Main Navigation



Daves Response


Please find below all correspondence between Mr. Gordon Farrer and Dave vonKleist staring form the most recent to how this all began. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave vonKleist
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:15 PM
Subject: RE: Gordon Farrer's Jan 4th 'Malicious nonsense posing as proof'


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 evidenciary phase.

* 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 dialogue.

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

Dave vonKleist

----- 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 proof"

Hi Dave,

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 all.
* 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 about!

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

Dear Gordon,

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 glass houses.....

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 foot....twice.

For Freedom! Forever!
Dave vonKleist

----- 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 proof"

Hi Dave,

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 case.

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 credible investigation:

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 uncontested fact.

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 these.

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 trick.

And <that> is what I criticised in my preview of your program.


Gordon Farrer


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 Channel 10 AUSTRALIAN TV NETWORK. Please fell free to read his editorial:
(Text Link to 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 were raised.

     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 the latter.

     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 not mine.

     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.

     On Friday, 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!!)

      I will welcome any intelligent response from you and post it proudly on the web, as I have with your article and this reply.

G'Day Mate!

Dave vonKleist

The Power Hour
Joyce Riley & Dave vonKleist



The Power Hour:
(7-10am CST)
∑∑∑Listen Live

Listen FREE thru Global Star Satellite Feed






All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

Copyright © 2007. The Power Hour. All rights reserved.