David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Cell Phone Calls: Exclusive CBC Interview

Excellent interview with Dr. Griffin. He especially notes how the FBI itself admits that there was only one connection attempt made from Barbara Olson, which lasted "zero seconds," not to mention that Ted kept changing his story, first saying she called him on a seatback phone, then cell phone, then seatback again. And given that out of all the supposed 9/11 phone calls, Olson is the only passenger to mention "boxcutters," the FBI's admission is an intriguing one indeed.


David Ray Griffin

David Ray Griffin's observation about Olson's calls, or the lack thereof, is very intriguing to put it mildly, very incriminating to put it more accurately. It's now conclusive, is it not, that we have absolutely no evidence of box cutters being used at anytime on 9-11-01? Can't wait to use this evidence next time I talk to someone about the Official Story.

DRG has done so much for the 9-11 Truth movement. He is the reason that Richard Gage AIA started AE911Truth. Thank you Mr. Griffin!

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

I agree

.......Griffin is awesome! I would love to hear what Ted has to say about this.

What Dean Would Say.......

Dean would say, "I was wrong [again]. They must have been cell calls. I don't know how they got through though, but I'm so glad they did, because I got to tell Barbara I loved her."

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

I'll third that. :) DRG is

I'll third that. :)
DRG is probably the person I respect the most in the truth movement.


I guess I was out of the loop when this information came out. I did not know of the FBI's new position on the Barbara Olson "calls". That is a major revelation that got by me. How has Ted Olson avoided being confronted on the discrepancy between what he claimed and what the FBI has determined to be the facts?

Thanks for the post Adam.

Thanks to David Ray Griffin for his tireless commitment to exposing the big lies.

So According to the FBI:

--There is no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
--Ted Olson received no connected call from Barbara Olson.

FACT: AA 757s had airfones on 9/11

And it's also a fact that Screw Loose, of all places, has repeatedly pointed this out- and, as SCL documents, Griffin himself acknowledged as much in 2007- but has continued to promote the claim about no phone calls//Olson lied or was fooled by voice morphing (see first link below).

Note- SCL is dishonest and disgusting, but whenever they can use actual documented facts and truths to debunk stuff being promoted in the 9/11 Truth Movement, of course they will. I'm purposely not creating live links for the below, cuz SCL doesn't deserve it- but everyone concerned with truth should be concerned that this unsupported/unproven/probably false claim about 'no phone calls from AA77' is being used to discredit Griffin- and the 9/11 Truth Movement

MAY 07, 2007
Debunking David Ray Griffin [DRG acknowledges AA77 had airfones]

SEPTEMBER 14, 2007
AA 77 Airfones, the Final Story [maintenance manuals show the airfones were removed in 2002]

OCTOBER 10, 2007
David Ray Griffin: Liar Or Just Sloppy? [there were 4 connected calls that couldn't be traced to a particular phone #]

APRIL 03, 2008
Griffin and Barrett Suggest the Olsons Were in on It

And, of course, Screw Loose has picked up on this particular front-paged blog entry, and linked to their previous debunking:

DECEMBER 20, 2009
More On Griffin


Then we need to find the FBI's evidence from the trial...

that states: One call less than one second.

the FBI's evidence

at the Moussaoui trial, the FBI presented the graphic that Adam linked to in his post regarding Barbara Olson's attempt to call Ted Olson, where they were able to confirm the #. Here's the graphic of 4 connected calls to unknown #'s http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/exhibit/UnknownCallerAA... These are the graphics for Renee May's calls http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/exhibit/ReneeMay.png This is the main page caching Moussoui exhibits re the calls from all 4 flights http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html

re: rm and DavidS - Ted Olson's calls were reportedly transferred to him by his secretary- according to her account, they didn't have caller ID in the office. I don't know why it couldn't be determined what # was called, or about about the credit cards- those are valid questions, and someone has probably researched it already- I've never studied this issue in detail, just been generally aware of some of the info that's come out.

EDIT: re credit cards- here's DRG quoting Olson in the article DavidS linked to: “She wasn't using her cellphone, she was using the phone in the passengers' seats. . . . [S]he was calling collect.”[7]

The DOJ phone records might have info about these calls- does anyone know if any info about that has come out? DRG raises some other interesting questions in the article, but I don't see proof the calls didn't happen as said. And there's a wealth of conclusive evidence the OCT is false, at historycommons.org, journalof911studies.com and 911research.wtc7.net . There are things that are established, things that are still being debated and for which contradictory/inconclusive/incomplete evidence is public, and other things we just don't know at all. There needs to be a full investigation.


pretty convincing

I think you make a pretty iron-clad case for debunking DRG’s claims.

You really have to wonder why some posters here persist in jumping up and down – all excited – about faulty inconsistent claims – dredging up the minutia – while ignoring the huge white elephant in the room.

DRG’s research fails on MULTIPLE LEVELS – yet there are those who seem mysteriously stubborn about acknowledging the major flaws in his reasoning – instead opting to deflect attention away from these flaws by discussing drivel instead.

I’ve seen this before. Ho hum. Some things never change.

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA

Olson's account

Would the details of Olson's account square with a call coming from an air phone? Did he say anything about recognizing her cell phone number when the call was coming in? Is there any record of anyone using credit cards to make air phone calls from this flight?

How do air phones work?

Do air phones work at all times?

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Air Phones?

Off the top of my head...

Seat back "Air Phones" are Satilite linked and will work once the crew enable them if the SatCom System is operative.

They will work at any altitude or airspeed to the best of my knowledge.

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Thanks. I don't know if

Thanks. I don't know if Griffin in the interview was stating what were the claims made (by himself) chronologically regarding the Olson case, or he just forgot his own position? If it was the former, it would have been best to have clarified it during the interview.

Here's Griffin's article about the correction:

Either way, it is very strange that the FBI did not have any confirmed calls from Barbara Olson to Ted Olson. There were 4 connected calls with unconfirmed numbers and unconfirmed callers. That is odd. If they were able to confirm a call by Barbara Olson that was unconnected to the DOJ and lasted zero seconds, why not calls that were actually connected and lasted several minutes long?

This is the biggest problem...

People have with DRG. Promoting false claims even after being shown they are false.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Promoting false claims

"Promoting false claims even after being shown they are false."

You really need to provide evidence to support such a statement Jon. Isn't that a rule here at 911blogger?

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Did you not read the above post that I responded to?

"Griffin himself acknowledged as much in 2007- but has continued to promote the claim"

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

screw screwloosechange

I was hoping you had links to original sources rather than to the screwloosechange website. No?

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Here you go Bruno...

And about a completely different topic...

"The truth was available to Mr. Griffin and pointed out to him on numerous occasions with communications channels opened to him in case he had doubts, questions, or needed contacts with sources, Mr. Griffin puzzlingly disregarded these resources."

And just because SLC posts a link, doesn't mean the link is no good. Hey Bruno, did you know that if an error is ever pointed out to me, faster than you can say WTC7, I make the correction. It helps me to maintain my credibility. Doesn't seem like that's a hard concept to grasp.

Edit: By the way... it pains me GREATLY that he does this. You have NO IDEA how much so. It doesn't make me happy to point this out, even though I'm sure you think it does.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Controlled Demolition

"did you know that if an error is ever pointed out to me, faster than you can say WTC7, I make the correction."

So then you finally concur that controlled demolition at Ground Zero is a proven fact? WTC7!!

Sorry Jon, I could not resist, but really, I want to know that you finally have made the correction about your error regarding controlled demolition at Ground Zero.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Ok, I'm going to post this one more time...

Here is my position regarding "Controlled Demolition."

Make sure you pay extra special attention to the words, "I think they are right."

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

original source link posted by DavidS above:

see the link to informationclearinghouse that DavidS posted above; that has the full DRG article that SCL cites.

As i said above, I cited 5 (there's more) Screw Loose posts to show how this unsupported claim about faked phone calls is being used to discredit Griffin and the truth movement. These anti-truth sites are useful for identifying weak/bogus evidence and claims, and for learning how stuff is being used against the truth movement.

DRG been made aware that AA 757's had airfones on 9/11; he acknowledged this in writing. He also must be aware the FBI maintains that the connected calls to unidentified numbers were to Olson, as he's citing Moussaoui exhibits as sources. If he isn't, that reflects very poorly on his research. The FBI believes this because of the testimony of Olson, his secretary and at least one operator who connected a call.

There's no evidence the calls couldn't, or didn't happen; that DRG continues to argue in favor of his theory about voice-morphed phone calls while ignoring more plausible explanations and focusing on hard evidence reflects poorly on him as well.

There's a wealth of evidence that proves the official 9/11 myth is false, and that implicates specific people and organizations, at The Complete 9/11 Timeline http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project at http://www.JournalOf911Studies.com and http://www.911research.wtc7.net


"The FBI believes this

"The FBI believes this because of the testimony of Olson, his secretary and at least one operator who connected a call."
Can you give a source for this?

Also, you don't find it odd that the FBI couldn't verify either the phone number or the caller according to their exhibits? As Griffin notes in his article, Olson claimed that at least one call was a collect call which should have been available in a DOJ telephone bill/log. The FBI would have had access to that, so why wasn't it part of the Moussaoui exhibit (i.e. why were the calls left as unknown caller, unknown number?)

sources, and where are the DOJ's billing records?

Good question; why didn't the FBI produce the DOJ's billing records showing collect calls were received? I don't know. If these records haven't been destroyed (8 years after 9/11), they could be FOIA'd.

ATT operator who received a call from 77 and placed a collect call- also interesting is the report about guns on board- the Commission denies there were guns on any of the flights, though there were reports related to at least 3, maybe all 4 flights.

Mercy Lorenzo, operator for AT&T Services AT&T,
telephonically contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI
to report an emergency phone call received by her while on duty at
AT&T. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing
agent and the nature of the interview, she provided the following

A female passenger called from the telephone located on
the back of the airplane seat. Passenger requested to be connected
with her husband, a sergeant who resides in Washington, D.C.
The passenger advised the plane was currently being hi-
jacked. The hi-jackers, armed with guns and knives, were ordering
the passengers to move to the back of the plane. The passenger
wanted to know how to let the pilots know what was happening. It
did not appear as if they were aware of the situation. (17)

Teresa Gonzalez, operator for AT&T Cervices AT&T,
telephonically contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI
to report an emergency phone call received by AJ&T. After being
advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of
the interview, she provided the following information:

Mercy Lorenzo, also an operator with AT&T, received a
call from a female passenger on flight 77 requesting to be
transferred to telephone number I I The female
passenger advised the plane was being hi-jacked. Hi-jackers were
ordering passengers to move to the back of the plane and were armed
with guns and knives. Lorenzo indicated the pilot might not yet be
aware of the take over of the plane.

Additionally, the number provided was the number of the
passenger's husband. He is a Sergeant and resides in Washington,
D.C. (36)

Olson was Solicitor General, not a "Sergeant", but he resided in DC. 911myths has a copy of this 302 w/o the number redacted and it's the number to the Solicitor General's office, as google confirms- it also appears on pg 6 of the 302 quoted below

Helen Voss, Special Assistant to the Solicitor General.
United States of America, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.,
m*J&l8B!3Pfl§ P.MB)baL20?C. I Date of Birth I I was
contacted telephonically at her residence through the DOJ Command
Center at 202 514-500Q. After being advised of the identity of
the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, Voss
furnished the following information:

Earlier this morning Barbara Olson called the office two
2 times to speak with her husband Ted Olson. Lori Keyton was the
secretary that took both of these calls. Voss believes that both
calls were collect calls.

Lori Keyton called to Voss to relay to Ted Olson that
Barbara Olson was on the phone. Keyton said that Barbara is on the
line and she's in a panic. Ted Olson was watching the television
coverage of the terrorist attack at the World Trade Center WTC.
Ted Olson took the call and Voss heard him say, "hijacked!" (3)

This one says 6-8 collect call attempts, a connected collect call from Barbara Olson, and a direct call from Barbara Olson:

Lori Lynn Keyton, Secretary, Department .6f Justice (DOJ),
Washing-tori, D.C., telephone number (202) I \. date of birth'["^
LJ was contacted telephonically at her residence through the DOJ
Command Center at (202) 514-5000. After being advised of the identity
of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, Keyton
provided the following information:

Keyton was working in Ted Olson's Office this morning. She
is regularly called there to cover the telephones. At approximately
9:00am, she received a series of approximately six (6) to eight (8)
collect telephone calls. Each of the calls was an automated collect
call. There was a recording advising of the collect call and
requesting she hold for an operator. A short time later another
recording stated that all operators were busy, please hang up and try
your call later.

Keyton then received a collect call from a live operator.
The operator advised that there was an emergency collect call from
Barbara Olsen for Ted Olsen. Keyton advised that she would accept the
call. Barbara Olsen was put through and sounded hysterical. Barbara
Olsen said, "Can you tell Ted.." Keyton cut her off and said, "I'll
put him on the line."

There was a second telephone call a few to five (5) minutes
later. This time Barbara Olsen was on the line when she answered. She
called direct. It was not a collect call. Barbara Olsen said, "It's
Barbara." Keyton said, "he's on the phone with the command center,
I'll put you through."

Keyton advised that there is no caller identification feature
on the phone she was using. Keyton didn't know if Barbara Olson was
calling from the phone on the plane or from her cell phone. (48)


Phones, guns, and other mysteries

Regarding the second call relayed by Keyton, I wonder, is it possible to place a call directly using an airphone, no operator involved? Is there a way they can connect without being collect calls? Or by the time of that second call, might the plane have been at a low enough altitude so that a call from her cell phone might have been possible? Whatever--if the only record of a call from that phone said 'zero seconds,' then that second call relayed by Keyton would not have been the attempt by cell phone, whatever the altitude. Moreover, what do we know about the actual times these calls were made? And regarding altitude and location, that is especially difficult to say in view of how the flight she is believed to have been on was lost to radar after a certain time.

But other details that stand out here are Mercy Lorenzo's statement that Olson had said the hijackers were armed with 'guns and knives.' If that is so, then the 'boxcutter' story must have originated elsewhere, perhaps falsely attributed to her.

Then there's Olson's apparent belief that the pilots were unaware of what was going on in the cabin of the plane. Then that, presumably, would have been at a time when said hijackers had not yet (as we've been given to believe) stormed the cockpit, seized control of the aircraft, and reversed its direction (with Hanjour at the controls, remember?!).

Are there any other calls supposed to have come from Flight 77 (leaving aside for the moment the question of how credible these accounts might be) that did refer to a storming of the cockpit? A reversal of direction?

Its location, direction, altitude...at which time...so much about Flight 77 remains a mystery.

Box cutters and flight number

According to mr Olson, his wife told him about box cutters:


And during her second call

"She asked Olson what she should tell the captain to do. Olson asked her for her location. She said they were over homes and asked someone in the plane who said they were traveling North East. Olson told his wife that two planes had been hijacked and hit the WTC. Barbra did not seemed panicked. This call was then cut off. She didn't manifest anything about a crash. Olson then went back to the television and learned of the crash at the Pentagon."

One gets the impression that the call was cut off just a short time before the Pentagon was hit.

One thing that struck me: according to the FBI interview, Olson received the first call soon after 9 a.m., just after learning about the second WTC strike. He passed on the flight number of the hijacked flight to the authorities after her call. Was or was not any action taken based on the flight number information he gave?

more info

the times are on the moussaoui trial exhibits (and in other FBI records at scribd.com) http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/exhibit/UnknownCallerAA...

The FDR should have the altitude/location/time info, but there's no way to know at this point if it wasn't tampered w/. Anyway, the FBI says there was just one Olson cell attempt, not connected.

The 2nd call that wasn't collect; I'm thinking the ATT operator may have connected her directly w/o taking the time to set it up as collect; by that time, everyone in America knew the nation was under attack, and just like some in the FAA/military were going outside normal procedures and chain of command to defend the nation, the ATT operator may have just put the call thru.

I'm wondering why the FBI thinks all 4 connected calls went to Olson, when he and his office are only reporting 2. Maybe these calls went to people they didn't interview- or maybe they interviewed them, and those who took the calls reported info that some in the FBI didn't want to know about? But the gun reports are preserved in FBI 302s, which have been made public, and the Commission denies guns on board any of the flights. If there were guns, they were almost certainly planted beforehand by people w/ access to the planes. Someone w/ a gun is going to have a much easier time taking down Burlingame, and herding the passengers into the back. It hasn't been reported that Barbara Olson reported anything about a takeover of the cockpit- she may not have witnessed it- if the curtain was drawn between first class and coach, no one in coach may have seen it- and if the pilots had been killed, they were unaware of what was going on in the cabin.

AA 77 Flight Attendant Renee May reported SIX hijackers:

On September 11, 2001, at approximately 6:13 am, Nancy
May received a telephone call from her daughter, Renee May a
flight attendant with American Airlines. Renee May advised her
mother that she was on American Airlines Flight #77 and ifiai they
were being hijacked. She indicated there were six 6 hijackers
and that the hijackers had moved them (unknown if she m^rit all
the passengers or only the flight crew) to the back of the pl$ne.
Renee May asked her mother to call American Airlines to make sure
they knew of the hijacking and provided the following three phone
numbers for her mother to call:


During the phone conversation, Nancy May heard a male voice in
the background who seemed to be assisting Renee with/providing
the correct telephone numbers for American Airlines/ Nancy May
did not know whether her daughter was utilizing an in-flight
telephone or her own personal cellular telephone 410/935-4315.
The connection with her daughter was then lost. /

Following this conversation, Nancy and Ron May
immediately contacted Patty Carson at American Airlines to relay
the information provided by their daughter. After confirming the
flight number and providing Renee May's employee number to Patty
Carson, Ron May was advised that American Ainfhes would check
into the information they had provided and would caj] them back. (16)


There's A Lot We Still Don't Know About The Specifics of 9/11

loose nuke,

you might be right, however I know for a fact (a source I have) that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland Airport under another flight number (I found this out long AFTER I posted my article on Flight 93 on my website: http://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/oneofouraircraftisn%27tmissing). Another odd thing about Flight 93 are the conversations clearly being picked up by the passengers on the flight deck. Why odd? Because the cockpit door was CLOSED! The voices of the passengers in the flight deck area couldn't have been picked up by the cockpit voice data recorder.

Now, what you say about the existence of airphones on Flight 77 I'd like to see from a source other than Screw Loose Change. You might be right, but I need something more substantial than Screw Loose Change's word for it. However, as I said earlier, it doesn't matter if there were no airphones. There are four unidentified calls supposedly made by passengers on Flight 77, therefore the FBI could say that two of those calls (cell) got through. And as you say, there are other witnesses who affirm Ted got a call from Barbara.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the passengers on Flights 93 and 77 were in on the operation. Since I know that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland, that affirms that those passengers said to have boarded Flight 93 at Newark, didn't! I believe that the voice morphing Griffin believes occurred was actually the real passengers, however those passengers were a part of the operation. In other words Flight 93 followed the Operation Northwoods scenario.

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

You "know" 93 landed where?

I spoke to Liz Foreman who originally posted that story, and she said that it was a reported in error. She even blogged about it at one point.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Flight 93 Whereabouts


Flight 93 landed at Cleveland close to the time Flight 11 impacted the north tower. After I wrote my article on Flight 93 (see link below), I was informed that indeed Flight 93 had landed at Cleveland, but under a different flight number.

Of course AP put out the story that the report was an error. However AP never said what the error was! Liz was merely repeating AP's assertion.

Does Liz get intelligence briefings? If not, then I'm sticking with my source who independently affirms the "erroneous" AP article.


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

Did your "source"...

Provide any kind of evidence to substantiate the claim?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Asoociated Press Substantiates


my source doesn't have to substantiate anything to me, however, the AP article substantiates the information given me.

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

How do you know...

This person didn't read the AP article, and then create some story based on that to take you for a ride? When did this source tell you what they told you? Before or after Loose Change 2nd Edition?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Reliability: Confirmed


this isn't someone I bumped into recently. I've known this person for decades. I know who this person is, and I know the person's dependability. Let's just say that this person gets better intelligence briefings than the President!

I don't know if my source read the AP article or watched Loose Change, however, my source did surprise me with knowledge of Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts and what he saw fly just over the Pentagon parking lot. This person also said that the reason the Pentagon clocks stopped at 8:32 is because the bomb that went off in the Pentagon radiated an electromagnetic pulse.

Back in 1985 my source told me that Konstantin Chernenko had died one week before Moscow released his death to the public.

By the way, when do you think Havana will get around to announcing Fidel Castro's death? He's been dead for two years now. Or is it three years? I forget, but he's dead. RIP.

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

One of the most INTRIGUING Comments in a long time

I want to know more brian78046.

Viva, Fidel!


you mean Fidel's passing away? That's all I know.

Anyway, Fidel's death is kind of obvious. I suspected it before it was confirmed to me. They keep showing dated pictures of him in that funky jogging outfit! That was the first clue.

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

No, I want to know about your source.

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?

That's A No-Go


that's not open to discussion.

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

Alive and Kickin'.....


But, seriously....
I could believe the plane landing in Cleveland scenario, but i don't think a whole island population would keep 'mum' about their hero's demise....(unlike 911, where a limited amount were in on the 'secret', and can keep from spilling the beans, after 8 yrs).


He looks OK to me....but i guess we'd have to ask Danny Glover to be sure!

~ Martha

Havana = Cuba's Government


As I said in an earlier comment, Havana hasn't released the news of Fidel's death. That means the population in Cuba are out of the loop. When I said Havana in my earlier comment, I meant the government in Havana.

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

So you think that

Saul Landau and Danny Glover are in on this Cuban conspiracy to cover up Fidel's death? Do I understand you correctly? And the CIA is either too incompetent to find out about his demise or chooses for reasons unknown to us to keep silent? What could those reasons be?

Exasperated By The Credulity of Some!


I don't know what Saul or Danny know about Fidel's death, but of course the CIA knows about Fidel's death three years ago!

The CIA does not comment on what it knows is going on in the Cuban government. The reason for that should be obvious to you!

Folks, this isn't rocket science! The total absence of any NEW pictures/video of Fidel these past three years should clue one in that Fidel is DEAD!

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

Who was Danny Glover et al.....

standing next to, & speaking with....the ghost of Fidel? Just some expert photoshopping???


I understand that you were referring to the gov't before.....but you said he's been dead for 2 or 3 yrs now...which is probably news to Fidel!
These photos/reports are as recent as a few months ago.
I suppose he could have kicked the bucket since then, but he's already been phased out, so what's the big deal? Let him go gracefully...what's the rush?
I don't think 'everything' under the sun is a conspiracy.
And i choose to devote my time to the one that matters (911).

Partly Disagree; Partly Agree


if Fidel were well enough to be standing around talking to visitors, do you think that is all we would get to see of him? Of course not. If Fidel were as fit as the photo shows him to be, than we would have seen him in public giving his signature long speeches. No one could stop him from giving a speech or being seen in public!

Fidel passed away some three years ago, not after his supposed meeting with Equador's president.

I really don't care if Cuba wants to keep Fidel's death a secret, and like you I concentrate on 9/11.

My knowledge of Fidel's death comes from the source I have. However, there is no reason why you should believe my source. I do, however.

It's well known that Saddam Hussein had doubles, so why not Fidel? The only troubling thing about Fidel is is if he is as well as the photo of him suggests, where are the public sightings of him that he most definitely would have had by now? There aren't any. None!

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

Screw Loose is NOT the source! & Flight 93 landed in Cleveland?

brian78046 said, "Now, what you say about the existence of airphones on Flight 77 I'd like to see from a source other than Screw Loose Change."

I only used Screw Loose to show how this stuff is used against the movement; they quoted and linked to a DRG article posted at 911blogger citing airliners.net for a 1998 photo of seatback phones on an AA 757 http://911blogger.com/node/8408 In addition, Screw Loose provided the maintenance manuals showing the phones were removed in 2002, and there's also this article confirming AA was taking airfones out of their planes in 2002 http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-831093.html

in a reply to Jon in this thread, to support a claim that UA 93 landed in Cleveland, brian78046 said, "my source doesn't have to substantiate anything to me, however, the AP article substantiates the information given me."

A source anonymous to everyone else makes a claim that is only confirmed only by an AP article which AP retracted. I'm not going to stand behind that.


I Agree

loose nuke,

I have no vested interest in airphones being on Flight 77 or not. If there were airphones on Flight 93...okay. I'm cool with it.

I'm not asking anyone to stand behind my source concerning Flight 93, or anything else my source tells me. That is why my article on Flight 93 has zero percent contribution from my source. The proof that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland derives solely from the new research I found on UA's tracking capability of its aircraft on 9/11 coupled with the contents of the retracted AP article itself.

By the way, I'm Dean Jackson. You can call me Dean. Brian78046 is what I originally used to post comments here.

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

I'm puzzled. I thought you wrote earlier...

... that your source confirms that flight 93 landed at Cleveland.

????When was this interview recorded???? !!!

"Do the orders still stand?"

Tell David Ray Griffin.......

The FBI hasn't admitted anything about the possibility of making cell phone calls at 30,000 feet. Now the FBI report on Flight 77 also contains several calls that could not be identified. The FBI if pressured could say that Barbara Olson's calls to Ted were from two of those unidentified calls. The FBI can say Barbara made two cell phone calls that by some fluke got through. Someone might want to point this out to Griffin.

In regards to Flight 93, Griffin is standing on firm ground.

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

Don't forget...

Olson himself switched his story several times, finally settling on airphone.

Change of Mind


Unlike Flight 93 where the wife saw the caller ID on her phone, Ted didn't. Ted can always say he thought it was an airphone, but that obviously he was mistaken. Griffin is standing on quicksand on this particular aspect of Flight 77.

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

I agree

After an initial lack of response, a debunker on a Finnish 9/11 forum started to argue that those unidentified calls could have been made by ms Olsen.

The "0 seconds" thing should, IMO, be used as an argument for further investigation rather than as a final proof that Ted Olsen was lying or deceived.


What was the altitude of the plane when the alleged Olsen calls happened? If the plane was at a high altitude, no cell phone calls could have worked anyway, as there would have been no signal. (The speed of the plane is also a factor, not just the altitude.)

And then there's the Burnett cell phone call (with Deena recognizing her husband's cell phone ID) that, according to the FBI's latest position, never happened, as Griffin points out.

I think the most important thing we could do now is to approach CBC, to thank them for what they are doing, to use the program and the interview when approaching U.S. media - telling them that the CANADIAN media is actually doing balanced journalism about the issues - and to tell CBC why each of us thinks the "war on terror" is based on a lie.



I believe Barbara was at a high altitude where cell phone calls could not be made. However, the FBI can always make the ludicrous response that Barbara's two successful cell phone calls were flukes.

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

No that is simply not possible!

They would not make that claim...to risky as it is impossible above 10k I'd say.

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

B. Olson's Boxcutter story is a total Fabrication...

the establish the myth of evil, "CUT-THROAT" Arabs are attacking.
The Flight 93 Beamer Myth fabricated to interject the "HEROICS" of Righteous Americans fighting back.
9/11 a total Psy-Op with a whole lot of AVERICE thrown in.

My Opinion

Evil myths

Right on the money, Joe!

boxcuters are a pretty flimsy weapon

to begin with.

Spot-on! They have to write a 'script' for any false flag op.

Spot-on! A script, a story, a yarn, a tale, a narrative, ...is always needed in order to cover a deception. ...and the yarn needs to be promoted front-and-center with a certain agreed-upon public appeal in order for it to dominate. People are starting to catch on to these fabricated yarns (e.g. swine flu, carbon tax, bailout).

He should drop the 'no seatback phones' in AA77....

since that is pretty much settled now. They were there in 01 and taken out in '02. (Weird how hard verfifying this simple detail has been, with airline reps themselves at the center of the confusion).

The fact that the FBI attributes no connected calls to B.O. is what matters. Sure, they could claim that her calls were 2 of the 4 unknowns that connected, but it's still a card we can play since the govt. did not back up its story.

And if the black box data for this flight does not back up the official story, that is also a legitimate card to play. But we should be careful about jumping to conclusions. It should be the government's credibility that's at stake-- not ours.

Fifth estate program

I watched the fifth estate program, but I don't remember seeing this full interview. Parts of this interview were played, although broken up by narration and other segments. Was this aired at a later date? I don't remember the fifth estate program playing the part about Flight 77 not having seatback phones?

CBC's site has it

The "full" 22 minute interview is over on the Fifth Estate site, see here: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/video_griffin.html

Succinct. Eloquence.

Wow, we are so fortunate to have an internet to be able to obtain REAL information. Otherwise, we'd be blowing in the wind like the rest of the shameful (although mostly afraid and/or simply deprived of knowledge from our defense industry owned media in this country ) sheeple. Sooner or later the fact that they are complicit in obliging such horror, because they "already know everything," already, just what they want to kno that is. They don't want the task that we take on either. They couldn't endure the stigmatizing we have simply brushed aside, unmoved by. Our people are truly awesome. Our ego rejection is laudable. "Ego protected by all means!" is the MO of cowards. I must say, I was surprised at how many there were, cowards that is, in this world until 9-11-01. I must say, our people of this Truth movement are the finest in character, of this country. Intellect engaged with objectivity! And of course engaged with that particularly spiritual regard for humanity on an international level. Objectivity, through the internet. We sure can't let it be controlled. Is it now? How much? I'd like to know. I think it might be lessening. We in America, are 44th int he world, as a country in the category of having the best (or 44th...gheesh) in the world in media freedom.

If ego was anything that motivates us, and obviously it does not, because, we all KNOW what people have said. BUT, I think at this junction of our path, awareness is exactly what we have achieved. Now, we have to face the task of dealing with the late bloomers, as they continue to resist realization, and the attempts to derail us. We are winning though. No stopping us!

I've gotten to the point where politics is a deep divide in our family. I'm so "out there" that I'm hardly worth acknowledging having any value at all. Probably his own insecurity talking, my younger brother that is. Nevertheless, I'd like to be taken seriously. And of course, I would love desperately to have them realize what took place actually on 9-11-01.

Others here have similar stories? I'm so impressed here with David Ray Griffin's solidness in his presentation, as is the rest of our fine (very much so, and beloved for their honor) professional spokesmen. I'm thinking this might be the perfect link to send them resistors of these facts, though, just one in particular, my brother shows a little more curiosity than the other family members. Maybe I'LL SEND THE LINK TO HIM I do love my family, even though we see things so differently. It's painful to know that their FOXed out mental programming keeps them voting for war criminals like George W. Bush. Ignorance is dangerous.

The most severe form of learning disorders are owned by those that "already know everything."

What explains the MO?

Were the plotters sloppy? Did they forget that cell phone calls didn't work so well at speed and altitude? Some people have suggested the content of the calls is odd, i.e. possibly a script from an hijack simulation exercise. There is no way a family member would ever traumatize their family in such a manner. Also there is no way the airlines would run a drill like that. Why? Lawsuits. They would get the s**t sued out of them. And we know from Red Unit members Steve Elson and Bogdan Dzakovic that the FAA was lax on security. So a live drill on a passenger plane doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. I'm aware of the live fly drill accounts. For sure there could have been other planes on 9/11 running live fly drills.

Why does Griffin trust the FBI on the Olson calls but not on the ID'ing of the hijackers? How does he know when to trust the FBI and when they are lying?

Good points.

Part of Griffin's reasoning for when to trust the FBI is probably that when they present evidence that harms the OCT that evidence is more trustworthy. Evidence ID-ing the hijackers came from info in Atta's suitcase, which mysteriously did not get put on his flight from Logan. That sort of evidence is very suspicious as someone could easily have planted the suitcase; in fact that is more likely, especially as it is hard to see why Atta would have brought it with him and not destroyed it. The passport in NYC and the visa and bandanna in PA are other examples of evidence that was almost certainly planted. Similarly, when NIST admits 2.28 seconds of free-fall during the collapse of WTC7, that is strong evidence because we have numerous sources and it devastates their story. Notice they refuse to admit molten metal.

I agree though that it is hard to imagine how the calls may have been staged. Or why they were staged in that way. Maybe someone has thought this through more than I have. One thing to keep in mind is the planning for 9/11 occurred mostly during a pre-internet era, and all of it during a time period when the internet did not seem very important. So, what we are seeing now is a traditional nasty plot suddenly caught in the bright glare of the internet.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Sunday Edition.

On September 11th. 2009, CBC Sunday Edition's Michael Enright interviewed David Frum about the attacks of 9/11, 2001.

David Frum told the CBC listeners across Canada (and around the world on short wave) about phone-calls from Barbara Olson to husband Ted.

Sunday Edition should clarify which party is mistaken, David Frum or the FBI?

David, who worked for G. W. Bush as a speech-writer, wrote a book on his adventures when he coined the phrase "Axis of Evil"; he is a candidate for the witness stand should we get a proper investigation into lies used to start wars of aggression and other unsolved mysteries of 9/11.


Both the conventional 911 narrative and the claims of the 911 Truth movement are based on evidence supposedly.

The story is found in the evidence. Evidence doesn't lie. There is a unique truth and so on.

There is also the notion that evidence is interpreted. In these cases, experts are called in to provide authority and their interpretations carry weight. But experts don't agree.

The truth movement would be well advised to discuss EVIDENCE - what is evidence?

This becomes crucial is it is evidence which is used to convict or acquit in a criminal trial. Courts have established standards of evidence.

There is also the notion of custody of evidence and mitigating in tampering with evidence.

My own thoughts on the subject is that most of the evidence discussed is NOT RELIABLE. This doesn't mean it is flawed or tampered with (though it might be), but that the best case has to made made on the MOST reliable undisputed evidence.

When we hear or read about the identification of victims from the exclusive use of DNA, this needs to be considered in light of how easily DNA evidence is faked when doing identification. The "proof" is to compare and find matches to samples provided. All that the identifiers need to do is to declare a match... having placed the provided samples into the pool of DNA supposedly found. Without double blind independent teams matching samples, the ID process is completely unreliable. And of course it would be comforting to announce that a victim has been identified to grieving relatives as it provides closure on some level.

We tend to "trust" the government, FBI and so forth in their custody of evidence. But in many cases the evidence has been handled by others, such as the DOD, the NYC first responders and the same in PA. Crime scenes are cordoned off and there is no scrutiny of evidence gathering, but with a strong presumption that it was done properly and evidence is untainted.

In the case of the cell phone calls. I believe that experts should know whether this is possible or not and in the case of cell phone calls from those flights it would seem completely impossible. This would be false evidence, planted evidence and so forth. How did it get into the crime investigation? Can those calls be traced or duplicated?

The evidence indicating the presence of something other than fire weakened steel is simply in analysis of many of the videos of the buildings coming down. The speed of collapse has the undisputed tell tale sign that these buildings were not experiencing progressive collapses from structural failure, but fell because they were exploded away at the bottom, or in the case of the twin towers a series of explosions throughout the height of the building giving the appearance of the buildings collapsing.

Analysis of the many videos can return no other result. It's physcs and math and no opinions of experts are required.

This is how the truth movement must examine evidence.

The official story falls down on its own lies...

When it comes to educating those unaware of, or in denial of 9/11 reality, the most effective material is that supplied by government agencies which contradict the official narrative. The cellphone/boxcutters' story is a very good example, on account of its blatancy and undeniability.

3 different NORAD stories, 3 different ATTA'S BAG stories

Agreed bloggulator-- pointing out the many government contradictions is always solid chess for us. Which is why I feel that DRG's "9/11 Contradictions" book was so strong. Case in point, we have 3 different stories to explain NORAD's failure to intercept, with contradictory timelines.

And we have 3 different stories for how authorities found Mohammed Atta's luggage-- the 'Rosetta Stone' of information about the 19 hijackers.
1) Found in the Nissan Altima in Portland, ME.
2) Found in the Mitsubishi at Logan Airport.
3) No wait! It was found in the bag that failed to make it on Flight 11 inside the airport.

From page 169 in Griffin's book: Conclusion:
"The treasure trove of information that was reportedly discovered in Atta's belongings played a central role in the process of placing blame on al-Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks. And yet the present version of the story about this treasure trove of information radically contradicts the version that was told in the first days after 9/11. Congress and the press need to ask why these contradictory stories emerged and why the 9/11 Commission ignored the existence of the original story.

We do know...

Olsen stated that on one of the calls Barbara had said to him specifically she was calling via air phone, the other call he said he didn't say how she called (mobile or air phone).

I'm pretty sure of that. I have a FOIA request document regarding phone calls somewhere, will try and dig that out to confirm.


I've read thru this thread and listened to both sides of this debate - as well as some of the claims of plane switches in Cleveland and secret sources, etc etc.

Here is something for you all to feast on:

"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA