Support 911Blogger


Jesse Ventura’s Fake Phone Calls Claim Debunked

Author: Jeffrey Hill
Source: youtube
Category: BLOG

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.

http://911truthnews.com/jesse-venturas-fake-phone-calls-claim-debunked

Join 9/11 Truth News on facebook and twitter.

EDIT: Moderator's NOTE: the topic of this thread is Jeff Hill's call to Kent Gibson regarding voice morphing, PLEASE stay on topic. Thanks - LW

What's this? According to

What's this? According to this report from 1999, voice morphing technology was "developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico" [...] "By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape."

However, according to this statement from the creator of that technology, George Papcun, with regards to 9/11, "practical considerations preclude making counterfeit telephone calls in this situation. For example, it is necessary to have samples of the voices of the people to be imitated. In situations like this, where the goal is to participate in an unconstrained conversation, the voice sample must be extensive. I cannot imagine how I might have obtained extensive samples of the voices of the passengers on Flight 93, especially not knowing which of them would call home. Additionally, in this situation it would be necessary to know what someone would say to his or her loved ones under such circumstances. What pet names would be used? What references would be made to children and other loved ones? Do believers actually suppose that the government (or I) listens in to everyone’s pillow talk?"

the whole VM theory

is just becoming so complicated i think it's highly unlikely that VM was used
pls apply Occam's razor 9/11TM :o)

No Conclusive Evidence Debunking Faked 9/11 Phone Calls

A recorded phone conversation with Mr. Gibson might do as opposed to an alleged internet account credited to a JREF member.

Lately, there seems to be a curious rush to judgment by certain "truthers" to accept several different aspects of the official 9/11 story without conclusive evidence. An earlier example would be the implication that AA 77 FDR data is authentic, despite the fact that no inventory serial control numbers are attributed to the FDR, that there is a several hour time stamp discrepancy concerning the data and its recovery and that this data depicts pilot control of AA 77 - the pilot who by most accounts was incapable.

I find no conclusive evidence within this speculative work to conclusively debunk 9/11 voice morphing questions.

Mr. Gibson is alleged to say the following by a JREF member:

"For example, it is necessary to have samples of the voices of the people to be imitated. In situations like this, where the goal is to participate in an unconstrained conversation, the voice sample must be extensive ... I cannot imagine how I might have obtained extensive samples of the voices of the passengers on Flight 93."

Advance booking of 9/11 flight reservations by 9/11 flight passengers would make surveillance of them and recordings of their pre-9/11 cell phone or other phone conversations possible. In 2006, the FBI "hacked" into cell phone accounts of known organized crime figures to record their voices.

http://www.zdnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdropping-tool/...

"Lately, there seems to be a

"Lately, there seems to be a curious rush to judgment by certain "truthers" to accept several different aspects of the official 9/11 story without conclusive evidence."

i see no one rushing to judgement. certain "truthers" actually expect TRUTH-BASED RESEARCH - instead of speculative science fiction-based theories.

i say - beware those who accuse certain "truthers" of accepting the "official story" - by setting up a false dichotomy between speculative nonsense like cellphone fakery - and the official story.

Sounds like an argument I've been hearing a lot of...

That certain people are trying to push the "official story." I really wish that I was like Nico with regards to having a 9/11 Resume to show people. To show people how much I've done for this cause because most people have no clue. To make fools of anyone even suggesting that I am somehow a devious plant. Just to give an example... the recent FBI Kamikaze Pilot thing... Sibel contacted me, and asked me to contact the September Eleventh Advocates, and explain to them what she found, and what she wanted to do. I did. Then the rest is history (that wasn't mentioned by our media). That's just one thing I've taken part in. One of 1000's for this cause.

As I said elsewhere, you could say that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, that the towers crashed because planes flew into them, that Flight 93 crashed in PA, that there were hijackers on the planes, and still have so much incriminating information about 9/11 it's not even funny.

Demanding that we as a whole present ourselves in a way that reaches a majority of people (by promoting good, solid, basic information that most people can digest) is the responsible thing to do. Showing information to be faulty and not worthy of mention is also the responsible thing to do.

Maybe it's time to write that book. Hmmm...

Edit: One of my "friends" just saw this passage (people love it when I say how much I've done), and decided to sign up on facebook as a faux Bob Mcilvaine to "thank me" for all I've done for him. There are some sick, demented people in this world.

Cognitive Infiltration Of 9/11 Activism

It is difficult not to notice the recent trend at 9/11 Blogger of certain allied posters attacking certain 9/11 questions and more importantly, attacking prominent figures who ask these questions. In the case of allegedely faked 9/11 flight calls, attacks have been aimed at prominent 9/11 skeptics like David Ray Griffin and Jesse Ventura who ask such questions, while citing inconclusive information provided by JREF and using Popular Mechanics-style emotional arguments such as that questioning 9/11 phone call authenticity is offensive to 9/11 victim families.

Certain members of these allied interests can also be seen to attack the credible evidence of WTC demolitions while asking readers more and more to accept as fact certain official 9/11 accounts such as dubious FDR data implying hijacker control of the 9/11 planes and dubious alleged 9/11 flight phone call information implying the activity of murderous religious hijackers aboard the 9/11 flights.

Previous possible examples of failed cognitive infiltration such as DEWs, mini-nukes and CGI may be succeeded by more persuasive positions. 

So...

Are you accusing me of something Aidan? Please spit it out because I would love to hear it.

Edit: C'mon Aidan. Now's your chance. I'm about to go to bed, so if you're going to make your accusation, please be quick about it.

Edit: I'm going to bed. If you have a formal accusation against me tomorrow, I will respond. Good Night.

Jon Gold
Cognitive Infiltrator

Aidan is right ..."Vote Club" Effect ...against honest dialogue

Aidan is correct.
It has become very noticable that there has been a recent trend at 911Blogger. This is very observable.
I have observed valid questions get overwhelmed with down votes.
I have observed a "Vote Club Effect" where prejudice is played for or against certain people. Sometimes very good statements are downvoted for no real reason. Sometimes I also notice that some posts on non-contentious threads get downvoted for absolutely no reason.

The proportionate number of votes in one thread compared to other threads is 'kind of off-center". ...it demonstrates a "Vote Club".

One "Vote Club" member told me on a TruthAction thread that he did not mind being mean to people...that he would if he felt like it.... Another "Vote Club" member in a comment advocated infighting, saying that infighting is a good thing. Infighting is good?..Gee!?! ... get married to someone who likes to viciously fight all the time if infighting and being mean is a good thing.
To me, this is ugly stuff.
Friends and comrades with common purposes do not act like this.

Sometimes I feel that there is an attempt "to bully" and invalidate and "make unwelcome" some of our regular posters by the "Vote Club".
I have a speculative opinion that the motive is to drive away and discourage viewpoints who are not in full agreement with the "Vote Club". This makes the "Vote Club" more powerful.

Regardless, it becomes apparent that honest, civil, valid dialogue is unwelcome by a small group when downvotes cascade upon it.
In my mind, it is a malicious intention to suppress valid communication. Evil intent against valid communication ... this is what the government does when 9/11 Truth tries to present the facts about Building 7 and the Twin Towers ... the government tries to suppress valid questions and communication.
Why would the "Vote Club" choose to demonize fellow 9/11 Truth Advocates more than Dick Cheney?
Why

"Evil intent against valid communication"

Wow. That's pretty over the top, Tom.

You do realize that the voting system here is a form of self-moderation that the owners of this site have provided to its users with the full intention of them using it? How exactly is that evil? Is the whole site evil?

You say you're concerned about "civil dialogue" and "bullying" but you turn around and call fellow site users "evil"?

Something doesn't add up there!

And what about Aidan Monaghan (who you said you agree with) throwing around the "cognitive infiltration of activism" catchphrase - implying that those who disagree with him are infiltrators. Is that contributing to a civil dialogue? Or is that more like bullying?

Cognitive infiltration...

It's the new phrase for "LIHOPPER." All "LIHOPPER" really was anyway was a word used to accuse people. Now, if someone disagrees with someone, they are called Cognitive Infiltrators apparently. It's all the same.

C'mon, like you didn't know people were going to start suddenly accusing everyone of "cognitive infiltration" now that a book has been written on it.

Same rules apply. Judge people by the fruits of their labor.

Apparently Suggested Profile Of The New 9/11 Activist

Don't openly ask questions about 9/11, be more accepting of unproven aspects of the official 9/11 story, all while demanding a new 9/11 investigation (and not seeming to have a basis for doing so.)

"not seeming to have a basis for doing so"

How is this not a basis for demanding a new 9/11 investigation?
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Polling has consistently shown that the vast majority of people think the whole truth about 9/11 hasn't been told; that's a basis for demanding a new 9/11 investigation. There are hundreds upon hundreds of facts that conflict with the official narrative, including many pointing to specific people being responsible for the failure to prevent the attacks, or the facilitation of them. Treason and mass murder are basis for a full investigation of 9/11. The destruction of the WTC is just one aspect of 9/11 that needs to be investigated, in order to identify all those responsible and establish truth and justice.

You know what's funny Erik...

We are being accused by the DRG minions of supporting the official story, and accused of being cognitive infiltrators because a shiny new book by DRG is out about it.

As if to say we openly supported this bullshit, but now we don't. Boy, isn't that suspect?

However... none of us have EVER promoted this bullshit. I have never promoted voice morphing, faked phone calls, a missile hitting the Pentagon, etc... and so on. I have always thought Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. We have always been consistent.

So now that the bullshit that we've never promoted is being exposed as the bullshit that it always was, we are being accused of "supporting the official story," and being "cognitive infiltrators."

Well, I accuse those of wanting to continue promoting this bullshit of supporting the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. Because as long as bullshit like this gets the most attention, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks never have anything to fear.

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they never have to worry about answers.

Edit: By the way, accusing us of calling for a new investigation "and not seeming to have a basis for doing so," is completely and totally inaccurate.

Here is the 9/11 Report. I suggest you read it, and ask others to read it to understand the "official account."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

After that, I suggest you ask people to watch "9/11: Press For Truth"...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481#

Then I suggest you ask people to watch the companion DVD "In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families"...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4399917864007973679#

Then I suggest you recommend the "Complete 9/11 Timeline" to get people started...

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Then I suggest you recommend this series of movies I made called "What's Being Covered Up?"...

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080326132655798

Here is what I call the "Gail Sheehy Collection." She is the reporter that reported on the "Jersey Girls" as they were doing their thing. It is essential reading...

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19899

Then I suggest you recommend the report on the inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission's Report compiled by 9/11 Family Members Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg...

http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/fsc_review.pdf

Then I suggest you show people this list of unanswered questions compiled by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee...

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Then I suggest you ask people to read the different letters sent out over the years by the September Eleventh Advocates...

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090720125107330

Then I suggest you show the archived statements of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee that took place during the Commission and after...

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18031

Then I suggest you ask people to read the FSC's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Especially Mindy Kleinberg, and Kristen Breitweiser...

http://www.911independentcommission.org/testimony.html

Here is an archive I made a few years ago called the "Who Is? Archives"...

http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=157

Here is something several "veterans" for this cause wrote to better help activists...

http://www.truthmove.org/content/2008-declaration/

Then, if all of that fails to motivate people to fight for justice, you can show them my article, "The Facts Speak For Themselves"...

http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

Good luck!

Edit: Another thought... I've NEVER promoted this, but rest assured... it has been used AGAINST me too many times to count, so thank you for that.

YT-Yes, "evil intention" "harmful intention" "characterized by

YT,
Yes, "evil intention" "harmful intention" "characterized by bad conduct" "injurious" "mean spirited" "demeaning"....

Any young school kid knows about this type of behavior in a group...
Generally, most people like to contribute and participate and help their group. When a clique is formed which ridicules or downplays the valid communication of another group member, this discourages active participation in the group. It is a deliberate attempt to undermine the active participation of targeted group members. This is injurious and harmful to the well-being of the whole group. Harmony, affinity, inspiration, and high esprit become dischord and ill will in that kind of ostracizing atmosphere.

That is my point.

Aidan refers to a recent trend on 911blogger.
I observe this trend also.
It is pretty obvious.
...and Cosmos, I know that you know what I am talking about.
This trend has run off good people.
This trend is ugly and it is harmful.

Definition of "evil"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil

What "recent trend"

Tom? I've never supported this theory, and have spoken out on it several times. The earliest example of me speaking out against this theory was from 2007, and it was posted in Erik's critique thread. There is no new "trend" taking place. The crap that we've never promoted, have always spoken out against, is finally being shown for what it is. You and Aidan and others don't like it.

As I said, I've never promoted this, but it has been used against me countless times. I'm glad to see it exposed.

The "recent trend" is very obvious.

Jon,
The trend of dischord, of "Vote Club", is not really about the subject matter, nor is it about Jon Gold.

What some people protest is that their valid communication gets squashed and stifled with prejudice.
This is the trend.
Look at this thread. It is layed out here. It is obvious.
The trend is ugly.

Valid communication squashed?

No, see no one is invalidating your communication by responding to it critically. If anything it acknowledges the validity by even responding to it. Your communication (which in your comments above amounts to ad-hominem attacks) is not responded to with prejudice as you claim, but with thoughtful responses. That's right Tom, you are calling people names then upset that they don't just take it. Fortunately or unfortunately, name calling is valid communication buy at least it can get voted down. You still are acting as though the vote system does nothing more than allow folks to express which comments on this site they agree with or disagree with? PEOPLE CAN STILL READ YOUR VALID COMMUNICATION K? EVEN WHEN IT'S DOWN VOTED. Does it insult you that I had to re-type that, even though it's obvious to you and everyone? Well it shouldn't because I'm actually taking the time to explain it to you. Your not being kicked out of a club house.

'Can I come and play with you guys?'
'Sure, but if you start calling us names or not respecting truth and reason and exhibit immature behavior, don't expect folks to not say something.'

No clubs here, just adults.

I wish it was as silly as it all seems...

...because this evil group you few above are talking about is fighting for the end of harmful speculation, so your argument is fundamentally ridiculous.

We are seeing the soul of this movement, seriously the people that have done the most work and care the most for this cause put their foot down and say no more!

We "the clique" or sometimes known as "trufaction" you refer are simply trying to become the beautiful butterfly the 9/11 Truth Movement was always meant to be...but so many appear to wish it to continue as the grub the movement has become with the aid of the conspiracy theorist's and their industry!!

I desire and will fight for a transformation to become this butterfly!

A transformation....

From conspiracy theorist's to factulist's.

From paranoid, scared and angry lost souls to clear, righteous and well researched leaders in society.

From timewaster's to game changer's.

From the third rail to the only rail!

This is what we desire and if you think this makes us bullies well you are part of the problem preventing this change.

This is the "peer review process" in the blogger-sphere like we have never seen it before, behold it is in my view it is a beautiful thing :-) like the butterfly I imagine to come.

Regards John

John - you express a wonderful ideal,

and one I share.

Too bad human beings are inherently irrational and less than perfect.

All we can do is keep trying to understand ourselves, each other and the world in a more holistic way.

I think what we are seeing here, yet again, is the natural tension between the academic/research wing of the truth movement and the activist wing.

Many activists are generally not interested in anything that is not rock solid and ready for prime time distribution to the general public.

I think most researchers feel very comfortable talking about a variety of hypotheses that all use the same known facts, and mix in some unknowns, this is why they are hypotheses and not theories.

Both groups should always adhere to the basic tenets of critical thinking, however, and one of these that if something is unproven it remains open to investigation and one has to accept that more than one possibility exists and allow for that until that thing is conclusively known (not so easy for some activists, perhaps a little too easy for some researchers).

911 Blogger often finds itself at the crossroads of both groups and these tensions get played out, sometimes in a way that would make sausage making look like ballet (i.e. pretty ugly).

Once these threads get going (this one is around 160 comments now) all kinds of things get thrown in, most of it off topic, I hasten to add, and thus in violation of the rules and guidelines for the site.

So, PLEASE BE CIVIL AND STAY ON TOPIC ! ! !

Getting back to the subject at hand...does anyone really think that, with billion dollar black budgets and the present level of digital technology, cell phone quality voice morphing is not possible?

Real time voice morphing has to be one of the wet dreams of intelligence agencies for decades, so I think it is safe to assume that the top agencies in the world have it.

That fact that it is not commercially available is not really important, try buying a nuke at Walmart (shave your beard first, though).

NOTE: This DOES NOT MEAN that it was employed on September 11th, but it does mean that it could have been.

Thus, in my mind, this remains and open question for research and investigation.

Does this mean I will choose to talk about this with the general public? Heck no, I don't even bring up the Pentagon unless they do first!

Does this mean I think that researchers should not continue to look into this? No, I happen to think that every single aspect regarding the events of September 11th, 2001 needs to be examined and put into context. This is the only way we can get anywhere near a real understanding of what happened and who made what happen.

While I consider myself to be primarily an activist, I also do a lot of research on my own and have great respect for those who do this as their primary activity with regard to 9/11 truth. Thus, I have to constantly balance my effectiveness as an activist with my interest in the fringes of responsible and scientific 9/11 research and what I share with other activists and the general public, as should we all to some degree.

I know I don't know what happened on that clear Tuesday morning. Anyone who claims to know some of these things is deluded and/or driven by ego.

I strongly suggest that everyone check their ego at the door when coming to this site. Follow either the golden rule or the silver rule (i.e. treat others the way you want to be treated or at least don't treat them in a manner you would not want to be treated).

So, when you read something that really gets you worked up, take a walk (or at least a few minutes) before responding. Read your comment a few times before posting it and ask yourself the following:

Is it on topic?

Is it civil?

Does it add something of value to the thread?

I think another reason people are picking on each other is we all sense that events are moving pretty fast now and we are frustrated that 9/11 truth is not visibly making much progress, relative to what is going on and where it appropriately fits in the larger scheme of things.

IMO, the answer is not to fight amongst ourselves (which serves absolutely no useful purpose), but rather to redouble our efforts to grow the movement, stay relevant within the context of a pre-revolutionary United States and prepare ourselves to seize the opportunities for real change which are fast approaching.

Brothers and sisters, we simply cannot afford to tie ourselves up in knots over relatively minor issues like phone calls while there is so much work to do.

It is not responsible, it is not in keeping with our mission or our long term interests on this planet as conscious human beings.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

"Brothers and sisters, we

"Brothers and sisters, we simply cannot afford to tie ourselves up in knots over relatively minor issues like phone calls while there is so much work to do.
It is not responsible, it is not in keeping with our mission or our long term interests on this planet as conscious human beings.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward."

I don't believe that your opinions about movement strategy hold merit as you generally appear to support the big tent which is antithetical to the movement's core definition.

Everyone

is entitled to their own opinion.

I'll stick to the facts and physics, and let the chips fall where they will.

Btw, are those your feet I see sticking out of that pup tent on the hill over there?

Cheers, bro

Yes very harmful intentions indeed

The same folks keep pushing a limited discussion agenda on blogger and have made many demeaning comments. Under the guise that the truth must be fully substantiated before we can have respect as a movement the discussions have become curt and limited. I have pointed out many times that people are being turned off this site and the movement indirectly. The "vote club" and the MODs are in denial of this trend. What is ironic is that when it comes to some subjects like phone calls or the pentagon the rules change once again and if someone questions the current "group think theories" even on legitimate grounds they are treated to express sanction and below the threshold censorship. All coments whether popular or unpopular should remain above the threshold. There is no basis for this form of censorship of unpopular comments other than to foster a limited discussion within the established guidelines. A mere 5 negative net votes is suppose to mean what? Let's see if you can handle the truth without burying this comment.

"The same folks keep pushing

"The same folks keep pushing a limited discussion agenda"

we heard the same thing from the no-planers

we heard the same thing from the space beams people

we heard the same thing from the fly-over folk

we heard the same thing from the JOOS did it all people

we heard the same thing from the holocaust deniers

we heard the same thing from the dustification people

we heard the same thing from the mini-nukes people

we heard the same thing over and over and over again

lets put NON-TRUTH on the same platform as TRUTH. Lets have a big circus tent of ideas. Lets let the media attack us endlessly for being insane. Lets drive people away from the movement by endorsing CRAZY ideas.

cellphone fakery? it is just the newest and looniest idea to demand equal time.

but - you can't FORCE people to embrace faulty ideas and logic and research. you can skirt the issue all you want to - but the bottom like always remains the same - you can FORCE non-truth upon us.

peacefulwarrior is right... comment is valid

peacefulwarrior,
Your comment statement is valid. Yet, you quickly started receiving downvotes.

This "downvote fury" was absent from 911blogger a year or so ago.

I read every single dumb comment you make...

....and guess what I vote you down!

So there's 20 people or so that frequent this site that care enough to be a member and log in that see the situation the same dam way I do. That is that the big tent ideology is NOT WPRKING and they know from there 5 to 9 years of experience it does not move us forward, it's a losing strategy.

Look for example; Jon and John here aren't big fans of the CD argument, but they concede that at least with building 7 we have very valid information that proves the official story is not correct and support the first responders and the victims families in their questions about all building collapses. How does that hurt us?

This has never changed to a more negative view of the CD discussion rather they have slowly been convinced of the CD arguments strength.

While these other "big tent" ideas like phone fakery have been on their shit list since day one and now it is clear, well at least to me they were right!!

I will continue to vote garbage down...it's my privilege here and I will use it when required!

Regards John

Well said. From the outside,

Well said.

From the outside, this all looks really silly. You've got people arguing for practical, historically based strategy, and other people who very simply don't get it or even oppose it based on their biases. People who are wrong.

The name 'trufaction' indicates a defensive posture. You don't have to resort to junior high school name calling if the truth is on your side. And that's all that's really going on here. Some of us are willing to tell other people that they are wrong. And those who are defending an incorrect position retaliate or defend the all inclusive big tent.

The movement is about being wrong. The movement is about being mis/disinformed. Of course, that depends on there being truth and our ability to strategically avoid a minefield of lies.

Navigating that minefield is 100% 9/11 Truth. And the leaders we need helping everyone navigate are those who are most committed to fact and ALSO most committed to effective strategies.

Some strategies don't work and I'm not going to protect your feelings of inclusion by neglecting to tell you that you are walking into a mine. Phone fakery is a mine. Griffin has made it more prominent than it should be and has very poorly drawn conclusions from limited evidence. I don't care what side he's on or how much I figure he's a nice guy. He's off base, as are those defending his promotion of the subject.

Just be wrong. Please.

i have a different definition

i have a different definition of evil

my definition of evil is anything that distorts or obscures the TRUTH

i put holocaust denial into this bucket. millions killed - with living survivors who still mourn their loss - and people run around trying to sell the idea that it never happened or happened on a smaller scale.

i apply the same standard to 9/11 Truth

thousands killed - with many more thousands of family members and friends who still mourn their loss. and people run around selling books and DVDs and IDEAS that are based on NON-TRUTH.

that is the bottom line Tom. TRUTH. either something is true - or it is NOT.

if you believe that all the phonecalls from victims on 9/11 were faked by the US government using voice morphing technology - you are pushing an idea that many people here view as ridiculous, improbable, unsupported by the facts available - and injurious to the cause of TRUTH and JUSTICE for the victims of 9/11.

in this respect - you defend non-truth - and all the ranting and raving and foot stomping and accusations of cognitive infiltration and EVIL intent is just a childish reaction to being on the wrong side of a debate.

evil? i do not know. your intentionality is yours to own. why you defend this nonsense is unknown to me. but the bottom line is the same - you hurt the cause of truth and justice in the face of a horrible crime against humanity. and that is MY definition of evil.

John Albanese, you and I had this discussion before

John Albanese,
My protest is NOT about subject matter.

You and I had a back-n-forth on TruthAction Forum some years ago.
I protested your mean snarkiness and you said that you would be mean-spirited if you felt like it.
You had a self-admitted, cold-blooded attitude towards others, and "you always had to be right" ("be right" not about subject matter, but right about winning a back-n-forth...just like your comment about "your" personal definition of "evil").
I warned you that it would drive away good people who want to particpate in disseminating 9/11 Truth. ...and it did.
And now here on 911Blogger, good people are being driven away by an ugly atmosphere.

...and a few years ago, I saw those threads on TruthAction forums where a small group belittled and ridiculed 911Blogger.
John Albanese, you rarely if ever posted on 911blogger during that bashing of 911blogger on the TruthAction forum. Recently, I see more of you. I have recently seen many of the same players from those old TruthAction forum threads.

The definition of "evil" is in the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil

ahhh... you're not here to

ahhh...

you're not here to discuss subject matter

you're here to discuss the evil John Albanese snarkyness - from years ago.

lol

i didn't post on blogger at that time as a form of protest against the content being promoted here at that time. fortunately, 911Blogger seems to now be in highly responsible and capable hands.

and yes - many from TruthAction are now here too. critical thinking is back. you may not be comfortable with that - but - cellphone fakery is not being supported and/or endorsed by many of the longest standing members of the 9/11 Truth movement. you want to call that evil? seems pretty childish to me/

Albanese, people should read your comment above.

Albanese,
People should read your comment, because it might help explain a trend.

what you call a trend

Is the movement getting better. I think that many arguments have been provided why the critical approach is better, and you haven't articulated a fair response to that argument other than to unfairly accuse people, including me apparently, of being government agents. Why do you dislike the method of holding eachother accountable, of having peer criticism so that our ideas are consensus ideas? What emerges from that process benefits from the critical input of the community. It seems to me that you just disagree with pointing out flaws in other peoples research. Do you not take seriously the claim that promoting speculative theories as 911 truth has the effect of marginalizing our information? Why is it hard to believe that sincere activists do not believe this with good intentions? Let me close by saying my feelings are a little hurt by being accused of infiltration. I suffer alienation from my professional colleagues in academia for openly promoting 911 truth and now I am being alienated by the movement itself just for trying to help. Maybe when you get a PhD you will appreciate the efforts of intellectuals to help the movement, but until then please refrain from such accusations at the very least. It is mean, unfair, and just makes you look close minded. If I hear this shit again I'm gonna get angry.

Show "Vulich, You advocated and promoted "infighting"" by TomT

Uglier

"Vulich,
On a previous thread you advocated "infighting". You said that you desired "infighting" on 911blogger."

What thread are you talking about? Gimme a reference if you are claiming Vulich said this.

How many DVD's and info packs have you passed out?

Most people do not like to live in a household with those qualities of "infighting" and "denigration of other group members" and "suppression of worthwhile, honest communication of other group members".

In this household, people are called out for being kids! A family with no discipline or restriction is always dis-functional. You are welcome in this household, but don't get upset if you are asked to wash your hands before helping out in the kitchen k? It's not meant to insult. It just seems you are unaware of the dirt you are carrying around.

There is absolutely no "suppression of honest communication" Tom! What is your proof of that?
Honesty is the only thing encouraged here. Honesty and truth seems to be something you are arguing AGAINST (ie you are doing some double-speak)!

Personally, I have passed out well over 10,000 DVDs...

kdub,
I personally have burned and passed out 10,000 DVDs and then passed out more DVDs with our group. I have passed out thousands and thousands of info sheets and broadsheets, mailed way over one thousand info-packs to officials and high profile people in our area, put up hundreds and hundreds of signs, spent over $5,000 on 911Truth (and I am poor), participated in many 9/11 Truth events, spoken first hand to more than one thousand people about 9/11, etc.

Vulich mentions "infighting" here and also on another thread Vulich calls for infighting and ostracizing...
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-15/bigger-picture#comment-246348

Suppresion of valid communication is demonstrated by downvoting a valid communication. For example, if I said the "sky is blue" ...then this statement is true. It should not be downvoted. If it is downvoted, then suppression of honest communication occurs.

Oh I see

You are twisting words to act as though Vulich is advocating disruptive behavior, when in reality, he even clarified after the comment you posted that he dosen't think we should all agree, but that we should be willing to critique each other (which he refers to as "infighting"). This is not the use of "infighting" which you attempted to ascribe to Vulich. As to your comment about "suppresion" of "valid communication", you should reread and I guess try and respond to what I explained to you in my comment above. Downvoting is not "suppresion." It is a tally system. Anyone can read your accusatory comments, even if they are voted down. You are not saying obvious things like "the sky is blue" when you are down voted. You, in this thread, have been been downvoted when you asserted theories or accusatory "claims" as if they are proven facts (like your sky is blue example. You are not backing up your non-truths and you are not stepping up with facts. You being called out on this is not suppresion, nor is it the type of "infighting" you act like you are some victim of. You attempts to fuel infighting by trying to paint good researchers as divisive are failing left and right.

I advocated infighting. I did

I advocated infighting. I did not advocate for denigration of other group members and suppression of worthwhile honest communication. If you read the thread that you are linking to you can see that clearly. So I am unsure why you are placing quotes around those accusations as if they are quotes from me. You are quoting yourself. I do advocate infighting. I think that the best ideas will be separated from the weaker ones in the process of fighting, and what survives is worth keeping. If I didn't think that that was the right thing to do then I wouldn't do it. You know I could choose an easier path, but I won't because I actually care about this cause, I am willing to take criticism for saying what I believe and it seems that you are not. So criticize me again, but please make a real argument. Don't just say you don't like internal criticism, because it isn't obvious to me and others that it is a bad thing at all. We all vote here, and we each get one vote, so stop complaining when people don't agree with you. I didn't cry when everybody buried my comments supportive of President Obama. It just shows we are free to have different points of view. Maybe you should change your mind instead of being so sure you are right.

it just occurred to me! you

it just occurred to me!

you are accusing people here of being "evil" - while lecturing me about the appropriate use of language and snarkyness - and accusing me of driving people away??

that's rich

cellphone fakery. that's the subject here. stick to the topic and demonstrate where 'the evil ones' are wrong.

Aidan's description of "Cognitive Infiltration Of 9/11 Activism"

Aidan "recent trend at 9/11 Blogger of certain allied posters attacking certain 9/11 questions and more importantly, attacking prominent figures who ask these questions."

Aidan, you're framing criticism of DRG's fake calls theory as "attacking" him.

First, this is a logical fallacy; criticism is not ad hom.

Second, neither you nor anyone else has quoted anything in my essay or by any commenter in this thread http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-10/critique-david-ray-griffin-s-911-f... that constitutes a personal "attack" on DRG.

Third, statements like the following by DRG do not constitute "asking questions"; these are claims: one, that the fake calls case is strong, and, two, that the 9/11 truth movement can rely on these claims as "good evidence" (a phrase used 4 times in DRG's essay):

"... 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 noted in my essay, "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."

I documented examples of all of the above in my essay; please - point out any factual inaccuracies or ad hom in the above statements - or in anything else I said in my essay, or in comments.

Aidan: "citing inconclusive information provided by JREF"

What are you referring to; the quote attributed to voice-morphing inventor George Papcun, where he lists several logical, common sense reasons why it would be extremely difficult to have faked the calls? Are you disputing anything he said, or just saying the quote is suspect and the truth of it is doubtful? Please, provide evidence that it would have been feasible to voice morph a couple dozen people, over 3 dozen calls, some lasting more than ten minutes.

Aidan: "using Popular Mechanics-style emotional arguments such as that questioning 9/11 phone call authenticity is offensive to 9/11 victim families."

Are you denying that telling the world, which includes victim's family members, that the loved one they spoke to was a phantom voice-morphed by a disinfo agent, would be offensive?

Now, if there's "good evidence" the calls were faked, that would be another issue; but there isn't. And, as there isn't, isn't doing so morally wrong? One, because there isn't "good evidence" and, two, because it's offensive and hurtful to the families of 9/11 victims?

Furthermore, making baseless claims of phone fakery has the potential to drive a wedge between the truth and justice movement and potential allies among the victims families, in addition to exposing the 9/11 truth movement to legitimate criticism, and making the truth movement look like a subculture of irresponsible and insensitive conspiracy kooks. Do you see how making baseless claims of fake calls is therefore also a tactical error?

Aidan: "dubious alleged 9/11 flight phone call information"

Even if this is true, it's not evidence that calls were faked; is it?

Aidan: "implying the activity of murderous religious hijackers aboard the 9/11 flights."

This is a logical fallacy; phone calls reporting what appeared to be middle-eastern hijackers does not imply they were the Islamic radicals claimed by the OCT; it only implies that's what they appeared to be. And, if these reports happened - and, again, there's no credible evidence they didn't - then these are facts the 9/11 truth movement and the world needs to deal with in order to solve the 9/11 crimes.

We already know the 9/11 Commission omitted or spun the info indicating at least some of the alleged hijackers weren't religious fanatics; they drank, did drugs, paid for prostitutes and strippers and cursed Allah. And there's the evidence their activities were monitored and facilitated by CIA, Mossad, ISI and GID. And we don't know what kind of plot they thought they were part of.

Making speculative claims about faked phone calls, which may well be entirely wrong, will not advance the cause of truth and justice. If/when there's an honest investigation, this will be dealt with. And, if anyone wants to do investigative research and publish credible findings without making assertions that go beyond the evidence, great. However, there's already a great deal evidence pointing to specific people in the Bush Administration and MIC taking actions that ultimately helped the 9/11 attacks succeed.

Aidan, I voted you up.

However I am astonished at the tone of your post. You title your comment "Cognitive Infiltration of 9/11 Activism", then you mention a number of things as though they are linked to it. You mentioned the "dubious FDR data implying hijacker control of the 9/11 planes."

As I have suggested that the behaviour of the plane which hit the Pentagon, as shown by the FDR file, was such as to strongly suggest human control for a large part of the distance after the plane went off course, this appears to be an attack on my work. I would like you to clarify this.

As you know I have placed my reputation on the line by writing about the fact that there is no scientific proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. I have suffered a great deal of criticism from those who are sure that no plane hit the Pentagon. What I tried to do is show that the application of scientific rigour to the evidence provides the case that we should not be arguing with one another about the Pentagon. It should help us to present a united front to the public.

In the same way the application of scientific rigour to the AA77 FDR data does not produce proof that hijackers were not in control of the plane for a large part of the journey. It tells us nothing about their religious beliefs or their motive - they could have been committed activists or dupes.

My question to you is this: In what way does the scientific study of data indicate cognitive infiltration?

Cognitive Infiltration Term Is Broadly Applied

Hi Frank:

Cognitive infiltration within these circles usually refers to the deliberately disruptive "Cass Sunstein" brand but in this case also includes imperfectly conceived but perhaps otherwise well meaning attempts of some to steer group sentiment. Regarding the FDR data which I have serious questions about, I think it is a mistake to imply that it is anything other than one party's alleged version of events, in order to rebut what one thinks are the less palatable alternative versions of Pentagon events offered by others. (i.e.: CIT) The continued unwise endorsement of 9/11 FDR and flight phone call authenticity (which both reflect official 9/11 accounts), while perhaps well meaning by some, has been a seemingly collective "infiltration" effort for lack of a better term, with a divisive "either you are with us or you are against us" urgency displayed at times.

But when some use statements like "Jesse the Shill Ventura" in blog videos, use the word "riduculous" to describe the otherwise plausible "Jesse Ventura's Fake Phone Claim", or cite a now removed supporting reference to the JREF site within this same blog, or try to dissuade 9/11 activists from referring to the evidence for WTC demolition (the best evidence for 9/11 foul play), the "Cass Sunstein" version of cognitive infiltration comes to mind.

Again, certain circles here have urged 9/11 activists to demand a new 9/11 investigation, yet also urge to not openly question 9/11 events, or openly address evidence for WTC demolition and to accept as authentic, dubious official versions of 9/11 events. An activist demanding a 9/11 investigation while not openly raising questions and while openly endorsing large aspects of the official story would be a confused and compromised activist, which might be one objective of disruptive infiltration.

Frank: Does FDR Data Make Hanjour Role On AA 77 Probable?

Hi Frank:

To answer your earlier question, I do not think that studying 9/11 data qualifies as cognitive infiltration and have not previously claimed this to be the case.

My question for you at this time: Does the AA 77 FDR data make Hani Hanjour's alleged piloting of AA 77 more likely than not? You seem to accept the FDR data to support the plane hit the Pentagon point of view. But this data also implies hijacker pilot control of AA 77, which is a central component of the official 9/11 story.

Please answer the question Frank.

If the FDR data is genuine in your opinion who made this exceptional approach and hit on the pentagon. You have claimed it doesn't matter but it would appear from the comment above that it very well may.

Aidan

Thank you for your work on the FOIA requests.

However, don't you find Jesse Ventura's approach to the subject rather disingenuous?

This seems to be all about television ratings, not fact-finding.

Thank you Aidan

for not only your work on the FOIA requests, but for also having a paper published in the same scientifc journal as Frank Legge, that indicates "superior" control of 9/11 aircraft.

This raises a red flag of doubt that Hanjour and other ALLEGED hijackers were actually flying the planes on 9/11. Anyone critical of the OCT should heed these red flags in their demand for a real investigation.

Red flag #1: The skill level of the alleged pilots was low, with at least one having never flown a jet before.
Red flag #2: The flight maneuvers were advanced and demonstrated superior control of 9/11 aircraft.
Red flag #3: Controlled demolition of the towers strongly suggests remote control of the planes.
Red flag #4: Specific locations on specific targets were struck (ie. "Wedge 1" at the Pentagon and the newly- fireproofed portion of the N. Tower.)

Are we to believe that perpetrators who rigged the WTC with explosives and meant to bring them down in dramatic "Shock and Awe" demolitions would not have ensured that they were hit? And just leave that up to hijackers?

Tone

For what it's worth I would like to echo the call for better tone and not being utter jerks with one another. Let's focus on common cause.

You ask about Hani Hanjour.

Aidan, is this question really relevant? Let me make a few comments:

1. We know nothing about the skill of the hijackers. There is no evidence that the people named in the official reports actually boarded the planes. Suicidal young people are apparently easy to find in nations which have been invaded and occupied. They blow themselves up almost every day. Some are well educated. How do you know they did not do a swap?

2. Yes, I suggest the FDR data provides support to the view that the plane carrying the recorder hit the Pentagon, but I do not say it is proof. I don't need it for proof.

3. The proof is in the fact that there is no possible explanation for the evidence other than a large commercial plane hit the light poles and the Pentagon. If we consider the north path there are three options: (a) the plane descended till it was very low and still accerating, full throttle, then jumped up and flew over the Pentagon. (b) the plane hit the Pentagon, went through the wall then did a sharp left turn to follow the south path line of damage or (c) the plane hit the Pentagon, went through the wall then stopped dead, in order to avoid damaging poles in the north path direction, the south path damage being done by explosives. Since all three of these options are physically impossible the north path is ruled out. Also ruling out the north path is the fact that a great many people were following the plane with their eyes and ears. None saw the plane fly over. Some commented on the silence after the impact. The south path and impact is left, in conformity with the vast majority of eyewitnesses. CIT says the people were deceived by the explosion into thinking the plane had hit, but this is absurd - many people described the plane approaching very low, too low to miss, and at this time the explosion had not happened so they could not have been deceived. This is just one example of the way in which CIT has sown ideas which deceive, having no basis in fact.

4. I agree with you that the FDR data implies a human was at the controls for at least a large part of the return journey. I now see why you are at pains to cast doubt on the FDR. You want to be free to assert that the plane was under some form of mechanical control. When I wrote my original paper I used the possibility of mechanical control to argue against those who asserted that the hijackers did not have the skill to fly the plane in the observed manner. I left both human and mechanical control as options and moved on. At that time I had not looked closely at the FDR data. Now that I have done so I see the plane making thousands of adjustments to its bank angle, pitch, power setting, speed and direction, so that I think mechanical control is very unlikely. I do concede however that it might be possible to program some device to keep wriggling the controls around, but I believe that it could not be done with the autopilot, as it normally flies the plane from way point to way point, and the observed motion would require thousands of way points. How many way points are possible?

But I am not in the business of making assertions. I see my business as being to search for evidence, study it scientifically and work out what may be deduced, and, more importantly, work out what cannot be deduced. In the case of the FDR data file it cannot be deduced that the plane was flown automatically.

In my opinion the best thing you could do to unify the 9/11 movement would be to follow the courageous example of Richard Gage and Peter Dale Scott, admitting you had been deceived by CIT's very persuasive material and totally withdrawing your endorsement of their work.

FDR/Pentagon are off-topic

replies to this comment on the FDR, Pentagon, etc. will be removed; if you have a question/comment on the Legge/Stutt FDR study, post it in that thread

What about all the other off-topic stuff?

I know that me complaining about the moderation here will confuse some of the true believers, seeing as they allege that my "clique" rules this site with an iron downvoting finger, however... I've seen you make two posts reminding people that the Pentagon is off-topic. What about all the posts by people making accusations and insinuations about an "evil" "Vote Club" run by "ugly" "cognitive infiltrators"? One of these posters has even stated repeatedly that he's not here to discuss "subject matter", instead hijacking the thread into contentious diatribes about the voting system. I'm just asking for some more even-handedness in the moderation - specifically in proclamations about what is off-topic.

This thread has been hijacked. I'd like to see the rules of the site enforced.

YT, I have been notified by a moderator.

My tongue is curbed.
I just read an email from a moderator.

sounds good

I think the moderators go out of their way to be fair but sometimes things need to be brought to their attention because there's so much going on. Here's the site rules, FYI. And Erik created a thread specifically for discussing site rules, policy and moderation here. Maybe it should be stickied somewhere so folks can take their grievances there instead of throwing them up as a roadblock to serious discussion in topics they don't approve of.

So, back to the topic.

What do you think of Jesse Ventura blatantly misrepresenting an expert's opinion in order to sell a BS "conspiracy theory" about 9/11?

My opinion is "it's a free country", especially if you're a rich celebrity, and Jesse Ventura has every right to make up as many outrageous fantasies as he wants about 9/11 and sell them to the masses. I find it morally offensive in the extreme. I have every right to express my opinion and I will do so.

I won't be silenced by namecalling, browbeating, accusations, whining or snitchjacketing.

Here here!

"I won't be silenced by namecalling, browbeating, accusations, whining or snitchjacketing."

That said, I wouldn't want moderation to become a nozzle or a "Sword of Damocles" for those who disagree with me. Wouldn't want 911blogger to become an echo chamber. If I feel like whining some more about that, I'll do it in Erik's thread. ;-)

Hmmm

Does this mean the more I diverge from the official narrative, the more honest I am, irrespective of the veracity of my position?

There is nothing 'dubious' about a commercial plane hitting the Pentagon. In fact, claiming a plane 'flew over' the Pentagon is dubious. Extremely dubious. Endorsing people who makes such claims: extremely dubious.

I don't support the intensity of attacks on DRG... nor appeals to emotion or discouragement of looking at evidence for explosives at the WTC; however, had proper investigative and historiographical methods been used, the "no plane hit the Pentagon"-claim would have never come into being. The ongoing existence and toleration of this meme is embarrassing, and you share blame for this with your current position and endorsement of CIT.

I am, however, very pissed off about the idiotic snitchjacketing antics going on, and those doing this can expect merciless rebuttals. DRG's book about cognitive infiltration is being used as a child's insult. You disagree with me? You must be a 'Sunstein agent'. It's pea-brained, sewer level discourse, mercilessly exposing the paranoid stupidity of those wishing to use such defamatory fantasies as a rhetorical device to settle scores.

Erik

Care to make an estimation of the number of man hours you put into History Commons, 9/11 Reports, 911blogger and 9/11 Truth in general?

I'll bet the numbers would be large. Extremely large.

For me?

60-70% of almost 9 years of my life has been spent on this cause. I won't say 100% because I work, and try to relax sometimes.

any luck with the relaxation

any luck with the relaxation part?

Meh...

Sometimes. People are dying.

"Broadly applied cognitive infiltration"

Aidan,

It distressess me greatly to find it necessary to respond again to your posts. You appear to set out your position here very clearly:

"Cognitive infiltration within these circles usually refers to the deliberately disruptive "Cass Sunstein" brand but in this case also includes imperfectly conceived but perhaps otherwise well meaning attempts of some to steer group sentiment."

So apparently you do not regard me as a "deliberately disruptive" infiltrater, which is helpful, but then you say:

"Regarding the FDR data which I have serious questions about, I think it is a mistake to imply that it is anything other than one party's alleged version of events, in order to rebut what one thinks are the less palatable alternative versions of Pentagon events offered by others. (i.e.: CIT) The continued unwise endorsement of 9/11 FDR and flight phone call authenticity (which both reflect official 9/11 accounts), while perhaps well meaning by some, has been a seemingly collective "infiltration" effort for lack of a better term, with a divisive "either you are with us or you are against us" urgency displayed at times."

I find this unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Firstly, nowhere in our paper or in any of our writings, have Warren and I stated that the FDR file for AA77 is authentic. We do not "endorse" it. Nowhere are we saying that people should use it as proof that AA77 hit the Pentagon. We simply report what it contains.

Secondly as a matter of scientific enquiry you grossly diminish the distinction between CIT's version of the event and the version which states that a large commercial plane hit the Pentagon. These are not just two versions of different "palatability". CIT uses a method of enquiry in order to promote their overfly theory which is at the least incompetent, resting on interviews with just 13 witnesses. Of these witnesses, all who were in a position to see the Pentagon reported that the plane hit the Pentagon in the initial interview, thus CIT knew at the outset that their recollection of the incident must have been unsatisfactory for use as proof of overfly. In contrast we have over a hundred people, many interviewed on video, who report seeing the plane hit the Pentagon or flying too low to miss. In terms of palatability these versions are like chalk and cheese. Given that every witness to impact is a witness to south path, and therefore in direct rebuttal of the north path overfly theory, the south path witnesses outweigh the northpath witnesses by 10 to 1. The damage trail also proves the CIT theory wrong.

Thirdly you appear to be critically describing activists who discuss their thoughts on 911Blogger in a manner which does not correspond with reality. "Again, certain circles here have urged 9/11 activists to demand a new 9/11 investigation, yet also urge to not openly question 9/11 events, .."

In contrast with your assessment, I have not seen one example of an activist urging us to not openly question 9/11 events. Their very presence here denies this charge.

Finally you say that there are some posting here who urge us "to accept as authentic, dubious official versions of 9/11 events." I think this is an overly simplistic analysis. A truly scientific examination of the evidence would find plenty of material with which to charge the authorities with misconduct and cover-up. For instance the failure to intercept, the failure to investigate what the young man meant who said "the plane is ten miles out" etc, the failure to investigate explosives, but when we talk about the path of the plane we are a bit more subtle. I see no evidence that bloggers here are saying we must "accept as authentic, dubious versions of 9/11 events." What I see would be better described as follows: We should "provisionally accept as correct details of the official version of events that have not been proved wrong". That does not stop people from looking for evidence that an official statement is wrong, but it guides people to avoid asserting that a particular statement is wrong when there is no proof it is wrong.

I have put countless hours of my life into showing that there are good scientific reasons why we should not waste our time and energy arguing that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. I would like to see you acknowledge that this has been a valuable contribution to the task of developing a unified approach to educating the public. By your choice of words you appear to be trying to keep the argument about the Pentagon alive. I hope you can assure me that this is not correct.

FDR, Pentagon, CIT are off-topic

replies to this comment on the FDR, Pentagon, CIT, etc. will be removed; if you have a question/comment on the Legge/Stutt FDR study, CIT, the Pentagon 'what hit' controversy post it in a thread related to that.

Attacks On Griffin & Ventura Have Been Abusive & Ad Hominem

One posting a video containing a reference to "Jesse The Shill Ventura" and others seemingly allied with the poster of this blog, mockingly referring to theologian/author David Ray Griffin as a "high priest" of 9/11 skeptics, qualifies as the type of abuse that should be moderated. Personal attacks against prominent voices within the 9/11 "Truth" cause by those claiming to support the truth cause, rightly raises questions about cognitive infiltration.

Frank:

As the questions of yours I would like to answer are deemed off topic, I will have to answer them at a later time.

Note: I'm surprised that ad hominem attacks against Gov. Ventura have been tolerated within this blog's video, yet commenters have been diligently admonished twice for simply commenting of topic.

Aidan - do you even know what

Aidan - do you even know what "Ad Hominem" means?

looking thru this thread people have given you VERY PRECISE REASONS why they do not support the work of Ventura and DRG's cellphone falkery

the fact that you continually pretend to be deaf, dumb and blind to these reasons does not mean they do not exist.

Blog Video Uses Ventura's Wrestling Past To Attack Position

Did you take the time to watch this video or wonder why an alleged "truther" would post it, or wonder how it it survived moderation, given Ventura's ability to get the best evidence of 9/11 foul play (WTC demolition) discussed repeatedly on national TV and in best selling books?

Another alleged "truther" has mockingly referred to researcher/theologian David Ray Griffin as the "high priest" of the 9/11 Truth movement.

Can one rule out that topics addressed by prominent "truth" messengers are being attacked in order to attack the successful messengers?

People...

Are defending the person, while ignoring the bad information. It's cultish. I'm really loving your insinuations and accusations against good people in order to defend someone. That also seems cultish to me.

Really Aidan... who are you? Where were you in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 when people like me, John Albanese, Cosmos, etc... were helping to build this cause, and sites like this? Your first post on this site was in 2007. I co-founded this site in March 2005 along with Roger Peters, and helped to make it the most popular 9/11 Truth site in the world.

Who are you?

Come on Jon Gold - Take a

Come on Jon Gold - Take a break. Really, I can see you need one.

I see it in every comment that you write:

When was your last comeent that didn't come off as negative, challenging or in a "I'm bigger than you are" type like the one above; you are obviously frustrated which doesn't help convey any message you may have.

Aden is respected for his great work for the movement, you are too. If you want to come here and not-respect that, you will be doing all of us a dis-service. And that dis-service will be a conscience choice of yours.

You are awesome. So is Aiden. So is David. So is Jesse. So am I. Get some more work done now.

(downvotes expected.)

Gee I dunno...

Maybe in Erik's critique thread where I said, "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."

Or maybe it was in this thread where I wrote a report given to me about today's act of civil disobedience that said, "From today's act of civil disobedience at 10 Downing Street: "Just got back from the downing street civil disobedience. Went well- police unexpectedly tolerant and we broke the law for 4+1/2 hours then disbanded. So many tourists posed for photos with us - amazing!"

When was the last time Aidan participated in a thread I was in where he didn't write a comment that didn't belittle my efforts for this cause or accuse or make an insinuation about me?

"Great work..." Like endorsing CIT? Please. Again I ask... who is he? Who is he to accuse or insinuate anything about me?

Jon, I could throw all your

Jon,

I could throw all your good work out the window because of this or that too. That would be unwise in my opinion though.

Thats my point.

If you want to throw Aiden off of YOUR train beacuse of one mis-cooked dinner, all the while forgetting the years of food provided by him, so be it - but I thought you didn't like fundamentalists (recent Pump it Out interview)

The same goes for many readers of 9/11 Blogger and your work; perhaps that is why you find yourself on the defensive at times. Maybe you have been thrown off of their train because your case, whether right or not, has come off as angry and ill-directed at people whom the readers consider as important due to a history of 9/11 work.

You aren't making your case to any new reader, to myself, or to Aiden (though that is an assumpition, as I am not Aiden)

It would be a shame if in 10 more years the "movement" has all it's facts straight, but only 8 people outside the victims families care because everyone has been booted or shoved, kicked, ridiculed, or otherwise shuned out of the movement for something that in the long run of what we are trying to do is very insignificant. Even more insignificant when thinking of 9/11 as a crime univestigated.

Jon, I hope you and I can meet one day and shake hands. I would thank you for tons of work. Same to Aiden, I would thank you too. I know that no is perfect, and that we are all pieces to a puzzle unfinished as of yet.

I have never used...

Aidan's work. In anything. I owe nothing to him.

Edit: I will say, however, that whatever it is that I did to Aidan that would make him not trust me, etc... and so on. I apologize. I'm tired of the accusations and insinuations against me.

Dear Frank I hope that this cut is not too deep...

...to put you off your extremely important work.

I truly admire your great contribution to our cause, especially keeping us on the scent to justice.

If there is a god he will find with his gaze no truer man or soul on this earth than Frank Legge.

Kind regards John

I have had a lot of practice John

at dealing with hostile criticism from those who promote unfounded positions. It no longer disturbs me. I will contnue to study evidence to see what can be deduced from it and, more importantly, to see what cannot be deduced.

Aidan's comments suppressed, but should be viewed...

Aidan's comments should be read, so that people understand what he is communicating.

Cognitive Infiltration Term Is Broadly Applied

"...perhaps otherwise well meaning attempts of some to steer group sentiment..."

"...But when some...try to dissuade 9/11 activists from referring to the evidence for WTC demolition (the best evidence for 9/11 foul play), the "Cass Sunstein" version of cognitive infiltration comes to mind...."

"...Again, certain circles here have urged 9/11 activists to demand a new 9/11 investigation, yet also urge to not openly question 9/11 events, or openly address evidence for WTC demolition and to accept as authentic, dubious official versions of 9/11 events. An activist demanding a 9/11 investigation while not openly raising questions and while openly endorsing large aspects of the official story would be a confused and compromised activist, which might be one objective of disruptive infiltration...."

Aidan: "No Conclusive Evidence Debunking Faked 9/11 Phone Calls"

Aidan, are you suggesting that if the fake calls theory hasn't been debunked, that means it's right to claim that calls were faked?

Cuz the problem is that, since 9/11, people have been claiming the phone calls, the passengers and even the planes weren't real, and the alleged 'evidence' for these claims is based on misinformation, speculation and some anomalies.

Rather than a "rush to judgment" that the calls are real, what I see going on here is that people are pointing out there's no basis for claiming the calls were faked. In addition, the fakery claims have repeatedly been used to disrupt and discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

And yet it's the people who are pointing out that the claims are baseless who are being snitchjacketed and accused of disinfo.

Aidan: "Advance booking of 9/11 flight reservations by 9/11 flight passengers would make surveillance of them and recordings of their pre-9/11 cell phone or other phone conversations possible."

As I pointed out in my essay, Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory, "Jeremy Glick, Mark Bingham, Honor Elizabeth Wainio and possibly Ed Felt," people reported as having made calls, hadn't booked their flights until the day before.

Aidan: "I find no conclusive evidence within this speculative work to conclusively debunk 9/11 voice morphing questions."

Do you have any actual evidence the callers were voice-morphed?

There are many reports of successful cell calls from planes prior to 9/11, cell phone repeaters could have been placed on board the planes, phone records show that air phones were used by those reported to have been on cell phones, a couple dozen or so witnesses reported talking to people on the flights, and, again, there is no actual evidence calls were faked.

If someone wants to investigate the anomalies, good luck w/o subpoena power. And it's unlikely an independent investigation will be achieved if truth activists don't focus on credible evidence and leave the unsubstantiated, speculative and divisive claims behind.

There's so much material at the Complete 9/11 Timeline- HistoryCommons.org, including in official records and mainstream media, that contradicts the OCT, and points to specific people. The 9/11 Commission's conflicts of interest and failure to pursue substantive lines of inquiry reeks of white wash and cover up.

Meanwhile, 9/11's being used to justify a continuing state of emergency in the US, draconian security measures, torture and/or the lack of accountability for torturers, two wars and trillions of dollars in public funding for the MIC.

Aidan,

you've been Nuked ;o)

Show "you say the flights were" by billybipbip

5 Years, 20 Flights, 3 Phones, 2 Providers, No In-Flight Service

During the past 5 years I have flown on Boeing and Airbus commercial planes to and from cities like Las Vegas, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, San Fransisco, Atlanta and Charlotte. In every case, cell phone service was lost less than one minute after take-off and did not return until the plane was within a few hundred feet above the ground seconds before landing. During phases of flight at cruising altitudes, repeated attempts were made to obtain a signal, including turning the phones off and back on again, with no success. 0 "bars" in every case.

The calls could have been

The calls could have been made with airfones. Obtaining samples of the voices of the victims would be too difficult to flawlessly execute as the perps would have required. You have to accept these implausible assumptions to believe that fakery is true. These assumptions are less plausible than the assumption that the calls were made from airfones. Even today voice morphing technology is not sophisticated enough to pull this off. If you say the government might have special technology you are avoiding the simplest hypothesis, this is known as special pleading, only considering evidence that helps your own position. If people think that the case for fake phone calls is weak then it is responsible to say so. You act as if arguments are not being made here, but nobody is being dogmatic. What is happening is that people are trying to apply scrutiny to the research of people who have been uncritically regarded as experts in the movement. This is a form of intellectual democracy, and it is helpful for us to associate ourselves with only the best research, no matter what the reputation is of the person who needs to be criticized.

Let's go down the rabbit hole

For those who think phone call fakery is likely I ask you this: why is it more likely than supposing that the callers were removed from their flights by government agents and then forced at gun point to call their relatives and report a hijacking in progress? It seems to me this is easier and less risky than using voice morph technology. Anybody who wanted to ensure that the calls were placed could have resorted to this at significantly less risk, and there would be zero possibility of detecting "fakery". Do you see how quickly this becomes a parlor game? I ask those supportive of call fakery to explain why fakery is the dominant explanation of the calls if there is another hypothesis that is more plausible like the one I have just set out. If you feel like that is going too far out on a limb then I would ask you why you think cal fakery is a more sane hypothesis

a worse rabbit hole

i think both of the possibilities i will mention are unlikely but the 1st more unlikely than the 2nd

1 voice morphing
2 they put some kind of cell phone booster onboard

would 2 go any way to explaining some of the evidence? - i'm not super well researched on this - just an idea

So What?

Since most of the calls from the planes were from Air phones, maybe you guys doing your "experiments" should try using an air phone and see if it works, then report back. Also perhaps someone who wants to believe the calls were fake would like to explain why some mysterious unknown "perp" was pretending to be Betty Ong calling nearly half an hour BEFORE any plane hit any building saying they were being hijacked. Those first calls placed on AIR PHONES were coming in at 8:19. The FAA and the military were notified. Bush was told by his National Security Adviser that a COMMERCIAL AIRLINER had crashed into the WTC. This was BEFORE he stepped into the class room. That was just before 9 o' clock. And they both thought "gosh, what a weird accident". Rice claims she realized it was a terrorist act all on her own when a second commercial airliner hit the WTC . How come they knew it was a commercial airliner that hit the world trade center but didn't know it was hijacked? I'm more interested in that than some stupid "fake phone calls" theory. How come no one was telling the Secretary of defense (who finally got out of his office to see what all the racket was when the pentagon got hit at 9:38) or the National Security Adviser (who assumed it was terrorism after the second strike) that these planes were hijacked?

"8:19 Flight attendant notifies AA of hijacking
8:25 Boston Center aware of hijacking
8:38 Boston Center notifies NEADS of hijacking
8:46 NEADS scrambles Otis fighter jets in search of AA 11
8:46:40 AA 11 crashes into 1 WTC (North Tower)"

"On the morning of September 11, Secretary Rumsfeld was having breakfast at the Pentagon with a group of members of Congress. He then returned to his office for his daily intelligence briefing. The Secretary was informed of the second strike in New York during the briefing; he resumed the briefing while awaiting more information. After the Pentagon was struck, Secretary Rumsfeld went to the parking lot to assist with rescue efforts."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

"I said, Mr. President, a plane crashed into the World Trade Center. And he said, that's a strange accident.....
Tony said, they think it was a commercial plane. And I said, they think it was a commercial plane. And that's all I knew." - C. Rice page 2-26
http://www.911myths.com/images/8/8a/Team3_Box11_EOPProducedDocsVolIII-Bo...

"Tony came in and he handed me a piece of paper, it said, a second plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. This was probably about 9:10 a.m. or so." -- C Rice page 2/26
http://www.911myths.com/images/8/8a/Team3_Box11_EOPProducedDocsVolIII-Bo...

"On the morning of Sept. 11, Cochrane received a call from the White House situation room informing him that an airplane had hit the World Trade Center. American Airlines Flight 11 struck the World Trade Center's north tower at 8:45 a.m."

"He ran to the situation room to verify the information, but by then it was already appearing on CNN. Cochrane went to the vice president's office in the White House's West Wing to alert him of the situation. By the time he reached the office, Cheney was meeting with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. The office phone rang and Cochrane heard Cheney say "Yes, Mr. President." He closed the door and returned to the situation room."
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091003/nep_13482431.shtml

"At nine-fifteen AM, President Bush called Cheney. The vice president, sitting at his desk, turned away from the crowd gathered in his office." page 332
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060723467/centerforcoop-20/#read...

More than an hour after these calls....they still don't know for sure they were hijacked? WTF?!? Weird accidents/"terrible pilots" = No shoot down Orders

"Bush and Cheney assessed the situation and discussed what the President would say in his public statement. Better to be cautious, they agreed, and decided that Bush would speak of "an apparent" act of terrorism." page 332
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060723467/centerforcoop-20/#read...

"Bush spoke to the nation at nine-thirty." page 332
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060723467/centerforcoop-20/#read...

No shoot down orders. The calls are not fake but the reaction of certain people may be.

Show "morphing v. cell calls" by EyeOnTheBall

"Ruling out voice morphing is

"Ruling out voice morphing is more difficult for me than advocating that cell calls were made at all from any of the flights. "

:|

you clearly missed your calling as a scientist. your logic and exhaustive research on this subject is very impressive.

you personally tried making calls on a plane- and it didn't work.

so that settles it.

i was on a plane and the toilet would not flush. i have come to the conclusion that crapper-fakery has been employed on all commercial flights. the technology exists!!!! Jesse Ventura told me so!!! it involves mass hypnosis - and an elaborate series of tubes...

That...

Made me laugh outloud.

Show "I love how you guys accept" by billybipbip

There's no reason to think

There's no reason to think the calls were faked. The calls were not essential to selling the official story of 911, so it wouldn't be important to have the calls occur. An expert in voice morphing technology is saying that it would be impossible to simulate the calls. Why are you more reliable than an expert? You aren't. You criticize others, but it is you who are unwilling to be open minded. If you are open minded you will say that since you don't know that phone calls were faked you wouldn't push it as an important piece of evidence in the case against the official story. Can you say that you aren't as confident that the calls were faked as you are that WTC7 was demolished? If so then I don't see what the problem is. Are you saying that phone call fakery should be central to the public presentation? Because that's all that the critics are saying, that it should not be central to the public presentation because it can be debunked and makes us look weak. This isn't "Phone calls definitely not fake" vs. "Phone calls definitely fake" it's "evidence implies fake phone calls" vs. "evidence does not imply fake phone calls". The evidence we have does not imply that the calls were fake.

Show "oh Lord i just had a" by billybipbip

Here's to billy

and the glory of untamed stupidity.

Prost.

Show "yes snowcrash coming from the" by billybipbip

You failed to explain

And you failed to respond properly, other than more playground-level taunts. That seems to be the bottleneck on your intellectual bandwidth. If you have any at all.

Since the case for voice morphing and cellphone fakery is now weak to non-existent, it follows from your position that nanothermite in WTC dust does not exist.

Is this correct, billy bullshitter?

(I'm going to give you all the attention you want, and you're not going to like it, I promise you)

that's the most quickley

downvoted comment i recall seeing- it still had "new" written after it though it was already collapsed down to the title, and when i opened it, it was at -7....now-8
eye on the ball - ironic !

I hope

.....we can all agree on this. WE WERE LIED TO ! We can uncover all the facts when we get our new grand jury investigation.

Show ""especially not knowing which" by waitew

false claim: cellphone calls

false claim: cellphone calls were impossible.

simply repeating a falsehood - over and over - does not make it true.

additionally - functioning skyphones were used as well.

why don't you present actual research and verifiable sources and facts - as opposed to the usual accusation of 'infiltration' that defenders of nonsense seem to fall back on.

Show "careful about false claims:" by EyeOnTheBall

really? How come cell phones

really?

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."
http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/accidents/20001208X06269.asp

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?

"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."
http://news.cnet.com/Cell-phones-to-take-flight---page-2/2100-1039_3-572...

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,"
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed

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.)"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/0...

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."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/0...

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?"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/0...

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.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/07/business/business-travel-some-airlines...

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."
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-95986.html?legacy=zdnn

How come one or two 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."
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-95986.html?legacy=zdnn

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."
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-95986.html?legacy=zdnn

"We found out from people using their phones that the World Trade Center was hit, and some unspecified area in Washington," Downs recalls.
http://news.cnet.com/Cell-phones-to-take-flight---page-2/2100-1039_3-572...

"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"
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/delta_flight_1989_9_11/travel...

now YOU show us the evidence that it is impossible

Show "FIRST THING: vote me down. Who cares about any truth?" by EyeOnTheBall

i have tried it myself. in

i have tried it myself.

in 2000 i was flying every week. i was an operations manager for a very large retail chain supervising the build-out of stores all over the continental SA. it was hit and miss. some calls connected - some didn't. the ones that did connect often dropped.

the only thing i did know for certain was that the skyphones charged an arm and a leg to use - so i cheated.

but now i suppose you will accuse me of lying - just like the no-planers did when i told them i saw the planes in NYC.

i really do not think you care what the truth is.

No -- you have me wrong.

I am not here to score points, and I do not believe you are lying. I hope you believe me that my experiences with connections is that they were consistently inoperable once en route.
Just a few clarifications though: Were you in large commercial planes (727, etc) or smaller craft, and were you ever able to hold a conversation at altitude, or just dial out? [With a skyphone to "cheat", I should assume you were on the large passenger carriers?]

EyeOnTheBall: don't promote cell phone experiment at 911Blogger

"Do not post material that promotes ... criminal actions."
http://911blogger.com/rules

One exception to this rule is non-violent, responsible acts of civil disobedience to protest the injustice of the ongoing cover up and exploitation of 9/11 for war and other crimes against humanity.

FAA and FCC regulations both currently prohibit use of cell phones in flight:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2091.21-1B...

The actual risk to safety/communications is unclear as it hasn't been thoroughly tested, but it is still prohibited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

And your experiment is irrelevant; as I pointed out in another comment; cell phone repeaters could have been placed on board the planes, and phone records show air phones were used by passengers reported to have made cell phone calls.

It's sort of difficult

To debate a topic that is also subject to censorship.... Maybe you should recuse yourself moderating this specific topic so as not to create the impression of a conflict of interest?

One could discuss this topic without encouraging others to violate FCC/FAA regulations? It's an essential component of the topic at hand....

"discuss this topic without encouraging others to violate ..."

"One could discuss this topic without encouraging others to violate FCC/FAA regulations?"

The only thing I was objecting to was the advocacy of violating the regs. None of these comments have been removed. I suppose discussion of the merits/relevance of the experiment eyesontheball proposed is somewhat on topic, as this thread is about fake calls, and that experiment purports to demonstrate the calls were 'impossible', and it might as well happen here, cuz blog posts advocating the 'experiment' aren't going to get approved.

Come on people

We don't need a new investigation because there are questions about the phone calls, we need a new investigation because the world trade center buildings were BLOWN UP ON VIDEO. Get it straight!! These detours into flimsy speculation just weaken our public presentation. And you know what, it contributes nothing, it's just all for fun, the claim that the calls were faked isn't going to win over any minds to our cause and it isn't going to stand up against scrutiny. Occams razor should be applied wherever possible, if the official story is the simplest explanation for something then it has to be considered the dominant explanation. in the case of the three buildings the official explanation is not the simplest one, CD is. In the case of the phone calls it is less simple to assume that the calls were faked, requiring access to the voices of the victims, than it is to assume that the calls were made from airphones. If airphones work at all, if they have ever been demonstrated to work then I think it stands to reason that people realizing they might die momentarily would do whatever within their power to reach out to their family members, and that that explains the calls more easily than the fakery hypothesis. Fakery depends on the assumption that these kind of calls are impossible to make. Isn't that what an airphone is designed to do?

I agree with the Three Towers Tactic

This is a strategy that can really bring the most people together. Many of the details involving fragments of evidence which can be difficult to verify in hopes of putting more of the puzzle together have taken considerable time and resources away from a direct challenge to the established leadership and authority. Yes some of the movement's ideas and theories can be debunked. Let's stick with the Three Towers and force the video evidence the average person can relate to. It's time to use the KISS system, Keep It Simple Stupid.

what im going to write is

totally unprovable, but in my mind perhaps a possibility
im speculating though not sure at all if this really happened, but...
perhaps the technology existed at the time that the guidance system/remote control system was being wired into the planes such that a cell booster could be installed so that in the event of desperate hostages trying anything to get in touch with loved ones, then the cell calls might have had more success than otherwise

pls contradict me if im wrong- im not sure about what im writing !! (honesty is the best policy !)

Critical thought unifies our movement! Happening NOW!

I'm sick of reading people acting as though those of us being critical of bunk research claiming that we are 'working for the official story' or that we are pushing people away from the 'truth' movement. These feeble claims coming from folks who are clinging to a theory they have embraced are so similar now that it is easy to see through them. I see these bogus accusations coming from those made at critical thinkers as a form of double-speak. The critical researchers here ARE CREATING A MOVEMENT which welcomes those critical DEBUNKERS, by speaking to their debunking claims with real facts over rhetoric. This is where true unity comes in. Critical research and fact based approach's are the only way to 'unify' the 'truth' movement! I have had talks with a few people recently who even though they don't agree with 9/11 truth, brought up the weird pentagon whatever. After I discussed the evidence of what the most probable explanation was, they then expressed a far greater interest in researching 9/11. The 'theory' movement is the true divider and conquerer. The 'truth' movement's unifying principle is fact based critical thought, not apologist leader worship. I see these recent run of critical articles as a mature move for many of us in the truth movement who were misled by a psuedo-leader or two in the past. This 'unified' truth movement welcomes the most critical and the most rhetorical all the same due to a willingness to analyze and accept critique.

Creating a movement?

How come Jon Gold was on his own when he handcuffed himself to the white house gates?

jon has a pair

that's why

don't tell me that people who do peaceful civil disobedience are wrong to- that isn't born out by history

perhaps Ghandi was a self- promoting ego maniac though .... :0)

different people are doing different things to grow the TM

who + what in the TM inspires you ?

Because all that's left of this movement...

Are a few diehards, and the theorists who spend countless hours on the internet arguing about their theories. The theorists, incidentally, helped to drive away people. When push comes to shove, I would count on a diehard member of this movement over a theorist any day. I also think people are afraid of civil disobedience.

And I wasn't on my own. A diehard member of this movement, Erik Larson, was there to help me. And someone else showed up as well.

Edit: Speaking of civil disobedience... Gareth Newnham is committing civil disobedience for 9/11 Justice this Saturday at 10 Downing Street at 12PM. If you are in that area, please go support his efforts. Thank you.

because activists like you

because activists like you would rather chase little green men?

Show "What exactly do you know about UFO's John A?" by peacefulwarrior

It is shameful...

But kidding ourselves about making a difference? Someone just told me on Facebook that "I didn't know there were sane people in the 9/11 Truth movement until I friended you and read your facts article." I just found out yesterday that almost 2000 different people on Facebook shared my facts piece.

I'll tell you what I know about UFO's

(A) UFO's are 'Unidentified Flying Objects', not 'Aliens', so a 'UFO' is not an 'alien'
(B) The probability of intelligent alien life existing elsewhere in this universe is 1
(C) It is most probable, statistically, that we are the most intelligent life form in the universe. (We are aliens to others)
(D) The probability of intelligent alien life visiting us is 0

See Amir D. Aczel - Probability 1

So much for UFO fantasies.. scientifically impossible. If somebody tells you they've been kidnapped by aliens, they are trying to hoax you, and from what I've seen from you so far, you are gullible enough to buy it.

This has nothing to do with 9/11, and we don't want the 'Big Tent' polluting serious research. You are definitely one of the most disruptive characters here, seemingly interested only in aimless, protracted discussion about nothing.

Show "What does the UFO movement have to do with 911?" by peacefulwarrior

Jon's 9/11 Truth resume

Jon's 9/11 Truth resume speaks for itself

what about you?

other than showing up here to defend little green men theories like voice morphing technology - what have YOU contributed?? Jon and i use our real names? who are you?

please - give us reason why anyone should take you seriously and a voice of authority. give us a reason why anyone should respect what YOU do!!!

to me - you appear to be trolling. some anonymous message board persona who find reason to attack the undermine people's efforts while simultaneously defending little green men theories.

please - correct me. prove me wrong. tell us why our audience should take YOU seriously.

Exactly

Any vids of you protesting or something peacefulwarrior? Do you ever go out on the 11th of the month in your city? Do you think that a movement can grow to 1000's if you don't do anything but sit and defend David Icke on blogs? Stop driving people away from the truth with non-sense, then put your mouth and feet where your money is!

Show "Kdub how many times are you going to ask the same" by peacefulwarrior

Funny how you talk about the

Funny how you talk about the negative effects of disharmony and here you are calling intelligent people in the movement "attack dogs". Question: Who are the truth elite?

Finally it comes out, peacefulwarriors unpeaceful undoing

I've always been civil towards you, but you have simply grown ridiculous. I have not never misquoted you. This insulting garbage is a display of your undoing. You have resorted to out of control ad-hominem spews. The fact that you did it in response to my questions of specific activism YOU have participated in says it all.

"I am the one calling for a mass street protest remember."

Laughable. You do nothing of the sort. You call for a blind acceptance of non-facts, but what organizing have you participated in. You have childishly attempted to act as though others here don't want massive protests or movements. You love to pontificate about how the only way to truth is a mass movement, yet you are literally attempting to kill the most quality steps people have taken to build this movement you supposedly want. Your pseudo-rome in your head is built in a day, but we here in reality march to a different drum.

I could care less about your "accusations" of me driving people away from the movement. It's hilarious to me and does give me a laugh when I think of all the people I have opened up to the subject over the years, but it's also completely lame and ignorant of you to speak to people in the way you are. You obviously have some personal problems. Well, don't start taking them out on me and on the people who want the truth about 9/11. You peacefulwarrior have displayed an almost constant hypocrisy with your unpeaceful methods. Calling people dogs is what you have resorted to? Fantastic, this is a display of your undoing. Your cracking at the seams it seems. Don't freak out, there are no aliens coming to get you. The little down voters in your head are screaming the truth while you cognitive diss them away as hard as you possibly can. The truth appears to fly-over your head, when in reality it's crashing right into your face.

Show "I responded many times including protesting in front of the" by peacefulwarrior
Show "One more time for the record," by peacefulwarrior

For the record

You, after insulting me above with childish name calling (which you then tried to back away from and act as though it wasn't personal to equate me with an "annoying" "yapping'" "terrier") , accused me of mis-quoting you without showing where I miss quoted (even after I re-asked you to show this several times). You claim that you want a mass movement, but you are unwilling to list specific contributions which you personally have added to develop such a movement. I've asked you for specifics, but all you do is appeal to consequences and ignore the questions people ask you, then repeat yourself. Everyone here wants you for the peaceful truth movement which folks are building here through the foundations of critical thought. I tried reaching out to you with specifics time and time again, yet your marriage to rhetoric and hostility only strengthen. No matter, for it exposes weakness in your perspective. Please let the educated activists here guide you to reality through critically expressed and analyzed truth. Welcome to the 9/11 Justice Movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL7tz03v8wc

Lecturing

I told PFW before, that his constant lecturing on movement strategy is an ongoing evasion of in-depth discussion about evidence, something that would at least justify, add some weight to, the 'Big Tent' promotion. But we don't even get that.

Lots of bare, unsupported assertions, like the other day, where PFW insinuated HIV was manufactured in a lab:

"Many people have suspected that AIDS was developed between 1969-1972 in US labs then released in Africa by unsuspecting WHO workers in 1975 in doses of the smallpox vaccine."

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-22/last-word-terrorism#comment-246837

This has nothing to do with the topic, but apart from the obvious falsehood of such a claim, it illustrates why uninformed theorizing, caused by an absent awareness of cognitive biases and the journalistic/historical/scientific method, harms this movement.

How do people end up with false beliefs? It's an extremely complex patchwork of factors rooted in various sociological and psychological disciplines. People tend to pride themselves in their competence, their ability for discernment. But, figuratively speaking, 99% of people out there believe things based on intuition only, lacking the philosophical framework, the logical/rational toolkit, the underpinnings of skeptical thinking required to evaluate hypotheses.

In sum: You are much more easily fooled than you hope. You are not special by way of listening to David Icke; no secret knowledge is imparted on you: just nonsensical, misinformational gibberish that cripples a movement's activist potential. Many people listen to conspiracy radio shows or watch documentaries and instantly feel more competent and able to evaluate historical facts than they actually are. Being aware of certain theories or conspiracy personalities does not provide entitlements of qualifications to be a historian, a skeptic or an investigative journalist, i.e. people who expertly know how to separate fact from fiction, and even they are far from perfect.

There is an inherent assumption and widespread misunderstanding that membership of or initiation in the 9/11 Truth Movement comes with automatically, magically granted qualifications in the realm of historiography. It does not, and people believing in nonsense within this movement are, I wager, in terms of percentage, comparable to statistics of society at large. (I would like to see actual research on that) Sorry if that offends... either you put in work to improve your ability for discernment or you will step into pitfalls forever. Had this skill been a part of high school curriculum, this entire discussion would be different.

Kdub, you got me all wrong really.

The terrier analogy wasn't an insult. I recently lost one of my dogs not that long ago. He was a tibetan terrier, had to one of the most loyal creatures on earth. A stranger had no chance getting past him, you could have thrown him a nice big steak and he would never have lost his focus etc. A very special creature indeed. Anyway I have said my peace so let the celebrations begin. See ya!

Jesse Ventura and Cell Phone Call

I commend Mr. Ventura for having the energy and talent to bring the 911 issue to main stream television and actually get it produced and live to see it aired. He is certainly a brave man and the hype, of course, is part of any conspiracy TV production. Most of the program appeared accurate. So much evidence is available for any jury to ponder. Yet, the People of New York cannot get their City Council, Courts or Judiciary to pursue the crime of the century.

maybe the movement needs more

maybe the movement needs more professional wrestlers?

:|

because nothing oozes credibility like professional wrestling...

John,

Why are you so focused on his past?

He was ALSO a Navy Seal and Governer.

You I respect, and you should do the same of others.

Otherwise all your comments will ooze of donkey stuff.

i read all of his book

american conspiracies

bits of it are shoddy
too bad

the majority is good and i learned (as a uk citizen) many things i didnt know previously about american history

tha man flew to cuba and met castro- cool !

because i am angry with

because i am angry with him

it is MY opinion that he is cheapening the victim's family's calls for justice by focusing on NONSENSE theories that are turning 9/11 Truth into an embarrassment.

missing planes at the Pentagon and cellphone fakery is rubbish.

the man has a TV show that puts the 9/11 issue on the same playing field as the Lochness Monster. it is SHTICK!!!! his act is a SHTICK!!! the mental equivalent of wrestling. fiction.

respect? i have none for him. i do not just hand out endorsements and respect like Pez candy to whoever steps up and declares themselves an advocate of "9/11 Truth!!!" this logic brought us Fetzer and Reynolds and Haupt and Woods and Barrett.

in my OPINION Venture is just the last in a long line of clowns who seeks to profit from this tragedy.

don't we have enough problems getting the public to take our issue seriously without the CLOWNS forwarding cellphone fakery and CIT fly-over theories?

Suit yourself. I think you

Suit yourself.

I think you are alienating someone who has reach and potential: Jesse Ventura.

How easy do you think it is to do a TV show? Do you think one man makes it happen? Is anyone perfect? Imagine the prep, script, filming, editing, changes, re-editing, production, etc., ...and thats putting it simply.

Jesse Ventura and others whom many disrespect around here have actually tried do make a change and help in the ways they know how to, or feel best to. And it reaches many people. I'm so sick of all the complaints; like everyone can do everything right all the time.

Like Jesse Ventura should read all the 450 comments about the fake phone calls. Like he reads 9/11 Blogger; like it is his responsiblity. Get real.

While 450 people commented on somethin so stupid and small as the phone calls the PATRIOT Act made its way through Senate and Congress. I called many Reps many times, while many of you were complaining about not proving proof of fake phone calls. Its stupid.

Do more. Complain less.

Really.

he does have reach!! i agree

he does have reach!! i agree with you.

all the more reason to be angry with him. he is REACHING people with bullshit and discrediting the efforts of those - like the victim's families - and whistle blowers like Sibel Edmonds and Coleen Rowley - to find Truth and Justice for 9/11.

I agree

with this.

Although, in his first 9/11 episode, IIRC, he did have Donna Marsh O'Connor on, I'm not sure how satisfied she is with what Jesse accomplished. I guess she's happy if anybody with reach is willing to put 9/11 in the forefront.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure his Pentagon episode did nobody any favors. Did he contact Russel Pickering? John Farmer? Jim Hoffman?

He should have, but they would have spoiled the conspiracy theory.... show business eh?

I tend to support Ventura too!

Yes he may be wrong about the pentagon, but even if he is the seeds of doubt were sown with the average person. This in itself is a plus. Many of the elite researchers here at this site will of course disagree and claim that this will backfire. But the average person who likes Jesse will start to wonder if the OTC is just that. When no planners asked people to watch the twin tower videos the real impact was that the towers were falling with or without the planes and demolition became obvious to almost everyone. This led many people to learn about WTC7. the elite reseachers here will claim that 911 truth will be debunked over non-substantiated theories etc, but they fail to appreciate even with a full hand of truth cards the establishment will always find a way to turn them away. Only when enough people pull together will we have any chance. Even 100,000 people in DC would send a strong signal and help wake up the masses. 500,000 could win the day ! The sooner the better.

Jeez yall need to relax about

Jeez yall need to relax about all this paranoia about tainting the movement, get off your high horses. Movies like Loose change and zeitgeist have awoken up millions of people, if it were up to all the down voters on this forum those films would have never been made. I wouldn't even have heard about 9/11 if it wasn't for loose change. So what if they mix speculation, its not like they intentionally lied, all investigations begin with speculations, some turn about to be true others false, but that doesn't discredit the entire message. In short, if it were up to some people, there would be no loose change or zeitgeist, conservatively these films have gotten 50 million views. Jesse ventura's 9/11 show where he exposed building 7 which had about 1.2 million viewers ie, whats with everybody hating on the most successful aspects of 9/11 in terms of viewers? Just because you might be wrong about a few things doesn't mean you are wrong about everything, and the end result is because of these movies etc people research more themselves and ask questions and disbelieve the OCT.

Its been 9 years since 9/11, there isn't one prominent lawmaker in congress etc that supports a new 9/11 investigation, To be honest there might never be a new investigation. People are acting as if there is some senator ready to testify on 9/11 truth's behalf to the supreme court asking for a new investigation, and if that lawmaker makes one claim thats a little shady the investigation will be squashed. Calm down its not happening now and it might never happen, people should be happy there at least were millions of people awoken and are still being awoken to disbelieve the OCT by movies like Zeitgiest and Loose change. No one who watches these movies believes everything in them at face value, but they introduce you to a controversy you never knew existed and propel you to look further into the issue, something that would not happen if you didn't see the film in the first place.

Nice to see an honest comment within a reasonable

framework. But don't hold your breath around this site.

Silly

"Jeez yall need to relax about all this paranoia about tainting the movement, get off your high horses. Movies like Loose change and zeitgeist have awoken up millions of people, if it were up to all the down voters on this forum those films would have never been made."

So wrong. Many of the people being critical of THEORIES here copied and spread the movies you are talking about. I personally am happy the movies were made, but only if the people are willing to accept critique and fix it or correct mistakes in their films, simple. Intention doesn't really matter. Response to critical thought however is very telling. No one is saying Jessie is wrong about everything. On the contrary people are being extremely specific for you.

"People are acting as if there is some senator ready to testify on 9/11 truth's behalf to the supreme court asking for a new investigation, and if that lawmaker makes one claim that's a little shady the investigation will be squashed."

This is most certainly a likely response to someone who is spreading bad info when they have an opportunity to spread the truth.

"Calm down its not happening now and it might never happen"

Not if I have anything to say about it.

"No one who watches these movies believes everything in them at face value"

Actually a lot of people have, because this is how they are used to absorbing media. The face or talking head value is everything.

wrong again. My philosophy

wrong again. My philosophy is that a true investigation can only uncover the facts, if that ever happens. Once the crime is solved then there will be an indisputable narrative. And once the indisputable narrative is on the record its not going to matter who speculated or not, the truth will be the truth. If someone speculates and ends up being wrong that's normal and happens in many criminal cases, for example if you investigate a serial killer you might have a theory on how many people he killed and how he killed his victims. A subsequent investigation proves he was a serial killer, yet his body count and methods were different than you speculated. This does not make him innocent because you speculated. Also the fact that you speculated didn't sabotage the investigation, your general suspicion caused you to put him under surveillance etc and interrogate witnesses to find out the truth to create an indisputable narrative. That's all there is to it.

True! Those films have introduced millions to 9/11Truth

True! Those films have introduced millions to 9/11Truth.

I think it is important to introduce people to 9/11 Truth.

Please vote this comment down if you think that people should not be introduced to 9/11 Truth.

False dilemma fallacy

To protect your non-response to my actual response.

Actually, I am trying to point out an aberration

kdub,
I am trying to make a point.
This thread is aberrated with the "trend" which was mentioned earlier. Many people protest this trend.

No sane person can disagree with these two statements:
Those films have introduced millions to 9/11Truth.
I think it is important to introduce people to 9/11 Truth.

Yet, because of some weird new trend here at 911Blogger, these two statements are considered squash meat to be invalidated with downvotes.

This aberration is what many good people are protesting. It is a recent trend.
I know that you are aware of what is happening.

That a small clique desires to continue this aberration demonstrates that it would like to drive away 911blogger particpants who do not fully align with the clique's attitude.

My entire protest on this thread has been about this "recent trend". It has not been about subject matter.

Nonsense

Sane people certainly can disagree with your two fallacious claims, and I have explained why.

Loose Change has improved with time, so I would prefer showing people later versions over earlier versions. Zeitgeist? I don't know. Not specifically focused on 9/11 Truth, and I would prefer a film that does. What's wrong with: 9/11: Press for Truth?

Show "Wrong again. Loose change" by billybipbip
Show "Oh and let it be known Peter" by billybipbip

Fallacious syllogism

Excellently constructed triple / possibly quadruple fallacious syllogism, my compliments ;-)

(1) Appeal to accomplishment
(2) Argumentum ad populum
(3) False/incomplete premise: Do these films truly and properly represent 9/11 Truth if they contain various extremely unlikely claims? The issue at hand isn't just 'introducing people to 9/11 Truth', but introducing them properly to 9/11 Truth, so in that sense, you're throwing a bit of a straw man into the mix as well ;-)

BTW, it's been a while since I've watched Zeitgeist, so take my qualitative judgment of its 9/11 segment with a grain of salt.

Show "You don't have an advanced" by billybipbip

The films do contain valuable

The films do contain valuable information but also, as you admit, speculation. What is wrong with saying that we can focus on the valuable information contained in those films instead of treating all of the claims in the films as though they are equally credible? That is the question, why can't we refine our message so that we take the best things away from these efforts without endorsing everything in them? There is no reason why the movement cannot evolve, I see the videos as important first steps, but now it is time to do even better. Don't you think we can do better than we have done in the past? We don't have to rely on the first early offerings of 911 truth for the rest of the long campaign. I think this is a sentiment that any reasonable person can agree with. Are you open to the idea that the movement can improve by focusing more on the most solid arguments and evidence?

oo oo i got another one

"You don't have an advanced degree in philosophy so you are just making a fool of yourself."

Appeal to an unqualified authority!

"lets hope you can take a freshman course of philosophy at your local junior college, if you can get in!"

Ad Hominem!

You don't need a philosophy degree to spot those.

Show "Those were jokes you guys" by billybipbip

the nobel

prize is a worry
kissenger the empiricist, obama the drone wars bomber of western pakistan..... if Snow got a nobel id start worrying

No class

"You don't have an advanced degree in philosophy so you are just making a fool of yourself."

And I don't need to. I did have philosophy classes, in which elementary logic was a subject. Moreover, I study informatics, and logic is an essential component of the curriculum. Take for example, this quote from the Wikipedia article about logic:

Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.[2] Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science.

The study of logical fallacies is a reductionist analysis of debate, rhetoric and argumentation. It allows you to examine the validity of an argument before issuing a response. It may be a bit dry to some people. It seems you are rather intimidated by this field of study, since your whole demeanor on this forum seems to revolve around lobbing incendiary grenades, throwing cheap shots, cretinous ridicule, you know, the sort of thing you can go pay a dollar to see in a club for failed stand up comedians.

"You are also creating straw men."

That's ironic, because I wasn't replying to you, but to TomT. Why throw around this jargon, when just one sentence earlier, you ridicule me for pointing out fallacies with a hyberbole about an "advanced degree in philosophy"? If you're a wannabee, billy, you're pretty obvious.

"instead took your fallacious philosophy lessons which are riddled with straw men...."

You are a terrible philosopher, a terrible debater, researcher and therefore necessarily a terrible activist.

"lets hope you can take a freshman course of philosophy at your local junior college, if you can get in!"

We can throw a graduation party together after you finish grammar school.

"lets hope you can take a

"lets hope you can take a freshman course of philosophy at your local junior college, if you can get in!"

We can throw a graduation party together after you finish grammar school.

LOL That one killed me!

Show "Yes you are a true genius. " by billybipbip

Yes

it can be removed again.

You fall out of your chair a lot man. You should let some air out of that big head of yours.

Enough

of this thread disruption. Come over here so we can have ourselves a little debate.

I freely welcome you to troll my thread, but not this one, and I ask the moderators to remove billy's attacks if he refuses to continue this discussion in the thread where it belongs.

WARNING to all commenters: keep it CIVIL

or comments are going to start getting removed and people placed on moderation.

If people stick to criticizing evidence, arguments and behavior, there will be no problems. When people start talking about each other personally, the problems start. There's more leeway when it comes to public figures vs. other users, but if it's judged the goal is to simply be provocative and insulting, these comments may be moderated as well.

Here are examples of two insulting ad homs, the kind of thing that is a violation of the rules:

billybipbip: "lets hope you can take a freshman course of philosophy at your local junior college, if you can get in!"

SnowCrash: "We can throw a graduation party together after you finish grammar school."

From the rules:
Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation. Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent will not be tolerated. If you believe someone is lying post the facts and let the readers decide for themselves.

Do not make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste our bandwidth and time.
-----
Keep your comments relevant to the blog entry. Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults.

The moderation team reserves the right to revoke a user's posting privileges at any time if they determine these rules have been broken, and accounts may be closed for continued infractions. Although warnings and explanations are often provided, this is not guaranteed.
http://www.911blogger.com/rules

The statement is true.

This statement is true...
"Those films have introduced millions to 9/11Truth."

(I did not mention any other aspect about the films.)

...and I think that it is important to introduce people to 9/11 Truth.

Sure

One could argue '9/11 in plane site' introduces people to 9/11 Truth, therefore, we should be glad it exists.

Nobody is arguing that it isn't good or important to introduce people to 9/11 Truth, the question is HOW.

In some cases, and I suppose we will have differing opinions, I would prefer NOT to "introduce" people to 9/11 Truth if that meant saturating their minds with unabashed nonsense in the name of 'Truth'. A little bit of truth? Not good enough.

Indeed SnowCrash.Fine lines

Indeed SnowCrash.

Fine lines might exist - or we create the desire for them to: One way or the other we are left to debate those lines and what they are.

For 9/11 Truth, I dont' think the phone calls are strategically important: I'm on the fence about the Pentagon importance level. Air defense and WTC 7 take my 9/11 cake.

To elaborate even further on your thought :

The next consideration becomes the evoluton of the journey of the person introduced to 9/11 truth....and the "elders" involvement in that.

Many people through the last 10 years have had their own personal struggles of truth-shattering consciousness changes while looking into 9/11.

That journey can continue to our last breath, so in the meantime...

If a person comes to 9/11 truth via Judy Woods or another highly dubious 9/11 "resource" yet evolves to dislike Woods arguements, I consider that good.

If a person comes to 9/11 truth via David Icke or another notorious source yet years later is more involved with 9/11 than Icke, I consider that good.

If a person comes to 9/11 truth via Jesse Ventura or Alex Jones and becomes more accurate than broad in argument through time I also consider that good.

How THIS happens is another question right?

As a movement, our strength could be gauged by the success of the answer.

If a person leaves 9/11 truth because of 9/11 truth activists internal arguements, I consider that bad.

The goal of perfectly accurate information is noble, but the means of reaching that can always be improved.

Just as some here argue for the quality of information, it is fair for others to argue for the quality of delivery: Dubunking is a bunk term.

Essentially, both elements probably share the same level of importance.

I do support people being introduced to 9/11 Truth, I do not support not introducing people to David R. Griffen and Jesse Ventura because of phone calls or pentagon arguemtns issues. Ultimately I think there is more value in reading Griffin than Chomsky, which many important socialites are doing. anybody want to comment on his accuracy % to follwer ratio- especially relating to 9/11?

This became a rant, so please don't feel obliged to answer any question marks.

I do respect what you had said, is all that I needed to say.

I voted you up because I

I voted you up because I think it is important to introduce poeple to 9/11 Truth!

To all

* Stop claiming sustained cellphone calls at altitude and at cruise speed are probable... they are not.

* Stop claiming cellphone fakery is likely; hardly any cellphones were used by the passengers of the fatal flights on 9/11; proving my point above (9/11 can be cited as an 'experiment' in and of itself)

* In my criticism above, I am addressing both sides

There is a will now to stick to impeccable research and not promote flawed research and/or promote speculation as fact. Excellent. But realize if this is done too inconsiderately it will drive a wedge through the 9/11 Truth Movement. I am not for that, not as it is playing out right now. Triumphantly, with lots of schadenfreude? No, not at all.

This is not the Pentagon debate. Erik has written a carefully written critique of David Ray Griffin's cellphone fakery hypothesis. Let's NOT squander the man hours Erik put into this article by suddenly forcing a showdown between various factions which were otherwise at relative peace. The key point is: calls were made from airfones, not from cellphones, hence the whole discussion about cellphones is moot.

Don't worry about votes; this is not a popularity contest. But be mindful of the standards you must uphold when evaluating two competing hypotheses: what direct evidence do you have? Some weird press reports and oddball call durations aren't in the same ballpark, not even in the same solar system as nanothermite, for example, which constitutes, positive, physical evidence, instead of negative evidence augmented with fantasy scenarios. Do you understand the difference?

Your inexperienced opinion, wondering about why some calls seem to last way past a plane crash, does not , in any way, logically, allow you to claim 'voice morphing' was involved. What does one have to do, DIRECTLY, with the other? Nothing. Look for DIRECT EVIDENCE of 'voice morphing' and report back if you find any.

A good start? Some recordings of phone calls have been made public. Forensic traces of fakery must be present in those calls. Submit your forensic audio analysis to a journal and prove Erik wrong and prof. Griffin right. That's how it's done, in case you were wondering. I don't think you'll find anything as it stands now, but again, prove us , the so-called 'infiltrators' wrong, instead of this childish, gutless, feeble-minded snitchjacketing you find so much delight in.... notice it is only going one way, the grown ups here know not to make such bullshit accusations without basis, because they know how to conduct evidence-based, not fantasy-based, research.

"Stop claiming sustained

"Stop claiming sustained cellphone calls at altitude and at cruise speed are probable... they are not."

can you show us an example of someone saying this?

the truth of the matter is that calls are possible - given certain parameters. the truth of the matter is that many people made calls from planes on 9/11 using their cells - including from planes that were not hijacked. the truth is that people have been making calls from planes before and after 9/11 - albeit illegally - for years. the truth is that many expert opinions have been given stating that cellphone calls are indeed possible - given certain parameters.

i reject the false equivalency of "impossible calls" in one camp - and those of us who point out that "impossible" is not supported by the facts.

Well, you, for example, in this thread

No offense, but yeah, notably, you, Erik, and Jim, so while I agree with your position on cellphone fakery, e.g. that there is no evidence for that, I disagree that sustained cellphone calls from cruising altitudes and speeds are probable.

I choose my words carefully, adding several preconditions: (1) cruise speeds; >470 knots for 767, >458 knots for 757 (2) cruise altitudes; 35,000 feet (3) cellphones (4) sustained (5) commercial aircraft (obviously)

I was waiting for one of you to address me on that... (and a downvote from you I see, ouch!) How many FBI records show calls from aircraft on 9/11 which meet the criteria above?

Note that you altered 'probable' to 'possible/impossible'. I didn't choose that word, deliberately so.

again - show me my quote i

again - show me my quote

i also choose my words carefully

i never say that "sustained" calls are possible. and i never say anything about cruise speeds or altitudes

Quotes

  • "How come cell phones worked in 1996?......"
  • "How come people flying on planes on 9/11 could use their cell phones on other planes,"
  • "Using cell phones on planes is nothing extraordinary....."
  • "They prefer you not use cell phones...not because you can't..... (...) It's because they want your money......"
  • "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..."
  • "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......."

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-23/jesse-ventura-s-fake-phone-calls-c...

You would have to forgive me for walking away from your comment with the impression that sustained cellphone calls in general, regardless of height and speed, are a general occurrence.

You cite many press reports, but I don't trust the press in scientific matters. For example, in your next comment, you admit you have trouble yourself:

have tried it myself.

in 2000 i was flying every week. i was an operations manager for a very large retail chain supervising the build-out of stores all over the continental SA. it was hit and miss. some calls connected - some didn't. the ones that did connect often dropped.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-23/jesse-ventura-s-fake-phone-calls-c...

And I would wager the higher you are, the more trouble you'd have.

I should expound my position in a longer treatise, but I've got a nasty case of sinusitis at the moment, so you'll have to excuse me for this evening. Maybe something to post on 911blogger, if Erik/the rest of the team thinks this is a good idea?

Ted Olson agrees with me:

However, in another interview on the same day, Ted Olson will say his wife uses a cell phone and her call may be cut off “because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html

However, all of the sustained calls he received from Barbara, were made from airfones, according to the FBI, right?

So....No voice morphing... and in my opinion 9/11 underscores the improbability of sustained cellphone calls from commercial aircraft at cruise speeds/altitudes ... in 2001. Few, if any, such calls are officially confirmed by the FBI.

The reason I'm a bit pedantic about this, is that this is a weak spot in Erik's article and it shows some confirmation bias: a willingness to believe apocryphal press reports and anecdotal accounts suggesting that cellphone calls from commercial aircraft, regardless of parameters, are commonplace. I assert Erik, Jim and your position is overly optimistic, nevertheless not necessary to show that there is no evidence for cellphone fakery/voice morphing; scrutinizing the evidence record thoroughly probably suffices.

If we're to criticize DRG in this manner, knowing DRG, he deserves the utmost accuracy when under critique, I'm sure those who disagree with us and support DRG's position instead will appreciate such (scientific) accuracy.

More on this later... perhaps.

first of all - i need to give

first of all - i need to give credit where credit is due - many of the examples i gave were quotes from the very fine work of JimD - a frequent contributor to the cellphone fakery discussion on Blogger and TruthAction

second - this is the important issue - and i do not think we are that far apart on this:

the issue is - in my opinion - those who claim that cellphone calls were IMPOSSIBLE from planes on 9/11. this is untrue. cellphones DO work on planes - under certain circumstances - and i do not take a position on the technical aspects of what constitutes these 'circumstances.'

but i would imagine the variables would be:

- location of the plane. obviously the higher population areas would have better reception. this is true whether you are in a plane or on the ground. can you hear me now?
- altitude.
- speed
- the cellphone itself
- the towers themselves

etc etc

but - this is not really a debate between two absolutes. The IMPOSSIBLE claim is an absolute. my position is more nuanced and - yes - more accurate. sometimes they DO work.

Exactly

I think this is why Snowcrash said that use of the word probable is the inaccurate assertion.

BTW - i am a fan of your work

BTW - i am a fan of your work here on blogger. your posts are often insightful and well thought out.

Thanks

I'm happy to see posters like you are back at 911blogger. Gotta admit I should have paid heed to the sentiments of what some label the 'TruthAction'-clique, as soon as I got here..... lots of wisdom there and nobody's listening... properly.

Sometimes it's worth building bridges (we've burned plenty the past year), I hope we can show those who wish to see a rupture of 911blogger that they will fail.

I might consider constructing a Sunstein boxing dummy or whatever. You know, lots of "body blows" (fast forward to the end, woops! LOL). Tod Fletcher knows just what I mean ;-)

Allow me to do a reductio ad

Allow me to do a reductio ad absurdum of the fake phone call hypothesis. Suppose it is true that the calls were faked using voice morphing technology. In that case the perps would have to have had contingency plans in case the samples they were able to obtain from the people who were eventually used were not good enough. So this means that a significantly larger share of the passengers would have to have been profiled and sampled than the ones who in fact were used. For that to happen there would have to have been a campaign of mass voice sampling from people listed as passengers on the flights, a list that would in all likelihood have been shifting and impermanent. But this is absurd. Therefore it is not likely that the phone calls were faked.

Love, peace, singing Kumbaya, sandals, dandelions

It's important that we do listen to people who are merely trying to express a feeling of 'being under siege'.

A guy like TomT has done a lot of work for 9/11 Truth, so let's not jump all over him for trying to discuss the change in 'atmosphere'. There has been a notable change: some people who didn't feel at ease here anymore, notably from TA, are back, and speaking up once again.

2011 approaches and tensions are rising. Not because of 'infiltration', although that can never be ruled out, (but at least provide some damn evidence, you know, direct evidence), but because people who care about this cause want to get our house in order.

I vote some things down: snitchjacketing, persistent advocacy of the Big Tent; repeated reference to long settled Pentagon questions and hideous fallacious rhetoric designed to mislead and confuse.

But this is a forum where people are supposed to at least be allowed to debate each other, and if one side is persistently and reflexively voted into obscurity.....Try some radical empathy **, to see it from their POV. Change may come, but I prefer this change to be a little less like a blunt axe ;-)

I too, get testy, but usually it's a case of treating people as I am treated. I too have topics that get my blood boiling, some of which include "fake dead people" and "robotic mannequins jumping out of the WTC". And more.

For many people you are debating here, David Ray Griffin is a mentor. A highly regarded 9/11 Truth Leader. To just cast DRG aside as if he was nothing, besmirch him and bludgeon all his admirers into submission, I don't think it's a very productive tactic.

Please note, I'm trying to ease tensions here... I don't support voice morphing and cell phone fakery because I don't think the evidence supports it. I used to be taken in by DRG's theory, but that changed around the same time I realized the truth about the Pentagon. Around that time, I mailed Adam Syed, now a Holocaust denier and one of DRG's staunchest supporters, an article, iirc, with a retraction from DRG about the airfone issue. Since then, apparently, DRG has issued a retraction of that retraction, but I had already grown weary and critical of the thesis.

I'm a fighter, not necessarily a peacemaker, so my natural inclination is to engage, engage, engage. Some people deserve it too. On the other hand, it's a slippery slope and a vicious circle. We have to question each other regularly to keep our feet grounded.

Time for an armistice, or maybe, an easing of tensions. The side which does not support cellphone fakery or voice morphing (including me) is both in the majority and in control of this site, let's remember that and exercise some restraint. Being rude is one thing, hammering certain argumentative points is another, but relentlessly browbeating the opposition into assimilation.... let's resist dividing 911blogger into opposing factions and keep looking at people as individuals, some of which are many times more disruptive as others. I don't think TomT is one of them.

Another example: Aidan Monaghan is trying to make a point: sustained cellphone calls from commercial aircraft at cruise speeds/altitudes are improbable. He's right. Why vote him down? There is a reason why DRG's cellphone fakery thesis gained momentum, the most important of which is 'falsification-speculation', a reasoning flaw I often speak about, in the hopes that awareness of it sticks, and there is also a reason that flyover theory gained momentum. That reason is rigidity. Entrenched positions. Not giving an inch and not admitting strengths and weaknesses of an argument. It's extremely counterproductive to try to buttress an argument by propping up components of an argument beyond their actual merit.

There are two core problems with DRG's thesis: the persistent notion that the calls were cellular, and 'falsification-speculation'.

Meanwhile, let's see if I can hold my temper, too, because yeah, I guess I don't always suffer fools gladly. It takes a hefty amount of patience.

And remember the real topic: do you condone what Jesse Ventura did w.r.t. 'voice morphing', as exposed by Jeff?


**

TEDxPSU - Sam Richards - A Radical Experiment in Empathy

This might be the most

This might be the most important comment on this thread.

Thanks for the honesty, I think it speaks volumes.

Ty; Appreciate that.

This site deserves our best.

Agree and disagree

You make a lot of good points, as usual. I do disagree with your singling out Monaghan's and TomT's contributions to this thread to defend, however. In fact, you kind of flip the script. You say we shouldn't "jump all over" TomT - yet it was TomT calling people "evil" and other names that got him "jumped" on. And sure, Aidan's point about the improbability of sustained cell calls is fair enough (though it veers towards misdirection, as it's been shown the majority of calls were from airphones), but it was his insinuations about cognitive infiltrators that most likely got him voted down. These guys don't deserve any defense for their behavior here.

So in general, I agree with you about making it easier for debate to happen.

But let's not rewrite history in the same thread that it just happened in.

Yeah

Thanks, it's impossible to be everybody's friend all the time, especially when you're trying to defuse tensions, and in fact, been part of those tensions yourself as I have.

I'm thinking out loud and self-reflecting, and I know that snitchjacketing involves pointing the finger at people - a rather ill-advised endeavor, because usually the 'evidence' consists of somebody's 'gut feeling', which is usually flat out wrong. Especially because people seem to think agents can be detected by determining how much of the OCT somebody defends.

Rather, I believe we should realize the best way to stop cognitive infiltration is to counter phenomena, not people: i.e. the sowing of paranoia and divisiveness. This is a complex problem, because some issues are simply worth creating divisions over. But, when I see a site like 911blogger threatening to erupt in factionalizing, when a lot of pent up anger ebulliates, I can perhaps counter such phenomena by doing the opposite of what would seem to bring satisfaction (satis = enough ... factio = deed / class of persons) ... build bridges again. Do we want a deep split.. where all that is left here is us? I believe we should not overdo it right now, then again, don't think I feel entitled to lecture you on movement strategy. 911blogger's best interest is what I have in mind, an exodus is what I intend to prevent.

Listening to Tod Fletcher's show with John Parulis, who named several people, including me, as possible 'infiltrators', they go so far as to say that 'infiltrators' will resort to 'murder', after Parulis tells the story about the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior:


Tod Fletcher
Well that’s an amazing, that’s an amazing experience. So that, that certainly… that certainly establishes the murderous potential of state agent infiltration. The state, you know when the state’s, when states …

John Parulis
Yeah.

Tod Fletcher
… are trying to stop the activities of activists who are opposed to state policies, and but you know, acting legally, the states don’t limit themselves to legal actions, they, history has proven that they repeatedly engage in illegal and often murderous acts.

John Parulis
Yeah!

Tod Fletcher
Now there’s…

John Parulis
I absolutely, absolutely, and … Yesterday I was listening to Pacifica Radio and there was a documentary on about how the COINTEL program of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI was discovered and it was accidental! It was activists who had broken into some facility and accidentally came upon these materials, that…

And…The COINTEL information uncovered a vast and expansive and detailed operation by the FBI to infiltrate groups and cause divisiveness. That was one of the stated objectives of the COINTEL program: to cause divisiveness.

Tod Fletcher
Right.

John Parulis
And they… They find people who look like activists, who sound like activists, they… th-the… these are w… are w-what I would call the viruses. [Laughs]

Tod Fletcher
[Laughs]

John Parulis
You know they inject them into our good-hearted organizations and, you know, start causing disruptive activity to happen. In some cases murder and death.

Tod Fletcher
Exactly. Some cases did result in murders.

John Parulis
Yeah


...It goes that far. That's where we're at. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel about this. Or why Fletcher and Parulis can't seem to appreciate nuance in context, given that the context is their suspicious perception of 911blogger, its moderators and some of its users.

You've just got to laugh... (or cry)

At the excruciating irony of someone warning of the dangers of COINTELPRO and then immediately turning around and pointing out specific individuals as possible infiltrators. As we know, snitchjacketing was (and no doubt remains) one of the very favorite techniques of sowing the kind of disruption of which Mr Parulis speaks...

You're right

And I keep saying that, but from their POV, I think what they meant was the confrontation spawned by Erik's article, and the ongoing discussions we've had about the Pentagon and cellphone fakery, where some of us, (in the case of the Pentagon, me particularly) have been on the side of the "OCT". Obviously this causes strife and acrimony, but it's also necessary. (If you care about the truth, that is)

As you can tell, I'm writing a transcript, but what struck me when reading it back instead of hearing it, is the indifference with which 911blogger moderators and users fingered by Parulis and Fletcher are compared to murderers. I don't see any effort by either Parulis or Fletcher in that segment to clarify that they don't mean any of us. Which makes this a rare extremity, given the otherwise cautious, civil façade projected by both.

I don't wish to be compared to DSGE operatives & divers with rebreathers who plant limpet mines on Greenpeace ships and murder people. We European-brand "Sunstein infiltrators" are gentlemen. Do you want a cup of tea?

By the way; why not label people "Vermeule-infiltrators"? Isn't Vermeule's name ominously Jewish-sounding enough?

Show "Could a Government with billions and latest computer tech do VM?" by TruthMakesPeace

Example of advanced speech tech military contract solicitation

Here is an example of a US military contract solicitation for advanced computerized speech related technology.

Solicitation Number: W15P7T07QM214
Two-Way Speech-To-Speech (2WSTS) Translation Devices

"Signal Warfare of Program Executive Officer (PEO) Intelligence and Electronics Warfare and Sensors (IEW&S), Fort Monmouth, NJ, is seeking to fulfill the immediate need for Two-Way Speech (2WSTS) translation capabilities in support of Operational Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)."

"...offeror must meet the following Requirements: 1) The device must provide the capability to translate bidirectional English to Iraqi-Arabic (English to Iraqi-Arabic)"

"used in research and testing by Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA)"

"Contracting Office:
US Army C-E LCMC Acquisition Center - DAAB07
ATTN: AMSEL-AC, Building 1208
Fort Monmouth, NJ"

Uhm

Speech recognition and text-to-speech have been around since time immemorial.

I played around with that in '96 or so, on a Pentium I.

The only thing a speech to speech translation device adds is internal logic for Natural Language Processing (NLP) and translation.

This is not "voice morphing". If you want to prove voice morphing R&D exists, just cite this article like everybody else does.

Now, please rise to the challenge: publish forensic audio analyses (pl.) of Betty Ong and Cee Cee Lyles' calls in a scientific audio journal.

Slam dunk!

Right?

Show "Link already at top, Example of speech tech, million dollar VM" by TruthMakesPeace

Yes

I know that cicorp, it's why I said "If you want to prove voice morphing R&D exists, just cite this article like everybody else does."

The example you cited has nothing to do with voice morphing technology. Voice morphing technology is not speech recognition (speech-to-text), because this technology is not revolutionary and not key to accomplishing voice morphing, and voice morphing technology certainly has nothing to do with your standard text-to-speech technology. It's much more complex than that. You could have refrained from citing the example and it would have made no difference.

"My main point is that it would be difficult to "rise to the challenge" without a multi-million dollar VM system."

I don't understand your response. I challenged you to do audio forensics on the phone calls from Betty Ong and CeeCee Lyles. Your response makes no reference to this challenge except a small excerpt of a sentence, which you repeat.

If the USA can go to the Moon 6 times, we can probably do VM

>I challenged you to do audio forensics on the phone calls from Betty Ong and CeeCee Lyles.
Precisely. The point is that convincing VM is too challenging, for me in my office, or Kent in his home sound studio.
But if America can invent the atomic bomb, personal computers, the internet, and go to the Moon 6 times, we can probably do effective computerized Voice Morphing.
Considering the billion dollar budgets, the acres of super computers at our intelligence agencies, and the tremendous strategic advantages of VM, I would be more surprised if we don't already have that technology .

possibility does not equal evidence

you've posted zero evidence that any calls were voice-morphed or otherwise faked. Your speculation that the MIC had stuff good enough to fool moms is not only just speculation, as evidence of faked 9/11 calls, it's a logical fallacy; non sequitur.

Suggesting the calls were faked - without good evidence, of which there is none - discredits 9/11 inquiry.

Okay

There is no doubt that you dodged the challenge by deliberately trying to confuse the forum. You did it once, now you shamelessly do it again.

Very disappointing.

evidence

evidence is the best way
what you write is interesting but needs backing up
thankyou for what you have written, you are obviously intelligent and imaginitive
if you dig something up pls come back to this thread as im interested in your line of thought