whose members have included Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The paper, titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," talked about the fact that a "catastrophic and catalyzing event -- a new Pearl Harbor," would strengthen the American military because lawmakers would, given the urgency, green-light funds to continue the military's dominance over U.S. adversaries. For conspiracy theorists, the Project for a New American Century document is a smoking gun. Its reference to Pearl Harbor is both scary and damning, they say, because some historians believe President Franklin Roosevelt knew that an attack on U.S. soil was imminent but let it happen to rally American public opinion behind going to war.

If that isn't enough evidence to convince you that Sept. 11 was an inside job, conspiracy theorists say, there's more. What about the fact that NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) quickly intercepted golfer Payne Stewart's wayward Learjet in 1999 but didn't intercept the hijacked planes that crashed in New York, Washington and Shanksville, Pa.? What about the fact that witnesses at the World Trade Center reported hearing multiple explosions before the buildings' collapse, indicating to some that the towers were brought down by planted explosives? What about the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center -- the 47-floor structure housing offices of the CIA, the Secret Service and the Department of Defense -- collapsed even though it wasn't hit by planes?

Rebuttals have emerged to explain some of the biggest question marks. Last month, Popular Mechanics magazine published a full-length book, "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts," which refuted 20 claims widely held by conspiracy theorists. For example, the belief that a missile hit the Pentagon was based partly on the visible damage to the building: at the point of impact, a relatively small portion of the wall was knocked over -- it wasn't the horizontal damage to be expected from a large-winged Boeing 757.

Popular Mechanics, which interviewed more than 300 sources for its book, quotes witnesses who said at least one wing of Flight 77 smashed into an on-ground generator before the plane struck the Pentagon. An engineering expert says the plane's outer wings likely sheared off before impact. "A jet doesn't punch a cartoonlike outline into a concrete building upon impact," the book says, citing an engineering professor.

What about a witness who supposedly told CNN that he saw a missile hit the Pentagon? Popular Mechanics interviews the witness, Mike Walter, who says his original words ("I looked out my window and saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. ... I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings") were truncated and distorted by conspiracy theorists. One of those theorists was French author Thierry Meyssan, whose 2002 best-seller, "The Horrifying Fraud," claimed the U.S. military instigated Sept. 11 as part of its plan to start new wars around the world.

In his film "Loose Change," Avery says Bingham and other passengers on Flight 93 could not have called from the doomed jetliner because cell phones rarely work at high altitudes. He cites a research paper by A.K. Dewdney, an emeritus professor of computer science at the University of Western Ontario. But in "Debunking 9/11 Myths," Popular Mechanics interviews experts who explain why Bingham's cell phone would have worked that day (the plane's low altitude helped, as did the fact it flew over rural areas, which often have cell-phone towers with powerful signal capacities).

Not surprisingly, conspiracy theorists have attacked "Debunking 9/11 Myths," saying that Popular Mechanics is a front for the CIA. They that one of its researchers, Benjanim Chertoff, is related to Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff, which they say is an indication of the magazine's co-mingling with a government that was behind the attacks. (The magazine says the two Chertoffs might be distant cousins, but that they've never spoken.)

Conspiracy theorists might even look at this article as part of the conspiracy, because Hearst Corp., which owns Popular Mechanics, also publishes The Chronicle.

What sets "Loose Change" apart from other Sept. 11 works is that it's visually appealing, slickly edited (with hip music) and free to watch on the internet video site YouTube. It has an anti-authoritarian edge (Avery is 22 years old) that might appeal to someone who admires Michael Moore or Jon Stewart. The film has inspired a critical response, "Screw Loose Change," which repackages Avery's film with rebuttals interspersed.

Conspiracy theorists often cite "facts" that really are facts, but whether they really add up to anything is another question.

In his new book, "The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11, and the Loss of Liberty," author Jim Marrs points out that former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted that the United States began funding Afghan rebels in July 1979. Why is this important? Because, for many years, the official American version was that funding started after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. Brzezinski now says the United States hoped the 1979 funding would draw in the Soviets and lead to a wider war, contributing to the demise of the Soviet Union. If the U.S. government would lie in 1979, why wouldn't it lie again in 2001? In 1979, says Marrs, it was about gaining access to oil and gas in Central Asia. Twenty-two years later, he says, it was about Iraq's oil.

Agreeing with Marrs is Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization that believes the U.S. government "permitted 9/11 to occur." Among the group's members are Paul W. Rea, a humanities lecturer at St. Mary's College in Moraga; Tracy Belvins, a research scientist in bioengineering at Rice University; Kevin Barrett, a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-Madison whose Sept. 11 views caused national controversy in July and prompted some lawmakers to insist he shouldn't be teaching at the university; and Stephen LeRoy, an economics professor at UC Santa Barbara who has been a visiting economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

"Conspiracists (come) from all parts of the population, they (come) from all racial and religious groups," says Bob Goldberg, a history professor at the University of Utah and the author of "Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America." "The fact that people who have advanced degrees believe in conspiracy theories does not surprise me because it's not an issue of whether you're smart or dumb. In fact, when you look at conspiracy theories, what distinguishes them is how rigorously logical they seem to be, that they are so intensely structured and that there's a belief that every single fact is important and connects to another fact. There's a rigor to (their) logic."

"But," says Goldberg, "there's (an inflexibility to) the logic that denies things you can't deny -- whether it's accidents, whether it's bureaucratic process, whether it's miscalculations, whether it's simply mistakes. In these theories, there are no mistakes, no accidents, no bureaucracy -- everything is crystal clear."

"Debunking 9/11 Myths" makes the case that mistakes, miscommunication and bureaucratic bungling contributed to the U.S. government's lack of immediate response to the Sept. 11 hijackings. Barrett and other conspiracy theorists will have none of it. They say the U.S. government's version of the events is itself a conspiracy theory -- a collection of assumptions bolstered by evidence, but nevertheless assumptions that are open to debate.

"After studying this fairly intensively over the past 2 1/2 years," says Barrett in a phone interview, "I'm convinced that 9/11 was orchestrated by top U.S. officials and presumably perpetrated by members of what could be called the American allied intelligence community."

Goldberg says conspiracy theorists -- especially those fearful and distrustful of a powerful, centralized government -- have existed in the United States since its founding. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Goldberg says, created a perfect storm for conspiracy theorists of every political and religious persuasion.

Five years afterward, the storm isn't abating.

E-mail Jonathan Curiel at


Fuck the cell phones

A perfect example of why not all "evidence" is created equal. Can you imagine them leading the story with wargames or ISI?

No, the faked cell phones and pentagon missile issues lend themselves to discrediting our movement perfectly.

International Truth Movement


man i love it when people put words in my mouth. i never flat out said that a voice synthesizer called alice hoglan...i'm just presenting the fact that the technology existed back in 1999. but hey, they'll do what they please.


I love the last line... "5 years later, the storm isn't abating". LOL, that's an understatement!

I sent this le dousche a nice letter

destroying his straw men.

Regarding the appearance of what you said

"Someone using a voice synthesizer -- possibly a government official -- called Alice Hoglan on the morning that Flight 93 -- and Bingham -- became part of Sept. 11 lore. The cell phone calls were fake -- no ifs, ands or buts."

Just for the record, the quote above DOES make you sound like you are "flat out" saying that voice synthesizers called Alice Hogan. While this quote may have been taken out of context, it is still a bit surprising to hear that someone so much a figure in the movement would make such a definitive statement as yours which implies that your claim is completely beyond speculation. I think that's an irresponsible position to take about any other than the most highly verified facts and relevant facts.

As delver suggests, in a colorful manner, the cell phone evidence is not important enough to the movement that we should paint ourselves into a corner with it. While I personally find these hypotheses very interesting, I wouldn't mention them when introducing the subject. Fake planes and fake passengers are doing this movement no favors, and aren't required to make the case.

International Truth Movement


Got my wires crossed. All is well. Didn't realize that they were skewing your words. Sorry about that. At first I thought the post was saying, "Hey, check out this cool new thing Dylan Avery said." But instead it is another example of the mainstream doing its best to undermine our efforts. See you at GZ! Maybe you'll see us first.

International Truth Movement

The voice synthesizers only

The voice synthesizers only came into use with all the OsamaBL tapes, so that they could 'authenticate' them later.

You can't ignore the cell

You can't ignore the cell phone calls unfortunately.  Its the same old thing with the conspiracy theorists when they ask "What about the cell phone calls?" as if these calls, which they've never heard by the way, somehow proves the official story.

 Presenting  an alternative scenario, such as voice morphing, for these calls undermines this "evidence".

 Personally, someone holding a gun to someone's head and telling them to "convince" whoever they're calling that they are on a hijacked plane seems even more realistic to me, considering Bingham's statement "You believe me, don't you?" as if he was told to make sure she believes him or she dies too.


Yes, you are right about the

Yes, you are right about the importance of countering official story believers with alternative theories/explanations of points such as the cell phone calls.

On the other hand, I believe points that especially strain the credulity of the general public (i.e. no planes/missiles/cell phone voice morphing) should not be prominently promoted as evidence of government conspiracy.

Surprisingly, there seems to be a number of people promoting cell phone calls and the pentagon as their TOP pieces of evidence. This is ludicrous.

While "Loose Change" only brings up the cell phones as one point among many, they do spend a good amount of time on it, which I would rather see spent on wargames/warnings/foreknowledge or other non-speculative evidence.

International Truth Movement

a very important aspect: afraid of looking at the horror

The Time article mentions a very important aspect of how the real criminals got away on 9/11: (paraphrasing) "...those who dare to take a look at how the towers fell.." People are afraid to look at the horror. The media often times hypes how everybody is eager to see "reality TV" footage, but in truth, they fear for their peace of mind and look away, not to be shocked by falling bodies etc. ( )
They let the 'authorities' led by Mr Giuliani do this potentially harmful job, and awaited orders... Same with JFK, O.J. and many other cases: because noone wanted to "see blood", the coverup succeeded.

High School Yearbooks

This cat would love to look at the 1987 and 1988 Los Gatos High School Yearbooks!

Los Gatos High School honored two of its graduates--Todd Beamer (class of 1987) and Mark Bingham (class of 1988)--by planting two trees on campus. On May 1, the school held a tree-planting ceremony attended by Bingham's family, school officials and Los Gatos Vice Mayor Sandy Decker. Here, Principal Trudy McCulloch presents Alice Hoglan, Bingham's mother, with a copy of the plaque that will sit at the foot of Bingham's tree. Hoglan spoke
briefly about her son's career at Los Gatos High School, which included editing the yearbook and playing rugby. 'I give credit to rugby for shaping the aggressive and outrageous character that was my son,' Hoglan said, adding that her intent was to bring rugby back to the school. The
trees will be planted at the west side of the school's front lawn.

Dylan you missed the point

Dylan, I appreciate your activism and efforts, as I know your heat is in the right place and you are a hard worker. But the fact is you dropped the ball with your section on the cell phones.

Many of these calls were made from AIR PHONES. These work at cruising altitudes! For example, Todd Beamer and others on 93 called from AIR PHONES. Do you really think the Military perps would be stupid enough to show their crime by saying "Hi this is Mark Bingham?"

Cell phones work on planes albeit infrequently and poorly. The calls were getting dropped and broken up, so Bingham likely stated his full name to clarify. Dylan, some cell phones do work in planes, I saw someone use one on the plane about four weeks ago.

You and Jason got far too manipulated by Killtown and his "No Flight 93 Crash"-"No Pentagon Plane"-"No Cell Phone Calls"-"No Hijackers" malarky.

He and others successfully distracted you from the best points in the 911 timeline and lead you toward the fringe speculation and dead-end research that cannot lead to prosecutions of the perps.

You forgot that in order to actually prosecute the criminals you need to show direct involvement, not grainy frames flimsy speculation.

Now Killtown is pushing the Disinfo op of "no planes at the WTC" and disrupting the LC boards so vociferously that you were forced to ban him.

Personally, I am thrilled that you woke up to his deception.

For example, according to your recent show on RBN, now you believe an aircraft hit the Pentagon. This is PROGRESS. You are breaking away from the fringe operatives and can perhaps focus on the really good points.

These include:

1) Where were Rumsfeld and Myers during the NMCC conference call? Why did show at at 10:30 with no alibi?

2) Why was rookie Cap. Charles Liedig heading the NMCC that morning instead of Gen. Montegue Winfield? Who authorized this switch?

3) Why was Ben Sliney working his first day on the job at the FAA as the hijacking coordinator?

4) What was the role of Col. Marr at NEADS in engineering the stand down?

5) What was the Able Danger unit and "Door Hop Galley" cell? Why was SOCOM controlling Atta? Why did Eric Kleinsmith deter over 2.5 terabytes of data about the project? Why was SOCOM protecting Atta from the FBI?

5) What does the "Angel is Next" call to Bush expose about the perps?

6) What was the role of STRATCOM via their nuclear war games? Why did the Russians think it was going to be world war?

calm it, we're activists,

calm it, we're activists, not researchers. If this was all done by Air phones (unlike reported in the MSM, but i have read B.Olson called 'collect'), then this will be exposed once a big investigation begins. If this won't happen, activism has failed to get at the truth, and only picking up the pieces & researching them is what we got.

any cell-phone records?

have there ever been the cell-phone records published anywhere, that showed at least one of these 'in-air' calls. Plus, didn't they say they were pushed to the back of the plane by the hijackers? I think they had to invent the 'cell phone' tale to make it seem more dramatic.

Great questions

If I was a corporate 'journalist' helping cover up the 9/11 crimes I'd much rather deal with cell phones and NPT stuff...

Study: Terror cases drop to pre-9/11 level

Feds interfering...

Peter Lance: TRIPLE CROSS: Nat Geo Channel's Whitewash of the Ali Mohamed Story

Also: NYTimes blocks British Readers

The New York Times has blocked British readers from accessing an article published in the US about the alleged London bomb plot for fear of breaching the UK's contempt of court laws.
Published in the US yesterday under the headline "Details emerge in British terror case", the article claims to reveal new information about the alleged terror bomb plot that brought British airports to a standstill earlier this month.


An "Al-Muhajiroon splinter group" points to an "inside job." This "terrorist threat" came at a very convenient political time for both Blair & Bush. Mouthpieces for the Bush administration lost no time in getting on TV demanding expanded surveillance powers for the administration. There is no question that Al-Muhajiroon leaders were used for years as UK & US "intelligence assets." I think that one reason why Al Muhajiroon founder Omar Bakri was exiled to Beruit after the 7-7 train attacks was his big mouth

Dylan is right.

"Until the government can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that al Qaeda was behind Sept. 11, the American people have every reason to believe otherwise." You bet your ass we do. The burden of proof is on them, not us. Cell Phones??? Who gives a flying fu"k. Lets see some proof Osama and his boys did it. Fat chance!!! We all know the government did it. Let them show me otherwise. I am fed-up with this government and all it's lies. Just let them try another 9/11. We will be on them like flies on shit! You bet I am pissed-off. This has been going on for 5 years. Enough is enough.


This was a great quote, Dylan and great strategy. In these interviews and conversations we should never succumb to questions designed to get us to speculate about things we can't prove. Just turn the tables and say "The burden of proof is on them, not us". Here are the things we CAN prove that are not true... where is their proof for their story?

Not only have they not offered any proof, but we have Rex Tomb of the FBI stating on the record that they have "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11".

They are the conspiracy theorists, make THEM prove their wild, speculative theories.

Seaford Today (UK): OFFICIAL


A GROUP of Sussex people – concerned at 'anomalies' surrounding the official story of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 – have invited the chairman of the Britain and Ireland 9/11 Truth Campaign to give a presentation at All Saints, Lewes, on Tuesday, September 5.

Concord NH Monitor: Two

Concord NH Monitor: Two professors, one 9/11 conspiracy debate

Lawmakers, schools at odds in both states

Monitor staff
September 03. 2006 10:00AM

19 hijackers: "a pick-up team in the Final Four?"

"the nineteen hijackers were the equivalent of a pickup basketball team that made it to the Final Four"

Seymour Hersh, in the New Yorker:

I've said before that I

I've said before that I think the cell phone calls were part of the drills -- pre-recorded and fired off when the operation went live. I find it incredible that almost no one talks about these "hijacking drills" going on AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ATTACKS, as if this were a minor footnote in the story. The scholars seem to treat the drills rather like the 911 commission.

The calls to family members were touch-and go, ie pre-recorded. Say something, retreat, come back, say something else, no continuity. Betty WAS taking part in a drill when she made that call -- she just thought the people on the other end of the line were playing along too.

Voice morphology is fucking spooky though. Imagine: some spook records five minutes of a conversation with you and they can have you saying whatever they like on tape.

I have noticed in almost

I have noticed in almost every pro-OCT piece in the corporate media lately that claims about fake cell phone calls are featured front and center, which means in the popular imagination the faked cell phone calls hypothesis is INCONCEIVABLE. It's not even presented as possibly ambiguous. When stories lead with the fake cell phone stuff, they are clearly implying that 9/11 skeptics are lunatics. Please stop talking about the cell phones.

War games! War games! War games! Or at least raise the multiple cases of FBI whistleblowers and multiple cases of intelligence gathering obstruction, or directive 199i. But the fake cell phone hypothesis is killing us.

I personally feel its Osama

I personally feel its Osama in the confession video, no 9/11 hijackers are alive, the real planes hit where the government said, and the calls were all real...I think it was Rumsfeld that started the missile theory, as if to distract peopel from what is provable.

Now killtown has done a lot of great research, so its sad he went to the No Plane side.

But the real undebunkable smoking guns of 9/11
are the ISI, Able Danger, War Games, foreknowlege, WF-199I,
tracing the money trail, where flight 77 struck, etc.

Wrong again, pockybot

Sorry, but your "I personally feel its Osama" post is ridiculous.

it sure is, so is claiming

it sure is, so is claiming to know for sure what hit the Pentagon.

Wrong again, simulac

The fake cell phone calls are good evidence that needs to be developed further. "Hi mom, this is Mark believe me don't you"? Plus Betty Ong called a reservations desk??? Come on.

Of course, I don't advocate leading off with the dubious phone calls as our best evidence to attract newcomers. That's what WTC-7 & something busting-up the Pentagon 40 minutes after the towers were hit, are for.

rural? urban?

" as did the fact it flew over rural areas, which often have cell-phone towers with powerful signal capacities)."

surely he meant urban instead of rural in that sentence.

especially in 2001 when there were less cell phone towers.


Our goal is a reopening of the 9/11 investigation and hopefully this time the "Truth" comes to light of day with the accountability of those responibile. It's so ironic that the Movement seems to be going in a million different directions and clearly not united. If you question 10 average people on the street and ask them, "Did you know the government on the morning of 9/11 was holding WAR GAMES?"
The results would be alarming, 8 out 10 would say, "NO."
But ask those same people if they know about the cell phone calls from the passengers on the airplanes that morning of 9/11, 9 out of 10 would answer "YES."

What does this tell us 5 years later about the Truth Movement? We have failed to present many of the so called "smoking guns" of 9/11 to the American public.

True they are hundreds of theories and questions that need to be answered, but first and foremost we need a new investigation to what really happened on 9/11. Is it just me, should we pound home the hard evidence and put aside all the theories that make the American people think we"re tin foil hatters and "UNAMERICAN." Why give the media fuel to hurt us, stop with all these No Planes, No Cell Phone Calls, and Missiles Theories.

Tell the American people the facts of 9/11, we have a mountain of them and when there's a new 9/11 investigation we can then raise all the "other" theories. Why even open the door to the media with unfounded theories when we should be hammering them with the "facts."

Just my 2 cents! NORAD LIED and we can prove it, stop with the cell phone theories, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!