Note: My Sprint Katana model phone only has an 18 second record function and AGAIN -- like at the Dan Rather presentation -- I didn't have a way to record this conversation. I would have if I could. Some other Truther is going to have to give me some pointers on recording phone conversations. If it's of any consolation, however, I have already purchased a JVC HDD camcorder for the upcoming April 5, 2007 Scott Ritter presentation at UTPA.

As I was feeing pretty hot-headed this morning after I posted the story “H'WOOD'S 9/11 IDIOT BRIGADE” I decided to call the New York Post at 212-930-8500 to put forth a question I had about its gossip piece.

The first individual I spoke to was a man with a thick New York accent who was immediately very rude. Because I didn’t have an entire copy of today’s New York Post in front of me, and didn’t know the exact page of the article I was looking for, he was giving me a hard time. “You’re giving me misinformation,” he kept repeating over and over. “The article you are looking for is not in the opinion section.”

As it turns out, the article in question is in the gossip section of which Richard Johnson is the editor. Realizing this, the rude man said he was directly transferring me to Richard Johnson’s line.

Richard Johnson answered after about one ring and the moment he said hello, I realized (frozen for a moment) that I had likely gotten through to someone in the know.

“Is this Richard Johnson?” I asked.

“It is,” he replied.

I paused momentarily to get my thoughts in order. For a fraction of a second, feeling my heart skip a beat, I almost hung up. But I then realized I could do this. I know my stuff, I thought, and this guy, wherever he is coming from with his 9/11 Truth hit piece, is not going to intimidate me one bit. (This, of course, turned out to be untrue, but oh well.)

“Are you the author of the article that came out in the New York Post this morning entitled ‘H’woods 9/11 Idiot Brigade’?” I asked as I nervously readjusted the cell phone planted to my ear.

I could feel Richard Johnson subtly gearing up for what he may have considered to be an upcoming conflicting situation. “Not exclusively,” he replied. “But I’ll take responsibility for it.” His accent reminded me of the many tapes I had heard of the FDNY and NY Police. “What is this concerning?” he finally asked.

I cleared my throat a bit. “Well, I have a question regarding the source of something specific you wrote.” I then stopped talking suddenly as I fumbled the article I had earlier printed out, looking for the particular sentence of interest. “Here it is,” I said and then proceeded to read the line: “O'Donnell has pasted in a widely debunked rundown of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center from the whatreallyhappened.com Web site, created by conspiracy theorist Matt Rivero.”

At this point he said something to the effect of “What about it?” -- though not quite so crudely; I can’t remember his words exactly. I do remember being a bit irritated by his tone of voice. And, as I remember, Rosie O’Donnell’s website does not have a link to whatreallyhappened.com but to WTC7.net.

So I replied in kind: "I went to the website you posted, whatreallyhappened.com, and watched the video footage of the collapse of WTC 7. I noticed that it really does look like a controlled demolition. So now more than ever, I am interested to know what the link is to the ‘widely debunked rundown’ that you mentioned. Do have a reference for it?”

He paused a minute. “Just use the Internet. The information’s everywhere.”

“Actually I did and I can’t find anything that refutes the collapse of WTC 7 as a controlled demolition.”

“Look, I was there.”

“You were there?” I replied bewildered. I felt like I was interviewing Dan Rather all over again.

He then quickly steered away from the topic. “Just go to the New York Post, The New York Times,” he said. He then mentioned some other popular news reporting agency but I can’t remember which one. I assumed he was using what he viewed as established news sources to better strengthen his point.

“Look, I don’t have time to argue about this,” he said. “You’re going to believe what you’re going to believe. There’s nothing that I can do about that. Some people are going to believe that the moon is made of Swiss cheese. What are you going to do?”

“But, uh, I don’t believe the moon is made of Swiss cheese. I just want you to give me one reference, just one website – your reference -- that debunks the idea that the fall of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.”

There was silence at first.

Then Richard Johnson spoke.

“Sir, thank you for calling and have a nice day.”

“So you won’t give me the reference?” I asked again. I was growing impatient.

“Thank you for calling and have a nice day,” he said again – this time quite firmly.

And then he hung up.

So, I guess it’s clear that much of the New York Post piece in question is composed of poorly researched material. And when push comes to shove, it also seems that guys like Richard Johnson, on a personal level, don’t have any logic to back up their claims except those of the nonsensical and emotionally-driven status quo.

How typical.

Extra note: In the interest of honest reporting, since I took no notes during the conversation (which I should have), and since I have never met or seen Richard Johnson, I called back to the New York Post to determine if there was any chance that I could have spoken to someone else. The person helping me indicated that if I was transferred to the gossip section, then I either spoke to Richard Johnson or Bill Hoffman. And the name "Bill Hoffman" does not sound at all familiar, so I'm pretty certain it was Richard Johnson. Furthermore, when I first called in the morning, I definitely was told I was being transferred to Richard Johnson of the New York Post gossip section. And like I wrote above, I do remember asking the man I spoke to if he was in fact Richard Johnson. Since he said yes, I assume that he was.