Sandra Kay Daniels, teacher in the Florida classroom

In 9/11 Contradictions, David Ray Griffin discusses internal contradictions within the official story. Some of these contradictions I was not previously aware of, including the constantly changing testimony of Sandra Kay Daniels, the Florida classroom teacher. My review of DRG's book contains a paragraph which sums up DRG's research concisely:


Some information I was not previously aware of involves multiple changes of story by the Florida classroom teacher, Sandra Kay Daniels. Clearly she knew the truth, but in conjunction with the White House's 2002 revisionist account of Bush's behavior, Mrs. Daniels also supported the story that the President left almost immediately. Even more interestingly suspicious, she presented two different accounts, within two days, to support this revisionist history. According to an LA Times story on the one-year anniversary, Mrs. Daniels said: "I knew something was up when President Bush didn't pick the book up and participate in the lesson... He said, 'Mrs. Daniels, I have to leave now. I am going to leave Lt. Gov. Frank Brogan to do the speech for me.' Looking at his face, you knew something was wrong. He shook my hand and left." However, the next day, a NY Times article told a very different story, based on a 9/11/02 interview with Mrs. Daniels. In this account, it was a Secret Service agent, not Andy Card, who informed Bush of the second strike, and this agent said "Where can we get to a television?" Mrs. Daniels then reportedly said: "The President bolted right out of here and told me, 'Take over.' I knew something serious had happened, and then a short while later he came back and said, 'What we thought was an airline accident turned out to be a terrorist hijack.'" Mrs. Daniels even elaborated on the suddenness of Bush's disappearance: "My kids were so happy that morning - imagine the President sitting there shooting the breeze, and then poof, suddenly, he's gone." So even in support of Bush leaving the room quickly, Mrs. Daniels gives two contrasting scenarios. Why the multiple revisionism? Who is telling Mrs. Daniels what to say? What is being covered up?


Dr. Griffin discusses her putting out three accounts, the first being correct and the second two being A and B versions of the "Bush left immediately" lie. But when I was reflecting this morning, a lightbulb went off. There is one fact that has stuck with me, on the back burner for a few years, which Dr. Griffin did NOT mention in his book, so I hope Dr. Griffin reads this blog entry.

Everyone remembers Fahrenheit 9/11, right? Remember how the right wing pundits put together a "rebuttal" film called "FahrenHYPE 9/11"? It was essentially the Popular Mechanics hit piece of the anti-Michael Moore movement, the purpose being to "debunk" everything that Moore put forth and prove that "everything Moore said is wrong."

Sandra Kay Daniels was interviewed in that film, and she defended the President's behavior of sitting there in the classroom and not "bolting." Here is a YouTube clip of FahrenHYPE. Start watching from the beginning, Sandra Kay Daniels starts speaking within a minute.

Go to the 3:20 mark.

She says:

"I didn't vote for him, but on that day and at that moment in time, I very easily could have... He looked Presidential to me. He made a good decision. To stop, and think, and respond, rather than to react to the terrorism. If terrorism is supposed to strike fear into the hearts of men, you didn't see that at that point in time."

I really wonder what kind of money and threats have been used to force her to say what they want her to say.

Let's put it this way: Like with Ted Olson and the phone calls, Daniels keeps changing her story when flaws are pointed out with the previous version.

I'm bumping this up... light of the thread on Bush's inaction.

Also, I wrote this entry prior to the days when I had personal contact with DRG. I'm about to send this to him in case he's not familiar with the FahrenHYPE clip in which Daniels changes her story yet again.

EDIT: I see the video was taken down due to a copyright claim; I'll try and find another. (And the right wing pundits accused Moore of trying to make a profit off 9/11!)

EDIT 2: New google video embedded in the entry replacing the old removed youtube version.


I realize that virtually all of us in this community understand that the left-right paradigm is one of false reality, and that both parties are the opposite sides of the same coin. Like with Coke and Pepsi, there are a few very minor differences but they are essentially the same thing.

That being said, if you want to torture yourself and choke on some bile from watching some of the most blatant neo-con propaganda ever, watch FahrenHYPE 9/11.

"Bush won the 2000 election," "Saddam and 9/11 were connected," "Thank God for the Patriot Act," "The hard truth liberals can't face is that 9/11 changed our world..."

It's the encyclopedia definition of propaganda, in the Joseph Goebbels sense of the word.