If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

David Ray Griffin, Rowland Morgan rebut 9/11 cell phone misinfo

Some folks in the 9/11 truth movement (example) have been very slow to realize that there is no evidence than any actual hijackings took place on 9/11, and abundant evidence that no such hijackings occurred. (I'm talking about hijackings by human beings not acting as part of a drill--there may well have been remote-control "hijackings" or bogus hijackings by people acting in a drill.) Likewise there is no evidence against any of the 19 patsies, and abundant evidence of their innocence.

David Ray Griffin's new article Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners: Response to Questions Evoked by My Fifth Estate Interview helps set the record straight on this issue, as does a free e-book by British journalist Rowland Morgan entitled Voices: The 9/11 Phone Call Evidence. Anyone who still thinks suicide hijackers flew the planes into their targets--and anyone interested in getting at the full truth of 9/11--needs to read these.

14 comments:

  1. Thanks! Important information that I'll definitely look into. I was alerted to this back when you first interviewed Elias Davidsson. I was floored. I wonder if anyone has yet been able to gain access to those people who manned the departure gates of those supposed flights. That they themselves haven't come forward makes me think 'agents'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, Medusae! I was floored by Elias too. In fact I've been floored several times as I've gone deeper into this rabbit hole. By the way, Elias will be on Truth Jihad Radio with me next Saturday, 5-6 pm Central, on www.AmericanFreedomRadio.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is distressing to me, Kevin, to see you at this stage of the game still subscribing to the idea that there were no hijackings. There is ample evidence that the planes were hijacked (though no evidence that those hijackers were Arabs). The evidence of hijackings includes the fact that four planes were somehow commandeered and flown into buildings, and the reality that a remote hijacking is far-fetched.

    In addition, as evidence of hijackings are the phone calls made from the planes. Yes these calls were made; they are real and were mostly made on airphones aboard the planes. The calls show that hijackers armed with guns took over the plane, while other hijackers who looked like Arabs stabbed people while trying to dupe the passengers into thinking it was an Arab hijacking.

    David Ray Griffin's article does not set any record straight. It only reiterates his mistaken faith in what I call the "Cell Phone Myth," which is the idea that the calls made to family members and others were represented as having been made on cell phones; therefore cannot be real, since we all agree cell calls could not have been made from the planes at altitude. As usual, Griffin supports his cell phone myth with a jumble of news reports from the mainstream media, as well as a few reports from individual FBI agents made before the FBI as a whole declared the calls were made on airphones for the Moussaoui trial.

    We all agree the calls were made. To believe Griffin's theory, we have to believe that a highly sophisticated group of voice-morphers were able to successfully fake numerous phone calls to family members, including some that were recorded. We have to believe that this groups was then so stupid as to go to the trouble of making the calls appear to have been made on cell phones, instead of making them look like airphone calls-- even though in 2001 it was common knowledge that cell calls were not possible at high altitudes. In addition, we have to believe that this groups of brilliant voice morphers was also so stupid as to include references to guns in possession of the hijackers on not one, but TWO calls. RIDICULOUS!

    I've explained this when I was on your show, Kevin, but I'll explain it again since my ideas seem to have gone in one ear and out the other. Phone calls by passengers were part of the plot, to have real people on the planes relay their mistaken impression of an Arab hijacking to their loved ones. This emotionally compelling material helped whip up Americans into a frenzy of rage against Muslims that led to the entry into two wars against Muslim countries. It was a brilliant gamble, but it had some risks. Some callers saw things they weren't supposed to see, and relayed that information-- such as Tom Burnett reporting guns and Betty Ong reporting a shooting. If the 9/11 Truth Movement had ever taken a serious look at the phone calls as a whole, we would have seen the evidence of the phony-Arab frame up job a long time ago. So a disinformation was begun to tag the phone calls as cell phone calls and therefore faked. DRG and Dylan Avery have bought off on this disinfo; unfortunately, Kevin Barrett has as well.

    As a final note I'd like to point out that David Ray Griffin is, in my opinion, a Christian Zionist. An understanding of the phone calls and what they mean leads suspicion right to the state of Israel and its network of Zionist supporters. This is the kind of operation the Israelis have been doing to their Arab neighbors for decades-- i.e., dressing their own dark-skinned agents up as Arabs and then doing terrorism to be blamed on Arabs. They did it when they bombed the King David Hotel in 1947; they did it again in the Lavon Affair.

    You, Kevin, are not a Christian Zionist. So please reexamine your position of the phone calls and what happened on the planes. And if you'd like to have me on your show again to explain my ideas in more detail, let me know. And if Griffin would like to debate me on this subject on your show, that'd be great too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Cognitive diversity" in radical/subversive social movements http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/got-fascism-obama-advisor-promotes.html can be benign or not-so-benign. Let's keep it benign here, fellas, by admitting that DRG has done the best overall work on the larger topic, and that his views here are well-argued and plausible. Andy, your alternative view strikes me as less plausible but still worth considering -- to the extent it doesn't promote the wrong kind of "cognitive diversity." It's important to frame disagreements with highly accomplished folks like DRG in a modest and low-key way, otherwise it leads to the destructive kind of "cognitive diversity" the bad guys want to promote.

    ReplyDelete
  5. January 12, 2010
    Voices: The 9/11 Phone-Call Evidence
    40 phone-calls changed the world that day—but were they real? The U.S. government’s amazing 9/11 evidence says not.
    Download (Free) E-Book (Adobe Acrobat – 7.7M)at:
    http://davidraygriffin.com/voices/

    ReplyDelete
  6. 15 phone call factoids that contradict the official government conspiracy theory

    1) Betty Ong and Madeline Sweeney on FL11 said there were 4 hijackers, not 5. Both gave the "wrong" seat numbers for the hijackers.

    2) Mark Bingham on FL93 said there were 3 hijackers, not 4.

    3) Renee May on FL77 said there were 6 hijackers, not 5.

    4) Most of Ong's phone call recording is missing.

    5) Ong and/or Sweeney gave specific information that the hijackers had guns (which contradicts the "boxcutters" theory). They even gave the exact seat number of the shooter and the shoo-tee.

    6) Tom Burnett on FL93 said the hijackers had guns.

    7) Todd Beamer's call on FL93 lasted until 10:48 AM, long after the plane was shot down/crashed. The person who took Beamer's call, Lisa Jefferson, heard no screaming or crashing noises.

    8) Jeremy Glick's call on FL93 lasted until 11:43 AM, long after the plane was shot down/crashed. The person who took Glick's call, Joanne Makely, heard no screaming or crashing noises.

    9) No call on FL93 was attempted after 9:53 (Honor Waino's), except unconnected calls by Edward Felt and CeeCee Lyles at 9:58. No call (besides Beamer's and Glick's) lasted beyond 9:58, when the Sandy Bradshaw and Waino calls ended. The plane supposedly crashed at 10:03 or 10:06.

    10) Ted Olson on FL77 lied, he never got a phone call from Barbara Olson.

    11) Call recordings are missing for calls by Beamer (FL93), Bradshaw (FL93), and Sweeney (FL11).

    12) Five "unknown" calls were made from FL77 to unknown numbers.

    13) A 95-second "unknown" call was made from FL93 and the recording is missing.

    14) The recording of 2 calls on FL175 are missing.

    15) Sweeny on FL11 gave the "wrong" time for the cockpit takeover. She said it happened no earlier than 8:22, but communication with FL11 was supposedly lost at 8:15.

    Conclusions

    1) The hijackers had guns. We don't know exactly who they were, were they were seated, or how many there were.

    2) Missing recordings indicate that most of the calls contained information which contradicts the official conspiracy theory.

    3) The most heavily promoted calls are most likely to be suspect, and the least promoted calls are most likely to be genuine.

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/16015

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kevin,

    DRG has done good work on some other subjects, especially those which point to the military or the Bush administration's culpability in 9/11. But his ideas about the phone calls from the planes are not well argued and they are not plausible, for reasons I've outlined.

    I read the essay on cognitive diversity, and I agree that movements can be neutralized by a small cadre of activists who question every theory to death, and distract well meaning folks into apathy. Anyone who shows up at a 9/11 forum, for example, and persistently questions the controlled demolition evidence is probably such a provocateur.

    But we also have to realize that a movement can be compromised from the very top down. If a few 'leaders' like DRG and Dylan Avery suddenly take preeminence in a movement, we have to wonder who is behind their rapid rise. Such leaders can gain credibility by throwing out obvious truths on easy subjects like the CD of the towers, but they also then gain a pulpit from which to divert the focus on other less obvious subjects, such as the phone calls.

    I think we are moving to a point in societal evolution where anyone with a high media profile and financial backing is probably not telling us the truth. For the real truth, you have to find the guy in the wilderness who has nothing to gain and nothing to lose by speaking the truth. DRG is a rock star in the truth movement. To me that is all the more reason to be suspicious of him and his ideas on the phone calls.

    ReplyDelete
  8. DRG became a "rock star" by doing the best and most comprehensive generalist scholarship on 9/11. I don't agree with all of his interpretations -- for example, I find the evidence of Israeli/Zionist involvement much more noteworthy than he does -- but I recognize good scholarship, sensible interpretations of evidence, and rocket-fuel for the 9/11 truth movement (his presence) when I see it.

    I find DRG's interpretation of the "passenger phone calls" more plausible than yours, Andy. I can easily picture the 9/11 perps putting incongruous, contradictory data into their fake cell call scripts--guns, shootings, whatever--because at the end of the day, as long as the world accepts "panicked cell phone calls from hijacked passengers" the official story will stand, and the incongruities will just slow down the truth-seekers via "cognitive diversity." They'd do this for the same reason they'd airbrush a rocket engine vapor trail into a "Pentagon security video."

    I also find the idea of voice-morphing fake calls from cells and/or airphones completely plausible. Con artists routinely call random strangers saying "I'm your grandson I'm in trouble!" "Which grandson?" "Don't you recognize me?" "Bill!" "Yeah, I'm Bill, and I need a thousand bucks to pay off the mob/get emergency medical treatment/ etc." and walk off with the money. The 9/11 perps would hardly need voice morphing to induce the kind of panic in a loved one that would short-circuit critical thinking and convince the loved one that they were talking to their spouse/child/parent. WITH voice morphing it would be a piece of cake.

    As for your hypothesis of crack Mossad agents hijacking the planes, setting the autopilot to "WTC," and bailing out, I find that conceivable but less plausible than the DRG scenario. Remote-control hijack technology is there (several passengers were involved in developing it), so who needs hijackers setting autopilots? Also, why were the WTC attack planes clocked at nearly 600 mph just prior to impact, far faster than a 767 could go at sea level (see Pilots for 9/11 Truth)? In Hollywood, everyone but Borat knows the best way to get a shot right is not to do the actual thing you're filming, but fake it in such a way that you control every aspect of the event. Scripting and voice-morphing would be much more controllable than actual hijackings.

    That said...if Jesse Ventura's info is right, and the (Mossad) "hijackers" were in the cockpits prior to departure, maybe a "controlled hijacking" happened, perhaps under cover of a drill. If so, they would have done a plane switch, landed, and killed the passengers -- no bail out necessary that way, and a different aircraft could have hit the South Tower near 600 mph at sea level.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As a coda to our debate, Kevin, I'd like to bring up some evidence that, ironically, I often neglect to mention-- usually because it is so "hot" that I am afraid of startling whomever I may be addressing.

    The evidence relates to the airphone call made by flight attendant Betty Ong from AAL11. As we know, the first 4.5 minutes of this call were made public, and can be listened to on the internet. The remaining 20+ minutes were, according to the 9/11 Commission, not recorded because the recording device at the American Airlines facility where the call was received supposedly stopped recording by default after a few minutes. I find this explanation rubbish, but the fact remains we have no recording of that part of her call.

    However, the call was received by AAL officials, and one of them, Gerald Marquis, later recounted what she had said in a news report that was published in the Wall St. Journal and Boston Globe. In that interview, he recalled that Ong had placed the hijackers in seats 2A, 2B, 9A and 9B. [URL on request]

    2A and 2B were occupied by someone who stole the identities of the al-Shehri brothers, Wail and Waleed. (fake Arabs?) But the occupants of the other two seats in row 9 is not disputed by anyone. In seat 9B was Daniel Lewin, a former member of the IDF's Sayeret Metkal, an elite commando unit which also boasts Bibi Netanyahu as an alumni.

    In seat 9A was Edmund Glazer. His past is less publicized; but I found in a lengthy internet search that he was born in Zimbabwe and graduated from the King David School in Johannesburg.

    Now think about it Kevin: We have a credible firsthand witness reporting that Ong reported the seat numbers of two young men who happen to have hardcore Zionist backgrounds, who just happened to be sitting next to each other on AAL11, as the hijackers of the plane! And none of this is a theory at all; it can all be verified by mainstream media sources.

    Can you honestly believe that this development is part of "incongruous, contradictory data" inserted by fake cell phone callers? Isn't it more likely that these guys were the real hijackers, and the recording was made to disappear, with only a flimsy official excuse for its absence?

    This is the smokiest of smoking gun evidence pointing to the Israeli state being directly involved in the hijackings of the planes. Like I said, if you'd like me to elaborate on this in more detail, invite me on to your show-- if you dare.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's absolutely great to be discussing the phone calls. DRG seems indefatigable--hats off to him. I'm with Kevin, the voice morphing tech exists and wish someone would point to a You Tube demonstration to put it out there that it's of very little difficulty to sound like the victims--just need a small voice sample. Thanks for the link to Rowland Morgan's book.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I like to add this though it has been mentioned a lot of times: No one of the pilots on the FOUR planes were able to type in the hijack code - a procedure that takes only a few seconds. I haven´t heard any plausible explanation for this and this fact alone should raise at least a little bit of doubt if there were indeed hijackings taking place on 9/11.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Regarding David Ray Griffin's assertion that there must have been fake phone calls, I think this argument would go a long way if DRG or Dewdney or Ventura were to get access to this voice morphing software and do a live demo where Alex Jones could emulate a well known voice and post this on YouTube.

    The public seems to be softening to 911 Truth and if they can actually see voices being created in real time, that would go a long way to convince skeptics about the credibility of these infamous calls. While I do believe DRG, I have a hard time convincing others of the phone calls and how they were possibly made. It is a hard sell...

    If anyone has any contact with DRG, please run this idea by him about actually demonstrating what can be done with voice morphing technology.

    ReplyDelete
  13. did you know hat the Olson's attended a College or University in Israel together : YESHIVA ? how can i reach Rowland Morgan ? I tried his blog ?etc.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Didn't know that about the Olsons!

    If you email me under your real name and explain why you want to contact Rowland, and I judge the reason sufficiently good, I could be persuaded to pass on his email address.

    ReplyDelete