David Ray Griffin - Barbara Olson’s Alleged Call from AA 77: A Correction about Onboard Phones

(This is a mirror of the Information Clearing House post. -r.)

Barbara Olson’s Alleged Call from AA 77:
A Correction about Onboard Phones

David Ray Griffin
May 7, 2007

In my recently released book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking (1), I claimed that Boeing 757s made for American Airlines did not have seat-back phones or any other onboard telephones.

This claim, if true, would be very important, because one could use it, as I did, to argue that the alleged telephone call from Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson, could not have occurred. It might be thought, to be sure, that the call could have been made from her cell phone. Ted Olson did, in fact, make this claim at times. As I reported, however, the evidence indicates that cell phone calls from high-flying airliners would not have been possible in 2001, given the cell phone technology of the time. In any case, Ted Olson, after going back and forth between these two claims, finally settled on the claim that the calls were made on a seat-back phone. If Flight 77, being an AA Boeing 757, had no onboard phones, we would have to conclude that Olson’s claim could not be true. I myself drew that conclusion (while saying that this would leave open the question of whether Olson invented the story or was himself a victim, like the relatives of other passengers, of faked phone calls).

My Error

I based my conclusion on conversations that Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan had with American Airlines in 2004 while they were co-authoring book. In this book, 9/11 Revealed, they said: “A call by us to American Airlines’ London Office produced a definitive statement from Laeti Hyver that (AA’s) 757s do not have Airfones. This was confirmed by an email from AA in the US.” (2)

Although this email correspondence was not printed in their book, or in Morgan’s later Flight 93 Revealed, in which it is also reported, (3) they allowed me to print it in Debunking 9/11 Debunking. In reply to their letter asking whether “757s (are) fitted with phones that passengers can use,” an AA spokesman wrote: “American Airlines 757s do not have onboard phones for passenger use.” To check on the possibility that Barbara Olson might have borrowed a phone intended for crew use, they asked, “(A)re there any onboard phones at all on AA 757s, i.e., that could be used either by passengers or cabin crew?” The response was: “AA 757s do not have any onboard phones, either for passenger or crew use. Crew have other means of communication available.” (4)

The conclusion that Barbara Olson could not have made a call using an onboard phone seemed further confirmed by a page on the AA website that says, “Worldwide satellite communications are available on American Airlines' Boeing 777 and Boeing 767,” with no mention of AA’s Boeing 757.

My mistake, like that of Henshall and Rowland before me, was to assume that the AA spokesperson and this website were talking about AA 757s as they had always been, not simply about 757s at the time of the query, in 2004.

But the latter was evidently the meaning. Elias Davidsson, an Icelandic member of the 9/11 truth movement, sent me a story from February 6, 2002, which said: “American Airlines will discontinue its AT&T in-flight phone service by March 31, a spokesman for the airline said Wednesday.” (5) Davidsson also reported a 1998 photograph of the inside of an AA 757 showing that it did have seat-back phones. (6)

Reasons for Still Doubting the Olson Calls

Does this evidence, that Flight 77 did have seat-back phones, mean that we must infer that Barbara Olson’s alleged call to Ted Olson really occurred? Of course not. All the reasons that had previously been given for doubting it still hold.

One problem with the story about this call is that Barbara Olson was the only person on the plane who allegedly used a seat-back phone to call someone. There were, in fact, only two people altogether from this flight who allegedly made any calls, the other one being flight attendant Renee May, who supposedly used a cell phone to call her parents. Moreover, Barbara Olson reported, according to her husband, that all the passengers and crew members had been herded to the back of the plane. Yet we are supposed to believe that none of the other people, seeing Barbara Olson make two phone calls, grabbed one of the other seat-back phones to make their own calls. We are also supposed to believe that no one else, while seeing Renee May use her cell phone, decided to use their own cell phones to call someone. This scenario is extremely implausible.

Another problem with Ted Olson’s story is that he has repeatedly changed his claim about the means his wife used to make the calls. Three days after 9/11, Olson suggested on one TV show that the call was made on a seat-back phone. Then, on another show that same day, he suggested that his wife had used her cell phone. Six months later, he returned to his first story, saying: “She wasn't using her cellphone, she was using the phone in the passengers' seats. . . . [S]he was calling collect.” (7) One would think that the details of this call---his final conversation with his wife before she died---would have been burned so indelibly into his memory that he would not have said different things at different times.

There is, however, an even more serious problem, which was stated in an essay by Rowland Morgan in 2004: “Ted Olson could give his adherents closure, and shut his critics up,” Morgan pointed out, “by simply producing the Department of Justice’s telephone accounts, showing a couple of hefty reverse-charges entries charged from Flight 77’s Airfone number at around about 9:20 AM on 11th September, 2001.” (8)

This passage, incidentally, evidently played a role in another error I made, this one entirely my own doing. My text contains this statement: “He [Ted Olson] later produced Department of Justice telephone accounts purportedly showing that there were two reverse-charge calls from Flight 77’s Airfone number about 9:20 a.m. on September 11, 2001.” (9) When I came across this statement as I was re-reading my account, I was puzzled by the fact that it had no reference. Why had I not given the source for such an important claim? In looking for this source, I discovered the just-quoted statement from Morgan’s essay. I am completely baffled about how this error occurred. Perhaps during my note-taking process, I somehow transformed Morgan’s hypothetical scenario into an actual fact. (This transformation could not, of course, be explained as either deliberate distortion or wishful reading on my part, because the DOJ records, if they had actually been produced, would have significantly strengthened the case for the truth of Ted Olson’s claim about the calls.) But whatever the explanation, this error, like the more important one discussed earlier, will be corrected in the second printing of Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

My error, however, serves to highlight the problem, which is: If Barbara Olson’s calls were made to the DOJ (Department of Justice), as Ted Olson claims, why has neither he nor anyone else produced records showing the occurrence of those calls? The conclusion that no such records exist is reinforced, Morgan and Henshall have pointed out, (10) by the fact that, according to The 9/11 Commission Report, the FBI’s report on the issue, “American Airlines Airphone [sic] Usage,” makes no mention of DOJ records. It merely refers to four “connected calls to unknown numbers.” The 9/11 Commission commented: “The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of [these four calls] represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office.” (11) The serious problem with this comment is not that according to Ted Olson, he received only two calls from his wife, not four. The serious problem is that, if the DOJ had received any of these calls, the FBI, which is part of the DOJ, could have easily produced the records. The fact that they did not implies that these calls were not received.

Having mentioned three problems with Ted Olson’s story, I will conclude with a fourth. According to CNN, which first reported his statements, Olson said that his wife had reported that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane” by hijackers armed with “knives and cardboard cutters.” (12) The pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a big, athletic man, of whom his brother said: "I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane." (13) According to the Olson story, however, they did not kill him but took him, along with his co-pilot and the rest of the flight personnel, as well as all the passengers, to the back of the plane. Is it plausible that these 60-some people, led by Chic Burlingame, would not have easily overpowered three or four rather small hijackers (14) ---Hani Hanjour and perhaps one other hijacker would have been in the cockpit---armed with knives and box-cutters? If this does not qualify as an absurd conspiracy theory, what would?

For all these reasons, the evidence that AA 77 did have seat-back phones does little to reinstate the credibility of the claim that Ted Olson actually received calls from his wife on that flight. (15)


In this brief essay, I have tried to exemplify what I have always said people should do when they find that they have made errors, especially about issues of great importance: Correct them quickly, forthrightly, and publicly. I assume that now NIST, Popular Mechanics, and the 9/11 Commission will retract the dozens of errors that have been pointed out in their reports.



1. David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 266-67.

2. Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2005), 128-29.

3. Rowland Morgan, Flight 93 Revealed: What Really Happened on the 9/11 ‘Let’s Roll’ Flight? (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2006), 52.

4. The letter of inquiry, which was written at the instigation of Ian Henshall, was sent December 6, 2004. The response from American Airlines was sent the same day.

5. Sam Ames, “Airlines Are Throwing Away Those Phones Built into the Seats, and They’re Blaming It All on Cell Phones,” CNET News.com (http://news.com.com/2100-1033-831093.html). The second part of this title, incidentally, did not mean that passengers were making in-flight cell phone calls. Rather, the story, in explaining why “passengers just weren't using the in-flight service," said that airline policy “allows passengers to make mobile phone calls until the aircraft doors close before takeoff.”

6. Email from Elias Davidsson, May 6, 2007. For the photograph, see http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0020665/L .

7. Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001; Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html); and Toby Harnden, “She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://www.tobyharnden.com/interviews_archive2.htm) .

8. Rowland Morgan, “Barbara Olson’s Call from Flight 77 Never Happened,” Global Echo, December 2, 2004 (http://globalecho.org/view_article.php?aid=2434).

9. Debunking 9/11 Debunking, 266.

10. Morgan and Henshall, 9/11 Revealed, 127.

11. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Authorized Edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004), 455 n. 57.

12. Tim O'Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN, September 12, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).

13. “In Memoriam: Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame, 1949-2001,” USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html).

14. According to 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 16, discussing the [alleged] hijackers in general, even “[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5-5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build” (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf). My thanks to Matthew Everett for this reference.

15. Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan join me in retracting the claim about no in-cabin phones on AA 757s in 2001 and also in pointing out various reasons why the alleged call from Barbara Olson is nonetheless still very doubtful (email from Rowland Morgan, May 6, 2007).

Just started the book.

And it is good. Michael Bonner's Vanity Fair piece has been annihilated in the first section that I have read.

This book is well worth getting, correction noted.

Faked phone calls.

Faked phone calls. Seriously?

I am cringing.

With the loads of other information out there, why would anyone want to bother with this topic?

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

because different evidence

because different evidence sways different people. CD may be all it takes for one person to wake up while another cant see CD at all. the Pentagon has recruited many members to the cause despite it being a "honey-pot" or "distraction". the circumstantial evidence my be all it takes to sway one person while another might just say "its all lies on paper, you cant prove it" but be swayed by something physical. faked phone calls are hardly the best evidence weve got but i see no reason to ignore it. imagine how many people we would have failed to reach if we took that same line of reasoning with CD. you may not agree with or like that CD is pushed so hard but can you really deny that it has helped our cause?

cellphones at great height and speed

Having just finished the book I can't help but disagree with those who feel the phones are not a strong piece of evidence. This particular correction is obviously a bummer but the central fact that cell phones could not have been used remains a major problem for the official story.

Speaking more generally, Griffin's book is a powerful tool for any conversation regarding 9/11. Every single person out there who has ever cited popular mechanics, NIST, etc.. can now be succintly told they are dead wrong and this is why. By pointing out the evidence, and then juxtaposing it with the transparently deceptive official rebuttals, the case for an inside job has never been stronger.

According to my Earth 2007 syllabus, this book is required for the class. I just ordered six more copies.

at least he admits

to being wrong about something when it is shown to him. I wish the entire issue and conclusion was dropped however.

Show "he's not wrong" by wolfowitz in sh...

Those faked phone calls were crucial to the "official lie"

because it was the only means to reinforce the "19 supermen commandeered 4 airliners" myth.

Show "supermen indeed" by wolfowitz in sh...
Show "replying to my own shit...." by wolfowitz in sh...
Show "Deja Vu All Over Again" by JamesB

I know what you mean...


I experienced the same frustrating response merely for raising the point that this was weaker evidence and more speculative than other clear contradictions in the offical story.

We can all forgive Dr. Griffin for his oversight, but we should be less patient with those who attempt to shout down 'anyone' who asks a question. This entire pursuit is about asking questions, and if we cannot ask them of ourselves and of eachother--in faith that the truth will not be easily muddied by even the most corrupt of disinformationist--then this movement is not as strong as we thought.

Truth needs to be revealed not protected. Encourage questioning and we will move that closer to it.


sorry, must have been habit

Really James, I would normally be sympathetic because I am a firm believer in no one being beyond criticism, including DRG. The problem is that this just happens to be one legitimate correction you made amidst a slew of deliberate obfuscations, distortions, and omissions that are the coin of the realm in bedunkerland. you'll note that we never claim to be perfect and in fact often admit when we are wrong, which is exactly how we have come to understand so much about what happened on 9/11 in the face of such grotesque lies littering the path to the truth.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Show "You admit you are wrong?" by JamesB

"Conspiracy theorists are never wrong"

Yeah, tell me about it, Mongo. No matter how many times the 'official conspiracy theory' changes there's always the more simple among us to parrot it.

Look! One of Nico Haupt's stenographers!

I'm flattered--you HAD to blog my pics at Screw Loose--clearly, though I'm banned, I'm not forgotten.

Now why is it you blogged my picture promoting DRG book-- but you do NOT blog the fact you've banned me, humm? I'd think it would be a joyous occasion....

Guilty conscience, Jimbo? All you had to do was apologize for LYING about me...

Hey, how you weathering the JREF Smack Down, chum?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I knew this was weak.

Corroboration ... who worked on THAT plane? What was the serial number and what do the numerous records show?

Griffin jumped -- not too gracefully into that one. The sources sounded fishy, and they are.

An unpublished email? Yeah, I'll stake my reputation on that. Why hasn't Griffin contacted American Airlines personnel?

It's just disappointing.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.


I don't feel much disappointment. It is but one piece among hundreds. And Griffin still makes a coherent argument regardless. And he did indeed exemplify precisely what one should do when new information alters an argument. Thus he makes the even more important argument with respect to the hacks at NIST, FEMA and PM...... if you don't admit error and correct a hypothesis upon receipt of any potentially disconfirming information -- you lose all ... ALL credibility. Griffin just further established his.

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

I like Griffin's talks. I

I like Griffin's talks. I think he is a very good public (speaking) face to introduce people to the truth. He's very non-threatening and seems trustworthy. However, I started reading "The New Pearl Harbor"... In my opinion it wasn't the strongest possible presentation. The language is a bit too on the "layman" side. He should have been more descriptive. I was also getting the impression that the sources might not have been that thoroughly vetted. I only read a bit of it though. I'm definitely going to check out "Debunking". I think he's probably stronger as a public speaker...
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine


Which book would you recommend to give to someone who is intellectually inclined but a newbie to 911 truth?
One of Griffin's? If so which one?
If not, then which one, and why?


My recs

I recommend this article, because it's a good summary of the evidence.


I recommend 9/11 and American Empire, because scholars of various disciplines look at 9/11. It includes an article by Griffin.


Abdullah -

By newbie do you mean that they are open to alternative theories or realize that there are serious problems with the government theory but want/need more information or is this someone who is a critical thinker but is totally new to the subject?

Let me run down a few of my favorites for you:

The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin

His first book and one that still stands up quite well. He carefully leads the reader through all the possible levels of government complicity and logically shows why elements within the government had to have been involved in making 9/11 happen.

9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott

This excellent group of essays is best suited for someone who already knows (or strongly suspects) that some level of US government involvement occurred and wants a broader understanding of the historical context of 9/11. I consider this book to be the single best, concise book on 9/11and a must have.

Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin

Griffin's latest book is best for those who already have a good understanding of the alternative theories and are interested in a fact and logic based refutation of the most popular counter-arguments which attempt to maintain the government myth. The introduction alone is worth the price of the book.

The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson

This is an excellent reference that destroys the government myth by using msm news stories. It can also be read as an introduction to 9/11 truth if one is attracted to the approach it takes.

America’s “War On Terrorism” by Michel Chossudovsky

This excellent book of short chapters covers a lot of territory, shows the government myth of 9/11 to be false and explores the role of western intelligence agencies in creating and managing "terrorists".

Towers of Deception by Barrie Zwicker

This excellent book is a very good introduction to 9/11 truth and has a special focus on the role of the media as it relates to 9/11.

The War On Truth by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

This very broad and deep exploration of the subject clearly documents the connections between western intelligence agencies and "terrorists" and details the orgins of the "global war on terror" as a strategy of tension to replace the cold war.

Crossing the Rubicon by Michael C. Ruppert

One of the originals (and the first book I read on 9/11), this book examines 9/11 as a police detective would. While some fault it for its emphasis on Peak Oil, I think it still stands up as one of the best and most readable books on 9/11.

9/11: Synthetic Terror Made in USA by Webster G. Tarpley

This is a very scholarly book that is quite thorough in its examination of 9/11 and its historical context. The author has a unique theory regarding the role of President Bush in the 9/11 operation which some people take exception to. This is a good introductory book for educated critical thinkers.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask specific questions about any of these books.

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

Thank you...

Thank you both for your recommendations.

I meant someone who is a critical thinker but totally new to 911 truth. He wouldn't be too surprised to find out that 911 was a false flag operation, but he says he hasn't seen any evidence for that yet.

Anyway, I think the two books at the top of your list would be the best ones for this person -- The New Pearl Harbour, and 911 and the American Empire.

Thanks again for your help.

"Towers of Deception" by Barrie Zwicker is a great book, and

great DVD is also included free with it.

All the phone calls made from airliners on 9/11 are bogus,

because to believe them to be true, you must presume that 19 flunkies stormed cockpits, turned jets around, & flew hundreds of miles to find & strike their targets--which is totally ludicrous!!!

(Review "Operation Northwoods" of 45 years ago: drone airplanes, impostor passengers, staged funerals for non-existent victims, etc.)

Turning around

This raises a question I wanted to raise.

According to Chapter 1 of the 9/11 Commission Report, passenger called from Flight 175 at 9:00:


At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:

It's getting bad, Dad-A stewardess was stabbed-They seem to have knives and Mace-They said they have a bomb-It's getting very bad on the plane-Passengers are throwing up and getting sick-The plane is making jerky movements-I don't think the pilot is flying the plane-I think we are going down-I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building-Don't worry, Dad- If it happens, it'll be very fast-My God, my God.49

49. See FBI report of investigation, interview of Lee Hanson, Sept. 11, 2001.

It strikes me as odd that Hanson said "Chicago or someplace," because the plane had supposedly turned towards New York City at this point. Based on my experience as a passenger, it seems to me that a passenger would notice that the plane had reversed direction in the last 5 minutes. Looking at the flight path and timeline in Chapter 1, the plane turned 90 degrees at approximately 8:55, then turned 90 degrees toward New York City at 8:58, 2 minutes before Hanson's call.


that was me on D-Kos mocking you for always having your comments hidden. I was talking about your comments here being hidden, not there.

Meteor Blades(one of the top dog hot shits) sent me a nasty email, and took away my trusted user status.

I sent him a nastier email, and he gave me my trusted user status back. It was a major victory in my internet life.

Those hard headed bastards may actually be coming around. Slowly but surely.

Oh. Hello.

Daily Kos is weird - I can't tell if my comments are hidden there.

My comments are only hidden here when I talk about THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT YOU HARD HEADED BASTARDS DON"T GET but must remain unnamed. Don't worry, I don't talk about that at D-Kos, as denial must be overcome in steps.

A funny thing happened today. I was in the middle of arguing about 9/11, and suddenly my troll-rating capacity returned. It's a sign! With pleasure, I troll-rated the putz that sticks a tin foil hat on his cat's head, after he lectured me about a rule I'm not breaking and threatened to report me to the teacher. I may get in trouble for this. :-(

I think you are right about people at D-Kos coming around. I see more and more a sense that there is nothing that the current regime would not do.

Ningen -

Does this mean that you're not reviewing the applicable laws of physics necessary to understand quantitatively how the planes could enter the Towers in the manner the video presents?

I hope that you and your physics studies are all well.

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

Hello, LeftWright

I think this guy explains it quite nicely:


No, I haven't had time to look at Greg Jenkins center of mass argument. I know that he assumes the plane is a rigid projectile, which is just wrong. The MIT prof did it also, along with other unrealistic assumptions. It's simply a way to explain away what is obvious in the videos above, and what the MIT prof knew as common sense before he explained it away.

So no, LeftWright, I'm not engaged in physics studies. When I get around to it, I'll let you know. I posted Greg's article and informed readers it may refute my work, to let people decide for themselves.

Just watch the video. If you really think that seamless perforation is real, then yes, you are in denial, as deep as that of the folks at Daily Kos that can't admit that the government's story is a lie.

Ningen, jets flying 500 mph can pierce office buildings. Stop

trying to interject the "no real planes" at the WTC junk. Thank you.

Devil's advocate--

But it's the WAY the building was pierced that does look odd. No, Jenny's not going to the dark, or even dim, side--just pointing out it IS a good point--shouldn't bits of the building be cracking and falling of in chunks from the impact? And some bits of the plane that didn't go through? Or maybe the wall was pre weaked to MAKE SURE not only the plane entered completely, but that NO EVIDENCE fell to the street?

That said--this IS NOT our strongest evidence.


I DO believe aircraft hit WTC 1 and 2.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Burn the witch! Burn the witch!

Oh wait, I guess you recanted in that last sentence.


Thanks casseia, you rock!

Please allow me to buy you a drink when I'm in Portland for the DRG event. I hope that Col. Sparks will allow me to buy her one, too.

(Please excuse me while I venture off into Monty Python land now....LOL)

Cheers, y'all!

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

500 mph?

That speed is based on the faked videos. And even if they were going that fast, they would not pierce the buildings without resistance, deformation, bucking, etc. They are made of aluminum, for god's sake.

The planes weigh 100 tons each

for goodness sakes.

If you are unwilling to learn the physics and properly understand the quantitative analysis that will overcome your qualitative impression, then I'm afraid you're not honoring our agreement and, more importantly, you are being intellectually dishonest.

If this seems unduly harsh to you, call it tough love.

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

I am aware of how much they weigh

and how fast they were supposedly going. I am also aware that materials do matter - the planes are far more fragile than the towers. The MIT prof acknowledged that the observed perforation defied the common sense of him and others in the engineering community. He then cobbled together a model that treated the wings as a rigid projectile, which they are not. The fuselage is even more delicate, and less massive, than the wings with their engines.

You are not being harsh - you are talking nonsense. No offense is taken.

I'll get around to looking at Jenkins' argument when I have time. The flaws in his argument are those stated above. Qualitative analysis is more than adequate, and articulated quite well by Jeff King.

nauseatingly ignorant

nauseatingly ignorant nuisance getting on everyone's nerves -- n.i.n.g.e.n.

interns < internets

More witless wit

If you and Greg Jenkins can answer the two questions here:


to my satisfaction, I will stop being a "nuisance."

The same goes for you, LeftWright. You talk about how obvious this is. Go to my blog, and tell me why it is so obvious that an aluminum fuselage penetrates a steel building as shown in the NIST photos cited as physical by Greg Jenkins.

I am not at a spot where I

I am not at a spot where I can listen to that clip, however I will assume it is the same clip which is from an old Tarpley interview with Nico Haupt and Jeff King.. I only post this because I told Jeff King I would if I saw his name brought up in the context of supporting such theories..

The following two quotes are from Jeff King:

Actually I do think that planes hit the Twin Towers, though probably not the specified passenger liners. There is some funny business that makes me think that they were specially rigged in some way, but I have never questioned that some kind of real, physical planes hit the buildings.

The Tarpley interview is here: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/index.htm#ti

The confusion about my being a "no planer" comes from the first part of the show which is an interview with Nico Haupt. Nico is something of an odd character, and was going on about some kind of nanotechnology being the key to 9-11(influenced by Karl Schwarz I believe). It made no sense to me, and my part of the interview dealt only with controlled demolition. Nico was very disruptive at the 9/11/04 NYC conference, and many consider him a disinfo agent.

This is a total misrepresentation: I did not "chime in" with Nico about no planes. I had the misfortune of following him on Tarpley's show, and had no control over that. He ran over into the second hour, and Tarpley tried to segue by asking me some questions while still talking to Haupt.

I said nothing to endorse his ideas, which in any case were so confusing that I don't even know what he was claiming. If there is other disinfo out there linking me to this, please let me know so I can go to the source.

The Holmgren stuff that Ningen linked above for the newbie

to read contains fake planes at the WTC junk.

Why the hell would the perps attempt to choreograph projected images/cartoons of planes with pre-planted explosive in the shape of a plane on the towers--when they could just fly real planes or drones into the towers???

Show "Junk?" by Ningen

Thank you, dz

That's good to know.

That changes nothing about what King said. He articulates how the videos of a crash of a Boeing 767 are unphysical. If he wants to believe something else hit, that's fine. Perhaps it did, though if he is saying it was some other type of plane, he is taking a leap of logic because any plane would exhibit similar behavior. If it is some special reinforced plane, that is essentially a missile. Regardless, this is important information, is it not? And it fits with the drone theories that I think are improbable but are welcomed here.

The tapes are gone from the link you gave. I don't know when King said these things -- was it during the March 25 interview with Tarpley?

I read the thread -- King says he is not a "no planer" and disassociates himself with Nico Haupt, in the face of DLBS's typical abuse. He is still articulating why we can not be watching Flight 175 hit the South Tower in those videos. I would be curious to know what "special rigging " of a plane could result in the plane not interacting with the tower wall.

Quantification of the obvious

This reminds of the debate I had at DailyKos with "Caj":


Speaking of quantification of the obvious

BYU math professor Kenneth Kuttler appears to do that wonderfully here:


I say "appears" because I can't check the math. But he seems to be confirming how I conceptualized the problem.

I'm waiting for someone to quantify the obvious on the planes. Greg Jenkins didn't do that by citing NIST's version of the plane perforation, and talking about the completely different Sandia event.

I went too far

In one night, I went from Trusted User (for about one hour) to banned.

Oh well, I got to troll rate the jerk that posts the picture of his cat in a tinfoil hat as his response to serious discussions of 9/11 . He's the one that got me banned.

My biggest regret is not losing the opportunity to discuss 9/11 -- I only did that when a relevant diary appeared. My biggest regret is losing the opportunity to hammer on the "cruise missile humanitarians" that think that Kosovo was genocide and our dropping of cluster bombs on Serbian civilians was just fine and dandy, and not a precedent for Iraq often cited by torture lawyer John Yoo.


Oddly, one of my most speculative comments was the most popular:


You were banned?

You just gotta pick your spots, and pick your subjects.

I got 50 something recs for this...


Nice job

I got banned for not giving in to Bouwerie Boy. I still maintain that I did not violate the rule stated in the FAQ, which prohibits only authoring and recommending disapproved diaries. Bouwerie Boy insisted it included comments, so I troll-rated him, and he reported me to the authorities.

Perhaps I should have quit while I was ahead. I was happy to get comments in on denial of the obvious, and on the first responders bearing the costs saved by demolition of the building without complying with environmental and occupational safety regulations.

Am I banned if my log in still works but I cannot comment?

I think so.

That's what it's been like for me for months and months (though I was never a trusted user.) I swear, sometimes Kos makes me angrier than W (I know it's irrational.)

The lack of down-rating

suggests to me I was misunderstood. I am assuming the authenticity of the Hanson call, and find it odd he though the plane was still headed west..

I am just wondering did any

I am just wondering did any of those cellphone statement with those incoming calls ever documented? Did the families ever present them to anyone??


Over at dailykos, a diary went up highlighting the fact that Tenet in his new book has actually admitted that he lied to the 9/11 Commission when he said he didn't talk with Bush between the Aug PDB and 9/11. It's not being troll rated or dismissed.


if it's allowed on kos

You can be sure it is irrelevant at best to knowing what actually happened on 9/11. Does anyone here not yet understand that kos is a gatekeeper extraordinaire, and that what he lets through is more than likely disinfo or a distraction at best?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


My friend...

...is a TOTAL liberal/progressive/sellout/toe-the-line/consumerist, Chomsky reading, Jon Stewart watching, Al Gore ass-kissing democrat, robot-zombie.

He is always talking about Daily Kos. That should tell you something.

I like Jon Stewart too though...

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

It fits the incompetence theory

So it is not only allowed but encouraged.

There is lots of discussion of General Ahmed, ISI, etc., with no troll ratings or talk of banning.

kos is down with Patsystan

of course, go figure huh! they also are very happy to allow Sibel Edmonds stories. i hope people are taking notes--see http://wtcdemolition.com/traitorkos.html

didja know kos' birthday is September 11?

From the Daily Kos FAQ:

Controversial 9/11 Diaries

DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:

refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse
Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Kos.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


admission of guilt, no?

"refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse
Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Kos."




I am not going to get into an endless discussion regarding DailyKos site, but I will stop to say you should check your stance, as it leaves no room for daylight for that site, and the users I would hope you are attempting to reach...

Kos doesn't filter content, the users of the site do; ie; they are our problem, not specifically kos the human... Well sure, his "faq" acts as a "rule" filter, and if your post appeared in a thread over there, it would be troll rated in a heartbeat;;; you win, and are right.

Butttt, IMHO, your stance defeats any attempts to get 911 truth beyond this web site and prisonplanet et al...

Kos site wouldn't talk vote tamp\elections manipulation, till the USA issue revealed that vote tamp manipulations were/are a work in progress...

I was DrWAR in the eighties, in the military, and IT consult now, and pretty much knew that the stink of bullshit was thicke on the media story since January 2002 (Dr War is acro for Direction, Runway, Wind, Altimetre, Report , which is a sequence reminder for tower operators... rated atc twr operator and gca man for eight plus years...)

Folks at kos, many with young uids like mine (2160 or so..) are skeptics, we just accept that the lord of the site controls the focus, and if we want to delve deep, this is the place to do it...

The truth will win out, and Kos site will show it, but not in quoted Mark Twain patriot style, and that my friend is indeed a shame, and I believe a calculated trade for relevance and influence against the five corp behemoths, for to have allowed 911 truth in the early years of DailyKos woudl have Dean screamed the site into ridiculed obscurity... which ironically is what you are trying to do here, only on a much smaller, less influential scale...


RF in NH

no dice

Aside from the FAQ kos allows users to flat out tell lies about 9/11. if he wants to say well that's the trusted users not him, he's still in trouble because it's been pointed out to him and he has done nothing. sorry, I realize that kos is maybe thinking he chose poorly, but it's his bed and he's going to lie in it (no pun intended).


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Somewhat OT:

WMD document 'must be released'

"It became infamous after a BBC report suggested it had been inserted into the dossier against the wishes of the intelligence services, as Number 10 sought to "sex up" the case for war.

That report prompted a row between the government and the BBC, which ended with the death of the source for the story, government WMD expert Dr David Kelly.

His death was then investigated by the Hutton inquiry, which concluded that he had committed suicide and that the 45 minute claim was in the dossier with the full blessing of the then chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett, who is now head of MI6."


That's cool if he is

being honest & accurate.

Has anyone ever met him or know him personally?

While I'm disappointed that

While I'm disappointed that this wasn't found before the book was published, I commend Dr. Griffin for making a public "errata" for the mistake. Could you imagine what the Popular Mechanics errata would be like? It would be twice as long as the book.

By the way, great book. If you haven't gotten it yet I suggest you do so.


see comment above

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

LOL - pop mech errata!

PM needs hardcore erratica...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


"Hardcore erratica", well

"Hardcore erratica", well done. :-)

If you are in the Harvard area, I hope you are going to the William Rodriguez event over in Allston (take a right instead of a left to get onto Rt 90 coming from Harvard and go straight for a just over a mile). You can get details at the Boston 911 Truth site.

If you are interested in putting up fliers (good ones) in Harvard Square or in the Harvard facilities send me an e-mail at my name here @gmail.com.

You'll probably see fliers up there starting tomorrow but the more the better.


Dr. Griffin has just earned even more of my respect than he already had. It takes being a man to admit mistakes. He has always acknowledged and corrected his errors; the 2nd edition of TNPH contained some minor corrections. DRG is a man with integrity, unlike the bedunkers.

A small book or booklet could be written on the phone calls

alone. Many of them are unrealistically long and filled with absurd wording, e.g.,

stewardess Betty Ong phones a reservations desk [why a reservations desk?], and keeps telling them, "I'm #3, I'm in my jump seat....the pilots aren't answering us"?

Another experienced stewardess says, "I see water, I see buildings"--instead of stating that she sees the NYC skyline.

Mark Bingham says, "It's Mark Bingham mom, you believe me, don't you mom?"

Barbara Olson asks her bureaucrat husband, "what should I tell the pilots?"


Do you really know...

what in the world might be going through the minds of coming out of the mouths of someone on a hijacked plane. I don't think the OT holds up, but parroting these phone calls as inconsistencies is circumstantial and speculative at best.

How a quote "sounded" will never disprove that it was made. For example, in an interview with Mark Bingham's mom, she described how Mark sometimes joked with her by answering the phone this way since he was so used to the formality of his business environment. Unless you've been under the insane duress of the situation you're trying to disprove you should be less sure that it couldn't have happened this way. Not that it did, but (cell phone reception aside), it could have.

Stick to evidence we can work with. Lets keep aiming for phone records and scientific analysis of cell phone functioning at high altitude but leave the highly speculative script analysis to Hollywood.


There is tons of evidence demonstrating that those Arabs were

idiot patsies that couldn't fly Cessnas properly. So why should we believe that they ripped the controls of airliners away from the pilots & successfully flew them hundreds of miles, found there targets, & struck them???

You see, since no one was boxcutting pilots to death & flying airliners, the phone calls that report this are FICTITIOUS!

OT: Tonight on Truth Revolution Radio

Activist How-to with Luke

9 PM pacific Listen live

CALL IN 1-888-202-1984


The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Is it possible to make collect calls?

I thought you had to have a credit card to use the phone at all. Has Rowland Morgan retracted his arguments to this effect?


What's the problem?

It does not make sense that people think this is "not strong evidence" or "an issue not worth pursuing".

Something like this is ABSOLUTE evidence and therefore ABSOLUTE proof.

One of the few we actually have. (!!!)

The only problem is that it has been so long now, and since a real investigation wasn't done into it back when it SHOULD have been done, they could fake any evidence they want now.

However, since it's a good probability that cell phones did not work while in the air, and that they have now changed their official story to "she used a seat-back phone" anyway, it is a simple matter of checking records. (that, unfortunately, could have been faked by now)

You could NOT make a "collect phone call" from an airplane seat back phone.
You HAD to use a credit card. (which is recorded)
The airplane companies DO keep records of these calls, as well.
The receiving phone call is also logged by the phone company.

This is some of the most simple, pure, perfect evidence and proof we could ask for.

So, what's the problem?

I question ANYONE who tries to dissuade people from discussing this or pursuing it.

As for DRG, no one is perfect, mistakes and errors and the like are made in books all the time by every author (that's why we have "errata" and corrected editions), and anyone who claims this is some "big thing" is an obvious Idiot, and good for DRG for clarifying his "error" and seeking the truth no matter what. It's too bad more people don't do that.

What the hell is wrong with people, anyway?

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent


Are you talking to me?

I asked two questions, which you answered. I didn't say anything about whether this is good evidence. In fact, I'm suggesting that it still is, and that Morgan's research on this issue is still valid.

But if you want my opinion, I think DRG was sloppy on a sensitive issue. I think he needs to do more fact-checking of the research he cites, and should have the money to hire students to do that, given all the books he has sold.

Logical consequences of David Ray Griffin’s conclusion

1. Ted Olson is of course lying, regardless of any other conclusion!

2. Barbara Olson is alive and well.
[In which case, she is probably hiding on a remote island in the Pacific. Has anyone investigated Ted’s movements, or any of their children’s/relatives’ since?]

3. Barbara is alive but she has an incurable disease (in addition to the Alzheimer’s, for example,) and is hospitalized in a secure place until eventual death.

4. Barbara Olson died prior to 9/11 and it wouldn’t hurt her one bit even if she learned how her husband’s employers used her in their conspiracy theory cover story.

5. Barbara had an incurable disease, which Ted and the cabal knew about. She was hospitalized shortly before 9/11 in a secure location and died sometime after 9/11.
[Has anyone investigated Barbara Olson’s movements, her whereabouts leading to 9-11, or her medical history?]

6. Ted wanted Barbara dead and the government’s 9/11 plot provided the opportunity. In that case, she must have been murdered either by Ted, or by a hired assassin.
[Does anyone know of a motive, monetary or otherwise, why Ted might have wanted Barbara murdered? Is there any record of how much money Ted Olson has received from life insurance policies and from the government?]

I think this says it all.

"it is easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out." - Ted Olson addressing the Supreme Court.

The Motive

Very interesting! I wonder what “legitimate reasons” Ted O. would cite in his own defense, greed, passion, or blackmail? Or could it be that he was one of the architects of 9/11?

Babs Olson

was an aging beauty... more likely she got some plastic surgery and is posing as an au pair from sweden in the Olson household. the possibilities are endless--not only do people (ken lay, david halberstam, et al) fake their deaths routinely now, but the witness protection program has made people "disappear" for decades. it's not any kind of crazy to suggest that a good number of people faked their deaths on 9/11. think of the rewards--a new life, no debt, victims compensation money funneled to you by your nearest and dearest. it's that easy. those who use the families as a shield are quite adamant that no one question ANY of the alleged deaths on 9/11. double plus supicious if you ask me!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


I too wonder about the

I too wonder about the wisdom of insisting that the cell phone calls were faked. Also I think DRG misses the point of the Vanity Fair essay about the NORAD tapes. These tapes confirmed the confusion that was present both within the FAA and NORAD due to the war games that were going on, and confirms the inadequacy of the 911 Commission report yet again.

I think you miss the point about the NORAD tapes

They were edited and/or doctored in such a way as to paint a picture of confusion and incompetence and to exonerate the military at the expense of the FAA. We need all the tapes and transcripts from all sources and complete testimony from everyone involved in the air traffic/ air defense systems that day.

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

But I think the NEADS people quoted

were genuinely confused. It concerns me greatly that DRG is attacking evidence that shows this.

On the one hand, DRG is questioning whether Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. On the other hand, he is attacking evidence that suggests that there was no plane, and the NEADS people were genuinely confused because they could not determine whether planes were real or just "damn inputs." They were getting their information from CNN.

DRG needs to decide what he is arguing, so that he can evaluate the evidence in a coherent fashion. His conflicting positions ultimately serve to bolster the official story.


Indeed, that is Bonner's intent, but what that piece ultimately does is attempt to exonerate NORAD of blame, shifting it to FAA.

The problem is, that the story that Bonner claims is told by the tapes does not jive with multiple accounts of the morning of 9/11, some of the accounts provided by NORAD officials, FAA employees, and members of the military. Some accounts told to the 9/11 Commission in 2003, then changed in 2004 for the Report.

Griffin's first essay on this topic covers the basic lies;

"9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes Verify The 9/11 Commission Report?"

But he has substantially fleshed it out in "Debunking".

I have no idea why . . .

you were down-rated on this. I agree with you about the confusion shown in the Vanity Fair tapes. I have no idea whether they are authentic, but that seems more likely than the use of voice morphing that Griffin proposes.


I havent received my copy of the book yet but cant wait.
DRG did the right thing by pointing out this oversight.
I think this phone call evidence is very important, in this digital age where every phone number we call is logged on several different databases, the fact that none of these records have been produced for the Olson calls for example speaks volumes.


As regards the phone call issue, several things are puzzling me.
If as seems likely, that TEd Olson is lying about the phone conversations with his wife some points
spring to mind.
1-If Ted Olson is lying and part of the plot:, did he know before 9/11 that his wife was going to die on flight 77?
2-If the calls were fake, she too must also have been part of the plot, was she even on the plane??
3-If the calls are fake, is it possible that barbara is still alive?
4-If she is still alive, is it possible that a little digging into the Olson family may reveal this?
5- Even If she did die on 9/11, if the calls are fake then Ted must be in on it, could a little of the same digging reveal him to have connections in some way to US Goverment agencies/CIA etc

The main reason for my interest in this, is that if the truth movement could "out" one of these people like Ted Olson, who has participated in fabricating the myth, even (as seems likely) if he did'nt realise at the time what he was doing, it would be a very important step forward for the movement.

didn't ted olson help bush steal the election in 2000?

i think he did...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


thats a big yes.

thats a big yes. he has been a very useful tool, perhaps more useful than we will ever know.

Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of America, US Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out."


oo good answer... how about this one...

Did Ted Olson collect $1.5 million dollars from the "Alleged Victim's" Compensation Hush Fund?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


not only that....

but i hear that he has the inside track on Gonzo's job when he finally takes a dive. as you can see he is the perfect man for the job(ignore the Clinton dickriding):

GOP Floating Ted Olson, Head of 1990s Anti-Clinton ‘Arkansas Project,’ for AG

During the 1990s, the GOP ran a stealth disinformation campaign against the Clintons, the prototype for Swiftboating, out of the offices of the American Spectator, a rightwing magazine. Internally, the operation was called the Arkansas Project, but Hillary famously referred to it as a “vast rightwing conspiracy.” It was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife and its CEO was Ted Olson.

At the same time, Olson’s wife, Barbara, was one of a cadre of wingnut blondes — the others were Ann Coulter, Kellyann Fitzpatrick and Laura Ingraham — who were given untold hours of face time on cable news to bash the Clintons with rumors and innuendos, much of which was processed through the Arkansas Project. Barbara, the author of a bizarrely nasty screed titled “Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” died on the plane that hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

In late 2000, Ted Olson argued for the Bush/Cheney campaign in Bush v. Gore. For this, he was rewarded with the position of solicitor general, a job once held by his friend Ken Starr, the Whitewater special investigator. You’ll recall that it was Starr who spent $60 million of the taxpayers’ money to smear the Clintons with allegations, much of which were generated by the Arkansas Project. In the end, Starr came up emptyhanded except for an unrelated sex lie and stained blue dress.


I hear Michael Chertoff is also a contender

funny how these things are decided eh?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


seriously though, how

seriously though, how disgusting is it to think that this guy got millions in victims compensation if his wife is indeed still alive? im not about to commit one way or the other on that one but considering the kind of person Olson seems to be its not hard to believe its possible.

The Mother of All Lies About 9/11

The Mother of All Lies About 9/11
Barbara Olson's "Phone Call" From Flight 77


That is a great article, a must read, regarding Olson's phone

call you linked to above!

agreed--a MUST READ

we need to discuss and verify but it makes mondo sense.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force



This type of assertion -- "my wife called me from a plane at x time" - is an investigator's dream because it is easily confirmed or proven false. There would be no less than 2 (most likely 3 and maybe 4) records of such a call if it actually took place: 1) the telephone company; and 2) the DOJ phone records. If she used a seat back phone, the credit card company would also, of course, have a record of the transaction, and the Airline would also likely have a record.

In the face of so many questions/doubts with respect to Olson's story, the fact that none of these easily obtainable records have ever been produced should lead a reasonable person to conclude that they do not exist.

Which leads me to ask those who know: Have ANY of the cell phone/air phone calls ever been independently confirmed by such records?

Let me just add to this fantastic thread we've made here that

isn't it so very odd that the only calls from flight AA-77 were made by a FOX/CNN reporter to her NeoCon husband???

Since Babs made several, clear, lengthly calls to her Hubby without problem, why didn't anyone else make a call to someone???

(P.S. I hope DRG reads this entire thread!)

Fake issue.

"That speed is based on the faked videos."

This is some of the most retarded bullshit I've ever come across, and is clearly emanating from disinformation sources. The useful idiots parrot the nonsense, but the source is delibate and malignant.

There are no "faked videos." That is one of the most asinine "arguments" ever put out.

Grow up. This garbage is not worth one second of any of our time.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

'Fetzer Special?'

We must note that Fetzer wrote a book attacking the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination (arguably the best evidence of conspiracy) saying that it had somehow been "faked" by CIA or whomever.

This looks like Fetzer's special nonsense argument on crack. Instead of faking one video, the networks (and private citizens with camcorders!) all colluded to perfectly fake ALL VIDEOS OF THE PLANE IMPACTS!

If I wasn't reading this with my own three eyes I wouldn't believe it was possible for people to seriously present this crap.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

I've heard that Fetzer bashed the Zapruder film & supported the

"Governments' Version" of JFK's murder. I'm going to double-check into Fetzer & JFK. If true, I'll be convinced that Fetzer was a left-gatekeeper back then & now.

he doesnt support the

he doesnt support the governments version of the murder but he also doesnt support the Zapruder film and thinks that its a fake. shades of "video fakery" even back then. Fetzer is a "professional" if you know what i mean. hes worse than a left gatekeeper because he doesnt just stay silent on important issues but he tries to co-opt and kill any movement that could be dangerous to the government/power structure. he did it with JFK and now hes trying to do it with 9/11. would LOVE to know whos really paying him.

no doubt

I now cringe when I think back to when I gave him the email address of one of my friends on the faculty here. He said something along the lines of "all his published books seem to be JFK conspiracy things..." and did not mean it as a compliment. I also gave him a copy of Loose Change which he said had a few interesting points but that they were overshadowed by what he considered the obnoxious tone of the narrator's voice. He specifically said that when at the end the narrator asks "Are you angry yet?" he felt like answering "Yeah, buddy, at you!" At the time I thought he was overreacting and being unfair but knowing what I know now I am not one bit surprised that I have to this day failed to get this prof to accept the truth (he remains, in deference to what he says is his respect for my honesty and intelligence, skeptically agnostic.) I also gave him a copy of Omissions and Distortions which he never read. Can you imagine, though, if this Harvard prof had fallen for Fetzer's pitch and then had to explain himself when Fetzer went off the deep end? Can you imagine how word would get around Harvard of what a trap this stuff was? Live, learn, and improve. And never give a scoundrel a second chance.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


you should give him a copy

you should give him a copy of Zwicker's book and MAKE him read it somehow. for someone in his profession i have to believe it would be the most effective tool(its very good at shaming people for falling for the official story,haha). his reaction to Loose Change sounds kind of irrational though. regardless of what you think of the narration or tone of the film it has enough verifiable infomation to shatter or at least cast SERIOUS doubt on the official story doesnt it? but we wont get into that argument again, haha. as far as Fetzer goes, i too fell for his bullshit(or at least tolerated his bullshit)for a time before he went off the deep end with Judy. i actually wasnt all that aware of his JFK work though, i just didnt feel a need to look at it considering how much JFK info ive read before. i think the book he co-authored about Wellstone was great and his early work on 9/11 was important at a time when almost no professors or otherwise were speaking out about 9/11. then he obviously saw how much momentum we were having and made a decision that it was time to do his best to take down the 9/11 truth movement. soon after i found out about his JFK obfuscation and wasnt at all surprised.

Are you talking to me?

The speed is based on the videos, says NIST.

The videos are faked, says me and anyone not in denial of the obvious.

Maybe something else hit -- doesn't matter. There's no evidence it hit at 500 mph, because that speed is based on the faked videos.