No Airfones on Flight 77 - DRG on Jack Blood

(EDIT: Please read the May 7, 2007 correction by DRG here. -r.)

(Edited for clarity.)


You can D/L the April 24 Jack Blood show at - follow the "radio" link. File is .ogg which is the format - (VLC player).

This excerpt starts at the 54:27 mark.

Transcript by "ratcat" at;

Jack Blood Radio Show
Apr. 24, 2007
Interview with Prof. David Ray Griffin
Discussion of Prof. David Ray Griffin’s latest book on 9/11:
Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory


Griffin: Let me tell you a new thing that most people don’t know. This was dug up by Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall who wrote wrote the book, “9/11 Revealed.” ... it has to do with the alleged phone calls from Barbara Olson. Now you know and many of your listeners know that Ted Olson, her husband, who claims he got the call from her from………

Blood: They say he is going to be the new AG (Attorney General). I just had to thump that in. That’s the rumor going around [crosstalk]

Griffin: Yeah, more than likely. But he claims that he got this call from Barbara, his wife, from Flight 77 but he was unclear. First he would say it was from cell phone and then he would say, well no it was from one of the seat back phones. And he’s gone back and forth. So, it turns out now we know that cell phone calls were not possible. So, that makes everybody say, well sure maybe she did it on airfones. It turns out that particular Boeing, American Boeing 757 that Flight 77 was, was not equipped with airfones. This was a stunning development.

Blood: This was a stunning development. How come I haven’t heard that before, David?

Griffin: Because Roland’s book hasn’t got much attention. It’s a shame because it’s such a great book.

Blood: So it only could have been done by cell phone. They had no in flight phones on 77. Is that what you are saying?

Griffin: That’s right. And they checked and they double-checked and I quote all of their correspondence with American on that issue.

Blood: Did we have people on the record, David, saying that people used in-flight phones on that flight where there were no in-flight phones? Do we have them on the record trying to manipulate previous information to that level?

Griffin: Well, it was the call from Barbara Olson that some people have claimed was on the in-flight. I don’t know about other callers.

Theodore Olson’s own words

Theodore Olson’s own words indicate that he would be prepared to do rather more than that On March 21, 2002 on its page A35, the Washington Post newspaper printed an article titled “The Limits of Lying” by Jim Hoagland, who writes that a statement by Solicitor General Theodore Olson in the Supreme Court has the ring of perverse honesty.
Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of America, US Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out."

Rowland Morgan's book on Flight 93 is called...

Flight 93 Revealed: What Really Happened on the 9/11 "Let's Roll" Flight?

I had never heard of it. I went to Amazon and unfortunately all three reviews are rather negative.

If DRG's assertion is true, then there is no way that ONE call could have been received from Flight 93.

I am in the middle of DRG's new book... Debunking 9/11 Debunking... It is excellent

"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey

DRG clip/segment

I am also reading D9D and enjoying it.

DRG AA77 Clip/Segment:

Exposing problem-reaction-solution to people all around me. Currently calling congressmen, reading D9D and talking to family and friends. Going to SF tonight to pass out DVDs (Richard Gage SSU Presentation 4/20/07) even though I'm STILL sick. We will have truth, peace and justice!

This would be huge IF it is appropriately


News editor at The Watchman Report,, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community

The State Dept. loves "9/11 Revealed"

hey, say what you will Rep

hey, say what you will Rep but that book is pretty well rounded in my opinion and has actually opened a few eyes in my personal circle. just one guys experience i guess.

and the state department did not actually refute the phones

information. now, what about 93? Did it have airfones?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I haven't read it.

Just sayin', the State Dept. sure don't care for it.

Wonder why?

It's worth looking at Hoffman's critique

even though he seems mostly pissed that Morgan and Henshall don't recognize his website as the source of much of their book. Anyhoo...

And it's always worth wondering why the State Department draws attention to this particular book in its disinfo section.

to narrow the discussion, of

to narrow the discussion, of course.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

ah, my fault. usually when

ah, my fault. usually when people point out that something is on the State Departments disinfo page its because they want to discredit it.(like simuvac did right after i typed this,haha.)

I'm confused.

The book he refers to is about Flight 93. Olson was on Flight 77. 93 was United Airlines, 77 was American.

I admit they were both 757s, but don't different airlines configure their planes differently?

I beleive the book DRG refers to is...

9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions

Link :

It looks as though they also did a book called...

Flight 93 Revealed: What Really Happened on the 9/11 "Let's Roll" Flight?

Link :

I believe both books are searchable online...

Hope this helps

Can someone with "Debunking 9/11 Debunking"...

Please clarify what he states in the actual book...

Would be goog to know for certain...

Thanks and best wishes

Apples and oranges

Griffin: "This was dug up by Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall who wrote wrote the book, “9/11 Revealed.” And then Rowland Morgan has written a new book, really the best book about Flight 93. And it has to do with the alleged phone calls from Barbara Olson."

Barbara Olson was on Flight 77 (Pentagon) and Flight 93 was the "Let's Roll" flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.

I don't know if Griffin mispoke above, or was mentioning Flight 93 as a means of identifying Rowland Morgan, but the result is a string of comments that are confusing and erroneous.

I think the major points here are supposed to be:
(1) Flight 77 (Pentagon) did NOT have airphones
(2) Barbara Olson, a passenger on Flight 77, is claimed, by her husband, Ted Olson, then Solicitor for Bush, to have called him on an air phone as the plane was heading to D.C.
(3) There is a body of evidence that cell phone calls could not be made from airplanes in 2001.
(4) Did Ted Olson lie about getting a phone call from his wife - perhaps to spin the narrative about mid-east hijackers that didn't exist?
(5) There were unreliable reports of Barbara Olson being alive in Germany or Poland .

Is there motive for Ted to kill off Barbara? Or does he plan to join her and their bank account in some remote location to enjoy the fruits of their crimes?

He's talking about "9/11 Revealed"

He just mentioned the 93 book in the same breath, that's all.

Morgan is co-author of 9/11 revealed, author of 93 revealed.

OP Edited to make this clear, sorry about that.

9/11 Revealed, page 128-129

Griffin is referring to this passage from Morgan and Henshall's 9/11 Revealed:

"American Airlines Boeing 757s were not equipped with in-flight satellite phones for passengers. A call by us to American Airlines' London Office produced a definitive statement from Laeti Hyver that 757s do not have Airfones. This was confirmed by an email from AA in the US."

This passage is preceded by different accounts of how the call was allegedly made (cell or airfone). According to Ted Olson, his wife made the call collect with an Airfone, and he presumed she did not have her purse on her.

I'm sure the reply to this from debunkers will be something like, "Well, maybe he was wrong and she used a cell phone." And then we get into the whole "can cells work from such a height and speed?" debate.

Thanks for the confirmation and clarification simuvac...

Much appreciated...

Best wishes

Show "Nothing gets past you guys" by JamesB

Your day is coming son ...

Keep it up. When we have opened the eyes of America - we'll remember the likes of you son.

I'm sure the forum rules prohibit me from saying what I'd like to: to your face.

P.S. - We won't be buying the "I vas just followink orters" crap.

Show "My day is coming?" by JamesB

Listen you twit. The

Listen you twit. The airlines made a big deal in '03-'04 about installing devices to ALLOW the use of cell phones on planes. It wasn't possible before. What is wrong with you? If you drive out into the country away from cell towers you lose signal. If you fly on a plane you lose signal also. This is why they made a big deal AFTER 9/11 about the new devices to allow cell phones to work. DUUUR. Go piss off!

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Show "Cell Phones?" by JamesB

"American Airlines is

"American Airlines is scrapping some of those phones built into the seats of airplanes, and it's blaming it all on the popularity of cell phones.
By Sam Ames Staff Writer
Published: February 6, 2002, 4:20 PM PST"

"Airlines are throwing away those phones built into the seats, and they're blaming it all on cell phones."

"Southwest Airlines started removing AT&T phones from its planes Aug. 1 last year."

"We've noticed with the prevalence of cell phones that passengers just weren't using the in-flight service," said Beth Harbin, a spokeswoman for Southwest, which allows passengers to make mobile phone calls until the aircraft doors close before takeoff. "

I'm sorry, you were saying? BTW: You might want to have your memory tested.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Show "What is your point?" by JamesB


"which allows passengers to make mobile phone calls until the aircraft doors close before takeoff. ""

Brush up on that reading comprehension, Mongo.

There you are! Been waiting for you, "chum"!

So what do you have to say to this?

Don't forget to check out the comments...

BTW: Patrick's "comics" suck"--but then I'm an artist from a pre-computerized time, when comics were about pencils, india ink and gum erasers--not cheap programs that let you hack out shite.

Well, that's my luddite rant for the week!

Also, what's the point of telling me to email you if you don't bother to answer, you wee ponce?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "What is your point?" by JamesB

First of all...

Nico is not one of us, as you know.

Secondly, YOU were dishonest by running with Nico's claim I did that hate blog without bothering to check his "facts", a not infrequent event at Screwy Loose.

Thirdly, most decent people, when they realize they were wrong give some sort of apology. But you're clearly above that Jimbo.

Fourthly-- having lied your arse off about me, you're hardly in a position to claim you know anything about honesty.

So let's try a test: HONESTLY, Jimbo, do you believe that in 2001, that one could make a reasonable cell phone connection in an airplane at high altitude? Could you give anectodal examples, please? Because surely if it was possible, whether or not it was allowed, people would have been doing it.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

what a surprise........

Murdoch's News Corp. makes unsolicited $5B bid for Dow Jones
NEW YORK -- Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, said Tuesday it received an unsolicited bid from Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. to buy the company for $5 billion. The news sent its shares soaring and those of other newspaper companies higher.

Dow Jones issued a brief statement confirming that its board had received the offer from News Corp. to buy the company at $60 a share, either in cash or a combination of cash and News Corp. stock.
News Corp. started out in the newspaper business and still owns a large number of papers, largely in the United Kingdom and Australia, including The Sun tabloid in England, The Times of London and the New York Post.

The company is now a major global media conglomerate and owns the Fox broadcast network, Fox News Channel, MySpace, the Twentieth Century Fox studio and satellite broadcasters in Europe and Asia.

In addition to The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones also publishes Dow Jones Newswires, Barron's, several leading market indicators including the Dow Jones industrial average and a group of community newspapers.

Griffin's one flaw...

are these phones. There's clearly no other person who is as systematic, logical, and well-respected as Griffin. I don't in the least doubt his sincerity or his motivations, but I do think these phone calls are not good a good piece evidence.

For one, it is probably the single most offensive commentary on the events of 9/11 to suggest that these calls between loved ones in their last moments were fake. I'm not saying there wasn't technology to do it or that it wasn't 'possible', but the evidence to support this is a far cry from that about CD. Making loose suggestions with an issue as emotional as this could really turn off people from the movement. When Griffin responded to this issue in one of his Myth and Reality speeches it was the one time when he came of as overly speculative and even insensitive. Yes, even DRG can play a little loose with facts if he's not careful.

Secondly, the notion that cell phones absolutely could not work at altitude is has not been thoroughly confirmed. Thus, hinging a theory on the fact that a) cell phones don't work at altitude and b) the planes didn't have a little risky. It wouldn't take a lot to reveal that phones did have enough reception and then the whole point looks like an embarrassing overstatement.

Fake calls and no planes...I think they belong together.


putting faked calls in the

putting faked calls in the same class as no-planes? i couldnt disagree more. thats a low blow.

I agree

It's a weak talking point. I know many around here are passionate about this and will probably vote you (and me) down for saying this, but the no-call theory provokes the same follow-up as the no-plane theory: "Then what happened to the passengers?" And as soon as someone has to ask that, the conversation is over. I don't even care if they really did kill the passengers and fake the phone calls (though, no, I don't believe that is what happened). I would not introduce such a flimsy argument.

just because it provokes a

just because it provokes a similar follow up doesnt put it in the same class as no-planes. there is next to NO evidence supporting the no-plane theory. the same cant be said about the phone calls. personally, i dont frame my argument for debunkers but i know that many people do. its just not my style to capitulate.

I'm with Chris...

There is no comparison...

How can anyone compare faking 50+ videos of planes going into the towers, insulting probably hundereds of thousands of eye and sound witnesses of said planes with the ability to fake the presence of passenger phone-calls...

If you consider Operation Northwoods, where it was planned that a plane with CIA officials posing as passengers, which are landed and safely disembarked, whilst an empty plane takes up the course, only to be blown-up. That was back in 1962...

I'm not saying 100%, but I would not rule it out, and certainly have it investigated should we ever have a proper investigation. There are many anomalies with the passengers.

There is no comparison with no-planes, tv-fakery and space-beams... To be honest, it's a bit of an insult to honest researchers to draw that comparison.

Best wishes

i think you guys are missing

i think you guys are missing the point.
There were NO airphones on Flight 77, where there were supposed calls from airphones.
That's the whole point....simple fact that their account is wrong again.
Who knows if all of them are fake...but we can prove those are!

There are loads of problems with the official story regarding

the phone calls.

Since I don't believe that Hani Hanjour & his accomplices box-cut the pilots to death & flew the plane 250 miles from Ohio to D.C., I never believed Olson's calls to begin with.

Since I don't believe that AA-77 hit the Pentagon, nor that they ID'ed 63 of 64 of AA-77's occupants (including Barbara) using DNA or any other method, I don't believe her phone calls either.

(How the heck could they ID 63 of 64 passengers if the plane itself was obliterated from slamming through the Pentagon @ 530 mph? No titanium engines, no seats, no luggage, yet all but one passenger was positively identified? I don't think so.)

Show "Truly remarkable" by Ningen

Many/most of the passengers & flights could've been fictitious.

Fictitious flights/passengers were going to be utilized in Operation Northwoods 45 years ago! They were even going to stage phony funerals for fake passengers!

Jets piercing through office towers @ 500 mph will look "odd" when filmed with ordinary cameras or even to the naked eye.

IMO, drones struck the towers. A missile, drone, or planted explosives blew-up the Pentagon and also Shanksville. (It's much easier & less risky to use drones than actual passenger planes with pilots, crew, passengers, etc., inside.)

Yes, manifests could be faked

but there is a court case going in New York against the airlines, with passengers' families as plaintiffs, and I find it hard to believe these are not real people who lost their loved ones on 9/11.

How they died is not clear, though it is taken as a given in the court case and probably by the plaintiffs.

They could have been on planes and could have been among those that made calls, yet still been flown elsewhere. I agree that actual planes with passengers and luggage could not be used, because evidence would have been left, because a plane would not just pierce the tower and leave no evidence. I disagree that a drone was used instead - maybe a missile or a plane that penetrates like a missile, which is basically a missile.
I don't know.

Perhaps I interjected another argument which is more appropriate at the other blog claiming faked deaths. I don't think that questioning the phone calls is as offensive, and agree that if there is a basis for questioning then it should be questioned.

But the families of victims were each given a couple million $

as hush money so that there would be no lawsuits against the airlines, and no truth coming out in court. (I hope some victims' families are indeed still going to sue, despite the payoffs.)

Some didn't accept the money

and are suing the airlines. It is the families of 30-40 passengers, if I recall correctly.

I agree the victims fund serves as hush money, and perhaps assuage-the-guilt-of-the-perps money, but from the perspective of the families, it was a rational decision to accept the money and avoid the expense, delay, and uncertainty of litigation. Some families chose to go with litigation. I assume this was not for financial reasons, but don't know the facts.

I wouldn't count on truth coming out in the courts in these cases. From what I've seen, the official story is assumed by all the parties, and the question is whether the airlines and airport authorities were negligent in not stopping the hijackers from getting on the planes. But maybe something interesting will be revealed about the alleged hijackers.

The alleged phone calls are a smoking gun for intermediate &

advanced truthers.

Since there were many war games going on that day, we don't know which flights were real, which were fake blips put onto the radar screens, or which were swapped for blips.

You need to work on your

You need to work on your logical skills. First and foremost, "For one, it is probably the single most offensive commentary on the events of 9/11 to suggest that these calls between loved ones in their last moments were fake."

Get over it. Do you think families of loved ones like the idea of autopsies being performed to discover what killed them? No. But it has to be done in cases of questionable death. Examing the claims of phones calls is a part of the puzzle. Get over it. If I was a family member I WOULD want these questions answered. Griffin isn't playing loose with any information so you need to cease your claims.

"Secondly, the notion that cell phones absolutely could not work at altitude is has not been thoroughly confirmed."

Go do your homework before making claims. There have been studies on this matter. Shit, I tested my own cell phone service flying through L.A., Memphis, DC, Baltimore, and Sacramento. The service bars were nil in all of those places except for LA and ONLY when I was less than 1 minute from touchdown(ie: the planes was moving slow enough through each cell tower zone to actually make the handshake.). Go read more and stop playing the emotional card.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

You can examine all you want, but it's still not good evidence.

I'm glad you tested your own cell phone, that was very scientific (in theory). Unfortunately, millions of cubic miles of airspace might have more variance than one person testing their cell phone on a plane can discover.

 Check out the summary at 9-11 Research:

And this article: 

"Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations, and sometimes during the especially critical flight phases of takeoff and landing. Although that number seems low, keep in mind that it represents the furtive activity of a small number of rule breakers."

It's not a bad thing to get all of your 9/11 research from Rense (, but you can probably do better. 

Lastly Whitey?, having emotions is not a logical defect. However, using your emotions while trying to shout down other people because you don't like their opinions may be.


Come on Johnny, lengthy cell-phone converstations over rural

Pennsylvania in 2001??? Moreover, an hour after the towers were struck??? By then, most all land-lines & the scarce cell-lines were hopelessly jammed with callers!

The article you cite was written last year.

There have been leaps & bounds in cell technology since 2001.

Here are a couple articles that are actually relevant to the debate.

"Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network" because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high, she said. The technology is "difficult now, but it's not something that can't happen in the future."

"Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past -- and whether they'd mess up ground- based communications."

Note: Speed is also a major factor, not only height. For me there is NO DEBATING this issue. I know, I was a second year electronics engineering student at the time. My communications professor, to his credit, structured an entire class around this, in his words, "...very bold, desperate lie.".

Some technology gets worse over time...

I'll let someone else explain it, since she already did:  this was a comment to the rense article I cited above (

Kelsea wrote (emphasis mine): 

It is possible that calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 would have a better chance of getting through to 911 than a new phone would in an emergency today. I worked in the marketing department of a US cell phone company in 2001. At the time, Tri-Mode phones were standard. Tri-Mode phones received 2 types of digital as well as analog signals. By the time the company released its first digital only phones, many who previously enjoyed using their cellphones upgraded to find that they were unable to get a signal or maintain a connection. The following explains why:

From "Will your cell phone reach 911?", Consumer Reports, 2/2003 When your phone is in digital mode, it can work only with your home carrier (the company you use for service) for any call--including those to 911--unless the home carrier has a roaming agreement with another carrier. Phones that can work in both digital and analog modes give you more options. Analog provides that safety net for emergency calling. Indeed, the principal FCC regulation governing wireless 911 recognizes the importance of the analog mode. The regulation, which took effect in 2000, says that whenever a wireless phone dialing 911 in analog mode can't get through via its home carrier, that phone must seek another signal, even if it's from a competing carrier, to quickly establish a voice connection.... However, companies began phasing out analog, passively at first, after the FCC lifted requirements that they maintain the analog system in Fall of 2002.

The FCC voted last fall to phase out its requirement that some wireless providers offer an analog backup signal. We think that was a mistake because the agency did not also require companies to make their digital technologies talk with one another. Simply allowing analog to fade away removes the principal common wireless language. In the end, you will have less assurance than you do now that your phone will get through to 911. %3C%3Ecnt_id=299615&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=162691

So attempting to make a call from a plane today using a newer technology cell phone isn't really a fair comparison...On 911, the callers on the hijacked craft were almost certainly off the digital network using a trimode (or lower quality) phone. When digital couldn't get through, their phones switched to analog which, at least in a 911 call, gave them a better chance of getting through.  (end comment)

That doesn't explain everything, but it might remove some doubt.



"it might remove some doubt."

Not for me. Even if they were flying at a very low 5000 ft, traveling at 500 mph is still going to be a major factor. Taxiing on a runway? sure. Take off? probably. At cruising altitude / speed? The probability of occurrence is very, very low (Gee, where have I heard that before. Seems to be the most succinct description of the entire 'official 911 account' .).

Show "LOL - 911research.wtc7.NOT" by CriticalThinker

Disinfo Agent...riiight

Have you ever thought that calling people "disinfo shills" is like yelling "butface" on a playground or calling a kid you don't like "gay" in middle school. It's immature tripe like that which will convince the whole world this movement is little more than a bunch of petulant teenagers who cling to their own little illusionary mission.

If that's what you're a part of, keep up the name calling. Otherwise, feel free to join a debate with other people, you know those 99% of other people who are neither truthers nor government agents. Those people make up your country and their not believing every word that comes out of their mouth makes them critical not criminal.

Disinfo Agent...riiight



I started checking info about 9/11 around 3 years ago. I have seen many sites, and most of them did not strike me as substantial as Probably the main site that made me a skeptic.

Fact of the matter is , if you want "critical thinkers" to join the 9/11 skepticism, you need to see a website that criticizes other points made by other skeptics, and yet support the general consensus of "inside job".

I truly respect Jim Hoffman, and I think he is one of those "no-nonsense" people, that have enormous capacity to stand up to stand up to scrutiny. His only con is that he does not posses a "degree" that could add to his credibility like engineering or physics.


Help me shout 9/11 articles on:

That is an old scam.

"His only con is that he does not posses a "degree""

Galileo rolls in his grave...

Using terms like 'official' along with their so-called 'experts' they try to diminish the voice of logic & reason. I don't need a PhD to confirm reality. There's are the same caliber experts & policies that once burned 'Witches' & 'heretics'.

I understand that.

But for those that do not understand the nature of the skepticism and the questions posed, one of the first things they look at when listening to a person's arguments are his credentials.

I do not dispute that Hoffman does a great job at putting logic on the table. Documenting every single statement he says, usually by putting links to independent resources.

But like I said, why do you think Jones got so much attention? Its because of his credentials first and foremost.

P.S. Myabe he should consider getting a degree in Structural engineering ? Its not too late :)

Help me shout 9/11 articles on:

It occurs to me,

Maybe, just maybe, these planes were chosen because they didn't have airphones, and therefore the passengers would be incommunicado. Is the same true for 767s? Did the person inquiring bother to ask about the other model?

These are weak pieces of evidence to be sure.

But we can't ignore the existence of voice morphing technology, which existed, and some strange dialogue reported on 9-11 with one passenger using his last name while addressing his mother.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Why attack Christians? And why trash victim families . . .

I think it's worth reading the one terrible review of Rowland Morgan's book on Amazon. For example this -

"By page 7 he likens the "myth" of flight 93 to a cult which is fanatically protected by gullible Christians and of course Republican Bush supporters. Christians, he says, are especially susceptible to the myth because, "reasoning was an ability that among evangelicals was already hampered by deluded biblical doctrines such as the virginity of Jesus's mother, the miracles performed by Jesus, and his resurrection in fully corporeal form after being tortured to death."

Why would anyone attempting to expose the truths of 9/11 get into attacking Christians?

Personally I think the effort to "debunk" the people who got the phone calls or calling them "deluded" only hurts our efforts and alienates us from average people. If we don't have verifiable proof that they are lying or insane, then we are trashing people who experienced a horrific trauma and loss of family. That's sick stuff to be doing to people, no matter how much you want to try to prove a point.

What does it mean?

I'm not getting a clear idea of what a faked call from Barbara Olsen is supposed to prove. Could someone please explain? Is it simply that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon?

Why always Loose Change?

Doesn't anyone here think 9/11 Press for Truth would be the best video to show to unsuspecting passengers? Why is Loose Change 2 incessantly the prefered 9/11 film? A truly strategic move would have been to show Press for Truth and at the end insert a preview/ad for FINAL CUT.

I agree...

at least if you're going to show a disturbing film about airplanes crashing to airplane passengers, show one that focuses on human interest. They're not going to be open to all the tech-y details of LC if whatever anxiety they have about 911 is agrivated by their travel anxieties--in an AIRPLANE.

That said, if I was the airline, I wouldn't do it PERIOD for buisness reasons--if they travel by air again, chances are it WOULDN"T be on my carrier! :-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Loose Change 2

I think Loose change 2 is a better choice in my opinion ,especially for the very new people that havent heard or know the facts of 9-11.
Press for Truth would have turned me off if it was the first film I saw about 911 Conspiracy. Its too emotional for alot of people and for some people. It relies alot on on camera interviews where Loose Change has alittle more of an upbeat tempo.
As a very new person into being exposed to the truth, I think Loose Change has catchy music and CGI that is great for catching peoples interest.
However, I think movies like Press for Truth is a vital next step movie for after the awakening process and when you are looking for more info to question the inconsistancies of 9-11.

To clairify, MY point is not which is the best 911movie...

..but which is the best 911 movie to show during a plane flight.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

United 93 of course

That way people know to to "roll" if the plane is hijacked.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Loose Change is the best choice because it demonstrates

that 9/11 was an inside job. PFT mere depicts the Bush regime as incompetent liars. Everyone with a brain already knows that the Bush regime are incompetent liars. What they don't know is that 9/11 was an inside job!

The general public have limited attention spans. Many of them may only sit through one truth video in their lives. If the one video they watch is PFT, they will just come away with the idea that the Bushies lied to cover their severe negligence re: 9/11.

We are 5.5 years after 9/11, we need videos that get right to the point that 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB & hammer it home!

AA77 stewardess Renee May used cellphone too

  Flight attendant made call on cell phone to mom in Las Vegas

"Renee May, a flight attendant who a source said made a call on a cell phone from the hijacked American Airlines plane that crashed into the Pentagon, left behind a mother in Las Vegas.
The mother, according to the source, received a phone call Tuesday from her daughter after 6 a.m. Renee May asked her mother to call American Airlines to let them know Flight 77 had been hijacked. Her mother called the airline, the source said.
"She told her mother they were all told to move to the back of the plane," said the source, who declined to share other personal details about the phone call." - Las Vegas Review-Journal (09/13/01) 

Her fiance was in the military and sent me a not -so -nice email.


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

A trained, professional flight attendant calls her mother on a

cell phone to report a hijacking??? Is this the official way hijackings are reported, the crew call their mothers on cell phones???

(A successful "roaming" cell phone call across the country no less, after the towers had been struck & phone lines were flooded with calls???)