9/11 Phone Calls: David Ray Griffin Continues to Show the Official Story is Untenable

[spooked911]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924

Conclusion

Although this essay has focused on details, often minute, in merely one aspect of the official account of 9/11, the implications are enormous. Without the widespread assumption that the 9/11 attacks had been planned and carried out by al-Qaeda, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have been possible. With regard to the war in Afghanistan in particular, Michel Chossudovsky has recently emphasized the fact that NATO’s decision to support this US-led war was based on a briefing by Frank Taylor of the US State Department, in which he provided what was called conclusive evidence of al-Qaeda’s responsibility for the attacks.121 Although the contents of Taylor’s briefing have never been made public, the main evidence provided to the general public has consisted of the hijack-describing phone calls reportedly received from passengers and flight attendants aboard the airliners. But when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. This analysis thereby suggests that the entire 9/11 story used to justify the US-led wars is a lie.

If asked which part of the official story can be most definitively shown to be false, I would speak not of the alleged phone calls but of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the official account of which says that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down without the aid of pre-set explosives. Given the fact that this theory involves massive violations of basic laws of physics, the evidence against it is so strong as to be properly called proof – as I have recently emphasized in a book-length critique of the official report on WTC 7 in particular.

Nevertheless, the importance of the evidence against the official account provided by analyzing the alleged phone calls should not be minimized. If the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false – which, as I have emphasized in another recent book, can be seen to be the case. It is this cumulative argument that provides the strongest disproof of the official, war-justifying account of 9/11. The evidence that the alleged phone calls from the airliners were faked is an important part of this cumulative argument.

[KDLarsen]

1. David Ray Grifter continues to display his lack of humanity

ETA: Why am I not surprised that he's using the conclusion to pimp his books. The man should take a name change, Grifter is much more suited for him.

[duphase]

2. what does ETA stand for? I see it sometimes on the internet. thanks. eom

[AZCat]

3. ETA generally stands for "Edited To Add". n/t

[duphase]

4. Thanks. You answered a longtime question I've had. eom

[spooked911]

5. Lack of humanity?

Please explain.

Also, do you agree with his conclusions? If not, why?

[KDLarsen]

6. I don't agree with his conclusions at all

I think David Ray Grifter lacks humanity, when he is able to so easily sweep aside the fact that real people spoke to real relatives on those planes, and proclaim that it's all fake.

Not to mention, how did the all-powerful NWO/Illuminati/Whatever know the code to Linda Gronlund's safe?

Also, here's a story from 1999 where a man was charged with using his cellphone at 31,000 feet: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/399932.stm How is that possible when they wouldn't work at all in the air, according to David Ray Grifter?

[duphase]

7. Here's a paragraph from that BBC link

from the link you provided:

"Although he made no airborne calls, experts said interference from the phone could have sparked an explosion or affected the plane's navigational systems as it flew at 31,000 feet."

[KDLarsen]

8. He was preparing to send a text message

So presumably he would have had a connection.

ETA: In any case, it's not the only case of people using
mobile phones on an airplane, here's some more:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mobiles_at_altitude

Oh, and AA were still disabling their airphones in 2002:
http://i50.tinypic.com/11kjmmf.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/256efwn.jpg

[duphase]

9. Are you saying this disproves DRG's evidence about the 9/11 calls?

I'd agree that it's anecdotal evidence that there have been "some" people who have "used" cell phones on planes and that AA had not yet completed the task of deactivating the airphones from their entire fleet as of the dates listed in the info you posted - but
that's all.

[KDLarsen]

10. It should raise reasonable doubt

Of course, that is if one is not already drinking David Ray Grifters kool-aid.

[duphase]

11. It might do that in the mind of some people

But, informed people won't likely be impressed, and after all, do you really care about the people who aren't aware of the evidence?
People who aren't informed but yet are curious might well read DRG's findings, and they are far more likely to be persuaded by what
he has found than a few anecdotes and information that not every AA plane's airphones had been disabled by April, 2002...and you've
not presented any evidence that those in FL77 were still operational on 9/11/01.

I don't understand why you would think that ridiculing Dr. Griffin is a good idea in light of the fact that he is known as a
learned man of high integrity, whose research is characterized by thoroughness, patient attention to all of the details, and a willingness to change his viewpoint if the evidence warrants it.

[KDLarsen]

12. Informed people already know that DRG is wrong

Drinkers of the kool-aid will ignore any evidence contrary to the conclusion they have already reached.

I'm merely pointing out that cellphones have been used on airplanes before, and that the airphones on American Airlines B757's were still in the process of being removed well into 2002, in case an uninformed, non-koolaid drinking DU'er accidently ends up in the Dungeon.

[duphase]

13. That sounds like a conspiracy theory!

The OP DRG article is not likely to ever be proven wrong. It's too thorough, too well documented and well researched. One of the best things about DRG is that he's very conservative and never tries to take things beyond what the evidence shows. Because he is
so meticulous, reasonable, objective, and fair minded, he doesn't feel the need to take cheap shots at anyone. He just lays out his
case, gives the evidence for it, and people love him for his honest approach, hard work, and willingness to think through things.

I don't know how many books he's written, but I know they aren't all about 9/11. Who are some of your favorite authors of books
about 9/11?

[KDLarsen]

14. It could probably be debunked

But since I don't waste my time on TV- & Phonecall-fakery nutjobs, I haven't read the whole thing. His conclusion is hilarious though, claiming that the war in Afghanistan relies entirely on the phonecalls. That's ignoring everything else that is linking the hijackers to the attacks, including the very long paper trail as well as their martyrdom videos.

[duphase]

15. I don't think so, KDLarsen

I try not to waste "my time" on any kind of fake nutjobs, but if you happen to bump into someone who feels they can rebut DRG's findings and not just sling mud and pretend to know what they're talking about, by all means, ask them to stop by and give it
their best shot. I'll listen to what they have to say, and it's okay if they can't get through their presentation without
being able to purge the urge to substitute arrogance for brilliance. But, a minimum of substance would make it easier to indulge them.

[William Seger]

26. Nobody is required to prove that DRG is a nutjob

When he's making accusations that someone is involved in murders and tossing around idiotically implausible hypotheses, it's his responsibility to prove that he's NOT a nutjob. Fail.

[techsword]

46. You really have no idea how logic works...

of course someone is involved in murders. thousands of people died on 9/11. All murdered. That we know.

You just want the simple "this is what I was told, the world is actually all sunny and nice and good, bad things are done by *other* people. so I will believe what I was told to believe..."

Good luck with that. Sooner or Later you'll wake up.

[William Seger]

59. LOL, I know it doesn't work like THAT

The only logical conclusion from the credible evidence is that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes and managed to hit three of their targets, with the fourth crashing into the ground in Shanksville. After the hijackings and before the crashes, numerous people managed phone calls using both Airfones and cell phones. If you aren't familiar with the evidence that leads to that logical conclusion, then I suggest you need to do your homework. If you would like to say that that evidence is not credible, you need to do much more than just make naked claims that it was faked. Your personal incredulity doesn't count for squat in that regard. If you'd like to tell a different story about what happened, then you need to do much more than make naked claims that the "real" evidence was covered up. Your paranoid speculations don't count for squat, either. I will believe whoever makes the most sense, Sparky, and so far, it ain't you. Deal with it.

[spooked911]

61. Did you read DRG's piece carefully?

It doesn't seem like you did.

[William Seger]

69. Carefully enoght to see...

... that if you omit Dr. Grifter's hyped interpretations and dubious conclusions, there ain't much there. That's the whole point.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Anecdotal evidence?

The actual AA work order to remove the phones has been found, dated AFTER 9/11.

That's not anecdotal. That's actual documentation.

Griffin's insistance that the phone calls from United 93 were faked is abhorrent. It's not something a "learned man of high integrity, whose research is characterized by thoroughness, patient attention to all of the details, and a willingness to change his viewpoint if the evidence warrants it" does.

It is what a grifter does, however.

[duphase]

17. Did you happen to read this in the article?

Statements from various representatives of American Airlines that its Boeing 757s did not have onboard phones, the most important of these being Chad Kinder, who, in response to the question whether it was true that there were no �seatback satellite phones on any Boeing 757 on September 11, 2001,� said: �That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.�95

 A page, dated January 28, 2001, purportedly from the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM), which states: �The passenger telephone system was deactivated by ECO FO878.�96 Although the phones were physically removed from the planes in 2002, this document says that they were deactivated, so that they could not be used, almost eight months before September 11, 2001.

[SDuderstadt]

18. "Have you ever heard of "convergence of evidence"?

How would you apply it here?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. No, the actual order to turn off the phones hit in March 2002.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2775915&postcount=406

What I'm saying is that the Claircom system was not deactivated until 2002 by AA M&E. The "order" for M&E to deactivate the system did not hit the shop floor until March 2002 in the form of ECO F0871XX. The decision was made in late 2001 by the higher ups at HQ, after 9-11.

You have to remember that like any large organization decisions are not made on a whim. There are certain procedures to be followed. There have to be cost benefit analysis done, how will something like this affect the customer has to be looked at, costs to remove the system, contracts with the vendor, etc, etc. Once the decision is made its then up to M&E to figure out the scheduling to get this all accomplished.

...I'm looking at it as I type. The dates are correct. Like I said before I can understand why some people would be suspicious of this. The smoking gun is in the form of ECO F0871 which is dated March 2002. ECO F0878AX/XX orders the removal of the major components of the system. F0871XX is the "order" to turn off the system and collar the associated circuit breakers. The CT's either are unaware of this ECO or choose to ignore it.

AMTMAN is an actual AA mechanic. The Flight 77 airphones were operational on 9/11. Griffin pretends otherwise because it finances his retirement.

[duphase]

20. Your facts are wrong - but there's much more to the article than this one point.

The document purported to be an American Airlines ECO dated March 13, 2002, was provided by the anonymous person using the alias �AMTMAN� only after the publication of the Griffin-Balsamo article, which included the citation of a page, apparently from the Boeing 757 AMM, stating that the telephone system had been deactivated prior to January 28, 2001. When AMTMAN was challenged by Balsamo to give his real identity, so that his claim to be an AA employee could be verified, he disappeared. This document is, therefore, in the same boat as the purported page from the 757 AMM in one sense, namely, that the authenticity of each is supported only by a person who has remained anonymous. They differ, however, in a very important way: Whereas the purported AMM page is consistent with the testimony of Customer Service Representative Chad Kinder, pilot Ralph Kolstad, and Public Relations Representative John Hotard, the purported ECO provided by AMTMAN is contradicted by the testimony of all of these past and present AA employees.

At the end of our joint article, Balsamo and I wrote: �Although we believe our evidence that they did not have phones is very strong, we cannot yet claim to have proof; evidence to the contrary might still emerge.� While repeating that statement today, I would add that, given the new statements by John Hotard and Ralph Kolstad, combined with the fact that in the intervening years no proof to the contrary has emerged, the evidence is even stronger now. The evidence is very strong, therefore, that Barbara Olson could not possibly have made calls from Flight 77.

The following statement by Captain Ralph Kolstad, who flew Boeing 757s (as well as 767s) as captain from 1993 until he retired in 2005: �he �air phones,� as they were called, were . . . deactivated in early or mid 2001. They had been deactivated for quite some time prior to Sep 2001.� In response to a question about this statement, he added: �I have no proof, but I am absolutely certain that the phones were disconnected on the 757 long before Sep 2001. They were still physically installed in the aircraft, but they were not operational.�98

The question of whether American Flight 77 had onboard phones is important primarily for the question of the reality of the reported calls from Barbara Olson. However, if it should turn out that, contrary to what the presently available evidence indicates, Flight 77 did have onboard phones, that fact by itself would not settle the question about Olson�s reported calls, because there are other reasons to doubt their reality.

DRG is a real force to be reckoned with. I'd match his knowledge and qualifications to speak on the subject of 9/11 with anyone, and
certainly Mr. Randi isn't stupid and I won't insult him or his profession, but he just can't hold a candle to Dr. Griffin. Not on this subject.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Bullshit.

The actual orders have been produced. They weren't manufactured. DRG is completely wrong.

The phones were operating aboard Flight 77. Griffin doesn't know what he's talking about.

The question of whether American Flight 77 had onboard phones is important primarily for the question of the reality of the reported calls from Barbara Olson. However, if it should turn out that, contrary to what the presently available evidence indicates, Flight 77 did have onboard phones, that fact by itself would not settle the question about Olson�s reported calls, because there are other reasons to doubt their reality.

Goalposts coming through.

And you really should drop the references to James Randi. Randi doesn't give a flying fig about 9/11 conspiracy theories. His foundation hosts a web forum where a number of debunkers from around the Internet have found common cause. That's the extent of his connection to them. The focus you and other put on James Randi just demonstrates your utter cluelessness about the nature of things.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/07/airfones-issue-redux.html

F0874 tells the mechanics to put the airphone switch to the off position and pull the associated circuit breakers. F0871 requires installation of a placard on all the Airfones in the plane informing the passengers that the phones would no longer work. Both are dated March 2002.

That's the actual order removing power from the Airfones. When's it dated?

Game over. Time to start yelling about Barbara Olson.

[duphase]

22. I think it's better to discuss the evidence

Even if one were to concede, for the sake of argument, that "phones" were used by passengers on 77, DRG's research has uncovered many
reasons to doubt the validity of the claimed Olson calls. Have you had a chance to actually read the article?

I don't know what makes you think that being disrespectful towards Dr. Griffin helps your case.

[William Seger]

23. LOL, yeah, that's Dr. Grifter's "cumulative argument" theory

Dr. Grifter loads his books with bullshit, knowing it's bullshit, because he believes in something he calls a "cumulative argument" -- a mode of "thinking" he apparently developed in his previous career as a theologian. Loosely stated, it means: If you pile it high enough, someone is sure to step in it.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Well, discuss it. There's the order right there. What's the date on it?

March 2002. The order to the mechanics to actually turn off the power to the Airfones was in March 2002. The Airfones were operating on Flight 77.

Discuss the evidence. Do it!

[duphase]

27. Clearly, the evidence mounted by Dr. Griffin - shows that

when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. This analysis thereby suggests that the entire 9/11 story used to justify the US-led wars is a lie.

There IS an interesting issue that hasn't been settled yet, but might be soon: Is the current Mrs. Ted Olson also the woman formerly
known as Barbara Bracher Olson? The similarities in the two women (looks, education etc.) are striking and I think there's a very
good possibility that the proud members of the "We are right about everything" crowd will suffer from sudden, collective apoplexy whenever that little truth is exposed.

[William Seger]

28. Clearly, the evidence mounted by Dr. Grifter shows that

... when you string dubious assertions together with faulty logic and ignore anything that doesn't fit, Dr. Grifter can lead some folks to any conclusion he chooses.

[duphase]

29. Your disgraceful insults don't refute the evidence Dr. Griffin found

"when you string dubious assertions together with faulty logic and ignore anything that doesn't fit,"...you can claim
that the bogus 9/11 phone calls really did happen. Really. Ask Ted. Or another member of the "We're right about everything" group.

[William Seger]

30. Dr. Grifter's "evidence" has already been refuted

... many times, and you prefer to accept it anyway. I'm a member of the "We understand where the burden of proof lies" group.

[duphase]

31. No, it hasn't been refuted. And, it's extremely unlikely that

any part of it will ever be refuted except for maybe a minor detail or two. The airplane phone calls were faked and the evidence to substantiate that fact is overwhelming and devastating to the official 9/11 story and the reasons for invading foreign countries that
hadn't harmed or threatened harm to the United States.

[William Seger]

32. Really?

Please state Dr. Grifter's case in your own words, using evidence that you don't think has been refuted.

[duphase]

33. Is it your position that vital records are being suppressed?

Phone records, billing records etc.? If so, what's the reason?


Was voice morphing used? Very possibly.

Were calls pre-recorded? Very possible, too. Most phone calls include words spoken by both parties (in a two-way call), but
there's no evidence that happened in the case of the 9/11 calls.

Were real calls made, but just not from 77 or 93 (while they were in the air - assuming those flights actually took place)? That's
worth more investigating, in my opinion.

Is there a compelling national security reason for not providing actual evidence (records etc.) of calls from 77? Hard to imagine what it could possibly be, in light of the fact that we've been told what was supposedly said in the calls.

Did the government withhold the truth about the phone calls in question? Yes. Dr. Griffin has researched this question in all its details and the evidence he found proves guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

[SDuderstadt]

34. So, let me make sure I get this right...

are you and DRG claiming the perps had the capacity to pull off this incredibly complex hoax, but would not have thought through the issue of how the calls could have been made because the airphones had been disabled? Does that make sense to you?

I can just envision the scenario now:

Perp # 1: "Hey, we've got a problem. Our plan to make everyone believe passengers called from the airplane isn't going to work.".

Perp # 2: "Why?".

Perp # 1: "Well, it seems that AA has disabled the airphones on their 757's. What do we do now?".

Perp # 2: "Well, let's go with it anyhow and hope no one notices.".

Perp # 1: "Brilliant!".

[duphase]

35. Sounds like that's EXACTLY the case, doesn't it?

Cell phones, no - air phones, credit card calls, no credit cards used etc.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Umm, no...

it sounds much more like CT's who stop looking at evidence once they think their absurd theories have been proved right and whose convoluted "Logic" keeps them from recognizing simpler natural explanations for the "anomalies" they think prove their outlandish claims.

A perfect example would be your irrational suspicion that Barbara Olson didn't really die but, instead, through the miracle of plastic surgery, has emerged as Ted's "new wife". I'm certain his current wife's family would be glad to disabuse you of that notion, not to mention the forensic investigators who positively identified "Barbara # 1's" DNA from the crash site. Please quit embarassing DU with this silliness.

[duphase]

37. Meanwhile, what about those records?

Maybe one day they'll just magically show up. Has your mail come yet today?

[SDuderstadt]

38. Another typical "truther" red herring...

think this through...why wouldn't the "perps" just have AA fake whatever records you guys claim are missing?

[duphase]

39. They think they smarter than everyone else.

But they aren't and they weren't, and that is why the story keeps changing and the perps keep flip-flopping away.

Still, it's possible that one day they might well release some records. After all, look at the history of those Pentagon
images. Late and fake, but there they be!


"records you guys claim are missing" ----

if you're saying they aren't missing, do yourself a favor: produce them. If real phone calls from cell phones or tin can phones or whatever they latest story is, produce phone records, credit card records, DOJ records, tin can records, whatever you've got that you feel would prove the thus far unproven claims of the government regarding those
alleged airplane-to-ground calls between the Olsons and the 93 calls too.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Dude...

the testimony of family members that they received the calls is enough for me. It would be really great if the "truth movement" would demand the same standards of evidence to their goofy claims as they demand of the "official story".

Simple question: Are you a "no-planer"?

[duphase]

41. Do you believe in magic? nt

[SDuderstadt]

42. No...

are you a "no-planer"?

[duphase]

52. "are you a 'no-planer'"?

I'm a middle of the road Democrat who views the political process
as a means of reconciling differences -
as opposed to an absolutist, who is a person who thinks he alone possesses wisdom, patriotism, and virtue, who recognizes no obligation to support community decisions with which he disagrees; who views the political process as a power struggle to impose conformity.

[SDuderstadt]

58. Are you a "no-planer"?

It's a yes or no question, yet you continue to play games.

[techsword]

45. Please come up with refuting evidence.

If it's been discredited - show it.

Do your responses ever get beyond the intellectual level of "I know you are but what am I?"

[spooked911]

63. perhaps you could go through Griffin's piece

and specifically point out where he is wrong or makes a faulty conclusion.

Or take this:
If all the calls (except the two at 9:58) were made from onboard phones, as the FBI’s report for the Moussaoui trial says, why did some of the calls produce the supposed caller’s cell phone number on the recipient’s Caller ID?

Tom Burnett: The best-known case of this type involves the reported calls from Flight 93 passenger Tom Burnett to his wife, Deena Burnett. As we saw earlier, she told the FBI agent that she had received three to five calls from her husband that morning. The FBI report then added:

“Burnett was able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone because the caller identification showed his number, 925 980-3360. Only one of the calls did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call.”65

According to the report presented to the Moussaoui trial, however, Tom Burnett completed three calls, all of which were made using a passenger-seat phone (the rows from which he allegedly made the calls are indicated).

How do you refute this major discrepancy?

[SDuderstadt]

64. What's the source of your claim, Spooked?

If it's Griffin, what's his source? Bigger question: why didn't you include it in your post?

[William Seger]

66. Too easy

There were three Airfone calls according to the records, but Deena Burnett now says she believes there were four calls. At the time, she said "three to five." If there were four (and there's no way to know), that would imply the fourth one was a cell phone call, which may be why she remembers seeing his caller ID. Or she may simply be mistaken. People do make mistakes, especially when they're emotionally distraught. Cell phone calls certainly can be made from above 30000 feet -- I've done it, and apparently so have lots of other people, despite Dr. Grifter's continued insistence that they can't. (He must know by now that that's bullshit, but it doesn't stop him from saying it, does it.) There wasn't any record of Burnett making a cell phone call around that time, but there also wasn't a record of the call he made to his secretary before taking off, so that doesn't mean anything. At the Moussaoui trial, the FBI explicitly said that Tom Burnett may have made "additional cell phone calls" to his wife.

So what Deena Barnett remembered when she first talked to the FBI was the most convincing evidence you could find in Dr. Grifter's mystery novels? Or would you like to try again?

[spooked911]

80. Actually-- the first story was four calls

The following info is according to Jere Longman's book "Among the Heroes", published in 2002 (this book is a comprehensive source of official flight 93 information, culled from witness interviews and news reports):

Tom Burnett was sitting in first class. He called his wife four times during the course of the hijacking, at 9:27am, 9:34 am, 9:45am and 9:54am. Each time he got through and spoke to her.

At 9:27am, he tells his wife there are hijackers, they have knifed a passenger and one of the hijackers has a gun. (None of the other flight 93 passengers notes that the hijackers have a gun). Burnett also says the hijackers say they have a bomb on board.

At 9:34am, he tells his wife "they're in the cockpit", and his wife gives Burnett info about the WTC attacks.

At 9:45am, according to Longman: "The hijackers, Tom said, were talking about crashing the plane into the ground. 'We have to do something'"

At 9:54am, he calls his wife and describes the passenger's plan to take control of the plane. Says "We're going to do something".

Further, according to Longman, the first and third calls WERE cell phone calls, while the second was from an "Airphone". The source of the fourth call was not specified. Nonetheless, for each call, we have a defined message, consistent with four different calls.



Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline supports the four calls story.


Here is the government's version of Tom Burnett's calls:

call 1-- 9:30am, 28 second length call to home
call 2-- 9:37am, 62 second length call to home
call 3-- 9:44am, 54 second length call to home


As you can see, the times of the calls are also quite a bit off between the two versions, and the times are not even off in any consistent way. The government has no 1st call at 9:27am, but there is a 9:30 call. The original 9:34 am call could then be the govt's 9:37 am call, if we assume a three minute difference. But that doesn't explain the 9:44 am call, nor does it explain the missing fourth call.

So -- this is really strange, particularly as explained by Longman, Burnett's wife is SURE he used a cell phone.

I conclude in this funny business with the phone calls that the 9/11 passenger phone calls were fabrications-- at least at some level we do not completely understand.

I know you say that Burnett's wife was wrong about the times and about the cell phone use. BUT-- according to one article, the FBI was monitoring the second, third and fourth calls!!!. Further, it is hard to believe that his wife made a mistake about the cell phone, as according to Longman, Burnett told his wife he was using the cell phone surreptitiously in his seat via an earpiece, and his wife also noted that she recognized his cell number on her speed dial. Finally, Tom Burnett's wife said Burnett seemed to be walking around (Longman, page 111), which is clearly impossible if he was using an Airphone.

Now, it's theoretically POSSIBLE that Burnett called his wife twice with a cell phone and three times with an Airphone, making five calls. But we're talking about five calls, which I never heard anyone say, despite what you wrote, and calls where Burnett rapidly and inexplicably shifts back and forth between a cell phone and an Airphone. And he is doing all this frantic calling despite being in first class, right next to a hijacker. And Deena Burnett forgets about a fifth call. The other problems are that none of the times match up, and that there are seven different call times. The 9:44 call and the 9:45 call are the closest, but the Govt says that was an Airphone call and Longman says it was a cell call. So we're really talking seven different calls, which surely Deena Burnett should have remembered.

I think the story stinks.

------

As far as you using a cell phone at 30,000 feet, please provide more details-- time, place, kind of service, length of call, etc. I have tried several times to get a cell phone signal in a plane, with no luck. And some of these times were below 30,000 feet. And no one else I have ever talked to has gotten a cell signal in a flying plane.

[duphase]

81. Excellent post. It's ironic that the gov't account of conspiracies

tries to reduce them to an absurdly simplistic story, yet whenever you delve into them for more than an inch deep, turns out they aren't so simple after all. They are PLANNED to be complex and full of contradictory facts, doubles of everything, manufactured evidence, altered evidence, things which encourage speculation etc. They want the naive public to have PLENTY with which they can use to form BELIEFS about what happened, while simultaneously, due to all of the doubles etc., it's extremely difficult to actually
KNOW very much at all.

It's also ironic how much in common most of these covert operations have...even though they're separated by long periods of time, in many of them. I guess covert operations planners are lazy and just want to get home and not have to juggle so much contradictory
BS flowing into their brains every day at work.

[spooked911]

82. Really would like to hear more about your miracle cell phone call

and about my response about Burnett.

[spooked911]

83. Still waiting

to hear more about your miracle cell phone call--

and about my response about Burnett.

Or are you conceding?

[spooked911]

84. STILL waiting

to hear more about your miracle cell phone call--

and about my response about Burnett.

Or are you conceding?

[Bolo Boffin]

85. I don't care if Burnett pulled a tin can out of his pocket and used string.

He talked to his wife from United 93 before he and other passengers rushed the cockpit.

[spooked911]

86. STILL waiting

to hear more about Seger's miracle cell phone call--

and about my response about Burnett.

Or is he conceding?

As for you, Bolo-- of course you'll gobble up any shit they feed you and ask for seconds.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Deena Burnett isn't feeding me any shit. n/t

[spooked911]

88. you've talked to her then?

maybe next time you could ask her how many calls there were-- 3, 4, 5, 7?

[SDuderstadt]

89. Dude...how you believe confusion over the actual number...

of calls made during a large scale, catastrophic event in which your husband is about to die, in any way, disproves the consensus account of that day, is fucking unbelievable.

Please quit nibbling around the edges and produce a smoking gun, if you have one.

[Twist_U_Up]

105. Yummy lol

NOT
funny chit mun

[Bolo Boffin]

106. Seek medication. n/t

[William Seger]

104. Gee, I'm sorry -- I stopped reading this thread

Your response was more than 2 days after my post, so it dropped off my "My DU" list. I don't read ALL the crap that get's posted here, ya know, and frankly this "fake phone call" stuff is too absurd to be very interesting. Concerning your comments about Burnett, I don't doubt your ability to sift through the uncertain evidence and imprecise memories and pick and choose which you find "significant" and which you ignore. One concept that conspiracists seem not to grasp is that inconsistencies are common in real world accounts and memories -- have you ever read newspaper articles about events you were personally involved in? -- and in fact, a lack of inconsistencies would be very suspicious. This is similar to your "no plane" bullshit where you think you are so clever as to find "obvious mistakes" by the apparently very, very sloppy video fakers, but in fact all you've found is imaging and compression artifacts that ought to be there in real videos and would actually require considerable attention to detail to fake. If the phone calls were fake, I'm sorry, Spooky, but the fakers were too smart for you: They were smart enough to include realistic inconsistencies.

[vincent_vega_lives]

112. If I lost my wife on one of those airplanes

and upon relating the story of our final conversations together, some deluded individual on the internet said "I think the story stinks" becasue it failed to support some weak masturbatory fantasy he clung to because it made him feel goooood that...well I don't think I would take too kindly to it.

edited to remove not-niceities.

[techsword]

48. here's a list of things you'll need....

>Dr. Grifter's "evidence" has already been refuted... many times, and you prefer to accept
>it anyway. I'm a member of the "We understand where the burden of proof lies" group.


Good... may times. provide a link to one. or two or all....

provide a link to an actual analysis of the report that refutes it's findings.

or provide a link to the evidence you claim refutes Grifter's report.

If you guys are just going to keep parroting, provide a link to a parrot...

or provide a link to some good porn or something...

[William Seger]

60. If you don't already know where it's been refuted....

... then I guess you haven't looked very hard, huh. Dr. Grifter's nonsense has been refuted on this board many times, among other places, so if you just can't think of any other resources, try that search button at the top of the page.

But I suspect a better guess is that you'd like me to waste my time so you can demonstrate your awesome intellectual powers to deny and ignore. No thanks, I don't need any demonstration of that, and it would be pointless anyway. I'm not concerned with what you don't believe.

Here's the short list of things you or Dr. Grifter will need if you expect to be taken seriously by rational people:

1. credible facts

2. sound reasoning

[spooked911]

62. man, are you full of yourself

Shorter William Seger:

well of course, it's been refuted, because "we" have refuted it, and you have to trust us, or you can waste time (which I'm sure you have lots of) searching on some mysterious key words (too bad, only donating members can search).

And really, there's no point in arguing with you, because WE are rational and serious and use "credible facts" and "sound reasoning"-- and you don't.

How much more bloated and pompous can you get?

[SDuderstadt]

65. I don't know. Spooked...

how much more bloated and pompous can you get?

[William Seger]

67. "And really, there's no point in arguing with you..."

Word.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Clearly, the evidence of the actual work order gives the lie to a major part of Griffin's BS.

Why won't you mention it?

Oh, because you're busy moving on to utter bullshit like Barbara still being alive and "remarried" to Ted Olson! I don't think even David Ray Griffin is that far out.

[techsword]

44. > So presumably he would have had a connection.

No.... Completely wrong assumption. completely wrong.

You cannot assert with out proof THE point of contention in the discussion.

We have scientific studies on our side.


What do you have? your instinct in contradiction to the facts.

think about that.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. What "scientific studies"?

Produce.

[techsword]

49. The one were discussing...

Done.

you know... the one were actually talking about...

that scientific study....

the one by Dr. David Ray Griffin

the one I keep hearing is refuted without anyone providing any proof of that.




We have a study conducted by a scientist in actual flying aircraft.


What do you have? Please provide SOME link to SOMETHING that refutes Dr. Griffin's work.
a study. an experiment. an article. a name. a photo. anything.


thanks and toodles.




Or did you forget what we're actually talking about.

[SDuderstadt]

50. Do you understand the definition of "scientific study"?

Second question: do you honestly claim to have studied both sides of this issue? If you do, how could you so blissfully unaware of the mound of evidence on the other side,' irrespective of whether you believe it or not.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. David Ray Griffin's article in the OP is NOT a scientific study.

I have provided a link that refutes DRG's assertion about Airfones on Flight 77, the actual work order telling the AA mechanics to turn off the power to the units, dated March 2002.

Stop playing silly games and fact the facts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

55. I think the poster refers to Dewdney, FWIW n/t

[SDuderstadt]

57. And the poster also omits that...

1) Dewdney is a "truther" so it can hardly be argued he is impartial.
2) This "study" was not conducted under controlled conditions.
3) This "study" was conducted over the Province of Ontario (not a rural area of the US) and at an altitude that far exceeds the altitude of any claimed 9/11 cellphone call.
4) Dewdney's area of "science" does not, in any way, qualify him to conduct a "scientific study" in cellular telecommunications.

[William Seger]

68. and 5) Dewdney is simply wrong

A couple years ago, on a flight from Washington National to Milwaukee, I was able to get a cell phone signal three times out of about 10 attempts, and on the last one, I was able to call my home phone and stay connected for about 10 seconds. Experiments never "prove" scientific theories, but they certainly can disprove them.

[OnTheOtherHand]

78. but other than that, it's a great point! :)

The same conclusion we reached the last seven times this issue came up....

[spooked911]

25. First, in terms of your BBC article

nowhere does it say the guy successfully made a call. He tried to test message and just wouldn't turn off his phone. Kind of different.

Second, in terms of DRG, if you read his piece carefully, he points out major discrepancies in the calls. I don't think he is saying calls are fake for laughs, but rather because there is no other reasonable conclusion.

Third, as far as the code tot he safe, clearly if the powers that be are all-powerful, there is no problem, right? Also, since Gronlund isn't even mentioned in the piece, maybe you should describe the issue better.

[duphase]

51. Passports, manuals, last will, bandannas, abandoned rental car...

all kinds of things the gov't calls evidence, but when it comes to the foundational claims on which the entire official account is based, no documentary evidence has been produced by the gov't.

Think about that. If the official account is true, then there would have to be all kinds of documentary evidence in support of it -
yet no phone records, no credit card records, no plane reservation records, not even a basic statement (under oath or freely offered) by Ted Olson about HOW Mrs. Olson got to the airport, did he accompany her, what time did they leave their home, did he drive, did she take her car and leave it in a parking lot, DOJ phone records etc. So many suspect claims, no credible evidence to support them.

As Dr. Griffin wrote in the article above: "If the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false � which, as I have emphasized in another recent book, can be seen to be the case." Does anyone here know anything that might shed light on the issue of whether Ted Olson remarried his wife after 9/11? Does anyone here know of any actual proof that they were EVER legally married?

We may all soon know a lot more than we do now about the activities of the Olsons on and after 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Please assert more often that Ted Olson remarried Barbara after 9/11

You are your own best debunker with bullshit like that.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Fucking unbelievable...

Y'know...I've begun to suspect that what you're doing is a very clever parody of a "truther". In the event I'm wrong about that, let me say that you're epitomizing why some of us disdain (or, in your case, have utter contempt for many (not all) "truthers".

Here are few for whom I'd have more contempt for than Barbara Olson, however, I wouldn't wish her fate on even my worst enemy and I cannot imagine the agony Ted Olson went through. Isn't it enough for you that AA confirms she was on the flight? Isn't it enough for you that her name appears on the passenger manifest? Isn't it enough for you that we know she was headed west for a TV appearance? Isn't it enough that forensic investigators ID'ed her remains through DNA? Can you imagine anything more gut-wrenching than having to supply your loved one's toothbrush or hairbrush to investigators so they could tell you which fragment of her remains are hers?

You're demanding that the widower provide evidence of how she got to the airport? You're demanding that her survivor prove they were ever actually married? Have you no decency? How dare you. How DARE you! Your silliness has now crossed the line of human decency.

As I said, I can think of few people I've had more contempt for than Barbara Olson. That is, until now. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I'm betting you aren't.

[BeFree]

70. Nice emotional outburst

So where are the hijackers DNA?
Why weren't their names on the manifest? IIRC

Imagine the fathers of the alleged hijackers hearing that their son was accused and there being no evidence?

What's fair for one is fair for all.

And what about the thousands who have died as a result of the BS-911 theory?
The thousands of innocents? Where is the feeling for all of them?

If we are going to make a case, lets be fair to all. Lets have all the available evidence, every bit of it. Otherwise it's all just BS-911 from certain parties that have a lot to cover up to protect themselves.

Lets have it all.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. Jarrah's remains were IDed with DNA at Shanksville.

The hijackers' names were on the manifests.

[BeFree]

72. As usual

You miss the point, bolo. And it's really tiring.
I mean you can come up with all these obscure things but when it comes right down to it you say, this obscure is enough to convict.

While we say we'd like to see it all before we are willing to convict.
That's rather simple, yes, but really, anything fancy with you and its just a waste of time.

The government needs to come totally clean, starting with a thorough investigation. Really, that's just common, basic justice.

What we have is a bunch of form BS-911, in triplicate.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Unbelievable

You make points, and when I answer them, I'm being obscure.

Whatevs.

[BeFree]

74. Well

You usually just throw out bits and pieces.
And the point is, bits and pieces aren't enough to convict.
Like one DNA out of 19. So what?

[Bolo Boffin]

75. I throw out bits and pieces? I'm specifically responding to your points!

Get real.

[duphase]

77. Until then, we have the 1st rate skills of people like DRG

Maybe one day the totality of the government's dishonest official account will reach a point where the public becomes galvanized
around the idea of demanding a truthful, thorough investigation of 9/11. The "dude" types who specialize in substituting shameless
insults and spin for thoughtful consideration of the evidence are awfully tiresome, don't you agree? With an honest investigation
in place, they can move on to a new issue and a new group of victims to trash.

Until then, my unsolicited advice is to ignore them and their highly predictable method rhetoric. It isn't productive. Instead, objective people who have a sincere interest in knowing more about 9/11 should direct their attention to people who are dedicated
to uncovering the truth and who are wedded to the notion of integrity in research.

Dr. Griffin has proven that the government's account isn't credible. Let's move forward from there. We don't need to keep proving
what has already been proven. It isn't productive. Neither are mud fights.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Please point to a single "shameless insult" I...

directed at anyone, dude. How is it not a shameless insult for you to demand that Ted Olson prove how Barbara got to the airport or that they were ever married?

Serious question: if you guys are so right, why have you been unable to galvanize public opinion in over eight years, dude? I'll give you a hint: it's because of the sleazy tactics of people like you and BeFree. Unfortunately, I don't think either of you will understand that in a million years.

[Kesha]

90. Nonsense...

None of the hijackers have ever been positively IDed, the relevant remains were John Doe`ed in the aftermath.

Show some evidence for your claim & I`ll stand corrected.


PS: Same for the passenger manifests you mentioned, pls. Fax copies from a book published in 2004 don`t count.

[Bolo Boffin]

91. So as long as you get to rule out the actual evidence, there's no evidence?

Funny.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x241361

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/No_hijackers_on_the_passenger_manifests

[Kesha]

92. Which evidence?

In fact, the aforementioned statement does not explicitly say where the "unknown human remains" were found, but merely implies by juxtaposition with another paragraph that these remains were found at the crash site of UA93.

Secondly, the FBI document in question was not signed, dated or otherwise authentificated. It was not either accompanied by a chain-of-custody report that would document the integrity of the specimen from the point of collection to the final result. The legal status of this document is therefore inconclusive.

But thanks for drawing my attention on the fact that the FBI claims that it got that stuff from German BKA. Will check local sources to see if there`s any verification from that side.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. By the way, while contemplating the guilt of Ziad Jarrah...

You might want to figure out a way to discount Jarrah's uncle's business card also showing up in the debris field. Perhaps Jarrah was on a hiking tour of PA and dropped the business card while selecting from the bounty of the local boxcutter trees.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/PA00109.html

[Kesha]

94. Please don`t try to prescind from the fact that we are discussing...

...the evidence which *you* have presented.

I don`t even doubt that this guy was onboard flight 93. We`re talking about the
absence of indubitable certainty, aka evidence.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. "I don`t even doubt that this guy was onboard flight 93." So why question the DNA evidence?

And while you're contemplating the "absence of indubitable certainty"...

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/My_friend_the_9-11_hijacker

For four weeks the maths teacher from the North of England and Ziad Jarrah, the man who seized controls of the fourth hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, had shared a bungalow as they learned how to fly in Florida. They had watched Friends together on TV and gone out to local bars at weekends to play pool. But while all Paul had wanted was a private pilot's licence Jarrah had another purpose. He was to become the leader of the team which hijacked the jet destined for the White House or Camp David until passengers stormed the cockpit.

"I couldn't believe that he was one of the hijackers," said Paul. 32. "As soon as I realised Ziad could be involved I called the police and the FBI later flew me to Washington to make a statement. Listening to Jarrah's voice on the last recordings from the cockpit announcing he was in charge of the plane was one of the most chilling moments of my life. I thought Ziad was just another student who wanted to learn how to fly. It sends a chill down my spine to think I was on first-name terms with one of the hijackers."

[Kesha]

96. Because there is none, obviously

My "believes" are secondary. This whole mess can only be discussed when opinions
are based on confirmable facts. An undated, untraceable FBI document can (and
must) be ruled out.

I´ve just checked that BKA > DNA > FBI issue on www.google.de, using this string:
Ziad Jarrah+BKA+DNA

In all conscience... I did not find any German source which is confirming the FBI claim that
they got this material from BKA. Any other fellow DUer may do a crosscheck, I`m not
omniscient ...

[Bolo Boffin]

99. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And meanwhile, the hits just keep on coming.

Jarrah's last letter to his fiancee:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Jarrah_Final_Note_Untranslated.pdf

It's written in German for the most part.

[Kesha]

101. Interesting, thanks

Quote:

"I`m now living at a different place, but I will always be able to watch you."

This may refer to heaven or Florida, Langley, etc.

The style of his letter is quite immature, though.

[Kesha]

102. Even more interesting...

Thanks for this source!

Even if you don`t understand German, you will notice that some parts of his letter are tilted left, the rest right.

As if someone adjusted it. Pure speculation, though.

[SDuderstadt]

76. Dude...

the "emotional outburst" was well-deserved. Then you weigh in with your typical lack of knowledge about the actual facts and become an apologist for the hijackers.

Imagine the fathers of the alleged hijackers hearing that their son was accused and there being no evidence?

Dude, I am not going to keep playing this stupid game with you. There is ample evidence against the hijackers. It has been pointed out and provided to you multiple times, yet you choose to ignore it and make stupid, patently false claims. The DNA of the hijackers WAS identified, yet you continue to maintain it wasn't. You continue to make patently stupid claims that the hijackers were not on the passenger manifests, even though those manifests have been repeatedly provided to you. Your contention that they don't exist is just more of your intellectual dishonesty, dude. It's really getting old.

More importantly, I wasn't asked about the victims of Bush's folly and I have repeatedly said that he should be indicted, prosecuted and convicted of his crimes. I don't know what the fuck else I need to say. But the poster's insistence that Ted Olson needs to provide proof that Barbara Olson actually went to the airport or that they were actually ever married is, in my opinion, mocking a victim and the family of that victim and, as much as I disdained her, this is outrageous conduct on the poster's part and I will point it out everytime it occurs. You don't like it? Tough, dude.

Now, for others reading this post who might be swayed by BeFree's deception, below are relevant links. As for you, BeFree, bye! Go play your fucking stupid games by yourself, dude.

http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_on_the_manifests.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/hijackers_dna_profiles.html

[Kesha]

97. "The third new piece of information"... quote from your link:

"The third new piece of information, which I also learned from Balsamo, was that another AA representative had made a statement about the absence of phones on AA 757s, which, being more precise than the statements that Morgan and Henshall had received, left no room for misinterpretation. This statement, which had appeared on a German political forum, had been evoked by a letter to American Airlines saying:

“n your website . . . there is mentioned that there are no seatback satellite phones on a Boeing 757. Is that info correct? Were there any . . . seatback satellite phones on any Boeing 757 . . . on September 11, 2001?”

The reply, which was signed “Chad W. Kinder, Customer Relations, American Airlines,” said:

“That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”


Actually, it was me who forwarded this email exchange with AA to P4T, then to Mr Griffin.

And Kinder`s mail is still on my harddisk.
We just asked AA, and they answered... quite efficient, I`d say.
An official statement by an official AA representative... that`s
what I`d call an evidence. :-)

[SDuderstadt]

98. Jesus, dude...

Do you see what's missing?

You have an acount in which the author (it's unclear who's speaking) is claiming Chad Kinder of AA e-mailed him the "smoking gun" (my characterization) and we're just supposed to believe it because it's on his//her hard drive.

1st, it's hard to imagine the author is an impartial party but, more importantly, where's the actual evidence of said e-mail? Just a few posts back, you were yammering that FBI evidence that Jarrah was IDed through his DNA lacked any manner of proper documentation,, yet you just accept this account of an e-mail uncritically? Beyond that, there's the matter of the work order which Bolo provided which shows the airphones were not disabled or removed until well after 9/11. Funny how you forgot to mention that.

Does your hypocrisy know any bounds? Any bounds at all?

[Kesha]

100. Tell me your email addy and I`ll forward his mail

or in case you`re a bit paranoid, my email is:

[e-mail]


That`s an official AA statement, no doubt about it.


PS: Hope you`re able to understand my humble English.

[Kesha]

103. Done... please check your mail

---> header deleted, is complete in my mail.




----PART.BOUNDARY.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline;

February 17, 2006

Dear Mr. XXXX:

Thank you for contacting Customer Relations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to
assist you.

That is correct we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on
flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the
terrorist attack. However, the pilots are able to stay in constant contact with the
Air Traffic Control tower.

Mr. XXXX, I hope this information is helpful. It is a privilege to serve you.

This is an "outgoing only" email address. If you 'reply' to this message by simply
selecting the reply button, we will not receive your additional comments. Please
assist us in providing you with a timely response to any feedback you have for us by
always sending us your email messages via AA.com at
http://www.aa.com/customerrelations.


Sincerely,

Chad W. Kinder
Customer Relations
American Airlines


This email message and its contents are copyrighted and are proprietary products
of American Airlines, Inc. Any unauthorized use, reproduction, or transfer of
this message or its contents, in any medium, is strictly prohibited.

[Kesha]

107. No reply, no mail. Seems Mr Duderstadt prefers to ignore it n/t

[SDuderstadt]

109. or, maybe I'm busy...

dude. Duh.

[Kesha]

114. I`ll give you a hint

My wife is from Moscow and she does not like the reason why you`re so busy.

I will keep my promise and will not post your email adress. Our deal did not include
the Google results when looking for your name, though.

And now I am expecting your statement about the mail I have forwarded to you, incl. the full
header. Do you understand my humble English?

Dude?

[Bolo Boffin]

116. Why the fuck should anyone care what your wife thinks of his being busy?

God damn.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

125. If you're talking about your promise to not divulge...

my personal e-mail address, you'd better review the DU rules, dude. And, if you divulge any peersonal information you think you've discovered about me, I'd venture to say your continued tenure here will be dhort, dude.

I'll respond in full when I have the time and not so many important things I need to deal with. dude. In the meantime, even P4911T acknowledges that Kinder cannot recall ever writing that e-mail. Doesn't that strike you as strange?

[Kesha]

127. I see...

...you understood what I was trying to say.

I would never do anything which is against the DU rules, though.

And now I`d like you to confirm that this was an official AA mail.

Vielen Dank.

[SDuderstadt]

135. Umm, no, dude...

unless you can link me to or forward the actual e-mail, I'll do no such thing.

[SDuderstadt]

124. Let me make sure I get this straight...

your "wife is from Moscow and she doesn't like my claim that I am busy"?

Is there a reason why I should care?

[KDLarsen]

111. Mr. Kinder is right

American Airlines no longer had airphones on their airplanes in 2006.

They did however have them back in 2001 and even into 2002.

[Kesha]

113. Mr Kinder is right... ok

He stated that airphones were not avaiable on Flight 77.

I don`t think there is much room for misinterpretation in his mail.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. Mr. Kinder is mistaken.

The work orders clearly show the phones weren't disabled until March 2002. The customer service guy is wrong.

[Kesha]

118. Thanks, Dude

I trust in an official statement of a representative of AA.

[Bolo Boffin]

119. The customer service guy is wrong.

[Kesha]

120. I would think he has an internal data base, aka Intranet

everything else wouldn`t be very professional.

After all, in my company we don`t rely on 3rd party stuff, but on our own info.

In case you doubt his information, why don`t you ask AA yourself?

We did... and that`s the info we got by AA.

[Bolo Boffin]

121. I am reproducing the actual work order. The work was done in March 2002. Game over.

Customer service guy was wrong. The evidence is in front of your face and you ignore it.

[Kesha]

122. Proof it

As simple as that. It`s just a copy of anything, published on the internet.

This pic is just as reliable as the Powerpoint presentation by a certain Mr Powell
in February 2003. Fool me once, fool me twice... I don`t see a reason why we should believe
in the the words of proven liars.

For the time beeing, we`re relying on an official AA statement.

[Bolo Boffin]

128. Right, you expect me to accept the email from the customer service agent

but reserve the right to reject the work order.

You have no reason to reject this work order. The work order trumps the customer service department. Game over.

[Kesha]

130. Got a link, Dude?

Everything else is a CT.

We all need to base our opinions on facts.

I have an AA statement, your point is a "Game over".

[Bolo Boffin]

133. Game over.

That's not a CT. That's a fact. That's the actual AA work order. How do you justify ruling one AA statment out of bounds while trusting solely in the other?

Both are AA statements. One is a primary document (seen above), the other is a statement from a different department altogether. Your dismissal of the primary source in favor of the several-times-removed statement shows who's caught up in the CT here.

[William Seger]

123. Good, then you'll trust THIS "official statement of a repesentative of AA" ?

Engineers at our primary Maintenance & Engineering base in Tulsa tell me that they cannot find any record that the 757 aircraft flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 had had its seatback phones deactivated by that date. An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time... It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected.

John Hotard, Corporate Communications, American Airlines

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Calls

When asked specifically about Kinder's email, Hotard responded to Ron Wieck ("Pomeroo" on JREF):

Kinder’s response was based on information that an order had been issued to remove Airphones from the 757 fleet. He did not have information on the specific aircraft or the timetable to remove them.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2868259&postcount=444

Dr.Grifter knows all of this now, but he keeps this nonsense in his "cumulative argument." Why is that?

[Kesha]

126. Thank you

911myths and Randi.org are not official AA sources, nor are they reliable.

Isn`t AA able to explain this on their own?

[William Seger]

129. The statement is from "John Hotard, Corporate Communications, American Airlines" (n/t)

[Kesha]

131. Mail Header, pls.

I have provided mine to SD.

Yours?

[William Seger]

134. ??? Mail headers can be faked just as easily as the message body

The question about Kinder's email was whether he really knew what he was talking about, or if he just spoke off the top of his head. Hotard's email is consistent with the work order and with the GTE Airfone records of calls from hijacked planes. Kinder's is not. More to the point of this thread, in the article linked in the OP, Dr.Grifter, that paragon of scholarship and intellectual honesty, actually uses part of Hotard's email to Wieck -- "An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time" -- as part of his "cumulative argument," but for some strange reason completely omits the part where Hotard said: "It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected."

[SDuderstadt]

132. Dude...Kinder doesn't even recall having written that e-mail...

Beyond that, whatever he may or may not have said is contradicted by the actual physical evidence of the work orders, which is contemporaneous. Do you understand how evidence works?

[aldo]

108. Arrest Bush, Cheney, Rove, Card, Rumsfeld, Rice, Giuliani, Pataki, the 2001 Joint Chiefs,

the entire 9/11 Commission (including their staff).

[Ardent15]

110. David Ray Griffin continues to show his idiocy

nt