Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory
February 11, 2011 By
by Erik Larson
February 10, 2011
Beginning with his book New Pearl Harbor (2004) David Ray Griffin raised questions concerning the veracity of reports of phone calls from the 9/11 hijacked airliners, specifically, Ted Olson’s account. Since at least 2006, he has promoted a theory that the 9/11 plane passenger phone calls were faked, and has speculated this was done with ‘voice-morphing’ technology. He’s done this in many different articles, in books, in speaking appearances, in interviews on radio and television, and in a debate with Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine. In his 1/12/10 essay, Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners: Response to Questions Evoked by My Fifth Estate Interview, David Ray Griffin gives the most comprehensive overview of this theory to date, as well as a response to critics, which include people who support a new 9/11 investigation. A Professor Emeritus and skilled rhetorician, Griffin makes a case that is seemingly compelling. However, as I show in this essay, there is no actual evidence the phone calls were faked, while there is a substantial body of evidence demonstrating the calls were not only possible, but did happen. There are many credible reasons to doubt the official 9/11 story and support a full investigation, but the cause of compelling a new 9/11 investigation is undermined by the promotion of theories that are flawed, and not based on hard evidence. In addition, the claim that the phone calls were faked is obviously offensive to those family members who spoke with passengers before they died, and it has the potential to drive a wedge between truth and justice activists and potential allies among the family members, many of whom support a full investigation.
Besides these shortcomings, Griffin himself pointed out in 2008 that promoting theories is not only unnecessary, but can work to the advantage of ‘debunkers’:
I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this … No, you don’t have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that’s what the debunkers love, they want to say, that’s nonsense and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false.
Certainly, ‘debunker’ websites such as 9/11 Myths have easily exposed flaws in the voice morphing theory: For instance, though the technology existed at the time, the inventor, George Papcun, has commented that voice-morphing a conversation in near real time would be more complex than fabricating a simple recorded statement, and would require an extensive recording as a sample. It would be even more difficult to fool the subject’s family members, who, in addition to being familiar with the person’s voice, would be familiar with their unique communication style and intimate details of their lives. One victim, Linda Gronlund, even left the combination to her safe on her sister’s voice mail. None of the family members who spoke with the passengers, or heard the messages they left, had any doubts it was their loved ones who called. Finally, some of those who made calls hadn’t booked their flights until the day before 9/11, meaning it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get an adequate voice sample, even assuming the perpetrators could tap anyone’s phone at anytime: Jeremy Glick, Mark Bingham, Honor Elizabeth Wainio and possibly Ed Felt. Some, including Griffin in previous essays, have suggested that Mark Bingham’s use of his full name when speaking to his mother is suspicious. First, it would be very unlikely that persons faking phone calls would introduce an element that would be a red flag to their family and outside observers. Second, Bingham’s mother (who has a different last name: Hoglan) has said that he did this on occasion; is it realistic to think voice-morphing perps learned this idiosyncrasy at the last minute and exploited it, let alone base accusations on it?
Richard Gage Clarification of his CIT “Flyover” Statement
December 4, 2009 By
“Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT’s “National Security Alert” in which I recommended that we all take a closer look at the eyewitness accounts supporting the “North path” of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT’s investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth’s focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn’t perform an exhaustive review of CIT’s material and methods. My quick statement should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT’s conclusion that the airliner ‘flew over’ the Pentagon.”
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
See Related Items-
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Jim Hoffman
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Dr. Frank Legge
To Con a Movement- Exposing CIT’s Pentacon ‘Magic Show’
Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I)
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Dr. Frank Legge, PhD
September 30, 2009 By
This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes Dr. Frank Legge, PhD to the program. Dr. Legge is a chemist and serves as a co-editor at the Journal of 9-11 Studies. He has contributed many essays and papers on the topic of September 11th, including his role in the peer reviewed article titled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9-11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.
This interview focuses on Dr. Legge’s new essay is titled What Hit the Pentagon? and is published in it’s latest version (v.5) at the Journal of 9-11 Studies. This essay’s leading hypothesis states that:
The major hypothesis is that various groups within the 9/11 truth movement are strongly asserting contradictory views and hence weakening the credibility of the movement as a whole. The damage is exacerbated if the supporters of these views not only disagree but also attack one another.
Dr. Legge also includes a minor hypothesis which says:
The minor hypothesis of the paper is that there is no scientific proof that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon.
Both hypotheses are examined as well as the idea that the “no plane at the Pentagon” theory is a booby trap for the entire movement. This idea states that if members of the 9-11 movement continue to promote this “no plane” theory as fact, that as our efforts become increasingly mainstream, we run the risk of the government producing a video of AA 77 actually hitting the Pentagon. We know the government has many videos which they have deliberately withheld from the public. What little information we have been given through official channels has only fueled the “no plane” argument. If a video were released tomorrow, it is suggested that this would thrust the entire movement into disarray as well as be used in the media to discredit us and irrevocably damage our credibility.
Also of importance in Dr. Legge’s essay is the section on The Precautionary Principle. We at Visibility 9-11 endorse this approach and caution listeners and visitors to do your homework and only present to the public that information which is solidly documented or backed up by scientific research.
Lastly, is a brief mention of the fine work of John Bursill in hosting 4 events in Australia and New Zealand during the month of November. The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under 2009 will feature my guest Dr. Legge as well as other solid and reputable members of the movement, and providing to the public only the best evidence we have. Thanks to John Bursill for pulling together such a fine line-up and for setting a great example for everyone to follow when it comes to bringing to the public only that information which can be solidly proven. If you want to help with the costs associated with these conferences, which are largely being funded by John himself, please send an email to johnbursill@gmail.com.
Direct Download this episode of Visibility 9-11 or listen in the embedded player above.
CIT and Eyewitness Testimony
August 26, 2009 By
Based upon 13 eyewitness accounts Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) asserts that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. These witnesses testify that the flight path of American Airlines Flight 77 was slightly different than that of the official story and the testimony of many other witnesses. CIT sees this as proof, that in a massive slight of hand, the jet flew over the building while explosives were detonated. Ignoring the contradicting testimony and the massive amount of witnesses who actually saw the plane hit the building, let’s examine the many problems with basing a case solely on eyewitness testimony.
Want to hear about a mass case of faulty memory at an air show that directly correlates to the type of eyewitness testimony CIT has gathered? Even better, want to experience your own false memory? Grab a pen and paper and hit play!
“Eyewitness identification evidence is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the more than 200 people exonerated by way of DNA evidence in the US, over 75% were wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous eyewitness identification evidence. In England, the Criminal Law Review Committee, writing in 1971, stated that cases of mistaken identification “constitute by far the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong convictions”. Yet despite substantial anecdotal and scientific support for the proposition that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, it is held in high regard by jurors in criminal trials, even when ‘far outweighed by evidence of innocence.’ In the words of former US Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, there is “nothing more convincing [to a jury] than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says ‘That’s the one!'” – Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification http://innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
Criminal Law Review Committee Eleventh Report, Cmnd 4991
Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness Evidence 9 (1979).
Watkins v. Souders, 449 U.S. 341, 352 (1982) (Brennan, J. dissenting).
The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony
a talk by
Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology
and George Fisher, Professor of Law
Laura Engelhardt
“Courts, lawyers and police officers are now aware of the ability of third parties to introduce false memories to witnesses. For this reason, lawyers closely question witnesses regarding the accuracy of their memories and about any possible “assistance” from others in the formation of their present memories.” – Sources: http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/f&tfootnotes.htm#5
Eyewitnesses who recalled explosions in the Twin Towers and Building 7 are supported by peer-reviewed scientific research. Nano-thermite is the murder weapon!
Related Info:
Debunking the Citizen Investigation Team Hoax
CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION, PART 1: THE PREVIOUSLY SUSPICIOUS FATHER MCGRAW REDUX: THE MASTER OPUS
CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART II: THE LADIES OF 13th AND POE (summary)
CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART III: ROUGHSHOD OVER THE SUSPICIOUS ONES
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes 9-11 Researcher Jim Hoffman
August 4, 2009 By
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Researcher Jim Hoffman
This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes back to the program long time 9-11 researcher Jim Hoffman. Jim is a software engineer who has specialized in developing new algorithms, applications is computational geometry, and scientific visualization. His work has been instrumental in significant new scientific discoveries and has been featured in articles in Nature, Scientific American, Science Digest and Science News.
Jim’s work on 9-11 has laid an early foundations for the 9-11 truth movement and his work is often cited by important figures in the 9-11 movement such as Dr. David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage and Dr. Steven Jones. Focusing on what happened at the World Trade Center, Jim was one of the first people to point out facts surrounding the 3 building “collapses” on 9-11 including an extensive analysis of the Twin Towers and Building 7. His excellent website, wtc7.net, was one of the first websites to seriously ask if explosives were used at the World Trade Center on 9-11. wtc7.net has proved to be a timeless and valuable resource and, to this day, is waking up visitors to the site for the first time. Jim also currently maintains and regularly updates 911review.com and 911research.com.
Jim has also co-authored a book called Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City with fellow 9-11 truth activist Don Paul. These two gentlemen also produced a video together called 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands. Both of these works focus on the mountain of evidence that all three high rises on 9-11 were brought down with the aid of pre-planted explosives.
Jim’s work is ongoing and he continues to publish valuable essays on the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7. His latest articles include Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple: Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand, and Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust: Scientists Discover Both Residues And Un-ignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics In Debris From the Twin Towers.
Jim Hoffman has also had a great impact on the 9-11 truth movement as a whole with his well-reasoned and documented critiques of popularly held myths within the movement itself. Through extensive fact checking and analysis, Jim has been able to identify the weakest claims in the 9-11 truth movement and expose them as likely misinformation. Misinformation takes many forms but is generally information which has not been substantially proven and can be patently ridiculous on its surface, which is spread by well meaning people who don’t take the time to do the research. Over the years, a pattern has emerged by personalities who insist on promoting some of the worst information about 9-11 that one can find. “No Planes” were used on 9-11, beams from space brought down the World Trade Center, or holograms and/or “TV fakery” was used instead of real planes at the WTC have all in one way or another been promoted by “Big Tent” advocates like Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds and others. Interestingly enough, these weakest of links in the pool of 9-11 information have been the same “straw man” arguments that have been used time and again by the mainstream media to attack our movement and discredit us. We at Visibility 9-11 think there are valuable clues to be found in these established patterns that would indicate a possible coordinated effort between disinformation specialists and the media to discredit our legitimate arguments and evidence.
This episode begins with an audio clip from a speech by Dr. William Pepper from June 2006. At the conference in Chicago, 9-11 Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming our Future, Dr. Pepper clearly warns the 9-11 truth movement about infiltration by specialists in disinformation and even gives an example of how he was duped during his research into the assassination of MLK. I was present during this speech and Dr. Pepper’s words had a great impact on me, which inspired the production of my Visibility 9-11 COINTELPRO Special Report in early 2007, where I interviewed both Jim Hoffman and Dr. Pepper on this topic. Visibility 9-11 also produced a newsletter entirely devoted to this topic, it’s history and manifestations in October of that same year. This is must reading if you are to understand how disinformation is being used to discredit YOU.
One of the main goals we have at Visibility 9-11 is to educate our listeners and ourselves about all aspects of the September 11th tragedy. To this end, we are taking on a more active role in addressing this important issue. In fact, we believe the issue of disinformation to be the most important issue that each of us face as 9-11 activists. As blogger Arabesque has pointed out many times, the “Official Story” is itself disinformation and must be regarded as such. Ultimately, we are the ones in the street and on the blogs and forums who will have to face the ridicule if our facts are not straight and if we are to be successful, we must learn to identify the disinformation and insert caution into your activism.
As pointed out by my guest on this program, it is agreed that central to the various themes of disinformation are the “no jetliner” claims, especially the “no 757? claims for the attack on the Pentagon. In spite of substantial resources being poured into books and videos which claim that there was no airliner crash at the Pentagon on 9-11, Jim Hoffman has published extensive work which would bring these claims into question. Careful examination of Jim’s work reveals a different picture of the Pentagon attack than the “no jetliner” advocates. We at Visibility 9-11 acknowledge that there are many valid reasons for us to believe the “no jetliner” claims. However, a closer look reveals the real possibility that the event at the Pentagon has been manipulated from the start through the use of “official” and un-offical sources.
This program takes a closer look at “Citizen Investigation Team” (CIT) and it’s biggest promoter Pilots for 9-11 Truth and their latest effort to advance the “no jetliner” theory. Their new video, National Security Alert, which is being aggressively promoted on the internet and at public events, alleges that not only did the Boeing jet not strike the Pentagon, but flew over it at the last minute in an elaborate deception that not a single witness has claimed to see, and, contradicts the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses in the area.
Direct Download this episode of Visibility 9-11 or listen in the embedded player below.
UPDATE: Extensive research has been done to expose this hoax and is highly recommended reading:
The Pentagon Strike: Mysteries Persist in Pentagon Attack by Jim Hoffman
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’ by Victoria Ashley
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce by Jim Hoffman
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy by Arabesque
Breaking Down CIT’s Bill of Goods by Jim Hoffman
CIT Virus by John Michael Talboo and ScootleRoyale
More related reading:
Visibility 9-11 COINTELPRO Special Report
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney
“If you really care about 9-11 truth, you will do your homework and only present to the public that which is the best, most documented and scientifically validated information at your websites, conferences, public events, street actions and other related activism.” –Michael Wolsey 8/2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’
August 3, 2009 By
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’
by Victoria Ashley
Version 1.1, Aug 1, 2009
Table of Contents
* The Opposite of Science
* History of the Flyover Theory
* One Fifth of a Theory at Best
* In Search of a Flyover Witness
* A Pattern of Disruption
* Pentaconned!
* Consequences
* Recommended Reading
INTRODUCTION
This essay examines the work of the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), a team of two people who claim to prove that a complicated “magic show” occurred during the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01, fooling all of the witnesses and surviving victims of the event into believing that American Airlines Flight 77 (AA77) hit the Pentagon, when instead, it flew just over the building, obscured by a simultaneous explosion, and then somehow flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area (the “flyover” theory). CIT took their camcorders and went to Washington, DC, where they interviewed a select group of Pentagon attack eye witnesses whom they believe, indicate a different flightpath from the accepted flightpath (the one described by a trail of damage leading up to the building). These interviews, it is claimed, provide the primary “evidence” for the flyover theory.
Or so we are led to believe.
The general conclusion that “no plane” or “no Boeing” could have hit the Pentagon — widely accepted by skeptics of the official version of events of the Pentagon attack, even as it is generally not carefully examined — is based on a series of erroneous physical evidence claims. The details of these common errors made by investigators of the Pentagon attack are not the purpose of this essay, but have already been described in What the Physical Evidence Shows.
The purpose of this essay is to critically examine the claims, methods and themes employed by CIT in their attempts to make the case for the flyover theory. This essay will show that CIT’s claims about what happened in the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01 are without a meaningful scientific process and are reliant on biased interpretations of broad statements made by less than 20 witnesses to the attack, 8 years after the event. The witness recordings made by CIT are sometimes muddled, are significantly edited, and at times appear to have almost nothing to do with what CIT interprets from them, leaving many video viewers and forum readers, told they would see “proofs”, frustrated and perplexed about what is going on.
At the heart of it, what CIT has really created from the witness accounts is an elaborate historical fictional drama focused around the narrow theme of witnesses appearing to describe a different flightpath for the plane that day. Without any viable corroborating evidence for the claim that the plane never hit, but instead flew over the building, the filmmakers instead offer up a fascinating premise:
“Everything was faked!”
So what began as an innocent sounding exploration of discrepancies in eye witness testimony, moves on to “proofs” of how the existing damage incurred during the attack could not have happened from the impact of a large Boeing. A summary of the many “it was faked” claims indicates a somewhat daunting if not entirely ridiculous premise for the “flyover”:
* Lamp posts downed by plane impact: faked* Generator damage by engine impact: faked
* Boeing parts on the ground and inside the building: faked
* Impact hole cutout in the Pentagon matching a 757-sized jetliner: faked
* Recovered DNA identifying Flight 77 passengers and crew: faked
* Recovered victim personal effects provided to family members: faked
* All witnesses to the plane impact: plants or confused about what they saw plane crash damage and debris
The CIT Virus
July 30, 2009 By
By: ScootleRoyale and John-Michael P. Talboo “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”~ John F. Kennedy
Browsing the Screw Loose Change blog earlier we were somewhat alarmed to learn that David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage are endorsing the work of the Citizen Investigation Team. A poston 911Blogger includes their endorsements:“This new film by CIT is far more professionally produced than their previous efforts. It is also more convincing, given the addition of more witnesses, so that they now have a total of 13 witnesses reporting that the actual flight path of the plane that approached the Pentagon was drastically different from the official flight path (which would have been needed if the plane was to knock over the felled light poles and to strike the Pentagon at the designated spot and angle). This part of the film’s thesis is now established beyond a reasonable doubt. The film does not establish its related claim—that the airliner pulled up and flew over the Pentagon—as clearly, but it does make a good case for it. One of the film’s most valuable parts is a scene in which cab driver Lloyde England, who otherwise gamely tried to maintain the truth of his testimony supporting the official story, admitted that the Pentagon operation had been planned by powerful people with lots of money. I am pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm.”
~ David Ray Griffin, Author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé
“The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD “National Security Alert” deserves serious attention – particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day.”
~ Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 TruthNow we weren’t so much surprised by David Ray Griffin, he has after all been making a case for Pentagon no-plane theories for years, but Richard Gage, like many other researchers, has always remained neutral when it comes to the Pentagon so it was very surprising to learn he was endorsing them.
~ Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 TruthNow we weren’t so much surprised by David Ray Griffin, he has after all been making a case for Pentagon no-plane theories for years, but Richard Gage, like many other researchers, has always remained neutral when it comes to the Pentagon so it was very surprising to learn he was endorsing them.
In all fairness however, we admit that years ago, we too were convinced by the Pentagon no-jetliner claims, and even 9/11 researcher and Pentagon no-jetliner claim debunker Jim Hoffman admits the same, while also pointing out these ideas have “tremendous intuituve appeal.” The apparent lack of large plane debris would seem to support such theories, and again Hoffman points out that this is “reasonable given the fact that other jetliner crashes have left large pieces.” Not to mention the fact that ideas such as these have been popularized in many films, such as the earlier versions of Loose Change. However, when one learns that the plane that hit the Pentagon was traveling at 500 mph, and in the words of Loose Change film maker Dylan Avery, crashed into the “only section that was renovated to withstand that very same kind of attack,” a different picture emerges. The renovations included exterior walls reinforced with steel, exterior walls backed with Kevlar, and nearly two inch thick blast-resistant windows.
In the video below the narrator informs us that “the US government wanted to test what would happen if a plane crashed into the concrete walls of a nuclear power station.” As we see the jet take off towards the wall in the video we are informed that it is traveling at 500 mph, watch and see the results…
As the narrator stated, “the plane disappeared into dust!” In light of these facts the physical evidence becomes far less puzzling and in fact becomes clear as being consistent with a jetliner crash.
In a previous post it was argued that CIT & Pilots for 9/11 Truth are promoting disinformation and after a long debate on the Prison Planet forum it is clear that some uninformed judgments were made, and arguments put forward that they had already countered. However, we are now even more convinced that they are disinformation artists.
In an article by H. Michael Sweeny entitled “Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation”, the author outlines 25 techniques used by promoters of disinfo. The article is essential reading for anyone genuinely interested in the truth. Some of the most notable are:
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
The author also outlines 8 common traits of disinformationists. The two most interesting are:
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
To anyone who has ever debated a “debunker” or no-planer, these traits and techniques will seem very familiar. We have noticed that supporters of CIT’s work seem to exhibit the two traits highlighted and use some of the above techniques. During the Prison Planet forum debate, four new users coincidentally signed up to post exclusively to that thread. They worked as a team and complimented each other. They ignored testimony of first responders, photographs and video of the heavily damaged Pentagon interior and people who actually SAW the plane hit the building. They instead focused on weaker arguments, attacked peoples characters, and questioned motives. Some even went as far as to accuse Scootle of being an undercover debunker!
Even Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog, who is famous for his ad-hominem laden commentary, recently pointed out that CIT supporters claim to be just arguing the “evidence,” but “throw around ad hominems like frisbees.”
What was especially worrying though is that until the moderators showed up Scootle was pretty much on his own. Virtually all of the participants in the thread sided with the CIT trolls…
Hey, Scootle, just F**K OFF ALREADY – I’ve been very patient with you, but that’s it. F**K YOU AND YOUR IDIOCY. You’re EXACTLY like those billions of sheeple who refuse to WAKE UP. You deserve your New World Order. I’m sorry it’s come to this but you’re a twat.
~ Mike Philbin
~ Mike Philbin
This is the frustrating beauty of the Pentagon no-plane theories – unlike the World Trade Center no-plane theories they are worryingly convincing. In rule 20 above we highlighted the sentence “This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.” This is because we believe the Pentagon attack was specifically designed with this very purpose in mind – to muddy the waters and promote pointless debates amongst researchers.
The Pentagon attack is shrouded in mystery: there is no clear video of the attack, witness accounts are so varied and conflicting and photographs are inconclusive – and that’s the way it was designed! The whole thing is a psy-op to trap researchers.
CIT have 13 witnesses who all recollect a different flight path from the official story. To counter claims of fuzzy memory, CIT will argue that because they correlate with each other it proves they are all correct because they couldn’t all be mistaken the same way. If they were the only 13 witnesses then we would agree. But they weren’t the only 13 – they were 13 out of more than 100. When you have that many witnesses you are bound to have some correlation of incorrect recollections. That being said, the preponderance of reports supports a plane hitting the pentagon. This fact is not lost on debunkers, the government, or the media; always eager for easy ammunition against the 9/11 truth movement. Ludicrous objections of witness fraud and witness contamination are commonly used to explain away this overwhelming body of eyewitness testimony.
Ockham’s razordictates that indeed a Boeing 757 did hit the Pentagon, but who needs simple logic when by cherry picking witness statements and photographs we could probably build a strong case for a theory that a flying saucer hit the Pentagon if we wanted to.We might start with the photograph showing a “small, round hole” and the video footage of UFOs over Washington in 1952, then pick out witness quotes that mention hearing strange sounds (or no sounds) while ignoring all the people who saw a commercial airliner, then interpret the “It is not a part from any Rolls-Royce engine that I’m familiar with” quote to mean it is a part only people at Area 51 would be familiar with and claim a photo is of officials removing the advanced alien technology from the scene and finally analyse the photos of burnt human remains, picking out every small anomoly and insensitively claim that they are actually alien remains.
There are witnesses who saw the plane come in from the south side, such as the four “operatives” CIT interviewed, there are witnesses who actually saw the plane hit the building such as Penny Elgas, who is also an operative according to CIT…“Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect.”
~ Craig Ranke CIT…And Steve Anderson, who was in the perfect position in relation to the Pentagon to actually see a flyover, but didn’t!
If CIT would actually interview someone from the Arlington Fire Department who was in there fighting the fires then maybe we’ll start taking notice of them. But there’s no need, it’s already been done. For the book “Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11,” the authors interviewed more than 100 Pentagon first responders…“They walked closer. At the mouth of the third hole they saw a piece of a wheel and countless shards of wreckage. Some of them looked like pieces of seats.”~ Firefight, Page 149.“For the first time, Regan’s team saw something they had expected to see all along but had been scarce until then: recognizable airplane parts. They all thought they would find big pieces of the airliner laying everywhere, the way car parts end up strewn across a highway after a crash. But the physics of an airplane crash were obviously different: Mostly there was just tons of shredded metal and melted plastic.Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI. Most of the workers inside were conscientious about not gawking, yet the seats attracted a lot of attention. They were the first objects the nonaviation experts had seen that unmistakably belonged to an airplane.” ~ Firefight, Page 373.“The airplane had nearly disintegrated, but Dan Fitch’s group found several huge cogs, bent and blackened, that weighed a couple hundred pounds each; it took a couple of workers to handle each one. Other objects nearby looked like large gears, and strips of metal that appeared to be fan blades. Workers realized that they were pulling apart the remnants of one of the aircraft’s two engines. The aluminum cowling that had encased it all had been torn away, but the guts of the engine were there.
~ Craig Ranke CIT…And Steve Anderson, who was in the perfect position in relation to the Pentagon to actually see a flyover, but didn’t!
If CIT would actually interview someone from the Arlington Fire Department who was in there fighting the fires then maybe we’ll start taking notice of them. But there’s no need, it’s already been done. For the book “Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11,” the authors interviewed more than 100 Pentagon first responders…“They walked closer. At the mouth of the third hole they saw a piece of a wheel and countless shards of wreckage. Some of them looked like pieces of seats.”~ Firefight, Page 149.“For the first time, Regan’s team saw something they had expected to see all along but had been scarce until then: recognizable airplane parts. They all thought they would find big pieces of the airliner laying everywhere, the way car parts end up strewn across a highway after a crash. But the physics of an airplane crash were obviously different: Mostly there was just tons of shredded metal and melted plastic.Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI. Most of the workers inside were conscientious about not gawking, yet the seats attracted a lot of attention. They were the first objects the nonaviation experts had seen that unmistakably belonged to an airplane.” ~ Firefight, Page 373.“The airplane had nearly disintegrated, but Dan Fitch’s group found several huge cogs, bent and blackened, that weighed a couple hundred pounds each; it took a couple of workers to handle each one. Other objects nearby looked like large gears, and strips of metal that appeared to be fan blades. Workers realized that they were pulling apart the remnants of one of the aircraft’s two engines. The aluminum cowling that had encased it all had been torn away, but the guts of the engine were there.
FEMA crews used a blowtorch to free the core of the motor from the column in which it was embedded. Then Fitch and several others used pieces of six-by-six to pry the motor loose from the column and push it off the pile. With the help of some Old Guard troops, they rolled the heavy piece of machinery onto a dolly and finally managed to push it outside. The whole effort took the better part of an entire shift.” ~ Firefight, Page 425.
“As crews dug deeper,unmistakable remnants of a passenger plane were everywhere. Wallets, shoes, jewelry, and the everyday items that had been stuffed into dozens of suitcases were littered throughout the debris.” ~ Firefight, Page 426.
Tell those people a commercial airliner didn’t hit the Pentagon!
Now that we have addressed the eyewitnesses, the physical evidence, and the different scenarios in which the propaganda machine may be at work, what are we left with? We are left with CIT’s sister organization Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and their study of the Flight 77 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report. First off, let’s look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth; from the Debunking the Debunkers blog “CIT Stuff Is Disinfo – Wake Up!“:
“A number of Pilots for 9/11 Truth’s members promote World Trade Center no-plane theories – arguing that the speeds at which the planes were travelling were aerodynamically impossible at the altitudes they were flying at. Rob Balsamo, the head of the group, has defended these people’s opinions, saying they are qualified to have them. This was all debunked recently using a simulator. This fact alone is enough to raise serious questions about the credibility of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.”
Now, what do they gather from their study of the NTSB report? Here it is in a nutshell from their founder Rob Balsamo:
“The flght data recorder raw file that we have just decoded … it’s still showing too high for the Pentagon. … It shows the radar altimeter at 273 feet. That means 273 feet above the ground. OK? The Pentagon only gets up to 77 feet.”
In essence, they believe it supports the flyover theory, which we have demonstrated is not supported by the preponderance of eyewitness testimony, or the physical evidence. Might the propaganda machine be at work here also? Well the NTSB report does come from the government after all. Even their own press release on the matter was headlined “OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT’S OWN DATA.”
“Designed to confuse us?
I think we should be careful with any evidence that the government supplies. The ‘five frames’ and the black box data come from the government. Both were in the hands of the government for weeks and months before release to the public.
Do people here agree that this alone renders those two sources of evidence suspect? That’s how I view it. Why base theories on such suspect evidence? To me it looks as though these two pieces of evidence, which contradict each other, are meant to confuse.”
The largest problem in this whole ordeal is not the fact that Pilots for 9/11 Truth raise these issues, without any such commentary of their own, but that they almost exclusively focus on such issues, while much more concrete facts pointing towards complicity, of which pilots would have keen insight, are almost totally glossed over.
Another glossed over issue is an inherent contradiction in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth premise recently brought to our attention by Michael Wolsey of the website Visibility911.com, who states:
“You can’t contend that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon and then use the flight data recorder that was found in the pentagon to bolster your argument that it didn’t hit!”
All that being said, it’s important to note thatthere is other research indicating that the flight data recorder of Flight 77 actually supports the official flight path, and that instead, the animation is wrong!
The Pentagon no-plane theories have taken on near religious preportions. It’s as if believing a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon somehow comforts people. On 9/11, planes crashed! That’s what 9/11 was all about, planes crashing! We’re interested in finding out who crashed the planes – not whether or not they did. The CIT/Pilots for 9/11 Truth theory is the only 9/11 theory that we actually laugh at…
“Yeh thats right … We crashed two planes into two skyscrapers… And completely demolished those towers killing thousands … And we ALMOST crashed a third plane into the Pentagon … Except we didn’t! … What we actually did was fly the plane low enough above the Pentagon to make it look like it hit and high enough above the building to not be caught on the Doubletree Hotel security camera… then we landed the plane, killed all the passengers and crew and disposed of the plane… We hired operatives to plant some light poles and stage the scene with the taxi to make it seem like the plane came in from a different direction … just for fun! … Some operatives also posed as fake witnesses… they all used their real names and were friendly to independent investigators to make it seem like they had nothing to hide… the best part was … we didn’t have to pay them! … they just wanted to be involved in a mass murder plot … Finally, we bribed the forensic officials and first responders to say they found and identified the burnt bodies of all of the passengers at the scene…”
“… And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those meddling CIT kids!”
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of Debunking the Debunkers
May 5, 2009 By
This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of the blog Debunking the Debunkers .
John-Michael is the creator and administrator of 911debunkers.blogspot.com where he and Bradley debunk the “debunkers” of the 9/11 truth movement. He has been a 9/11 activist since late 2004, and is a grassroots organizer listed on 911truth.org for the state of Indiana, is a member of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth AE911Truth.org video team, and a founding member of the central Indiana chapter of the activist organization We Are Change.
Stewart Bradley is an artist, documentary journalist, and political activist living in Lancaster Pennsylvania who runs an independent mulit-media studio. Stewart was already investigating covert government operations before 9/11 and since 9/11 has re-dedicated himself to exposing the public misconceptions behind the attack. In 2004 he wrote and produced a 9/11 docudrama titled “The Proof”and has been actively promoting 9/11 research through his website, blogs, videos, and internet debates.
Topics discussed include the ” take on the new scientific paper, Active Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, and defense thereof.
The MO and possible motives of defenders of the official story is also spoke of, and put into a larger historical context. Mentioned is a declassified CIA memo from April 1967 entitled, Countering Criticism of the Warren Report, which states that one way to achieve this goal is to…
“Employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.”
Direct Download this episode of Visibility 9-11 or listen in the embedded player below.
Stunning Example of Dis-Information at Work – Knocking the Strawman Over
December 15, 2007 By
Stunning Example of Dis-Information at Work – Knocking the Strawman Over
by Michael Wolsey
December 15, 2007
If you have seen the film, 9-11 In Plane Site, you are familiar with the man known as Mike Walter of USA Today, even though you may have never heard his name. He is the man who was an eyewitness to the crash at the Pentagon and many have dishonestly used an interview he did on CNN on September 11th, 2001 to justify the idea that a missile, not AA77 hit the Pentagon on 9-11. Below is an excerpt from that interview that appeared in the 9-11 film, In Plane Site at approximately 6 minutes, 45 seconds into the film:
Now, lets compare this to the full clip of the interview from September 11th, 2001, with the collapsed area of the Pentagon clearly visible in the background:
