9/11 Truth: An Interview With Dave Lindorff

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAD1oAnQM78

[seemslikeadream]

1. WOW 1030 views?

and no comments?

[wildbilln864]

2. well you know....

if it contradicts their official bullshit then it has to be ignored so it will drop from public scrutiny here. Thanks for posting SLaD. Am watching them now...
Wb

[victordrazen]

3. cognitive dissonance

The two least likely crashes (Pentagon and Shanksville) WERE found (although I don't believe for a second they were) the FBI would not allow the NTSB into the Pentagon for weeks, then only limited access was allowed. At the beginning it says that 11 and 175 were NOT found according to the 911 report.

[William Seger]

4. Yes, you seem to be suffering cognitive dissonance

"Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).

So, the boxes were found at the Pentagon and Shanksville, but they really weren't found or the data was faked, and the boxes that really were found at the WTC were covered up, because they just couldn't fake those?

[victordrazen]

9. I don't need to look it up, like you do

If you think a plane flew into the Pentagon then you are suffering from more than cognitive dissonance.

[William Seger]

11. Yes, I think a plane flew into the Pentagon

I know someone who saw it. But I believe we were discussing your cognitive dissonance regarding the black boxes. Why did "they" fake having found boxes from the flight 77 and 93, and then hide the boxes that were "really" found from flight 11 and 175?

[William Seger]

5. Looking into this some more...

... why would an honest investigative reporter not even mention that the claims were first made in a book written by one of the people who claims to have found the boxes? Why would he omit some of the reasons for doubting the claims, such as the ones mentioned in this Wikipedia article:

However, information has since surfaced which casts doubt on the credibility of this claim. The New York Post reported in April 2004, shortly before the book was published, that Michael Bellone was in serious financial difficulty, owing more than $220,000 to his publisher as well as in unpaid bills, "including hotel rooms, flights, FDNY shirts, business cards and even prescription drugs."<124> Many skeptics have speculated that a possible motive for the "We found three " claim would have been to boost book sales, though there is no direct evidence against Bellone.<125> On September 27, 2005, Michael Bellone, who had called himself an "honorary New York firefighter", was arrested for stealing an FDNY Scott air tank, harness, regulator and mask, and was charged with grand larceny, criminal impersonation and possession of stolen property. Conrad Tinney, one of the New York Fire Marshals who arrested Bellone, described him as a "fraud" and stated, "He's saying he was made an honorary firefighter by New York Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta. That's a fallacy."<126> On September 28, 2005, it was revealed that Michael Bellone had been using the firefighter equipment, as well as other historical artifacts stolen from Ground Zero, as part of a charity fraud. An unnamed firefighter in a NY Daily News article said of Bellone's book promotion and charity fraud that, "It's very ghoulish. He may have helped firefighters at the time, but now he's making a living on this."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Don't you think that Lindorff should at least mention those things, SLAD, or do approve of him telling only half the story?

[seemslikeadream]

6. 7:49

Why would you not include in your post what time the sun set tonight? Seems awfully irresponsible of you.

[William Seger]

7. Bellone's credibility is irrelevant?

That's a great way to destroy your own credibility, SLAD.

[seemslikeadream]

8. Bellone discrepancy?

The same can't be said for Nicholas DeMassi

Lindorff pointed out two sources, one from the NTSB, and a friend of his that is a cop, and was down at Ground Zero (two other people that aren't Bellone)

They wrote this in a book that was released on 2003. The 9/11 Commission's report wasn't released until July 22nd, 2004. They didn't put the snippet about the black boxes to "sell books" because they didn't expose anything about them UNTIL the 9/11 Commission's report was released. In other words, they didn't know they were exposing anything IN 2003, BEFORE the release of the report that said the black boxes WEREN'T found

[William Seger]

10. DeMasi's story is not credible

DeMasi is the one who was attributed with finding the boxes in the book co-written by Bellone, but it appears that DeMasi has refused to confirm or deny the story since then. It's hard to make anything out of that, one way or the other, but the story simply makes no sense on the surface: He is quoted as saying that he just went out driving in the rubble one day with three agents and found three of the four boxes. How lucky was that to find boxes from both aircraft, which hit different towers at different levels, on the same day, and right on the surface of millions of tons of rubble and presumably in areas that were cool enough to drive on, with hundreds of other people working on site who had also been told to keep an eye out for them but had missed them? Oh, maybe it was because they were aided by the "million dollars worth of equipment" that the agents loaded in the ATV? But the black boxes didn't have any kind of beacon system that could be located by any kind of equipment like a radio tracker; there weren't any beacons except for devices that would have emitted "pings" that could be picked up by sonar, and those wouldn't be activated unless the boxes were submerged in water. The "million dollars worth of equipment" seems like a detail that was added to make the story more credible, but it really has the opposite effect if you ask what this equipment was supposed to do.

Other than the dubious single passage in a self-published book, the proceeds from which went to a fraudulent charity, Lindorff has two anonymous sources. One is claimed to be an NTSB employee. Bellone claims that the agents told him not to say anything about finding the boxes, indicating an intention to cover up the find, but then they took the boxes to the NTSB? Why? And then they forgot to tell the people there to keep quiet? How could they be so careless? Why, in fact, would they want to cover up the find if they could simply fake the data any way they wanted, as is claimed for the flight 77 and 93 boxes?

The other unidentified source -- a cop -- seems to be a new claim, so I couldn't find anything about that. However, Lindorff says the cop saw a box in the back of an ATV which he thought was a black box, but even if a cop actually told Lindorff that, isn't it possible he could simply have been mistaken about what it was?

Lindorff claims that the black boxes are "virtually indestructible." That's a virtually meaningless claim, and Lindorff doesn't seem to take notice of the fact that, in addition to being in the initial plane crashes, these boxes would also have been involved in the collapse of the buildings (which could have easily flattened the boxes beyond recognition) and the fires that were present right up until the boxes were allegedly found (which could have destroyed their distinctive orange paint). He also claims that the rubble was gone over with a "fine-tooth comb." That doesn't jibe very will with the fact that very little of the aircraft was found in the debris, and I seem to recall stories about firefighters and victims' families being upset about the final clean up not giving enough attention to finding any remains for about half the victims. Lindorff obviously adds these details to bolster his claim that it "doesn't make sense" that the boxes were found in that mess. Sorry, but I have problems with any investigative reporter who needs to put that kind of counter-factual spin on his story to sell it.

[seemslikeadream]

12. Dave Lindorff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Lindorff


Dave Lindorff (born 1949) is an award-winning investigative reporter, a columnist for CounterPunch, and a contributor to Businessweek, The Nation, Extra! and Salon.com. He received a Project Censored award in 2004.


Career
Lindorff graduated from Wesleyan University in 1972 with a BA in Chinese language. He then received an MS in Journalism from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in 1975. A two-time Fulbright Scholar (Shanghai, 1991 and Taiwan, 1994), he was also a Knight-Bagehot Fellow in Economics and Business Journalism at Columbia University in 1978-79.

A former bureau chief covering Los Angeles County government for the Los Angeles Daily News, and a reporter-producer for PBS station KCET in Los Angeles, Lindorff was also a founder and editor of the weekly Los Angeles Vanguard newspaper, established in 1978, where he won the Grand Prize of the Los Angeles Press Club for his reporting. Lindorff also worked at the Minneapolis Tribune (now the Star Tribune), the Santa Monica Evening Outlook and the Middletown Press in Connecticut.

He is the author of four books, the most recent being The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, written with attorney Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights. In The Case for Impeachment, Lindorff and Olshansky list as rationales for impeachment,

“ lying and inducing Congress and the American people into an unjust war; allowing his friends and business cronies to profiteer off the war in Iraq; authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists -- a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law; stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights -- holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers; failing in almost every way possible to defend the homeland and our borders. ”

An investigative reporter since 1973, Lindorff has won numerous awards for his work, including the grand prize of the Los Angeles Press Club, a "Most Censored" award from Project Censored and a Brock Award for writing on agricultural issues.

Lindorff has been active on journalistic issues and was a founder of the National Writers Union in 1983, serving for many years in leadership positions in that union. He was also active in the Hong Kong Journalists Assn. during his five years in Hong Kong, when he was a correspondent for Businessweek magazine.

Lindorff gained national attention when he ran a story, just days before the 2004 presidential election, exposing President George W. Bush's apparent use of a remote wireless cueing device under his jacket and imbedded in his ear during all three presidential debates against Democrat John Kerry. The article, which ran in Mother Jones magazine's online edition, included photographs that had been enhanced by a leading photo analyst based at NASA's Jed Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA.

Born in Washington, DC in 1949, Lindorff lives just outside Philadelphia with his wife, harpsichordist Joyce Lindorff. He has two children, Ariel and Jed.

[William Seger]

13. Well, that's wonderful

... but the issue is why we should believe this dubious story? Because Lindorff believes it?

[seemslikeadream]

14. I don't care what you fuckin' believe

Grap your hat get your coat leave you worries on the door step, stay on the sunny side of the street for all I care

[seemslikeadream]

15. It’s extremely rare

“It’s extremely rare that we don’t get the recorders back. I can’t recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders.” The black boxes are considered “nearly indestructible,” are placed in the safest parts of the aircraft, and are designed to survive impacts much greater than the WTC impact. They can withstand heat of up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for one hour, and can withstand an impact of an incredible 3,400 G’s.

[William Seger]

24. I don't remember another case...

... where planes flew into huge buildings and were then buried with two million tons of debris, either. I don't have trouble believing that the boxes were strong enough to withstand the crashes, but why do you and Lindorff ignore what happened next?

[Thorandmjolnir]

35. I don't think all

"two million tons of debris" feel directly on top of the box. I am sure some of it fell somewhere else. like on Building 7.

[seemslikeadream]

16. oh and btw

DeMassi, to my knowledge, was not connected to the things Bellone did that were considered fraudulent. He says all the proceeds went to a fraudulent charity. How does he know that? Where does it say that? I believe if you look for it, there's a quote in a mainstream article of someone saying the same exact thing Lindorff said about how they should have been able to find them, etc.... I saw it recently, but dont remember where.

[Bryan Sacks]

20. You haven't proven anything, William

But the black boxes didn't have any kind of beacon system that could be located by any kind of equipment like a radio tracker; there weren't any beacons except for devices that would have emitted "pings" that could be picked up by sonar, and those wouldn't be activated unless the boxes were submerged in water. The "million dollars worth of equipment" seems like a detail that was added to make the story more credible, but it really has the opposite effect if you ask what this equipment was supposed to do.

So DeMasi wanted his story to be credible, so much so that he planted this detail in it. But now he won't even confirm the story is true? This story he cared so much about that he planted false information in it, false information about federal agents' possessions, no less? I think you can do better than this.

DeMasi was contacted by people I personally know (I myself could not reach him despite several attempts in 2004) and gave them very clear reason to believe the story is true. He was no activist, though, and no '9/11 truther'. He didn't want any extra media attention. But please prove that the FDRs and CVRs did not have devices permitting them to be tracked on land. That would be helpful.

Bellone claims that the agents told him not to say anything about finding the boxes, indicating an intention to cover up the find, but then they took the boxes to the NTSB? Why? And then they forgot to tell the people there to keep quiet? How could they be so careless?

Federal agents searching for the black boxes need not have had any role whatsoever in any future cover-up, William, and I love how you try to point out deviations from the course a 'true' conspiracy would have taken! Life is much messier than that, as OCTers are happy to point out when it suits their purposes.

William Bunch, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist from the Philadelphia Daily News, worked on this story for weeks after Nick and I brought it to him. He felt strong enough about it to get it published late in October 28, 2004, about a week before the election.

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html

Is he disreputable, too?

[William Seger]

22. No, I haven't proved anything

The point was, rather, that neither has Lindorff. DeMasi wouldn't necessarily need to be a "truther" or an activist to embellish his role in the recovery, just to make the story more interesting for example. Or isn't it possible, as another example, that DeMasi thought that black boxes was recovered, but that he was simply mistaken about what they were? The point is, the facts are not well established, and even if they were, no particular conclusion immediately follows.

A much better source would someone at NTSB coming forward to say that, yes, flight 11 and 175 black boxes were examined there.

Bunch's article appears to be a straight retelling of the same story -- no additional information -- so "disreputable" has nothing to do with it.

[Bryan Sacks]

25. But Lindorff gives us considerable new information beyond DeMasi's account

One, Lindorff has a source inside the NTSB that confirms receipt of four (not three) black boxes ;

Two, he has a New York cop that says he saw one of the boxes taken away by a federal vehicle;

Three, the NTSB source says the FBI took them, in direct violation of FBI claims.

In this case, the varying, independent accounts make it more likely that some boxes were found, since one account has three boxes being found and another has four, both have to be mistaken or lying for there to have been none found.

In the absence of a credible reason for all of these people to be lying, it stands to reason that it is the FBI that is lying, as Lindorff intimates.

[William Seger]

27. Yes, that's a possibility

I still find DeMasi's claim of finding three of four boxes while driving around on top of the rubble one day to be improbable, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I would also find it unlikely that any data could be recovered from the boxes after being crushed in the building collapses and possibly being exposed to high heat for nearly a month. And, if the FBI knew there was some kind of incriminating evidence on the boxes, I can't think of any reason why they would have turned them over to the NTSB for analysis. And mainly, I can't think of any reason why the FBI would have claimed that the boxes weren't found, if they knew that there were witnesses, when it would be much less suspicious to just say no data could be recovered from them.

So, all I'm saying is that the story is implausible enough that it demands more proof than Lindorff currently has. One way to help that situation would be to get the anonymous NTSB employee to come forward, so we could at least see who he is and if he was really in a position to know.

[William Seger]

29. BTW, I foget to include this

> "But please prove that the FDRs and CVRs did not have devices permitting them to be tracked on land. That would be helpful."

Here's a link that describes the FDRs and CVRs used in commercial aviation: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/CVR_FDR.htm

You'll see that it describes the Underwater Locator Beacon (ULB) that I mentioned, but nothing about a radio beacon that could be used on land. This suspicious detail ("million dollars worth of equipment") in DeMasi's story was pointed out by a professional pilot on the JREF board.

[Bryan Sacks]

30. Have seen similar statements in official places

Yet I think you'll agree that this does not mean that there is no way to track them on land. I read DeMasi's account and found it in accord with common sense: of course a black box would have a locator beacon. I mean, what good are they if they can't be found, and preferably as quickly as possible? But I recognize that common sense ain't so 'common' and this isn't proof.

Here is a state from another message board, from someone who claims to be a jet mechanic with experience inspecting heavy transport jets (including experience with the Air National Guard):

All Flight Data Recorders are orange with white (reflective) and one or two black stripes. Inside this box is the cockpit voice recorder and a recorder for flight control positions (expanded parameters). It also has a locator beacon which can be detected on land or under water.

Should be simple enough to get a conclusive answer.

[William Seger]

31. You think that would be a secret?

Why would a feature like that be kept secret? I've also seen a manufacture's site describing CVRs and FDRs, but I can't think of any good reason to waste time hunting for it again if you think there's a conspiracy to keep radio beacons a secret. If you think that the boxes had radio beacons, regardless of the available technical data, I'd say the burden of proof is on you. As it stands, DeMasi's story is simply not credible.

[Bryan Sacks]

32. I'll accept the burden of proof, though I disagree on you assessment of Demasi's story

If I find something conclusive about the recorders, I'll post on it.

[William Seger]

33. Also...

... your "jet mechanic with experience" thinks that the CVR and the FDR are in the same "black box." They are not, so I'm afraid he's discredited himself.

[Bryan Sacks]

34. maybe he was talking about a different kind of aircraft

Already I've found that CVRs, FDRs and ELTs (Emergency Locator Transmitter) - for both sea AND land crashes - were combined into one unit a long time before 2001, and were deployed as one unit in military aircraft:

International Symposium on Transportation Recorders
May 3 - 5, 1999 Arlington, Virginia

The Use Of Deployable Flight Recorders in Dual Combi Recorder Installations

P. Robert Austin
DRS Flight Safety and Communications
40 Concourse Gate,
Nepean, Ontario, Canada
K2E 8A6

KEYWORDS

Aviation, Recorders, Deployable, Standards

INTRODUCTION

Flight Data Recorders (FDR's), Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVR's) and Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT's) have been combined into a single deployable unit and used successfully on military aircraft for decades

more at http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/symp_rec/proceedings/authors/austin.htm

So the technology is readily available. With respect to commercial flights, I don't know yet. what was required. All it would take is some sort of GPS signal or other locator in them. It doesn't have to be this Dual Combi thing.

Easiest thing will be to call the NTSB (you would think). I'll do that AM tomorrow.

[William Seger]

37. It's no mystery

If you've already been looking for CVR, FDR and ELT information on the web, then you should have seen plenty of information that such "combo" boxes were not installed on any of the commercial planes that crashed on 9/11/2001. If the "jet mechanic with experience" was talking about military aircraft and didn't realize that commercial aircraft were different, then as I said, he disqualified himself. Here's an NTSB white paper written in 1999 that discusses a tentative schedule for upgrading: http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/symp_rec/proceedings/authors/austin.htm .

[Bryan Sacks]

38. A tentative schedule?

So what?

Just relax and I'll find out from NTSB. If you can get anything conclusive, please go ahead. Otherwise, you're just wasting time.

[Bryan Sacks]

40. NTSB's Ted Lopatkiewicz replies: no homing beacon for land crashes

According to Ted Lopatkiewicz, the are no ELT-type locators associated with flight recorders for land crashes. I have written him another question attempting to cover all of the bases, to see if there is any way at all they may be tracked.

Lopatkiewicz was the same man who in 2002 seemed to be expressing surprise that the black boxes had not been found, noting that they almost always were. But now I want to know two things:

1. What was the equipment those federal agents had that DeMasi reported? I'm not ready to conclude that he made the story up. Unlike Bellone, he is not a person that has sought attention or sought to profit from 9/11. I will go back to my contacts and see if I can get a clarification. It could be that they looked for the black boxes for days or weeks (with Demasi or others), and that the book only recounts the part of the story in which the boxes were found.

2. If in fact there was no way to home in on them, why was Lopatkiewicz surprised (if in fact he was) that the black boxes were not found amid so much compressed rubble at the WTC?


From: Lopatkiewicz Ted <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: short question re: commercial airliner flight recorders
> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 8:26 AM
> Mr. Sacks:
>
> No, there are no ELT-type devices on flight recorders for
> accidents on land. You correctly note that there are
> beacons that activite when immersed in water. Thank you for
> contacting the National Transportation Safety Board. Let us
> know if we can provide you with further assistance.
>
> Ted Lopatkiewicz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Sacks
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:02 AM
> To: Lopatkiewicz Ted; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: short question re: commercial airliner flight
> recorders
>
>
> Dear NTSB public affairs officials,
>
> My name is Bryan Sacks, and I am a college teacher in
> Philadelphia, PA. I wonder if you could answer the following
> question:
>
> Do the 'black boxes' in commercial airliners have
> locator beacons (ELTs, or similar) built into them that
> allow rescuers/investigators to find them quickly in the
> event of a land crash? I have been able to find information
> indicating FDRs and CVRs have locator beacons that can
> transmit in the case of a water crash, but what about land
> crashes?
>
> And if they do, from what time was it made a requirement?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> regards,

[Bryan Sacks]

18. Completely irrelevant, yes, to this story n/t

[William Seger]

23. No, not completely

Bellone says he saw one of the boxes, so he is the only (identified) corroborator who allows the stories to say that two people saw the boxes. So unless you want to say that Bellone's corroboration is irrelevant, then Bellone's credibility is an issue.

[Bryan Sacks]

26. On the contrary

Lindorff supplies two others: his NTSB source, and a New York cop, who claim to have seen the boxes. Keep in mind: Lindorff's Counterpunch article (Dec 2005) comes more than a year after Bunch's article originally appeared (October 2004), so Bellone was for a time the only other person.

Lindorff's account implies that more than one NTSB person saw the boxes, but we have these two at a minimum.

[William Seger]

28. But those two are anonymous

Apparently, nothing happened to either DeMasi or Bellone as a result of telling their stories. If these two have evidence of government malfeasence or obstruction of justice, they have a civic duty (if not a legal obligation) to come forward.

[Bryan Sacks]

17. Bellone was not present when they were found, William Seger

Nicholas DeMasi was present, as were an unknown number of federal agents. This comes directly from DeMasi's own account. You have it wrong, but it sounds like an honest mistake.
Bellone has told different stories, it's true, but the credibility of the black boxes story does not rest (thankfully) on Bellone's credibility.

And he did not write the book. He had a role in it, but the book was written by Gail Swanson, with Dennis Fisin listed as a contributing editor (see front cover).

http://www.summeroftruth.org/groundzero.html

[seemslikeadream]

19. Thank you Bryan

:hi:

[greyl]

21. Nice job with post #8, Sacks. ;) nt

[Grateful for Hope]

36. Bryan

wanted to add my "thank you".

:thumbsup:

[Bryan Sacks]

39. nice to hear from you, Hope :)