Support 911Blogger


David Ray Griffin's Response to Cell Phone Criticism

David Ray Griffin wrote the following response to a criticism of his writings and arguments about cell phones.

Was Deena Burnett Really Not Duped? A Reply to Andrew Kornkven’s Suggestion about Alleged Cell Phone Calls

David Ray Griffin

"It is the truth movement that has been duped, not Deena Burnett.” So claims Andrew Kornkven in the headline of an essay arguing against my view, which I articulated in Debunking 9/11 Debunking (henceforth D9D), that the cell phone calls from the airliners were faked. He has then suggested an alternative scenario, which he regards as more plausible.[1] Kornkven and I agree that ascertaining the validity of these purported calls is of utmost importance, because they form one of the pillars of the official story about 9/11. But there are several problems with his argument, some of which appear to result from his having relied upon a brief announcement about the revised version of D9D, rather than having consulted the book itself.

Logical Error
In the first edition of D9D, I said that the FBI, by stating---in evidence presented to the Moussaoui trial in 2006---that the only cell phone calls made from UA 93 were two calls reportedly made when it was down to 5,000 feet, “has covertly admitted that most of the alleged cell phone calls on Flight 93 could not have occurred.”[2] Mr. Kornkven attempts to refute this statement by saying: “No, David, the government has not covertly admitted that the calls could not have occurred; it has only admitted that they did not occur using cell phones, and that they were thus made by airphones.”[3] I was, however, specifically addressing the question of whether cell phone calls were made. To admit that the calls “did not occur using cell phones” is to agree with the point I was making.

But this logical error is a minor point. Another minor point is the fact that the statement that Kornkven attempts to refute---that the government “has covertly admitted that most of the alleged cell phone calls on Flight 93 could not have occurred”---is not even contained in the revised edition of D9D, because the argument that high-altitude cell phone calls could not occur is now less important, given the FBI’s statement that such calls did not occur.[4] In any case, I move now to more important problems.

Feasibility of Voice Morphing
Deena Burnett reported that she received four cell phone calls from her husband, Tom Burnett, while he was on United 93. In order to emphasize that I do not believe that she was lying, I have suggested that she was duped---that she received calls from someone using voice-morphing technology. Kornkven, incredulously describing my scenario, writes: “The perpetrators . . . are able to voice-morph Tom Burnett’s voice so masterfully that they are able to fool his wife not once, not twice, but on at least three and maybe four calls.” He thereby seems to be suggesting that the idea that the voice-morphing could have been good enough to fool Deena Burnet is implausible.

In D9D, however, I pointed out that already in 1999, Washington Times journalist William Arkin reported witnessing a demonstration in which the voices of Generals Carl Steiner and Colin Powell were perfectly duplicated. I also reported an advertisement for a voice changer said to be good enough for people to fool their spouses.[5] I am not sure, therefore, why Kornkven considers implausible the suggestion that Deena Burnett was fooled four times.

Casting Doubt on Deena Burnett’s Statement
Kornkven next says: “Griffin believes the calls were made by cell phones because Deena supposedly said she looked at the caller ID.” But I do not believe the calls were “made by cell phones.” The issue is what Deena Burnett believed and why she believed it. She said the calls were made from her husband’s cell phone because she recognized his cell phone number on her phone’s caller ID. Kornkven seeks to cast doubt on this by saying: “Deena supposedly said she looked at the caller ID.” Why “supposedly”? As I have pointed out in the revised edition of D9D, she has been quoted as saying this.[6] Also, as I pointed out in a recent article,[7] she has stated this in a book that she published in 2006 (“I looked at the caller ID and indeed it was Tom’s cell phone number”).[8]

Faking the Caller ID
Kornkven, continuing to imply that my scenario is implausible, next says: “So the perpetrators . . . were able to make the call seem to come from Tom’s own cell phone–-did they pickpocket his cell phone before the flight, and the phones of various others?”

Had Kornkven consulted my D9D, he would have seen that I had reported an advertisement for a device called “FoneFaker.” After the description, which says, “Call Recorder and Voice Changer Service with Caller ID Spoofing,” the ad states: “Record any call you make, fake your Caller ID and change your voice, all with one service you can use from any phone.”[9] No pickpocketing would have been necessary.

Real Hijackers

Kornkven then, believing he has shown my scenario to be implausible---indeed “preposterous”---suggests a scenario that he considers more plausible.

“The perpetrators decide to frame their Arab enemies by allowing real passengers to make real phone calls relaying their false impression of an Arab hijacking. This false impression is created on the planes by having some hijackers disguise themselves as Arabs---with red headbands, dark skin, etc.–-while committing heinous acts like knifing female passengers.”

Presumably the hijackers, besides not really being Arabs, are also not really Muslims. They do not, therefore, fit the 9/11 Commission’s portrait of them as devout Muslims who, being ready to meet their Maker, would have been willing to commit suicide. Does Kornkven mean that, nevertheless, these hijackers were ready to fly into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon? Where would such volunteers have been found?

Whispering FBI Agents
However, even if Kornkven has a solution to that problem, his alternative scenario would still be highly implausible. Although he agrees that some of the calls---“such as the one allegedly made by Todd Buemer” (sic)---may have been fabricated,[10] he believes that the hijackers allowed passengers (using onboard phones) to make some calls. But then, he believes, some of these passengers unexpectedly revealed some information that contradicted the official story. So, he suggests:

[T]hose charged with covering up the whole thing commence a campaign of disinformation regarding these phone calls. Led, perhaps, by Mr. Chertoff from his perch in the Justice Department, they utilize friendly contacts within the FBI and media to perpetrate the myth that the phone calls were (impossibly) made by cell phones, not airphones. FBI agents whisper “cell phones” to reporters who dutifully spread the word in innumerable media stories.

Exactly why the cover-up team would do this---put out a story that anyone knowing anything about cell phone technology would know to be false---is not made clear.

But whatever be the supposed motive, the idea is implausible. For one thing, some of the reports of cell phone calls occurred on 9/11 itself.[11] It is unlikely that even Michael Chertoff could have worked that quickly.

Even more problematic is the fact that some of the recipients of the calls themselves reportedly said that their relatives had used cell phones. They believed this, they said, either because they saw the number on their caller ID (e.g., Deena Burnett) or because this is what they were told (e.g., the step-mother of passenger Honor Elizabeth Wainio and the husband of flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw[12]). Kornkven would evidently have us believe that these recipients of calls had not actually said that they had been called on cell phones; rather, the journalists have merely claimed that they had said this.

How would Kornkven explain the fact that although these journalists have been making these false statements over the years, we have heard no protest from the people being falsely quoted? Would he suggest that although the people had been protesting the false statements all this time, not a single local paper had published such a protest? That claim would not work, because some of the people, such as Deena Burnett, have written books and been interviewed on television. So Kornkven would evidently need to suggest that the FBI contacted all the people and got them to go along with the lie that they had been called on cell phones. Kornkven’s scenario would require, moreover, that after getting Deena Burnett and all these other people to lie, the FBI undercut them in its 2006 report at the Moussaoui trial, in which it said that there were only two cell phone calls from all the flights combined (a call from flight attendant CeeCee Lyles and a 911 call from passenger Ed Felt[13]). How is this a more plausible scenario than the idea that the recipients of the calls were duped?

Incompetence
Much of the basis for Kornkven’s alternative scenario is the fact that the person who called Deena Burnett “told [her] one of the hijackers had a gun” and this “contradict[ed] the official story of knife-wielding Arab fanatics.” Kornkven believes this proves that the reported call was authentic, because someone faking the calls would not have done something so stupid. Right after the statement in which he suggested that someone could have made Tom Burnett’s cell phone number show up on Deena Burnett’s caller ID only by using Tom’s stolen cell phone, he wrote: “In addition to the stupidity of making their fake calls from cell phones, the perpetrators inexplicably decide to throw in a report from the fake Tom of the hijackers having guns, which the FBI and media later go through great lengths to cover up and/or ignore.” This scenario, he argues, is too preposterous to believe.

He is right to say that this would have been a stupid thing for the fake Tom to have said. But evidently lots of stupid things were said by those making the calls. For example, the person who called Mark Bingham’s mother reportedly said: “Mom, this is Mark Bingham.”[14] Have any of us, even in the most stressful situations, identified ourselves to our own mothers by using our last name? With regard to the person who was supposedly Tom Burnett: In his fourth call, Deena Burnett tells him that their kids are asking to talk to him, but “Tom” replies: “Tell them I’ll talk to them later.”[15] This was after he had told her that he had realized that the hijackers were on a suicide mission, planning to “crash this plane into the ground,” so that he and others had decided they must try to gain control of the plane as soon as they are “over a rural area.” And the hijackers had already killed one person, “Tom” had reported. So if this was the real Tom Burnett, he knew that there was a good chance that he would die in the next few minutes, one way or the other. And yet, rather than taking this probably last opportunity to speak to his children, he told his wife to say that he would “talk to them later.” The fact that it would have been stupid for a fake Tom to report that the hijackers had a gun is, therefore, not a good reason to believe that the caller must have been the real Tom.

From my perspective, moreover, the incompetence manifested by some of the callers was simply part of the incompetence manifested by the 9/11 operation as a whole.

One of the common a priori arguments against the idea that 9/11 was orchestrated by members of the Bush administration is the claim that this administration is too incompetent to have orchestrated and then covered up such an operation. I have in the past argued against this sweeping claim.[16]

However, after completing the manuscript for my next book, to be called “9/11 Contradictions,” I have come to agree with this objection under a particular formulation, namely: This administration appears to have been too incompetent to have orchestrated and covered up 9/11 well enough to have prevented the truth from being easily discovered if Congress and the press had done an even half-way decent job of raising questions. As “9/11 Contradictions” will show, every part of the official story is riddled with internal contradictions, any one of which could have led investigators to the truth.

Seen in this light, the hypothesis that the phone calls were faked is not undermined by the fact that, if this hypothesis is true, those who made the fake phone calls committed stupid errors. Such errors are exactly what one would expect.

Conclusion

Kornkven asks: “[W]hich scenario is more likely? What is easier to accomplish, voice morphing numerous calls to spouses and loved ones; or a disinfo campaign bamboozling everyone into believing that a handful of airphone calls were actually made by cell phones?” Although he argues that the latter scenario is more likely, he has failed to support this contention. On the one hand, he has provided no reason to believe that the former alternative would have been especially difficult. On the other hand, any attempt to have carried out the latter scenario would have confronted some severe, perhaps insurmountable, difficulties.

[1] Andrew Kornkven, “David Ray Griffin Burrows Further Down the Rabbit Hole of No-Phone-Calls-From-the-Planes,” 9/11 Blogger, 6 October 2007 (http://911blogger.com/node/11860).

[2] David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, first edition (Northampton, Mass.: Olive Branch, 2007), 91.

[3] Kornkven, “David Ray Griffin Burrows.”

[4] See David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, revised and updated edition (Northampton, Mass.: Olive Branch, 2007). Compare pages 90-91 with the same pages in the first edition.

[5] Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, both editions, 84-85, 342n234.

[6] Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, revised edition, 90.

[7] David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo, “Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls? An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones,” Pilots for 9/11 Truth, 26 May 2007 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html).

[8] Deena L. Burnett (with Anthony F. Giombetti), Fighting Back: Living Beyond Ourselves (Longwood, Fl.: Advantage Inspirational Books, 2006), 61.

[9] Debunking 9/11 Debunking (both editions), 297.

[10] Although Kornkven wrote, “There is no reason that some of the calls, such as the one allegedly made by Todd Beumer [sic] to a complete stranger . . . may have been fabricated,” Kornkven clearly, as the context shows, meant to say: “There is no reason that some of the calls . . . may not have been fabricated.”

[11] See, for example, Karen Gullo and John Solomon, Associated Press, “Experts, U.S. Suspect Osama bin Laden, Accused Architect of World’s Worst Terrorist Attacks,” 11 September 2001 (http://sfgate.com/today/suspect.shtml), which says, regarding a reported call from Peter Hanson on United Flight 175: “A minister [the Rev. Bonnie Bardot] confirmed the cell phone call to [Peter Hanson’s] father, Lee Hanson.”

[12] See “The Final Moments of United Flight 93,” Newsweek, 22 September 2001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067652) and Kerry Hall, “Flight Attendant Helped Fight Hijackers,” News & Record (Greensboro, N.C.), 21 September 2001 (http://webcache.news-record.com/legacy/photo/tradecenter/bradshaw21.htm).

[13] For the FBI’s presentation about the phone calls by Felt and Lyles from the Moussaoui trial, see http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html).

[14] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes: United 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back (New York: HarperCollins, 2002), 130.

[15] “Transcript of Tom’s Last Calls to Deena,” Tom Burnett Family Foundation (http://www.tomburnettfoundation.org/tomburnett_transcript.html).

[16] Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking (both editions), 18-20.

For reference

The original post is here -

David Ray Griffin Burrows Further Down the Rabbit Hole of No-Phone-Calls-From-the-Planes
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11860
(my version at work didn't show the links to it)

Glad to see some dialog on this issue here. Civility helps everyone move forward in discussions of the evidence.

SECOND

I agree with Victronix that this is an important discussion, and I have not made up my mind at this time.

As a best friend of Mr. K. for 25 years, I tend to agree with him, as I wonder about the multiple reports of guns on the planes and how a few people with only boxcutters could overpower whole airline crews, some of whom had advance warnings of hijackings.

There other piece of evidence not addressed by Dr. Griffin is the incorrect seat numbers given by Ong and Sweeney.

On the other hand, in favor of Dr. Griffin, if the 9/11 plotters already were able to blow up the Twin Towers, there is no reason why they couldn't do a little voice morphing.

Some brief comments:

1) In oppositon to Dr. Griffin, fooling someone with a voice morph is not the same thing as fooling someone with a voice morph conversation.

2) Has anyone analysed the statements made by Deena Burnett in the new History Channel "documentry"? I am wondering if what she said on that show sheds light into this discussion.

3) The phone calls most likely to be questionable or distorted are those calls which are the most publicized; Ted Olson & Todd Beamer. Calls not fully released are certain to be real; Ong.

At this time there is no proof of who is right.

Getting to the bottom of how fake-hijacking war games are conducted will go a long way to getting to the bottom of what happened on 9/11. Do the war game hijackers parachute out of the hijacked planes?

Respectfully Disagree (with one point)

Yes the cell phone calls were faked. Yes Kornkven's argument is poor and yes 9/11 was an inside job (just so you know where I'm coming from here).

I can't freakin wait for 9/11 Contradictions, but have to disagree with one point Griffin is making here.

"those who made the fake phone calls committed stupid errors. Such errors are exactly what one would expect. "

Griffin will probably school me too here, but if he is suggesting that the people that faked the calls were not well prepared, I disagree. I would also disagree that the "errors" are "errors" in the first place. If Griffin’s argument (not his whole response, just this one point) is that the volume of major screw ups with the official story are by mistake and are to be expected, I would have to disagree.

First off, they are evil bastards...but not stupid. Mistakes will happen, nothing goes perfectly, but these "mistakes" are huge. So large that one must at least wonder if they have purpose. I am not a huge Tarpley supporter, but his thesis that 9/11 was a Coup against Bush is pretty strong (9/11 Synthetic Terror).

In that light, these "errors" become tools whose use would be to ensure that Bush (and crew) start WW3 and try for martial law. It would be prudent, if you were pushing Bush to capitulate, to ensure that he (and his administration) know that they will take the fall when people wake up. They must act before this occurs. Thus it becomes a race. Start the war(s) or be exposed. They would even have thought about a Truth Movement popping up. It would be expected, just look at JFK. Leaving evidence that points to Bush would be smart, not stupid. The evidence would serve to ensure that Bush keeps his word. That’s why he flew all over the place on 9/11. That's why the secret service didn't jump on him and drag him out of that school. He was freaking out and being left hung out. There is just too much evidence that says Bush was far from behind 9/11. Tarpley would never say it, but his book would indicate that Bush was a victim too (sort of), of a coup. If this is true, then the errors are not errors. They are tools.

Are we really to believe that they would not have thought of a plausible reason for bringing down building 7 before hand? Would they not have had a fake tape of 77 hitting the pentagon? Could they not have provided some large wreckage in Shanksville? These are not that hard for people that can pull off what we saw happen on 9/11. But they didn’t. It could be because they are stupid...but I wouldn't bet on it. If we go down that road, we get lost. These are simple features of the official story. Are we to believe that they are too stupid to have thought of them before hand?

I would suggest that not having a plausible story for the cell phone calls, along with Building 7, the Pentagon 5 frames, NORAD taking a bio break for a couple hours etc were not errors. Again, I stipulate that nothing goes perfect and errors do occur, but would they not have thought of more plausible excuses for major portions of their story? These were left by design, much like Atta's luggage. And for the same reason, but with a twist. Not only do they point to Bush (throwing people off the true source) but they also motivate him to do what they told him to. Start the wars and take away rights before getting exposed. Remember, once he does it (or Hillary does it, btw) there will be no Truth Movement, not in its current form anyway. If we limit our argument to “Bush did it, and he is a moron” we miss the true evil, the source. We will also have a much harder time when it happens under the next president, republican or democrat. The “errors” give it away. They are too large to explain as “stupid.”

As 'competent' as they needed to be

Griffin writes: 'This administration appears to have been too incompetent to have orchestrated and covered up 9/11 well enough to have prevented the truth from being easily discovered if Congress and the press had done an even half-way decent job of raising questions. '

Ahh, but what he apparently neglects to consider in this formulation is that the performance of the press and Congress in this regard was 100% foreseeable. Even before 9/11--indeed, even before the coup that made Bush president in Nov.-Dec. 2000--the state of the republic (to the glee of the neocon Straussians, no doubt) was in serious disrepair. There was already the precedent that JFK's murderers were never effectively exposed, while any who questioned the official account in that case were derided as nut-job 'conspiracy theorists'. And in the intervening years, the degree of consolidation in media ownership, the dependence of members of Congress on contributions from the welathiest donors, and the permeation of society with mind-numbing corporate values just kept growing and growing. In this context of a seriously ill body politic, the odds of domestic false-flag terror being exposed as such though the major institutions of government and media (i.e., the odds that Congress and the press would do a 'half-way decent job of raising questions') were foreseeably very low. Add to that the shock effects of the acts of terror themselves, which lead emotions to overwhelm most people's capacity for logic and prepare the way for the mass acceptance of big lies (and mass resistance to the questioning of those lies).

In short: To suggest that the 'errors' on 9/11--the inconsistencies and implausibilities within the official story--were the result of 'incompetence' or 'stupidity' is to presume that the perpetrators were actually striving to carry things out so flawlessly to the point that 100% of the population would be 100% convinced of every aspect of the cover story. But why should this be presumed when clearly such flawless execution wasn't necessary for their purposes? And if they weren't aiming for flawlessness, then it is not accuarate to characterize coming up short in that regard as 'incompetence.'

But neither am I persuaded that we should consider the gaping holes in the official story as the result of some premeditated calcualtion on the part of the actual plotters. Even today, more than six years after the events, a large and still decisive portion of the public continues to be either ignorant of or in denial about these gaps in the official account. If the powers-that-be wished it to be otherwise, then public awareness and opinion on this could change dramatically. But instead we find an ongoing concerted effort to marginalize the movement to bring the falsity of the official story to light.

Another idea

Anyone ever consider that maybe the cell phone calls were possibly from genuinely distraught passengers witnessing something, but simply not made at the altitude at which they would have been impossible, i.e. made either on the ground, or at low altitude in a different plane? The multiple reports of cell phone calls, coupled with the impossibility of such calls at high altitudes, really tells us only one thing: that no cell phone calls from 9:28 to 9:55 could have originated from the plane commonly known as Flight 93, travelling above 30,000 feet during that period, based on the flight data recorder info on altitude released by the NTSB. If we could all just agree on that as a starting point, then we can work from there. The fact that the FBI no longer claims that most of these calls were cell phones doesn't necessarily invalidate all the prior reports - are we now to believe the FBI? In my view, there still remain many possibilities about how the calls - assuming they were made - originated, with either real or fake callers witnessing a real or fake hijacking, etc., but all we can state for sure is that the reported cell phone calls during the above period could simply have not come from that high-altitude plane - period.

A question for you, and Dr. Griffin....

"The fact that the FBI no longer claims that most of these calls were cell phones doesn't necessarily invalidate all the prior reports - are we now to believe the FBI?"

Here's a huge question for you as well as David Ray Griffin: did the FBI ever claim that any of these calls were made from cell phones? I have not been able to find any documentation that they did. All I have seen is a potpourri of media reports claiming the phone calls were from cell phones.

Someone please show me where the FBI, or the government in general, officially claimed these calls to have originated from cell phones. If no one can do that, I will assume that they never did, because they never had any evidence that these calls were from cell phones. Therefore, they did not "change their story" with the exhibit presented at the Moussoui trial. And therefore, Griffin's entire thesis hinges upon nothing more than a handful of media reports claiming the calls were from cell phones.

Flight 77 had FIVE CONNECTED CALLS

The FBI phone records exhibit presented at the Moussoui trial shows one connected call from Renee May to her parents, plus FOUR connected calls from an unknown caller to an unknown number for various durations between 102 and 274 seconds between 9:15 and 9:30 (where the does information like that come from???), so in the confusion of passnegers herded to the rear of the airplane, Barbara Olsen could have been talking on ANY of those four connected calls to her husband.

David Ray Griffin has constructed a STRAWMAN argument which, as the phone records and heresay on which the evidence is based can easily be altered, is surely to eventually discredit him and draw attention copmletely away from his otherwise excellent work.

Download the Moussoui evidence (exhibits) here:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php?sortby=exhibit

? ? ?

This is almost completely irrelevant.
How about the Israeli guys caught with the explosives in the van ?
'Go with what you know'

2 + 2 = ?

"Hummm... Interesting to see to this getting voted down," - Perry Mason

Just Kidding. Vote for this

Seriously - I have no problems with the '"Dancings Israelis". I enjoyed 'Fiddler on the Roof"
I've never seen a cell phone on the back of an airplane seat. ..Well ok - they all seemed to have them for a while...
But I never used them because... I knew they didn't work. I, personally, always used my shoe phone.

Then again - I'm not here for the phone calls....

9-11 was an Inside Job

9-11 was an Inside Job.
Just checking if this one gets voted down as well !

Three points

(1) Deena Burnett's statement that the first call was from her husband's mobile phone is interesting, but she is just one eyewitness. Eyewitnesses sometimes do not recall events correctly.

(2) The Moussaoui trial presentation does not say only two calls were placed by mobile phones. It merely implies this by only saying specifically that two calls (by Lyles and Felt) were placed from mobile phones. It is possible that other calls were made from cell phones, but the exhibit simply omits to mention this.

(3) The exhibit is clearly incomplete. Two calls are missing - one from Burnett and one from Sweeney to the former home of another flight attendant. Given that the exhibit is incomplete, why place reliance on it?

Your point 1 is not valid

Deena Burnett is not "just one eyewitness". She is the widow of one of the "heroes of Flight 93", and she received the calls in a most dramatic situation: she was witnessing the last minuters of her husband. In such a situation, people usually recall events very precisely, as every psychologist knows. And she has told the story with the ID number on her cell phone not only in her own book, but also in Longman's "Among the heroes".

This makes point 1 very implausible, Kevin.

Here are two recommended readings from John Doe II od team8plus.org, who has done the most extensive research on the phone calls and their oddities:

http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?4311

http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?288

That doesn't work

She is just one witness. Being somebody's widow does not make her two people. Telling the story repeatedly also does not make her two people. Not does it provide documentation to corroborate her story.

You write:
"... she received the calls in a most dramatic situation: she was witnessing the last minuters of her husband. In such a situation, people usually recall events very precisely, as every psychologist knows."

However, the exact opposite is true:
"Study after study (DOC) has confirmed a negative correlation between stress and the accuracy of eyewitness recall. That is, the more stress undergone by a witness at the time of an event, the lower her ability to recall the details of that event -- including the identity of the perpetrator."
http://eyeid.blogspot.com/2007/04/stress-effects-on-eyewitness-recall.html

"Research indicates that stress experienced by eyewitnesses during criminal events may be detrimental to later recollection of those events (c.f. Narby, Cutler, & Penrod, 1996),"
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32442630_ITM

More stress = worse recall.

I'm not talking about stress

I'm talking about the grave existential situation of Deena Burnett to speak with her husband during the last hour of his life. I thinks it's frivolous to claim that she uncorrectly recalls seeing his ID number on her phone. Also, she meticulously wrote down the details on paper that her husband told her. I don't buy any "amnesia" theory.

deleted

for dupe

deleted

for dupe

Logic and Critical Thinking

Butt heads with DRG on these and you will lose almost every time.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

Dr.Griffin's

efforts on the flight 93 calls is a technical argument that is very, very
diffucult to win. I hope his efforts there are worth it.

I would like to see him bring his understanding of 9/11 across our nations Universities. Since he was
a professor of religion & philosophy, this seems to be a natural
audience to network & build more awareness.

I have read that Duke's head of religion is also a 9/11 truther. Wouldn't an organization of our nation's
top moral & intellectual teachers be Dr.Griffin's natural truth base?

Is there any unifying efforts already in place @ the University level?

query

"I have read that Duke's head of religion is also a 9/11 truther."

If you can locate that, I'd love to read it.

m.

==================================================================
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

The reference may be to

Bruce Lawrence, head of the Religious Studies program at Duke, who called the Bin Laden confession video "bogus".

Since I certainly do NOT believe that the 19 flunkies were

box-cutting pilots to death & then flying airliners hundreds of miles, anything purported in any such phone calls is a lie!

Continue your arguments from there.

None of the phone calls says

None of the phone calls says anything about pilots being attacked with knives. The calls do, however, contain numerous reports of flight attendants and passengers being stabbed (as well as at least one report of a passenger being shot.)

The pilots were undoubtedly taken out with the guns mentioned by Tom Burnett and Betty Ong. That explains why virtually none of the eight pilots were able to relay any kind of distress signal to ATC. (A Cleveland Center controller heard "get out of here" from UAL93. Tapes are made of all transmissions from planes, but this one has not been released. Was it the voice of one of the pilots; or one of the hijackers?)

None of the phone calls mentions anything about anyone flying the planes. So the planes may very well have been navigated by remote control, while the passengers made their phone calls from the back-- trapped there by a wall of noxious gas placed by the hijackers in the middle of the plane.

Colombo, please don't make any comments rejecting the phone calls until you know what those phone calls actually say.

With respect to Andrew and Dr. Griffin...

All these scenarios are speculation.

We do not know what happened on those planes. You are both pushing a pet theory, and neither may be the truth.

Griffin says the calls were "voice morphed." Maybe, maybe not. For all we know some of these "victims" were "carefully prepared aliases" and on somebody's payroll, now on a beach somewhere. -->I'm not saying this happened. I'm saying that we don't know, and pretending we do is what gets us shot down in the mainstream press.

Andrew thinks the action movie plot special team hijacker bailing out of airliners happened. Maybe, but probably not. It's far less risky to simply hijack the plane remotely, gassing everyone onboard with a preplanted gas device (wasn't that the plot of some movie in the 90s?). --> Again, I'm not saying that happened.

What got my attention was Grifin's use of the trial evidence. DOES IT REALLY SAY WHAT HE SAYS IT SAYS? (Can someone post a transcript of the trial testimony?).

Because it seems to me that if FBI only talked about 2 calls, that isn't quite the same as saying there were ONLY 2 calls. Griffin is usually sharper than that, but I'd like to see the actual words for myself.

On the off chance that David Ray Griffin is reading this, I would also challenge his take on Silverstein's "pull it" quote, which has led far too many astray on a weak claim clearly taken out of context.

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/tales-of-911-truthiness.html

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

"Pull it" was NOT "taken out of context"

If that is what you are saying, I strongly disagree.

You can argue if he meant what some say he meant (either way, I suppose), but not the context.

Maybe the former is what you meant.

I also disagree that arguing that "pull it" meaning "destroy the building" is a "weak claim".

Silverstein is so old, that, IF he had any contact and experience with demolition prior to the 1970's (+/- – "in his youth" — which I haven't been able to find), when they ONLY "pulled" buildings (pre-CD), it would be quite natural for him to use the term "pull" to mean demolition. Someone should interview some demolition industry "old timers" about this.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

Do you know what "out of context" means?

Context A: pull (order a halt to) the firefighting operation

Context B: pull (demolish) the building down with explosives

These are not remotely in the same ballfield, nor the same city, nor the same physical universe.

"con·text (kŏn'těkst') Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting."

As context A is far more plausible, AND Silverstein has already sided with that interpretation, there is nothing to be gained from this erroneous line of slander, basically.

No impartial jury is going to say he meant "pull the building" when such an order to the "fire department commander" would be meaningless and impossible. The Context B interpretation makes no logical sense. Firemen don't run into out of control burning buildings with high explosives and wire them up to be "pulled." This is so nonsensical, I can't believe it is still taken seriously by otherwise serious people.

As long as the Context B interpretation is impossible, that leaves the obvious Context A.

They then want to fabricate a Context C, knowing that B doesn't work, and claim that's the real story. Silverstein's words aren't to be taken at face value (except for the "pull it" part).

Anyway, I would rather have this out with Griffin.

Apparently you don't know the meaning of the phrase

Even when you look it up and try to use it for your argument. You aren't even interpreting the definition correctly.

1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.

You're talking about the interpretation of the definition of the phrase "pull it", not that it was "taken out of context". It was not "taken out of context." You are misusing the phrase and the concept.

In context to his complete statement, you can interpret the meaning of the phrase "pull it" as meaning A or B. (although I think A is completely asinine, and was an obvious attempt at correcting a major error on his part – a major faux pas slip up and/or Freudian slip)

Plus your whole argument is nonsensical, because it has been admitted that there was no firefighting operation going on in WTC 7. (partly because some have admitted that there was no water to fight it with, supposedly) You're the only person, other than idiot jref-ers and other skepters, who I've seen even make that claim at this late date.

That is, there were "no people to pull." (if anything, that proves B much more strongly than A)

Your logic is so skewed with comments like "As long as the Context B interpretation is impossible, that leaves the obvious Context A." that I don't know if it's just funny or sad.

You seriously need to take some upper-level college courses on Logic and Critical Thinking.

I suggest you do not try to talk to DRG about this, because he will seriously make you look and feel very stupid.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

You see why I don't want to waste my time...

with people who don't want to understand the arguments.

In full, one more time:

"Even when you look it up and try to use it for your argument. You aren't even interpreting the definition correctly.

1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.

You're talking about the interpretation of the definition of the phrase "pull it", not that it was "taken out of context". It was not "taken out of context." You are misusing the phrase and the concept."

I'm determining the context for those, like yourself, who have trouble with it. The phrase "pull it" was taken out of the context of a call from the "Fire Department Commander" about "loss of life." Such a call, and such a context , has nothing whatsoever to do with demolition.

"In context to his complete statement, you can interpret the meaning of the phrase "pull it" as meaning A or B."

Nonsense. Building owners don't "order" the fire department to blow up their skyscrapers. It's an absurd claim on its face. If someone is rigging a building for demolition, it ain't the NYFD.

" (although I think A is completely asinine, and was an obvious attempt at correcting a major error on his part – a major faux pas slip up and/or Freudian slip)

Plus your whole argument is nonsensical, because it has been admitted that there was no firefighting operation going on in WTC 7."

There was a firefighting operation AT WTC7 until it was ordered to cease. Whether it was "in" or "out" of the building is not discussed in the Silverstein quote. Therefore misrepresenting the situation (on your part) that it had to be inside the building in order for the claim to make any sense is clearly an error.

"(partly because some have admitted that there was no water to fight it with, supposedly)"

Which is a great reason to "pull it," and stop bothering to put the fire out.

" You're the only person, other than idiot jref-ers and other skepters, who I've seen even make that claim at this late date."

The truth is timeless. The claim is completely worthless and dishonest, given that it can be assailed in six different ways. We have a nasty reputation of pushing bad info in order to make "troofer" claims, and some of that is justified and brought on by people parroting what they were told.

When you are clearly shown that your claim is bullshit, or at the very least, suspect, yet you continue to bring it up at every lecture, in every film, I find that self defeating and DISHONEST.

"That is, there were "no people to pull." (if anything, that proves B much more strongly than A)"

The whole of lower Manhattan was crawling with firemen. This was obviously a conversation about not wanting to risk any more lives at WTC7, nothing more.

"Your logic is so skewed with comments like "As long as the Context B interpretation is impossible, that leaves the obvious Context A." that I don't know if it's just funny or sad."

Context B is the laughable one. No one tells "Fire Department Commanders" to demolish a skyscraper because it's on fire! This is monstrously stupid! You hand the "debunkers" the very ammo they need so badly to destroy you.

"You seriously need to take some upper-level college courses on Logic and Critical Thinking."

Been there. Have you?

"I suggest you do not try to talk to DRG about this, because he will seriously make you look and feel very stupid."

Your arguments were addressed, countered and dispensed in my first article on this, which you obviously failed to read.

It is your a priori dismissal of valid criticism that is the issue here. That and your blind acceptance of obvious mistakes in understanding the context of the call.

You were told, originally, that the Silverstein quote had to mean this, and you refuse to look at other possibilities.

Spare me the condescending gibberish, because you have no demonstrable right to claim the logical high ground.

Tales of 9/11 Truthiness
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/tales-of-911-truthiness.html

not Transcripts, but here are the Exhibits

The FBI phone records exhibit presented at the Moussoui trial shows for Flight 77 (Pentagon crash) that there was one connected call from Renee May to her parents, plus FOUR connected calls from an unknown caller to an unknown number for various durations between 102 and 274 seconds between 9:15 and 9:30 (where the *^&% does crappy information like that come from???).

So, in the confusion of passengers herded to the rear of the airplane, Barbara Olsen could have been talking on ANY of those four connected calls to her husband. That the FBI did not speculate which two of the four calls were hers DOES NOT lead to Dr. Griffins conclusion that "THEREFORE" the FBI is contradicting in court the justice department's prior story. The Justice department made their statements based on Ted Olsen's statements that he received two calls from his wife, he could not say with certainty what type of phone or even whose phone she used.

David Ray Griffin has constructed a STRAWMAN argument which, as the phone records and heresay on which the evidence is based can easily be altered, is surely to eventually discredit him and draw attention copmletely away from his otherwise excellent work.

Download the Moussoui evidence (exhibits) here:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php?sortby=exhibit

Let's See Some Black Boxes Already!

There were a total of 8 black boxes on these 4 planes, each containing a Flight Data Recorder and a Cockpit Voice Recorder. Where are they? Who's seen them? "What do they say?" Since one was apparently never recovered from GZ, that leaves 7 that the American people have not had any access to.

And where is the ACTUAL plane that supposedly crashed in the PA field? Officially, 90% was recovered, so where is it and why can't anybody see the damn thing? Where are the remains from what hit the Pentagon? It is up to our government to prove to us that this was AA Flight 77, not up to us to prove what it might have been. And why can't we see the 80+ VIDEOS of what approached and crashed into the Pentagon? A few still-frames that are inconclusive just don't cut it. The Pentagon is the most heavily surveilled office building on the planet. Let's see your videos.

So, all this speculation about cell phone calls is interesting, but beside the point. We need to demand access to evidence. Let's examine the NORAD tapes we now have access to. And let's confirm thermite arson via residue in WTC debris and dust.

Otherwise we're in "theory land."

A few quick points.....

Exactly why the cover-up team would do this---put out a story that anyone knowing anything about cell phone technology would know to be false---is not made clear. -D.R. Griffin

I made it very clear, David, why they would do this. They had seen that some very damaging information had been relayed in the calls from Ong, Burnett, etc. They knew the official story would be in big trouble if people started looking at the records of those calls. So they started a disinfo campaign to discredit all the calls by labeling some of them as (impossible) cell phone calls. In that respect, Ted Olson's tales make perfect sense: his lies also served to discredit all the calls and lead us to disregard the evidence provided in the authentic calls from Ong, Burnett, Sweeney and Felt.

Their campaign has obviously worked brilliantly.

"But whatever be the supposed motive, the idea is implausible. For one thing, some of the reports of cell phone calls occurred on 9/11 itself.[11] It is unlikely that even Michael Chertoff could have worked that quickly." -D.R.G.

The reason some of the calls were immediately reported as cellphone calls is because some of them were cellphone calls! You have conceded that such calls are indeed possible when the planes are at lower altitude and slower speeds.

lower altitude?

Tom Burnett's first call - the one who was recognized by Deena through his ID number - occurred at 9:27.

At 9:27, Flight 93 was at cruising altitude, i.e. about 30000 ft. According to the official story.

So we have an (alleged) cell phone call from 30000 ft.

At least two were reported well over 30,000 ft, at normal speeds

From the 9/11 cOmmission and FAA:

Quote:
"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."

Scroll down to "United Airlines Flight 93" section:
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/08-23-04/discussion.cgi.42.html

Quote:
United 93 took off from Newark at 8:42. It was more than 40 minutes late. At 9:28, United 93 acknowledged a transmission from the controller. This was the last normal contact the FAA had with United 93.

Less than a minute later, the Cleveland controller and the pilots of aircraft in the vicinity heard “a radio transmission of unintelligible sounds of possible screaming or a struggle from an unknown origin …”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007/

Quote:
9/11 commission staff statement No. 17
The text as submitted to the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

June 17, 2004

Between 9:34 and 9:38, the controller observed United 93 climbing to 40,700 feet and immediately moved several aircraft out of its way. The controller continued to try to contact United 93, and asked whether the pilot could confirm that he had been hijacked. There was no response.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007/

Below are documented reports of when two of the (alleged) cell phone calls were made. When compared to the 9/11 cOmmission's own timeline, it becomes quite clear that these calls must have (allegedly) been made above 30,000 feet.

Quote:
Flight 93: Forty lives, one destiny

Sunday, October 28, 2001

...She recalls it was around 6:20 a.m. -- 9:20 Eastern time.

It was Tom (Burnett).

"Are you all right?" she asked.

"No. I'm on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. The plane has been hijacked. We are in the air. They've already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI."

Deena Burnett dialed 911...

...Around 9:30, Deena Burnett's phone rang again. It was Tom.

"He didn't sound frightened, but he was speaking faster than he normally would," she said. He told her the hijackers were in the cockpit.

"I told him a lot of planes had been hijacked, that they don't know how many," she said.

"You've got to be kidding," he replied.

"No," she said.

Were they commercial planes, airliners, he asked her. She didn't know.

"OK," he said, "I've got to go." He hung up.

Deena looked at the television. The Pentagon suddenly appeared, a hole torn into its side by an oncoming airplane. She wondered if it was her husband's flight. Deena Burnett started crying...

Link to article:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

Several reports that corroborate the time of Tom Burnett's (alleged) calls to his wife using his cell phone:
Quote:
(From cooperativeresearch.org's 9/11 Timeline)

(9:27 a.m.): Flight 93 Passenger Tom Burnett Calls Wife, Mentions Bomb, Knife, and Gun

Tom Burnett calls his wife, Deena, using a cell phone and says, “I'm on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. The plane has been hijacked. We are in the air. they've already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI.” Deena connects to emergency 9-1-1. [ABC News, 9/12/01; Longman, 2002, pp 107; MSNBC, 7/30/02; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/01 (B); Toronto Sun, 9/16/01]

...This is the first of over 30 phone calls by passengers inside the plane. [MSNBC, 7/30/02]

Source:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_ti...

From "Tom Burnett Family Foundation":
6:27 a.m.( pacific time) First cell phone call from Tom to Deena

* Deena: Hello
* Tom: Deena
* Deena: Tom, are you O.K.?
* Tom: No, I’m not. I’m on an airplane that has been hijacked.
* Deena: hijacked?
* Tom: Yes, They just knifed a guy.
* Deena: A passenger?
* Tom: Yes.
* Deena: Where are you? Are you in the air?
* Tom: Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It’s United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities. He hung up.

6:31 Deena calls 911

6:34 The phone rang in on call waiting, Tom’s second cell phone call.

* Deena: Hello
* Tom: They’re in the cockpit. The guy they knifed is dead.
* Deena: He’s dead?
* Tom: Yes. I tried to help him, but I couldn’t get a pulse.
* Deena: Tom, they are hijacking planes all up and down the east coast. They are taking them and hitting designated targets. They’ve already hit both towers of the World Trade Center.
* Tom: They’re talking about crashing this plane. (a pause) Oh my God. It’s a suicide mission…(he then tells people sitting around him)
* Deena: Who are you talking to?
* Tom: My seatmate. Do you know which airline is involved?
* Deena: No, they don’t know if they’re commercial airlines or not. The newsreporters are speculating cargo planes, private planes and commercial. No one knows.
* Tom: How many planes are there?
* Deena: They’re not sure, at least three. Maybe more.
* Tom: O.K….O.K….Do you know who is involved?
* Deena: No.
* Tom: We’re turning back toward New York. We’re going back to the World Trade Center. No, wait, we’re turning back the other way. We’re going south.
* Deena: What do you see?
* Tom: Just a minute, I’m looking. I don’t see anything, we’re over a rural area. It’s just fields. I’ve gotta go.
* He hung up.

Source:
http://tomburnettfoundation.org/tomburnett_transcript.html

And here's how Deena identified that it was her husband (allegedly) calling her using his cell phone:

Quote:
Widow tells of poignant last calls
By Greg Gordon -- Bee Washington Bureau

Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, September 11, 2002

[SNIP]

Their conversation was so brief that Deena was unable to tell Tom about the other planes. Her heart racing, she phoned an emergency number and was patched through to the FBI.

The FBI agent was understandably confused, thinking she was phoning about one of the planes that had already hit the World Trade Center towers. "No, no, this is a third plane," she insisted.

They were interrupted by another call. Deena's caller ID told her it was Tom. This time, he told her the terrorists were in the cockpit. "The guy they knifed is dead," he said.

[SNIP]

Source:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/4351212p-5372600c.html

So there's the proof that at least two of the cell calls were (allegedly) made at normal cruising speed and altitudes above 30,000 feet according to the FAA, the 9/11 cOmmission and Tom Burnett's wife Deena.

Here's what (we're told) happened:

Flight 93 was traveling a normal flight path at an altitude of "35,000 feet above eastern Ohio" before the FAA lost contact with the pilots in the cockpit at "9:28 a.m.". They then observed the plane on radar drop "700 feet" -- and "between 9:34 and 9:38" an FAA controller observed United 93 "climbing to 40,700 feet and immediately moved several aircraft out of its way."

Tom Burnett (allegedly) called his wife the first time using a cell phone, in which Deena Burnett's caller ID (allegedly) confirmed it was Tom's cell phone calling her, just before "hijackers" entered Flight 93's cockpit at "9:27 a.m."

He then (allegedly) called her again using his cell phone a few minutes later to tell her that the "hijackers" had entered the cockpit.

Related:

Transcript of Tom’s last calls to Deena
http://tomburnettfoundation.org/tomburnett_transcript.html

New cell phone technology allows call from flights?
What about all those 9/11 calls?
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911cellphonecalls

”Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network, because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high.”
Washington Post, 12/9/04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50320-2004Dec9.html

“Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past.”
San Francisco Chronicle, 12/15/04
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/15/MNGUMAC6L...

'Project Achilles' - altitude cellphone experiment
parts 1, 2 & 3
by A. K. Dewdney
http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/cell-phones.htm

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

Multiway Deception Techniques

Some points to throw in the ring. Think like evil at multiple levels of deception to grok 9-11.

(1) Red-team hijackers were role-playing the wargames/drills that unexpectedly (to them) "went live" and became 9-11. Anti-hijacking "units under test" were not supposed to smash red team into skyscrapers. Red team expected remote control to land them safely to collect paychecks, after fake arrests by blue team.

(2) Passengers knew nothing about anything. The normal passengers reacted to a perceived hijacking.

(3) True, on the doomed planes was the stray Mossad observer (referee?), defense industry bigshot (tech expert?), etc. They knew things, but probably thought like Atta: this is a system test. Whoever assigned their seats knew they would die. Nice way to get rid of some people. From Atta's viewpoint, their presence confirmed illusions of a wargame, rather than a setup.

(4) 9-11 had top-secret mil-tech flying around, monitoring these games. Ergo, phone possibilities go beyond your basics.

Airborne command posts carry racks of radio gear. They could easily intercept and amplify cell signals to ground. Possibly, they secure-downlinked 9-11 calls to military ground receivers, which in turn uplinked to civilian cell towers. If you are Dick Cheney, you *want* those calls going through, so they play on Nightly News, and you get splendid little wars.

I doubt passengers thought about cell reception, and if they did at all, just figured God made a special miracle.

Remember: practically ALL perception of this event as a "hijacking" hangs on the calls. (No terror group claimed responsibility in the aftermath.) Plans for the "drama story" were not neglected. The wargames were designed to provoke civilian reactions on those planes.

Obviously cell calls were impossible under normal conditions. But if you have a top secret E4B relaying calls for you, that is another story. So the FBI might even be telling the partial truth - they were cell calls - but not the whole truth - they were relayed to ground by military command birds for mass agitprop on the eve of preplanned, illegal war.

(5) There was also outright Freemason lying by T. Olsen and others about some calls. Some calls were less creditworthy than others, for sure.

(6) Voice morphing is easy for intel boys and possible too, in with all the above, or stand-alone. I mean, NBC gets some tape mailed from CIA that says 9-11 calls on the package, so what else does NBC know about it? It goes on TV and we have "created new realities."

Okay? Just some ideas here, not proofs, just thoughts. Bottom line is, some calls could have been "for real," but without giving the whole story. So there is a sort of middle ground here.

Excellent post

"Think like evil at multiple levels of deception to grok 9-11."

Anyone else starting to experience grok-fatigue?

You win the award..

...for most speculation per word than anyone here!

I find your plots wonderful for Hollywood, yet not so plausible for 9/11.

How many "conspirators" do you believe were involved, and why would so many go along?

Please Defend Dr. Griffin

The JREFers are trashing Dr. Griffin. I have posted defense of Dr. Griffin, and invite you also to do the same.

Here is the link: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95692&page=2