Please find below all correspondence between Mr. Gordon Farrer and
Dave vonKleist staring form the most recent to how this all began.
From: Dave vonKleist
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:15 PM
Subject: RE: Gordon Farrer's Jan 4th 'Malicious nonsense posing as
This will be my final response.
* What "theory"?
* Questions are not evidence. Agreed. Please address the photographic
and video evidence that led to the question. Not the questions. Why do
you keep focusing on the questions rather than the evidence? The flash
happened. It IS evidence.
* Again, you infer that I called you many things including "the whore of
the New World Order". All of our correspondence is posted and I said no
such things. Again, you have shot yourself in the foot. Both feet.
* Before a lawyer presents his case, there is a process called
"discovery" whereby the EVIDENCE is presented as a basis to build a case
and prepare a line of questions. You seem to be desperately avoiding the
* The fact that you have been a journalist for many years doesn't add to
your credibility, it only adds to the argument that "journalism" by your
standards is suffering from a severe identity crisis.
* The fact that you responded so quickly indicates that you have yet to
follow up on the leads given to you and that you have no intention of
persuing the truth. Once you demonstrate that you truly are searching
for the truth rather that avoiding it, maybe we can continue meaningful
It is said that one should stay on the horse rather than get down and
wrestle in the mud. I for one am done sparring with you and have soiled
myself for the effort. Hi-yo Silver.
You have the last word. One...Two....Cha Cha Cha
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon FARRER
To: The Power Hour
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:57 PM
Subject: RE: Gordon Farrer's Jan 4th "Malicious nonsense posing as
We're not going to get anywhere with this (as we both knew from the
beginning) but I'll note a few things about your latest response:
* I never attacked you personally, only the way you argued your case. I
never mentioned your clothes or your grammar or your diction. I
criticised the logic you used to argue your theory. I wasn't killing any
messenger, just the flawed argument the messenger tried to present.
* The sarcasm in your responses to me contradicts your plea for me not
to attack you personally. "Tea for Two"? What am I "smokin'"? A "future
in working for the Pentagon"? I'm a "hack"? The double standard of this
does your case no good at all.
* Watch your video again. I think you'll find my account of your logic
is correct. All the stages of the argument are what the viewer is meant
to draw from your "evidence". It's very clear.
* You say: "The video clips and photographs are e-vi-dence. Have you
ever heard of "photographic evidence"? or "video evidence"? It's real
simple - we show a clip, and ask a question. Show another photo, ask
another question." To that I repeat my point: <questions about> events
are not <evidence>. Evidence is something that <proves> something
<happened>, not speculation that something else <didn't happen>. Ask a
decent lawyer about what is required for something to be considered
"fact" in a court of law. I think you'll find that the rules of evidence
are much more stringent than the approach you take in 911: In Plane Site
and that a lot of what you present as incontestable fact is not that at
* My response in an exercise in "diversion"? I was explaining what a TV
preview is, not trying to debate you on the information on which you
base your theory -- I explained I'm not qualified to do that and agreed
that you could well be right about what happened. I made that very
clear, yet you choose to pretend I'm saying something else and throw
more "facts" at me to prove me wrong. That's not what we're arguing
Your claims (and the accusations of many of your fellow believers in
emails I've received) continually attack me for being a propagandist,
for writing what I'm told to write, for not being allowed to write the
truth, for being a "whore of the New World Order", of being in the
pocket of Langley Va. I've worked in journalism for many years and none
of these things are true. They are ridiculous suggestions. You'll say
I'm lying about that, but I know the truth about this and can see that
there's a lot of ignorance and paranoia out there about what the media
does. That's sad, because we're really on the same side -- searching for
truth and trying to bring it to a broader audience. It's a shame you
don't see that.
I'm also glad we had this exchange. It shows me that people who have
made up their minds about something are blind to reasonable argument.
They believe what they believe and that's the end of the story.
My response is still not on your website. So much for your offer to post
a reply from me. It makes me question your dedication to fair and open
debate and wonder whether deep down you know I'm right about this and
that your readers will see that. If you do eventually post my reply, and
then add your reply, I ask you to also post the reply above.
If you do so, this will be my last exchange with you. I reserve the
right, though, to post responses elsewhere on the Web and to write a
larger piece for my paper about this whole episode -- which will be seen
by a much larger audience than my original review of your program. This
whole exchange has been enlightening, to say the least.
January 11, 2006
Thank you for your response to my response and attack of your attack.
I'll keep this brief.
I understand all too well the point of your piece. I could almost hear
"Tea for Two" playing in the background as I read your .....excuse
(response). Yours is a textbook case of killing the messenger rather
that face the message. In my first response to you, I challenged you to
research the information and offer an explanation or an opinion of the
unanswered questions and you have yet to do so. Instead, you have "dug
in" and continued to attack by calling me "deceptive" by "pushing a
theory that was unsupported by facts". Excuse me?
You state: "no real evidence was offered for any
of its theories." What is this? Newspeak? What are you smoki'n? I
offered no theories and would challenge you to correct me. The video
clips and photographs are e-vi-dence. Have you ever heard of
"photographic evidence"? or "video evidence"? It's real simple - we show
a clip, and ask a question. Show another photo, ask another question.
Maybe even review historical facts. I find it amazing that someone with
your apparent intelligence fails to grasp this simple concept.
I don't claim to be an expert on anything. I am simply a musician and a
talk-show host that made a video to show things that most people hadn't
seen or noticed. Sorry if you don't like my grammar or my diction or my
presentation or my red sweater. The questions are valid. Ponder this:
Would our Constitution be any less valid if my copy was printed on
toilet paper? For you to focus on your assessment of my journalistic
abilities was nothing less that en exercise in diversion.
In your response to mine, you misquoted me several times. You quoted me
as saying, "If enough questions are raised, that
proves the events didn't happen the way they've been described."
I never said that and I don't appreciate your twisting my words and then
using your fabrication against me. You also quoted me as saying,
"Because the events didn't happen as officially
described, there's been a cover-up." and
"Those involved in the cover-up must have been involved in the events
being covered up, or why else would they be covering it up?" and
"Therefore, the government and military agencies
involved in the cover-up must have perpetrated the original crime."
Again, I said NONE of these things in the video and I would challenge
all of the readers to confirm this by watching it and listening
carefully. (By the way, I DO have a transcript.) After doing so, they
will find that you either misquoted me or you lied. You sir, have
created these misrepresentations and presented them as fact when they
are not. THAT is maliciously deceptive. You have a lot of nerve calling
yourself a journalist and attacking my credibility. People that live in
You can hide behind any rationale you choose, but the bottom line is
that if you refer to someone's work as "malicious nonsense" and
"rubbish" you need to at least give a legitimate reason for your
assessment. You have chosen not to do so on both occasions.
Frankly, I am glad that we have had this exchange, for it illustrates to
all the methodology you are attempting to employ, and exposes your
agenda for what it is. You have demonstrated by your actions and words
that you are voluntarily, adamantly and pompously part of the problem.
I am still waiting on you or anyone to address honestly the flash and
the object that appears on the bottom of the plane. Until you do a
little more research on the issues and investigate the questions raised
by this evidence, you have no business criticizing me or anyone else
that has the guts to ask the questions you can't face.
Go back to writing your propaganda and consider that you may have a
future in working for the Pentagon. You are very good at what you do.
And don't bother responding, you've already shot yourself in the
For Freedom! Forever!
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon FARRER
To: Dave vonKleist
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 11:46 PM
Subject: RE: Gordon Farrer's Jan 4th "Malicious nonsense posing as
Thanks for the chance to reply to your attack on my attack on your
program. Very sporting. I hope <the whole> of the following response
makes it on to your website. If it doesn't, I've had an offer from
another site to post it so the full text of my response to your comments
is available to anyone interested.
You've misunderstood the point of my piece on your program. I wrote
about 911: In Plane Site as a piece of television, I wasn't making an
argument about its content. (You'll disagree with that but I'll deal
with that below.) That's what a television reviewer does. When I write
about a documentary on elephants, I don't argue with the experts who've
done the research into whether elephants are carnivores, have supersonic
hearing or are grey. I write about how the information is being
presented and whether it's presented convincingly.
I can't prove or disprove anything about what happened on September 11,
2001. A 400-word review certainly can't start to deal with the claims of
a program such as 911: In Plane Site. Given that, my aim was to question
the journalistic/documentary methods used in the program and argue that
isolated facts assembled in a certain way, out of context, can be used
to prove/disprove anything. I was questioning the validity of your
"investigation", not directly challenging the truth of the "facts" you
presented with independent research of my own (or from other people).
That's not the purpose of a TV preview.
I have no problem with well-research programs that raise questions about
September 11 in a responsible, credible way. The problem with In Plane
Site was that it is a deceptive piece of work that breaks the rules of
good journalism and logical argument and clearly pushes a theory that
was unsupported by its "facts". It failed in its attempt to prove its
I understand people's desire to pick holes in the "evidence" around 911,
to raise anomalies and doubt the mainstream account of the events. (I'm
no fan of your government, your military or their behaviour around the
world and believe it has committed some heinous acts. If what you say
about that day is true, I'd be the first to want to see proof and see
them brought to account.) But that's also what I was doing in discussing
the 911 program: questioning its evidence and doubting its conclusions.
Why is it valid to do it in one case but not the other?
This is why I believe your program is flawed and was not a piece of
In your program, no real evidence was offered for any of its theories.
You suggested there are "questions" around the events based on
selective, flimsy, uncorroborated reports. These reports could easily
have been double-checked but they were not. You just put them forward as
Here's an example: You seized on <one line> from <one book> about the
Pentagon attack that said there was a 100-foot-wide crater in front of
the building -- when there clearly wasn't -- as some sort of official
cover-up. The author(s) of the book <just got it wrong>, that's all.
That's their bad research, not proof of a cover-up. Here's another
example: You "proved" the woman saying that the plane "was not an
American Airlines" had not been dubbed by you, as "some might claim".
Then you reached the astonishing conclusion that because her voice had
not been dubbed, that meant what she was saying was fact. That's flawed
logic. The program is full of red-herring sleights-of-hand such as
The program's logic is circular; it generally uses vague, evasive
language; when the language wasn't vague it is designed to lead the
viewer to make their own unsupported conclusions; it offers no plausible
explanations for anything (if the two planes that crashed into the
towers were military, what happened to the passenger jets and the people
in them? They're in the ocean somewhere? Where's the proof? Saying it is
so doesn't make it so. <You need evidence.>); it doesn't ask a single
expert, airline official, government official or serving military
representative to comment on hard facts or to refute your theories.
Frenchmen who run websites are not experts. And just because a lot of
people believe something does not make what they believe true. People
used to think the world is flat; that witches cast spells on people,
that Jews ate Christian children. Are you saying that the weight of
belief means these things were true?
You were also pretty cagey about your statements throughout the program,
raising questions but not saying what really happened. You kept using
dodgy phrases such as "Is it outside the realm of possibility that ...?"
and, on another occasion, "Is it <not> outside the realm of possibility
that ... ?" These are shonky rhetorical devices. The history of science
has seen many major breakthroughs occur by chance, not as part of
something being researched or looked for. If I say "Is it outside the
realm of possibility that these discoveries were not chance but that
alien life forms of superior intelligence have been guiding us all
along?" you have to say No, it is not "outside the realm of
possibility". Just about anything is <possible> -- but that does not
make it <true>.
Here's the logic you used in the program. The critical comments in
square brackets are mine.
* "It is possible to raise questions about the events of 9/11." [True.
You can raise questions about anything. But you also need hard evidence
for the alternative theory of events that you offer. Just because you
can prove I donít have a dog it doesnít follow logically that I do have
a cat. You need to find proof for the existence of my cat.]
* "If enough questions are raised, that proves the events didn't happen
the way they've been described." [No, that only shows that you don't
have an explanation to answer your questions. It's still not proof of
anything. <Proof> is hard evidence that <<something happened>>, not
questions about whether or not it happened. You make no real attempt to
properly investigate the doubts you raise. You only pretend to.]
* "Because the events didn't happen as officially described, there's
been a cover-up." [Hang on, we haven't proven yet that the events didn't
happen that way, so the argument can't proceed on that basis.]
* "Those involved in the cover-up must have been involved in the events
being covered up, or why else would they be covering it up?" [Wait, go
back. We still haven't proven that the events did not happen as
described or that there was a cover-up!]
"Therefore, the government and military agencies involved in the
cover-up must have perpetrated the original crime." [You canít reach
this conclusion based on the flawed arguments that precede it.]
In Philosophy, the word for this sort of argument is "sophistry":
reasoning that is sound in appearance only, especially when
intentionally deceptive. Your unsupported initial claims are used as the
"proven" basis for a "logical" progression to an "inescapable"
conclusion. It is not a valid form of logical argument, but it's a very
handy tool for deceiving people.
I give you credit for being smart, not so stupid that you didn't know
what you were doing. It was this apparently intentional desire to
deceive people using faulty argument, bad investigative technique and
willfully ignoring evidence that contradicts your thesis that led me to
believe that your assertions were a load of rubbish. If youíd had better
arguments and solid proof you would have used them. But you didnít.
Having watch the program again I come to the same conclusion.
OK, for a moment let's forget your "evidence" that there was a cover-up.
Look at the events from another angle. Conspiracies require many many
people to keep quiet if they are to succeed. Conspiracy theories are
usually seized on to fit facts that the theorists have no explanation
for. That doesn't mean there isn't valid explanation for the events,
only that the theorist doesn't have that valid explanation. It's a cover
for not having all the facts and a justification for the desire of
naturally-suspicious people to believe the worst. It's also about
jumping to conclusions without all the facts, a desperate clutching at
straws to explain things we feel need explaining. Or -- if you want to
be really suspicious -- to redirect attention from the real guilty
party. (Here's a new conspiracy theory: <Terrorists are trying to sow
seeds of doubt about what they did on 9/11 by planting dubious evidence,
such as was used by you in your program, so that America will turn on
itself and fall apart, making it easier for them to destroy your
country. That makes you a tool of the terrorists.> I just made that up.
Can you "prove" it's not true?) Conspiracy theories are routinely
rejected as a form of defense in criminal cases in legal systems around
the world for these sorts of reasons.
A conspiracy as large as this program claims about September 11 would
require thousands of people to cooperate by maintaining their silence --
not just military or government employees but good, honest, everyday
citizens who would have seen something that contradicted the official
story and proved it didn't happen as claimed. Eg: If the three passenger
planes did not crash into the towers and the Pentagon, what happened to
them and the passengers? (Who are dead, by the way, they've been buried
by their relatives -- or are they all part of the conspiracy, too?) Air
traffic controllers on the day would have been watching the planes and
would have seen where they went -- or raised the alarm if they suddenly
disappeared. The conspiracy theory you presented requires that they --
and all other honest citizens who saw something on the day that doesn't
fit the official story -- have been bought off or their silence somehow
coerced. Think that through for a moment. It's a crazy, unsupportable
suggestion. You'd have to believe the world operates like a Hollywood
spy/thriller movie to accept that. It doesn't.
Odd or misunderstood facts presented in isolation or combined in
selective ways will distort the truth. It might look like they add up to
something -- especially when available contradictory evidence is
deliberately ignored -- but examined in the detail of their real context
they often amount to nothing sinister. Your program was a perfect
example of the crude, misleading join-the-dots way of painting a picture
of an event that typifies conspiracy theories.
You might genuinely believe that there is a conspiracy around the events
of 9/11 and not agree that your arguments were flawed in the way I
outline here. Or you might be cynically manipulating people's
willingness to believe the worst of their leaders for reasons of your
own. I don't know. All I know is that your methods of argument and
criteria for proof were fundamentally flawed.
Of course questions should be asked about serious events such as 9/11
and whether the whole truth is being told. If your government was
responsible for what happened that day it should burn in Hell forever.
But you need to apply honest intellectual rigour if your aim is to be
reasonable and thorough and credible in your investigation. You made no
attempt to apply any of the basic tools of honest investigation and did
everything you could to mislead your audience using the flimsiest of
"evidence", rhetorical devices and the cheapest of tricks. Even though
the "evidence" and the "arguments" look and sound convincing, nothing in
the program adds up. It is all smoke and mirrors, a pea-and-thimble
And <that> is what I criticised in my preview of your program.
How this all began:
On January 4, 2006, Mr. Gordon Farrer of
The Age wrote an editorial review of
911 In Plane
Site entitled "Malicious nonsense posing as proof" before it aired on
AUSTRALIAN TV NETWORK. Please fell free to read his editorial:
Below, please find a response issued by
Dave vonKleist regarding the editorial review of
911 In Plane
Site by Mr. Gordon Farrer:
January 6, 2006
Dear Mr. Farrer,
As producer the documentary, "911 In Plane Site", I
find it necessary to respond to your blatantly biased review that was
posted on January 4, 2006. It is obvious that you either didn't see the
documentary and were told what to write, or that you did see it and
chose to attack the messenger rather than address the questions that
In either event, it demonstrated to me (and the many
people that have e-mailed us at The Power Hour) that your intent was to
dissuade and intimidate potential viewers to keep them from watching,
and to ridicule anyone who had the audacity to watch the program and
indulge themselves in the exercise of thinking outside the "cage" that
you had so carefully and skillfully crafted for them.
As a "journalist", you are aware that unbiased
reporting of the facts after following a line of inquiry is what
separates a professional journalist from a hack. A "propagandist"
presents pre-supposed notions and utilizes the technique of ridicule to
sway opinion before the facts are presented. Given the above
definitions, which one do you think would describe your contribution to
The Age? Sadly, I have no doubt that you actually believe you would be
defined as the former, despite the actions taken can only be defined as
If you have any interest at all in pursuing the facts,
you may want to follow up on these leads:
On our radio program, we have interviewed a two-star
General, an Air Force Colonel (with 30 yrs. identifying aircraft ant
aircraft parts), an Army Major, Air Force Major, a 33 yr. veteran of the
DoD in missile defense systems, numerous Airline pilots including an
instructor, and the United Airlines pilot who flew Flight 175 up to two
months before 9/11 when he retired. They agree that a 757 could not have
caused the damage at the Pentagon and that the planes that hit the
towers could not have been commercial aircraft. That is their opinion
What "experts" can you bring forth to support or
justify your condemnation of the hard photographic evidence presented in
the film? I would be most interested as to what your explanation would
be in regard to the "pod" and the "flash" is. How do you explain the
Pentagon photos and footage taken before the collapse of the "E" ring? I
noticed (and so did many of your readers) that you didn't address any of
these issues. In fact, you didn't address one issue, not one. I would
challenge you to do so however, coward "journalists" usually throw their
rocks, shoot their arrows and then run and hide. Prove me wrong.
Notice the above
poll taken from USA Today. I know this is from the US, but I'm sure that
your fellow Aussies share similar sentiments. According to this poll,
94% DON'T trust the Federal government, 78% DON'T trust newspapers and
76% DON'T trust the news. Could it be that your "journalistic efforts"
might be a contributor to the miserable failing levels of trust from the
people you claim you serve? The Age has enjoyed 152 years of publication
and it is sad to see that your brand of reporting is printed in such a
respected newspaper. This indeed is demonstrative of the fall of
integrity of the mainstream media, due to the corporate takeover of most
forms of broadcast and print media.
I would suggest
you re-examine the issues presented in "911 In Plane Site" with an open
mind and consider that everything we were told came from government
officials and mainstream media. Look at the poll again. Get it? Unless
writers and publishers get with the program, no doubt you'll all be
looking for a new vocation. You can't stop the people from thinking
outside the cage for long. Some of them actually employ cognitive skills
that prevent them from being influenced by propagendists.
January 6th, I spoke with Monica Forlano, from the "TEN Network"
program-scheduling department. I was told that typically, the network
would receive between 12 and 24 calls after airing a given program.
After airing "911 In Plane Site", the network received a total of 548
calls, 540 of them being positive and supportive. It appears that you
and those that share your sentiments are in the extreme minority. Yet
you write for a major publication that gives the appearance of
reflecting the views of the people! What's wrong with that picture? (
The Poll!! The Poll!!)
welcome any intelligent response from you and post it proudly on the
web, as I have with your article and this reply.
The Power Hour
Joyce Riley & Dave vonKleist