New DRG Article: "I myself believe that none of the reported calls occurred"

[boloboffin]

David Ray Griffin (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10103) continues to tread water in the crazy lake. He's responded to a critique of his cell phone nonsense. The results are not pretty:

In any case, in explaining why he calls my "perhaps technically true" statement---that the FBI report said that "there were no cell phone calls from passengers to relatives"---misleading, Kornkven wrote: "Griffin seems to be suggesting none of the calls took place whatsoever, a position which the FBI does not hold." Kornkven, in other words, thinks that I used my technically true statement to claim that the FBI said that there were no calls whatsoever. However, although I myself believe that none of the reported calls occurred, I made no such claim about the FBI. Rather, I pointed out that, according to the 2006 FBI report, most of the calls previously thought to have been cell phone calls were really made from onboard phones.

Go ahead and read the article. That paragraph doesn't get any easier to make sense of.

[Horace Wheeljack]

There are known phones. These are things we know that we phone. There are phone unknowns. That is to say, these are things we know we don't phone. But there are also unknown unphones. These are things we don't know we don't phone.

[dudalb]

Griffin needs to wear one of those white canvas coats with the really long sleeves and buckles in the back.
And a raspberry to all the praise he is getting from certain Christian Thelogians for "Speaking truth to power". Just proof that it is not only the Fundy Christians who are subspectable to woo.

[leftysergeant]

Is he out to prove himself a self-important ignoramus?

He finally got something right, if that is the case.

[ktesibios]

Yeah, that paragraph is rather hard to parse. Perhaps it would help if Griffin were to explain exactly what he's trying to say- preferably to some of the people who were on the receiving end of those calls.

[Mr. Skinny]

:DThere are known phones. These are things we know that we phone. There are phone unknowns. That is to say, these are things we know we don't phone. But there are also unknown unphones. These are things we don't know we don't phone.

[Mr.Herbert]

Here is part of an interview Griffin had in regards to the "hoax" that was the phone calls from flight 93:

Solomon: Tell us about this notion, on UA93, i asked
Lee Hamilton about the call phones, that cell phones wouldn't
work above 10,000 feet, throwing into question the testimony
that many people gave and that the movie about United 93 put
out that fact, that cell phone technology did work, and that's
how we have a picture. Lee Hamilton said 'well, we were just
given that, and we figured it worked some of the time, and
that's how we got the calls.' what do you say about that piece
of evidence?


Griffin: Well, what Lee Hamilton says
is right, if you're talking about cell phones back in 2001,
between 2,000 feet and 8.000 feet - at that level you could
get reception and talk for a reasonable period, some of the
time. But if you got about 8,000 feet, it was then practically
impossible.

Well, Flight 93 was evidently above 30,000 feet,
so it would have been completely impossible. So this is very
strong evidence all of this cell phone, all these cell phone
calls were fabricated. And if cell phone calls were, then
probably the airphone calls were too.

And we have further information from the very
nature of the calls: these were not what you would call, as
opposed to in the movie perhaps, the actual transcripts do
not suggest long interactive calls, rich in content, but things
like 'well, we're being kidnapped', 'we're going to make a
run for it', 'I love you,' and things like that. Worst of
all, one of the alleged passengers, Mark Bingham, got on the
phone, and said 'Mom, this is Mark Bingham' - have any of
us ever called our mother and used our last name to identify
ourselves?

So these two factors, plus some others, suggest
that the whole thing is a hoax.
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2006/09/091006_15.html


The old goat is a DISGRACE.

[CHF]

So all those family members were not talking to their loved ones after all.

Which I suppose means they were talking to a voice-morphing computer, one that knew intimate family knowledge and could mimic speaking style. And the family members were just too damn stupid to know their loved one from a computer.

Or it means the family members are lying.

Which is it Mr. Griffin?

[dudalb]

SO the Family members are in on it.
One would think a theologian would be familiar with the commandment the forbids one from bearing false witness against your neighbor, but Griffin apparently never got around to reading that one.

[ref]

Advice to anyone who hasn't read the article yet. Do not read it, if you want to remain sane! What and extremely long and worthless piece of nonsense.

[beachnut]

DRG is a liar and a fraud based on what he says without evidence. He says the phone calls were from the bad guys faking the calls to the loved ones, using voice morphing. DRG is sick.

[Jonnyclueless]

There are known phones. These are things we know that we phone. There are phone unknowns. That is to say, these are things we know we don't phone. But there are also unknown unphones. These are things we don't know we don't phone.

I was thinking the same thing.

[MikeW]

He's just back to the same old argument: "this newspaper report said they made the call from the hijacked plane using a cell phone; they must surely have asked for this detail during an interview; the newspaper report must therefore be correct".

The idea that a reporter might simply assume that, or a relative might do so because they didn't know about airphones, apparently isn't something he considers plausible. Yet there are mistakes in the reports. I found this one long ago, where the Post Gazette told us Todd Beamer made a "cell phone call" from Flight 93, even though they also admit he was speaking to an airfone operator (see point 12):

http://www.911myths.com/images/5/57/20011028Flight93map.jpg
(Source, hotlinked but from my own site) (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:20011028Flight93map.jpg)

Someone ought to point out to truthers that the FBI never said only two cellphone calls were made from the hijacked planes. Here's the relevant bit from the Moussaoui trial:

1 Would you tell us who that caller was.
2 A. Yes, sir, this is Thomas Burnett, Jr. Records, airphone
3 records indicate that Mr. Burnett made three phone calls from rows
4 24 A, B, and C and 25 A, B, and C. However, Thomas's wife, Deena,
5 reported that there may have been additional cell phone calls made
6 to her.
7 Q. So, she spoke to her husband repeatedly that day, is that
8 correct?
9 A. Yes, sir.
http://www.911myths.com/images/f/f8/Moussaoui_Trial_Transcript_April_11_2006.pdf

Note the line that "Thomas's wife, Deena, reported that there may have been additional cell phone calls made to her." The FBI specifically said there may have been additional cell phone calls made that weren't included in the Flash display: they do NOT claim there were only two cell phone calls from the hijacked planes.

[ref]

He's just back to the same old argument: "this newspaper report said they made the call from the hijacked plane using a cell phone; they must surely have asked for this detail during an interview; the newspaper report must therefore be correct".

The idea that a reporter might simply assume that, or a relative might do so because they didn't know about airphones, apparently isn't something he considers plausible.

Didn't you know that the first reports are always the correct ones? All the later ones are just desperate efforts to cover up the truth. And the reporters never get anything wrong. Just like the BBC reporting the building 7 collapse! It was a script, because they could not have been mistaken.

:eye-poppi

[T.A.M.]

DRG is a blabbering idiot.

NExt.

TAM:)

[MarkyX]

What do you expect from a religious nutjob?

[twinstead]

Didn't Mark Bingham's mom actually say that Mark quite often referred to himself in the third person as kind of an inside joke? WOW. Those NWO voice morphing experts are even more clever than I thought! How many people would know that fact?

[Drudgewire]

Didn't Mark Bingham's mom actually say that Mark quite often referred to himself in the third person as kind of an inside joke? WOW. Those NWO voice morphing experts are even more clever than I thought! How many people would know that fact?


They didn't. The obvious answer is they cloned his mom to lie for them.

Duh. :rolleyes:

[twinstead]

They didn't. The obvious answer is they cloned his mom to lie for them.

Duh. :rolleyes:

Those devious bastards!

[MikeW]

Didn't Mark Bingham's mom actually say that Mark quite often referred to himself in the third person as kind of an inside joke?
She said he did that sometimes, yes. Video at the bottom of this page (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mom%2C_this_is_Mark_Bingham).

[twinstead]

She said he did that sometimes, yes. Video at the bottom of this page (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mom%2C_this_is_Mark_Bingham).

Cool. Thanks for the link

[radical_logic]

Where are the substantive rebuttals to Griffin's essay? Why has no one here interacted with his arguments?

[SDC]

I used to try and interact with arguments. Typically after a couple of drinks in the bar. Sadly, she usually refused further interaction.

[beachnut]

Where are the substantive rebuttals to Griffin's essay? Why has no one here interacted with his arguments?
Cell phones work in flight, the technical papers on cell phones prove it. DRG is wrong.

The calls made on 9/11 were real, DRG says they were fake. He is a liar.

He is so low as to say someone faked the calls using voice morphing technology, all without evidence. How pathetic and stupid.

You can't prove anything about DRG, you came void of evidence.

DRG has only hearsay and lies. That is the truth and you have zero substantive rebuttal backed with evidence on this topic! Do you?
NO


Are you supporting DRG idiot ideas? Bring some facts next time.

[pomeroo]

Where are the substantive rebuttals to Griffin's essay? Why has no one here interacted with his arguments?


George Papcun, the "father of voice-morphing technology," interacted with Griffin's arguments in an article I posted here a year ago. Needless to say, the cynical charlatan DRG ignored everything, went into hiding for a spell, and, characteristically, returned with the same discredited snake oil:

(Papcun wrote)

Purveyors of conspiracy theories have claimed that the events of 9/11 were the result of a massive government plot and cover-up. (See, for example, www.loosechange911.com (http://www.loosechange911.com/).) According to their version of events, there were no hijackers. Instead, the World Trade Center buildings were blown up by explosives planted inside the buildings rather than, or at least in addition to, the effects of the passenger airplanes crashing into them. They claim that the government (or the CIA or someone other than Osama bin Laden and the hijackers) was behind 9/11.
However, a major problem for their allegation, given that they claim there were no hijackers, is that the passengers on United Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania called home with desperate messages to loved ones, in which they said there were hijackers. Accordingly, the conspiracy theory purveyors have needed to claim that someone (namely, me) created the voices of the passengers in those phone calls. That allegation is plainly outrageous and demeaning to the memories of those courageous passengers.

I originally developed the technology of voice morphing, the technology by which it is possible to make someone seem to say something they did not say (see www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm ) and coined the phrase. Therefore, I know what would have been required to create such bogus calls. Practical considerations preclude making counterfeit telephone calls in this situation. For example, it is necessary to have samples of the voices of the people to be imitated. In situations like this, where the goal is to participate in an unconstrained conversation, the voice sample must be extensive. I cannot imagine how I might have obtained extensive samples of the voices of the passengers on Flight 93, especially not knowing which of them would call home. Additionally, in this situation it would be necessary to know what someone would say to his or her loved ones under such circumstances. What pet names would be used? What references would be made to children and other loved ones? Do believers actually suppose that the government (or I) listens in to everyone’s pillow talk? In a separate essay, I will cover the technical aspects of voice morphing, which will further demonstrate the implausibility of the scenario set forth by the purveyors of conspiracy theories.

Whether such wild-eyed theories are worth being concerned about is problematic. However, in their own words, their conspiracy theory organization “has grown from a cult following to a grassroots organism that can no longer be contained” (op cit). I have received email from a high school social studies teacher who told me that her students actually believe that I did everything the purveyors of conspiracy theories say I did. Why they would so mistrust their government and be so naïve with regard to technical issues are interesting questions, albeit matters well beyond the scope of this essay.

[T.A.M.]

I have not seen a single argument from DRG that has not been addressed here. Google and the term "JREF" with the argument in question are your best friends.

He is perhaps the worst of the lot, in terms of simply regurgitating the same old tired, LONG DEBUNKED, truther canards.

TAM:)

[1337m4n]

I wonder if DRG has ever told the families of those who died on the flights, Daddy was just faking his death and is actually a government shill. He should do that, if he really believes in the Truth.

[bje]

DRG has to be the most immoral and hypocritical 9/11 Denier I have ever seen. As a supposed "theologian", if he does in fact believe in a God, he surely must know he will burn in hell for eternity.

What a despicable human being.

[A W Smith]

Where are the substantive rebuttals to Griffin's essay? Why has no one here interacted with his arguments?

how did the 'conspirators' know the location and combination to Lin Gronlund's safe?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14789502/page/0/


Elsa Strong, Joseph DeLuca's sister: She said—“Hi, Else, this is Lin. I just wanted to tell you how much I love you.” And she said, “Please tell mom and dad how much I love them.” And then she got real calm and said, “Now my will is in my safe and my safe is in my closet. And this is the combination.” And she just told me the combination of her safe. And then she just said, “I don’t know if I’m ever gonna get a chance to tell you again in person how much I love you, but I’m really gonna miss you.” And she said goodbye.

[Hokulele]

George Papcun, the "father of voice-morphing technology," interacted with Griffin's arguments in an article I posted here a year ago. Needless to say, the cynical charlatan DRG ignored everything, went into hiding for a spell, and, characteristically, returned with the same discredited snake oil:

(Papcun wrote)

<snipped the good stuff>



Hey pomeroo, good to see you back and in top form.

And to radical logic, every time someone takes the thorough approach to DRG's work (gumboot and R. Mackey), DRG continues to spout the same discredited tripe. Go back to the earlier threads and you will see.

[Arus808]

please Radical himself repeats tired claims from truthers. He's still on the "OBL" did not confess to 9/11, you know a claim that was debunked back in 2006.

[radical_logic]

It seems necessary to repeat myself: Where are the substantive replies to Griffin's essay? Why hasn't anyone interacted with his arguments [in the above essay]?

[Drudgewire]

Hey pomeroo, good to see you back and in top form.


True dat! :)

[CHF]

It seems necessary to repeat myself: Where are the substantive replies to Griffin's essay? Why hasn't anyone interacted with his arguments [in the above essay]?

I'm not sure what you think the point of that would be.

Last year our own Ryan Mackey wrote a 180+ page response to Griffin's latest book on demolitions and the grand priest of the TM has been ignoring it ever since.

[twinstead]

It seems necessary to repeat myself: Where are the substantive replies to Griffin's essay? Why hasn't anyone interacted with his arguments [in the above essay]?

Here's a question: what do YOU think about his claims that all the phone calls from flight 93 are fake?

[Jonnyclueless]

It seems necessary to repeat myself: Where are the substantive replies to Griffin's essay? Why hasn't anyone interacted with his arguments [in the above essay]?

Do you think the fact that people HAVE indeed interacted with his arguments may be a factor?

[T.A.M.]

Here is all the substance that Griffin deserves on the topic.

THERE WERE CELLPHONE CALLS. THERE WERE AIRFONE CALLS. THEY WERE MADE BY REAL PEOPLE. THERE IS A PLETHORA OF EVIDENCE THAT THESE CALLS WERE MADE. THERE ARE PHONE RECORDS, THERE ARE AIRFONE RECORDS. SOME OF THE CALLS HAVE EVEN BEEN MADE PUBLIC (BETTY ONG, though not on f93 obviously). JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE PERSONAL ACCESS TO EACH AND EVERY CALL, DOES NOT MEAN THEY DID NOT OCCUR.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

It seems necessary to repeat myself: Where are the substantive replies to Griffin's essay? Why hasn't anyone interacted with his arguments [in the above essay]?

Cell phones can work in flight is a fact you can look up in technical papers on Cell Phones.
That makes DRG a liar!
Morphing voices! He is a lair. Prove he is right and I will retract my statement, but I have looked at all of DRG work and found it to be filled with hearsay lies. You can't even do anything about that.

Next time you ask the same question, you are proving you have zero information to support DRG with, you have one stupid question, and you can't prove anything about 9/11 truth ideas
Either you are not reading posts, or you are not comprehending anything. Which is it?

Still in doubt? See the post above!
Still lack those keen analytical skills? Do not understand? Relax, you are perfect for 9/11 truth, just the way you are...

[Arus808]

Radical can use the search function of this forum. ALL of DRG phone fakery has been dealt with, and denounced, including his claim about voice morphing technology, by the VERY man who invented it.

[Brainster]

My favorite part of that DRG essay is when he describes the CT of the guy who he's "debating":

According to his theory, there really were hijackers on the planes, but they were not Arab Muslims, or even Muslims of any sort. He also holds that relatives of victims did not actually report receiving cell phones calls. Instead, this claim was invented by the corporate media to trick the foreseen 9/11 truth movement into denying that the calls occurred, because the calls had revealed real truths that the government did not want to be known.

Anybody with half a synapse would not bother to debate that theory.

[Drudgewire]

According to his theory, there really were hijackers on the planes, but they were not Arab Muslims, or even Muslims of any sort. He also holds that relatives of victims did not actually report receiving cell phones calls. Instead, this claim was invented by the corporate media to trick the foreseen 9/11 truth movement into denying that the calls occurred, because the calls had revealed real truths that the government did not want to be known.


*head asplodes*

[A-Train]

My favorite part of that DRG essay is when he describes the CT of the guy who he's "debating":

"According to his theory, there really were hijackers on the planes, but they were not Arab Muslims, or even Muslims of any sort. He also holds that relatives of victims did not actually report receiving cell phones calls. Instead, this claim was invented by the corporate media to trick the foreseen 9/11 truth movement into denying that the calls occurred, because the calls had revealed real truths that the government did not want to be known."

Anybody with half a synapse would not bother to debate that theory.

Griffin is deliberately distorting the ideas of the guy he is debating. In the comments of the 911Blogger post, Kornkven quotes the same paragraph, and writes:

"One not familiar with this intricate debate might conclude from the above that I believe the relatives of the victims did not receive phone calls whatsoever. I believe that all the calls from the planes-- the one allegedly from Todd Beamer on UAL93 excepted-- are real, made by real passengers who were in the process of being hijacked by real hijackers. I have also conceded that a few of the calls, such as Renee Mays' from AAL77, were indeed made with cell phones. My contention, however, is that the vast majority of the calls were made from GTE seatback airphones installed on at least three of the planes."

[Drudgewire]

Griffin is deliberately distorting the ideas of the guy he is debating.

Are you sure? That doesn't sound like the DRG I know at all. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[deep]

Last year our own Ryan Mackey wrote a 180+ page response to Griffin's latest book on demolitions and the grand priest of the TM has been ignoring it ever since.


Right, but it wasn't peer-reviewed & published in a mainstream scientific journal.. and we all know what that means.

[Arus808]

A refutation article, pulling FACTS straight out of other reports (that have gone through the peer review process) doesn't need to be peer reviewed.

[deep]

A refutation article, pulling FACTS straight out of other reports (that have gone through the peer review process) doesn't need to be peer reviewed.


Oh, fantastic - so I guess that means you've embraced the "14 point of agreement ..." paper by Dr. Steven Jones (et al), since that doesn't need to be peer-reviewed?

Either way - people can decide for themselves. I just wanted to point out that Mackey's paper (as a response to DRG) has not been peer-reviewed or published in a mainstream journal.

[Arus808]

No i haven't because nothing in teh 14 point list of DRG's was backed by evidence or facts, and was mininterpreted by DRG.

YOu seriously do not understand the difference.

[PhantomWolf]

Right, but it wasn't peer-reviewed & published in a mainstream scientific journal.. and we all know what that means.

Well apart from the fact that the paper it was against wasn't either, it certainly did go through a form of peer-review, I believe that Mackey even had to modify a few points that were shown to need work.

[fuelair]

Yeah, that paragraph is rather hard to parse. Perhaps it would help if Griffin were to explain exactly what he's trying to say- preferably to some of the people who were on the receiving end of those calls.
In a quiet, soundproof room that they have keys to get out of anonymously but he doesn't. So they can discuss it appropriately with him.