A Letter to the 9/11 Community from David Ray Griffin


Dear Friends and Colleagues:

I am writing in support of the international campaign, headed up by Elias Davidsson (who long lived in Iceland but now lives in Hamburg, Germany), calling for a new trial for Mounir El Motassadeq, who has been convicted of assisting the 9/11 attacks.

I have known Elias Davidsson for several years and know him to be an extremely careful researcher into the 9/11 attacks and also to be a passionate advocate for justice.

When I was in Hamburg last fall, I went with Elias to see Mounir's lawyer. He seems to be a good man and a capable lawyer, who will represent Mounir well if he gets the opportunity.

I agreed to be on the committee for Mounir along with Elias and a few others, including Annie Machon and Barrie Zwicker.

Incidentally, Mounir did indeed know Mohamed Atta. But in response to the question of whether the Mohamed Atta he knew in Hamburg was the same as the Mohamed Atta whose picture is in The 9/11 Commission Report, he said that they looked very different.

In any case, I would urge all members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to go to the website (http://www.justiceformounir.org) and read the full petition. If you then decide to support it, click the "Sign the Petition" button right under the photograph of Mounir, then fill in the blanks at the bottom.

Our best chance of getting an investigation of 9/11 is probably through the court system, perhaps especially the court system of another country. The Mounir case may present a unique opportunity to get the falsity of the official story exposed.

Below is an abbreviated form of the facts about the Mounir case written by Elias Davidsson.

David Griffin

Justice for the victims of 9/11
Justice for Mounir El Motassadeq

Mounir El Motassadeq is an indirect victim of 9/11. He was sentenced by a German court to 15 years imprisonment for helping his friends, three of the alleged pilots of 9/11, to “plan the attacks”. There is, however, no good evidence to support the charge that Mounir is guilty of a crime. The court did not present any evidence that his friends actually boarded the aircraft that crashed on 9/11 or that they planned the attacks. The court based its conclusions on an oral statement by an FBI official, who was no witness of any parts of the acts. His statement was pure hearsay. Mounir consistently denies all accusations of wrongdoing and expresses his dismay at such miscarriage of justice in a “democratic country”.

An international campaign has been launched to demand the reopening of his trial in the hope that the court would admit the absence of evidence regarding the participation of his friends (Mohamed Atta & Co) in the mass murder of 9/11. Effectively, there exists no documentary evidence that they boarded any of the 9/11 aircraft and no one saw them board the aircraft. The website of the campaign is www.justiceformounir.org. The campaigners urge all 9/11 truthers to sign the petition for Mounir, as a unique opportunity for a breakthrough in 9/11 truth efforts. No other action, worldwide, presents currently such an opportunity for demonstrating that the 9/11 official account is a monumental deception. Only a massive international effort will convince the judicial authorities in Germany to reopen the case.

The FBI has Dissociative Identity Disorder

How can an FBI agent testify against Mounir El Motassadeq for assisting 9/11 terrorists when the FBI still doesn't have Usama Bin Ladin down for the 9/11 attacks?


This is what the FBI's Most Wanted page for Usama Bin Ladin says:


The "ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH" is a reference to our embassies that were bombed in 1998, not the Pentagon. In other words, Usama Bin Ladin is not wanted for the murder of U.S. nationals within America!

It's been over eight years now since 9/11 and the Justice Department/FBI can't get its act together on the 9/11 attacks!

Dean M. Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC


Motassadeq has been convicted twice and both convictions were overturned/reinstated on appeal by various courts. At least once it was due to the US withholding evidence.

United manifests w/ hijacker names- These 'look' like manifest printouts, but they also look like fax copies and could've easily been altered. Why no 'authenticated' clear copies?

the only "passenger lists" i found at NARA from American were lists of passengers that had the alleged hijacker's names, but they were not manifests- (couldn't find those just now). Renee May, flight attendant on 77 called her parents and told them there were 6 hijackers- there were other reports of 6, i forget now from where

FBI 302s document interviews with check in people and screeners who saw the alleged hijackers- these people can be subpoenaed to testify

The govt should have, and be able to produce, a great deal more than it has. That evidence is being withheld isn't proof the alleged hijackers didn't board, it's proof the govt is withholding evidence- for unknown reasons. Perhaps they're hiding something that contradicts what the public has been told, but it may not be that the alleged hijackers didn't board- it could be that this evidence might point to how they were being helped by unnamed persons on the inside at the airports. Or maybe on this aspect it's a cover up of incompetence and negligence or just ass-covering 'just in case'.

Absolutely, the govt should be pressed to release all the evidence and make it's case. I'm in favor of continued independent research and investigation, but i'm skeptical of claims that the failure of the Feds to be forthcoming is evidence the alleged hijackers/probable patsies were not knowingly involved in a terrorist plot. One of the things that does need to be established is what kind of plot the alleged hijackers thought they were participating in, and which ones, if any, were double agents. Some may have known it was a hijack, but not a suicide hijack.

Some of the alleged hijackers turned up alive, were victims of ID theft or the alleged hijackers had doppelgangers- but the OCT maintains the identities are not in doubt, though the last statement on that by the FBI implied some of them weren't certain
September 16-23, 2001: People with Hijacker Names and Identifying Details Are Still Alive

There's plenty of evidence that screams for a new investigation, that clearly disproves what we've been told, that points to criminal negligence, complicity and treason on the part of US persons, as well as logistical and financial support, and foreknowledge, on the part of nationals of Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Elias Davidsson's 9/11 writings:


There has been no change in thought

loose nuke,

Insight reported on June 24, 2003:

Now the FBI is sticking with its original story regardless of whether photographs displayed of the suspected Sept. 11 terrorists were of people who never boarded those planes and are very much alive. FBI spokesman Bill Carter simply brushes off as false the charges from news reports that the FBI misidentified some of the Sept. 11 terrorists. Carter says they got the names right and it doesn't matter whether the identities were stolen. This comes as a complete about-face from Mueller's comment that there might be some question about the names of the Sept. 11 terrorists because they might have been operating under stolen identities.


Now, FBI spokesman Carter’s reply that it does not matter whether the identities of the terrorists were stolen begs the question as to why Al Queada terrorists would use their real names. Why would Al Queada terrorists coming to the United States feel secure in using their real names? If Al Queada had been infiltrated by American or other nations’ intelligence services, then the real danger existed that the names of Al Queada members would be known and therefore placed on a watch list. Why would Al Queada not take proper precautions and issue the 19 hijackers with identities that did not include names associated with Al Queada membership?

See my article, 'What’s In A Name? FBI Says The Nineteen 9/11 Hijackers Used Their Real Names!' at www.DNotice.org for more on this topic.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

thanks for the tip

i was not aware of that Insight report/Carter's on the record statement for the FBI.


Backwards logic

"That evidence is being withheld isn't proof the alleged hijackers didn't board, it's proof the govt is withholding evidence- for unknown reasons."

That's a straw man argument. To claim that the government is withholding evidence assumes that evidence exists - of "terrorist hijackers" boarding the planes, or that any hijackings actually took place at all. How can you claim that this evidence exists when there is no good indication that it does? The government has not provided any convincing evidence that would hold up in a court of law and what they have provided so far is laughable.

The only thing you can really argue is that the government has failed to prove their claims about the alleged 19 terrorist hijackers, let alone the involvement of bin laden, and therefore, we must presume innocence of the alleged muslim terrorists until guilt is proven.

The lack of any convincing evidence that would hold up in court strongly suggest that the government CANNOT make this case fairly and reasonably, although it does not prove it. That would be the simplest and most logical conclusion to draw about why the evidence has not been forthcoming. Any other rationale about why the government has not provided the evidence constitutes baseless speculation and would seem to rely on convoluted logic in order to clutch at straws-desperately trying to salvage the muslim hijacker theory certain people have been holding onto for far too long. More importantly, innocence until guilt is proven is central to our system of justice -- not only to make sure people are not punished for crimes without convictions but also to increase the odds that real perpetrators rather than scapegoats are the ones convicted.

thanks for pointing that out

the govt may not have conclusive evidence the alleged hijackers boarded the planes; that could be why it hasn't been produced. However, that it hasn't been produced doesn't mean it doesn't exist- evidence may have been withheld becomes it implicates people who are being protected, or to protect other parts of the official myth that would be disproven if it was disclosed.

absolutely, everything should be disclosed, and there should be a full investigation.


I guess DRG has already concluded that NYC CAN...

...will be sacked by NY Supreme Court.

"Our best chance of getting an investigation of 9/11 is probably through the court system, perhaps especially the court system of another country. The Mounir case may present a unique opportunity to get the falsity of the official story exposed."

DRG often changes

what he feels will be the best approach. Remember he once supported a truth and reconcilliation commission, then said Obama was the best hope for a new investigation. Now it's the courts.

Only a fool...

... never changes his or her views.

Elias Davidsson is impressive

I'm going to Vers La Verite in Paris next week. Hope Davidsson is there.

When DRG says." might be our best chance", he is NOT saying he knows what IS our best chance.

David Slesinger dslesinger@alum.mit.edu

Boarding the planes in itself means nothing...

"An international campaign has been launched to demand the reopening of his trial in the hope that the court would admit the absence of evidence regarding the participation of his friends (Mohamed Atta & Co) in the mass murder of 9/11. Effectively, there exists no documentary evidence that they boarded any of the 9/11 aircraft and no one saw them board the aircraft."

Even if there was documentary evidence, or someone saw them board the planes, that is in no way evidence that they participated in the hijackings (my opinion is that hijacking definitely did occur). Remember, a principal technique in handling patsies is to maneuver them to a certain position before a crime takes place, then make sure they are killed so that they cannot later proclaim their innocence. This technique was probably used with Lee Harvey Oswald, who may have been maneuvered in to the Texas Book Depository, but may not have fired a shot, or even had a clue that there was a plot to kill JFK.

I personally believe that some of the alleged hijackers were indeed on the planes-- Satam al-Suqami, for example, on AAL11-- but these patsies had been maneuvered there and had no clue that a hijacking was going to be carried out by others on the plane, with their only role being to be scapegoats. In the case of AAL11, that would explain why one of the American Airlines employees who fielded Betty Ong's call later recalled that she had reported an "injured passenger" in seat 10B. That was Suqami's seat; he was probably shot by the real hijackers so that he could not go to the back of the plane and make an airphone call proclaiming his innocence.

Inerested to know

Interesting thoughts. But do you know of evidence that 10B was Suqami's seat on that flight?