Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory by Erik Larson

Beginning with his book New Pearl Harbor (2004) David Ray Griffin raised questions concerning the veracity of reports of phone calls from the 9/11 hijacked airliners, specifically, Ted Olson’s account. Since at least 2006, he has promoted a theory that the 9/11 plane passenger phone calls were faked, and has speculated this was done with ‘voice-morphing’ technology. He’s done this in many different articles, in books, in speaking appearances, in interviews on radio and television, and in a debate with Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine. In his 1/12/10 essay, Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners: Response to Questions Evoked by My Fifth Estate Interview, David Ray Griffin gives the most comprehensive overview of this theory to date, as well as a response to critics, which include people who support a new 9/11 investigation. A Professor Emeritus and skilled rhetorician, Griffin makes a case that is seemingly compelling. However, as I show in this essay, there is no actual evidence the phone calls were faked, while there is a substantial body of evidence demonstrating the calls were not only possible, but did happen. There are many credible reasons to doubt the official 9/11 story and support a full investigation, but the cause of compelling a new 9/11 investigation is undermined by the promotion of theories that are flawed, and not based on hard evidence. In addition, the claim that the phone calls were faked is obviously offensive to those family members who spoke with passengers before they died, and it has the potential to drive a wedge between truth and justice activists and potential allies among the family members, many of whom support a full investigation.

Besides these shortcomings, Griffin himself pointed out in 2008 that promoting theories is not only unnecessary, but can work to the advantage of ‘debunkers’:

I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this ... No, you don't have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that's what the debunkers love, they want to say, that's nonsense and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false.

Certainly, ‘debunker’ websites such as 9/11 Myths have easily exposed flaws in the voice morphing theory: For instance, though the technology existed at the time, the inventor, George Papcun, has commented that voice-morphing a conversation in near real time would be more complex than fabricating a simple recorded statement, and would require an extensive recording as a sample. It would be even more difficult to fool the subject’s family members, who, in addition to being familiar with the person’s voice, would be familiar with their unique communication style and intimate details of their lives. One victim, Linda Gronlund, even left the combination to her safe on her sister’s voice mail. None of the family members who spoke with the passengers, or heard the messages they left, had any doubts it was their loved ones who called. Finally, some of those who made calls hadn’t booked their flights until the day before 9/11, meaning it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get an adequate voice sample, even assuming the perpetrators could tap anyone’s phone at anytime: Jeremy Glick, Mark Bingham, Honor Elizabeth Wainio and possibly Ed Felt. Some, including Griffin in previous essays, have suggested that Mark Bingham’s use of his full name when speaking to his mother is suspicious. First, it would be very unlikely that persons faking phone calls would introduce an element that would be a red flag to their family and outside observers. Second, Bingham’s mother (who has a different last name: Hoglan) has said that he did this on occasion; is it realistic to think voice-morphing perps learned this idiosyncrasy at the last minute and exploited it, let alone base accusations on it?

In his Response to Questions essay, Griffin doesn’t use the term voice morphing, and makes one brief claim related to this particular theory: “… what alternative is there except to conclude that someone fabricated at least one, and probably both, of these calls, a device that, besides replicating the impersonated persons’ voices, also caused their cell phone numbers to appear?” Instead, throughout the essay, he focuses on making a case that the reports of cell phone calls were accurate, that cell phone calls from the 9/11 planes weren’t possible and, therefore, were faked, and that this implies the air phone calls were also faked. However, this is still a theory, and one that isn’t supported by evidence, as I will show. In addition, this theory is just as offensive to the victims’ family members as the voice morphing theory, as it means that either the phone calls were faked by voice morphing, or that passengers - and/or their family members - participated in a deception.

In the introduction to his Response to Questions essay, Griffin explains it was prompted by discussion following a 911Blogger post of a Youtube clip from his appearance on the CBC program Fifth Estate, and that he is addressing "the most important" "claims contradicting [his] position":

1. “The FBI has not admitted that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners on 9/11 were impossible.”

2. “There is no evidence that some of the reported 9/11 phone calls were faked.”

3. “American Airlines’ [AAL] Boeing 757s, and hence its Flight 77, had onboard phones.”

4. “The FBI’s report on phone calls from the 9/11 airliners did not undermine Ted Olson’s report about receiving phone calls from his wife.”

I’ve followed the same outline in this examination of Griffin’s essay, his fake calls theory in general, and related evidence. The 911Blogger post of Griffin’s CBC interview is here: David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Cell Phone Calls: Exclusive CBC Interview. In his essay, Griffin also quotes from and responds to an essay written by jimd3100 in response to the CBC interview, ‘Fake’ Phone Calls? What The Evidence Shows.

1. “The FBI has not admitted that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners on 9/11 were impossible.”

In the introduction to Part 1 of his essay, Griffin acknowledges, "It is true that the FBI has never explicitly stated that such calls are impossible, or at least too improbable to affirm." However, he goes on to argue that, as the FBI took the public position at the Moussaoui trial that, “13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls,” that it was the FBI's implicit position cell phone calls were not possible from the 9/11 flights. This does not logically follow; it may be the FBI found there were 35 air phone and two cell phone calls. Also, the FBI’s statement reveals nothing about FBI’s position on the ability to make cell phone calls from planes on September 11, 2001.

In a subsection of Part 1 titled, “The FBI’s Revised Public Position,” Griffin alleges that at one time the FBI took the position that a greater number of cell phone calls had been made, and that this changed. Griffin states, “Previously, the FBI had supported the idea – at least by not contradicting press reports spreading it – that there were over ten cell phone calls from Flight 93.” But, the FBI’s failure to state a public position or correct press reports is not the same as the FBI having a public position on an issue. The FBI is not in the business of correcting misinformation circulated by the media or general public, and commonly refuses to comment publicly on investigations in progress. If the FBI has a “public position” on an issue, it is made known through a spokesperson, their website, and/or at a trial or some other legal proceeding.

2. “There is no evidence that some of the reported 9/11 phone calls were faked.”

In this section Griffin does not present evidence of faked calls. Instead, he cites a number of media reports and witness statements to the FBI regarding passengers and crew using cell phones, and argues, based on other reports, that cell phone calls from planes were impossible in 2001. From this, he argues the reported calls from the flights must have been faked, and the FBI and 9/11 Commission have covered this up. However, some of the reports of cell phones being used are contradicted by reports of air phones being used, as well as call records that show air phones being used. There’s also evidence that cell phone calls from planes were possible before 2001. In addition, Griffin doesn’t consider the possibility that cell phone repeaters could have been placed on the 9/11 flights.

In Part 1 of his Response to Questions essay, Griffin listed five people on United Airlines (UAL) 93, two on UAL 175, one on American Airlines (AAL) 11 and one on AAL 77 who had made “approximately 15 … phone calls [which] were described at the time as cell phone calls.” According to this UAL call record (pp. 25-26), between UAL 175 and UAL 93, at least 18 different people made a total of 46 different air phone calls, including all seven of the UAL passengers for whom Griffin cites media reports of cell phone calls (additional GTE records here). (Disclosure: the preceding 9/11 Commission records and the others cited in this essay, as well as the ones cited by Griffin in his Response to Questions essay, were scanned at the National Archives and uploaded to by me. The entire set can be downloaded for free from For some reason, two UAL 93 cell phone calls - the ones made by CeeCee Lyles and Ed Felt at 9:58 am - are also listed on the a UAL call record (p. 25). Most likely, these were added later, either by UAL or FBI personnel, probably as an aid in sorting out the phone call information; explanatory notes in underlined type were added to the Claircom/AT&T records for American Airlines (AAL) (pp. 2-24).

Griffin acknowledges that, "People do, of course, make mistakes, especially in stressful situations. They may misunderstand, or misremember, what they were told." He then asks, "But is it plausible that so many people would have made the same mistake, wrongly thinking that they had been told by the people calling them that they were using cell phones?" In some cases, the person called may simply have assumed the person was talking to them on a cell phone, or just didn’t consider the distinction between an air phone and a cell phone to be significant. Or, as Griffin said, some may have misunderstood or misremembered what the caller told them.

It may also be that some of the media reports were simply wrong. In addition to sources sometimes being incorrect, reporters are human and have made mistakes - media have reported misinformation as fact on many occasions. Jeremy Glick and Honor Elizabeth Wanio are two people for whom Griffin cites media reports of them making calls on cell phones. However, these reports are contradicted by this10/28/01 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article that has them using Airfones:

Jeremy Glick picked up a GTE Airfone just before 9:30 a.m. and called his in-laws in the Catskills. … Lauren Catuzzi Grandcolas, 38, phoned her husband Jack in San Rafael, Calif … Then she passed the Airfone to the woman seated next to her. “Now you call your people,” Grandcolas told her. Honor Elizabeth Wainio, 27, took the phone from Grandcolas and dialed her stepmother, Esther Heymann, in Baltimore.

“Cell Phone Numbers Recognized on Caller ID”

Three of the calls on the UAL call record (pp. 25-26) are from Tom Burnett. Per author Jere Longman, who interviewed Tom’s wife Deena Burnett in 2002, Deena took notes, and wrote down the time of the first call as 6:27 am (PST); 9:27 am (EST). According to a 9/11/01 FBI 302 interview of Deena (pp. 10-11), “Starting at approximately 6:30 a.m. (PST) BURNETT received a series of three to five cellular phone calls from her husband, THOMAS EDWARD BURNETT, JR”. The 302 recounts pieces of conversations from four calls. Though the 302 refers to all of these calls as cell phone calls, it is not clear from this 302 if Deena recognized Tom’s cell phone on Caller ID in more than one of the calls; caller ID is only referenced in the context of the third call received; “Approximately five minutes later she received another cell phone call from her husband. BURNETT was able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone because the caller identification showed his number, (925) 980-3360. Only one of the calls did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call.”

The 9/11 Commission’s 4/26/04 interview with Deena says, “Call #1: … She also thinks this was the one call he placed to her from his cell phone, because she recognized the number on the caller ID.” Two and a half years after 9/11, Deena Burnett was still sure she’d seen Tom’s cell phone number on her caller ID, but that only one call was from his cell phone, and it was the first call. The 9/11 Commission interview also says, “The call Burnett made from the cell phone did not show up on the cell phone bill, neither did the one he placed to his secretary before take-off. Burnett spoke with his friend Charles from England before take-off. He mentioned the flight was delayed but did not give a reason.”

The first two calls on the UAL call record (pp. 25-26) list the time zone as “INT” and the times are 8:30:32 am (Tom Burnett: 28 seconds duration) and 8:32:39 am (Flight Attendant); the other calls all list “ET” as the time zone, and fit EST time frames for the reported events. I was unable to determine the meaning or purpose of “INT” as a time zone signifier. At the Moussaoui trial, Tom Burnett’s first call is listed as occurring at 9:30:32 am for 28 seconds, matching the first call except for the time, unless the INT time zone is one hour ahead of EST. The next calls from Tom Burnett on the UAL and Moussaoui trial records are at 9:37:53 am, and the last is at 9:44:23 am; a total of three air phone calls from Tom Burnett are listed.

Cell phone calls from planes were possible on 9/11; would the FBI lie, and why?

Various FBI agents, supervisors and policy makers have been involved in crimes, corruption and cover ups during the FBI’s history. And, the FBI has a great deal to answer for regarding 9/11 and many other events, including their handling of the investigation into the2001 Anthrax attacks. FBI statements and records should not be accepted at face value, but this doesn’t mean that any particular FBI statement or record is false.  Not all FBI agents, supervisors and policy makers are dishonest or disloyal to the US. For instance, FBI whistleblowers Sibel EdmondsColeen RowleyRobert WrightJohn Cole and others have demonstrated integrity and courage by their efforts within the system to address corruption, and finally by going public after being ignored, obstructed and intimidated by people with greater authority.

It may be that cell phones were used in more than the two cases cited by the FBI: CeeCee Lyles and Ed Felt. Regarding Deena Burnett’s account, Griffin says in his Response to Questions essay,

If [Tom Burnett] had actually called from an onboard phone, as the FBI now says, how could his home phone’s Caller ID have possibly indicated that the calls came from his cell phone? Some people reject as “unwarranted speculation” the suggestion that this shows that the calls were faked. But until someone comes up with an alternative explanation, this is the only hypothesis that accounts for the facts.

There is another hypothesis that accounts for the facts, which is that cell phones were used. First, the claim that cell phone calls from planes were impossible is contradicted by evidence. In making his case that cell phone calls weren’t possible, Griffin cites a study by A. K. Dewdney. This study is not relevant to the 9/11 flights, as it was done in Canada, and no evidence was provided that conditions were similar, such as proximity to cell phone towers or power/quality of transmission equipment. Griffin also says that, "[cell phone] calls would become possible … on commercial flights in March 2008." In support of this statement, he cites journalist Alan Cabal’s reporting on ‘picocell’ technology, including Cabal’s contention that, “Before this new ‘Pico cell,’ it was nigh on impossible to make a call from a passenger aircraft in flight. Connection is impossible at altitudes over 8000 feet or speeds in excess of 230 mph.” However, myriad credible sources indicate cell phone calls from airplanes were possible prior to 2001; see this collection of reports, studies and anecdotal evidence from media reports compiled by 9/11 Myths, and this collection of reports compiled by jimd3100.

Second, self-powered cell phone repeaters may have been placed on board the planes to ensure that calls would reliably connect. A repeater is "sufficiently powerful to establish reliable connections with ground stations for several minutes at a time, and forwards all the communications between the cell phones aboard the plane and ground stations." Cell phone calls from planes were possible before 2001, but it’s obvious that reception quality and the ability to connect and maintain a quality connection would decrease at higher altitudes and speeds. Some of the reported cell phone calls did take place at lower altitudes, but other reported calls, including Tom Burnett’s, were at higher altitudes.

It could easily have been anticipated by insiders arranging for planes to be successfully hijacked and hit their targets on 9/11, that passengers, once aware of the hijackings, would attempt to use their cell phones and report hijackings by Middle-Eastern-looking men. It would have been obvious that news reports of these calls would be emotionally-charged, and could be used to convince the public that Islamic radicals were responsible for 9/11, as well as channel the public’s fear and anger into support for a ‘war on terror’. Certainly, the calls were used in exactly this way. If repeaters were involved (no direct evidence has surfaced), this would create a different set of problems for the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, and the need to cover this up could explain why the FBI has denied that certain calls were made by cell phone.

“[David Ray Griffin’s] Amazing Treatment of Amy Sweeney’s Calls”

The title of this subsection is an ironic rephrasing of the related subtitle in Griffin’s Response to Questions essay. According to Griffin, “What appears to be the FBI’s most elaborate effort to change a story occurred in relation to the phone calls reportedly made by flight attendant Amy Sweeney from American Flight 11. As we saw earlier, an FBI affidavit, dated September 11, said that AA employee Michael Woodward, who reportedly talked to Sweeney for 12 minutes, said she had been using ‘a cellular telephone.’” This is ironic because the appearance of an “elaborate effort” by the FBI to “change a story” is created by Griffin’s omissions, errors and misinterpretations of the records he cites. Griffin says:

Strangely, the summary of an FBI interview with AA Vice President for Flight Services Jane Allen, who reported that she had conducted a “flight service system conference call” involving Woodward the day after the 9/11 attacks, indicated that she said: “According to Woodward, Sweeny’s [sic] call came from either a cell telephone or an airphone on the aircraft.” Surely, however, Lechner’s affidavit, according to which Woodward said simply that Sweeney used a “cellular telephone,” must be considered more authoritative than this indirect quotation of Jane Allen, for four reasons: First, Lechner would have been trained to be precise about such matters when writing affidavits, whereas Allen’s focus during the conference call would have been on flight services; second, Lechner had a one-on-one interview with Woodward, whereas Allen talked to him during a conference call involving other people; third, Lechner’s interview took place on 9/11 itself, whereas Allen’s conference call occurred the following day; and fourth, Lechner received his information directly from Woodward himself, whereas the FBI summary was reporting a second-hand statement of what Woodward had said. The FBI’s summary of Allen’s summary of Woodward’s statement provides, therefore, no reason to question FBI Special Agent James Lechner’s affidavit, according to which Woodward said that Amy Sweeney had been “using a cellular telephone.”

FBI Special Agent (SA) James K. Lechner’s affidavit was filed 9/12/01 in a federal court in Maine in order to obtain a search warrant in connection with the 9/11 investigation. Regarding Griffin’s first point, one may presume FBI agents are trained to be precise. However, FBI agents are human and make mistakes (FBI 302s frequently have typos, and come with the disclaimer, “This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI”). Mistakes may increase under pressure, or when distinctions and meanings are misunderstood or considered trivial, as the cell phone/air phone distinction may have seemed in the case of this affidavit, which was citing the Woodward/Sweeney conversation as evidence, and wasn’t related to an investigation of that conversation (or it’s alleged ‘impossibility’). And, given the bigger picture of determining who was responsible for the worst attack on the US since Pearl Harbor, the cell phone/air phone distinction may not have registered with Lechner at all.

In any case, there’s no evidence that Lechner personally interviewed Michael Woodward, which is the basis for Griffin’s second, third and fourth reasons to prefer Lechner’s affidavit over Jane Allen’s account. The facts outlined in the affidavit were sworn to by Lechner, but the context of the statement referencing the interview implies he didn’t interview Woodward: “On September 11, 2001, FBI agents interviewed … [Woodward].” Lechner could only be as accurate was whatever information he was given by other parties, and any mistake may not have been made by him.

Indeed, a search of the 9/11 Commission’s records at – the same records Griffin used as sources in his Response to Questions essay – turns up only one FBI interview with Woodward on 9/11/01. This was conducted by FBI SA Craig Ring on 9/11/01 at 2pm (p. 86), and he says, “Woodward is the flight service manager for AA. He talked to flight attendant Amy Sweeney via air phone after flight 11 was hijacked (emphasis added).” Unless the Woodward interview was tape recorded, this FBI 302 is the primary source record; Lechner’s affidavit is at best secondary. For whatever reason, Griffin did not cite this 302 in his essay.

Woodward was also interviewed on 9/11/01 at 10:30 am by Massachusetts State Trooper James Masterson (p. 89), who stated that Woodward had “'received a phone call from Flight Attendant Sweeney aboard Flight 11,” that it was hijacked by three men with a bomb, and that three people had been stabbed or cut and one was dying. Masterson doesn’t note whether it was an air or cell phone.

Woodward was also interviewed by the FBI on 9/12, 13 and 14. The 9/12 and 9/14 interviews say nothing about cell v. air phone, but the 9/13 FBI 302 (p. 1) states, “(Woodward was unsure whether Sweeney was on the on-board phones or a cellular telephone).” Griffin didn’t cite this interview, either, even though he cited the 9/12 interview (in the same .pdf file as the 9/13 interview) as the source for this quote: “Woodward took notes while he was talking to Sweeney which he signed and dated and gave to the interviewing Agent.” Woodward’s 9/11/01 notes can be viewed here (pp. 2-3); there’s no mention in his notes of whether it was an air or cell phone. Rather, he made notes about things like hijackers, attendants, passengers, a bomb, a stabbing, a slashed throat, bleeding, and the rapid descent of the plane.

The flight service system conference call involving Jane Allen and Michael Woodward happened on 9/11/01, not “the day after the 9/11 attacks,” as Griffin says. Also, the FBI interviewed Allen ON 9/11/01. The FBI 302, dated 9/11/01, (pp. 25-26) says, “On 09/11/2001, Ms. Allen conducted a flight service system conference call.” The dates of the dictation and transcription are 9/12/01; perhaps this is the source of Griffin’s error in this case, though these are clearly marked, and the date of the 302 is clearly 9/11/01. Griffin is correct that the 302 records that, per Allen, “According to Woodward, Sweeny’s [sic] call came from either a cell telephone or an airphone on the aircraft.” Also, it seems unlikely that on a day when two AAL planes had been hijacked and crashed into buildings, that Allen, an AAL VP, would be focused on “flight services,” as Griffin surmises. Rather, it seems she would have been focused on finding out the facts related to events that constituted potentially very large liabilities for AAL.

It is curious that Lechner’s 9/11/01 affidavit says “cell phone” when the actual 9/11/01 Woodward interview record says “air phone.” It’s also curious because, according to Woodward himself in his 9/13/01 interview, and according to Allen in her 9/11/01 interview, Woodward was unsure if Sweeney was calling from a cell or air phone. However, when speaking to Ring, Woodward may have assumed it was an air phone, then realized later he didn’t know for sure, as in the heat of the moment, focused on the hijacking/bomb/stabbing of three people, etc., Sweeney didn’t think to remark on that, and he didn’t ask.

Additional evidence that Sweeney called Woodward from an air phone is the AT&T/Claircom call record for AAL 11 (pp. 6, 9-10), which lists three connected calls from 904-555-0004 to a number at Boston Logan airport (redacted). The first is at 6:25:20 (8:25:20 am EST) for 107 seconds, the second at 6:29:25 (8:29:25 am EST) for 43 seconds, and the third at 6:32:39 (8:32:39 am EST) for 793 seconds (13” 13’). Griffin doesn’t cite these records, though he cited many other records posted at

In his Response to Questions essay, Griffin does not directly dispute the air phone call made by AAL 11 Flight Attendant Betty Ong. This also appears in the AT&T/Claircom call record (p. 7): at 6:18:47 (8:18:47 am EST) there’s a call from 904-555-0004 to American Airlines reservations for 1620 seconds (27”).

“Amazing Treatment,” cont.: the AAL tapes produced in 2004

Griffin says the AAL tapes produced in 2004 are the source of the claim that Sweeney had used an air phone, but, regardless of the fact that Woodward had said it may have been an air phone, and an air phone is much more likely than a cell phone to sustain a call for 12 minutes, the FBI would have learned with relative certainty that an air phone had been used once they got the AT&T/Claircom call record for AAL 11 (pp. 2-10). The fax date of these records, which include the AAL 77 calls, is 9/13/01.

Griffin lists six reasons to believe the AAL tape of the conversation involving Sam Howland and Nancy Wyatt (as Michael Woodward talked to Amy Sweeney) is faked (see transcript pp. 34-41). The first two reasons have to do with the existence of the tape being unknown to certain people and the public until some 2 ½ years after 9/11. However, if the FBI and AAL did not perceive a need to tell people - even Assistant US Attorney David Novak - they would not do so. It is surprising Novak was unaware, given that he was working on the Moussaoui trial. However, the failure to inform Novak, and/or the failure of Novak to learn of the tape, may only be evidence of unnecessarily excessive secrecy (something the Bush Administration was well known for), bureaucracy and/or incompetence. And, as I pointed out in Section 1, the FBI commonly does not comment on investigations in progress. It may also be there was an attempt, eventually unsuccessful, to suppress this evidence. AAL, as it was being sued by a large number of people, would have no incentive to widely share any information about what the company and its personnel knew and did or didn’t do on 9/11; in fact, AAL personnel were instructed to not discuss anything with the media.

The transcript shows AAL managers were soliciting and obtaining agreements to keep the news of the hijackings quiet (pp. 10, 23, 39)Griffin, in Note 62, said this “seems to be simply one of the most transparently phony parts of this made-up story,” because AAL officials wouldn’t have “thought they could keep [a hijacking] among themselves.” This is Griffin’s opinion, and has no basis in the evidence. It seems at least as plausible, if not more, that this indicates they realized the seriousness and sensitivity of the matter, and wanted to keep rumors and panic from spreading while they worked to get the situation under control. It could also mean they felt it was important to manage perceptions regarding AAL’s responsibility; clearly, those in management would have recognized the hijacking was a major liability issue for AAL. The 2004 news of this seeming ‘cover up’ (cited by Griffin) contributed to negative perceptions about AAL, and infuriated family members, some of whom were suing AAL. Prior to the tape’s release, it would have been obvious to AAL management that it could make AAL look bad, thus there would be no incentive for AAL to fabricate these statements, and no incentive for the government to do so either, as it had bailed out the airlines and was working to shield them from liability.

Regarding the third reason, Griffin quotes a 9/20/01 LA Times article which actually undermines (not supports) his contention that the tape was fabricated later, and that the FBI didn’t know about the tape at the time:

FBI officials in Dallas [Fort Worth], where American Airlines is based, were able, on the day of the terrorist attacks, to piece together a partial transcript and an account of the phone call. American Airlines officials said such calls are not typically recorded, suggesting that the FBI may have reconstructed the conversation from interviews.

Griffin asks, “Why would FBI officials have needed to ‘piece together a partial transcript’ if officials at AA headquarters had a recording of Wyatt’s virtually verbatim account of Woodward’s virtually word-for-word account of what Sweeney had said?” Transcript of the Howland - Wyatt – Woodward – Sweeney tape (pp. 34-41). (This file also contains taped conversations between a number of other people, which shows that, while calls may not be “typically recorded,” they were in that location on 9/11/01, perhaps because it was clear the situation was a major emergency, and might need to be reconstructed later). As Wyatt had only relayed the last four minutes of the Sweeney-Woodward conversation, this would be a ‘partial transcript’, which, along with their interviews of those involved, could have been used to largely reconstruct the whole conversation.

Griffin: “Fourth, there is no indication that Michael Woodward mentioned the creation of this recording when he was interviewed by FBI agent James Lechner on 9/11.” As I pointed out earlier in this essay, there’s no evidence Lechner interviewed Woodward on 9/11, and he probably didn’t. There’s also no evidence Woodward was aware Wyatt’s call to Howland was recorded.

Griffin: “Fifth, if Woodward had repeated to Nancy Wyatt Sweeney’s statement that she had used ‘an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant,’ he surely would not have told Lechner, only a few hours later, that she had been ‘using a cellular telephone.’” As I already pointed out, the 302 of FBI SA Craig Ring’s 9/11/01 interview records that Woodward said Sweeney was on an air phone. There’s no evidence Woodward knew she had used “an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant.” The AT&T/Claircom call records for AAL 11 (pp. 6, 9-10) are probably the source of the information that “Sara [Low] had given Ms. Sweeney her father [Mike Low]'s calling card”; in the card # field is a phone number for Gary M Low, and the card type is NPT. There’s nothing about an AirFone card being used in the transcript of the Wyatt-Howland call (pp. 34-41), or in any of the Woodward interviews.

For the sixth and final reason to believe the tape is a fraud, Griffin asserts the “new story is even internally inconsistent,” because, as “Nancy Wyatt did not start relaying the call to American headquarters in Texas until 8:40 AM,” this could not have “resulted in a virtually verbatim transcript of the entire Sweeney-Woodward call.” However, there’s no evidence AAL or the FBI claimed there was a transcript of the “entire” call.

3. “American Airlines’ Boeing 757s, and hence its Flight 77, had onboard phones.”

In part 3 of his Response to Questions essay, Griffin discusses his “evolving position on whether Flight 77 had onboard phones.” He had retracted certain statements on 5/7/07 (while arguing that other evidence supported the fake calls theory), and subsequently retracted his retraction on 6/26/07 (co-authored with Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (PFT)). Griffin’s position in his Response to Questions essay is that AAL 77 did not have working air phones on September 11, 2001. In support of this, he cites four pieces of evidence:

A. Chad Kinder, AAL Customer Service

The first piece of evidence is an exchange between forum user The Paradroid and AAL Customer Service Representative (CSR) Chad Kinder. Paradroid asks, “Hello, on your website . . . there is mentioned that there are no seatback satellite phones on a Boeing 757. Is that info correct? Were there any such seatback satellite phones on any Boeing 757 before or on September 11, 2001 and if so, when were these phones ripped out?” Kinder responds, “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”

Kinder doesn’t address the question about whether AAL 757’s had seatback phones on 9/11, or when they were removed. He says, "we do not have phones …" (present tense), and then says the 9/11 passengers used their cell phones. It may be that Kinder gave a quick reply he believed was correct based on his personal knowledge, and didn't bother to check whether or not AAL 757s had seatback phones on 9/11, let alone working ones; certainly, his present tense statement, “we do not have,” doesn't logically indicate AAL 757’s didn’t have them on 9/11/01. However, it does appear Kinder is inferring that was the case, hence his statement that passengers used their cell phones on 9/11.

Given the present tense phrasing of Kinder’s response, however, it cannot be assumed this is evidence that Flight 77 didn’t have working air phones on 9/11. Curiously, Kinder’s present tense phrasing doesn’t bother Griffin, even though he said in his 6/26/07 retraction of his 5/7/07 retraction, that the present tense phrasing of AAL’s 2004 communications with Henshall and Morgan was one of the reasons he concluded he was in error in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, leading to his 5/7/07 retraction: “… the realization that the letters from AA in 2004 were couched entirely in the present tense, DRG concluded that the claim that AA 77 had not had onboard phones was probably an error.”

The job of a CSR like Chad Kinder is to provide support to many dozens or even hundreds of customers per day; most issues a CSR deals with are routine questions related to AAL’s current services and schedules, not questions about past events and discontinued services. According to Rob Balsamo’s 5/31/07 follow up interview with Kinder, Kinder could not recall having written the 2006 email as he writes “so many,” but said, “That sounds like an accurate statement." Apparently, Balsamo did not clarify with Kinder whether or not AAL 757’s, and specifically N644AA (Flight 77), had seatback phones on 9/11, but Kinder still believed they didn’t, without looking into it any further. This confirmation doesn’t clarify whether or not Kinder’s original response was well-informed, and provides no additional information useful to understanding whether or not AAL 757s had working air phones on 9/11.

Furthermore, Kinder’s statement as a CSR doesn’t represent AAL’s position on this issue. AAL’s position was represented by John Hotard, a manager in AAL Corporate Communications (public relations), whose statements I address in Section 3C below. In addition, on 8/14/07 JREF user pomeroo reported that he received this statement from Hotard; “Kinder’s response was based on information that an order had been issued to remove Airphones from the 757 fleet. He did not have information on the specific aircraft or the timetable to remove them.” This is yet another indication that Kinder didn’t thoroughly research the issue, and that his response is unreliable as evidence that AAL 757’s didn’t have working air phones on 9/11.

B. The 757 AMM 23-19-00-0 page and AMTMAN

This section concerns a document first posted by PFT, and a set of documents posted shortly afterward by JREF user AMTMAN. AMTMAN first registered at JREF 7/11/07; two weeks after PFT posted their document on 6/26/07 (in conjunction with Griffin’s 6/26/07 retraction of his 5/7/07 retraction). Regarding the relevance of the PFT document, Griffin says in his Response to Questions essay,

The second new piece of information, supplied by Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, was [23-19-00-0] a page from the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM), which has the date January 28, 2001 at the bottom of the page. The first sentence of this page states: “The passenger telephone system was deactivated by ECO [Engineering Change Order] FO878.”

To date, ECO FO878 has not been produced, only 23-19-00-0, which refers to it. Griffin, Balsamo, as well as Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (the middlemen for the 23-19-00-0 source), have interpreted the 1/28/01 date on 23-19-00-0 as meaning ECO FO 878 was issued before 9/11/01.

However, there are a number of problems with this interpretation. After the first two sentences that discuss deactivation of the “passenger telephone system,” the rest of the text refers to maintenance of the “Claircom Telephone System.” Why the sudden shift in descriptor and context? According to AMTMAN, the “TR” to the left of the first two sentences signifies “Temporary Revision.” AMTMAN challenged Ranke/Balsamo to go on the record stating what TR means, as well as give the date associated with this particular TR. At the time, Balsamo had been banned from JREF (including his alleged sockpuppet, weedwacker. Also see this 12/27/10 JREF thread for a list of other alleged Balsamo socks at JREF, as well as those used at other forums), but Ranke was participating in the 23-19-00-0 thread. Ranke never responded to AMTMAN’s questions or statement regarding the meaning and date of said TR, I could find no record of it being addressed at the CIT or PFT forums, and the comment threads at Screw Loose Change (SCL) in which Ranke, Balsamo and AMTMAN were apparently participating, reportedly were lost, along with many others, when SCL switched comment hosts in 2009.

On 8/9/07, AMTMAN posted this 23-19-00-0 TR Cover Page as evidence ‘TR’ means ‘Temporary Revision’; AMTMAN also said it “proves that first sentence [in 23-19-00-0] did not appear until 4/2007” (the document lists the TR date as 4/19/07, and the TR release date as 4/13/07). Evidence that AMTMAN is correct about the meaning of ‘TR’, and how it affects dates on AAL maintenance records, is this update to 23-19-00-0 posted 3/25/08, which has text identical to the one posted by PFT, but has a different software revision version/date, ‘AAL’ where ‘TR’ once was, and “9/28/07” as the date at the bottom of the page. This was posted at the same image sharing account as ECO FO871XX, discussed next.

7/16/07 AMTMAN said,

It's most interesting that PfT say they could not locate F0878 yet they have several others dated for 2002. Well there's ECO F0871 that states that the Claircom system will be switched to the off position and associated circuit breakers pulled and collared. It's dated March 2002.

On 9/14/07 SCL posted two pages from ECO FO871XX, presumably provided by AMTMAN. The first page is an order for “Telephone circuit breaker and toggle switch deactivation” with dates beginning March 13, 2002. The second page is a list of 18 out of 121 total 757’s, beginning with 5BR, on which this work was completed in April 2002. The first page lists fleet designation series 610-643, 5BR-5ES and 5ET-5FP. AAL 77 had registration number N644AA, and was in fleet 644. According to the database at, N645AA is in fleet 5BR. It seems reasonable to conclude that ECO FO871XX lists the series that would have included N644AA; having been destroyed in the crash at the Pentagon, it would not have been included in work being done in March and April, 2002. A 9/18/07 update on the 23-19-00-0 page at PFT says, “We are currently in the process of analyzing the conflicts and will update this article as more information becomes available,” but I found no further record of ECO FO871 being addressed by PFT, CIT or JREF.

Some at JREF raised questions about the authenticity of the date on the PFT document (23-19-00-0), as well as about AMTMAN. Griffin has said the documents provided by PFT and AMTMAN are contradictory, and given reasons to prefer PFT’s 23-19-00-0 (see Summary of Section 3, below), as well as their interpretation of the 1/28/01 date on it. However, no one has demonstrated that any of the five AAL pages were forged or tampered with, and AMTMAN vouched for the authenticity of the version of 23-19-00-0 posted by PFT. PFT has not posted records specifically related to the deactivation or disconnection of air phones on N644AA (see also John Hotard’s statements, Section 3C, below). ECO FO878 has not been produced, nor hard evidence of the date on it. I didn’t find that PFT/CIT ever said what the ECO FO878 date was; PFT said “ECO FO878 … could not be located.” No evidence has been provided to support the claim ECO FO878 was issued prior to 1/28/01, which is what the release of 23-19-00-0 allegedly shows, according to CIT, Balsamo and Griffin.

C. John Hotard, AAL Corporate Communications

The third piece of evidence cited by Griffin is an account provided by John Hotard, a manager in Corporate Communications (aka Media Relations; public relations) at AAL, meaning he was authorized to publicly represent American Airlines company positions on certain matters. The source Griffin cites for Hotard is a comment posted at JREF by user pomeroo aka Ron, who apparently pasted text from email exchanges he had with Hotard. On 1/19/11, in response to my fourth request for information about Hotard’s statements reported at JREF, I received this reply from AAL Media Relations: “Mr. Hotard retired a year ago last September.” That was the entirety of the reply; no other info was given, even though I had asked for confirmation of American Airlines’ position on the issue of whether or not Flight 77 had working seatback phones on 9/11/01.

In any case, the emails pomeroo posted, as well as one posted by JREF user Panoply Perfect (see quote below), make it clear that Hotard, unlike Chad Kinder, had researched the issue of whether or not there were working seatback phones on AAL 757s on 9/11, and specifically in the case of N644AA. Among other things, Hotard said 6/27/07, “Ron, I am doublechecking with my maintenance folks so I give you accurate data.”

In Griffin’s Response to Questions essay, he quotes from and comments on Hotard’s 6/29/07 reply:

“An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time [9/11/2001].” Following this statement, Hotard emphasized that photographs showing seatback phones in American 757s after 9/11 would not prove anything, for this reason: “We did two things: issued the engineering change orders to disconnect/disable the phones, but then did not physically remove the phones until the aircraft went ... in for a complete overhaul.”

Griffin represents Hotard’s account as confirming the idea that the seatback phones weren’t working on AAL 77. However, he neglected to quote the sentence that immediately preceded the first one he quoted, where Hotard says, “Ron, engineers at our primary Maintenance & Engineering base in Tulsa tell me that they cannot find any record that the 757 aircraft flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 had had its seatback phones deactivated by that date.” Griffin also omits mention, even though it was in the same post that he cites, of Hotard’s statement of what was apparently a consensus conclusion at AAL: "It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected." Contrary to the way Griffin represented it, Hotard’s account is evidence the air phones on AAL 77 were working.

On 7/19/07, JREF user Panoply Perfect aka SLOB reported receiving a substantially similar reply from Hotard: “Mr (My name excluded), we have checked the records of the Boeing 757 aircraft on Flight 77. While there are records that indicate an Engineering Change Order was issues [sic] prior to 9/11 to remove the phones from the Boeing 757 fleet, there is no documentation in that particular aircraft’s records that indicate the phones had been disabled or removed by 9/11.”

D. Cpt. Ralph Kolstad, retired AAL Pilot

Griffin cites as his fourth piece of evidence, “email letters to Rob Balsamo and David Griffin, December 22, 2009” from PFT member and former (retired 2005) AAL B757/767 pilot Cpt. Ralph Kolstad; “[T]he ‘air phones,’ as they were called, were … deactivated in early or mid 2001. They had been deactivated for quite some time prior to Sep 2001.” In response to a question about this statement, Kolstad added: “I have no proof, but I am absolutely certain that the phones were disconnected on the 757 long before Sep 2001. They were still physically installed in the aircraft, but they were not operational."

Kolstad's and Hotard's statements contradict each other, but in Hotard's case he cites “[his] maintenance folks” and "that aircraft’s [N644AA] records." Kolstad admits having no proof, and his statement is based on his recollection. While possible, it seems unlikely that a commercial airline pilot would find the deactivation of seatback phones, which had never been extensively used and were in declining use by passengers, to be such a significant event that they would make a point of knowing when the deactivations were completed on the entire AAL 757 fleet. It seems even less likely that, over eight years later, someone could recall with ‘absolute certainty’ that it was “long before Sep 2001.” In any case, Hotard’s account should be given greater consideration, unless it can be shown there’s reason to believe AAL’s records were tampered with, or that Hotard was misled or misrepresenting the record, or that the Hotard emails posted by pomeroo and Panoply Perfect were fabricated. However, Griffin did not see a reason to question the authenticity of Hotard’s reply to pomeroo (see Section 3C above).

There are other reasons to be skeptical of Kolstad’s credibility. For instance, Kolstad has been listed as a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (PFT) since 2007 (the PFT member list says, “Core members listed in the order they joined.” Kolstad is currently listed 4th, but when he was first listed, he was 25th). PFT is an organization that, beginning with its launch in 2006, has actively perpetuated the controversialerroneousdiscredited (pdf), and counter-productive claim that AAL 77 didn’t crash into the Pentagon (PFT insists it only presents evidence that it could not have happened as reported). PFT, based on a miscalculation of g-force (pdf) and incomplete FDR data (pdf), has claimed the FDR from AAL 77 showed the plane could not have hit the Pentagon. PFT has corrected some of its mathematical errors, but as yet has not corrected the major error in its calculations, according to which the g-force far exceeded what the plane could have physically withstood. Now that the final four seconds of FDR data have been decoded and analyzed by Warren Stutt and Frank Legge (pdf), showing AAL 77 to have been on a trajectory ending at the Pentagon, PFT is insisting the FDR can’t be linked to N644AA, in addition to making false claims of mistakes in the Legge-Stutt paper, and leveling insults and innuendo at Legge and Stutt (see the forum thread for more insults and innuendo, link at note 4 in the press release). In November 2009, PFT began promoting the erroneous claim that the speeds achieved by AAL 11 and UAL 175 prior to hitting WTC 1 and 2 were “impossible” Also in November 2009 PFT began claiming that FDR parameter “FLT_DECK_DOOR” only showing “0” for the entire AAL 77 flight proved the cockpit door never opened, and a hijack was therefore “impossible.” However, this parameter apparently was not in use, as a “1” was never recorded for it in the entire 42 hours of FDR data, over a total of 12 flights (scroll down to: reply posted on 27-11-2009 @ 09:53 PM by 911files). Over the years, PFT has worked with Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) on a number of projects; CIT is known for selective quotation, interpretation and inclusion of witness statements in their films, and accusing witnesses and critics of being disinfo agents. Despite listing many pilots and military as members, PFT has contributed essentially no substantive information regarding important issues such as standard FAA/NORAD proceduresmilitary preparedness prior to and on 9/11Donald Rumsfeld’s June 1, 2001 order changing air defense procedures to require him to be in a loop from which he was absent on 9/11, the air defense failures on 9/11, and the military exercises coinciding with 9/11.

Furthermore, in Kolstad’s August 20, 2007 statement to Patriots Question 9/11, he says, "One of the best books available, published about one year later, is David Icke’s book Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster.  It has some tremendous research and analysis in it." David Icke is perhaps most famous for asserting the world's powerbrokers are reptilian humanoids from another planet, and that they created the human race. For over 20 years, in more than 20 books and DVDs, on his website, and in interviews and public appearances, Icke has been making these and other nonsensical claims and allegations, while insisting these are his sincere beliefs. Claims about ‘reptilians’ are featured in the book that Kolstad recommends.

Summary of Section 3

Regarding the documents produced (see Section 3B above), Griffin observed correctly that the identity of neither source can be verified. He goes on to say, "Whereas the purported AMM page is consistent with the testimony of Customer Service Representative Chad Kinder, pilot Ralph Kolstad, and Public Relations Representative John Hotard, the purported ECO provided by AMTMAN is contradicted by the testimony of all of these past and present AAL employees." Griffin concluded his section 3 by saying, “… we cannot yet claim to have proof … [but] The evidence is very strong, therefore, that Barbara Olson could not possibly have made calls from Flight 77.”

The conclusion that the evidence for impossible calls is “very strong” is actually contradicted and/or undermined by Griffin’s own sources:

Section 3A: Kinder’s own statements don’t support the claim that Kinder was well informed about the operational status of the seatback phones on N644AA. Additionally, AAL Corporate Communications manager John Hotard stated that CSR Chad Kinder was misinformed.

Section 3B: The documents posted by AMTMAN and PFT have not been shown to be fabricated or tampered with, and appear to be authentic AAL maintenance records. The 4/19/07 23-19-00-0 TR cover sheet and 9/28/07 final revision of 23-19-00-0 provided by AMTMAN show that PFT’s 23-19-00-0 didn’t contain the first two sentences until April 2007. There’s no legitimate basis for claiming that ECO FO878 was dated on or prior to 1/28/01, based on PFT’s 23-19-00-0. The ECO FO871 provided by AMTMAN supports the claim that deactivation work did not begin on AAL’s 757s until March 2002.

Section 3C: Hotard cited AAL’s records and mechanics, and, in emails to two different people, said there was no record of N644AA’s seatback phones being disabled. He further stated that it is AAL’s position that the seatback phones on N644AA were operational on 9/11. Griffin made it seem that Hotard’s account supports the faked phone calls theory by ignoring Hotard’s statements that explicitly contradict the claim that the seatback phones weren’t operational.

Section D: Ralph Kolstad’s recollection is questionable, as it came over eight years after what would have been a relatively inconsequential event from a pilot’s perspective. His credibility has been undermined by his membership in Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and his endorsement of David Icke’s 9/11 book.

Conclusion: The most authoritative sources available on the issue of whether or not the air phones were operational on N644AA during 9/11 are Hotard and the documents provided by AMTMAN, and these support the conclusion that the air phones were operational. There is no credible evidence that, “Barbara Olson could not possibly have made calls from Flight 77.”

4. “The FBI’s report on phone calls from the 9/11 airliners did not undermine Ted Olson’s report about receiving phone calls from his wife.”

In this section of his Response to Questions essay, Griffin examines the reported calls from Barbara Olson to Ted Olson. Griffin presents and analyzes different scenarios concerning the call records and the number of calls said to have been made. There are some odd elements and missing pieces, but no hard evidence the calls did not happen. There is evidence they did, and it is not correct to say the FBI has “undermine[d] Ted Olson’s report.”

One notable part is where Griffin takes issue with jimd3100's explanation for why there were connected calls without a record of who called:

jimd3100: If you use a credit card and pay yourself you dial the number yourself and a record from the airphone is then made. She did that once and it didn't go through ... you have the one recorded call, and the number dialed from the airphone. The others were made collect and therefor [sic] the operator dialed the number not the person using the airphone therefor [sic] the number called is unknown (not dialed on the airphone) but the time the airphone was used is known and recorded.

Griffin: There are two problems with this explanation. First, as we already saw, only one of the calls from Barbara Olson reportedly received by her husband’s office came through an operator. The other one, Lori Keyton said, was a direct call. Second, it is simply not the case that collect calls made through operators leave no record. (Without a record, how would the phone company know whom to charge for the calls?) So this explanation is about a [sic] wrong as an explanation can be.

Re: the first problem, the direct call to Ted Olson

AT&T collect call operators, like most other people in the US, were probably well aware of the plane crashes in NYC by the time of Barbara Olson’s calls, and the US was under terrorist attack. Having been told by Olson that her plane had been hijacked, the operator may have simply connected the call for Olson, rather than waste time in a life-or-death situation. AT&T operator Mercy Lorenzo connected at least one of Olson’s calls, and told her co-worker Teresa Gonzalez that Olson said the plane was hijacked; both operators took the claim so seriously that they each called the FBI (see quotes and links below). These FBI 302 interview records don’t say a call was connected directly; the direct call may have been connected by another operator, or Lorenzo/Gonzalez may not have wanted to admit doing this, as it was contrary to standard procedure. However, the idea that a subsequent call from Olson was put through directly is plausible, even probable. There is a lack of evidence that explains the direct call, but there’s no evidence it didn’t happen. This is something that could be verified or disproven by an independent investigation with the necessary resources and authorities. In addition, if the 9/11 plot involved faked phone calls, it seems unlikely that a seemingly contradictory and potentially suspicious element would be introduced into the narrative - but here it is, and Griffin has made an issue out of it. Furthermore, it also seems unlikely a plot involving faked calls would introduce an unnecessary element of complexity; faking a call to an operator, in order for a collect call to be involved.

In the 911Blogger comments thread for Griffin’s CBC Fifth Estate Interview, as well as in the thread for jimd3100’s essay which Griffin quotes from, I had suggested this may have been the reason for the direct call. However, in his Response to Questions essay, Griffin does not address the possibility that AT&T operators connected Olson’s call(s) directly. A review of the endnotes for this essay shows that he did review the comment threads for both 911Blogger posts; in addition to others’ comments, he quotes a number of my own comments, citing my 911Blogger user name, ‘loose nuke’, and pointing out that my comments revealed a lack of awareness that Griffin had retracted his retraction of his claim that AAL 757’s didn’t have seatback phones on 9/11. The CBC Interview comment thread included my quoting from the FBI 302 reports of interviews with Lorenzo and Gonzalez:

FBI 302 9/11/01 (p. 17): Mercy Lorenzo, operator for AT&T Services AT&T, telephonically contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI to report an emergency phone call received by her while on duty at AT&T. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, she provided the following information:

A female passenger called from the telephone located on the back of the airplane seat. Passenger requested to be connected with her husband, a sergeant who resides in Washington, D.C. The passenger advised the plane was currently being hi-jacked. The hi-jackers, armed with guns and knives, were ordering the passengers to move to the back of the plane. The passenger wanted to know how to let the pilots know what was happening. It did not appear as if they were aware of the situation.

FBI 302 9/11/01 (p. 36): Teresa Gonzalez, operator for AT&T Services AT&T, telephonically contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI to report an emergency phone call received by AT&T. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, she provided the following information:

Mercy Lorenzo, also an operator with AT&T, received a call from a female passenger on flight 77 requesting to be transferred to telephone number [redacted] The female passenger advised the plane was being hi-jacked. Hi-jackers were ordering passengers to move to the back of the plane and were armed with guns and knives. Lorenzo indicated the pilot might not yet be aware of the take over of the plane. Additionally, the number provided was the number of the passenger's husband. He is a Sergeant and resides in Washington, D.C.

From the context, it’s obvious the “female passenger” is Barbara Olson. Her husband, Ted Olson, was Solicitor General at the Justice Dept (DOJ), not a “Sergeant”, but it seems likely this was just a misunderstanding. In addition, an unredacted version of the Gonzalez FBI 302 obtained by 9/11 Myths shows the number that was called: 202-514-2201. An online search quickly confirms this is a number for the Solicitor General at DOJ. This number is also listed in the Memorandum for the Record (MFR) for a 5/20/04 DOJ briefing to the 9/11 Commission (p. 2).

Guns on all four flights, six hijackers on AAL 77?

Notice from the above 302s that Mercy Lorenzo said Olson reported the hijackers had guns. This is an element that conflicts with the official 9/11 narrative; why is it here, if the phone calls were faked, and why is it FBI records, if these were faked? Guns were also reported on the three other hijacked flights. On 9/11/01, an FAA memo said that AAL 11 passenger Daniel Lewin (of the Israeli Defense Forces) had been shot (HistoryCommons AAL 11); the FAA claimed this was an early report and erroneous. According to some accounts (pp. 13, 23, 54, 57), UAL 175 passenger Peter Hanson reported that a stewardess had been shot: other accounts only mentioned a bomb, mace, knives and stabbing. The 302 record of Deena Burnett’s 9/15/01 FBI interview (p. 12) says, “Call 2 … said subjects in cockpit with guns.” In an interview with the London Times published 8/11/02, Deena said, “He told me one of the hijackers had a gun. He wouldn’t have made it up. Tom grew up around guns. He was an avid hunter and we have guns in our home. If he said there was a gun on board, there was.” According to her 4/26/04 interview with the 9/11 Commission, “Burnett's exact words to Deena were, ‘I think one of them has a gun.’"

Furthermore, the official 9/11 narrative says there were five hijackers on AAL 77, but Flight Attendant Renee May reported six: “Renee told her mother that the flight she had been hijacked by six 6 hijackers. Renee further explained that the hijackers put ‘us’ in the back of the airplane.” FBI 302 9/12/01 (p. 37)

The 9/11 Commission considered but dismissed the reports of six hijackers on AAL 77, and of guns and shootings, as erroneous. Though guns would explain how the hijackers were so easily able to take over the flights and subdue the crews and passengers, these reports have since been largely ignored by the media and the 9/11 Truth Movement. It’s conceivable that fake bombs could be smuggled on board by passengers, but guns would almost certainly have to have been placed on board prior to the flight, by maintenance crews or others with access to the planes. It may be there is something more here, but it’s also possible the Commission is correct, and these reports were simply mistaken. An investigation not controlled by insiders with conflicts of interest (also see this on Executive Director Philip Zelikow) and a pre-established agenda, such as was the 9/11 Commission, might be able to credibly establish the whole truth regarding these matters and the many other unanswered questions and information in the public record which conflicts with the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Re: the second problem, the lack of records

Phone companies have records for phone calls. The FBI obtained call records for all four 9/11 flights (AAL 77 pp. 11-24) as part of its investigation and provided them to the 9/11 Commission. American Airlines phone calls were carried by Claircom. In reviewing these records for AAL 11 and AAL 77, it is seen that all calls from the two AAL flights had 904-555-0004 as the originating number. Two direct calls were attempted, but not connected; one to May’s parents, and one to Ted Olson’s office. One connected call at 7:12:18 (6:12:18 PST) used a Visa card, went to the phone number of Renee May’s parents, and lasted for 158 seconds (AT&T/Claircom p. 13). When interviewed by the FBI, Renee’s mother, Nancy May, said Renee had called about this time, told her the plane was hijacked by six hijackers who had moved them to the back of the plane, and gave her mother three AAL phone numbers to call (9/12/01 FBI 302, p. 37). The other AAL 77 connected calls either went to “0”, or didn’t list a number.

According to a 5/20/04 DOJ briefing given to the 9/11 Commission on Cell and Phone Calls from AA 77 (p. 1), “All of the calls from Flight 77 were made via the onboard airphone system. That system did not provide information about the location of the airphone from which each call was made, and allowed for the identification of the called number for only three of the eight calls.” It does seem strange that the system routing and tracking these calls would not record the number being called, but if the terminating number was the operator, that would be the one number where it would be unimportant if the system does not record a “0,” as, if the field was blank, it could be understood to have been a call to the operator. Certainly, the system used was not entirely up to date; for instance, although the correct date and times for calls are listed under “Start Time,” fields called “Billing Start” and “Answer Supervision” contain the following text for every call; “Wed Dec 31 18:00:00 1969.” A note on this line, apparently added by either AT&T/Claircom or the FBI, explains, “Time is not tracked because OSPS [Operator Services] bills.” Additional support for the idea that these calls went to the operator is that no credit or phone card information was entered for these calls. In any case, a full investigation might be able to settle this question, but it isn’t evidence of faked calls. In addition, if this is a suspicious element, why would it have been introduced as part of a faked calls plot?

Regarding the phone number(s) where the Claircom calls from the AAL flights were redirected to, it seems AT&T should have records; the OSPS billing records, for instance. In addition, DOJ would have phone bills, that, at a minimum, should show a collect call received, if not detailed data on all calls received. Furthermore, DOJ might have its own system for recording, logging and tracking calls received. Among the 9/11 Commission records released to the public, I have not found these records. Apparently the FBI did not receive such records; the 5/20/04 DOJ briefing (p. 2) says, “… there was no direct evidence with respect to the ‘unknown calls’ ..." No explanation for this was given in the briefing, and I have not found other records which provide an explanation. The explanation may simply be the FBI didn’t get the billing/other records from OSPS and DOJ, and didn’t ask AT&T/DOJ for an explanation, though it seems they would have, as they were seeking to find out what calls were made, and who made and received them. If anyone wants to investigate this or pressure the DOJ/FBI for answers, fine. However, claiming this absence of evidence is evidence the calls were faked is not warranted, especially in light of the fact that the rest of Griffin’s case for faked calls doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, as I have shown throughout this essay.

Two, four or zero calls from Barbara Olson to Ted Olson?

According to the 5/20/04 DOJ briefing (p. 2), “interviews with recipients (especially Lori Keyton who was answering the phone in Ted Olson's office on 9/11), plus interviews of family members of other Flight 77 passengers, has led to the conclusion that all of these unknown calls were from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office.” It is puzzling the DOJ/FBI reached this conclusion, given that Solicitor General Ted Olson, his Special Assistant Helen Voss, and his Secretary Lori Keyton all told the FBI there had been two calls from Barbara Olson (9/11/01 FBI 302s, pp. 1-3, 59). Certainly, Ted Olson is an untrustworthy character, but in this instance his account was corroborated by Keyton and Voss, in addition to the statements by AT&T operators Mercy Lorezo and Teresa Gonzalez. Also, the AT&T/Claircom call records showed an attempted call to Ted Olson’s number, as well as the connected unknown calls around the time/duration Ted Olson, Keyton and Voss said the calls were received from Barbara Olson. It would have been reasonable for the FBI to conclude that there were two connected calls from Barbara Olson to Ted Olson. It also would have been reasonable for the FBI to say they were unable to determine who was involved on the other connected calls from and to unknown parties. After all, the call records were missing information or unavailable, and there were 64 people on board AAL 77, each with an unknowable number of relationships; how could the FBI rule out that calls might have been made to persons not interviewed? Instead, the FBI is apparently alleging Ted Olson had more conversations with his wife than he remembers or admits, and that Voss and Keyton suffered from the same lapse of memory/attention, or were also not forthcoming. Bizarre and deserving an explanation, yes. Evidence of faked calls, no.

It’s interesting and possibly significant that, according to Keyton’s 302 (p. 59),

At approximately 9:00am, she received a series of approximately six 6 to eight 8 collect telephone calls. Each of the calls was an automated collect call. There was a recording advising of the collect call and requesting she hold for an operator. A short time later another recording stated that all operators were busy, please hang up and try your call later.

The AAL 77 call record does not show these six to eight calls.


In the Conclusion to his Response to Questions essay, Griffin observes, “Without the widespread assumption that the 9/11 attacks had been planned and carried out by al-Qaeda, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have been possible.” This is true; without this assumption, the American people, Congress and allied nations would not have supported the wars. However, Griffin goes on to say, “… when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked.” As I’ve shown in this essay, while Griffin has done a masterful job of creating the appearance the faked calls theory is supported by evidence and reason, this appearance rests on a significant amount of speculation, illogical argumentation, and misinterpretation and omission of evidence. There is no credible basis for claiming the 9/11 calls were faked.

Here’s a prime example of a logical fallacy, from Griffin’s Conclusion; “If the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false.” As Richard Falk characterized it 1/11/11, the “official version of the [9/11] events [is] an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials.” Any particular dimension of this story being false does not mean other indirectly related elements will be false, so that should not be expected. Furthermore, inquiry shouldn’t start with conclusions and theories, and then seek to find facts to fit them. The scientific, logical way of conducting an investigation begins with gathering facts and evidence, and seeing what conclusions they support. A hypothesis may be useful in sketching out lines of inquiry, but hypotheses are tools, not proofs; they’re tested against the facts and evidence, and rejected if they fail to fit the facts and evidence. This is not what Griffin has done; instead, he has continually, over a period of several years, marshaled whatever could be used to support the faked calls theory, and used rhetoric to undermine evidence and reason that contradicts this theory. Logical fallacies often seem logical to those employing as well as those hearing or reading them, and they can be persuasive if not examined carefully, or not examined in the context of other evidence and arguments. The presence of logical fallacies in arguments, however, always undermines the credibility of arguments and of the speaker/writer employing them.

Speculation, like hypotheses, can be useful, but it is important to recognize when one is doing it, and to not confuse speculation with fact, evidence or proof. At some points in my essay, I have engaged in speculation; my purpose in doing so is to show that there are other possible - and more probable - explanations for some of the seemingly problematic elements in records related to the 9/11 calls.

Griffin’s conclusion of Part 2 of his Response to Questions essay is worth quoting in its entirety (below), due to its repeated use of speculation and logical fallacies aimed at particular conclusions, while framed with subtle rhetorical qualifiers that make it clear Griffin understands the faked calls theory is speculative and unproven.

In the following passage I have underlined speculation, italicized logical fallacies, and bolded qualifiers, in order to draw the reader’s attention to them. In some cases statements, or parts of statements, fall into the category of both speculation and logical fallacy:

Conclusion: On the one hand, the cell phone number of Tom Burnett and probably that of Renee May showed up on Caller IDs while their planes were in the air. On the other hand, the FBI’s Moussaoui trial report states that Burnett and Renee May did not use cell phones. Unless one is willing to challenge the FBI on this point, what alternative is there except to conclude that someone fabricated at least one, and probably both, of these calls, using a device that, besides replicating the impersonated persons’ voices, also caused their cell phone numbers to appear? That is, to be sure, speculation. But if there is no other plausible way to account for the facts, it cannot be called unwarranted speculation.

Moreover, if we can say with great confidence that the reported calls from Amy Sweeney and Tom Burnett (and probably Renee May) were faked, what about the reported calls from various other people – including Sandy Bradshaw, Marion Britton, Honor Wainio, Jeremy Glick, Peter Hanson, and Brian Sweeney – that were originally said to have been made on cell phones? The only way to avoid the conclusion that they also were fakedit seems, would be to claim that they were based on misunderstanding or faulty memory. However, the accuracy of these reports is supported not only by the fact that so many people gave them, but also by the fact that the Burnett calls, having been registered on the recipient phone’s Caller ID as cell phone calls, cannot be explained with speculations about misunderstanding or faulty memory. The calls to Deena Burnett thereby support the accuracy of the claims of the other people who said they had been called from cell phonesIt would seem, therefore, that we have good evidence, with regard to most of the reported calls originally said to have been made on cell phones, that they were faked.

That conclusion leads to the further conclusion that all of the reported calls from the airliners were faked, even those that were from the beginning said to have been made from onboard phones. Why? Because if some of the calls had been genuine, reporting real hijackings, why would several people have been all set up with the equipment and information to fabricate cell phone calls from some of the passengers? If people were ready to fabricate calls from Amy Sweeney, Tom Burnett, and most of the other people who were originally said to have made cell phone calls, then the airliners were not, as the official story has it, hijacked in a surprise operation. If the most fundamental part of the official story is false, then there is no reason to accept the reality of any of the hijack-reporting phone calls from the planes.

In the first and second paragraphs above, Griffin has used logical fallacies to set up a speculative premise – and one unsupported by evidence, as I’ve shown in this essay - on which the rest of his argument is based. The main logical fallacy is the suggestion that there is no “alternative … except to conclude” that the phone calls of Tom Burnett, Amy Sweeney and “probably” Renee May were faked. As I’ve shown, there are other possible, and more probable, explanations, and Griffin’s case for faked calls has been built on errors, selective quotation/interpretation, and omission of evidence that contradicts and undermines it. The speculative premise is his conclusion that these phone calls were faked, and based this premise he argues it then follows that all the calls were faked. As there’s no actual evidence any of the phone calls were faked, there’s no basis for concluding all of the calls were faked. By using qualifiers such as “seems” and “if,” and acknowledging use of a voice-morphing cell phone faking device is “speculation,” Griffin is decidedly not going so far as to claim it’s a fact the calls were faked. However, the vast majority of his rhetoric, if uncritically accepted, leads directly to that conclusion.

In his final conclusion to his Response to Questions essay, Griffin alleges, “The evidence that the alleged phone calls from the airliners were faked is an important part of this cumulative argument [that the official 9/11 story is false].” Again, as there’s no evidence the phone calls were faked, the claim that they were faked (or may have been faked) is not only not “an important part” of the case demonstrating the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is false, this claim is actually destructive to the cause of compelling full disclosure and accountability for 9/11. Speculative theories and false claims regarding the veracity of the official 9/11 story are not only not evidence that the public has been deceived about 9/11, and not useful in educating the public or compelling a full investigation, they discredit those who promote them, and, by extension and association, discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. In turn, this makes it more difficult for journalists and public officials to support a full investigation of 9/11, as well as less likely that the general public will.

Also in his final conclusion, Griffin says,

If asked which part of the official story can be most definitively shown to be false, I would speak not of the alleged phone calls but of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the official account of which says that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down without the aid of pre-set explosives. Given the fact that this theory involves massive violations of basic laws of physics, the evidence against it is so strong as to be properly called proof – as I have recently emphasized in a book-length critique of the official report on WTC 7 in particular.

It’s true the evidence is good that the official account of the Twin Towers destruction is false – this has been demonstrated by Jim Hoffman in his review of the NIST report, Building a Better Mirage, and by Steven Jones et al in their letter Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction [pdf], published in the Open Civil Engineering Journal. The official account of the destruction of World Trade Center 7 is also severely flawed, as shown by Kevin Ryan in his review, The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak, and in this review at, NIST's Explanation of WTC 7's Collapse. The evidence is also good that some method of controlled demolition was used to bring down all three buildings: see and for the best research into this aspect of 9/11.

However, Griffin is in error when he says the destructions of WTC 1, 2 and 7 are the “part of the official story [which] can be most definitively shown to be false.” The truth is that the official 9/11 story quickly falls apart when examined from many different angles. For instance, it’s false that USSaudiPakistani and Israeli intelligence agencies have not exploited terrorist organizations in proxy wars and operations, including Al Qaeda, and that there are no connections between them and the 9/11 plot. It's false that all of the alleged hijackers were Islamic radicals; some of them drank, used drugs, bought lap dances and prostitutes, and some activities were facilitated by FAA, INS and CIA actions and inactions. It’s false that no one in the US government imagined a planes-as-missiles attack on US cities, that there were no warning signs and intelligence pointing to the 9/11 plot, and that key people at StateNSA, CIAINSFBIFAANMCCNORADSecret Service and the White House were unaware of and/or incapable of preventing the 9/11 plot, as the public was originally told. Though it documented some new facts about what was known and not done prior to and on 9/11, the 9/11 Commission Report largely ignored, glossed over or explained away the issues raised by the links above. Things like the Project for the New American CenturyPTechpre-9/11 Afghanistan war planningpre-9/11 Iraq war planningunusual financial transactionscoincident military exercises and the 2001 Anthrax attack got similar treatment, as did suspicious behavior, strange decisions and false statements on the part of principals such George W. BushDick CheneyDonald RumsfeldCondoleezza RiceGeorge TenetJohn AshcroftRobert MuellerRichard MyersRalph Eberhart and others. Likewise, the testimony of whistleblowers such as Sibel EdmondsColeen RowleyRobert Wright and Anthony Shaffer. It’s also not true that 9/11 was adequately investigated by the FBICongressional Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission (conflicts of Commissioners and key staffIn depth on Philip Zelikow). All of these investigations were controlled or compromised to some degree by insiders with conflicts of interest, as well as frustrated in their inquiries by agencies and persons in the Executive branch, who, in some cases, should have been targets of their investigations. Instead, in many cases, their testimonies were used as sources for the 9/11 Commission’s narrative, which also relied heavily on the testimony of tortured prisoners. In the end, the 9/11 Commission Report held no one responsible; it blamed the ‘failure’ to prevent 9/11 on failures of “imagination, policy, capabilities, and management” (p. 339). Those who bore significant responsibility for the ‘failures’ to prevent 9/11 were rewarded with raises and promotions, or increased budgets, authority and deference from Congress, as well as support from the public, as the Bush Administration rushed to subvert the Constitutioninvade Iraq and launch, in the words of Dick Cheney, a ‘war on terror’ that "may never end. At least, not in our lifetimes."

To learn more about the many other documented problems with the official 9/11 story, many of which point directly to an ‘inside job’ scenario and to specific people and institutions, I suggest exploring The Complete 9/11 Timeline hosted by, and also and For a general overview, with source links, of 50 areas that deserve full investigation, see The Facts Speak for Themselves, compiled and summarized by Jon Gold. If you like reading books, I suggest The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson (based on the timeline at, The War on Truth by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, and The Road to 9/11 by Peter Dale Scott.

Ultimately, the failure to establish truth, justice and good government lies with the American People. At the founding of the United States, Ben Franklin advised us that we had been given, “A republic, if [we] can keep it.” We do not face the kind of obstacles that people in the Middle East do, where we are seeing popular movements and revolutions against tyrannical regimes that have been supported by the Democrats, Republicans and US corporations and elites for decades. The failure of the US government to prevent 9/11, to credibly investigate it once it happened, and to establish truth and justice for responsible parties and victims, is reason enough to withdraw support from the Democrats and Republicans (and/or take back both parties from the monied elites and big business interests that control them). It’s reason enough to boycott the corporate media, faux ‘alternative’ media, and the US banking establishment, and to support independent alternatives. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission will likely be needed to get to the whole truth about 9/11, the crimes and corrupt people and institutions that enabled 9/11, and the subsequent crimes against humanity and the US Constitution that 9/11 enabled. We need to support the internet, independent media and political candidates, election integritycampaign finance reform, the Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments to the US Constitution that the Constitution peremptorily requires Congress to call, monetary reformcredit unionsalternative energyresource conservationlocal exchange trading systemslocal currenciespermatopia, and the abolition of war and corporate rule – “for ourselves and our posterity.”

on Griffin's citation of John Hotard

It's a long essay, so I would like to call people's attention to the following two paragraphs, in particular, from Section 3C; read the rest of the section and essay for more context:

In Griffin’s Response to Questions essay, he quotes from and comments on Hotard’s 6/29/07 reply:

“An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time [9/11/2001].” Following this statement, Hotard emphasized that photographs showing seatback phones in American 757s after 9/11 would not prove anything, for this reason: “We did two things: issued the engineering change orders to disconnect/disable the phones, but then did not physically remove the phones until the aircraft went ... in for a complete overhaul.”

Griffin represents Hotard’s account as confirming the idea that the seatback phones weren’t working on AAL 77. However, he neglected to quote the sentence that immediately preceded the first one he quoted, where Hotard says, “Ron, engineers at our primary Maintenance & Engineering base in Tulsa tell me that they cannot find any record that the 757 aircraft flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 had had its seatback phones deactivated by that date.” Griffin also omits mention, even though it was in the same post that he cites, of Hotard’s statement of what was apparently a consensus conclusion at AAL: "It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected." Contrary to the way Griffin represented it, Hotard’s account is evidence the air phones on AAL 77 were working.

Deliberately Deceptive ??

It's disgustingly unfortunate, to see this type of cherry picked quote. It perfectly represents why people here are now more skeptical of DRG's intentions more than ever. The alleged king of spotting omissions and distortions, now omits a paragraph DIRECTLY PROCEEDING one which, when taken out of context, works more in favor of the 'faker' theory. Sketchy, plain and simple. DRG has some explaining to do. Lack of clarification on points like these will result in a questioning of this gentlemen's character and intentions. This is the logical thing to do when we spot 'omissions and distortions' of this nature, as DRG would have us do.

Show "Dr. Griffin is correct" by Chris Sarns

Engineering Orders...and completion of such?

An Engineering Order or an Engineering Instruction and when it's safety related an Enginering Directive is issued for a group of aircraft by the opperator of that group of aircraft and normally has a completion date specified. An Instruction/Order can be issued and it could be many years before a non-safety type change will be made, in fact when a fleet is involved it normally does take months if not years.

A deactivation of this phone system would from experience involve collaring circut breakers and labelling the system inoperative as an interim measure until the next heavy check of the aicraft or the next cabin reconfiguration or refubishment.

When a system is de-activated before removal it is normally notated in the technical log of the aircraft and a notice to crew is introduced into the log so that the crew are aware the system is inoperative.

Larson makes it clear that there was NO RECORD of this modification in the maintenace record.

Regards John - Licensed (Inspector) Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Avionics - Boeing 767/737 and 747 Series Aircraft

Show "Good point - however" by Chris Sarns

Wrong...sorry Chris.

If you don't label the phones INOP and de-power the system the passengers will try to use them, find they don't work and complain or worse vandalize/damage them. Unfortunately these damaged phones would need to be replaced regardless of whether they were being used or not.

Also if things are not labelled and de-activated they will still transmit through the SatCom System which would still be active, this no doubt would not be a preferred situation for anyone.

To know why the system was to be removed, would be helpful. I would take an educated guess though;

1. It was not profitable for the routes the planes were now flying due to the passenger use v's maintenance costs (time in the air/need to call) OR
2. The expensive satellite system was to be replaced by the pico cell (on-board) cell repeater?

The aircraft business is a a very strict one and you don't just stop using something without it's proper deactivation, everything has a proper process.

Regards John


Thx for the info, John; question

You say you speak "from experience", and your description of the process matches what AMTMAN and John Hotard said.

Re: Section 3B of my essay: What do you think of the docs AMTMAN and PFT provided; any signs these are fakes/tampered with? Do they look similar to maintenance records you've seen; is the format/info typical; like what might be expected for authorizing/tracking maintenance work?

What do you make of AMTMAN's statement that the doc PFT provided did not have the first critical sentence until April 07, and that the "TR" to the left of the first two lines signified "Temporary Revision"? AMTMAN posted a TR cover sheet labeled 23-19-000-0 as evidence of this, and later posted a doc that apparently showed the final revision, with a new date and the TR absent.

Is my analysis correct or off base anywhere in Section 3B? In particular, do you think the ECO FO871 doc supports the contention that N644AA would have been included in the fleet series listed on that record?

I'm interested in any additional insights you may have; great to have an expert opinion.

Also, your educated guess is correct (this article has been cited by others, but I didn't bother citing this article in my essay, as I felt Griffin was correct when he said it doesn't prove AA 757's still had working phones on 9/11):

Airline grounds in-flight phone service

American Airlines will discontinue its AT&T in-flight phone service by March 31, a spokesman for the airline said Wednesday.

"Almost since their installation in 1996, we've seen a dramatic decrease in the use of these phones," said American Airlines spokesman Todd Burke, who added that the service averages about three calls a day per aircraft.

The phone service on American costs $2.99 to connect a call to AT&T's land-based network and then charges $7.60 a minute, plus tax, substantially more than the cost of a cell phone call in an airport terminal.

Burke would not say when the decision was reached, only that AT&T and American jointly decided to halt the service recently.

American will stop the service by March 31 and then take steps to remove the phones from its airplanes.

The airline will keep other communication services working. Passengers on Boeing 777 and Boeing 767-300 aircraft, which mainly fly international routes, will continue to offer an in-flight phone service that connects to an orbiting satellite for a $5 connection fee and a rate of $10 a minute.

It would be good to talk in person...?

The document could be real.

It says that the system was deactivated in the past tense? Because the MM revision is in January 2001. The effectivity is "all" so that includes all the 757's in the AA fleet.

TR is tempory revision which just means it has not been brought into the text as a permanent entry just yet.

This appears to be evidence in support of they were is obviously possible that the ECO was not completed but then they would not say the system was deactivated?

MM are often in error so nothing is certain about this MM page without the copy of the status of the Engineering Order of the rego and date completed....?

Regards John


"The document could be real."

Which doc are you referring to; Section 3B links to the 23-19-000-0 pg posted by PFT dated 1/28/01, and the following docs posted by AMTMAN:

1) 23-19-000-0 TR cover sheet that lists the TR date as 4/19/07, and contains language referencing the phones having been deactivated/removal authorized (AMTMAN said it proves the PFT pg did not have the first sentence until April 2007; not 1/28/01, as was asserted by PFT/DRG)
2) 9/18/07 version of 23-19-000-0 which has all the same language, but no longer says "TR"
3) Two pgs from ECO FO871XX (purportedly showing when the work was actually done on a fleet series that, according to data from, would have included N644AA if it hadn't been destroyed).

In case anyone was wondering "MM" means "Maintenance Manual."

DRG Reinforces Fake Phone Call Claim for 10th Anniversary

Turning next to debates within the 9/11 Truth Movement, Griffin reinforces his claim that the reported phone calls from the airliners were faked

from the ad for the book

Excellent work, Erik

Amazingly thorough and a great read, as well.

Mirrored and front paged at 9/11 Truth News:

Seen this by Jeff?

Seems that the phone call morphing is very unlikely?

Basically impossible in real time...

Regards John


More great work by Jeff Hill.

Posted at 9/11 Truth News: Jesse Ventura’s Fake Phone Calls Claim Debunked


is the voice morphing experts opinion of the 9/11 theory on voice morphing


Whoa John I hadn't caught this yet. It provokes two questions the most (sick work Jeff btw):

1. Why did he LIE and I repeat LIE that he did not use ozone. This video clearly shows ozone over and over again. I use ozone all the time for compression and the graphic eq (which is the one in the vid). So WHY would this guy lie and say that even though he uses it alot, he didn't specifically for this vid.

2. Then when he starts to finally say that he thinks Jessie's theory is absurd, he still says towards the end that he kinda knew Jessie would use his research for something like this. Even still if that was just him suspecting of what Jessie might do, if this guy just somehow forgot he used ozone, one then suspects if Jessie Ventura deliberately deceived this guy in order to cherry pick his software images and production to support his phone fakery theory.

Either way there is some sketchiness happening here, intentional or not. Great work Jeff.

waiting for shure to comment

you techy guys know this subject better that me
rest assured there are people reading this who want to learn - thx guys for bringing your knowledge to the truth table !

Problems with this production

I see several serious problems already. One is the odd 'gaps' I hear in this recording by Jeff. It's pretty obvious that the REAL truth about 9/11 is hidden in these 'audio gaps', not unlike the Roosevelt Roberts tape for the Library Of Congress.

Secondly, it is very plausible, because I simply cannot accept the words of audio 'expert' Kent Gibson as credible (what are his REAL credentials?), that Jeff Hill, who is pretty proficient in audio editing himself, VOICE MORPHED this entire FAKE phone call in order to attack David Ray Griffin on orders of Cass Sunstein himself.

Until these problems are properly dealt with, I have no faith in 911blogger whatsoever, and simply MUST conclude, not on evidence, but based on my 'experience' as a 'disinfo expert' that the entire 911blogger team and the periphery are infiltrators, including myself.

I do not trust myself either. As a matter of fact, this whole comment could be another attempt by a HBGary and their huge army of sock puppets to confuse me as to my real identity and intentions.

Strange world, isn't it? See that little camera at the top of your laptop? That's me... We NWO infiltrators... we are watching you. Always. Be afraid. Be very afraid. And whatever you do, remember that if you don't believe something (Your expert disbelief is infallible), your favorite fantasy must be true instead. (You don't need evidence)


Important research Erik. A lot to learn from here and a tremendous amount of work -- thanks for examining this issue so closely and carefully.

Clearing the decks for the 10th anniversary?

Sometimes we need to get tough on our selves before we get slaughtered by our adversaries!

I truly think DRG will step up to the plate and officially withdraw his position that we have evidence that calls were faked on 9/11 after this cutting essay by Erik. It's better to come from the movement than from the debunkers, so thank you.

The question is how many more good people will now think that 911Blogger, 911Truthnews and Visibility911 are foe rather than friend because of their ego investment?

I know for one I have given up caring about such things, I don't care how small our group is as long as it represents us in a credible and truthful manner.

Kind regards John

thanks everyone for the positive feedback (so far!)

John B: "I know for one I have given up caring about such things, I don't care how small our group is as long as it represents us in a credible and truthful manner."

I also believe it's critical, if the truth movement is to have credibility and be effective, to document and drop misinformation and speculative claims.

As John also said, "Sometimes we need to get tough on our selves before we get slaughtered by our adversaries!" and as CD67 said, "it is important to look back and weed out the definitive from the speculative"

Absolutely; whenever 'debunkers' can use reason, facts and truth against the 9/11 truth and justice movement, they do; hence my citation of JREF and 9/11 Myths in this essay, cuz in this case they've done a legitimate job, and it serves as a powerful example. WE should be doing this, and BEFORE they get a chance to make the truth movement look like fools.

I am interested to see how DRG responds.

I am interested to see how DRG responds too

This is a wonderful piece of work work, loose nuke. Let us hope that its logic will help DRG to review his work, not only on the phones but also on whether CIT deserves any credit whatsoever.

David Ray Griffin...

Is one of the biggest proponents of the idea that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. That is very doubtful.

Show "Flight path of Flight 77 still rules out a Boeing 757" by Adam1


would be good

Show "Everybody has seen that pilots presenation over and over " by Adam1

I must say....

...the apparent quality and detail in this work is outstanding, but most importantly it's logic and reasoning are solid.

I predict DRG will have to accept your analysis, it's simply so well reasoned.

Regards John

Show "Be careful . . ." by Mekt_Ranzz

Huh? Nope

You are mistaken here. We don't need any theories to stand on. This is not the theory movement. Debunking theories from the 'inside' as you say is the most important thing we can do for the truth. It is the way we develop substantial arguments and points as a movement seeking the truth! To assert that somehow demolitions is the only 'striking' thing the truth about 9/11 has brought about is to dismiss much of the great work done by so many for the truth. So I say to you careful, if we don't 'debunk' a bunk idea from 'inside' our truth movement, these bunk theories will be debunked from the 'outside' and we will look like we are left with nothing.

Show "Oh, I'm sorry." by Mekt_Ranzz

Good input!

I hope DRG will reply promptly to this issue, one of the weakest points in all of his writing, in my opinion. And one that unfortunately opens the door just a little too widely for debunkers out there... It seems important that he sets the matter straight to avoid other very valid parts of his work getting thrown out with it (y'know, the baby with the water stuff).

At this point in time, it is important to look back and weed out the definitive from the speculative, and this essay does just that!

Well researched, loose nuke... Thanks for putting your time into it!

Excellent work...

Erik. I have never promoted the idea that the phone calls were fake, and one of the main reasons I didn't, was because I didn't want to offend a family member who thinks they got a call from their loved one that day. On top of the fact that it sounds "crazy" to a lot of people right off the bat. I do hope people take the time to read this.

phone call fakery up there with tv and video fakery and doesn't lend itself to progress, IMHO. I haven't mentioned it at all on my website (along with the 'dancing Israeli' issue).

Thank you Erik...

Thank you for compiling this important information!!!


I forgot to mention something relevant to this issue in my above comment.

A couple of months ago, I spoke with a flight attendant who works for American Airlines and Flew on AA77 quite frequently. The attendant told me there were air phones on AA77, but only 5 could operate at one time. She also said cell phones did work depending on the "provider" and Verizon happened to be a provider that had very good signal reception in the DC area.

I previously posted about my conversation with the flight attendant at the following link -

I used to respect DRG. I

I used to respect DRG. I bought his pearl harbor book and it helped me to understand the attacks better at the time. Now, however, I believe he has become unhelpful by pushing a theory that is contradicted by evidence. Rather than accept the implausibility of his claim he suggests "fakery" to explain the countervailing evidence. I'm sorry but whether this is intentional or not we have to recognize that DRG has been compromised. Unless and until he explains his break from focusing on the hard evidence and reverses course I think he needs to be flagged as a person doing spotty research. Loyalty means nothing, truth is the goal.

Show "I think you are over-reacting" by Adam1

911Blogger is an evidence based resource

Evidence please

Show "That pilots presentation from a couple years ago" by Adam1

Nice work

Thanks for putting in the time to be so thorough. You've done an excellent job laying bare very pertinent facts regarding one of DRG's more extreme positions, one that I've always had problems with, myself. However, you must admit there are definitely some discrepancies in what should be readily available info, that are contained in some of the official records. You've concluded accurately, however, that in light of zero actual proof, this "cellphone" issue contributes little to 911 truth or justice, and really should not be part of our discourse.

While there are a couple of points in your presentation about cellphones I might contest and side with DRG, one statement I'd like to take strong exception to is regarding his opinion about the veracity of our case against the official WTC account, and its premiere status in the movement. In your critique, you are correct when literally interpreting his statement, "If asked which part of the official story can be most definitively shown to be false, I would speak ... of the World Trade Center, the official account of which says that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down without the aid of pre-set explosives," is not accurate, and that there is a plethora of issues pointing to lies and a cover-up. But I interpret what DRG to be saying is that the WTC disaster is the only singular topic where we not only have evidence of lies and a cover-up, but we also have physical evidence, photographic and other forensic analysis, and eyewitness testimony pointing to the use of explosives. There is no other avenue that leads directly to "inside job," without passing go, than "explosives at the WTC." In my view (and I think DRG's), whether or not explosives were use is a black and white issue -- either they were or were not. If they were used, then 9/11 was one thing, if they were not used 9/11 is necessarily something else. When you rebutted DRG's WTC statement, you listed about twenty things. Pick the one you think is more encompassing and carries more evidence of any type. If I wanted to, I could argue that you needed to list twenty issues to match the veracity of the implications of 2.5 seconds of freefall at 5:20 pm on 9/11/01 and our evidence to explain it. But this is not a debate, and IMO your paper would be far better served if you simply left that last editorialized portion out. He was asked his opinion and he gave it.... and he is not alone in his opinion -- even here.

The most important thing you raised and where I am in complete solidarity is the need for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It's not a particularly popular approach in the movement, but IMHO it's the only historical model I've seen that stands a chance of getting the level of both truth and justice we need for a meaningful global change. I'm really glad you see its value.

Premiere status in the movement?

Not by any stretch of the imagination.


Which single event or component of that day has evolved into a more organic relationship between genuine scholars, researchers and street activists as the CD portion of the movement? The answer is....................?

I used the word "premiere" because I don't see any other singular issue regarding the official 9/11 narrative that is getting more play or is being researched as thoroughly by our professional organizations and propagated by the masses. Now, you may disagree that the CD perspective should have such a status, but it does. And that's a different argument altogether.

An error...

Does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. - Gandhi

Just because it has been shoved down our throats by a multitude of people consistently since Nov. 2005 when Steven Jones came out, over and over again, doesn't mean it is the premiere issue. I still get pushback from people with regards to it. Just the other day, I saw this article which denounces which two things? "Controlled Demolition", and a "missile hitting the Pentagon." Has it occurred to anyone by reading this article by Erik that one of the biggest proponents of the "Controlled Demolition Hypothesis" was DRG, and that maybe he was wrong to push that on everyone? He was wrong about this, so maybe he was wrong to try and make CD the "premiere issue."

The cover-up in its entirety, and the need for justice should be the focal point of this movement. Not "Controlled Demolition." It isn't our job to figure out what happened that day. It is our job to get a majority of people demanding to know what happened that day, and to hold those responsible, accountable.

I fully expect this comment to be voted down. Don't care.

Jon please go easy and back off the emotion...

I get your point and as usual see your side of this debate (you have just won another battle)....but CD is proven without a shadow of a doubt from an engineering point of view and in my opinion is central to this campaign now, not because of its affect on the masses but rather it's effect on the scientific and political community. Why? Because it shows clearly that a cabal of insiders conspired to kill their own, not merly allow something to happen or fail by incompetence. This provides the seeds of change, real change when such a dark world is understood! The cover up is obvious and easily proved, I agree but as we have seen before these ideas are not so powerful, and definitely not apparently powerful enough to cause any revolution...of the mind or of the people?

We should remember it was DRG that started the push for the WTC 7 campaign "Building What" which is universally viewed as a success. This is a positive for us as a movement and for DRG's perspective on such issues.

In my view DRG's first error was his support for Pilots for Truth as they outgunned him on the understanding of aircraft and technology in general and consequently convinced him that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Believing CIT was his second which in his mind confirmed that his strong position on this issue was right (against his scientific peers which he found a honey to sweet to leave alone) and that's why we see other non-engineering/science types jumping on board like Zwicker et al. Unfortunately they have let their gut rule their minds and have fallen for the trap set for them by their own egos...a very nicely laid trap indeed.

You say the CD arguments were "shoved down our throats", well maybe that's true but there were plenty of thick sculls that had to be penetrated.

This us and them mentality over "cover up" v's "controlled demolition" is a bridge too far for the relations in the movement. We are achieving change and a narrowing of our focus to the best evidence, PLEASE be grateful for that.

Your friend John

Jon, John

CD woke me up

there has to be a draw, a hook to wake people up and for me with my scientific education it was CD

in fact someone had told me there was CD on 9/11 and i wasn't even trying to prove him wrong in fact- i was so sure he was wrong that i was investigating what i thought was an irreverent (to the families) internet scam of some sort after he showed me LC2e

well, i found LC2e again and thought it was all rubbish......up to the point where they showed WTC 1 and 2 coming down against a stopwatch (i think)

then as i had been educated in maths including applied maths (forces, acceleration, etc) my eyes popped out of my head as i knew already that freefall speeds can only be achieved through air- ie somehow the structure was being removed to make the tower collapse in that way all the way vertically down through what should have been the path of most resistance

having said that i will not use CD to try and convince the average person- only scientifically minded people

i think it might be analogous to saying you like a product because you think the advert was good

once awake people need to move on to stuff like crossing the rubicon which has strong evidence inside which consists of 1000 items- sworn testimony, verifiable authentic documents

if this goes to court then remember there has to be verifiable chain of custody of dust samples etc

i hope CD will wake more people up but once in they need to read a book !

my opinion anyway !

perhaps the best is to dismantle the 9/11 conspiracy theory that has led to so much death overseas and to show what a sham the 9/11 commission was

as soon as one mentions 9/11 the sheeple have been pre programmed to say "conspiracy theory" and they smile, expecting to be entertained with some juicy far fetched but unbelievable conspiracy theory

i think we can say we are against conspiracy theory- that takes the wind out of their sails right there and tells them they are not about to be entertained

we can say the official story is a conspiracy theory which isnt supported by the evidence

we can say that with that conspiracy theory as a reason 100's of thousands of people have died in illegal invasions, occupations and subsequent civil strife, as well as loss of civil liberties at home

and if somewhere at the back of their minds they're thinking "oh well even if it is true that 9/11 was false flag then at least we're on the winning side and we got the oil"- WRONG- we can point to Unocal's pre 9/11 plans which involved piping Caspian product to India as the west's demand for resources isn't set to grow much but India's is

"....but CD is proven without

"....but CD is proven without a shadow of a doubt from an engineering point of view"

I see this comment as an example of the problem.

and i do not see that Jon was being overly emotional. he is just expressing an opinion that you do not like to hear.

Well said, Jon.

"The cover-up in its entirety, and the need for justice should be the focal point of this movement."

You contradict yourself

We can't talk about the plot or its cover-up in its entirety FIRST. Trying to talk about everything all at once, or randomly starting with whatever comes to your mind, is the opposite of having a FOCAL POINT.

A rational approach would be to study what the other side does and try to do it better, or find weaknesses in its strategy that can be exploited by a weaker adversary such as the 9/11 truth movement. But most people in the movement neither interested in nor qualified to do research or analysis in that area. Instead, they read whatever they are naturally attracted to, and talk to others about the same evidence that they themselves found convincing. They are up to their necks in confirmation bias, consistently failing to look for evidence AGAINST viewpoints that became an early favorite in their mind on any particular issue, as the scientific method requires. After sufficient evidence has come in to support a rational determination, the next common mistake is to act like we still don't have enough evidence, and never push for acknowledgment of what we HAVE discovered. There comes a time to stop gathering evidence and "vote," or take other action as appropriate. While the courts are deeply corrupted when it comes to elite interests, they are excellent for moving things forward to a conclusion, and when the adversaries are roughly evenly matched, the conclusion is usually right.

It's too bad we don't have any great leaders in the movement. We have a lot of scholars, but no one like MLK who could get hundreds of thousands of people to work in a disciplined manner and gather together.

How about warnings and foreknowledge, easy to understand facts?

The CD physics didn't even come into the truth movement until later. It personally took me a long time to confirm my views on the physics vs the basic facts which were easy for me to confirm. Frankly I see the physics as one of the points where we are most easily painted as crazy and easily discredited. It is not to say that there isn't overwhelming physical evidence implying issues with how the buildings came down. The point is, that physical building arguments are so easily written off as appealing to an unqualified authority. So easily dismissed that I even have people who sadly and falsely fall back on "people do win the lottery," when discussing potentials of explosives. The debunkers almost ALWAYS focus on the physics. Why? Because it is a complex area which qualified people are better at articulating and which the average person wanting the truth about 9/11 is NOT. There are lots of lying pseudo-authoritative bodies, like pop mechanics, which are quickly referenced by debunkers to quickly claim that 'those conspiracy theories have been looked into and debunked.' Easy to understand solid facts and evidence which the average person cannot write off as 'you aren't an explosives expert, yet you know a bunch of jargon words like squibs' are more effective at this point:
--Foreknowledge (stacks of ignored warnings like David Schippers)
--Dick Cheney's contradictions in what time he got to the pentagon
--Insider Trading
--Commission whitewash/cover-up
--Lack of air defense
--President staying in the room

Why are they more effective? Because they haven't been pseudo-confronted by debunkers nearly as often. These points can't just be explained away, or even framed to do so (which is the case in bringing up demolitions). These points also are less marred in 'I've already heard all the theories there are about that and they have been looked into and so I don't need to re-look at them.' Controlled demo's were brought up on South Park for cryin out loud! Did showing this to the enormous audience of South Park get people to start getting deeper into the truth? No! Partially because South Park framed it so 9/11 Truth looked crazy, BUT ALSO, because the physics issues had so many buzz phrases and jargon around them that they are easily painted as conspiracy theories. There are basic facts about 9/11 which are strong points and have had far less debunking attacks on them. I personally continue to find, especially with call in shows, that the goal of the host is always to push it to the physics argument and then site pop mechanics etc. We succeed when we get them off of it and get focused on more basic questions. This would be different if we are Jim Hoffman or Richard Gage, but most of us are not.
Think of it like this:
Most people in the US have heard the idea that there may have been controlled demolitions (ie South Park etc). Yet, we don't see a real general knowledge of the OCT lies. We don't see a public outcry. Most people don't even realize there wasn't going to be an investigation initially. Unfortunately in MANY CASES, this lack of development stems from the fact that we have been painted as a CD movement.

Sorry I know this is not related to the thread. So....Thank you Erik. This article is CRITICAL. It's been necessary for sometime now. DRG better step up or step out. Great comments on this thread to. Mr. Larson you have helped us in the best way.


you said: "Most people in the US have heard the idea that there may have been controlled demolitions (ie South Park etc)."

That's because it's the issue we push the most, making it our premiere issue (whether we like it or not, or until we replace it), and the ramifications are more easily understood, than say three different time lines for scramble orders. This is where I look at things like "South Park" as very revealing and differently than most. It's because CD can be so easily attacked that indicates its message is simple and potent and it touches on the nerves that need to be touched for people to be able to deal with the truth.

Then you say: "Yet, we don't see a real general knowledge of the OCT lies."

Well, my only answer that is it's pretty widely known that Bush and Co. lied about some pretty horrendous stuff, including torturing children. Actually, they admit to torturing and the public could care less because they feel powerless. That hurdle is far more daunting than trying to straighten people out over a South Park spoof.

My use of the word "premiere" was meant primarily as an empirical observation, and not necessarily an endorsement, though I have no issues with Gage, Jones, Ryan,, even if it leads to a spoof on South Park. I think we need to be a little more thick skinned about some of this.

thanks, and on the WTC CD issue

"When you rebutted DRG's WTC statement, you listed about twenty things. Pick the one you think is more encompassing and carries more evidence of any type."

To be sure, I acknowledged and provided links to sources documenting the flaws in the official WTC reports, as well as credible orgs investigating the evidence of CD. While I don't agree with those who think the CD evidence isn't strong/important, I do agree with the point that many have made (beginning with Mike Ruppert, and including many times by Jon Gold) that it's a tactical error to promote CD to the point where other stuff isn't being addressed, or even to put CD front and center. There are many areas of 9/11 that need to be investigated, and not all types of evidence are compelling to everyone. Granted, realizing WTC CD shatters the myth, but many can't make the leap. Plus, the question remains; who did it?

Polling has shown about 16% think the WTC was or probably was destroyed by explosives, but about 1/2 of Americans support a new investigation. Even more believe the whole truth hasn't been told, and that certain things were lied about, like what was known prior to 9/11 about impending attacks. This means far more people will be receptive to the wealth of evidence pointing to cover up, which, by itself, is criminal and treasonous.

Evidence that the official 9/11 investigations were whitewash/cover up is compelling to Americans of conscience, who are also frustrated by the lack of accountability for the Iraq War lies and the subversion of the Constitution/civil liberties/human rights. Granted, the question remains; what's being covered up - incompetence, negligence, complicity? Not knowing means we need an investigation, and urgently, given the way 9/11 has been exploited, and the historical record of false/manufactured pretexts for war/subversion of the Constitution. And, as I linked, there's a wealth of evidence that is most readily/only explained by complicity on levels beyond 'Al Qaeda,' evidence which in some cases points to specific people.

So, I do not agree with you that anyone should "pick one."

9/11 polls


"I do not agree with you that anyone should 'pick one.'"

So why quote or give value to DRG's answer to a rhetorical question you consider moot? To "pick one" was DRG's qualifier to his comment, which even he would admit is merely a rhetorical construct used to emphasize his strong belief in the importance of the WTC evidence.

I'm also not completely sure whether your critique is about the "cellphone calls," or DRG, himself. For the most part, you were very careful to keep the bulk of your paper about the calls. But, I'm really not sure what DRG's opinion about the importance of exposing the WTC fraud has to do with the use of cellphones, air phones, neither, or both? It's not germane to your stated topic. And while I admire, respect, and even agree with most of the content of you conclusion, IMO your conclusion is an editorial about something other than cellphone calls, tagged to the end of an otherwise meticulous analysis of an extraordinary claim. My suggestion is rewrite the end, footnote it, and submit it to the Journal of 9/11 Studies. I can tell you put in a lot of work, and it shows.

picking nits and nuts

in my essay i veered off on tangents at several points as it seemed like a good opportunity to make points on other things related, directly and indirectly.

In the case of my commenting on DRG's WTC comment, it was in his essay, so I commented on it, and made the points I thought were important. I think it's important for truth activists to consider what is and isn't good evidence/strategy.

Someone commented once in the forum at, fake calls theory would be nowhere w/o DRG; he's done the most work to develop it, and give it a veneer of respectability. His Jan 2010 essay is his most comprehensive and detailed treatment of the fake calls theory, that I'm aware of.

So, while my essay is criticism of the fake calls theory in general, and also criticism of DRG's choices in his history of developing the fake calls theory, it's focused on the Jan 2010 essay in particular, and I've criticized DRG's choice of subject (choosing to develop the fake calls theory, something i think is lacking evidence/bogus), and also his methodology, interpretation, evidence, sources, etc.

Glad you think it's good work, but i don't think it's a fit for JO911S as it's a critical review, not a scientific study. Footnotes are impressive, and I have to do it for college papers, but, imho, links are enough for a blog post; w/ a mouse over one knows the source, and if someone really wants to know author/date, etc., and read the source, it just takes a click.

I've commented before that i'm not a fan of DRG's work, though I learned a lot from New Pearl Harbor and Omissions and Distortions. I've noticed that in most/all of his books, DRG gives credence to ideas for which there isn't good evidence, and which have been used to discredit the 9/11 truth movement, such as fake calls/voice morphing, no 757 crash at the Pentagon, N path/flyover, alive hijackers. That he cites sources that are dubious/disreputable/discredited, for instance, Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, Chris Bollyn, Greg Syzmanski, Dave McGowan, Tom Flocco, Rowland Morgan, etc. That he endorses and/or associates with people/orgs whose claims and behavior have disrupted and/or discredited the 9/11 truth movement, such as CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Fetzer, Kevin Barrett, etc.

I'm glad

that you understand the constructive nature and intent of my comments. You have the quality of being self aware, which is at the foundation of good research and good writing. I still think "veering off into tangents" about DRG's methodology and sources detracts from your analysis, rather than helps it. You have attempted to analyze this "cell phone" issue by presenting an exhaustive array of facts. This is the model we all should adopt. By veering away from that, you are doing precisely what you and others say we shouldn't. As Jon Gold has said, "Let the facts speak for themselves." You have done a huge service by collecting and organizing the facts on the cellphone issue. You could have simply concluded that there is simply no evidence of faked phone calls and it would not have detracted from your work one bit, and actually would have made it a stronger essay, leaving it devoid of speculation about your motives.

And this is not your run-of-the-mill blog entry. It's a well-researched, documented essay from which you can draw a solid conclusion. It's very close to being of academic standards. Don't sell yourself short on that.

I see your point....but...

....not enough people understand that when an "expert" speaks it is not gospel, until we understand the reasoning, status and the character of that expert.

When retired Captains of commercial aircraft state their opinion on things they have neither experience of or qualifications to understand, as facts we should be immediately concerned. But many will simply believe them because of their now not used (retired) qualifications and once held status.

Do you think the pilots at P4T while employed in the industry would say a possible speed of a Boeing was this or that or that the modification status was this or that if they did not have clearance or the documents to say so? Absolutely not or they would soon not be employed.

Groups like P4T have relied primarily on there qualifications to drive aircraft as proof that their opinion's are right, and unfortunately the common truther buys that. The truth is that a a pilot is licensed to operate a plane and to drive and navigate it from here to there. They are not scientists or engineers or scholars of any kind. Their opinion on anything other than operating that plane they are licensed on within it's normal operating limits is only as good as any well researched laymans.

More importantly we see these pilot experts backing unsupported theories (many now proved false) and esoteric figures around the truth movement. This context is what Erik's essay is about, is one great example of a faulty theory with the context to make it clear why these things happen to good meaning and apparently intelligent types like Griffin.

Kind regards John

PS - I have 4 books by Griffin :-)

tangents, conclusions, motives

by tangents i meant addressing things like the reports of guns on all four flights and PFT's history, but as I was quoting AT&T operators Lorenzo and Gonzalez and Griffin had cited a PFT member as a credible source, it seemed appropriate to briefly address these things. Also, at the end my essay take a turn in an entirely new direction; presenting what i think are examples of real issues that urgently need to be addressed regarding 9/11, things i think truth activists and the general public should be aware of.

Critiquing DRG's methodology, sources, etc. is entirely within the main scope of what i wanted to do, for the reasons I outlined in my essay's intro and conclusion, and in the previous and other comments here. In short, there is not a credible case for claiming the calls were faked, but an uncritical reading of Griffin's essay might leave someone with the impression that there was, though it seems few here at 911blogger think there is good evidence for it, and promotion of this theory as if it were credible discredits the 9/11 truth movement, imho.

"leaving it devoid of speculation about your motives."

It seems you're saying that by documenting flaws in Griffin's methodology and sources, I've invited speculation about my motives? I don't understand why that would be the case, please elaborate. Also, what do you think are the possibilities for my motives?

FTR, my motives are truth and justice - but I don't ask anyone to believe or trust me; I'm inviting people to examine the arguments and evidence I've presented, and if my behavior is uncivil, it is also open to criticism.


I think it's important to remember that there are many different types of people in the movement and that some are drawn to physical evidence, some are drawn to the much other evidence that Erik has noted.

While it is key that differently oriented people work together, it's also key that our evidence be solid, regardless of the type of evidence.

Aside from these two points, getting into the age-old discussion of "you must promote this and not this", typically does not really lead us anywhere beneficial. There is no "pick one", in general. There are different people with their own strengths and unique gifts to investigate the many different types of evidence in their own ways. Like the genome, the best way to survive is to cover all options, not just one.

If someone says "I say this to people, but not this," that is not a determination of what everyone else should say, merely is what one person does. What people choose to promote to the public on their own, or in events they host, is their own opinion.

In this thread, turning away from the TONS of information Erik has provided -- at a great deal of effort on his part -- to a discussion of strategy, is not necessarily helpful to understanding the body of evidence at hand.

I second that

I'm just a ordinary guy, no police squad, no prosecutor, no laywer, no judge, no full subpeona powered real investigating commission. I can be in error, the official account can't. And it is. With myriads of points. At least a cover-up, foreknowledge, intimidation and NIST flawed science IS proveable!

No one has done more

for 9-11 Truth than David Ray Griffin. And I do not believe he is "in error" in stating that the collapse of the buildings is the most readily PROVABLE falsehood in the OCT and indeed collapses the entire edifice of lies. That said, I agree that the fake phone call theory should be canned and am appreciative of this well-argued critique.

"error" is my opinion

"And I do not believe he is "in error" in stating that the collapse of the buildings is the most readily PROVABLE falsehood in the OCT and indeed collapses the entire edifice of lies."

Error is my opinion, and Griffin's statement is also an opinion, which he implicitly acknowledged in the way he framed his statement about this. Measuring which one is the best proof would be difficult, if not impossible, as these things are subjective.

My point is that the OCT is "definitively shown to be false" by any number of things, an incomplete list of which I cited in my conclusion. And I also think it's a tactical error to focus on any one particular area.

I'm glad we agree "the fake phone call theory should be canned," and glad you found my essay helpful.


Have to take that back about "well-argued" critique. You found one possible mistake and embelished that into an entire essay. Also, criticising Griffin for using "speculation" and "qualifiers" is misleading. He is attempting to carefully distinguish proof and speculation. My view is that the calls are still a mystery.
I hope all here will take the time to read griffin´s piece, linked above by Larson before making a judgment about Griffin´s methodology.

Show "Some facts:" by tit2

Everything about and coming from 93...

smells of fiction.

The entire story was designed to demonstrate a HEROIC response from brave Americans.
9/11 was a well designed PSY-OP through and through just as it continues today. Nothing was left to chance. The perps used everything at their disposal to manipulate a malleable populace.

I mostly agree

EDIT: I don't know that everything about it smells like fiction; it smells that it was possible to hijack this plane - any plane - after a summer of threat that involved warnings of preparations for hijackings by Al Qaeda and attacks on US cities w/ planes. And certainly the story has been exploited to sell the public on going to war.

"Nothing was left to chance." Certainly, the perps did everything possible to minimize the risk of exposure and to ensure that everything happened according to plan, the full details of which we don't yet know.

However, UA 93's takeoff was delayed for about 40 minutes; those behind 9/11 did not have perfect control over everything.

But, yes, the 9/11 story is a psyop, and myths have been made from it.

What's the explanation for the anomalies documented in the HC entry and Shoestring blog tit2 quoted above? I don't know; i'd like to know. It's strange, and a full investigation or truth and reconciliation commission is the best chance to find out.

However, I don't see this is evidence calls were faked, by itself or in conjunction with other documented anomalies. If people want to research and investigate, fine. But I hope they'll present the evidence, civilly discuss the range of possibilities, including the value of the evidence, and not go leaping to conclusions that can be used against the 9/11 truth movement, as so much misinformation and speculation already has been.

Pot - Kettle?


You admonish Dr. Griffin for speculating while speculating.
"I have engaged in speculation; my purpose in doing so is to show that there are other possible - and more probable - explanations for some of the seemingly problematic elements in records related to the 9/11 calls."
You admit that there are seemingly (?) "problematic elements in records related to the 9/11 calls" that require you to speculate.

And how can you disregard this anomaly?
According to the summary of passenger phone calls presented at the Moussaoui trial, Beamer's call lasted "3,925 seconds." [19] This would mean it did not end until 10:49 a.m., about three-quarters of an hour after Flight 93 supposedly crashed. And, secondly, how could there have been silence when the crash occurred?

I agree that Dr. Griffin has not "made the case" but neither have you. The phone calls are questionable, perhaps by design. Is this more psy-ops like the conflicting disinformation about what happened at the Pentagon? It appears to be another trap to get us arguing endlessly and divide us into "camps".

Most troubling is that the article shifts to the unrelated topic of:
"Griffin is in error when he says the destructions of WTC 1, 2 and 7 are the “part of the official story [which] can be most definitively shown to be false.” "

"it's a tactical error to promote CD to the point where other stuff isn't being addressed, or even to put CD front and center."

I agree that other evidence should be addressed but I also agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Griffin, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Neils Harrit, Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, Jon Cole, Tony Szamboti, Ron Brookman Bob McIlvaine, Manny Badillo and many others that the "Building What?" campaign should be front and center because it is the most compelling for most people.

The first round of adds got the TM it's first positive coverage on MSM and the efforts to shift the focus away from the "Building What?" campaign are counterproductive IMO.

I again encourage everyone to donate, and ask your friends to donate, to the Building What?" campaign.


"You admonish Dr. Griffin for speculating while speculating."

Chris, as I said in my essay, speculation can be useful - I used it to show "there are other possible - and more probable - explanations for some of the seemingly problematic elements in records related to the 9/11 calls." Griffin "used logical fallacies to set up a speculative premise – and one unsupported by evidence, as I’ve shown in this essay – on which the rest of his argument is based."

Do you dispute that I documented this?

Re the call that didn't end until 10:49 am. I wasn't aware of that until tit2 posted that comment; there are other anomalies, as I noted in my essay. So, do you think this is evidence of a faked call? The voice-morphing perps cracked a bottle of champagne and forgot to turn off the voice-morph machine, or what?

I didn't claim I proved the calls were real; i pointed out there's evidence they happened, and no credible evidence they didn't. I also pointed out how claiming they were faked is counterproductive and discrediting.

Raising questions about the anomalies won't compel Americans to demand a new investigation. Showing them video of WTC 7 might. So might pointing out that Colin Powell and JCS Chairman Hugh Shelton were sent out of the country on 9/11, while the Secret Service left Bush in his publicized location at an elementary school for a half hour after they admitted knowing the nation was under attack, while Rumsfeld couldn't be found to give the authorization to use lethal force and Cheney refused to lift the orders, while acting JCS Chairman Richard Myers went into a meeting to talk to Cleland about why he should be the next chair even though he'd just found out a plane had hit WTC 1, and when he should've been aware of the 'summer of threat' warnings that there might be attacks on US cities w/ hijacked planes, while fighter jets were being sent out over the Atlantic and then after a phantom AA 11, instead of covering DC, etc., etc., etc.

PS how can you say my shift at the end is unrelated when I quoted DRG from his essay? He made the point about CD, so I made the point that the OCT is definitively proved false by myriad facts that are not in dispute, just ignored. By design or not, the faked calls claims are a divisive, discrediting distraction. If people weren't making these and other bogus claims, they wouldn't need to be addressed. I am encouraged that so many commenters here do not give the fake calls claims credence.

Griffin used logical fallacies

"Griffin "used logical fallacies to set up a speculative premise – and one unsupported by evidence, as I’ve shown in this essay – on which the rest of his argument is based."
Do you dispute that I documented this?"

I agree that his analysis has flaws but I don't see any ill intent. I had trouble following your points and as far as I can see it's largely a matter of interpretation. You definitely shot down some of his arguments and established that the "Fake phone calls" is very speculative but the Beamer call is evidence [not proof] of fraud IMO.

I also agree that the "Fake phone calls" theory is counterproductive and should be relegated to a back burner - but not dismissed altogether.

There are many other issues like PNAC saying they needed a new Pearl Harbor and then getting one, the 9/11 Commission report was a whitewash, the failure of NORAD to follow established intercept procedures, etc. and Jon's point that not everyone is into that "science stuff" is valid. I wholeheartedly support his efforts to champion these other issues and I wish he would support the Building What campaign in return.

We can't win if we pull in different directions. There is no reason why we can't work together on both approaches.

Another phone call since the

Another phone call since the flight 93, supposedly performed by Jeremy Glick, would not have been interrupted by the crash of the aircraft. Phone call started at 9:37:41. line left open (7,565 seconds). So end of the phone call at 11:43:46.

The phone call of Jeremy Glick is also suspect for another reason that I mentioned in my previous message.

Other suspicious items. "Shockingly Calm": The Phone Calls From the Planes on 9/11

Quote: «Reportedly, when Ong's family heard the recording of her call, they "couldn't believe the calm in Betty's voice.»

"As the plane approached the World Trade Center, according to Vanessa Minter, another of the employees receiving Ong's call: "You didn't hear hysteria in the background. You didn't hear people screaming".

Mark Bingham's Phone Call from Flight 93.

A son can call his mother by giving her name and first name or is it an error in the execution of a fake phone call? Like a phone call that continues after the plane crash from which it was performed?

Unlike Flight 77, the FBI does not mention the existence of unknown caller for flight 93. The FBI report indicates three phone calls of Thomas Burnett. The website "Tom Burnett Family Foundation" reported four telephone calls. Each of these four calls includes a conversation between Tom and his wife Deena. And for each of the four phone calls it is stated that Thomas Burnett used his cell phone.

In addition to telephone calls, the official story of Flight 93 has other contradictions. For example the Flight Data Recorder, NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] analysis of the aircraft, indicates that the crash of Flight 93 occurred at 10:03:11. However, a seismic study authorized by the US Army and drafted by scientists Won-Young Kim and Gerald Baum to determine when the plane crashed will conclude that the crash happened at 10:06:05 a.m.

Tit2 France

very interesting

tit2, would you say these calls that didn't end when the plane crashed are proof the calls were faked, or something that may have some technical explanation, or some explanation other than the call fakers forgetting to hang up the phone? Do you think this is something that should be investigated thoroughly, or is the 9/11 truth movement justified in proclaiming '9/11 was an inside job cuz the calls were faked'?

Calm; people don't always act the way we expect them to. The plane was approaching the WTC; this means they couldn't see it coming.

Bingham; looks like you didn't read my essay, because I noted and provided a link where you can verify that Bingham's mom, Alice Hoglan, said that on occasion he would use his last name when he called her.

Seismic study; has what to do with the OP? There are lots of anomalies that need to be accounted for. Not all of them are useful in getting the attention and support of the public, media and loyal public officials for a full investigation. The crash time should be nailed down, and this may be part of the cover up.

I read your review but not

I read your review but not very well. I'm French. Remember that I do not understand English very well! OK my comments about Mark Bingham and the time of the crash of Flight 93 (non-connected with the topic) were not appropriate.

But my other questions remain. In particular the fact that two phone calls from Flight 93 were continued for a long time since the plane crashed in the shanksville crater or its debris scattered everywhere.

Especially after reading this  : « The first thing that was odd about this call is the simple fact that Beamer was able to talk to Jefferson continuously for 13 minutes. In her 2002 book, his wife Lisa Beamer revealed that Jefferson had informed her "it was a miracle that Todd's call hadn't been disconnected." The reason: "Because of the enormous number of calls that day, the GTE systems overloaded and lines were being disconnected all around her as she sat at the operator's station outside of Chicago »


Could you at least improve your proficiency in English then? This "I'm French, I'm French" excuse isn't going to fly for much longer. I'm Dutch. That's no excuse either.

I admit that the statements

I admit that the statements of the mother of Mark Bingham is a good support for the official version of the phone calls. It is necessary to be objective when facts are analysed:


Loose Nuke:
"would you say these calls that didn't end when the plane crashed are proof the calls were faked?"

I have stated:
"Fake phone calls" is very speculative but the Beamer call is evidence [not proof] of fraud IMO.

According to the summary of passenger phone calls presented at the Moussaoui trial, Beamer's call lasted "3,925 seconds." [19] This would mean it did not end until 10:49 a.m., about three-quarters of an hour after Flight 93 supposedly crashed. And, secondly, how could there have been silence when the crash occurred?

The phone call by Jeremy Glick would not have been interrupted by the crash of the aircraft. Phone call started at 9:37:41. line left open (7,565 seconds). So the call ends at 11:43:46. This conflicts with the official crash time of 10:03 AM

There is no technical explanation that I know of and unless you can come up with one you should accept that these calls were not made from the plane. At very least this is evidence that the calls were not made from the plane.

Show "I also note some facts about" by tit2


Peter Hanson is reporting that people are puking. I guess he should have said:

"Hmmm, ever since 8:58, the plane appears to be descending at a rate of approximately 10,000 feet a minute. Me and the other passengers are deeply worried by this fact"

... to prove himself?

Show "Peter Hanson does not" by tit2

You will be assimilated

"To explain all these facts, there is only one plausible explanation."

LOL! Thanks. I realize now, I have no choice. Your explanation is the only plausible explanation.... I'm sorry, how on earth could I have overlooked that. Who could argue with that?

Consider me assimilated.

Peter Hanson describes people puking, tit2, why do you think that is? Because they don't like the view? Or could it be that they're subjected to a rollercoaster ride they didn't ask for?

Pure genius huh? "Only plausible explanation" .... It seems you are trying to set up a case for "Northwoods"?

At the WTC:

"One worker who had tunneled into the debris said he had found the remains of people strapped into what seemed to be airplane seats. Another, in one of the most searing discoveries among the ruins, found the body of a flight attendant, her hands bound."

At the Pentagon:

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."

"Pentagon searchers encounter grisly scenes"

"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats." (no alternative)


“Peter Hanson describes

“Peter Hanson describes people puking”, but not Brian Sweeney, who calls at the same time and from the same plane. But you can choose to ignore this fact, as you have the choice to ignore the series of unlikely elements of the so-called telephone call from Todd Beamer and other facts :


Are you saying that after all these millions invested in voice morphing technology, they have one fake passenger describing passengers throwing up, entirely consistent with a 'power dive', but then they have another passenger omit that, just so they could make you suspicious?

My conclusion (the only plausible explanation ;-) would be that your interpretation is rushed, your expectations unrealistic and your conclusions flawed.

Here's how you prove 'voice morphing', tit2: audio forensics.

Let me know when you have any. You are saying Brian Sweeney's call is fake because Peter Hanson's call is too real.

Show "FBI Report" by tit2


because Sweeney flew F14's for the navy... he wasn't fazed by g-forces. Maybe he didn't want to scare the bejeezus out of his mother. Maybe his mother doesn't want to share all the details. Do you have a recording of what Sweeney said? No you don't.

But, what does it matter, I don't expect you to do any audio forensics [Lyles, Ong]. You are deeply immersed in falsification-speculation. Are you familiar with the term?

Show "Telephone communications" by tit2

UAL 175 g-force evidence?

tit2, you've posted zero evidence specifying what the g-forces were on the passengers when UAL 175 was in descent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless the plane was continuously accelerating on the way down, much faster than a commercial airliner accelerates on take-off/ascent, the g-force would not be significant. Certainly not to the point of causing blackout.

Again, you've posted ZERO evidence as to what the g-forces actually were on UAL 175's descent. Does Bottiglia say something about this? You didn't quote anything.

You've been all over this thread suggesting that anomalies in the phone records and conversations are proof the calls were faked, but have yet to provide any actual evidence for faked calls.

If the calls were faked, why'd they show up on call records? If the call records were faked, why do they show calls apparently continuing after the crash?

You assume that if two passengers choose to report different details, that means they must both be voice-morphed. Again, this isn't evidence 9/11 was an inside job - it's baseless speculation, and it's worse than useless; it's offensive, and makes 9/11 inquiry look nutty.

The assertion of Dave

The assertion of Dave Bottiglia was: “It is unbelievable for the passengers in the back to withstand that type of force as they’re descending”.

But I accept your demonstration that the "g-forces" had nothing unbearable for the passengers during the descent of the aircraft. However if the phone calls of the passengers are not faked, this means that the assertions of Peter Hanson that "Passengers are throwing up and getting sick" and "The plane is making jerky movements» are true, even if it is surprising that Brian Sweeney does not mention them. Therefore what is the cause of the facts signalled by Peter Hanson, if it is not the "g-forces"?

Building what is a good hook

i donated a lot to nyc can
CD is a good awaker
though once awake people need not to be CD huggers to the exclusion of all else
also youtube huggers need to read a book
CD woke me up but its the hook - the rest is much easier criminally provable in a court of law via documented evidence and sworn testimony eg Crossing the Rubicon

93 (speculation!)

departed quite late that morning so perhaps that caused an alteration to original plans- perhaps WTC7 in 93's crosshairs ?
perhaps the whole 93 story was a cover for a slip up

I view this as the definitive

I view this as the definitive last word on DRG's cellphone fakery fakery.

Extremely good work!

Taken in conjunction with many of the 'facts' DRG presents in his last book 'Cognitive Infiltration' - like 'the hijackers are still alive' and 'no plane at the Pentagon' we are forced to wonder about the intentionality behind these glaringly careless assertions - from someone who is almost painfully verbose and detailed in his work.

it just doesn't compute for me - and leads me in the direction of intentionality.

I am embarrassed by your comment.

David Ray Griffin is one of the scholars who's presentations lead me to the truth. He may not have everything exactly right, but his intentions are clear. To imply otherwise is absolutely ludicrous.

The venom presented in the various comments about this article, and the familiar names who are spewing said venom, gives me a DejaVu. It smells a lot like the CIT venom.

You have failed to acknowledge DRG's numerous valuable contributions.

I want to expose the truth, but I am sick of the negativity.


I see no need for people to be embarrassed by any of the comments, nor do I see (or smell?) venom or a pervasive "negativity".

People are working through a difficult situation here.

Most all of us laud David Griffin for his excellent presentations of the work and his willingness to speak out and organize and represent the movement. He has done a LOT, indeed, and I don't think any of the comments here are about the many positive contributions he has made, but nor do I think that they need to be. Erik has mentioned that also.

The comments here are about a topic that has frustrated many people for years. They are not spitting venom, they are speaking out. And blogger is generally very careful to keep limits on anyone who over steps the boundaries. The purpose of this essay is about correcting the body of evidence that the 9/11 movement puts out to the public. It's critique, mainly.

We are all human. But we are also in a movement of people saying that insiders working within the system were able to murder Americans -- that's why we've been targeted for infiltration and disruption, and we've had our share of it. So when people start wondering aloud if someone might be disingenuous, it's not that surprising.

And David himself made many assumptions, as well, that witnesses could have been lying or covering up for the official story since they worked for USA Today, or the Pentagon or whatever.

We are all human and sorting things out. Just hang in there.

Where's the venom?

And who are the familiar names "spewing" it?

This isn't the first logic-free, reactionary comment I've seen from you in response to well-argued criticism of a "leader".

Smearing people as "venom spewers" isn't going to cut it, Rob.

It's also kind of negative...

Show "It doesn't matter what I say here." by ROBinDALLAS

It actually does matter what you say

It's part of the dialogue.

And I suspect that if you could back up what you're saying you would do so, instead of bailing.

The elephant in the room

Thx for the vote of confidence, John; apparently you missed the part where i said i think the real reason Griffin's fake calls theory is BS is cuz he's implicitly accepting that real planes were involved ; ).

To those who are voting John down for suggesting Griffin has intentionally presented a bogus theory as if it can be relied on as good evidence, I invite you to ponder the two paragraphs in the very first comment, which i quoted from my article, and check the source:

Griffin selectively quoted from John Hotard's statement; he took a couple sentences out of context and used them to make it seem Hotard's statement supports a conclusion opposite to what Hotard had explicitly stated in the email that Griffin quoted; "It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected."

It is a fact that Griffin did this.

WHY he did this, and why he did and didn't do other things I documented, I don't know, and I also don't see how it could be said that it wasn't intentional, or that it's not discrediting. Griffin, being a Professor Emeritus, must know this.

As I said, I'm interested in seeing if/how Griffin responds to my essay.

Do you actually believe David Ray Griffin is....

Do you actually believe that David Ray Griffin is intentionally trying to hurt the cause of 911 Truth? Yes or No.

Did I say that?

Do you dispute that Griffin selectively quoted from John Hotard's statement, in a way that made it appear Hotard's statement supported the idea that AAL 77's air phones weren't working, when in fact Hotard's statement supports the contention that they were working?

I already said I don't know WHY Griffin did this.

But it's clear that he did, and, imho, it's clear that it's discrediting, and it's also clear a Professor Emeritus should know better.

Perhaps you could email Prof. Griffin for comment; I just emailed him the link and let him know if he wishes to respond, it will be published as well.

let's be careful here

I agree with Robin that this is going too far. There are several places in this thread where people imply bad faith on DRG's part. I'm embarrassed to read this on this site.

I also want to raise an issue that has come up both in the article itself and in these comments, and this is the business about giving offence to the victims' families. I, and many of you here, have probably often been accused of giving offence to the victims' families by our position that their loved ones were not the victims of Islamic extremists. I counter the argument by saying the best way to respect the vicitms' families in the long run is to try to find out the truth about what happened. That is what DRG is trying to do. I assume it's what we're all trying to do--otherwise, our 9/11 "truth" movement had better pack it in. If the "fake phone call" theory is wrong (still in dispute, in my view), then we say so. But we don't accuse a colleague who has demonstrated his good faith many times, and has put his reputation on the line for the truth, of unnecessarily causing pain to the victims' families.

Would you care to comment on the content

of this post? No one has yet, and I'm really interested to see what people think, especially those who seem to indicate that DRG's integrity cannot be impugned.

I agree with ROBinDALLAS

This is also a bridge too far:
"we are forced to wonder about the intentionality behind these glaringly careless assertions"

Questioning DRG's intentions and therefore his integrity because of his views on the phone calls and other issues is inappropriate and counterproductive IMO.
Do you like to have your integrity questioned? Shall we do unto others . . . .

I am much more concerned about his endorsement of CIT an I hope he will reconsider his position.

This thread is counterproductive in that regard as it puts him on the defensive on another front.

I have worked closely with Dr. Griffin and we have disagreed on several issues. He can be accommodating if you present your case intelligently and tactfully. It is not a good idea at this time to complicate the issue of getting him to rescind his endorsement of CIT by confronting him on the issue of the phone calls.

"Do you like to have your integrity questioned?"

I'm sure no one does, but if someone's spreading bad information then it's understandable.

If someone doesn't trust David Ray Griffin, should they lie about it?

What do you make of the information contained in Section 3C?

Show "Are you a human being?" by Adam1

Tell me

Whats unreasonable about asking someone to correct their obvious mistakes?

Are you here to defend the truth or a man?

Show "If he knew he made one, yeah... eventually" by Adam1

Dont put words in my mouth

This isn't the first time that people have been more than frustrated with his stubborn adherence to absurd theories. Of course I hope he makes a full recovery from his health problems, and I dont expect an immediate response to this essay. I never said that I did.

My problems with DRG's research and published work go back a long time. Since he is viewed as the premier 9/11 truther by not only the media, but by a considerable portion of the movement itself, it has always been my hope that he would promote and publish the most credible of information. That has not always been the case. Professor Griffin was one of the first scholars to alert me to many of the myriad problems in the official story, and I commend him for that. He's obviously done some excellent work, but as I said below, this does not absolve him from solid criticism.

I would hope that anyone in a movement dedicated to truth would be in agreement with me here. For the record, I do not honestly believe that he has purposefully published crap theories to discredit the movement. Unfortunately, I do believe that ego tends to get in the way of solid fact reporting.

An Embarrassment

"One of the film's most valuable parts is a scene in which cab driver Lloyde England, who otherwise gamely tried to maintain the truth of his testimony supporting the official story, admitted that the Pentagon operation had been planned by powerful people with lots of money. I am pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm."
Dr. David Ray Griffin
Author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé

That's all I need to come to the conclusion this "scholar" isn't much of a scholar after all. Implying that Lloyd made a "virtual confession" is way beyond embarrassing.

and that''s the truth

and that''s the truth

DRG's use of the Hotard

statement is of interest to me and i would like to see a response from DRG

following the truth wherever it leads

"the best way to respect the vicitms' families in the long run is to try to find out the truth about what happened."

Absolutely. And, if the calls were faked, this must be acknowledged. However, I don't see that anyone, including Griffin, who has made the most persuasive case for faked calls, has presented credible evidence the calls were faked, though there are some strange anomalies. 911SATYA, what leads you to conclude the faked calls theory may be right?

There is evidence that calls were possible, and happened: evidence indicates the air phone were working and repeaters could have ensured cell calls would connect. About a couple dozen people reported receiving phone calls. Call records show air phone calls being made. The faked calls theory is at best dubious, imho.

Promoting this dubious theory as evidence discredits the 9/11 truth movement, and it's compounded by the fact that it's offensive to the family members. It's true some family members will be offended by the idea that public officials lied about 9/11, or were complicit in it, but those who want to know the truth and see that justice is done for their loved ones and the nation will support the search for truth, no matter where it leads.

This is different from telling family members - based on a dubious theory - that the now dead family member who called them and said their plane had been hijacked was actually an operative w/ a voice-morphing device. Not only will this be offensive to them, it will be offensive to many members of the general public, who will see this as unnecessarily causing the victim's families pain, in order to promote a dubious theory - in addition to being a distraction from much better evidence that 9/11's a lie, and discrediting the truth movement by association with the dubious theory.

following the truth

Loose Nuke. First, on the issue of offending the family members. I don't find that you're always as clear as you should be about whether you're talking about a moral issue (we shouldn't offend the victims' families) or a strategic issue (it's strategically wrong to offend the families and the general public because it harms our movement) and I don't find you're always as clear as you should be about the relation of these issues to the truth. (It could be strategically unwise to discuss an issue, for example, even if what we are saying is true.) I would like you to be more clear about all this. (Examine the last sentence of the second paragraph of your article if you want to see what I'm talking about.)

Now to the issue of the phone calls themselves. Well, I haven't made a serious study of the issue and I'm glad you're doing it. If you're right, hopefully that will become clear through further discussion. (I'm surprised many people commenting in this thread aren't willing to wait for a DRG response.) I am NOT committed to the idea of faked phone calls and I don't question your right to carry out this research. Carry it out by all means. But I think it's a very bad idea to question the integrity of fellow researchers. If DRG has ""cherry picked" (choosing the evidence he likes and discarding what he doesn't like) then I would assume it's because he's been careless and I'd expect him to correct this in the future. But researchers regularly discuss and debate evidence (and methodology) without feeling the need to question each other's integrity. I think the tone of your article in unfortunate and unnecessary.

I agree with those who say no one, however prominent, is immune to criticism. Fine, go for it. But I think DRG has earned, through his work and his sacrifice for the movement, the right to be have his work approached with a hermeneutic of trust, just as the FBI has earned the right to have all its works related to the crime of 9/11 (that's right, all of them) approached with a hermeneutic of suspicion. The Agency has collaborated repeatedly in murder and in state crimes against democracy.

You want to know why I do not consider the "fake phone calls" theory discredited. Well, as you've admitted, there are anomalies in what we find when we study these phone calls; and, as you also admit, your critique includes speculation (e.g., "self-powered cell phone repeaters may have been placed on board the planes". Sure, they may have been. Were they?) You use at least one straw man argument. "FBI statements and records should not be accepted at face value, but this doesn't mean that any particular FBI statement or record is false. Not all FBI agents, supervisors and policy makers are dishonest..." True, but where does DRG make the logical error you are discussing? He would say, as I would, that all FBI materials on this issues should be approached with suspicion; but that's not the same as saying every claim they make is false. Furthermore, I am not yet convinced cell phone calls of any duration were possible at the altitude claimed for some of the calls. Maybe all the high and lengthy calls were actually airfone calls and mabye airfones were in the planes...or maybe not. I'm afraid I don't think the argument is over. You question the relevance of Dewdney's research because it was done in Canada. Good start, but why don't you push further and see if, in fact, the distribution, etc. of towers were substantially different around London, Ontario and in the region at issue on 9/11. That would be interesting research.

Moving on, I'd like to say that for some years now I've assumed we have two major possibilities:

(1) the calls were fake and there were probably no hijackers on the planes. In this case, the planes were run as drones, Aidan has argued would have been possible in 2001.
(2) there were hijackers, and the phone calls were probably genuine, and the hijackers piloted the planes into their targets.

Now these aren't the only two possibilities (for example, you could have fake calls but still have hijackers, etc.) but they have seemed to me the leading possibilities. If you are right, as you may well be, about the calls being genuine, then we have a very interesting situation. I think in this case it is a distinct possibility, as you suggest, that the hijackers had guns, not just boxcutters, and I agree that it is highly unlikely they were able to get all these guns through security, so that there is some variety of inside job involved here--in other words, we have hijackers but we still have MIHOP, not LIHOP. And we're faced with the fascinating question as to who these hijackers might have been. I have seen nothing that convinces me the famous 19 Arabs were the hijackers. The hijackers would have been professionals, certainly, with piloting skills beyond the pathetic Hani Hanjours of the world; yet, not ordinary professionals since they intended to die for this mission. Who were they? When I hear of passengers saying they were of Mid-Eastern appearance I'm afraid I can't make much of this. Even if they're from the Mid-East, where, precisely? And why were they willing to be kamikaze pilots if they weren't Muslim extremists? Many interesting questions. But, in the meantime, I hope we can continue to make our discussions in the movement as mutually respectful as possible.

A. K. Dewdney...

One thing I know about A. K. Dewdney's voice morphing nonsense is that I use the same software plugin as he was shown using in Ventura's show almost every day. Its called "iZotope Ozone" and it CANNOT engineer a voice to sound like someone. The best it can do is make a voice similar to what you would find with the "Dragon Naturally Speaking" software.

Are you kidding man

They showed the Ozone and said it could voice morph?!?! Oh lord the behavior of some conspiracy theorists! I use the Ozone all the time, for creating DJ playable masters of my tracks. It seems the divisive, truth damaging theories always have an element of mis-info that folks will discover is particularly embarrassing. Show that vid to any producer and your sure to get a laugh.

A confession?

Since CIT has accused you of being Canadian Intelligence this could be taken as a "virtual confession" that you are the person behind the "fake phone calls". Perhaps they can get DRG to endorse this viewpoint.

Well I Dr Legge are also on the list of "Australian Agents"

It would be amusing if not so hurtful to our campaign :-(

Esteemed NWO colleagues

I share your amusement.

espada; gustavo,

...Click the picture...

Pretty funny

Compare our research and argument with this bullshit poll to get a feel for what sites care about the cause. I will say that I am flattered to share the page with you fine gentleman, I guess somebody is paying attention to our efforts at focusing our energy. Oh well I guess my cover is blown, I was hoping we could get to one world government and fema camps before I was discovered.


needs to respond to the phone research of LooseNuke


in the image Cass Sunstein is mentioned

(Did i mention i really like Cognitive Infiltration by DRG? - apart from maybe some ambiguity about phonecalls)

I say that if we follow the esoteric interpretation of Cass Sunstein's advocated cognitive infiltration then it is a good thing to be a cognitive infiltrator

Gasp! - but you'd have to read the book first to understand me here !

Read the book, please - skip over the phone section but read the book- it's very interesting and I would hope one day to meet someone here who has read it !

I think perhaps WikiLeaks is cognitively infiltrating some of the previous disseminators of the 9/11 conspiracy theory -the media
Some in the media are working together with WikiLeaks to change the public's perception of reality to a better awareness of what the truth is

Though they're not shouting "9/11 was an inside job!" in black T-shirts, I think that this is a good thing and perhaps a small step in the right direction by preparing the public to understand the horrible truth that sometimes governments are untrustworthy

It can only help the 9/11 TM that the public becomes more and more aware of how untrustworthy governments can be

down vote

but have you read Cognitive Infiltration ? - It's a good book and not 100% about phone calls- they do feature in a few places but that totals only a small part of the book

There surely must be

someone other than myself who has read a book

called Cognitive Infiltration

especially here on a 9/11 Truth site - any takers ?

I haven't

And I didn't vote you down either. The only book by DRG I physically own is his book about WTC 7; but I have read the New Pearl Harbor and sections of other books as well.

I rather liked Griffin's book about WTC 7.

Don't worry I've got that voting down thing


Pls Pls read Cog Inf

I absolutely guarantee you that it's very very interesting and youll be intellectually surprised.... :o)

apart from the erm....

phone calls bit, ... possibly, ... allegedly


Ok, ok, ok...

I read it. Enough already! ; )

Seriously, I did read it.

Man's voice -

Man's voice -

Woman's voice -

Mixdown of both -

The voice morph's Jesse supposedly had done by a forensics specialist were fraudulent

It is easy to hear the inflection of each word "CHANGED" as the mans voice was "supposedly" morphed into a females voice

Inflection of words do not magically change like that when morphing from one voice to another

You can easily hear how the mans voice sounded phoney and computerized by the way certain words were spoken yet the pronunciation & inflection changes to an actual human sounding female

If the voice was simply morphed to a female, the inflection of each word would remain the same and would still sound robotic and synthetic

This is proof that Jesse is knowingly providing what he is claiming to be evidence that the phone calls could have been morphed yet he is clearly manufacturing the "evidence" to support his claim

To think that he is innocently being duped by somebody else at this point is obviously incorrect

Jesse is a Fraud

The Phoney morph in question>

"My plane has been hijacked, what should I do?"

Cut and paste the mans voice and the womans voice into a multitrack audio program and then play them simutaneously

You will immediatly hear how the length of the two audios is different
How the speed of which words are spoken is different
and How the inflection and pronunciation of the words are different (One sounds like a robot / the other sounds like a human)

This is clearly not a morph from one gender to another and is fraudulent on several different levels

The woman's voice pitch rises at the end where she says "What should I do?"
This is where the mans voice lowers in pitch at that same section

"But I think DRG has earned,

"But I think DRG has earned, through his work and his sacrifice for the movement, the right to be have his work approached with a hermeneutic of trust,"

I disagree. Can you give us - in real terms - an example of what sacrifices he has endured as a result of his work? By my count he has written 14 books on the subject of 9/11. There are for-profit endeavors. I understand that DRG owns beach front property in southern california in a very wealthy community. if i am wrong - please - someone correct me.

so - it is NOT beyond the pale to question the motivation of someone who is profiting from 9/11 related books that promote theories that APPEAR to be demonstrably inaccurate.

additionally - i find your attempts to continue to promote and defend the cellphone fakery theory as weak - at best.

can we get real here for a minute? what Erik has done here has demonstrated the factual errors in DRG's work. This - on its own - is extremely valuable to the cause of Truth. But - can we get real here? How absurd is the premise of this theory? in MY opinion - and i admit it is merely an opinion - it STINKS of intentional disruption in the absolute ABSURD premise it seeks to propagate. it almost seems designed to POISON the well by INSULTING the victim's families and general public's sensibilities.

to be clear - DRG is proposing that the US government called 9/11 victim's families on 9/11 using voice-morphing technology, posing as the victims?

the premise itself is simply SO ridiculous that it calls into question the intelligence and integrity of ANYONE who would seek to promote it. It ranks right up there with the theories of Nico Haupt and Webfairy. It ranks up there with holograms. It is utter nonsense. Laughable.

that is the white elephant in the room.

ROB - say hello to Dumbo.

response to 911SATYA, & please comment re DRG on Hotard

re offending family members; i don't see that i was unclear, but to be explicit, i think it's both a tactical error and morally wrong to make the claim, w/o hard evidence, that family members were speaking to a voice-morphed phantom, rather than the person they believed they were speaking to.

My essay is a critical review; I don't consider it a scientific review of the evidence for/against faked calls. As far as comparing Dewdney's research to the actual flight path, even if one was able to determine the mechanical/system conditions in 2001, it would be irrelevant because repeaters may have been used.

"But I think it's a very bad idea to question the integrity of fellow researchers. If DRG has ""cherry picked" (choosing the evidence he likes and discarding what he doesn't like) then I would assume it's because he's been careless and I'd expect him to correct this in the future. But researchers regularly discuss and debate evidence (and methodology) without feeling the need to question each other's integrity. I think the tone of your article in unfortunate and unnecessary."

One of my major points, as I've said, is that there's evidence the calls happened, and there isn't credible evidence they didn't. Therefore, claiming otherwise is counterproductive and discrediting.

Quoting from my essay's conclusion: "As I’ve shown in this essay, while Griffin has done a masterful job of creating the appearance the faked calls theory is supported by evidence and reason, this appearance rests on a significant amount of speculation, illogical argumentation, and misinterpretation and omission of evidence. There is no credible basis for claiming the 9/11 calls were faked."

Please quote from my essay where you think my tone is "unfortunate and unnecessary." Do you dispute that I documented examples of each of the things I claimed in the quote above? Please comment on what DRG did here: on Griffin's citation of John Hotard I'm glad you expect him to correct any errors he's made, but he's been promoting voice-morphing since 2006, and many people have expressed objections and concerns to him, publicly and privately.

If I'm in error about anything, please point it out. You quoted where I said "FBI statements and records should not be accepted at face value ..." and called this a strawman argument against Griffin. However, the context of my statement was a preemptive response to those who might use such a strawman against me, as I (like Griffin) was citing FBI records as evidence.

The anomalies in the calls are interesting, but I don't see that any of them are evidence calls were faked. One striking one, which I documented but did not highlight, is that while Deena Burnett reported receiving a cell phone call from Tom Burnett, according to the Commission interview record, it did not show up on the cell phone bill. A faked call is obviously one explanation, but so is Deena being mistaken about seeing the number on the caller ID.

A full investigation or truth and reconciliation might be able to uncover the whole truth. But as things stand now, claiming these anomalies and inconsistencies mean the family members were fooled by voice morphing is counterproductive. There are far more important questions to be demanding answers to, that don't offend the family members and make the truth movement look irresponsible, and don't give ammo to those who call 9/11 skeptics conspiracy nutjobs, and don't turn 9/11 inquiry into a tar baby that journalists and public figures don't dare associate themselves with.

For instance, all Americans have a right to know - and should be demanding to know - why Rumsfeld changed air defense procedures June 2001 to require his authorization in cases where lethal force might be required - in the middle of a summer of threat that included warnings of attacks on US with hijacked planes - and why he was then inexplicably out of the loop on 9/11. Rumsfeld, if he didn't commit treason in connection w/ 9/11, screwed up big time; yet instead of being held accountable, he was given a massive budget increase w/ no questions asked.

I was embarrassed...

When DRG first promoted "voice morphing." I was embarrassed when he co-authored a statement that mentioned DEW. I am embarrassed every time I hear him mention how the hijackers are alive. I am embarrassed that he cites certain people that he does. I was embarrassed the first time I cited something DRG wrote, and was "debunked," making me look like a fool. Please read my comment below.

Rest assured, insinuating that family members never got the calls from their loved ones they thought they did is being disrespectful.

"hijackers are alive"

A couple of people have stated or implied that they think the claim that several hijackers are still alive has been definitively refuted. I have never seen such a refutation. I don't mean to hijack the thread, but can someone please post a link or two to such a refutation? The BBC's retraction doesn't count at all. It is nonsense if you read it closely. If I recall correctly it retracted only one of the reports of the several reports of different hijackers reported still living, and it was a weak retraction that didn't really explain anything about how the reports could have been wrong in the first place.

the onus of proof is on those

the onus of proof is on those who claim the hijackers are in fact alive

show us proof that the hijackers are still alive that is not the product of confusion over names and identities early on in the story

it now almost 10 years after the fact. if they were alive, surely, by now, al jazeera and journalists all over the world not sympathetic to the USA would love to know.

Show "Al Jazeera ?!" by dave mann
Show "Thanks" by ResearchGuy
Show "The War is "Onus"" by ResearchGuy


the reports are about identity theft, and not biblical resurrection. Do you understand the difference?

Do I think the people alleged to have hijacked the planes on 9/11 are still walking around, no. I've never seen anything but reports from people with similar names... saying "that's not me", or.. my passport was stolen..


Evidently I didn't take adequate care in my wording. Of course I simply meant that people with names and pictures matching those of the accused hijackers had come forward to say that they they were still alive, not that the hijackers had been resurrected. I guess you trying to be funny.

Excuse me, but what "clever" hijacker would try to board a jetliner with a forged passport where the picture was of some other person?! Wouldn't they take a picture of themselves and insert it properly into the passport? Duh! It's another example of how the alleged terrorists had to be extremely lucky for their plan to have succeeded.

Even if the reports could be explained by identity theft, they undermine the official account, which described the movements and activities the people who were tracked according to the stolen names. The FBI director's demonstrated nonchalance regarding the actual identities of the hijackers (who at one point even said "we got the names right," ignoring the problem of the pictures) should be troubling to anyone who understands anything about criminal investigation. How would we know the identities of all the possible bad actors in the personal networks of the accused hijackers, if we don't know their real names? And if we don't know those identities, how can we possibly rest assured that there isn't another group of half-flight-trained suicidal Islamics ready to pounce, who trained alongside these 19 (or 20, counting Zacharias Moussaoui)?

The whole episode reveals another respect in which the official story is internally inconsistent. Nobody in charge of a serious investigation would settle for so much uncertainty regarding the identities of the perpetrators *and all their aliases*.

no one can answer your

no one can answer your question ROB - unless they have ability to peer into DRG's soul.

but - do you understand what the word "TRUTH" means?

either something is true - or it is not.

Dr. DRG sells books that promote 'facts' that are either TRUTHFUL representations of the facts - OR NOT.

what are you here to protect ROB? the TRUTH - the facts in DRG's work - or Dr. DRG himself?

If anyone where is misrepresenting the TRUTH - please let us know.

but it seems to me that you have no facts or research to share - just insinuation and insult.

Show "I think you are over-reacting" by Adam1

Third repetition

Truth comes from evidence, not repetition.

Show "We've all watched that pilots presentation repeatedly" by Adam1

Adam1, do not repost the same comment more than once

this is known as spamming. These three repetitions each of two comments in this one thread will remain up for the record. Additional spamming will result in the comments being removed, and your account being placed in moderation.

Also, to everyone: the OP is fake phone calls and DRG; while it's fine to briefly point out his position on AAL 77/Pentagon and state your own, perhaps with a link, this thread is not to be used to start another endless debate over the Pentagon.

Show "You're threatening me for telling people they are overreacting" by Adam1


You need to stop acting like CIT's spam proxy. The flyover gibberish you post has been decimated and obliterated by people infinitely more competent and well-versed in the subject matter than you are. You talk about a flight path, you can't even cite the presentation. We know P4T has been discredited repeatedly.


Show "Someone saved a 2 year old flamewar from usenet guitar forum?" by Adam1

Let me rephrase

The previous incarnation of this comment was too testy, in my opinion.

Since you respond, promptly, you haven't read the references, you skimmed them. That will not do. You make a claim, with an air of conclusiveness; but this claim is outrageously false. The references above show Rob Balsamo's g-force calculations incorrect. They are still incorrect today.

Again, read them, carefully.

P.S. this discussion ought to continue here, not in this thread, lest we derail it.

Show "You need to redo that." by Adam1

It's not me.

It's W.D. Clinger, a mathematician, and it was Rob Balsamo who invaded the classical guitar mailing list. I disagree with you; Clinger's treatise is concise and to the point.

Again, let's not talk about the Pentagon here, but here, out of courtesy for Erik and the subject matter at hand.

Warning: Off-topic

Additional replies on PFT/Balsamo/Pentagon will be removed.

Take it to the Pentagon thread SnowCrash linked.

Anyone unfamiliar with the commenting rules should read them:

I have tremendous respect and admiration for DRG

I have tremendous respect and admiration for David Ray Griffin.
I hold him in high regard.

Response to YT - Do you like to have your integrity questioned?

I recently questioned the intentions of a prominent member of the Truth Movement. I was wrong and I apologized.

It made me realize that we must not let our differences divide us. When passionate people think for themselves there will inevitably be passionate disagreements.

There is no need to lie about our feelings but we should avoid questioning intent while being free to criticize positions on theories.

I read Erik's critique and I cannot say for sure if the calls were faked or not. I would have to read Dr. Griffins response and all the related information to make a judgment. I agree that it is very speculative and should not be at the forefront but I don't think it is on the order of the flyover theory by any means.

Now that Richard Gage has rescinded his endorsement of CIT/NSA I am redirecting my focus back to WTC 7 and the Building What? campaign. I don't consider this issue worth the time to analyze adequately as it is inconclusive at best.

questioning integrity

i disagree.

intent is an important part of the equation.

purely analytical arguments regarding the details of research is valuable - but incomplete - when dealing with individuals who are disinterested in debating in 'good faith.'

the most extreme examples of this would be the years spent - and wasted - debunking and debating the no planes theory and exotic weaponry and anti-semitism and cartoon planes. at some point it became obvious that those defending these theories were not operating in good faith. there was intentionality behind their actions that APPROPRIATELY needed to be addressed - and dealt with. they were liars. plain and simple.

i am not taking a position - yet - on DRG in this regard. but i AM on record as stating that "we are forced to wonder about the intentionality behind these glaringly careless assertions" because threshold of tolerance for NONSENSE research - such as faked phone calls and Pentagon fly-overs - has been breached IN MY OPINION - and anyone who does not like my opinion should be prepared to defend the FACTS - and not demand blind loyalty to a person who appears to be spreading inaccurate information.

Again - DRG is a very public figure who appears on national TV representing this movement. He sells books. He profits from these books. If those books sell ideas that ARE NOT THE TRUTH - and is seen to be manipulating the data - it is unforgivable and many of us here demand that he cease and desist profiting from NON-TRUTH.

I tend to stay away from strained fault finding.

I like to get facts and information.
While I am glad that people try to ascertain facts, I find it unsettling to hear so much criticism by a small bunch about a fellow group member.

It kind of reminds me of a social gathering. Upon wondering the room, I happen upon a small group on the sofa discussing someone else and critically evaluating that person's attributes...
"How a person should be"
"How a person should act"
"How a person should state things"
"What conclusions a person should have"
"What ideas and concepts are appropriate for a person"
"What things that a person should hold as 'important'"
"What a person should think"
"What opinions a person should form"

Spouses sometimes do this "how you should be" to each other.
...I guess that I could get more of this if I became a polygamist and got a few extra wives.
One wife is enough.

we had this debate about the

we had this debate about the no-planers

we had this debate about the exotic weaponry folks

we had this debate about CIT

we had this debate about cartoon planes advocates

we had this debate about the 'JOOS did it all!' liars

we had this debate about every disruption campaign in the last ten years

It is really very simple Tom...

get this: if you knowingly sell lies - either for profit or for disruption purposes - you WILL be called out on it.

and if you PERSIST in selling lies - when the truth has been presented to you over and over and over again - by manipulating the data and glaring omissions and distortions - then you need to be prepared for the consequences of your actions.

remember this:

"Aluminum planes do not slice through steel."

remember how many times this was debunked? do you remember how many times we wasted endless debate with people who were INTENT in selling their theories - regardless of what was true?

at some point it became necessary to simply block liars from representing the Truth movement.

something is either true - or false.

and if someone - even DRG - appears to be selling non-truth for profit - i will be damned if i will be told to NOT question his intentionality.

the hijackers are turning up alive?

there is no evidence of Flight 77 the Pentagon?

cellphone fakery?

PUH-LEEZE spare me the morality play. i've had enough of the blind sheep approach to 9/11 Truth.

Plain and simple

Cut and dry.

The more analysis and research we derive from paper's like Larson's, the more powerful our position becomes. 9/11 truth unfortunately has a sink of dirty dishes that went long neglected. There were many 'leaders' claiming to represent the truth (and profiting from it) who kept distracting us from just doing a little cleaning. Paper's like Larson's are a high grade, all organic dishwashing soap to help get rid of that greasy, dirty misinformation which has been allowed to build up and grime over. The great part is, that with a little soap and elbow grease, our dishes can clean up nice and shiny and are ready to start cookin' again.


neat !

John Albanese, that was not my point

John Albanese, my point was not about what you mentioned.
It was about your denigrating attitude towards other posters.

Two to three years ago on the forum at, I confronted you about your cutting, demeaning, sardontic ridicule of others. Sometimes a newbie poster would post a simple statement or mention Alex Jones. You would slice them rudely and coldly. I saw you do this repeatedly.
This type of "be mean to others" on a message board is what I protest.
I went back and forth with you on a TruthAction thread about it 2-3 years ago.
You said that you would be sardonic and demeaning if you wanted... ...and some others chimed in with you.
I told you at that time, that the TruthAction forum would drive away many people, but would also tend to keep people who "enjoy snarkiness".
I feel that sardonic snarkiness is akin to being hateful.
I detest it.
A lot of new forum posters stopped posting at TruthAction.
I rarely post over there now.

I protest tones of ridicule from one 9/11 Truth Advocate to another on this board.
I advocate polite, civil courtesy to each other with a quest toward compassionate understanding.
I am not in the 9/11 Truth Movement to disseminate a demeaning, denigrating, sardonic tone towards others.
I am in the movement to help disseminate the fact that our country has been hijacked.
I love people. I want to see people in a better, more aware state of affairs.

"I feel that sardonic

"I feel that sardonic snarkiness is akin to being hateful."

This is a truth movement - not a popularity contest.

and i feel that those who spread lies and ridiculous conspiracy theories about 9/11 - are loathsome pond scum.

i view this as akin to those who deny the holocaust and minimize the crimes of the nazis. DEEPLY offensive. Disgusting actually.

is that snarky? perhaps. but i am not going to defend myself to you.

cellphone fakery?

hijackers are showing up alive?

Pentagon fly-overs and missing planes?

perhaps you should focus on the research of DRG - as opposed to attempting to browbeat ME into silence on these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

and if this drives people away - so be it.

nothing personal. if i have my facts wrong - please let me know. educate me. but fuck off on the personal attacks on my personality.

No fake calls

The calls are fake is complete nonsense. If just one call is real they all are. Because they all describe hijackings. So what is the point of some being real and some being fake? There is no point. So the first calls were nearly half an hour before any plane hit any building. Would someone explain to me the purpose of making those "fake" calls? Those calls alerted authorities that hijackings were taking place at 8:19. The first plane hit at 8:45. If those calls were fake it was incredibly stupid and served no purpose that I am aware of other than making me wonder why Rice and Bush are thinking it was an accident. If those calls were real, they all were. If those calls were real someone needs to explain to me what the point is of making the others fake.

If i have my facts wrong - please let me know. educate me

This is documented evidence from the Moussaoui trial. Either the government [or the phone company] is lying about the length of the calls, or the records show that these calls were not made from the plane.

Beamer's call lasted 3,925 seconds. This would mean it did not end until 10:49 a.m., about three-quarters of an hour after Flight 93 supposedly crashed. And how could there have been silence when the crash occurred?

The phone call by Jeremy Glick phone call started at 9:37:41. The line was left open for 7,565 seconds. So the call ends at 11:43:46.

United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11
9/11 Commission Report Pg 30 [pdf pg 47]

Phone company errors

My daughter recently checked her account as the company said she was out of credit. She had used about $30 but her account had declined about $60. Does that mean she really hung on to the phone for anothe half hour that wasn't recorded? Does it mean the company doubles the charges? Does it mean there is somebody in the company who uses client accounts without trace? Does it just mean a bookkeeping error occurred?

I don't know. The point is phone companies make mistakes. You cannot safely conclude that this long call was a fake call. The idea that a faker would walk away and leave the phone running would have miniscule probability. The idea that this is a glitch would have high probability.

Let us avoid low probability explanations for observations.

This is strong evidence

Phone companies make mistakes but we have two instances on one flight. It's possible that they are both mistakes but that is unlikely and certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand.

"The idea that a faker would walk away and leave the phone running would have miniscule probability."

That is an assumption and basically hand waving the evidence. There are a lot of things that don't make any sense and it is possible that this is by design. There seems to be conflicting disinformation at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

I know from experience that if the connection is lost I get a busy signal after about a minute.
The operator handling Tod's call said:
"We didn't lose a connection because there's a different sound that you use. It's a squealing sound when you lose a connection. I never lost connection, but it just went silent."

You cannot justifiably claim that there is no evidence that the calls were faked IMO.

I'm not promoting the fake phone calls, I'm only pointing out that there is evidence.

BTW: It is preferable to debate an issue in a respectful manner as you have done, thank you.

evidence versus proof

There is no proof that the long call was not a glitch. That is the point.

Impossible to prove a negatine

So that does not mean anything.

There is no proof that they both were glitches.

It cannot be assumed that both were glitches.

Therefore they are evidence [not proof] that the calls were not made from the plane.


"I could just not believe this was actually happening. And I had to look at the screen. We have monitors that let us know if they are in flight or on the ground and what airline and flight information. And everything he was telling me was adding up. I could hear the commotion in the background and after we continued to talk, I’m thinking to myself, this is for real. This is a real hijacking situation."

This is a quote from the same article you cited:

Beliefnet — 'I Promised I Wouldn't Hang Up'

As somebody who has worked in various call centers, in various companies, who has worked in tech support (Frank Legge can attest to my skills, I helped him solve a complex technical problem over e-mail), studies informatics; I reject the false dilemma you're proposing:

"Either the government [or the phone company] is lying about the length of the calls, or the records show that these calls were not made from the plane."

Formulating a false dilemma is not the way to go about solving a technical puzzle. I am not satisfied with Mrs. Jefferson's assertion or your interpretation thereof, that the call could not have been physically (but not software-wise) disconnected. Likely, this was the first time in Mrs. Jefferson's career where she lost an airfone connection due to a plane crashing. Likely, Mrs. Jefferson, despite her function as supervisor, does not have the requisite technical knowledge to make this assertion. I have worked under many supervisors, they are managers, and do not necessarily possess the full breadth of knowledge nor understand all technical intricacies.

So we are left with a witness account, in which one statement is made that a monitor with operator call data confirms the call was made in-flight, and one statement which raises questions.

The data is incomplete. You seem to have a proclivity to jump to conclusions.

Evidence in a cout of law

These phone company records were submitted to a court of law and sworn to be true under penalty of perjury. They are therefor considered to be factual.

Mrs. Jefferson's statement has no effect on these electronically kept records other than to supports them.

The records

may reflect the erroneous judgment of the software.

As such, the data can be accurate and factual from the perspective of the computer and simultaneously not represent reality. You are looking at computer data. Remember the confusion about the FDR? Have not multiple technical issues, which were unmasked, resolved erroneous theories held on the basis of technical misinterpretations?

Or are you threatening a computer system and/or software with jail time? Or the programmers, for failing to code algorithms which properly handle phone connectivity and billing considerations in case of a plane crash?

Your statements are rather absolutist; of course Mrs. Jefferson supports the records! She's telling the truth about the data presented to her.

Grasping at straws

The phone company data that was given to the court is considered factual. It is now a matter of public record.

There is no reason to doubt it other than you don't want to believe it for some reason.

Bare assertions

Chris, these are bare assertions.

I suggest you contact some specialists in the field of airfones, maybe they can elucidate the matter. However, even they may not know, as the behavior observed may constitute an unknown bug.

This is not 'strong evidence', because, the dilemma you posed is a false dilemma.

Just because data is submitted to a court it doesn't become infallible all of a sudden. Does the court assert that the data proves phone call fabrication? I bet you they would assert the data is unreliable instead. Direct forensic evidence for phone call fakery is distinct from half-baked, fallacious falsification augmented with conjecture....

These are public records

The court accepts these documents to be the truth.

They are considered factual and there is no reason to reject them.

Denying that they are valid is just denial.


and if the gloves don't fit, you must acquit....


What is the court's position on this data? Does the court contend the data means the phone calls were fabricated or that the data is unreliable?

The court's position is

The phone company data is accepted as fact.

The court took no position on the validity of the phone calls that I know of.

You could write the court and ask but you may not arbitrarily ignore the court's acceptance of the data being factual.


This is going to go on endlessly I understand, with no new arguments introduced... okay.

Let me share a story with you. Years ago, I had a technical discussion with a co-developer. This co-developer was very intelligent and a well-known and respected programmer.

We had a discussion about the MD5 algorithm. This algorithm can be used to verify the data integrity of, for example, a CD or DVD ISO.

This co-developer, however, posited that the MD5 algorithm could accidentally miss errors and thus wasn't conclusive in establishing the data integrity of either an ISO or a burned medium. This is a pretty important matter; if he was right, MD5 was essentially useless for verifying data integrity. Indeed, MD5 has been shown to be vulnerable to hash collisions, deliberately forged, but this doesn't occur accidentally...the chances of that happening are infinitesimal; the algorithm is designed for the purpose. (There are algorithms which are even stronger and do not as of yet have this vulnerability)

I was certain I was right and he was wrong... but he wouldn't listen to reason. So I conducted an experiment.

I took two ISOs, changed one bit out of approximately 5,600,000,000 bits on one of them, then ran md5sum on both; the result was a completely different hash.

His response?

"But I liked my theory....."

Now, I am telling you that the data integrity of the duration records depends on unknown factors, yet you assume these records to be infallible. Yet the court may have accepted these records as reflective of what the systems recorded, yet unreflective of the reality of the actual call duration. But you aren't listening to reason and jumping to conclusions... we're going to have to see how that works out for you. If you are right, everything we think we know about what happened on those planes might be false; if you are wrong... you were rushing to judgment..... because you liked your theory.

By the way, the guy I'm talking about was (and probably still is) staunchly anti-9/11 Truth....probably because he liked his theories. It was difficult enough to get him to see his error in a field he was supposed to be an expert in, I didn't even bother with 9/11. Some people are simply wedded to a POV. That goes for all of us.

this is either blatant

this is either blatant dishonesty or ignorance

your claim regarding the "court's acceptance of the data" is incorrect.

evidence may be introduced into any trial which is incorrect or faulty. in fact - it often is. the fact that a court accepts evidence into a trial does not mean the court endorses or guarantees that it is factual.

it is up to the defense or prosecution to CHALLENGE the evidence.

in this case the evidence was not challenged - probably because neither the defense nor the prosecution saw the anomaly associated with this call as central to their case.

so the evidence itself remains in a legal gray area - and the court has NOT endorsed the factual nature of the evidence. the court is SILENT on the issue - as is it's responsibility in remaining unbiased.

Passive agressive behavior

The never ending passive argument that refuses to accept a fact is meant to irritate the other person into saying something in anger.

It's official: The phone calls lasted well past the crash. You can come up with reasons not to believe a public court document but you are not authorized to second guess the court.

It wasn't "Phone company errors"
And it is not necessary for me to "prove a negative".

This is not a "False dilemma", it's a matter of record.
And the idea that the data "may reflect the erroneous judgment of the software" is wishful supposition.

This is not a "bare assertion", it's a public record of the phone calls.

Rather than betting the court would assert the data is unreliable or asking me, you should write them and ask. I have a feeling you would not believe me anyway.


No, this reflects my true position, it isn't meant to anger you. In fact, we have had some run-ins before, but this time, I have argued more patiently than I did previous times.

Yet, you still see malicious intent everywhere. You offered two choices, I believe this is fallacious at this time, with the limited knowledge we have. You are being absolutist, using the court as an argument from authority. I'm not impressed by the technical knowledge of judges nor with the technical knowledge of FBI agents, who were unable to spot the improbability of witnesses reporting cell phone calls from commercial aircraft at cruise altitudes/speeds.

It's no coincidence Wikileaks has been able to outwit the US cybersecurity apparatus; after all, Assange is a cryptographer and author of 'Rubberhose'... and the underlying technology for anonymous communication was a project by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (Tor).... the authorities have as of yet been unable to deal with this asymmetric 'threat'.

You lack expertise in the area you are now making absolutist claims in. You failed to employ the precautionary principle. This is regrettable. It is conceivable you are right, but your logic is flawed. I'm expressing myself cautiously, not because I'm making it up as I go along, but because I see no need to bulldozer over your arguments.

Time will tell.

P.S. for people who might read this argument in isolation: it should not be misconstrued as support for 'cell phone fakery', as it stands, it argues the opposite.

You are denying an established fact

Over and over and over again. You will never concede the point.
This is passive aggressive. It is intentionally condescending insulting. It appears to be civil but it is not.

"You lack expertise in the area you are now making absolutist claims in."

It does not require any expertize to read a paragraph that says the call lasted until 10:46 and know that that is after 10:03. Your comment is utterly false and insulting and you know it.

"You failed to employ the precautionary principle. This is regrettable. It is conceivable you are right, but your logic is flawed."

I am making a statement of fact. The court has accepted the phone company documents as fact and you refuse to accept this.

You are misrepresenting my position

It is quite certain the court did not, in fact, accept the phone company documents as evidence for phone call fabrication.

Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?

If not, it is likely the court accepted the documents as a true reflection of what the systems recorded, but not as a definitive indicator of how long the call was physically, actually connected with Todd Beamer nor with an 'impostor'.

There is nothing to concede, you don't accurately represent my position. Nothing I said was meant to be condescendingly insulting. I am perfectly fine with pointing out flaws in your logic, though. You seem to think that disagreeing with you is impolite. Strange notion.

In the interest of not further clogging up the thread, I won't respond any further for now, although I might do so later; my position is clear as formulated in my comments, but not as misrepresented in yours.

In this particular situation, I believe this quote is quite applicable:

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

— Edmund Burke

A reasonable warning, I think. You don't have enough data, information or insight in the matter right now to make the definitive, omniscient and rigid declarations of 'fact' you have made, and I have explained quite clearly why.

This is the same tactic used by the deniers

Never give an inch. Never accept a fact that goes against your position.

Deny, think up possible alternatives, make up similes, tell stories, change the subject, talk down to your opponent, tell the other person they are not qualified to read and understand English, just keep it going until the other person gets angry or gives up in frustration. Argumentum ad nauseam is the tried and true refuge of the denier.

I have seen this movie many times and I have also seen the attack of the vote bots so I'm not bothered by them.

it is apparent to most readers that you are ignoring/denying the FACT that court records show the calls ending after the crash.

i've seen this movie

i've seen this movie also

endlessly debate total BULLSHIT to disrupt a meaningful search for truth and justice for 9/11

aluminum planes do not slice thru steel beams.

the cellphone calls were all faked

it's the same sh*t - different day

while it is a FACT that the court records show the calls ended after the crash - it is ALSO a FACT that the court neither endorsed, validated or proved the validity of this evidence. This anomaly was not central to the case and not investigated or questioned by the legal representatives of the prosecution or defense.

just because evidence is submitted into a court of law does NOT prove ANYTHING about the validity of the evidence itself - unless directly challenged by the prosecution or defense. Someone COULD submit totally BOGUS evidence into ANY trial - but unless it is challenged - it remains in the public record.

Furthermore - as Snowcrash has made abundantly clear is that the phone record could be faulty for reasons OTHER than cellphone fakery. It is certainly the more PROBABLE of explanations which YOU attempt to obscure.


do you have PROOF of any of the following?

1 - the phone record anomaly was challenged and/or investigated by the court?
2 - the phone record was challenged by the defense?
3 - the phone record was challenged by the prosecution?

If you do not have PROOF of any of these things - your claim that the evidence is valid and proven in a court of law is an inaccurate representation of the facts.

Respectful disagreement

Chris, I keep seeing this tendency in you to "go for the jugular" and accuse someone of trying to frustrate you, or of arguing in bad faith, just because you are frustrated. I have also seen you apologize at least a couple of times recently for it. How about just getting off the merry-go-round? Just stop.

Your opponent did not deny what you are saying he is denying. *He merely denies that it means what you think it means* for a document to be admitted into evidence in court. And he is correct to do so.

The acceptance of a document into the record of court case IN NO WAY implies that what the document states is true, or even that the judge thinks it's true. The only thing that the acceptance means is that the judge did not *notice* anything wrong with admitting the document, or if he/she did notice it, he/she did not choose to express such a concern; and the side opposite the one that introduced the evidence didn't challenge its admission either. THAT'S ALL.

Obviously, for practical reasons, if no one challenges the admissibility or validity of the document, IF THE CASE TURNS ON WHAT THE DOCUMENT SAYS, then you could say that the outcome of the case implicitly validated the document. We are certainly entitled to refer to convicted felons as if they really committed the crime of which they were convicted. Most of the time, they did. But it's very unlikely that any attention was focused on the inconsistency between the crashing of the plane at a certain time and the phone call apparently not getting disconnected at that time.

I know a great deal about admission of false evidence in court, having studied the shenanigans used by the IRS. People who know what they are doing are starting to challenge the interpretation of W-2's and 1099s as PROOF that money paid to someone in exchange for labor must have been taxable income. (Your statement that something can constitute *evidence* without constituting *proof* is perfectly on point here.) The monetary amounts on the form could be correct, *without the income having arisen from a taxable activity.* A consensus is emerging that the interpretation of these documents as proving that someone earned taxable income can successfully be controverted on the basis that they were submitted "fraudulently," which in this context does not require intent, but only a misunderstanding on the part of the bookkeeper regarding what the Internal Revenue Code actually says. There are many bogus arguments that don't work at all to get you out of paying income tax (such as "show me the law," the gold braid around the flag, the 16th amendment was never ratified, etc.), but this one seems more promising.

Someone could submit bogus information - get serious

Mr. Albanese

Do you think the phone company submitted bogus information?

Do you really think that is likely?

Do you have any reason to doubt the data other than your personal inability yo accept the consequences?

"Snowcrash has made abundantly clear is that the phone record could be faulty for reasons OTHER than cellphone fakery. It is certainly the more PROBABLE of explanations which YOU attempt to obscure."

Probable my elbow. That is a supposition based on an inability to accept the consequences of data given to the court by the phone company.

"do you have PROOF of any of the following?

1 - the phone record anomaly was challenged and/or investigated by the court?
2 - the phone record was challenged by the defense?
3 - the phone record was challenged by the prosecution?

If you do not have PRROF of any of these things - your claim that the evidence is valid"

You try to shift the burden of proof. The data is valid until disproven. There is no real reason to doubt it.

"and proven in a court of law"

Strawman. I did not make that claim.

"simply makes you a liar or a fool."

This is bating and it most certainly is not civil.

i think the phone company

i think the phone company submitted inaccurate information - yes. and i think it is likely - yes.

i remember on 9/11 being unable to reach my wife by phone. the lines were all crashing because of the intense volume of calls in NYC. the system was overwhelmed.

accurate records regarding call 'end' time signatures can and frequently DO show inaccurate information

your claim that "The data is valid until disproven. There is no real reason to doubt it." is both technically inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.

Intellectually dishonest? Pot - Kettle?

You think it is likely that the phone company gave the court inaccurate information based on your intuition.

And based on that assumption you claim there is no evidence that the phone calls were faked.

I argue that the data is a matter of public record and is valid until refuted. And that it is evidence of the calls being made from somewhere other than the plane.

I further argue that there is no valid reason to doubt the data. It is always possible that the data is wrong but the chances of that happening twice on the same "flight" are small.

really? data is valid until

really? data is valid until refuted?

is that a scientific fact? :)))

really? there is no valid reason to doubt the data? really? the data MUST be correct? it cant be an error?



Todd Beamer call

SnowCash: "As somebody who has worked in various call centers, in various companies, who has worked in tech support (Frank Legge can attest to my skills, I helped him solve a complex technical problem over e-mail), studies informatics (...)"

In regard to your above statement, please provide an explanation:

The operator, Mrs. Jefferson, said, that Todd Beamer did not hang up the air-phone call, so she was listening the call lasted much longer than after the plane crash (10:03-10:06). In accordance to that witness report, the even the official (FBI) account confirms, that the call lasted longer than the crash.

Beamer's call lasted 3,925 seconds. This would mean it did not end until 10:49 a.m., about three-quarters of an hour after Flight 93 supposedly crashed. And how could there have been silence when the crash occurred?

"Perhaps the oddest aspect of the call is what happened after 9:58, when Todd Beamer put the phone down to join the passenger revolt against the hijackers. Jefferson has recalled: "After he said, 'Let's roll,' he left the phone, and I would assume that's at the point that they went to charge the cockpit. And I was still on the line and the plane took a dive, and by then, it just went silent. I held on until after the plane crashed--probably about 15 minutes longer and I never heard a crash--it just went silent because--I can't explain it. We didn't lose a connection because there's a different sound that you use. It's a squealing sound when you lose a connection. I never lost connection, but it just went silent."


I've articulated my position well in the back-and-forth with Chris above. I won't reiterate all that here.

while you're at it- can you

while you're at it- can you prove planes were used at the WTC?


Apart from reams of video evidence, physical evidence and witness testimony, the towers oscillated around their vertical axis after impact ;-)

But, I see where you're coming from. I don't feel all discussion is a priori useless though.

I am just looking after evidence-based research.

there are zero evidence, that the witness-account of the operator, Mrs. Jefferson, which is partly supported by the fbi-account (that the call from the plane lasted until after its crash), is wrong. i could not read any meaningful explanation, how the operator could be wrong.

There are many evicences, that four planes crashed on 9/11.

"Zero evidence"

There is also "zero evidence" the 9/11 hijackers were not from Mars.

The fallacy you are committing is called "argument from ignorance", and is explained as follows:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false.

Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

This argument has sometimes been used against Frank Legge, for his "What hit" paper, but there Frank Legge is falsifying an attempted falsification of a solid hypothesis, not just formulating a double negative.

Mrs. Jefferson's account isn't 'supported' by 'the FBI'; the FBI have in their possession data records recorded by airfone logic, which were one of the indicators Mrs. Jefferson based her account on.

However, you have no leg to stand on, claiming that a call which seems to go on forever indicates 'fabrication', instead of a glitch. Chris claims this is the case because this data made it into court. That's not true; the court made no such assertion based on the data and probably didn't even understand the data or the implications. Data does not become infallible by court admission.

Neither does the logic fly that: "I don't believe this is true, therefore my favorite fantasy happened instead". This is deeply fallacious, I call it 'falsification-speculation' and the biggest and most pervasive reasoning error in this movement (and others).

Mrs. Jefferson account

I cannot understand, why the concept of "argument from ignorance" should aply to me. For me, a plane hit the Pentagon, and Frank Legge did a great job proving the spin of CIT.

"Mrs. Jefferson's account isn't 'supported' by 'the FBI'; the FBI have in their possession data records recorded by airfone logic, which were one of the indicators Mrs. Jefferson based her account on."

Mrs. Jefferson based her account on her participation in the call with the passenger! She made it clear, that the passenger did not hang up the telephone. When you want to debunk that, you have the burden of proof or at least a meanigful explanation.

"However, you have no leg to stand on, claiming that a call which seems to go on forever indicates 'fabrication', instead of a glitch."

Were have I said that?

Show "nitpicking and debunking distractions" by jonathan mark

You have a good point. Thanks.


Critique of David Ray

Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory by Erik Larson appears to be a critique of the man rather than the subject. There is an almost gleeful tone to some comments about the thought of showing David Ray Griffin is in error.

Twice in the first three paragraphs the tired argument is made that David Ray Griffin’s views are "offensive to family members". This sentiment is usually reserved for those that attack the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Even if some might not admit it, David Ray Griffin has done more than anyone else, with exception of the Loose Change films, to open peoples eyes to the fact that the official conspiracy theory is nonsense.

yes DRG and Loose

yes DRG and Loose Change.

plane swaps. flashes. no plane in Pennsylvania. living hijackers. no proof of hijackers on the planes. faked phone calls. no evidence of Flight 77 at the Pentagon.

this is what you defend in the name of a truth movement.

brilliant logic

It is a real shame.

As many of the comments on this thread show, there is so much hostility and divisiveness on 9/11 Blogger. It is a real shame.

This topic appears to be an assault on David Ray Griffin, his motives, integrity, research and character.

The subject of "fake phone calls" could have been addressed without the poorly veiled attempt to defame and belittle David Ray Griffin. Should not Erik Larson's article be dispassionate and empirical rather than questioning David Ray Griffin's motives and integrity?

Fabrication, Beach House property, suspect motives, reaping profit, bullshit theories; are these really terms and accusations that should be leveled at an important member of the 9/11 Truth Movement?

David Ray Griffin and Loose Change have made much effort to correct their previous errors.

I find the "fake phone calls" theory to be one of the weakest arguments in David Ray Griffin's writing mainly because, as Griffin himself points out, his argument is "speculation".

In the spirit of positivity and the greater cause, can we not treat each subject on its merits and find the truth, not by ostracizing people that may have alternate opinions or theories but finding a respectful and empirical way to gain a consensus?

I come to 9/11 Blogger to enlightened but recently it appears there is so much bickering, rudeness and divisiveness.

In the case of the Pentagon

I feel the indignation and frustration over the avalanche of misinformation is justified, however, here, I feel Erik's article strikes the right tone, while the comment section is becoming a bit too hostile. I have made hostile comments with regard to DRG's "hijacker's alive" theories in the past, if I recall correctly. But now, I feel the level of adversarial, ad hominem critique is reaching the point of unproductive.

Right now, I am very happy that Erik wrote this piece, and it should stand on its merits. No need for this post to become a launching pad of a witch hunt; the core issue, I think is whether or not DRG's confirmation bias, in my opinion, has slanted his research towards the position that 'every aspect of the official story is false'. This is dangerously close to the 'big tent' argument, and indeed, there is an overlap between DRG's position and the big tent.

I do not believe cell phone fakery / voice morphing; predominantly because the major pillar of this argument, the premise that the majority of the phone calls were cellular, and that AA 77 contained no working airfones, has been shown to be very questionable to the point of irresponsible. I also understand the emotional argument that these theories are far-fetched and may drive a wedge between the 9/11 Truth Movement and 9/11 families, but in the case of the Pentagon, what fed my ire is the complete disconnect between 'no crash' theories and the historical record. In this instance, various confusing and conflicting reports, coupled with a desire to 'prove an inside job', greased the process of getting it wrong.

If cell phone fakery claims are without basis, it can be shown by thoughtful and careful research and I believe Erik has done exactly this. Of particular concern is the apparent misrepresentation / quoting out of context of sources.

I feel we should exercise some restraint in our comments in this case, without immediately vilifying DRG with the intensity seen right now. This is the first time such a comprehensive, full, official and in-depth rebuttal has been made by a prominent member of the 9/11 research community, let's have it settle for a while, wait for a response and see where it goes.

I've been angry about the treatment of the Pentagon issue by certain wings of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but DRG and CIT are two different entities with different standing. Let's calm down a bit.


Yes, obviously I know DRG endorsed CIT and I criticized him for it; yet he also nuanced his endorsement with respect to flyover; DRG was fooled by CIT as many have been, a testament to the man's fallibility.




"plane swaps. flashes. no plane in Pennsylvania. living hijackers. no proof of hijackers on the planes. faked phone calls. no evidence of Flight 77 at the Pentagon.

this is what you defend in the name of a truth movement.

brilliant logic"

John Albanese

What a reply! Is it made simply to alienate or satisfy a penchant for sarcasm?

For the record I believe the 9/11 Commission Report to be a worthless document and the NIST reports to be demonstrably erroneous. I have not defended nor do I condone any of the accusations you list.

My point in mentioning Loose Change, is that the filmmakers, while introducing a huge number of people to the anomalies in the official narrative of 9/11, have matured with their audience by refining their arguments to exclude past erroneous information.

What I do "in the name of the Truth Movement" is to inform myself and hopefully others, march and protest against war and SCADs.

I think an apology is in order.

it's funny how the defenders

it's funny how the defenders of bad research are always such delicate flowers when it comes to debate - while they seem totally tone deaf to the issue at hand.

i'm sorry if my tone offends you

but if you are comparing DRG to Loose Change's maturation process - your point seem pointless since DRG's work seems to be getting less and less credible with each passing year.


cellphone fakery

living hijackers

endorsements of CIT

this is the issue and you can continue to take up space here attempting to shift the blame to my personality - but - that dog just don't hunt

I think that its good to

I think that its good to alienate people from the movement even if they have credible research under their belt if what they use their cache to do is spread speculative theories.if DRG gets caught doing sloppy research we should call him on it and feel good about it. As a trained philosopher like DRG I find it hard to understand how he could push this claim in good faith. People who are upset with the focus on evidence should look at these developments in a positive light: the movement is growing up and going through a process of change and internal reorganization. We can't advance loyalty as a value, we need to make it clear that we have a cutting edge and only care about the effectiveness of the truth movement itself. Without making an accusation let me just tell u disinformation is real. What about the early videos like painful deceptions. I was tricked because years later that dude went full blown anti Semitic and all the people I showed his video to that checked up on him probably thought I was nuts.

stop voting me down

We need to push 911 truth in a rational and coherent way. We are not a cult and we are stronger when we focus on clear evidence. When individuals fall short of the standard of rigor we require they must be challenged. 911 truth requires more intellectual discipline than we have used in the past, now is the time to increase the power of our message. Just because someone wrote a helpful piece doesn't get them a free ride with good standing for all time. Are you saying he doesn't deserve to be held accountable for allowing himself to be associated with speculative research? The movement needs standards of rigor that reflect the importance of our cause.

I agree and you deserve upvotes

and I think most here agree with you. I think some of the more logical thinking folks, likely to up vote you, are sleeping in for saturday. People trying to act as though folks here are happy about DRG's errors are coming from a sideways angle. It's completely upsetting that DRG keeps goofing up like this and endorsing bunk ideas and theories. He received support from everyone here critiquing him now for years. People getting defensive of him as a person are not getting the specific concerns raised here. It can't be framed as 'we don't like DRG.' Many of us invested so much time and money into his work. Now he's dropping a big ball and deserves to be called out on it. There is nothing wrong with this. There is something wrong and weird about folks who insist we just gloss over gross errors and offensive claims which are hurtful to the truth outing.

"Without making an accusation...

Who do you think you are fooling partner ?? Everybody here knows about Cointelpro etc., the main purpose of which is to create suspicion, mistrust, chaos. So why are you bringing up "disinformation" in relation to Griffin and disingenuously claiming it´s not an accusation. Tell you what pal, why don't you sit down and write, say, 7 books about the 9-11 False Flag and the rest of us can see if we spot any errors in your research.

Rah Rah Rah

I think he was talking about Eric Hufschmid. You know, the one who said that the Loose Change guys were all jews and thus controlled by the dreaded global zionist network! ::shudder::

The guy is a lunatic. See for yourself:

As for Griffin, if he made mistakes regarding his research, he should correct them, no? If he selectively used testimony to advance a pet theory, he should be called on that, no? If he purposefully shits in the punch bowl, he should be taken to task on that, no?

I really dont care how many books he has written about 9/11. IMO only 2 or 3 were really readable anyway ;)
In any case, it doesnt absolve him from criticism just as it shouldnt shield him from applause when he gets something right. I am very interested to see how he will respond to this essay by Erik, but Im not going to hold my breath waiting for an admission of a mistake in doing a disservice to 9/11 truth.

In my opinion, he's forever lost credibility. I can't take anything he says at face value due to a history of supporting and publishing wildly speculative theories as the 'high priest of 9/11 truth' and citing dubious "researchers" while supposedly representing ME.

these are no small errors my

these are no small errors my friend. they are HUGE mistakes. the man goes on national TV representing the 9/11 Truth movement - making claims that are embarrassing and glaringly inaccurate.

sounds to me like you are blaming the rooster for the sun rising.

Thanks Erik

Excellent work. I find the notion of sustained cell phone calls at cruise speed/altitude improbable, however, the whole point is that the overwhelming majority of calls made on 9/11 weren't cellphone calls in the first place. This, too, tells you something about the feasibility of sustained, high altitude, cruise speed cellphone calls from commercial aircraft.

Further, much of DRG's work relies on falsification, but falsification leads to a state of uncertainty and is to be disfavored over verification, that is, direct evidence of some kind for fabrication of cellphone calls. Evidence of cellphone use isn't evidence of phone call fakery; forensic traces would be, and there are none. It now seems DRG's falsification has been falsified, and once again it appears falsification is an unreliable road to travel, when augmented with 'God of the gaps'-type reasoning.

Show "Who were the hijackers?" by bio

Voice morphology

Though allegedly possible (I suppose -- I can't begin to imagine the variables and difficulties involved in faking an-immediately-before-death-phone-call-to-a-loved-one, and I have no expertise in advanced audio), VM strikes me as grossly implausible. In this case I think Occam's razor is clear cut -- it would have been extremely foolhardly to even attempt such a scheme.

In fact, it would seem far easier to assemble a commando team of pseudo-hijackers who resemble Arabs and tie it up with some war games-gone-live (which were, in fact, occurring at that exact date and time), though that scenario is also fraught with risk. Perhaps not as risky as relying on a bunch of coke-heads who can't fly a Cessna who may bungle the whole operation or get pinched by customs, and who leave no CCTV footage, but you get the point.

I remember posting the article about V. morphing featuring Colon Powell on GNN almost ten years ago. Partly just as a lark or "what if?" -- like "what if Alien Abduction were real?". I certainly hope I wasn't responsible for the spreading of this theory to Dylan A and Loose Change 1 and in turn, DRG!

Because again, it seems wildly implausible. I attended a lecture by DRG in Vancouver in 2007 (?) and challenged him on this point on the cue cards they handed out for questions; unfortunately my constructively critical question was rejected in favor of non-confrontational stuff.

DRG has always struck me as one of our best people -- his early stuff, especially, is incredibly thorough, detailed and damaging to the official story. I was very disappointed to see him veer off into this voice morphing and flyover conjecture. I hope he will respond to this essay and at least consider the idea that he may have been in error.

This may sound simplistic, but I think one of the biggest stumbling blocks to achieving a real break through amongst "prominent leftist intellectuals" is ego. When you've spent the last five years giving lectures on blowback you might be more reticent to pull a Hani Hanjour and do a 180. Similarly, many 911 truth activists are loathe to give up a theory they have passionately promoted. I myself have remained on the fence about the Pentagon until very recently, when Snowcrash convinced me that a large-aircraft-hit was more probable than not. This is one of the reasons I respect the Loose Change Crew -- they have not stuck doggedly to a theory but have attempted to refine their arguments over time, and indeed eliminate "theory" altogether.

Having said all this, I agree with 911satya that to insinuate sinister intent on behalf of DRG is inappropriate and unfair. At the very least we should allow DRG to respond. Richard Wolff, one of the world's experts on COINTELPRO, whom I recently interviewed, basically said that the worst thing we can do is start labeling one another "agents". From there it's all downhill. We should focus on the evidence and achieve consensus that way.

Very well said!

Great comment, after reading them all again just now this stands out to me because you make some very important points on the way forward...

1. Getting over ego investment

2. Discarding theories and evidence once it is clear your opinion is in error

One point in addition that follows this chain of thought; DRG has in my conversations with him in private always been slow to react to doubts about people and groups I have alerted him to. Even if it has been made clear to him that those people and groups have made claims that something is "proven" or is "impossible" without hard evidence. He has failed to act and not agreed that they should with these clear doubts be immediately removed from his list of creditable sources until clarification could be obtained.

DRG has always in my view looked for support for his personal theories anywhere he could, with little regard to the quality of the person making claims in support or their history as experts in general as long as they had the expertease.

It looks clear to me in retrospect, he has favoured an interesting story over the often boring reality that large sections of the official story is true. Was this just ego or was it to sell books? Only he would know.

I believe as he was the leading expert for so long he began to have a too strong belief in his own reasoning when he should of been more careful and followed the less popular path of being highly critical of evidence and people.

Maybe he was simply too nice?

Regards John

can you show us one example

can you show us one example where DRG has been accused of being an agent?

questioning intentionality is a far cry from accusations of 'being an agent'.

frankly - the man makes money selling books that sell very questionable facts and research. that's the bottom line. for some that meets the criteria for questioning his intentionality. and all the artful dodger linguistics displayed on this comments board - attempting to dissect the issue - does not negate the simple truth/

bottom line - the man is selling books in the name of 9/11 Truth full of RUBBISH

but - when you consider how many IMPORTANT issues remain unanswered regarding 9/11 - it is very disappointing and, in the eyes of some, a betrayal of trust, that he has chosen to take the research path he has taken.

people have a right to be upset.

cellphone fakery? lets just be real here. it ranks right up there with cartoon planes.

Hi all,

Does anyone have wind of a rebuttal from DRG?
Pls post link when found if found

If/when DRG responds

it will be posted at 911blogger - I assume on the front page.

I and others have made him aware of my critique. It might take him awhile; I wouldn't expect it in the next few days, and it might be longer.

yes I agree

It must take time to analyse this work, there is so much to cover. Delay must not be interpreted as avoidance or resistance, but just a means to get the logically correct response. That is what we all want.

whatever happened to constructive criticism?

Considering Dr. Griffin's recent health challenges (and recovery from a stroke) it may indeed take him a longer time to respond to this thread. I wouldn't be overly surprised if he chooses not to respond here considering the bickering and sometimes egotistical tone that is woven throughout.

I don't think anyone here is trying to denounce or discredit the need for pursuing correction and re-examination of less defensible statements or research. Critique within one's own field of inquiry is vital. Resisting cult-like tendencies is in order. Honest debate is healthy.

But hinted accusations of malfeasance are at times misplaced in such threads. Dr. Griffin has been, from what I've witnessed, most gracious in both his public persona, and in his willingness to communicate with and support others, high or low, in this movement. Anyone who thinks this is insignificant in the larger scheme of changing the public mind is sadly mistaken. He has proven that he is a reasonable, ethical, hard-working and personable representative for this movement. He wears a few different hats that I suspect some of the other researchers on this site might not be able to wear nearly as well (not to put their efforts down - the same is true of their unique contributions and courage)

His research work is typically encyclopedic - and casting a broad net. While his championing of the CD angle has remained pre-eminent he likewise comprehensively researched and illuminated almost the entire range of broad topics mentioned at the lower portion of Mr. Larson's essay. Moreover his reasoned countering of Popular Mechanics nonsense, left-gatekeeper journalism, NORAD excuse-making (and yes, Cass Sunstein) is invaluable to the layreader or newcomer. I too feel deeply saddened by some of the unnecessary negativity that has passed for fair dialog here (This is my first ever post on this site after two years of regular readership). Though the corrective action is necessary I think we fall into a similar trap set by the JREF crowd whereby some correctible "weak link" is over-hyped, creating the same effect on the general public's perception as would a disingenuous strawman argument. As Scott Ritter writes, we're in this to win, not slice each other up over imperfections that can be corrected.

Why can't we recognize the evolutionary nature of investigative research? Constructive, personally supportive feedback and critique will always provide the greatest amount of productivity and accuracy over time, not threats of "flagging" for so-called spotty research. I can't imagine, to use an imperfect analogy, that an automotive designer today would say of a 6 year-old car design with lesser performance or safety features, "Well, since it's not as good or advanced as our current model, the automotive engineer that designed that car is compromised and not to be trusted." We're all working on improving the car design over time.

Dr. Griffin never set himself up to be construed as "the high priest of the 9/11 Truth Movement". This was phraseology created by others, including detractors.

Brilliant !!!

Thanks for that Rawhide.


Very well- written words- welcome to writing here !

Hi rawhide, welcome!

I agree with nearly all that you have said in your very reasonable comment.

Although I would like to point out to you that many here and from the 9/11 scientific community over many years have found themselves talking to a brick wall with the eminent David Ray Griffin. The subjects of the Pentagon, faked phone calls, impossible speed and his relationships and his references to discredited people have been raised time and time again with him and he is stubborn to stick to his beliefs against strong evidence he is wrong.

It's not like he has not been made aware of all the things that have been said here on this thread and has had no time to respond.

You are right that he has provided encouragement to all people in this movement and has convinced many in the public of our cause being worthy of research and support. The problem is that we are coming to the business end of this campaign running up to the 10th anniversary and we are setting the record straight of what we claim and what we don't.

It's a bloody rough world out there and it's only going to get worse. Those that make mistakes need to make good so we all can survive the credibility test that will continue to come time and time again.

Kind regards John

Show "Life rarely cooperates with plans" by Adam1


Addressed problems in the scientific theories he helped spawn, such as quantum mechanics, by way of thought experiments. He was acutely aware of the paradoxes and implied contradictions that arose from the models he created and refined. He was his own critic, in every sense of the word. Einstein, being the true, sincere scientist he was, sought to reconcile inconsistencies, and always reminded his peers and the wider public of the uncertainties and weaknesses in scientific theories and hypotheses.

These qualities, essential in combating the unpleasantries of confirmation bias, don't imply, necessarily, the charge that Einstein was 'wrong', because it doesn't do this great man justice. DRG, although writing in the philosopher's vernacular, implying a mastery of logic, commits logical fallacies, and goes much further in making definitive assertions than his cautious phrasing suggests. His readers are offered a range of choices of interpretation, but often the range of choices of interpretation offered is narrowed without justification.

DRG should look to Einstein's writings for counsel on empirical reasoning, and insulate his work from attack by reviewing it through the eyes of his critics, at the very least acknowledge the various cognitive biases that can impair judgment significantly. DRG cannot possibly be a stranger to this field, and his writing style reveals that, which is why a continued violation of logical, scientific, journalistic and epistemological principles (historiography) is unacceptable, imo.

DRG's ascendancy to the forefront of publicity for 9/11 Truth has made him a spokesperson, or he is seen as one. DRG rebutted equates to rebuttal of the entire Truth Movement in the mind of neutral observers, but this doesn't do the diversity in this movement justice. We could try to remind the masses not to reason fallaciously; but this is an impossible task, especially in this contemporary media reality, which is hypercharged, impatient, uptempo and McCarthyist. Its audience is largerly under- or miseducated and scatterbrained. So .... then the only remaining option is to distance oneself. DRG hasn't been very forthcoming acknowledging fundamental flaws, it is my opinion that this retards the movement's progress, not sanity checks and peer review labeled 'infighting'.

People are still promoting the big tent after all these years... I've seen every excuse in the assortment. If you call yourself a Truth Movement, you had better live up to the name.

I think the best way forward

would be for DRG to put someone like loosenuke or snowcrash on his review panel along with his usual people for his next publication and any revisions of existing ones

just from a quality assurance standpoint - thinking industrially i guess

When in doubt, consult the Scientific Method.

We're all human beings. All human beings make mistakes. A fat chunk of us aren't trained scientists. We're all working an investigation that's way over our pay grade, because nobody else is. Mistakes are gonna happen.

Best thing we can do is put this somewhere handy...

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

It'll help filter out some normal very normal human reactions.

true fight

I work as an engineer but I don't spend hours a day pouring over details of these events hence I have average knowlege. I'm the kind of guy you need to convince, though I'm already convinced. When I saw the towers crash together I knew at the moment there was more to it than the impact. Not particularly intuitive, it was obvious, but it struck me at a depth where things remained unsettled until those insights were resolved. Others obviously didn't have that feeling and were content with the non-explanations given by the media and official investigations.

Because of that I've spent all this time promoting awareness, need for a new/continued investigation, etc. The work includes working with ae911truth at architectural conventions. But I've recently come to see that this movement is coming to an end, much to my chagrin.

Part of the big problem is the contention amongst this group. So many have done so much, thank god. But there's so much infighting and what I call posturing that I'm offended. I'm walking away. I have endless respect and admiration for Jon Gold and all the others for their dedication and work, even those writing comments. But the fact is, you're losing me and if your losing me, you've lost because I'm already in.

I'm offended because of the infighting and lack of perspective. The big picture is that the fight isn't for the facts it's for the evidence and the correct perspective thereof. No one can ascertain the absolute correct conclusions because we don't, at this point, have all the facts. That's the problem, so many think they can and it's offensive. It's against the ultimate requirement of an open investigation.

So there's several ongoing pursuits: clarifying our perspectives on the evidence we have, gathering more, convincing others in and out of our group of their importance, promoting a continued investigation and freeing suppressed information.

No where in these pursuits is the idea that we have to arrive at absolute conclusions. We have perspectives but they are hypotheses until all the evidence and testimony is in and we have an open investigation. One example is the Pentagon crash. I'm not happy with any particular hypothesis at the moment but because of the infighting in this group, I'm forced to leave the discussion. Part of the problem is that all viable hypotheses concerning that day concern treachery. That's the point, they're all the same. The point is to bring the weight of evidence to fore which indicates treachery so an open investigation can resolve it. Instead, I'm offended by the innane pursuit of argument and detail by members of this group.

In the case of morphed phone calls, it sounds crazy and potentially offensive. More offensive to me is not finding the correct answer in the long run. That's why no hypothesis should be discarded unless it's patently absurd. We need those perspectives. If placing morphed calls was technically achievable then we can't discard the possibility no matter how absurd or offensive to some. We can discard it in the final analysis as irrelevant but that comes after an open investigation. And besides, there's another result that this dogged pursuit of detail and absolute conclusion before its time engenders and that's that it obscures the spectrum of possibility. It's possible there was some morphing in some cases, for example.

This is my last post here and possibly my last read. Probably you need this reflection because I think if you're losing me how the crap are you going to convince the number of people we need to gain that required momentum? I secretly hope that your continued investigation and debate lead to overturning public opinion but I realize that it's not for me anymore and my support has ended.

Maybe I'm not writing this as clearly, I'm not a writer. But so many say we don't need this theory or that. That's dead wrong. When 2 are bickering here about some obscure point at least 1 is wrong, probably both and neither are addressing the people we need. That absurdity has risen to such a level that I can no longer align myself with this group.

And if you feel the need to argue with my points, don't. I'm already gone.

Bravo! Don't leave, though.

Please take a deep breath and come back in a few days.

This is a tough situation for anyone to have to work.

"Vote Club" effect. Your statement is fine.

Adam1, Your statement is something that should NOT receive downvotes.
Your short two sentences are very appropriate and compassionate...but you had 4 downvotes when I posted.
You got hit by "The Vote Club"
This "Vote Club" clique ends up actually alienating and disenfranchising some people, but "The Vote Club" also has a hijacking effect...
...People who agree with "The Vote Club" help to grow it...and it becomes larger and 'more powerful'.

"The Vote Club" sometimes suppresses honest communication and frustrates some people.

I do not like seeing good people alienated by "The Vote Club".


I didnt vote him down, but I noticed that he kept repeating himself in several different comments on this thread. Maybe thats why some people voted him down? Nobody likes spam.

A lot of folks with unpopular or ridiculous positions often complain that the downvote is a form of censorship. I disagree. I like to think of it as a volume dial.

Don't leave yet

anditico, your concerns are real and important, but they indicate that there is a scientific issue you may not be familiar with. You suggest that the question of what happened at the Pentagon is insoluble and I agree with that. We cannot know exactly what happened until there has been a new investigation with subpoena powers, for the simple reason that the evidence we have is contradictory - some say the plane hit the Pentagon and some say it flew in a more northerly path which would have made the impact, as defined by the damage, impossible.

There is however something which can be studied in a scientific manner which can lead to a definite conclusion.

The hypothesis to examine is that the method of collection and presentation of witness data supporting the northerly path is flawed.

CIT says their witness testimony is virtually irrefutable on the grounds that it was recorded on video. If that is valid, it means that video recorded testimony of a large plane hitting the Pentagon must also be irrefutable. Such testimony exists. As these are contradictory there must be something wrong with the claim that the north path testimony is irrefutable.

When we look at the CIT witness testimony we find that all their witnesses who could see the Pentagon reported that the plane hit the Pentagon. Clearly CIT were aware if this contradiction at the time of recording. The fact that they chose to present their description of the prior path of the plane and exclude the description of the impact indicates that they were willing to practice deception. We don't know their motive and it doesn't matter. The only reason why the Pentagon continues to be a troublesome issue is that the CIT website is so expertly constructed and convincing. But it only seems convincing because the witnesses' words have been cherry-picked. It is easy to make a convincing case if deception is used. Once that is understood people move on. This is set out more clearly here:

It is time to move on, not move away.

You, anditico, have articulated what I could not.

Thank you. You have said what I was unable to articulate. I agree with you 100%. I won't be coming back either, unless there are major changes, which I do not expect.
Once again, thanks for your post, anditico.

Good bye...your time has passed, thanks for the work you did!

This fight is not for the masses any more, that time has come and gone and we won in most places in the world. We are now fighting for the John Pilger's of this world, the scientists, the politicians that have some integrity, the university professors that have a backbone and the peace advocates that actually have the balls to face reality.

The only way we get them to risk every bloody thing is to demonstrate we can be self critical, we can weed the wheat from the chaff and we can be trusted to be reasonable in our claims.

Your post made me angry because it demonstrates the laziness of this movement and the lack of preparedness to pay attention to detail.

The problem with concession has always been because wacky people have made wacky claims many of these people are no doubt paid to do so. THIS IS THE REALITY!

If someone says something is IMPOSSIBLE with out demonstrating it with the scientific method they are NOT CREDITABLE!

If someone says something is PROVEN AS A FACT with out the evidence they are NOT CREDITABLE!

If someone is considered our TOP MAN and TOP EXPERT and he MISREPRESENTS THE EVIDENCE to support HIS PET THEORY he is NOT CREDITABLE.

We will never get people to RISK EVERYTHING unless we are solid! That my friend is the GOD DAM POINT!

Regards John

Show "ALL CAPS, cursing and insults turn people off faster than errors" by Adam1

People should always welcome

People should always welcome informed debate. Criticism just comes with the territory, if you are going to do research and put it out for public consumption, then you have to be prepared to see some legitimate criticism coming back, in fact you should desire it because as a writer you want to write your best arguments if possible. I don't think anybody is trying to claim that they know everything that happened, although there are ways to know about certain aspects of the attack based on the evidence that exists. In this case i think DRG is being challenged for saying that something happened (voice morphed calls), when the evidence seems to point in another direction. To point out that his assertions aren't backed by the best evidence is to say that it is harmful to our public face to have him out there promoting this idea as an example of leading 911 research. So you have to say am I going to be complicit in this poor research which has a manifestly negative impact on the movement I value? To do so is not to be mean spirited, its just part of the pursuit of truth and credibility.

anditico, Very Good points made. Thanks!


true fight

guess I had a few more things to say before I left...

Personally, John Bursil, I hope and pray you are right, that you just have to push over the true scientists with fact and all will work out.

You mentioned you were angry at the laziness of the movement and lack of preparedness to pay attention to detail.

I'll reiterate my point. I think this attention to detail means we can't see the forest for the trees. It's not our place to come to judgement, it's society's. Our fight is to bring relevant, consumable facts of treachery to the fore to ensure an opening and sustaining investigation into these events, an investigation with consequence. Ours indeed, is a continuing investigation but so far without the satisfying consequence to ourselves or nation. I feel the real fight is to find ways to move these facts to the public in continuing ways and with continuing impact. We are trying to do that but finding continuing challenges and struggles. In those challenges we continue to learn.

I think we need to win the attention of the average person who doesn't feel the gravity of concern of these events (or have suppresed it) and would rather shut them out. It's not always fact and science that can open eyes, though that has to be there. I think the movement has to be inclusive, welcoming of all perspectives with the exception of incredibly absurd ones. People aren't stupid. They know there's going to be a nut in a body of 100 and they can discount it, but we need that 15 minutes of their attention. We might not get it if they see us fighting amongst ourselves. Besides those with alternative theories to yours and others may have the ability to catch that 15 minutes of an outsider's attention with their enthusiasm or previous dedication.

In short, I would suggest we be inclusive, non-judgmental, tolerant of crazy ideas, knowing our purpose isn't to arrive at those ultimate conclusions but to bring all of our doubt, our concern to the wide audience of others who aren't against us but just haven't been confronted in a way to give us their undivided attention yet.

I fully appreciate your input as I recognize the time that it means you've dedicated to an effort that I feel our country would be/will be emasculated without coming fully to terms with. I don't necessarily agree with your details but I hope you appreciate my input to this effort as well and hope you do with all others.

In my experience at the ae911truth booth at the convention I saw those who would glance but walk quickly away. Those are the ones I want to talk to and find ways to reach. Generally students were receptive and ahead of us in various ways. Older architects were often dumbfounded, having had their doubts but having pushed them into some recess in their minds and here we were bringing them out again. Every single architect who took the time to read our material and questions, took away one of our pamphlets and left with concerned expression and/or perhaps signed the petition. It wasn't just that we were presenting facts and obvious doubt, we were accessible and in a non-threatening way. It's difficult because to some we were still 'offensive' and they let us know, but those again, are the ones I want to reach. We do that through hearing and acknowleging their concerns though they be emotional in nature.

You can think of these issues with newcomers (or stand-offers as I call them) as similar to opening a bottle or can of unknown content. They don't know if it's going to explode when you open it or how it's going to smell. They'll stand back. We have to crack the lid on the can which is their lid. We want their inclusion, so we have to present this activity in a way that draws them in, gently, delicately and with respect. Although at the same time, there is a balance of persistance and concern that has to be present at all times so they become aware of the inescapable purpose in it.

Those are my parting words of wisdom, for what it's worth.

> If you have the energy to argue with others in the movement, you're wasting it.
> Focus your energy on activities of outreach and finding new ways for others to reach out.
> Provide support for ALL activities of outreach (even those you don't agree with).
(we have a closing window of time here).
> Continue to refine your perspectives, reveal new evidence (covered-up or otherwise) and research but do this on the side because we have more than enough at this point.
> Suppress all forms of contention within the group/movement. Naturally we have to support each other.
> Disagree if you must, silently with each other, try to prod their reason but always acknowlege their efforts in the movement overall.
(present a concerned and generally unified stance to the public)
> Be ready to change your opinions/perspectives, acknowledge the very real doubts of others, inside and out of the movement.

Scientistswho are still pursuing details of the event, I would encourage them to stop and to turn to your colleagues, your local media and others in an effort of outreach. That's what's needed now, as a unified front. We have enormous fact and details that haven't been given their due. Concerned students should approach their respective offices for permission for monthly or weekly meetings in public places, for publicly displaying materials. Professors should do the same, those with media connections should continue making calls and appearances. All this should be done in a gentle and persistent manner. We need to be accessible.

I'm guilty to a certain extent. Although my colleagues and family generally know my viewpoints, I don't have an ae911 sticker on my car, nor pamphlets on my desk nor have I started a meetup group nor approached coffee-houses to place these things. I haven't contacted the media and done other things that I might be able to do. I think I need to do those things. I'd like to think I have a non-contentious movement behind me when I do these delicate things. And thanks again to Jon Gold, Richard Gage and countless others (and DRG) for reminding me what being a true patriot and having professional integrity are.

In presentation I understand the inescapable science, the lack of official public response to it and the reticence of the media and society in general to respond. These are all topics to be addressed in public. The scientific facts don't seem to reach everyone. Historical perspectives, facility for treachery in high office are also interesting topics to pursue, though it should be done in a light-hearted fashion (if that's possible). We have explored these topics endlessly in movies and so on but that was fiction and for entertainment. Start discussions with reference to these, the more comical the better :). People find it hard to confront as an actual possibility because that's like pouring oil on ice cream or something. It's hard to swallow and that should be acknowleged. People aren't given to understanding the capabilities, capriciousness, motivations or temptations of those long in office. But they understand human nature. All these things are emotional blockages to objectively evaluating these events in spite of the scientific certainties we have. All these topics should be pursued with others, on an even keel and let decisions and conclusions fall where they may. We need strategic and increasing momentum not more science at this point. We need to all hold hands and push over all these other doubts.

When people confront these issues it isn't just scientific. We are touching on this ice-cream and oil thing they have with their conception of truth in office of faith in our institutions and ultimate faith in our media to get the facts right. These are ways of thought that they have. When Richard says a steel beam has too much horizontal energy they are thinking, "he's attacking my patriotism, my faith in my good country. He must be a nut.". On a lesser level, it really is absurd to think the media has obscured the truth, surprising all of us I'm sure. These are all real issues and comprise the juggernaut we have fighting. My suggestion is for a united front that doesn't call just the science into view but confronts our historical legacy and media-ocracy as well. We need intelligent input and inclusion on all levels to acheive the required momentum. If you're intelligent, you have your doubts of success as I do. I'm reluctantly thinking of the 20 year plan in consequence of defeat. It's disturbing.

Show "Very well said, thanks for this..." by Sandberg

This is in imo waffle...if your a "big tenter" just say so....

We've heard it all before, but I agree that you do say it so reasonably and nicely.

Your name and credentials might be useful here so I may have a better understanding of who I am debating?

Doing confrontations/reach out as you say with the AE team you have not experience the "truther" reality, have you. You have experienced the way we the advocates of solid research would all like to experience it. You have stood next to educated, articulate and reputable people pushing a solid evidence based case to people that in most cases have approached you for information.

Just imagine you were me or any of us here on the street at an information handout and you overhear a comrade (for a better term) talking to the public about those dam Jews, the missile at the Pentagon and those faked phone calls are you feeling now? How do you feel when you see the public listening roll their eyes and walk away or worse get exited about it?

We don't need David Icke "truthers" they are useless to us, I know I tried to reach out to nearly 2,000 of them indabloodyvidually at a big event here in Melbourne and about 3 became useful members of our 9/11 Truth community. The rest don't want change they want to DREAM and postulate about aliens and esoteric b/s.

I wrote an article for this site about the "big tent" for this site around 3 years ago and it reads today as true as ever...maybe you could read it and actually think a little about the useless nature of what you propose?

Here it is...they had to close the topic from comments at the time...a badge of honour in a way :-)

9/11 Truth and the "Big Tent" Approach

A short essay by John Bursill

If you haven't heard of the "Big Tent" approach before then I will give you a quick explanation of why it is an ongoing problem for the 9/11 Truth Movement. The "Big Tent" approach is all inclusive approach, that believes all people professing to be "truth seekers" should be welcomed and supported by us and we should allow them a platform to push their ideas and theories regardless of their merits. By merits I mean; are those ideas and theories supported by evidence based rational arguments that are peer reviewed and accepted as credible? The great majority of the 9/11 Truth Community reject ideas or theories that are without merit as they believe this will marginalise, dilute, confuse and isolate us as a movement. They "the Big Tenter's" feel that we "the people" can figure out what is garbage and what is not and they should be able to present their ideas and theories on an equal footing to us in the name of free speech, regardless of their quality. On the other hand do I "hope" that these people publish our proven arguments, yes and am I thankful for this service, absolutely!

In recent times a few new groups have formed that support the "Big Tent" populist approach, such as "Truth Movement Australia" for one and I would ask all of you to be careful not to get to caught up with any group that might be getting off track with ideas that lack merit! Direct involvement and advertisement of these groups will only slow our progress to achieve their and our proclaimed aim: "the truth"! We must continue to be disciplined with our approach to "the truth" and maintain our push for a re-investigation of 9/11, which is simply the best chance for real change and peace in this world today. I know it seems like an impossible task sometimes but the formation of these "Big Tent" groups may be an indicator that we are closer than we think, as general interest and awareness that there is a "truth" problem increases? I fully accept these groups' right to exist, but I feel it is my duty to point out their flaws, and I know that many in these groups understand my point of view on this matter. They simply hold another view, primarily being that we need numbers and popular subjects and issues to get interest and that is simply more important than perfect credibility, as they feel exposure to the greatest number is the "key".

We as "9/11 Truth Advocates" are part of their "Big Tent" because our "9/11 Truth" issue interests them, that's great but it does not follow that we need to be involved with issues or causes that hurt our aim by discrediting us. As with all successful social movements we must keep our campaign sharp and it must have a clear direction and focus.

Truth is not ENTERTAINMENT, for entertainment and titillation are the enemies of truth, as they distract the mind and blur it's focus. I love to be entertained and distracted from time to time especially in this war torn world, that is normal and healthy. But just as I do not "drink and drive" I will not allow myself to be intoxicated with wild ideas or theories while pursuing "the truth" that we know is proven and concise.

While socializing with like minded truth seeking people is important, we must be on the look out for those marginalising influences, associations and half baked attempts to populise "free thinking" for entertainment or for profit purposes. We are currently at war for our reality, more confused thoughts and ideas will not bring answers, only more questions. Clarity is the key to our ongoing success! Just because some one is a great speaker and is correct 99% of the time, that does not mean that the 1% rubbish that is spoken will not become 100% of the news story when they are talked about on TV that evening! We do not need 99% right people as we have 100's of 100% right people who only profess what they know to be true, we must support these people!

There are some groups like WeAreChange for example that aim to broaden the 9/11 Truth Movement in a logical and relevant way. I fully support WAC's formation in Australia and I hope the founder and spokesman Luke Rudkowski's attendance at the November Sydney Event(The Hard Evidence - 9/11 was an Inside Job) put on by 9/11 Truther's will boost the goals and numbers of that group. WAC has always supported evidence based arguments and has stayed away from unneeded speculation. Their main goal is the pursuit of truth and justice for victims of the 9/11 Attacks while exposing the fraud of the "War on Terror", it's consequences and the Globalist NWO agenda. This is a highly practical and logical approach indeed.

Any chink in our 9/11 Truth armour will be exposed and as in any battle these holes must be kept to the absolute minimum or possibly fatal wounds will be incurred!

The millions dead and dying due to the "War on Terror" born from the 9/11 attacks should remain strong in peoples' thoughts! While I know some are compelled to carry on researching the "Illuminati" or speculating about "Alien Invader's" I would suggest that "that" may be best left to more peaceful times in the future, that will come with the exposure of the 9/11 lies!

Recently I have been asking myself and others what is the best approach to take with these "Big Tent" populist groups? After much thought and talk I believe maintaining communications and doing our best to make argument directly or indirectly with them is simply the best way. We all "9/11 Truth Advocates" realize that "9/11 Truth is the key" to unlocking the door to the real "reality" and we must use any opportunity to convince others this is the case whilst staying keenly focussed on our aim of 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Scientists, Politicians, Peace Activists and the average Jill or Joe will not have their reality challenged by a broad, unbalanced and lost movement of "free thinkers", that will simply supply an excuse to go back to sleep!


Kind regards John

PS - If we had adopted your approach would not exist in my view, for the people that put it together would have never supported Richard

What I say about WAC is now not so true...

WAC has now become in many places strong on "Chemtrails" and other weakly supported ideas and theories failing to come together with the peace movement as we had hoped. They have now supported the likes of David Icke at events. Actually Luke posed for photos with him in NY last year which really upset me, he as so many do say in his defence he just finds him interesting and has his right to his religious type beliefs like I suppose the Scientology celebs? Icke is a GOD DAMMED ENTERTAINER...he is not a fricken messier as many wish...! This is a war people are dying in the 100's of makes me cry :-(

Truth Movement Australia came and went in a mess of b/s and crap made some big bucks for it's founder with a few popular events, who walked away when the job became way to difficult dealing with nuts he had attracted. He was actually a nice guy....not so nice now....a lot wiser though.

Anyway re-think your big tent, we know from experience it is worthless as an approach to a truth and justice campaign!

Regards John


First let me say I'm very much in support of your general approach and direction. Hat tip to you and Michael and others.

That said, I just finished watching Ric Burn's "History of New York" documentary which finishes by pushing all of the emotional
buttons of 9/11 (and a good bit of absent and misinformation). I think anditico's primary point is that what we propose IS sacrilege.
This is an event and myth held sacred by many and that fact must also be acknowledged. I hope I've characterized his concern correctly.

Best to you and all as we move forward.

Show "Eh, so. . . " by NYCGuy

Which is why

you gloss over the flaws in the cell phone fakery theory; because rejecting it means altering your perception of 9/11.

Suddenly, not everything is fake anymore. It's scary. But you're going to have to come to terms with it.

The fallacy you are committing, is called appeal to consequences. I implore you to read the link.

To help put things in perspective...

Here's a post of mine from May 2007. People have been against the promotion of voice morphing for a long time, and yet, it still was promoted.

If something is flawed, you don't want other people representing this cause promoting it. Because you don't want those people promoting flawed information, being made fools of, and being turned off of this cause. Or promoting flawed information to a large group of people, or to the media. It's really as simple as that. As I pointed out in this show last night, when I made a mistake in my facts piece, I immediately corrected it. No one is perfect, but we should all strive to be as good as possible for this cause.

Top man

spot on comments

Fetzer: essay is "fake attack", 911blogger gone to "dark side"

Fake attack on David Ray Griffin's studies of the fake phone calls . . .
Posted by James H. Fetzer on February 12, 2011 at 6:00pm

"More proof that 911blogger has gone over to the dark side. Even the FBI admitted that the alleged phone calls from Barbara Olson to her husband, Ted, had not occurred, even though Ted, our former Solicitor General, had claimed she called him twice and gave three different versions of how it happened, since cell phones don't work at that speed and altitude and Boeing 757s were not equipped with air phones. If the Solicitor General, who represents the administration before the Supreme Court, will lie about 9/11, we know that no one associated with the government can be trusted. Nor can, alas!"

If anyone here is unfamiliar with Fetzer, a person who has consistently endorsed hoaxes while attempting to undermine serious research, read more here:

Fetzer does DRG no favors: He suggests that, because it has published my critique, this is "more proof that 911blogger has gone over to the dark side" . He says "Boeing 757s were not equipped with air phones," a claim that Griffin has researched and rejected, based on evidence. He says that Ted Olson lied, but when Olson was first interviewed by the FBI on 9/11/01 he said that he didn't know if Barbara was calling him on a cell or air phone; it's a misrepresentation of the record to call Olson's confusion about this in subsequent interviews evidence that he lied. And it's a logical fallacy to say that - even if Olson lied - that "no one associated with the government can be trusted." No one should trust the government - but that doesn't mean the government always lies.

Fetzer's been cited in a number of Griffin's books, and Griffin has appeared on his radio show - long after Fetzer was rejected by nearly every truth activist after disrupting and discrediting Scholars for 9/11 Truth by promoting space beams and TV fakery. Griffin has always been ambivalent about discrediting claims and the people who promote them:

"Griffin, on the other hand, is skeptical of talk about disinformation and infiltrators. 'I really haven’t had any strong suspicions about anybody,” he said. “Even if there is some truth to it, I don’t think it’s a very important concern.'" (The Wire 3/29/06)

No one should take anything this man says...


and we should consider the

and we should consider the fact that he is working to support DRG's theories.

what does that tell us? who else has Fetzer supported? Cartoon planes Morgan Reynolds. Space beams Judy Woods. The JOOS-did-it Kevin Barrett. Video fakery Nico Haupt.

and now cellphone fakery DRG.

think about that for a minute

Indeed bad news

raises my skepticism even more.

Show "Barrett never said" by dave mann

i could post here a

i could post here a compendium of quotes from Kevin Barrett - regarding Jews - but, it would take so many pages of this thread that it would literally knock the subject of DRG off the boards.

suffice it to say that his sentiments are pretty well documented.

Show "Lame" by dave mann

You're right...

Except I would categorize Barrett's behavior as beyond lame.

Show "I agree with Dave Mann," by Memory_Hole

Barret is not a member here

so the rules don't apply to him.

That doesn't mean I support snitchjacketing people without some proper evidence. But that's not what this was about. This is about Barret's nuttiness over the years. I believe Jon Gold has an archive. Ask him, I'd rather not bother, I'm not too interested in Barret.

DRG will not appear on the Visibility911 Podcast?

I asked DRG if he would come on the show last year he declined because he alluded that the line of questioning might be uncomfortable?

We at the Visibility911 Podcast have a very high standard of production and content, far superior to Barrett, Fetzer or the majority of other Podcasts, so why did DRG refuse? I suggested we could talk about the "fake phone call controversy"....

Anyway I just thought at this stage it would be prudent to bring it up. Michael Wolsey and I had had an arguments with Griffin in the past, so maybe that was what it was all about?

Regards John

PS - If Fetzer's writing an essay backing Griffin it appears he is now sunk...I hope Fetzer realizes this....oh the irony of the flee's biting the host, sorry it's just a cheap shot..but hey it's true. Griffin is a great man and has done a lot of great work but his "big tent" was being held up by him as it's only truly strong support left and it's now caving in finally.

Griffin on Visibility 9-11

Hey John-

This is interesting and something I was not aware of. The fact is, I am not sure DRG is welcome on the show anymore and I am not surprised to find out he declined your invitation. He and I had a phone conversation that, well, lets just say it did not go well.

The DRG mess is something that I personally have struggled with. I came into the movement right before the publication of The New Pearl Harbor. Not many have been bigger supporters of DRG and his work, especially in the beginning. I had interviewed DRG several times, both on my podcast and on the American Freedom Network when I used to do radio shows there. I helped DRG to sell many books. We didn't have a whole lot to work with at the time and DRG's entrance onto the scene was very welcomed. Due to DRG's writings and films like In Plane Sight, which were early influences on me and our group in Colorado, I bought the whole no plane at the Pentagon least for a short time. When I became aware of the dishonesty present in these theories, I and our group distanced ourselves from what we considered to be bad information. I know for a fact that folks contacted DRG about his staunch stance that no plane hit the Pentagon. DRG has been exposed to the good info, yet he, for whatever reason, refused to amend his rhetoric. He continued to promote no plane theories and also began to promote the fake phone call theory. The kicker for us was when he went on the CBC 911 special and said something to the effect that WE, meaning the 911 truth movement, KNOW that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. Obviously, this was not true and most prominent 9-11 researchers and activists had rejected these dishonest theories. DRG followed his no plane assertion up with his foolish endorsement of CIT. Despite my early and enthusiastic support of DRG in the past, I was personally not willing to give him a free pass to promote BS based on his good work. I understand all too well that this is the kind of thing that hurts, not helps our movement.

Many of you may remember the multiple 9-11 events on Colorado Public Television, formerly known as KBDI, Channel 12 in Denver. It started with multiple showings of 9-11 Press for Truth, progressed to Richards lecture, 9-11 Blueprint for Truth, and then the latest was multiple showings of Loose Change. There was talk over at CPT about bringing DRG in to the studio for the Loose Change showing like they did with the producers of Press for Truth and Blueprint for Truth. Keep in mind that Shari Bernson of CPT took A LOT of heat from the board at the station for these showings. Debunkers flooded her and the board at the station with reasons why they should not be showing any more 9-11 films and why we are all bonkers. For a while, I thought this had worked and I didn't think they would be showing any more 9-11 films. I believe it was only the tenacity of Shari Bernson to bring this info to the public that made the showing of LC possible and her credibility needed to be protected. If DRG had been allowed on air to represent the 9-11 movement, the debunkers would have had a hay day with that and the station would have lost valuable credibility. I informed the station that this probably was not the best idea because of DRG's promotion of junk theories and his endorsement of CIT. The station agreed and dropped DRG from the list of possible in studio guests. I simply asked the question, isn't there a better choice? The answer was, yes of course, and I am glad to say that Kevin Ryan came to town for the event and represented us all very well.

During our conversation on the phone mentioned above, I confronted DRG on his no plane theories and endorsement of CIT. He was unapologetic and basically stood his ground. Eventually, DRG's insistence on promoting bad information cost him an appearance on CPT as the station rejected him on this basis and thanked me for making them aware.

So yea, it's no big surprise that DRG rejected your invitation to come on the show John. I think I am probably on his shit list and am likely to remain there (:

With that said, I love DRG and all his valuable contributions to the movement, but couldn't disagree more with him on the disinformation and the gaining and keeping of credibility. Richard Gage and Peter Dale Scott have both gained back some of the credibility they had lost with their endorsements of CIT and I urge DRG to take that step as well and admit he is wrong about some of what he has promoted and endorsed.


Kevin was a good choice

and i hope DRG interacts with Erik

Pretty humble

about your podcast John.

Look at the quality of guests for one...

...and the fact it's the longest running and not to mention you can actually understand the audio...

It's not hard to be one of the best, is it now.

I am very proud of the Podcast material we at the Visibility team produce plus the ad's for our campaign and the recent Red Flags pieces.

There is simply no doubt in my view that as regards the 9/11 "Truth" Movement goes our podcast is top notch.

Regards John


this does not prove no cell phone calls were made that day for reasons set out in the essay. Keep trying though, because if you are one day successful it will prove something.

the comment Frank replied to

advocated that people attempt to use cell phones in flight, as an 'experiment.'

This comment has been removed as it violates 911blogger rules: "Do not post material that promotes ... criminal actions."

FAA and FCC regulations both currently prohibit use of cell phones in flight:

The actual risk to safety/communications is unclear as it hasn't been thoroughly tested, but it is still prohibited:

In any case, as Frank said, cell phones working or not proves nothing about the calls made from UAL 93 - most of which were made by air phones, anyway, as I provided evidence for in my essay, along with studies and reports showing that cell phones do work from air planes in some circumstances.

My opinion

This article made me doubt the phone calls being fake. The first movie that got me aware of 9/11 was Loose change 4 years ago, so I had been suspect of the calls before. I'm afraid that conceding the phone calls are real is would make the OCT true in many people's opinion, if not a whole lot harder to prove a conspiracy. Is there any plausible scenario how the hijackers could have been on the plane until the very last moment and it still be a conspiracy? We know phone calls were might right up till the end. Maybe that is why DRG is desperate to prove the calls are fake, because the calls proves they were suicide hijackers on the planes till the very end, no operation northwoods plane switch etc, is conceding a huge amount of evidence for the OCT.

One of the most striking pieces of evidence was the combination code left on the voicemail, unless the FBI agent fabricated this upon instruction by a superior (I mean anything is possible knowing that Ive heard the fbi trying to intimidate any witnesses who say the black boxes were found), then this proves the calls were real......anyways the question is If the phone calls are real and there were suicide hijackers on the planes till the end can anyone come up with a scenario on how that is possible while still being a conspiracy? I'm not saying its not, but those calls are a huge amount of evidence for the OCT. I'm pretty lost and confused about all this after reading this article.



I agree with you that Larson's article makes it hard to claim the calls were faked. It is a very persuasive article. But I don't think this is such a big obstacle to falsifying the OCT. Even if hijackers were on the planes, it is far from clear they were in control of those planes for the entire flights, or much beyond the point of hijacking. The problem with disproving the OCT is not that there is too little evidence but rather too MUCH. It was never necessary to posit the calls were faked. The temptation was natural because, other than those calls, there is no credible evidence the hijackers were even on the planes, and we know in any case--or can reasonably infer--that they did not control the planes throughout their flights: the plotters who gave the orders to wire the buildings were not about to allow terrorists to maybe decide at the last minute to ram an airliner into the Indian Point nuclear reactor, causing potentially millions of deaths. If we did not have overwhelming evidence of WTC CD, I would agree with you that the revelation that the calls were real would pose a significant problem for 911 skeptics. But given the WTC CD evidence, conceding the calls were real really doesn't change much in terms of proving the falsity of the OCT. You still have tons of evidence the hijackers were incapable of flying the planes to their targets; and evidence they were not even Islamic jihadists.

Planes flew into buildings on 9-11

billybipbip said..."This article made me doubt the phone calls being fake. The first movie that got me aware of 9/11 was Loose change 4 years ago, so I had been suspect of the calls before. I'm afraid that conceding the phone calls are real is would make the OCT true in many people's opinion, if not a whole lot harder to prove a conspiracy. Is there any plausible scenario how the hijackers could have been on the plane until the very last moment and it still be a conspiracy? We know phone calls were might right up till the end. Maybe that is why DRG is desperate to prove the calls are fake, because the calls proves they were suicide hijackers on the planes till the very end, no operation northwoods plane switch etc, is conceding a huge amount of evidence for the OCT"

You are exactly correct! And this is why the calls have been called fake, and this is why some people are desperate to believe they are fake. The calls are not fake. It's a bunch of nonsense. But you point out why there is this big and IMO embarrassing debate. These calls are very important. They are as close as you are going to get to being on the planes themselves. To ignore them is to not really do a serious investigation into 9-11. I've never thought the calls were fake because there is no reason to think they are fake. That is also why I've never thought the planes were switched or a missile hit the pentagon (and many other reasons) you are correct, if they are real then hijackers were on the planes and they were hijacked and flown into buildings. It eliminates a bunch of silly embarrassing "theories" that are frankly stupid. This is the kind of BS that happens when people try to prove "9-11 was an inside job". I've never ever tried to prove 9-11 was an inside job. I was under the (evidently) mistaken impression that 9-11 truth was about exposing the truth, I've been trying to expose the truth not trying to prove "9-11 was an inside job", if that is true it will reveal itself. There is manipulation, brainwashing, propaganda and lies, and therefor a need for 9-11 truth for many reasons. Crazy theories drive away rational sane people. I know this for a fact, and it's about time to drive away the irrational crazy people with truth. And the truth is planes were hijacked and they flew into buildings on 9-11. There are lots of other truths as well as Loose Nuke points out in the article. IMO the "truth" movement by endorsing these nonsense theories have assisted the government and it's lies tremendously.

you said:

"Is there any plausible scenario how the hijackers could have been on the plane until the very last moment and it still be a conspiracy?"

ok i can imagine now... and this is pure specul8ion...

as part of the live fly hijack and wargames exercises there were hijack teams put together (not real terrorists) and let loose on planes largely full of people not in the know

perhaps if a throat was slashed it was acting

i cant explain how AA77's cabin door was never opened

does this go anywhere ?

it's not a pet theory just a possible (though i think unlikely) answer to the question asked by jimd3100

it would fit with the idea of simulation gone real - like the tripod drills , the live fly exercises, (the 7/7 emergency drills coinciding with london bombings....)


The landscape of cellular technology has changed changed... literally, so experiments now do not carry the same weight as experiments done at the time Dewdney performed them. It's essential experiments are performed in an environment resembling 9/11, and that may be impossible to replicate now.

Nevertheless, I agree with you; and in my opinion, 9/11 confirms the position that cell phone calls from commercial airliners at cruise speeds and altitudes are improbable: by far, the calls were made from airfones, and not from cell phones, as inaccurate press reports and witness interviews suggest.


Time to boot off the CIT sympathizers from 911blogger. We're egalitarian right...let's put that up to a vote if you will.

i vote

let anyone write what they want at their peril - i always rapidly down vote the CIT huggers

New to the forum!

The cleansing of the 911 truth movement from speculative theories unsupported evidence is absolutely necessary. This process must go on and but we should also try real hard to provide the friendly atmosphere in which admission of error becomes possible.

and what should we do when

and what should we do when polite and friendly communication fails?

Comment on Larson critique

Although I do not feel that the question of faked phone calls is worthy of much attention, I can say that this critique is not convincing. For a number of reasons, including Larson’s many speculations and his repeated references to the “911Myths” and the JREF chat room as credible sources, this series of criticisms falls short of its apparent goal.
Larson first claims that Griffin’s statements on the issue constitute a theory. But this is not a theory, it is a hypothesis, and Larson later clarifies that in his conclusions.

Unfortunately, although there have in the past been reasons to suspect that there was something wrong with the phone calls from the planes, this critique comes across as a statement that there never was any good reason to question this portion of the official story and that anyone who thought so is either not too bright or is an intentional troublemaker. The truth is that, due to the withholding of information and the release of contradictory information by official sources, speculative hypotheses have been considered by many 9/11 investigators to explain some of the contradictions in the official story.

It’s difficult to understand whose claims are being represented throughout this critique. But we are able to focus on the four points, which apparently were claims made by those criticizing Griffin, that Griffin used to outline his response and that Larson now uses to outline his response to the response. Here’s my take as an observer.

1. Frankly, this response to a response is a useless discussion based on a weak criticism. We should all be able to agree that what the FBI has or has not admitted is not terribly important considering that the FBI as an organization is deeply implicated in the cover-up of the crimes of 9/11. If that fact is not evident, I’d be happy to write it up.

2. This section gives one good example of where media representatives might have been mistaken (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette). However, several paragraphs are devoted to Deena Burnett’s calls without any mention of the interesting fact that a 9/11 Commission document says she “threw away” her handwritten notes (why would she destroy the last memories of her husband?) and therefore the entire record is now built on secondary evidence. And again, as a long string of evidence indicates, the FBI is clearly dirty with regard to 9/11. Part of this critique is based on an implication that all 9/11 Commission records, and all pertinent records, have been made available to the public. Other than that, it quickly becomes a circuitous he-said-she-said string that makes it difficult to understand how anyone could use this reasoning as support for any position.

3. Larson uses a quote from an AA spokesperson, and some other ill-defined documents, to imply that AA 757s might not have airfones now, but they might have had airfones before 9/11. In contradiction to Larson’s own argument, the spokesperson (Kinder) stated that all the Flight 77 calls were from cell phones. This argument, involving suggestions that Kinder didn’t really know what he was talking about, is also not convincing.

4. Ted Olson is not a “sergeant” (even “911Myths” points that out) but Larson uses an FBI memo about a wife making a collect call to her sergeant husband as evidence that it is “obvious the female passenger’ is Barbara Olson.” That is not obvious at all, and it makes the remaining article, with repeated claims of Griffin’s “logical fallacies,” much less than believable.

Larson then goes on to explain that – “There is no credible basis for claiming the 9/11 calls were faked.” However, Larson admits that he has engaged in speculation in this critique as a means to counter Griffin’s admitted speculations. In fact, this critique is largely speculative. Here are some examples that make Larson sound like he is reaching a bit too far for evidence to support his own unspoken conclusions.

• “DOJ might have its own system for recording, logging and tracking calls received…”
• “Second, self-powered cell phone repeaters may have been placed on board the planes to ensure that calls would reliably connect.”
• “While possible, it seems unlikely that a commercial airline pilot would find the deactivation of seatback phones… to be such a significant event…”
• “…it’s also possible the Commission is correct, and these reports were simply mistaken.”
• “The explanation may simply be the FBI didn’t get the billing/other records from OSPS and DOJ, and didn’t ask AT&T/DOJ for an explanation,…”
• “It may be there is something more here, but it’s also possible the Commission is correct…”
• “…I had suggested this may have been the reason for the direct call.”
• “…the direct call may have been connected by another operator, or Lorenzo/Gonzalez may not have wanted to admit doing this,…”
• “It may be that Kinder gave a quick reply he believed was correct based on his personal knowledge…”
• “It may also be there was an attempt, eventually unsuccessful, to suppress this evidence.”

That's a lot of mights, mays and possibles for a critique that is attacking speculation.

Finally, I would say that some of the comments posted here are disrespectful toward someone who has earned a great deal of respect in the truth movement. Continued conjecture about “intentionality” for example, is uncalled for and those making such suggestions are out of line at the very least.


Voice Morphing-Fake Calls theory/hypothesis (c'mon Kevin... what's the difference?) has never helped this cause, and has only hurt it. The point of Erik writing this piece was to show that "there are other possible, and more probable, explanations" based on all of the known available information. There's nothing wrong with using qualifiers like "mights, mays and possibles" to do this.

Can People Speculate About 9/11 Events Or Not?

The 9/11 Blogger community has been repeatedly admonished by you to not speculate about 9/11 theories, but now you have determined that there is "nothing wrong with using qualifiers like "mights, mays and possibles".

Consistency would aid this debate.

There isn't anything wrong with...

Using qualifiers to show why a theory might be wrong based on ALL available information. Especially a theory that has been a detriment to this cause. I am being consistent. My problems with speculation is speculation promoted as fact. My problems with speculation is, as we've been shown by countless individuals, any "bat-shit crazy" theory that will drive people away, and destroy the credibility of this cause, can and will be brought up. DEW, Holograms, Pods, Witnesses As Actors, TV Fakery, CGI, Mini-Nukes, Barbara Olson is alive and well, the passengers are living on an island, plane swaps, voice morphing, flight 77 flew over the Pentagon etc... and so on. I think you should read my article that says the following:

Before I begin, I would like to say that theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you’re not being given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal.

However, it's not our theories that have helped us over all of these years. Just good, solid information has. Obvious questions have.

My Take

There are possibilites on all sides... When you are a 9/11 critic like DRG, your purpose is to raise doubt about the OCT and perhaps speculate on what might have occurred. That's not the same as drawing a firm conclusion that the calls definitely were faked. His purpose is to show why the official story could be wrong --not right- in order to justify an investigation that produces answers.

Clearly there's no hard proof that the calls were faked, and the evidence to that effect is weak. I don't promote faked calls at all because I think the case is extremely weak compared to things like C.D. Griffin rightly acknowledges this. And while it might be appropriate to point out the flaws in his analysis regarding the calls, this thread has become as much an effort to "take down Griffiin" himself and to question his motivations. I disagree with that.

We should all come together around the best evidence, such as the BuildingWhat campaign that DRG inspired and is a co-sponsor of. We need a 'focal point and to work in a disciplined manner', as ReserachGuy mentioned. Everyone agrees there's a cover-up, but the problem with focusing on just the cover-up is that it is so nebulous with hundreds of points that could be made, with none of them sticking. It is scattershot. And while a great percentage of Americans already believe there's a cover-up, that could just mean a cover-up of foreknowlege. ( After all the Aug. 6 memo is well known. ) I just don't think that "missed warnings" and the "failure of the FBI and CIA to communicate" are going to cut mustard. They won't galvanize the public to demand a new investigation, and they imply a geniune AQ attack. And as long as the public believes that we were attacked by an outside enemy , they will begrudgingly accept that there were missed warnings..

Instead we must demostrate the reality of false flags and show how 9/11 fits the bill. Two or three strong campaigns like: "BW", "What Orders" (featuring Mineta's Whistleblower testimony" and the issue of "Nanothermite and First Responder Health" might get it done.

response to Kevin Ryan's critique

"I do not feel that the question of faked phone calls is worthy of much attention ..."

Kevin, I agree with you on that point; my essay was written to demonstrate that, and the amount of credibility it has been given by Griffin is unwarranted. However, you say my essay is "not convincing" of that., one reason being that it has "repeated references to the '911Myths' and the JREF chat room as credible sources."

As I noted in my essay in Section 3C, Griffin himself cited an email posted at JREF as a source; the one from John Hotard in Corporate Communications (PR, as Griffin says). Hotard's statement was confirmed by another JREF user. I was not paying attention to this issue/controversy in 2007, but as anyone could have emailed Hotard/AAL to confirm this information, it would be foolish for JREF users to fake it. No one has presented evidence that the emails were faked, or that this information is false.

Kevin, I am very interested to hear what you think about Griffin's selective quotation from this email, and out of context representation of Hotard's statement as meaning the opposite of what Hotard said: "Griffin on Hotard"

Another one of my reasons for citing JREF, 9/11 Myths and SCL is to show how 'debunkers' are using these claims against the truth movement, and how, whenever they can use facts and credible sources to expose claims based on misinformation, they do so.

1. I'll concede your own points here, though I would be interested in seeing an article by you on the FBI's involvement. However, Griffin is wrong; the FBI did not have a "public position."

2. In his essay, Griffin works from the position that all the media reports of cell phone calls were correct, as far as reporters had correctly understood the witnesses, and that the witnesses knew for sure the person had been calling from cell phones. I pointed out that some may not have known the difference or thought it was unimportant (how likely is it that when someone calling to say they're on a hijacked plane, one takes the time to specify whether they're on an air or cell phone?). I also, as you noted, pointed out an example of conflicting media reports in the case of two of these calls. And, I linked to records showing air phones were used in the case of all of the people whom Griffin said had made cell calls.

Furthermore, even if all the evidence of air phone use was faked (something for which there's no evidence) it is entirely possible that cell phone repeaters were used. You can say this is speculation, but it can't be disproven at this point, which in itself is evidence that cell phone fakery may be a dead end as far as blowing the 9/11 cover up. It certainly proves that claims the cell phone calls were "impossible" and therefore must have been faked are speculative, weak and irresponsible.

Griffin and I both cited FBI records, but I cited a number that contradicted his assertions, which he may or may not have been aware of, but could have found, as they were at when he was writing his essay. The FBI records may or may not be trustworthy, but it is false to say they support the claim that Sweeney was on a cell phone.

I missed where Deena Burnett said she'd thrown away her notes. This is interesting, but not evidence of faked calls. I don't see that I implied in my critique that all records have been made public; they have not. We are all working on the basis of whether or not it can be concluded, or whether there is even reason to believe, that phone calls were faked, based on the evidence public now.

3. There were four points in Section 3; you addressed Chad Kinder in Section 3A.

See my comment/link on Hotard referenced earlier in this comment; Section 3C in my essay. Two significant paragraphs are posted in this comment, which I would appreciate you commenting on: "Griffin on Hotard"

Besides Hotard, Griffin also cites Chad Kinder, who was not, as you say, an AAL "spokesperson"; he was an AAL Customer Service Rep, and does not speak for AAL - that's what a PR rep (like Hotard) does. Griffin does not dispute this. Kinder's job is to be informed about the questions AAL's customers have regarding AAL services, and there's no reason to think he would be informed about whether or not N644AA had working air phones on 9/11. Kinder's 2006 email (which he couldn't recall writing when Balsamo asked about it, cuz he writes "so many") says "we do not have", not "we did not have". Hotard, who specifically said that he checked with maintenance, said Kinder was misinformed. Kinder 2006 email also said the passengers used their cell phones; AAL had no public position on this at the time, and the FBI had said at the Moussaoui trial that air phones were used, which is what the call records show.

Section 3B refers to a document posted by PFT (hardly a credible source), for the many reasons i documented in Section 4. As I noted in my essay, JREF user AMTMAN posted several documents, that appear to be AAL maintenance documents (i did not claim they were), that contradict PFT/Griffin's claims about the 23-19-000-0 document, and support the idea that AAL 77 had working air phones, which was the essence of Hotard's statement. As I noted in my essay, since 2007, no one has shown the docs posted by AMTMAN were tampered w/ or fakes, and no other docs have surfaced that contradict or disprove them.

Section 3D addresses Griffin's use of statements by PFT member and David Icke book-endorser Ralph Kolstad

4. Yes, I pointed out in my essay that Olson is not a sergeant, and I also pointed out this could easily have been a misunderstanding; "Solicitor General" sounds like "sergeant", and in any case I assume that Mercy Lorenzo was more concerned with the report that the caller was on a hijacked plane and needed to be transferred to her husband. I also linked to an unredacted version that lists the number, which was Ted Olson's number as solicitor general, and another record stating this was the number called. Furthermore, the FBI interviewed Teresa Gonzalez, Lorenzo's co-worker, who corroborated her story. And interviews w/ Olson, Helen Voss and Lori Keyton all confirm each others stories about two calls being received around that time, from Barbara Olson. This "sergeant" issue is trivial.

Kevin, your critique of my critique presents no reasons for concluding the calls were faked. I don't claim to have proven they were real, simply that there's significant evidence they were real, and no evidence they were faked. As there's no evidence, claiming they were, or even that there's evidence they were, is irresponsible and discrediting to the 9/11 truth movement.

In the first part of your reply, you said, "Larson first claims that Griffin’s statements on the issue constitute a theory. But this is not a theory, it is a hypothesis, and Larson later clarifies that in his conclusions."

Griffin does not present it as a hypothesis to be tested; if he considers an alternative it is minimized, and he presents no reasons to doubt the calls were faked, though he is careful to qualify his statements. In his conclusion he states, "... when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. ... the importance of the evidence against the official account provided by analyzing the alleged phone calls should not be minimized.... The evidence that the alleged phone calls from the airliners were faked is an important part of this cumulative argument."

You criticize my use of speculation, but, as I say in my essay, I do this to show "there are other possible – and more probable – explanations." I am not doing this to support a claim and present it as something the 9/11 truth movement can rely. Griffin case for faked calls, otoh, is built on speculation, as well as omissions, errors, misrepresentations (intentional or not) and illogical argumentation. And, he suggests the 9/11 truth can rely on this case as evidence the calls were faked, and that 9/11 is therefore a lie.

Finally, you said, "this critique comes across as a statement that there never was any good reason to question this portion of the official story and that anyone who thought so is either not too bright or is an intentional troublemaker." Please quote what I said that comes across this way, because, imho, I was careful to simply document facts and evidence, and make accurate claims. When I have speculated, I believe it is obvious from the context of my statements that I'm doing so; I have not suggested my speculation is fact or proof or truth.

Show "Inappropriate " by Chris Sarns

harming the movement

Erik: "Kevin, your critique of my critique presents no reasons for concluding the calls were faked."

Chris: "Strawman! Neither DRG or Kevin is "concluding the calls were faked" and you bloody well know it."

Strawman yourself; I stated a fact, and you framed this as if I said Kevin was "concluding the calls were faked." My point was the obvious; as Kevin did not present "reasons for concluding the calls were faked," this means Kevin did not present reasons for people to claim the calls were faked.

re DRG, in his conclusion he states, "... when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. ... the importance of the evidence against the official account provided by analyzing the alleged phone calls should not be minimized.... The evidence that the alleged phone calls from the airliners were faked is an important part of this cumulative argument."

As I pointed out in my essay and in comments here, including in my reply to Kevin, DRG is careful to qualify these statements, but at the same time, as is clear from the quotes above, he's not suggesting that people investigate this further; he's suggesting the 9/11 truth movement already has "good evidence" (he used that term 4 times) the calls are faked, which, as I showed in my essay, is incorrect.

You have not presented evidence they were faked; you've been claiming that two calls continuing long after the plane was reported to have crashed is evidence they we're faked, but in reality all this is evidence of is that the phone records show this. You have no way of knowing whether or not this is because the voice morphers neglected to hang up the phone (which seems patently absurd), or whether there's some technical explanation - or even if it's simply disinfo. If you were saying, 'this is strange; what are the possible answers; let's see what we can rule in and out; maybe there's something here,' that would be one thing. Yet it seems, from your many comments in this thread, that you've concluded this is evidence of call faking, and are adamantly rejecting all other possible explanations.

Meanwhile, we're wasting time debunking the 'faked phone calls' BS which has been promoted by many people since 9/11, and by DRG increasingly since 2006, and which the MSM and 'debunkers' have used against the movement. It would be far better if people supported rational, critical inquiry and the promotion of the wealth of substantive evidence of cover up, lies and mal/misfeasance that already exists, many examples of which i included in my essay's conclusion.

The "tone of [my] article"??? Please quote what you find "inappropriate" in my essay, as you're accusing me of this. Please, point out where I'm actually in error in my documentation of facts and the historical record, and my analysis of it. Do you really think a jury is going to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the few anomalies in the phone calls, that they were all faked and the families were talking to operatives with voice morphing devices?

Show "Opinion vs opinion" by Chris Sarns


You think it's proper fucking decorum to accuse Erik of diverting attention away of the Building What campaign deliberately, Chris?

"This thread is another diversion, a hideous waste of time and a not so subtle campaign to turn attention and support away from the "Building What?" campaign."

No this thread is addressing flaws in prominent 9/11 research. This is very important. Have you read this comment? Since it's a stewardess who worked on AA 77, was supposed to work on AA 77, I think it's RELEVANT.

What are you doing on this site Chris? It's obviously infested with "Sunstein infiltrators", whatever the hell that is. You and Parulis can begin a new one. I give it five minutes before you two are calling each other infiltrator instead. Have fun.


I have had it with the 'psyop' and the 'disinfo' accusation garbage you puke out with regular intervals. Am I pissed off? You bet your ass I am.

Show "Diverting attention and downplaying WTC 7" by Chris Sarns

No, I don't think it's true

That Jon and Erik are "anti-CD." I have followed this thread pretty carefully and neither has said anything against the WTC CD argument. I don't know about "Building What?" -- I thought most people here thought that was a good effort. I will say that the notion that DRG "pushed [WTC CD] on everyone" is silly. Perhaps DRG was the first to write about it in a book but it soon became obvious how much of a bombshell story it was, and other books came out highlighting it as well. But Jon's quotes in this thread, as I read them, have more to do with how centrally the 911TM should focus on WTC CD. I'm of the opinion, with Ian Henshall, that it is ineffective to start off with this evidence with everyone, because what is obvious proof to one person is to another too "out there" to believe. As he said recently on Barrett's show, you've got this weird situation where to some people, it is perfectly obvious 911 was an inside job, but to others it is not obvious at all. The latter folks sometimes need to hear other information first, or at least in conjunction with, the WTC CD case. But that I mean put options, multiple warnings, lack of air defense, war games, Bush's remaining in the school, etc. In spite of the fact that LIHOP has long since been superceded by most of us in the movement, the components of the LIHOP argument are still very relevant, for rhetorical purposes, when dealing relative newbies to the process of researching 911.


I do not think we should centrally focus on WTC CD. I have been more than clear about that over the years.


This is really about showing a damaging bullshit theory to be bullshit. Because you don't like it, you are snitch-jacketing.

Show "Hogwash!" by Chris Sarns

Did you really say that?

"This thread is another diversion, a hideous waste of time and a not so subtle campaign to turn attention and support away from the "Building What?" campaign."

Pointing out that bad information is being promoted is not a diversion, and not everyone agrees with the "Building What?" campaign. Not everyone agrees that WTC7, Controlled Demolition, or nano-thermite are the best ways of reaching a majority of people. To accuse someone of a "not so subtle campaign to turn attention and support away" from something when they are doing a service for this cause is absurd. Snitch-jacket much?

Show "Thank you for your help with the budget crisis" by Chris Sarns

Sorry, but no...

You're wrong. Basically about everything. DRG has been wrong. Fact. I would gladly disassociate myself from this cultish "movement," its "high priest," and people like you... gladly... willingly... but I care too much about this cause.

Show "Spoken like an OCTer" by Chris Sarns


Only a person who points out that the 9/11 Truth Movement has become like a cult would use a phrase like "high priest." I don't undermine the building what campaign. I voice my opinion that CD and nano-thermite should not be front and center. As I have consistently forever. There is a difference. I just tried to help Ted Walters get some contact info the other day for someone (which unfortunately I didn't have). No one has supported the family members or the responders more than me over the years. That is a fact. What the fuck have you done for this cause Chris? Anything? Seriously... Anything Chris, or have you sat on the internet and argued about theories for years with everyone? I don't think you are working for the other side but you may as well be IMO.

Chris your out of control...'s disappointing to see this time wasting. Repeating the same mistakes and out of context quotes is very troubling indeed.

Next thing we no you'll pull out the "your traitor"....

Please stop this silliness.

Regards John

Erik, we agree on some things

...but the quality of this critique is not one of them. You do make some good points and I see more of that as I read it again. However, it is mostly a list of speculations which do not effectively address the list of speculations for the opposite viewpoint. And on your point about Hotard, I don't find the official "contention" or the omission of an earlier sentence that says "they cannot find any record" to be proof that --

"...Griffin has done a masterful job of creating the appearance the faked calls theory is supported by evidence and reason...".

"Masterful job" sounds like an accusation of intent, and although you might not have meant it that way in the article, your comment above that you "don't see how it could be said that it wasn't intentional" is certainly accusatory. David Ray Griffin has arguably done more for the truth movement than anyone other than the 9/11 family members who forced the investigations. Before you make another accusation, I'd like to see the rationale explaining Griffin's masterful building of the 9/11 truth movement to his masterful and intentional destruction of that movement. Maybe he had nothing better to do with his golden years, eh?

On the next article, I suggest that there be more useful references (not a bunch of chat room nonsense) that address basic questions such as --

1) What was the probability of a certain length of uninterrupted airliner cell phone call in 2001?
2) If we look at just the empirical evidence, like the ATC and AA center handwritten notes and personnel statements (not typed transcripts or Commission MFR), what does it say about these calls?
3) Can we find someone who used a Flight 77 airfone before 9/11, and/or someone who noticed that they could not?
4) Is there any evidence that anyone has ever been fooled by synthetic calls from their relatives?

It seems to me...

That you are defending the man because he is your friend, and because of that, you are allowing your judgment to lapse on what is good information to promote. Fake phone calls, voice morphing, etc... has been used against us countless times. It's not good information to promote. David Ray Griffin has written many books over the years. My favorite was his second about the 9/11 Commission. I also enjoyed the one that was directed at members of the media and Congress. However, he has also been the biggest proponent of theories like Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon, or the hijackers are alive (things that have been used against us countless times). He has given several speeches that included "voice morphing" after several respectable people in this movement asked him not to. He has allied himself with and defended people and groups that have been a detriment to this cause. For years, he helped the false dichotomy of LIHOP/MIHOP flourish in this movement, which created "LIHOPPERS" and "MIHOPPERS." As I said, none of us are perfect. All of us have made mistakes. If we don't help people to correct them, especially those who have the loudest voice or the most exposure, then we may as well give up now.

political correctness

Chris Sarns said..."There comes a time to put political correctness aside and say it like it is."

In the spirit of have said there is evidence the calls are fake. You've also stated there is evidence that the plane flew north of the citgo and Lloyd being a liar, and staging his scene. You've made accusations based on "evidence" that you later apologized for.
I don't think you are very good at knowing what evidence is.

Kevin, thanks for taking another look

We do agree on some things. And, I respect the research and writing you've done; I'm interested in your feedback. I've never claimed to be a good researcher or writer; I'm doing the best I can for truth and justice with what I've got.

Regarding your statements from the above comment:

"However, it is mostly a list of speculations which do not effectively address the list of speculations for the opposite viewpoint."

I disagree that it is "mostly a list of speculations". As I've said, the speculation is to show that there are other possible - and more probable - explanations for the things DRG says amount to "good evidence" the calls were faked. My essay includes documentation of numerous facts, events and quotes, plus links to many different records, and analysis of all of these things. The majority of my essay is not speculative, and I address many other things besides DRG's speculations.

"And on your point about Hotard, I don't find the official "contention" or the omission of an earlier sentence that says "they cannot find any record" to be proof that -- "...Griffin has done a masterful job of creating the appearance the faked calls theory is supported by evidence and reason..."."

My analysis re Hotard/DRG's use is one section in an essay that runs 17 pages in a Word doc; I addressed many other things in the essay. DRG's case is built on many other things besides his Hotard quotes, and I addressed these in my essay.

""Masterful job" sounds like an accusation of intent, and although you might not have meant it that way in the article ..."

DRG is a master rhetorician; this is obvious from his research, his writing and his prolific output, but his Response to Questions essay alone is evidence of this. However, as I believe I documented, his essay does not show there's "good evidence" the calls were faked; it only creates the appearance that there's good evidence. Griffin, otoh, argued that people should rely on his essay and his conclusion that the calls were faked. He says in his conclusion:

"... when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. ... the importance of the evidence against the official account provided by analyzing the alleged phone calls should not be minimized.... The evidence that the alleged phone calls from the airliners were faked is an important part of this cumulative argument."

"... your comment above that you "don't see how it could be said that it wasn't intentional" is certainly accusatory."

This comment was specifically in reference to DRG's use of Hotard's statement. It seems clear that DRG quoted only certain parts of Hotard's statement, and interpreted these as being evidence the air phones on N644AA weren't operational, because that's what he intended to do - even though this contradicted Hotard's full statement. I'm pretty sure DRG, in his response to my essay, will explain why he did this.

Kevin, I know you consider DRG a friend, and I know people have a lot of respect for DRG. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I learned a lot from NPH and O&D. And, I'm sorry if anyone was offended by anything I wrote. But I think what I documented in my essay needs to be addressed. Two essential points I think people should take from my essay - unless it can be shown that I'm grossly in error - are that the claims of faked phone calls are unsupported by good evidence, and that DRG's research on this issue is not credible.

Depending on how DRG responds to my critique, I may respond to it, but I don't personally see a need to investigate the calls. While there are some strange anomalies which a full investigation or Truth and Reconciliation Commission should clear up, there's more productive lines of inquiry, and there's already a wealth of substantive evidence the OCT is false, including evidence pointing to the need to investigate specific people. The fact that this was not done by the USFG,, and the Establishment pols and media are pretending the OCT is credible while using it to justify war, torture and the subversion of the Constitution, is reason enough for the people to support, en masse, alternatives to the Establishment.

A agree with Kevin Ryan

Why is it OK to push speculative theories about DRG's intent and intentions, something for which no evidence is supplied? Aren't these people guilty of the same mistake as the no plans or tv fakery people? Their actions are also disruptive and not productive. It's hard to admit you're wrong in public, it can only happen in a friendly atmosphere.

"speculative theories about DRG's intent and intentions"

"Why is it OK to push speculative theories about DRG's intent and intentions, something for which no evidence is supplied?"

I've read most of the comments in this thread, in addition to my own essay; who has floated a theory about "DRG's intent and intentions"?

Some here have asked why DRG is promoting a theory (faked calls) for which there is no substantive evidence, a theory which has been used to discredit 9/11 inquiry by the MSM and 'debunkers'.

What is your theory about why DRG selectively quoted from John Hotard's statement, making it appear to support the opposite of what John Hotard said in his full statement?

Do you think DRG did this by accident or on purpose? If on purpose, then for some good reason? If a good reason, what do you think the reason is?

DRG most likely will be responding to my critique, so he can give the answer himself. But what is your opinion of this practice; is it helpful/useful/a good idea to quote people out of context and make it appear they said things they didn't, that they support things they don't?

It would be a pretty simple trick to make George Bush and Dick Cheney take responsibility for 9/11, simply by cutting and pasting audio of their many public statements. Could this then be submitted as evidence in court?

I take your points

First let me say that I have not suffered through your frustration with DRG and the discussions you must have had with him before this surfaced. But I was quite shocked at the tone of the discussions here. Yes, it certainly looks like DRG did not do a good job with John Hotard's statements and other issues. This is my current opinion but I'm no expert in the 911 phone calls and I will change my mind about this given new information.

You ask me to speculate and to produce theories for why DRG did what he did. Is this not similar to asking people to speculate about the pentagon or any other issue where the available information is insufficient? Are you not asking me to do exactly the thing you criticize DRG for? Are such speculations productive and constructive? If you think yes, in what way do you feel that it is going to help 911 truth?

I think these speculations are not important and even disruptive. I would have like this thread to be about the details you uncovered in your article so I would have had a chance to understand more of the phone calls issue.

Response to Haze "I take your points"

"You ask me to speculate and to produce theories for why DRG did what he did."

Actually, that was a rhetorical device; see my comment following the first four questions I posed:

"DRG most likely will be responding to my critique, so he can give the answer himself."

You're welcome to offer a theory on this if you wish, but don't need to; how DRG responds to those questions is more important.

You did give a response to the 5h question; thank you.

"I would have like this thread to be about the details you uncovered in your article so I would have had a chance to understand more of the phone calls issue."

I, too, would be interested in seeing more analysis of the things i documented, as well as critique of my analysis of these things. There's lots of emotionally charged polemics being hurled around here, and it hasn't done much to shed light on things.

Welcome to 911blogger, btw; I definitely agree w/ your comment:

"The cleansing of the 911 truth movement from speculative theories unsupported evidence is absolutely necessary. This process must go on and but we should also try real hard to provide the friendly atmosphere in which admission of error becomes possible."

I'm a moderator here, btw. Constructive criticism and helpful suggestions are welcome; we are always looking for ways to improve.

I understand

I have to get up to speed on this issue before I can provide any valuable comments on your essay. What caught my attention regarding 911 was WTC7 and for me the most comprehensible and convincing evidence is the study of the nano-thermite. As a theoretical physicist I'm not specialized in material science although my graduate education included some experimental techniques used in Harrit et al's paper (e.g. XEDS). On a funnier note, who says the CIT documentary cannot do any good? I had not studied the pentagon issue before in any detail and it was that documentary itself that convinced me that the no-crash theory was on this ice. :)

Again, thanks for taking the time to reply!

Why the weakest link?

K.R. wrote -

"Although I do not feel that the question of faked phone calls is worthy of much attention..."

One may ask, if it doesn't deserve attention, why START with it? I completely agree that it's not worthy of attention in light of the mountains of other evidence. Yet when I attended DRG's lecture in Vancouver, he STARTED with it.

The whole thing about stressing fake phone calls to family members seems bizarre. I don't think people should be starting their lectures with "voice morphology" or "what hit the Pentagon" rather than the war games or insider trading or WTC7, to name merely three obvious examples.

I guess that's the point, and why people are upset.

I think DRG has done great things for the movement, and shouldn't besmirch that by highly speculative and dubious lines of inquiry.

Show "That was 4 years ago" by Chris Sarns

I'd just like to share with

I'd just like to share with you my experience as a researcher in theoretical physics. There are many examples of scientists (even prominent ones) making simple errors and who will not recognize them even when it is clearly pointed out to them. This is of course very frustrating, but this is the sociological reality of scientific research. Since this not uncommon even in the hard sciences, especially in controversial fields, I see no reason to expect the situation to be very different with the academic study of 911. There is no need to invoke malintent to explain DRG actions since here is an entirely natural explanation for this: he's a human being and capable of error as we all are.

It is much more important to provide a friendly attitude in which admission of error or compromise is possible, than to point out and belabour all the different ways we think DRG is unreasonable and illogical.



Well said - Thank you Haze

We must understand that we are all human. It took a long time to get Richard Gage to come around but now that he has the tide has turned. Peter Dale Scott has joined Richard and DRG might too if we created a welcoming atmosphere rather than a confrontational one.

perhaps true in the context

perhaps true in the context of Erik's essay.

my problem is with the broader picture - e.g.his most recent book "Cognitive Infiltration" in which he seems to focus the main brunt of his evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy on theories that have been THOROUGHLY debunked - in some cases years ago.

and then when you take this ill advised research, in conjunction with his apparent tendency to endorse and defend individuals like James Fetzer and Kevin Barret and CIT - we have a major disconnect that seems to not be limited to JUST faulty scientific research.

questioning intentionality is a slippery slope. i get that. but - i hardly think we are engaging in the same tactics as Nico Haupt. I am not questioning the intentionality of DRG simply because i disagree with his opinions. the subject is much broader than that - and my opinions have been culled over years of witnessing his associations and public statements.

and again - i am not accusing him of anything.

but - i do take the position that his actions are not ABOVE reproach either - and given the facts as we know them - i am forced to take a quarter turn towards questioning his intentionality.


by the way you mentioned Cognitive Infiltration
It's a good book by DRG. I think everyone should read it. perhaps some would rather skip the bits in it about phone calls but the remaining 99.9% mkes a cracking good read

Have you read it yet ?

i have in my opinion

i have

in my opinion Cognitive Infiltration is extremely poor. it fails on multiple levels - from his accusations that Cass Sunstein is "signaling" that he knows 9/11 was a government operation (DRG claims that there are "esoteric" hidden meanings in Sunstein's writing) - to his selective choice of largely debunked facts such as missing planes and living hijackers - to his endorsement of groups like "pilots for 9/11 Truth."

take cellphone fakery out of the equation and Cognitive Infiltration is still a rather poor book that I cannot endorse as representative of the interests of the 9/11 Truth movement.


"his accusations that Cass Sunstein is "signaling" that he knows 9/11 was a government operation"

In the introduction, Griffin states that he wants the reader to take this possibility "seriously but not literally." I myself forgot about that warning halfway through the book, and started getting puzzled about what a whacked-out theory Griffin had come up with, and how much evidence there is against it. He reminds the reader, when you get to the end of the book, that it was just a rhetorical device. We could discuss in another thread whether it was a smart device to use, whether he did a good job using it, etc. but let's please not misrepresent what he was doing.

Just wondering....

If I say publicly that I think saying the phone calls are fake is f**king stupid, will I be forced to release my tax forms for the last 20 years?

I'm confused

Am I just dense or are you saying that there is evidence that Eric, Loose Nuke or Snowcrash are government agents?

"Shame on the mods for possibly allowing a high level infiltration of 911blogger"

Why do you write this? The implication seems to be that you think one of the three individuals named above is an agent or am I missing something? I totally agree with you about the value of CD to the truth movement, are you upset that those issues don't get enough focus? I agree with you that disinformation can be real but I'm not sure who you are thinking of, I don't see anything in the behavior of the people you listed that justifies singling them out for special scrutiny.


That's what he's saying. It's the old "I don't like your opinion so you must be an agent" bullcrap. It's against the rules, too... But the rules aren't quite prepared for a person of the prominence of Parulis to say things this blatantly retarded. It's just not in the script.

OY VEY, let's see some ID?????

What I think you aren't taking into account here, is that Eric Larson, Loose Nuke and Snow Crash aren't going on tv to debate matt tabbi. Or getting invited by Mike Malloy or Thom Hartmann or Amy Goodman to go on their shows and represent the truth movement. Frankly I wish they would more so than DRG at this point. Playing a background check to get around the fact that these bloggers have done good research doesn't fly. The bloggers you mentioned back up their statements with facts. Why the id check?


"Your peripheral focus on 9/11 anomalies detracts serious study away from our strong areas which are Building 7 and the improbable screwy-NIST physics that tries to explain buildings 1 & 2."

I'll determine what I think are strong areas myself, thank you. I've tried my best to show courtesy and nuance in this thread, but this is over the edge. 911blogger is dual use: to expose bullshit and to promote solid research. Both have a place, and I have, indeed, done both. This is me exposing bullshit: yours.

"I'm not here to make friends."

Me neither, but you're kinda overdoing it...

"My love for the Truth Movement comes first."

Me too.

"Shame on the mods here for possibly allowing a high level infiltration of 911blogger."

Shame on you for being a Suddenly Blossoming Snitchjacketeer.

"I challenge Eric Larson, Loose Nuke, and Snow Crash to reveal a detailed resume of their past 20 years with mention of any NSA or government affiliations, military service or related areas of affiliation."

The answer is.... *drumroll* ... NO. I have no reason to trust you, especially not after this escapade. I was livid when I first saw your retarded attack on Erik and me, but then I saw a joke by Jim and calmed down a bit.

911blogger contributors telling other 911blogger contributors they are agents for Cass Sunstein unless they publish extensive personal details...How retarded.

Is constructive critique valid?

I think it comes down to whether the criticism/critique is constructive or destructive. Destructive is it to say or imply that person A is an "agent"/up to to no good etc. Constructive is to challenge someone on the facts alone and suggest they may be in error. The latter is usually healthy and helps us to refine our arguments and keep people honest, the former creates an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion. There is no shame in admitting one has been wrong about some point -- in fact to do so shows a willingness to grow and to say, in essence, I am wiser today than I was yesterday.

Not all critique is created equal, obviously, even when presented in a seemingly earnest manner -- I recall Fetzer's absurd critiques of Steven Jones' work -- but so long as we stick to the facts (ma'am) and refrain from ad hom we should be able to avoid the pitfalls of COINTEPRO-ish divide-and-conquer techniques and disinformation. The trouble with 911 is that there are so many potentially divisive topics/theories. Again, I would suggest that the best thing to do is to try and avoid most theories altogether. I say "most" because it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that 911 was an inside job, which is indeed a theory, but a damn good one.


Maybe some of the calls are fake and some are real, wouldnt that be a doozy, and they are just laughing at everybody infighting which is exactly what they want. Lets say they did decide to fake a few calls, that wouldn't prevent real people from calling on 9/11.............ok its just speculation, but if you concede the calls are real, you are admitting to suicide hijackers being on the planes, its very unlikely intelligence agents would sign up for a suicide mission, so you are pretty much conceding a group of suicide hijackers were on those planes, which is basically the OCT.


Does proving that the hijackers were indeed on board the planes prove that they were in control of them?

I dont think so, what do you think?

You know what's amazing...

You could say that hijackers were on the planes, that buildings fell because planes slammed into them, that a plane hit the Pentagon, and that a plane crashed into a field in PA, and STILL have a ridiculous amount of incriminating information that is NOT "basically the OCT." I laugh when people act as though you are trying to support the "official story."

you make it sound like we

you make it sound like we must pick and choose between competing conspiracy theories - and your question seems imply that YOU know the truth

neither is true

we do not pick and choose our evidence to support our pet theories. this is a truth movement - and if the evidence being presented by DRG that phonecalls were faked on 9/11 is flawed - we are duty bound to point it out.

there are those among uus - like yourself - who seem to want to perpetually force a crisis of faith among activists - seemingly forcing us to pick and choose between competing warring theories - LIHOP - MIHOP - ZIHOP

i - for one - refuse

DRG's cellphone fakery research fails - on multiple levels. that is the bottom line here. if you disagree with the FACTS is Erik's essay - demonstrate how he is wrong

but you will impress no one by injecting theories into the discussion. and those who seek to imply that anyone who believes that actual hijackings took place is supporting the OCT is in fact betraying our cause.

you betray our cause by accusing activists of supporting the OCT simply for not supporting YCT. (Your Conspiracy Theory) and YCT is not proven - not by a long shot

so - what is the agenda? finding the truth? or choosing up sides in competing warring conspiracy theories?

i choose the truth - and let the chips fall where they may

now - show us where Erik is wrong - based on the facts presented. and spare us the peer pressure to accept YCT

Bunch of nonsense

Let's be honest. The reason DRG and others want desperately to believe that the calls were "fake" is because they don't want to believe there were really hijackers. Well, to bad.

Let's take a look at some original FBI reports....

"WOODWARD was unsure whether SWEENEY was on the on-board phones or a cellular telephone):"

"Before the plane crashed, SWEENEY stated thatAA flight
attendant, BETTY ONG, was in the last row of the coach section
talking to someone on the air phone."

"During the call MICHAEL WOODWARD, AA Flight Services
Manager, Boston, told her that he received a telephone call from AA flight 11. The caller was flight attendant AMY SWEENY. According to WOODWARD, SWEENY's call came from either a cell telephone or an air phone on the aircraft."

"The call from SWEENY was initially received by EVY NUNEZ, manager on duty at AA Boston. NUNEZ became very distraught early in the conversation; WOODWARD took over the call from NUNEZ."

"SWEENY told WOODWARD that the flight had been hijacked and the number one flight attendant had been stabbed. The number one flight attendant was in the first class section of the aircraft. The number five flight attendant had also been stabbed in the business class section of the aircraft. According to SWEENY, the number five attendant's injury was not life threatening. SWEENY also relayed that one hijacker cut the throat of a passenger in business class. That passenger was believed to have died as a result of his wound."

"As the conversation continued, SWEENEY told WOODWARD the gentleman in business class is not going to make it because his throat is slashed and he is bleeding severely. She said that she did not think the captain was flying the plane. SWEENEY described how they were flying low over the water, then said "OH my God" and the call was terminated."

"Before the plane crashed, SWEENEY stated that AA flight attendant, BETTY ONG, was in' the last row of the coach section talking to someone on the air phone."

And here is what ONG the other flight attendant was saying on that air phone call....

"the individual who placed the call was a Flight Attendant named BETTY. BETTY further identified herself as being Flight Attendant Number 3 on AA Flight 11. Flight Attendant Number 3 was the AA designation for the attendant who serviced the coach section of the plane and was typically stationed in the rear of the aircraft. BETTY (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) (LNU) was questioned as to whether there were any injuries. BETTY stated the individual who was seated in 9B, further described as <> appeared to be dead. Flight Attendant Number 1 was stabbed and in serious condition. Flight Attendant Number 1 had been placed on oxygen. Flight Attendant Number 5 had also been stabbed, but was not described as being in serious condition. <>listened as BETTY relayed that a passenger who was seated in 10B was currently in the cockpit. This passenger's name was provided and phonetically reported as SAMIR AL ASAQUAMI."

"I'm the Operations Specialist on duty at the time and I would say at approximately 8:20, one of our employees received a phone call from, from a flight attendant on one of our flights. She answered the call through our International Resolution Desk who in
turn hit the emergency button and at that time I started listening on a call. The flight attendant's name was BETTY ONG and she was relaying to us what was happening on the aircraft."

Calls from the AIR PHONES. Yea, it sure makes lots of sense to put thru "fake calls" almost immediately in order to notify officials of the attacks, as soon as possible...BTW here is another AIR PHONE call .....

"BINGHAM then said, "I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane, and they say they have a bomb. I'm calling you from the air phone."

"......."You've got to believe me. It's true."

Here is a real "kooky" about we stop pointing fingers at the victims of the attacks and say "you guys were all fooled, you just think you talked to your loved ones, that was fake", and you witnesses and victims at the were all fooled, you just think you saw a plane fly into it, you were fooled, it was fake."

This is complete nonsense that discredits and marginalizes.

David Ray Griffin (DRG) bases his fake phone calls theory on an experiment by a guy named AK Dewdney.

Dewdney authors books and films, he would like some attention. He has a PhD he says, in Math, so he must be a smart guy right?....

Dewdney and Griffin got lots of attention representing us on a major television show. Check it out starting at the 3:00 mark.....

That wasn't embarrassing?

In a nutshell, DRG bases his entire fake phone call theory on two things. Voice morphing technology and an experiment by a person named AK Dewdney, who claims you can't make cell phone calls from airplanes, unless very low and then rarely.

His experiment no doubt was a thorough one.....

"flight plan: The flight plan consisted of four “laps,” elongated circuits (shaped like a paperclip) over London, Ontario airspace. Each lap was about seven to eight miles long and two to three miles wide. The laps would have a vertical separation of approximately one thousand feet."

Not exactly the same as the flight plan of AA Flight 77, but pretty darn close.....wouldn't you say? No.

His experiment fits in perfectly with his scenario of what really happened on 9/11. Yea, that's right, he has it all figured out, and that cell phone experiment he did proves it. See, told you he was a smart guy. You can see it all right here....

When I say he has it all figured out, I mean he has it all figured out. He has even figured out the number of people needed and where. See, told you he was a smart guy.

2 agents on each of four aircraft 8
10 agents at the base of operations 10
4 agents to set up WTC demolition explosives 4
2 agents as flight crew on substitute or escort aircraft 6
4 agents as technicians to install RC controls
(also to act as remote pilots) 8
Total 36

"Under the Operation Pearl scenario, the most likely perpetrator would be Mossad, Israel's spy agency."

Yup, I knew Israel was involved somehow. Thanks Mr Dewdney, you are smart.

Dewdney has been a Muslim for over 35 years.

Of course that wouldn't be influential in his thinking would it?

"All the proffered evidence that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, when subjected to critical scrutiny, appears to have been fabricated." -- Emeritus professor David Ray Griffin

So the hijackers were fake too, along with the phone calls and the wreckage at the pentagon? This guy does not speak for me.

But the best thing is under Operation Pearl, the phone calls have to be faked, or the plan wont work. That's what makes his experiment proving that no cell phone calls could be made was so important. His experiment was not peer-reviewed of course, but why would anyone want that? He already showed how smart he is and I see no reason to think he just wants attention and maybe sell a book or two. Surely, he is as honorable as DRG, who puts so much importance on him and his experiment. That should be good enough right? Because DRG just wants the truth right?

David Ray Griffin has been telling you for years how smart Dewdney is and this is the proof, that cell phones could not have worked, this does not need to be confirmed because we already know how smart Dewdney and DRG are and how honorable as well, right?

"Well-known Canadian scientist and mathematician A. K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American, reported early in 2003 on experiments showing that these difficulties would have rendered impossible at least most of the reported cell phone calls from the 911 airliners." --David Ray Griffin

BTW, I wonder how much that experiment cost? I don't have lots of cash laying around but can do cheap experiments. Here's an experiment anyone can do. Just go to google and type things to see what comes up. For instance.....

I used google for my experiment.

Here's what I found out from that experiment. It turns out that the Airlines were always saying to not use cell phones on the plane and the reason was because it was considered dangerous, you know the signals might mess things up, but it turns out most likely that is BS, the real reason is they want people to use the airphones so they can get more money. They never said cell phones don't work.

How come cell phones worked in 1996?......

"The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon. He obtained a standard preflight weather briefing. Visual flight was not recommended. Cumulus buildups were reported to the pilot. The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan. The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent."

How come people flying on planes on 9/11 could use their cell phones on other planes, but according to DRG they can't on the planes that were hijacked? These guys aren't looking so smart now....

"Downs, a software salesman, learned of the terrorist attacks while on a commercial flight returning home from South America. The captain explained that "terrorist attacks on airplanes" meant they were making an emergency landing. People on board using cell phones soon discovered the true nature of the day's events."

"We found out from people using their phones that the World Trade Center was hit, and some unspecified area in Washington," Downs recalls.

Using cell phones on planes is nothing extraordinary.....

"Over the course of three months in late 2003, we investigated the possibility that portable electronic devices interfere with a plane's safety instruments by measuring the RF spectrum inside commercial aircraft cabins. What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations,"

They prefer you not use cell phones...not because you can't.....

"Sunday, July 22, 2001
But a study commissioned by the FAA in 1996 failed to find a single instance in which equipment was affected by a wireless phone. Nevertheless, electricity from cellular phones can, in theory, interfere with aircraft systems. For this reason, Boeing and the FAA support the FCC ban."

It's because they want your money......

Sunday, July 22, 2001
"Although many airplanes have public "air phones," passengers flinch at the fee of $6 per minute. (Airlines get a cut of the profits, which casts suspicion on why airlines want to keep cell phones turned off in the air.)"

How come people used cell phones 2 months before 9/11, and other passengers used them on 9/11, but if someone on the hijacked plane used one it's suddenly suspicious? Because the whole theory is BS is why...

Sunday, July 22, 2001
"I've seen passengers hunkered in their seats, whispering into Nokias. I've watched frequent fliers scurry for a carry-on as muffled ringing emanates from within. Once, after the lavatory line grew to an unreasonable length, I knocked on the door. A guilt- ridden teenager emerged. She admitted that she'd been in there for half an hour, talking to her boyfriend on a cell phone."

Sunday, July 22, 2001
"In 1999, oil worker Neil Whitehouse refused to switch off his mobile phone on a British Airways flight. When a cabin attendant advised him to turn off the unit because it could interfere with navigation systems, Whitehouse replied, "Why? Are we going to get lost?"

"Published: July 7, 1999
There is no indication of when -- or if -- cell phone use might ever be allowed on airlines in flight. Though no airline official likes to discuss this, on-board telephones available at airline seats generate revenue that is lost when customers use personal phones."

Posted on ZDNet News: Oct 5, 1999
"The airlines are misleading the traveling public," says John Sheehan, who headed the RTCA study and says he has often used his own cell phone in the sky. "There is no real connection between cell-phone frequencies and the frequencies of the navigation" or communications systems."

How come one of these calls didn't show up on the phone bill, that was the one and only thing that ever really puzzled me, but thanks to my cheap experiment I found a reasonable explanation from an expert....

"The cellular signal from the air is also especially strong, since it is unimpeded by buildings or other ground clutter. That often means it can jump on a frequency already in use on the ground, causing interruptions or hang-ups. And airborne cellular calls are sometimes free because the signal is moving so fast between cells that the software on the ground has difficulty recording the call, says Bentley Alexander, a senior engineer at AT&T's wireless unit."

How come cell phones could be used in 1999, and even on 9/11 but not on the hijacked flights? Because the whole theory is BS and is backed with zero evidence.......

"Oct 5, 1999
Carr, a pilot, says he regularly used his cell phone while flying on commercial planes in the late 1980s. He says he is convinced the airline ban was, and is, "bogus" and not founded in science.

Sheehan, who is also a certified pilot, notes that cell phones are regularly used on private and corporate planes "thousands of times every day" without incident. He says he has dialed from the air on many occasions. When asked whether cell phones should be included among the list of devices such as laptop computers that are now permitted above 10,000 feet, he says "that would be OK. It's not a problem."

"We found out from people using their phones that the World Trade Center was hit, and some unspecified area in Washington," Downs recalls."

"but we were on the Delta flight [1989], the one out of three 8am flights departing Logan that did not get hijacked. Instead, we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight"

They are literally selling you theories (rather offensive ones) and passing it off as truth.

Beware of hero worship and the appeal of authority.

"In an appeal to authority, something is claimed to be true based on the expertise of an authority rather than objective facts...... there are certain things to look out for:"

"1. The person is not an expert in the field
2. The expert is not identified
3. If there is not sufficient agreement
4. If the person's opinion is biased"

BTW most of the calls were from air phones. Air phones usually work on air planes, and if it was being hijacked someone might want to use one of those air phones. And that is what happened. What a bunch of nonsense. Missiles, holograms, CIT, and fake phone calls. DRG has endorsed all of this nonsense except for the holograms. No. I'm not impressed.


It doesn't get more clear than that, Jim3100stein.


If there were Muslim hijackers...

It doesn't matter because "9/11 Was NOT A Muslim Crime." A concept the "you're promoting the racist islamofascist myth and helping to maintain the War On Terror if you talk about the hijackers" people don't seem to understand. If you take the hijackers out of the equation entirely, you also take away some of the most incriminating information out there. I've always wondered why a group of people would want to take away some of the most incriminating information out there.

Jim you rock

Googlin' away the bogus theories for us.

David was contacted a multitude of times...

And asked not to promote the voice morphing theory over the last several years. He ignored those people, and continued. People were tired of seeing this movement, and everyone associated made to look like fools with this theory, just as people were tired of CIT's nonsense, and the multitude of other theories promoted over the years. If someone is promoting bad information, they should correct it. If they don't, they get called on it. It's not rocket science. Nothing sinister about this at all, and nothing to do with David being sick. However, your snitch jacketing is most disturbing, as is others on this page.

Show "More Pot - Kettle - Black" by sullun

And you are?

And can you give an example? Can you show me where I've promoted things like a missile hitting the Pentagon, the phone calls are fake, the planes were holograms, there were pods on the planes, mini-nukes at Ground Zero, space beams bringing down the towers, witnesses are actors, flight 77 flying over the pentagon, no hijackers on the planes, 9/11 was a Zionist/Jew job, a missile was shot into the ground in PA and not Flight 93, TV Fakery, CGI, the planes were swapped, etc... over the years? Can you show me defending those promoting this bat-shit crazy information or aligning myself with them? No, you can't. And I'm the one who's "demonized" in this "movement."

Ok can this man be banned

Ok can this man be banned from the site now?

Show "Pot - Kettle - Black" by sullun

ya know - i've been taken to

ya know - i've been taken to task here for supposedly being impolite. LOL

yet - THIS sort of nonsense is what defenders of cellphone fakery and DRG have on display?

really? bald-faced accusations of being agents and infiltrators - with demands for background checks?

it seems like SOME people are working awfully hard to defend cellphone fakery

cellphone fakery.

that is what this is all about. the theory being espoused by DRG that postulates that the US Government faked phone calls to victim's family members on 9/11 using voice morphing technology.

that is the issue. seems like some people would like to forget that. probably because it is so embarrassing and laughable in the first place - and unproven in the second.

and this is what the defenders of this theory have on display.

cosmos take notice!! (err....not Cosmos from truthaction... cosmos cosmos... like.. THE cosmos, infinity and God and stuff)

Your demand is beyond absurd

You are saying Erik, John, and several others are paid disinfo agents working for Cass Sunstein.

I demand that you:

1) apologize for your ludicrous behavior

2) state whether you believe the calls were faked or not

3) leave

Show "GTFU" by sullun

Papers please

On behalf of the High Council of 9/11 Truthers, I demand to see your tax forms, history of residencies, current employer, library history, any government issued ID's you have in your possession, the names and breed types of your pets, sexual orientation, health documents, and if you use Windows or OSX.

Without this information provided freely by you, you will not be trusted by the High Council of 9/11 Truthers and will be asked to refrain from any further research, activism on the High Councils behalf, and/or posting on 9/11-related message boards. By refusing to provide said information, it will be the High Council's default position that you are without a doubt a Cognitive Infiltrator under the employ of Cass Sunstein and will thereby be banished from the land. Have a good day.

i know nuth-ing!!!!

i know nuth-ing!!!!

(Hogan's Heroes - for you young folk)

I've been banned

I've been banned from so called "truth sites" for not agreeing that a missile hit the pentagon, so obviously I am "an agent". This BS is nothing new. I've already apologized for not being a conspiracy theorist. I also apologize for not falling for ridiculous nonsense theories. I'm really really sorry. That's all you're getting from me. No tax forms. No resumes. No photo copies of IDs. So you will just have to wallow in your self inflicted paranoia.

Woo hoo!! I made the list.

Woo hoo!! I made the list.

We MUST be agents because we object to the idea that phonecalls from 9/11 victims were faked by the US government.


That's the bottom line.

Show "Are you effing kidding me???" by sullun


All those words, and you didn't actually say anything.

you don't know where to

you don't know where to start

because you have nothing of value to say

so far i just see TROLLING from you

prove us wrong. march out that super intellect of yours - and prove us wrong - with some...errr.... ya know.... actual facts?


Guys, let's try to focus on the evidence, and set the emotion aside.

Suggesting intentionality or agentry is of course useless without a CIA-enabled-ESP-device, so that only angers some and wastes everyone's time of those who are interested in the evidence.

It's an emotional topic, we can all agree. Lots have been frustrated for many years, others are frustrated to see this shift in the evidence . . . I think its fine to express frustration and your POV which is not targeted at intentionality or agentry, but otherwise, please address the evidence and that will keep us moving forward.

with all due respect- i

with all due respect- i reject the false equivalency of questioning 'intentionality" and calling someone an agent.

they are two distinctly different things - and if it can be demonstrated that someone is KNOWINGLY presenting false data - or distorting it - it is NOT inappropriate to report this. it is neither impolite or inappropriate to report IF someone is manipulating or misleading. it is necessary. surely - from a scientific standpoint - the intentional manipulation of data cannot and should not be tolerated or viewed in the same light as simple 'error' or 'misinterpretation.' the latter is an expected part of the scientific method - and the former corrupts the very foundation of scientific research.

intentionality is on the table.

the question up for discussion is whether the evidence presented by Erik is accurate - and if it is - is there reason to believe that the facts and evidence was manipulated or intentionally distorted.

sorry that it has to come to this - but when someone sells book in the name of 9/11 Truth that advocates and endorses the research of CIT - delivers quotes about Lloyd England - supports no planes at the Pentagon - cellhphone fakery - etc etc... the 9/11 Truth community has an obligation to examine his work and determine whether there is any intentionality behind his blatantly for profit dissemination of disinformation.

of course if you believe in the research of CIT and phone fakery and flyovers and little green men - you will probably cry foul. but this is a reality based movement - not a popularity contest. no one is above the truth.


John, you're welcome to question that.

But to me, the reality is that different people cope with facts and evidence in different ways, and some have more denial and ways of rationalizing then others.

I've known people who will lie to coerce people into doing something that they think is right, but their purpose in doing so is not to intentionally deceive them -- they literally believe that they are bending the facts a little but that it is best for everyone because they know what's best for everyone, themselves included. They come to believe their own bending of facts. They believe what they are doing is best, not what they are doing is a "deception".

The issue is not to prove intentionality, but to show that some actions which cherry-pick facts can lead to setting up a false reality for others. Whether they did that intentionally or not can probably never truly be known, because we all have the built-in protections of denial and rationalization.

Because lot of psychological issues are involved, it's very tricky to claim you know what someone else's intentions are, not to mention that level of offense it can be to people who care about that person or look up to them.

So to say we need to determine intentionality is sort of a stretch. We cannot, and I disagree that anyone should try.

I think that the more we debate intentionality, the more we go in circles. It's exciting and will anger people, but it doesn't really get us anywhere that Erik's essay does not.

well... you say potato- i

well... you say potato- i say "he did it on purpose" lol

just kidding

i agree with a lot of what you are saying. time will tell. but i do not think it is such a bad thing that people are now openly starting to challenge the status quo and putting certain researchers on notice that integrity counts. it never hurts to put integrity on the front burner - from a standards point.


One Point

Billy wrote -

"if you concede the calls are real, you are admitting to suicide hijackers being on the planes"

Logical fallacy, and clear cut.

Hijackers aboard the planes does not necessitate SUICIDE hijackers. Even if it did, it would not demand they execute the operation.

As to who or what guided those planes into the towers and the Pentagon, I have no idea. I suspect mechanical. But that doesn't rule out patsies. In any case, this thread has wandered into ad hom territory. So I shall depart.

I do think that this thread has been rather interesting, with all sorts of people offering all sorts of interesting opinions. And I hope DRG will respond.

I'm done with this thread...

Great work Erik.

Where it all goes off the rails

is when people starts accusing other people of being 'agents'.

It is the single most effective tactic to undermine activist groups... sowing paranoia. Ask the Black Panthers:

"Although COINTELPRO was commissioned ostensibly to prevent violence, it used some tactics to foster violence. For instance, the FBI tried to "intensify the degree of animosity" between the Black Panthers and the Blackstone Rangers, a Chicago gang."

Show "no" by billybipbip

And the mystery deepens

Just found out about this, Todd Beamers verizon records for 9/11 shows many calls were made from his phone after the plane crashed, not sure what this means.............

This is the first thread that ever wore me out....

...I'm done.

My grandpa who was a Police Detective always said to me "If you sleep with dogs you'll get fleas" simple enough concept I guess.

Regards John

"infiltration duty"

I implore the moderators to put an end to this snitchjacketing idiocy. It's against the rules, it's retarded, and extremely divisive. I fully support censoring this particular type of expression, because such accusations aren't resolvable, not for anyone here, not for the person I replied to, not for me. It is pointless, excruciatingly dumb and undesirable.

I could respond likewise and call airheads like this 'agents', but unfortunately I just don't believe that to be the case. So just censor this claptrap, and take my response out with it.

Thank you.


You are insinuating other 911blogger users are "cognitive infiltrators" slash "parasites" which is against the rules.

I don't know exactly who you are addressing, but yeah, I take this personal, because I have been snitchjacketed multiple times on this thread already.

So, no, I'm not amused, and I don't need to be 'saved from myself', you need to (A) honor the rules and (B) ameliorate your standards for accusation and assertion, and your conduct will improve concomitantly.

Moreover, all this talk that this is not relevant, this is a distraction... this seems to be some kind of third segment, last resort evasion; suggesting: anything that does not prove an inside job is off limits, completely wiping out self-criticism in this movement, something which is so direly necessary. There is plenty of inside/outsourced job proving research material coming up this year, don't worry. Meanwhile, as a group, 9/11 Truth is strengthened, not weakened, by demonstrating the ability to scrutinize and critique our own work, something I've almost never seen the other side do. It may have something to do with sincerity... don't you think? Would you like the other side to get there first instead, as they have, many times, w.r.t. the Pentagon? That worked out well, didn't it?

No one is insinuating:

I am merely trying to point out that the bickering is in itself "cognitive infiltration", whether it stems from anyone on this forum, or not. It is "parasitic", that "they" laugh while we fight amongst ourselves, got it yet?

Yes it is dire, to make conclusions about the discountable faux evidence and trash it, that is peer review. Not misconstruing someones POV, then try to rub their nose in it, like they are some bad puppy who doesn't go on the paper, i.e. bashing me with adjectives.
Which is where I call BS, you lose value and train wreck, when discourse runs away like this thread has. Get a grip, take a breath and avoid the "poor me" cries for help.

Again, Ground Zero: who had access and who brought down the towers, that is the crime scene, the crux of the cover up, and that is where mass murder took place and is still taking place.

Skip the dead end research, it is futile. Focus on visual and tangible evidence that changes minds and congeals the movement, rather than hearsay about phone calls that would actually shun anyone hearing any of this for the first time. DRG made this mistake and evidently will pay for it, so he's off the team then?? How will that look?

I wonder

if DRG will see that it is important to consider changing his behavior, after seeing this article and thread. I wonder if that's why the article was written - because DRG wasn't responding to other requests? Is this kicking it up a notch?

I don't mind that it gets heated here. Can kind of see some personalities come out of their shells a little. I don't see cognitive infiltration as much as I see cognitive dissonance.

Raw nerve

I think the reason why this thread has become so long, emotional and divisive has little to do with fake or real phone calls. It has got this way because it has touched on a raw nerve. The phone call debate is not a big issue by itself as it is somewhat arguable. That raw nerve is the support DRG has given to CIT.

CIT argues that the plane flew north of Citgo and therefore could not have done the observed damage and must have flown over, the damage done by some other means.

This holds no water as the number of witnesses to impact overwhelms the number of north path witnesses.

There could not have been an impact from the north path as there was no damage inside the Pentagon in that direction.

So, if there was no overfly and no north path impact, the plane must have been on the south path and hit the Pentagon, as eyewitnesses and damage indicate, and as now supported by the full decoding of the FDR file.

This is not arguable. Thus the raw nerve will exist while DRG's support for CIT remains.

It is likely that DRG will reconsider his endorement of CIT now that Richard Gage and Peter Dale Scott have withdrawn their support. Some patience will be required as this is no small matter and should not be dealt with hastily.

Request for a little help

I do not know much about the phone calls issue and I need a little help sorting out this confusion of mine.


DRG writes

"In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone."

To me this seems significant if true and interpreted correctly. Can somebody here help me understand how/if this has been debunked or if it not significant.

The 0 seconds call

.. is a cell phone call.

This is because it is improbable that sustained cellphone calls can be made from aircraft at cruise altitudes/speeds. The call failed. Nothing surprising there. Don't believe the reports that cell phone calls from aircraft at cruise speeds/altitudes are customary.. this is nonsense perpetuated by non-engineers who believe press reports instead of experiments. (Sorry, it's the truth)

The 'unidentified' calls were the calls made from Barbara to Ted via airfone. Why the hell the FBI sees fit to label these calls 'unidentified' or 'unknown'... who knows... they're idiots sometimes, liars sometimes, and other times they are truthful. Many times they surf in between.

9/11 proved sustained cellphone calls at cruise speeds/altitudes are improbable, as expected by theory. This is the real truth as I see it. Take it as you receive it.

Many thanks!

Here is what I'm confused about: can we conclude from this that the Olson conversation never took place and there is at least is one instance of a fake phone call?

Tell me if I misunderstand and if this has been debunked.

Ted/Barbara Olson

The misunderstanding is that Ted Olson lied about the calls he got because the cellphone call failed, as confirmed by the FBI, and as theoretically expected.

However, the phone calls he received weren't cellphone calls but airfone calls from AA 77, they were not deactivated but still active, as stewardess T. Carter confirms.

Ted Olson is an unsavory character, deeply enmeshed with the criminal gang that took over the white house in 2000 (and before), but it can't be proven that the calls he received were fake.

This is my view, others will disagree.

Haze: This was addressed in Section 4 of my essay

I linked to the AT&T/Claircom phone records for AAL 77, which would appear to the the FBI's info source, as what they said matches what's in the records. There were four connected calls. One of these was to the operator, and they list the number this call was transferred to as "unknown". The other 3 are blank where there should be a number; these are what the FBI called calls to an "unknown" number. In their 5/20/04 briefing, they said the system didn't track the number; they didn't explain why. I speculated these calls were also to the operator.

On reviewing this 5/20/04 briefing again, and the call records, I see that the unconnected call listed as being from Barbara Olson has Ted Olson's number listed; 202-514-2201. This # was redacted from the call record. There's no info in the card # field; perhaps that's why it didn't connect; she dialed hoping it would just go thru. Renee May had used a calling card; her calls are also listed in the call record.

In FBI interviews on 9/11/01, Ted Olson, Lori Keyton and Helen Voss all said Barbara Olson called twice. The accounts of two AT&T operators, Mercy Lorenzo and Teresa Gonzalez support their account. This is why the FBI decided calls were made by and received from Barbara Olson. Strangely, the FBI says they think Ted Olson got four calls from Barbara, not two.

The anomalies are strange, but they're not evidence that calls were faked.

pls let me know if this is relevant

people- i just had a random idea

did the neocons benefit from there being calls made- did it add to the terrorising and therefore give more credibility to the war on terror?

if the answer is yes (im not 100% sure it is but...) then we can say cui bono from there being calls

and perhaps (conjecture - i know - sorry!!) they made it so that there were calls or more calls than there would normally have been

(im speculating on cell calls in this comment, not seatback phones)

then can we say that the means of there being calls could be either:

A: fake calls by voice morphing- hard work to get right i think

B: a device on the plane that helped the calls to connect

this is speculation but i just thought that there can be technology that hasn't been rolled out to the public yet but which can be used by the military first

ie we may now have some technology to connect cell phones via satellite but on 9/11 there wasn't normally this kind of technology in planes, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been installed- this becomes improbable i know when one considers that therefore the plot becomes more complicated, involves more risk and takes more effort - perhaps or perhaps not outweighed by the respective gain

that way, then perhaps when people out of desperation tried anything to contact loved ones by cell phone, some got some kind of result

as a lot of us think that plane(s) were not flown (wholly) by people onboard them on that day - does this imply they had to be modified to hit targets? in the modification then a cell booster could have been added too ?

sorry if this is hogwash- just wanted to get it out there !

please someone write a 9/11 phonecalls for dummies book

having written this i think the research may have ruled this out by logic , but just in case it helps part way to explain even a bit of what happened i wanted to post this

ad veritas,
Dummie Hilton !!


I missed your sentence

"The 'unidentified' calls were the calls made from Barbara to Ted via airfone."

So, there is no ground for doubting that the Olson phone call took place then?

Show "this is speculation, you" by billybipbip

What is speculation

... is you saying you don't believe something, so your favorite fantasy is true instead.

What evidence do you have for 'cellphone fakery' besides some anomalies and your vivid fantasy?

I'm talking about direct evidence for cellphone fakery, forensic evidence that points directly towards fabrication, such as, for example, forensic data showing calls coming from some specific other location than UA 93, not just data allegedly showing e.g. Todd Beamer was still on the phone while being ripped to shreds by the earth in Pennsylvania? Show it to me. Show it to me now.

Would you like to see the DNA data? I've posted it many times. Do you anything to offer except: I don't believe it, it doesn't make sense, therefore my favorite fantasy is true instead?

That's the key here, and the major Achilles heel of 'falsification-speculation'. Doubtfulness, supplanted with imaginative scenarios lacking direct evidence. It's, to its core, a logical reasoning error.

P.S. Also, I would like a source for the bathroom claim, so I can examine it. Thanks.

"A spokesman for the family said Mrs Olson, a mother and grandmother, only decided to take the flight at the last minute, to join her husband for his birthday.

He said: "She called and said she was locked in the toilet and the plane had been hijacked. She said they had box-cutters and knives."

Hard to believe she used an airphone while in the toilet

Exactly we need more investigation, anyways I find it strange Todd beamer was able to make cell phone calls from his phone long after the plane crashed according to the FBI release of his verizon records, there you have it direct evidence you asked for


No that doesn't make sense at all, indeed.

Hmmm.. a correction to this comment, the link you provided provides a link here, and this doesn't make sense at all either.

I would like to remark

that the cellphone calls which appear to be recorded after UA 93 crashed originated not far from the reported address of Todd Beamer's cellphone provider, in New Jersey.

What this means, a cellphone specialist might know.

Different interpretation of phone record

The document

does not say that there were several calls from Todd. It only lists one call from the number (908) 202-4940 at time 07:43 in the morning lasting for 21 minutes.
U93 took off 08:42 so the call from Todd Beamers cell was made before take off and so was not relevant for 911.

If we accept the accuracy of the FBI document, Todd must have made contact during the hijacking with a different phone than his own cell phone.

Tell me what you think.


I have to take back that interpretation after more careful reading of the FBI document. Sorry!

So given now that the phone record states that phone calls were made after the U93 crash, does this not just imply that the cell phone was never on the plane? A simple explanation would be that somebody close to him were using Todd's phone.

Several possible explanations

But I'm going to have to ask around.

IMO, from more to less likely:
* Todd Beamer's loved ones or co-workers or friends, not in the know, were trying to call him all day, but since his sim card/phone were destroyed in the crash, they got a one minute response message from his cellphone provider instead, seen as emanating from Todd's cellphone
* Some tech at Beamer's provider was doing investigate duties as requested by the FBI
* The provider was notified Beamer was deceased, released the IMSI number, and it was prepared for re-use the same day. (I find that hard to believe, but let's not a priori put anything past corporations

What really matters is (A) how several one minute calls to blanked out numbers, made after the crash of UA 93, prove 'voice morphing' (what is the precise, direct relation?) and (B) why the record shows no cellphone calls made during flight

They don't prove voice

They don't prove voice morphing, but they can prove that we were lied to. In an article with Newsweek after 9/11 Beamers wife says he was addicted to the cell phone and also in her book "Let's roll!: ordinary people, extraordinary courage"
By Lisa Beamer, Ken Abraham on page 183 said he lived with a "cell attached to his ear", so he most probably had the phone with him on 9/11.

The fbi document clearly states they were outgoing calls not incoming, so more evidence of a coverup and that Beamer might not have died on flight 93, again only a real investigation that will probably never happen can elucidate these paradoxes, and we'll just debate these things with no resolution for years to come, which is probably what they want!

All I know is that if my

All I know is that if my phone gets destroyed or the battery dies incoming calls will go straight to my voicemail, they do not get listed as outgoing calls............ Here is a quote with Lisa beamer clearly stating that he had his cell on him and was wondering why she didnt get a call,(she wouldn't have wondered this if he left his cell behind)

"Lisa Beamer. [Source: NBC]Since 9/11, Lisa Beamer—whose husband Todd Beamer died on Flight 93—has reportedly had one “nagging question.” According to Newsweek, she’d wondered, “Why had her husband, a man so attached to his cell phone that [she] had to confiscate it when they went on vacation, not called her from the plane? Other passengers had called home from Flight 93 to say goodbye and talk to their loved ones. Why not Todd?” [Newsweek, 12/3/2001]"

Also on page 7 of Lisa beamers book she describes her frantic effort to get a hold of Todd on 9/11 including a call to his Business Cell phone and getting his voicemail, this means Todd had his cell on him on 9/11.


It means she hoped he had his cell on him
also that she probably thought he had his cell on him,
and that in the balance of probability he probably did.

Beamer phone calls

Mr Beamer had a cell phone. He talked on the cell phone before the plane left, on a call HE PLACED for 21 minutes. Probably telling someone the plane was delayed. So he did have his cell phone with him. This record was provided by his carrier which was Verizon Wireless.......

"Verizon Wireless provided the following subscriber information and call detail records for September 11, 2001."

Note that the call he placed was described as "incoming call". Which means the other calls were "outgoing". I had a conversation with the person who runs this site hosting these documents more than two years ago about this. And we both came to the following conclusion. He placed this "incoming" 21 minute call, and it is called incoming by his carrier Verizon Wireless. Verizon Wireless called the other calls "outgoing" because they are going out to their subscriber(customer) Mr Beamer. In other words Beamer makes a call that is incoming to his carrier, he punches in the numbers it is incoming to verizon...someone calls their subscriber (Beamer)and they call that outgoing because they relay that out to him and his phone. SOOOOO...

He made one call on his cell phone before the plane left and someone was calling him and probably getting his voice mail because he was dead along with his phone. These are all the "outgoing" calls as his carrier calls them.

So where is the record of his call he made while on the plane? There is none there because he used a GTE Air phone to make that call as can be seen in this document....

All this is a waste of time just like "what hit the pentagon" was. Planes flew into buildings and people on the planes made phone calls. It doesn't have to be a waste of time though. If you'd accept what they are telling you what they are telling you is the people on the planes were warning that a plane was hijacked and people were being killed at 8:19. Bush and Rice called this a "weird accident" when they claim they were told a COMMERCIAL AIRLINER hit the WTC. Why are they calling it a "weird accident" when they knew it was a commercial airliner that hit? It was a hijacked plane and thanks to Sweeney and Betty Ong they told the Boston Center at 8:19. Boston center called the FAA at 8:28 and the military at 8:37. At just before 9:00 Rice and Bush were notified of a COMMERCIAL AIRLINER hitting the WTC and Bush says..."there's one terrible pilot." WTF?!?


If this is true....another possibility was not considered... and because it wasn't considered, people led themselves up a garden path.

Falsification-speculation... false dilemmas.... sigh.

good work jimd3100

it makes sense

Show "You had a conversation with" by billybipbip

Like I said

A complete waste of time just like what hit the pentagon.

Show "yes investigating the deaths" by billybipbip

common sense

You might want to try using a little common sense during your investigation, and keep in contact with reality. But maybe not.
What do you think of the following picture?....

Does this prove 9-11 happened on 9-12? That would indeed destroy the "official story". Why is the time stamp saying 9-12 if it wasn't? Do you have a better explanation of this and have you looked into it?
Why would the pentagon which relies on precision have a wrong date of the photo unless 9-11 actually happened on 9-12. Things to research and consider I would This needs to be explained doesn't it?
Doesn't this prove a missile hit the pentagon on 9-12? Or is it disinfo? These things need to be looked at by someone, wouldn't you think?

Show "Well this is a false dilemma." by billybipbip

I'm proud to see

You've mastered the vernacular... now if you could only demonstrate some comprehension of the subject matter.. (logic, philosophy) You could have engaged Jim and said: "This is reductio ad ridiculum, or... reductio ad absurdum" ... but a false dilemma? No...

Jim is saying you shouldn't focus exclusively on seeking meaningful, exciting patterns in background noise. And if you do, don't jump to conclusions. Many people have gone down that road, and this is what it looks like:

Sorry smarty pants, calm

Sorry smarty pants, calm down, this is a forum on talking about 9/11 no need to get so uptight, was a false dilemma, Jimd was saying you have to support fact that 9/11 didn't happen on 9/12 and and once you accept that fact you have to accept that examining the phone records is just as absurd as denying 9/11 happened on 9/11. So hes using black and white thinking and only presenting a limited amount of choices when they are truly many more.

9/11- 9/12

"Jimd was saying you have to support fact that 9/11 didn't happen on 9/12 and and once you accept that fact you have to accept that examining the phone records is just as absurd as denying 9/11 happened on 9/11."

No that's not what Jimd was saying. No one is telling you not to examine anything. How about you try using a little common sense. See? It isn't that hard. I got you to admit that just because the time stamp says 9/12 on the video isn't "proof" 9/11 happened on 9/12. Although I could If I wanted to, engage you in a lifelong debate about it.

Show "Do you and your supporters on" by billybipbip

getting fooled

I don't know what "supporters" believe. But if you are asking me if hijackers were on the planes, yea, I "believe" that.. I believe the people at the pentagon when they saw a passenger jet hit the pentagon. I believe the people on the planes when they called, I believe the calls were not "faked" and I believe the planes flew into buildings. I also believe a plane went down in shanksville.

Perhaps I got "fooled" or am "fake" meaning I'm a secret agent. One never knows do they?

So how can 9/11 be a

So how can 9/11 be a conspiracy if mohammad atta et al were on the planes and hijacked them and rammed them in the towers? I mean what happened, the government had foreknowledge they would strike on that exact day and wired the buildings beforehand? Did the foreknowledge cause the government to remote control the planes while Atta et al were on them? These 2 scenarios seem improbable. Again arguing that atta et al were on the planes and hijacked them makes the official theory much more probable , unless someone can come up with a scenario thats remotely plausible that has atta et al really being suicide terrorists and somehow coordinating with the us government.

At this point it seems that you guys are conceding large parts of the OT on what happened on the planes, thats fine. My personal opinion is we'll never know the truth without a real investigation, and that seems very unlikely that any congressional inquiry will ever happen. I came to this site after I saw Loose Change 5 years ago.............and I haven't really posted much here for a while so I don't know whats changed. But is it the position of most of the people here that Atta et al hijacked those planes and rammed them into their targets? Or do people feel that is not what happened?


Here we come to the crux of it, thank you.

The 9/11 truth movement was never about proving a conspiracy or an inside job. A lot of people seem to think that it is, however. It was started by the victims family members wanting to know the real story of why their loved ones were murdered. The Bush administration did their very best to not even have an investigation which is completely suspicious in and of itself. From there, people began forming groups and engaging in activism and writing books and making videos. And here we are.

The movement is about finding out the truth, since the truth was very clearly covered up. If the truth is that it was an inside job of some sort, or an outsourced job initiated by insiders, whatever, then so be it. We'll go from there. The entire point is to generate enough interest in a new investigation that action is taken in that direction.

Fuckin A'...


why no "unknown number" on flight 93?

According to the 911/blogger "tit2", on flight 93 there were no "unknown numbers". "Unlike Flight 77, the FBI does not mention the existence of unknown caller for flight 93."

There is a similiar call on flight 93 (in comparision to the alleged Olsen-calls to the operator), which went to a "GTE-Verizon supervisor". Does this contradict your explanation (why the "unknown numbers" on flight 77 were the calls from Barbara Olsen to the operator)?

Flight 93:
Todd Beamer spoke with GTE-Verizon supervisor Lisa Jefferson.

Show "Thanks for reminding me this is why" by Lips Malloy
Show "Thanks for reminding me this is why" by Lips Malloy

Hi there...

....the problem is that people have been stating things as facts and that's why the Pentagon issue is being cleaned up now.

That is why all the B/S is also being cleaned up now.

No one is saying the calls were from cell phones, the argument is that it was most likely a mistake by many sources to say that was so. Everyone knows that nearly all the calls made could not of come from cell phones. They came from satellite phones in the seat backs or also called air-phones.

Weather you like it or not "Griffin" has maintained for years that flt 77 did not hit the Pentagon and that the phone calls were faked. He references discredited groups like Pilots for Truth and CIT. He has endorsed CIT.

Griffin is the target here because of his own methods and associations.

The time is now to get our ducks in a row!

This essay is not as sloppy as Griffin's phone call work, rather it's is superior in it's reasoning.

Regards John

"he is the biggest supporter

"he is the biggest supporter of the family members, that Zionism did not play a part in 911 and that anyone who thinks it did is an anti-semite."

I am and have always been, and 9/11 was not a Zionist crime, nor do I say people are "anti-semitic" for saying so.

"and am wondering why Jon Gold was once banned but is now back"

I was banned by choice because I didn't want to be tempted to take part in the time wasting debates that go on here. Get your facts straight before you post.


"I should add I have a background in music and recording engineering (among other things), and I have a wonderful digital stage piano that contains samples from actual pianos and other instruments and sounds goddamn amazing - just like the real thing. It could fool anyone."

Yeah. I'll do you one up:

I've been involved in audio production and editing for 15 years.... and what you just said is nonsense. Yeah sure, there are some great sound banks out there. Software which can, through these banks, create audio tracks which sound like an entire orchestra is involved.

In the old days, keyboards used to sport one piano sample, which was then pitched up or down wrt the key you pressed. We have advanced since then.

But... this is no comparison to voice morphing.. None. It's like saying: "if you know how to split an apple, you know how to split an atom."

Everybody with audio experience knows this is nonsense, Lips. Sorry, but you are wrong to use this example. That is not to say voice morphing, as a field of research, is technically impossible, IIRC it was reported in the Washington Post, but the comparison you just made fails, on many levels.

Show "I agree with you Lips." by Memory_Hole
Show "Blithe indeed" by dave mann

Kevin Barrett, a stalwart researcher? Is this a joke?

Seriously, what planet are you people on?

A Response to Kevin Barrett’s Attacks

Show "Where is John Parulis' long comment supporting Dr. Griffin?" by Question911
Show "Yeah mods, inquiring minds want to know." by Lips Malloy


it was deleted, genius!

He called several prominent activists paid disinfo agents. Thats against the rules, and subject to moderation. Feel free to read the the information posted at the 'rules' link, located just under the 'O' in the 911Blogger banner.

BTW, the calls were real. I dont give a shit what newcomers to this site or even the mighty David Ray Griffin himself has to say to the contrary. I hope one day the truth movement can face reality and acknowledge that perhaps we shouldn't be giving bullets to the media to shoot us in the foot with. Its tends to make us look, oh I dunno, stupid and discredited.

Stupid and discredited is no way to go through life, son. Nor is it the best way to attract sane, level headed, active people to the cause. Have a lovely day!

Not son though

I believe this is Lips Malloy, a female activist associated with ae911truth...

I do believe we need to be careful what kind of rift all this can cause.. As long as people don't call others, Erik or me 'disinfo' for no reason other than that they don't like what's being said, I'm fine with spirited discussion as provoked by this essay.. It is needed.

Show "And how is that different from " by Memory_Hole

Barrett associated HIMSELF with "nutty Judy Wood" (and worse)

Look it up.

Barrett regularly calls "islamophobic" and says it's run by agents.

Maybe you agree with him.

Well, I don't agree with that conference in Madison, WI

And I would not have spoken there. But 2007, wasn't that the year Scholars for 911 Truth was broken up by Wood and Fetzer? I remember once reading a quote by Barrett to the effect that he may have been impressed by the "video fakery" argument. This disturbed me. But upon further research I could not find anything to suggest that is his belief, and having since read his book I know he does not agree with that thesis, nor with Fetzer. He does however describe Fetzer as a friend. But hey, didn't Griffin once appear on a speakers platform with Fetzer? Are we going to be forever judged by who we once conferenced with? I'm not a total "big tent" advocate, but neither do I like the overly "small tent" approach of 911 Blogger and Jim Hoffman. I think the movement should have room for people with different takes on what happened at the Pentagon, and whether the phone calls were real or voice morphed. Also for the idea of Mossad involvement in 911. I don't think there is room for advocates of video fakery and space beams. And based on everything I've read of Barrett he doesn't believe in video fakery or space beams.

You seem sincere enough

But I think your support of Barrett is misguided. He's demonstrated enough times for my liking that he's a huge, stinky turd taking up a lot of space in our punch bowl. I'd much rather have a 100 Mike Rupperts or Ray McGoverns or Nafeez Ahmeds than a single Kevin Barrett.

Question, though. You dont seem to think that there's any room for video fakery. What if I said that you were just dividing the movement because you wont allow an honest discussion of video fakery? What if some of the more emotional people in this movement called you a paid disinformation agent because of your censorship of video fakery here? Would that piss you off? Would you think these people were horrendously misguided and discrediting to solid information?

The question is, why is phone fakery OK, but video fakery off limits? To me, both are absurd avenues of research, and should be treated as such.

No, I don't agree

with calling people I disagree with disinfo agents. There has been way too much of that within the movement for truth. Even though I have had my suspicions about people who advocate video fakery--in fact, I think that meme is blatant disinformation, as is the nonsense about nukes being used to destroy the WTC, or "space beams." So if he said this site is Islamophobic I don't particularly care. Probably every big figure in the movement has said something I disagree with at one point or another. So what? He's also gone head to head with Sean Hannity and told him he was full of shit. I have seen no one speak as credibly or forcefully for 911 truth on corporate broadcast media TV as Barrett.


I like your first option as it make sense to me. But it does require us to "bend the wording" of the FBI document since it states that the listed calls were made on the cell phone. A voice mail call, made from some Verizon Wireless server, cannot be thought of as a call made on the cell phone. But it is quite possible that the person who compiled the list was simply sloppy and did not make a distinction between the two cases.

It looks like we need more info here before one can start making definite claims.


Is that

Bush and Cheney with dollar goggles at almost 3pm?

is there

a zihop star of david up on the easel ?


It's a long essay and it will take some time to become acquainted with it. DRG made a big point that the cell call lasted 0 seconds was (as far as I understand) taken by DRG as an admission of FBI that the Olson calls were fake. But as far as I can see you did not discuss the 0 seconds issue directly.

One comment:

B. Olson was apparently escaped to the lavatory and made her phone call(s?) from there:

This raises the question if she could have been using an air phone since it is not clear (to me) if these were available in the lavatory. However, the second call ended just seconds before the crash, which implies low altitude and therefore the possibility that it was a cell phone call. Perhaps when the altitude got sufficiently low she managed to get through.

What do you make of Todd Beamers cell phone record?

So overall, what we were told

So overall, what we were told on what happened on the planes was true? That they were violently hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers led by Atta etc? What do you guys think?


what I think. You were interested in the false dilemma fallacy, weren't you? You didn't explicitly, formally state one just now, rather I would describe it as an enthymeme.

0 secs, lavatory, Beamer, hijackers, big picture

0 secs; has anyone reported there was a Barbara Olson cell call attempted? As I noted in a comment above, the Claircom record shows an attempted direct call to Ted Olson at DOJ that lasted 0 secs; it didn't connect.

Lavatory; the Daily Mail provides no source for the statement that Barbara called from the lavatory. This detail is not noted in Mercy Lorenzo or Ted Olson's 302 interview records, which were conducted on 9/11. It may be Ted Olson surmised this later, perhaps during the period when he was thinking she was on a cell phone - i don't know.

Calls made from Todd Beamer's cell after the plane crashed; bizarre. Explanation; I don't know. Perhaps the FBI 302 is accurate, but it's not the primary source (the phone bill). I suppose David Griscom might say this is evidence Beamer was calling his stockbroker in San Ramon, CA, and then calling his handler in Woodbridge, NJ, before absconding to Tahiti with his promised payoff, and was having trouble getting thru to both. I'll just say this is something to put on the list of things that should be explained, but can't be with the facts available, by itself isn't evidence that calls were faked and Beamer is still alive, and may not be evidence that 9/11's a lie, meaning it may be irrelevant to the cause of truth and justice for 9/11.

Billy; we don't know what type of plot the patsies thought they were involved in, do we? Some of them may not have been told it was a suicide mission. In any case, even if they though they were on a suicide mission, this doesn't rule out them/the plot being manipulated by one or more intel agencies; the CIA was hiding Almihdhar and Alhazmi from the FBI, none of the alleged hijackers would've been allowed in the country if Visa regs had been followed; some of them were even allowed to leave and come back into the country, in violation of the law. Former Consular officer J. Michael Springmann blew the whistle on the CIA's program for getting terrorists into the country by circumventing/overriding immigration regs; seems like the patsies were real, whatever their role was. Also, the alleged hijackers were apparently being monitored in this country by Mossad agents; this task could've been outsourced to them by people in the CIA. But the fact that some of the named hijackers were being monitored by Mossad in the US links both of them to the 9/11 plot in some as yet undetermined context, and the fact that the investigation of these Mossad agents was shut down and kept out of the 9/11 Commission Report is just one aspect of 9/11 that reeks of cover up.

Big picture; all the anomalies brought up in this thread are interesting, but the meaning of them is unclear at this point, and they may not be significant at all, in terms of the big picture; truth and justice for 9/11. OTOH, in my conclusion I listed and linked to supporting material on a whole bunch of specific issues and specific people, such that if anyone actually reads this stuff, they'll realize the OCT is false, and that these issues and people MUST be investigated and people held accountable, if the US republic is to be one in more than name only, and if we're going to secure our nation from future attacks and exploitation by ruthless and criminal elites.

I recommend everyone spend more time reading The Complete 9/11 Timeline

Wow a simple question, and

Wow a simple question, and Snowcrash responds with some convoluted graph that would get you laughed out of courtroom. Its not fallacious to ask people where you think the currently available evidence leads, unless you you over analyze everything to try and prove you are Aristotle! I mean what if a 17 year old kid was a little interested in 9/11 truthseeking and asked you about hijackers being real, I seriously doubt you'd convince a noob like him to 9/11 truth with your graph, and I think he'd find kind of shady you can't give a straight answer, rather you try to give him a pious philosophy lesson. Get over yourself.

Anyways I guess atta etc did hijack those planes, but they might have been secretly working for an intelligence cabal (and they signed up for a suicide mission or were duped) or secretly monitored as to exactly when they would strike (tis is all speculation of course with no hard evidence), and then when that time arrived explosives were secretly detonated..................I guess thats remotely plausible, but I have a hard time believing that if explosives were secretly placed in the towers, they would leave the event that would trigger the detonation to a bunch of 5 foot 7 tall bumbling shrimps with boxcutters, In mean what if they messed up? Wouldn't they leave this part of the operation to some hard core black ops experts?

Anyways none of these paradoxes make sense to me anymore, with all this conflicting information there is no real way to prove anything................Out of my group of friends I'm always the one trying to convince others to look into 9/11, and my friends always tells me it was 9 years ago and to get over it. With all this confusion and infighting I told him today, yeah maybe I am the crazy one, maybe the official story is more true than I'd like to believe, and even if it's not true its nearly impossible to prove anything. Sorry you can downvote me if you want but that's just how I feel today.

It's not meant for the courtroom

and it's not a graph but a table. An enumeration of a set. Of permutations, or rather, combinations. It is (A) logically correct and (B) instructive.

So yeah, I wish kids would get lots of lessons in philosophy and logic before graduating from high school. It's invaluable. I'm not saying you're a kid, and it's not too late to get involved now.. there is so much more, and, in fact, when you engage the 'skeptics', this is your argumentative and philosophical ammunition. It's a map, if you will, of how to avoid pitfalls. Ignore it your peril. There are more choices than either Al Qaeda or the USG. This is my point. If Atta was on that plane, hijacked it and actually personally piloted it into WTC 1, then would we be lost? No! The answers are there in abundance.. the USG is up to its neck in 9/11.


The only way it isn't true is if every single call from the planes is fake. If just one call is true, what is the point of faking any of the rest? They all describe hijackers.


the live fly exercises included actors playing the part of hijackers and the violence was acted ?
sorry if this is hogwash -just an idea :o)

this is something that

this is something that occurred to me - to be honest. but - i'm not sure speculation gets us anywhere. but - yeah - wasn't documented somewhere that one of the war games that morning was to include live faux hijackings?

Sloppy reporting +Sloppy research=bad theories

billybipbip said........"My personal opinion is we'll never know the truth without a real investigation, and that seems very unlikely that any congressional inquiry will ever happen."

Uh.....that happened in 2002. These people are not "fake".....

The report of their investigation was quite real too, I found it to be very helpfull and interesting........

The CIA and the Bush Administration refused to co operate with that investigation and actually interred with it. Bush also blocked 28 pages of it from ever being released. And because of what they found the Families wanted an INDEPENDENT Commission to look into this. You really should already be aware of all this, but I must warn you there is nothing about "fly overs" holograms, missiles, or fake phone calls. Here is an example of the Bush Administration interfering ....

"The Administration has to date objected to the Inquiry’s efforts to interview the
informant in order to attempt to resolve those inconsistencies. The Administration also
would not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice
on the informant. Instead, written interrogatories from the Joint Inquiry were, at the
suggestion of the FBI, provided to the informant. Through an attorney, the informant has
declined to respond to those interrogatories and has indicated that, if subpoenaed, the
informant would request a grant of immunity prior to testifying." page 51/858

So then came the 9-11 commission which is a white wash but worth reading. So are any penttbom reports from the FBI Investigation. However it seems no one wants to read these but instead promote their favorite theories.

And this business of Barbara Olson in the bathroom......

It's sloppy reporting. That's all. From the article:
"Alice Hogland, from San Francisco, told television channel KTVU-TV how her son Mark Bingham, 31, telephoned her from the Boeing 757 on his mobile phone."

SEE!!! He was on a cell phone!!!!
No he was on an Air Phone. From the FBI report who investigated the calls. The person writing the article did not investigate these calls. The FBI did. Say they're all "in on it" if you want, provide some EVIDENCE though if it isn't to much trouble...

FBI Report:
"BINGHAM then said, "I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane, and they say they have a bomb. I'm calling you from the AIR PHONE."

Barbara Olson according to the article was in the bathroom and asking what she should tell the pilot. Was the pilot in the bathroom with her? Why is the pilot in the back of the plane with the passengers?

From the article:
"On American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington, television reporter Barbara Olson, 46, locked herself in the lavatory to call her husband, Solicitor General Theodore Olson, and ask for advice

A spokesman for the family said......He said: "She called and said she was locked in the toilet and the plane had been hijacked........She said to her husband, 'What shall I tell the pilot to do?"

Did you notice this came from "a spokesman" for the family? So this is like 3rd hand information. Someone told something to a family member who told the spokesman who told the press who told us in the article. No. She was not with the pilot in the toilet. I've already gone over this here.....

But will repeat it .....

"Also some people read the following as meaning the pilots were in the back of the plane with B Olson and the rest of the passengers, which they find hard to believe that she would be asking what should she tell the pilots to do? Sure, if someone wants to interpret the following that way I guess they can but IMO they are interpreting it wrong......

FBI Report:
"The passenger wanted to know how to let the pilots know what was happening. It did not appear as if they were aware of the situation." page 17/52

IMO what she is saying is, obviously the plane is being hijacked and the passengers were told to go to the back of the plane(to keep away from the hijackers/cockpit).....and B Olson is wanting to know how to contact the pilots who might not be aware of what is happening, since she assumes they are in the cockpit flying the plane. Obviously if the pilots were with her they would be "aware of the situation". The "idea" that the pilots were back with B Olson and the rest of the passengers is not supported by this but just a bad interpretation of the records. The pilots were most likely lying dead on the cockpit floor with their throats slit. She of course wouldn't know that. There is no evidence the call is "fake" or Olson lied about anything.

She was in the back of the plane where the toilet is. And asked...

"The passenger wanted to know how to let the pilots know what was happening. It did not appear as if they were aware of the situation." page 17/52

That went to......
"She called and said she was locked in the toilet and the plane had been hijacked........She said to her husband, 'What shall I tell the pilot to do?"

It's sloppy reporting based on 3rd or 4th hand information. Declassified original FBI reports are online for all to see.

Show "ok" by billybipbip

You see

I was right. This is what you were thinking.

"Often it has been claimed that the finding of nanothermite[2] in WTC dust is mutually exclusive with the presence of hijackers. This claim has no factual or logical basis."

The False Dilemma Fallacy.

This post was written specifically to deal with this objection/argument.

Nanothermite can be removed again if the attack fails. But.. we don't know what measures were undertaken to ensure the attack succeeded.

So they were prepared to

So they were prepared to remove all the explosives if the attack failed, including the conventional explosives that could have taken weeks to prepare? And then they would have to find new patsies, And what about all the increase in security that they would have to deal with because of the plan failing? Maybe next time the planes would get shot down? And then they would have to rig the building again? It is simply not logical that they would rig buildings for weeks and be entirely dependent on "patsies" that could barely fly and failed miserably on flight 93, a multitude of things could go wrong........... military operations do not leave such huge margins for error. This is not a "false dilemma" its a true dilemma...........if you are convinced that it was Atta etc on those planes and they proceeded to ram them into targets, no stolen identities, no plane switches, no remote control etc than its hard to believe highly sophisticated military operation would be so dependent on some amateurs whose chances of failing are very high. Remember if they fail you have 3 buildings that have been rigged in secret for demolition left standing, I don't think the people who did that would take any unnecessary risk of the plan failing.

"Why would the people who rigged the buildings

with explosives take a chance with a bunch of patsies?"

The planes might have had a guidance system on them rather like that in a missile. That system might have taken over the controls.

Speculation on my part but i remember some information about the flight manifest for AA77 reading like a who's who of defence contractor type people that might be onboard for a first trial of an anti hijack plane control system.

Someone let me know if this has been debunked pls.

and i speculate

that WTC7 might have been left standing as a result of the type of failure (flt 93 quite late taking off) you mention

false dilemma, indeed

"if you are convinced that it was Atta etc on those planes and they proceeded to ram them into targets, no stolen identities, no plane switches, no remote control"

The involvement of patsies does not rule out either stolen identities or remote control of planes.

Those named as hijackers may have been a mix of real identities, people using stolen or counterfeit IDs, people with IDs/personal history invented by intel agencies; some may have been double agents, and may have been unaware of the true nature of the plot; they may have been lied to and sacrificed. Or, the patsies may have believed they were in control of the planes - which could have been taken over by remote in the last minutes to ensure they hit their targets.

Reports of alive hijackers, in at least some instances, appear to have been cases of similar names, mistaken ID, report based on stolen ID, etc.

9/11 Myths is at times dissembling and manipulative in its presentation of info, but as I said in my essay and comments here, when 'debunkers' can, they use facts and evidence against the movement, when claims are being circulated that are false, that are base on misinfo. I have not extensively researched the alive hijackers meme, but 9/11 Myths has put a bunch of work into it; anyone making claims about alive hijackers, and anyone wanting to see how 'debunkers' are using these claims against the movement, would do well to know and understand the info here, which also has pages devoted to each allegedly alive hijacker:
Also see the HC entry - this may need to be updated; if you see any errors, please either point them out here, contact HC, or register a free account at HC and submit corrections:

Atta may have had a doppelganger leaving an information trail; see his profile at

FAA/NMCC/NORAD/NEADS, which had drilled for commercial planes being used as missiles, in addition to similar scenarios, and had received warnings/intel on an impending Al Qaeda plot summer 01, including the potential for planes to be used as missiles, did nothing to harden security in advance, and while the attacks were in progress and loyal personnel were frantically trying to respond, people in the upper levels of decision making were twiddling their thumbs, giving orders that obstructed the response (sending fighters over the Atlantic and after a phantom AAL 11), or were nowhere to be found. Seems to me it would be more productive to ask questions and demand answers for this type of stuff.

There are many possibilities for some aspects of 9/11, and the public has insufficient information to know what really happened. It's clear the public has been deceived, and there's been a defacto cover up; the 9/11 Commission and NIST reports are evidence of that. 9/11's a fraud and so is the 'war on terror', which has led to quagmires, corruption and hundreds of thousands of deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, massive increases in public funding for a corrupt and unaccountable MIC, and an ongoing state of emergency undermining the US Constitution, and similar situations in other Western nations and allies.

People ought to support disclosure and accountability, with their votes, wallets, time and bodies.

"The involvement of patsies

"The involvement of patsies does not rule out either stolen identities or remote control of planes."
Ah Yes this is what I suspected, but was not going to say myself for fear of being called out for speculation! I still think a plane switch is possible or remote control.................and now thanks to my grilling on how absurd it would be for the building riggers to depend on 19 bumbling skinny shrimps that could barely fly you'll have conceded something really shady might have happened on those planes! Didn't think that was possible for everybody nowadays gets scolded for speculation!


It is a false dilemma, not a true dilemma. That's the whole point.

You are arguing from incredulity. Maybe this, coulda that, shoulda this. Incredulity. Even if there were no hijackers at all, the mission could have failed. There could have been actual hijackers AND a remote control takeover. The hijackers could have piloted the planes themselves AND the building could have been rigged.

I reject your objections and your fallacious limitation of choices. It is really that simple. I just threw the 'litmus test' out the door.


The essence is, we can both say 'could', both say 'might' or 'may', but ultimately, a 'real' hijacker scenario isn't mutually exclusive with the presence of nanothermite.

you reject common sense in

you reject common sense in the name of psychobabble? I love your speculation that they could have derigged the buildings for demo if they plan failed and rerigged it at a later date to do it all over again, for somebody that is so obsessed with logic that made me laugh!

"Nanothermite can be removed again if the attack fails." Says snowcrash our next Ahh yes they can find new patsies and start all over again!


Could you explain exactly where I said this:

"I love your speculation that they could have derigged the buildings for demo if they plan failed and rerigged it at a later date to do it all over again"

You have not shown why hijackers and nanothermite are mutually exclusive. Your appeal to 'common sense' is actually a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.

Please specify exactly where I claimed the boldfaced portion or apologize and retract.

This sentence leaves me gobsmacked:

"lol Ahh yes they can find new patsies and start all over again!"

So was crashing UA 93 in a field somewhere in Pennsylvania part of the flawless execution? This plane had no target? Is it your contention that 9/11 was flawlessly executed? Was 9/11 not a second attempt after the failed 1993 bombings?

I await your witless response with interest.

voted you up, Snow

and agree with all of it apart from - i think that the 1993 false flag was to create a pretext for neocon contractors to take over the security- speculation , sorry! but i think the CD was possibly planned way back and they need a cover to install the necessary devices


I think they would have taken over anyway... it seems to me like some people were disappointed that they failed to set a war agenda for Clinton's presidency, shortly after his inauguration. 9/11, again, at the beginning of the first term of a two-term president. Setting the agenda...

then perhaps


Show "You said ""Nanothermite can" by billybipbip

pls tell me if this has already

been debunked but looking at 9/11 simplistically i see it is a day of 4 planes and 4 buildings
the delayed plane didnt hit a building
the delayed CD'ed building wasn't hit by a plane

with 4 planes to play with the perps could cope with 1 going astray due to lateness- taking off when the topguns were finally airborne or any number of other hinderances just like a 747 can fly on 3 engines just fine

the perps found themselves a plane short,
so the 3 targets most important to propaganda were hit and an ad hoc contingency realised for the remaining building and plane

i think it likely that the 93 false flag bombing was to grant future access to the twin towers for bush/cheney co. companies to pave the way for the overpowering propaganda involving nanothermite

i think the 93 event was not a serious attempt to bring the towers down

sorry if this is bunk - just what seems apparent, simplistically thinking.... Occam's razor and all that .....

The 400th Comment!!!


I for one

... am happy with discussion, snitchjacketing excepted.

It's been a long time coming for this to have been brought up. (And properly dealt with)

Thanks again Erik.

and than you SnowCrash - your

and thank you SnowCrash - your posts here are spot-on.

facts and speaking for themselves

not to get all stanley fish at this forum, but can we at least agree "facts" never "speak for themselves...."

facts are always heard, read, repeated, remembered in historical, cultural, political, and social contexts......

"facts" are embedded in "narratives" which are embedded in deep assumptions/presuppositions about how the world is ordered and functions and certain events have come to pass.

hence, some "facts" are not credible for almost everyone beyond the persuasive powers of the 9-11 truth movement, which itself is at times bitterly divided over real and not so real or even "fake" "facts" based on "erroneous theories" about what "really happened on 9-11."

the fact is, we do not know exactly how the operation of 9-11 was executed. we have ideas, which leads us to examine some facts or search for some facts over others....and, arguably, many of those "believing the official story" also would admit they do not know exactly what happened nor why...indeed, much of the post 9-11 period of examination involved the efforts of leading intellectuals, religious leaders and scholars to attempt to imagine how and why such an attack could have been carried out by "human beings" living in the same moral universe as "exceptional" americans.

why are the phone calls even important? only because some people's ideas of what happened on 9-11 contradict what they believe they understand the government to be saying about what happened on 9-11...

the fact is, the narrative of the official story for what happened on 9-11 is largely attributed to an alleged member of al qaeda captured by us forces-allies and interrogated by the cia, esp KSM, and his admittedly tortured testimony via waterboarding makes up the central "facts" of the "narrative": of the 9-11 commission report, which has been considered the official explanation of the us government, one which no serious mainstream elite media person, intellectual, or politico is allowed to question in any significant way if they want to continue to enjoy the benefits of being a serious mainstream elite in the usa.

facts never speak for themselves, facts speak for theories about some other set of facts people disagree about when it comes to the hows and whys of their occurrence...

Sure they do...

A fact like Dick Cheney asking Tom Daschle not to investigate the attacks SCREAMS that Dick Cheney is attempting to cover-up something.

Here is an excellent show...

That covers this topic. This took place on Saturday evening.


Jesse Ventura's second season finale of "Conspiracy Theory" ended with an episode concerning what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Among the many fraudulent claims made in the television program, Ventura included a segment dealing with the ridiculous claim that fake phone calls were made from aboard the hijacked planes that morning, further purposing the idea that the calls were actually created by voice morphing technology. Jesse Ventura called upon forensic audio expert Kent Gibson for a demonstration of voice morphing technology during the show. I had a conversation with Kent concerning his appearance on Ventura's show. Mr. Gibson had some very interesting things to say about the fake calls claim, Jesse Ventura and his Conspiracy Theory show.


the expert says

the 9/11 voice morphing theory is poppycock

I hope that people...

Will eventually realize how ridiculous it is to accuse people of being something they're not just because they show a theory to be wrong. I hope that people eventually realize how responsible it is to call out a bad theory, no matter who writes it, so as to prevent other people from spreading that bad theory. Back in the day, I used to get into fights with people who would accuse Michael Ruppert of this, that, and the other thing. I felt obligated to defend him because he was an influence to me. Eventually, I realized that Michael isn't anymore perfect than I am, and some of the critiques against him were justified. Hopefully the DRG defenders will have the same epiphany.