Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners, Faked!

Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners, Faked!

Response to Questions Evoked by My Fifth Estate Interview

by Prof David Ray Griffin
On November 27, 2009, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Fifth Estate program aired a show entitled “9/11: The Unofficial Story,”1 for which I, along with a few other members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, was interviewed. In the most important part of my interview, I pointed out that, according to the FBI’s report on phone calls from the airliners provided in 2006 for the Moussaoui trial, Barbara Olson’s only call from Flight 77 was “unconnected” and hence lasted “0 seconds.” Although this Fifth Estate program showed only a brief portion of my discussion of alleged phone calls from the 9/11 airliners, its website subsequently made available a 22-minute video containing this discussion.2

Shortly thereafter, a portion of this video, under the title “David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Cell Phone Calls: Exclusive CBC Interview,” was posted on You Tube,3 after which it was posted on 911 Blogger.4 This latter posting resulted in considerable discussion, during which some claims contradicting my position were made. In this essay, I respond to the most important of these claims, namely:

1. The FBI has not admitted that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners on 9/11 were impossible.
2. There is no evidence that some of the reported 9/11 phone calls were faked.
3. American Airlines’ Boeing 757s, and hence its Flight 77, had onboard phones.
4. The FBI’s report on phone calls from the 9/11 airliners did not undermine Ted Olson’s report about receiving phone calls from his wife.
The four sections of this essay will respond to these four claims in order.

Conclusion
Although this essay has focused on details, often minute, in merely one aspect of the official account of 9/11, the implications are enormous. Without the widespread assumption that the 9/11 attacks had been planned and carried out by al-Qaeda, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have been possible. With regard to the war in Afghanistan in particular, Michel Chossudovsky has recently emphasized the fact that NATO’s decision to support this US-led war was based on a briefing by Frank Taylor of the US State Department, in which he provided what was called conclusive evidence of al-Qaeda’s responsibility for the attacks.121

Although the contents of Taylor’s briefing have never been made public, the main evidence provided to the general public has consisted of the hijack-describing phone calls reportedly received from passengers and flight attendants aboard the airliners. But when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. This analysis thereby suggests that the entire 9/11 story used to justify the US-led wars is a lie.

If asked which part of the official story can be most definitively shown to be false, I would speak not of the alleged phone calls but of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the official account of which says that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down without the aid of pre-set explosives. Given the fact that this theory involves massive violations of basic laws of physics, the evidence against it is so strong as to be properly called proof – as I have recently emphasized in a book-length critique of the official report on WTC 7 in particular.122

Nevertheless, the importance of the evidence against the official account provided by analyzing the alleged phone calls should not be minimized. If the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false – which, as I have emphasized in another recent book, can be seen to be the case.123 It is this cumulative argument that provides the strongest disproof of the official, war-justifying account of 9/11. The evidence that the alleged phone calls from the airliners were faked is an important part of this cumulative argument.124

David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. He is the author of The New Pearl Harbor - Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 , The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions -- A Critique of the Kean-Zelikow Report as well as Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?

www.globalresearch.ca...

This is some very well reasurched and documented details, that exposes the lies from the FBI about the onboard phone calls from these hijact planes.
Please read the entire thread before responding. I will be *expecting sources* by those who are debunking David Ray Griffin work.
Please treat everyone with repect even if you disagree with them.

It is pretty much proven those phone calls were faked.




[edit on 13-1-2010 by impressme]

Yeah, i suspected the cell calls were faked the moment i learned they existed.

My parents were VERY into traveling in the years prior to 9-11. They pretty much flew all over the country.

Whenever they were on a plane they would always attempt to call people on their cellphones, particularly my father because he was addicted to using his.

They were never able to make or receive calls while flying around on a plane.

That's a fact.


[edit on 1/13/2010 by JPhish]

Good work as always Sean48.

I remember travelling during my career and could never get a signal either and like so many other people when I heard there were cell phone calls made from these flights, it peaked my interest in how they could do it.

I have also noticed that many of the websites that once flat out said cell phones will not work in an airplane now cite the OS story that cell phone calls were made on 911 so they all have changed their explanations to fit with the OS. I find this very disturbing that these websites would blindly follow the OS without any reservations at all..."the manipulated leading the blind".

I searched the FAA website to find that they too, have removed a document/flyer/notice they once had readily avalible citing the reasons not to use your cell phone. Now it seems after 911 many have had to "edit" their websites and contradictory information to fall into the perimeters of the OS.

However I did find this FAA doc. Its worth a read becuase of it's implications relating to harmful RF by cell phones.

Carnegie Mellon University Department of Engineering and Public Policy 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 1521311. Contract or Grant No.01-C-AW-CMU13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report28 June 2002-29 October 200412. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Aviation AdministrationOffice of Aviation Research and DevelopmentWashington, DC 2059114.

Sponsoring Agency CodeAIR-10015. Supplementary NotesThe Federal Aviation Administration Airport and Aircraft Safety R&D Division COTR was Anthony Wilson.16.
Abstract title:

The focus on the risk posed by portable electronic devices carried onboard commercial flights has continued to intensify.

Recent measurements and analyses have been useful in developing a better understanding of the issues, but has not allowed one to drawfirm conclusions about what is happening in today’s revenue flight environments. This report summarizes results of a programthat developed an instrumentation package and performed in-flight radio frequency (RF) spectrum measurements in commercialaircraft cabins on revenue flights in select aviation critical and personal electronics frequency bands. Specific objectives were to identify cellular in-flight calls and activity rates, assess maximum levels of received power, and identify areas that deserve further research.

Measurements were made on 38 flights over the period September 23 through November 19, 2003. These flights were on Boeing 737 (37 flights) and on Airbus 320 (1 flight) model aircraft. Two major U.S. airlines participated in the flight study.This study provided the first reported characterization of the RF environment in the cabins of commercial airline flights. The keyconclusions were that (1) onboard cellular telephone calls were observed in-flight and activity is appreciable; (2) signal activitywas observed in the aviation critical frequency bands at field strengths capable on causing interference to onboard avionics; and(3) onboard spectral activity was observed at flight critical phases.These findings carry implications for both future research and public policy. Before the industry moves forward with policychanges, significantly more field measurement and analysis of the potential for interference is urgently needed. These studies should include a consideration of the implications of having many onboard transmitters and the potential risks posed by intermodulation.

Distribution Statement This document is available to the public through the NationalTechnical Information Service (NTIS) Springfield, Virginia22161.19. Security Classif. (of this report)Unclassified20. Security Classif. (of this page)Unclassified21. No. of Pages7622. PriceForm DOT F1700.7 (8-72)Reproduction of completed page authorize

reply to post by impressme


Sorry, guy --- this has already been thoroughly beaten to death, and the only thing David Griffin is doing that's "new" is hoping no one will notice that he's lying, and distorting the facts.

www.debunk911myths.org...

Timeline

9:30:32 - Thomas Burnett Jr, 28 seconds, call to his wife

9:35:40 - Sandy Bradshaw, 5 minutes, 53 seconds (353 seconds), call to United Airlines

9:37:03 - Mark Bingham, 2 minutes, 46 seconds (166 seconds), call to his mother

9:37:41 - Jeremy Glick, line left open (7,565 seconds)

9:37:53 - Thomas Burnett Jr, 62 seconds, called his wife

9:39:21 - Lauren Grandcolas, 46 seconds, call to her husband, left a message.

9:43:03 - Joseph DeLuca, 2 minutes, 10 seconds (130 seconds), called his parents

9:43:48 - Todd Beamer, line left open (3,925 seconds), spoke with GTE operator, Lisa Jefferson.

9:44:23 - Thomas Burnett Jr, 54 seconds, called his wife

9:46:05 - Linda Gronlund, 1 minute, 11 seconds (71 seconds), called her sister, Elsa Strong.

9:47:57 - CeeCee Lyles, 56 seconds, called her husband from an airphone.

9:49:12 - Marion Britton, 3 minutes, 52 seconds, called a friend, Fred Fiumano

9:50:04 - Sandy Bradshaw, 7 minutes, 50 seconds (470 seconds), call to her husband

9:53:43 - Honor Wainio, 4 minutes, 29 seconds (269 seconds), call to her parents

9:58:00 - Ed Felt, 911 call to Westmoreland County dispatcher (see also cell phones about this call)

9:58:00 - CeeCee Lyles called her husband with her cell phone (see also cell phones about this call)

www.debunk911myths.org...

There you have the truth, NOT the baloney made up by Mr. Griffin.

The link mentioned to "see also cell phones" is the one up above.


"impressme", I am sorry you are barking up so many wrong trees, so diligently.

BUT, it is the nature of this so-called 'truth movement' to completely get it wrong, each and every time. Sometimes (maybe) entirely sincerely, but I can't help but wonder if there isn't a profit motive behind some of this tomfoolery.

I am reminded of a certain poster's incredible assertion regarding Boeing 767 tankers having been used --- that was shown to be false, since they did NOT exist in 2001. Too many such instances, and all for naught.

...and you actually take umbrage when I say you're mindlessly quoting whatever garbage those damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out. Going to a professor of religion for information about demolitions science and communications technology is as idiotic as going to the pope for information on evolution. He's not giving you evidence of anything. He's giving you unsubstanciated personal opinions based on what he wants to be true, and passing it off as evidence is deliberate dishonesty.

Listen up! David Ray Griffin WITHDREW his claim that the planes had no airfones for peopel to call out on. He misquoted a claim that said airfones were removed *after* 9/11 as a claim the planes had no airfones *at all*.

David Ray Griffin withdraws his "no airfones" claim

If he's trying to slip his "the planes had no airfones" again EVEN AFTER NOW ADMITTING THE PLANES HAD AIRFONES then he is lying through his teeth. I really find the truther movement's blatant double standard in their pro-conspiracy bias to be thoroughly disgusting. We have a man who simply said he received a call from his wife in the last 1/2 hour of her life, and these truthers have the unrepentent gall to accuse him of lying and/or being some secret gov't agent entirely becuase they don't want to believe that his claims are true, and yet characters like Griffin who have been caught red handed changing his story as it suits his tastes are treated as unimpeachable gospel.

Just come out and admit it- credibility to you has absolutely nothing to do with the source, but with whether it happens to agree with your conspiracy stories.

reply to post by mikelee


Funny, mike, that you provided that document. It does nothing to help the OP, actually.

But, it's what we've known in the industry for years. Those who fly, and aren't aware of the realities of RF interference may wonder why FM radios and televisions are prohibited, along with cell phones and such.

In the case of radio and TV, even though they only "receive" signals, nevertheless some aspect of that process results in a slight amount of re-broadcasting, and it's in a spectrum that can interfere with certain airplane components, mostly in the navigation arena, down in the ~108Mhz to ~110Mhz spread. (This is where most of your Instrument Landing Systems that are radio-based operate). This was mostly a problem back middle to late 20th century, though. Each electronic device that can "leak" in the radio spectrum poses a challenge, even as more and more aviation technological devices are using more spectrum too....

...and the worst cases of problems occuring are when the errant device is located in close proximity to an airplane's antenna. Since every airplane is configured differently, there is no way to be certain WHERE you're sitting will be having an effect, or not, it is just too complicated; so it's easier to just say NO to the devices.

BACK to the cell phone usage of 9/11, though. I just above used a reference to UA 93, and it's important to understand something.

The TWO cell calls were made when the airplane was low...between 8,000 feet and 5,000 feet MSL. What everyone needs to understand is what we call "AGL"...that's Above Ground Level. The land and terrain elevations in that area of PA, around Shanksville, are in the 2,000 to 2,500 feet MSL range. SO, in the case of UA 93, for instance, that put the airplane at between (conservatively) 6,000 feet to 3,000 feet AGL. That low, it is not unusual for cell phone towers (especially if THEY are perhaps located on nearby higher elevations, such as hills) to be able to receive the signals.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...and you actually take umbrage when I say you're mindlessly quoting whatever garbage those damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out. Going to a professor of religion for information about demolitions science and communications technology is as idiotic as going to the pope for information on evolution. He's not giving you evidence of anything. He's giving you unsubstanciated personal opinions based on what he wants to be true, and passing it off as evidence is deliberate dishonesty.

Listen up! David Ray Griffin WITHDREW his claim that the planes had no airfones for peopel to call out on. He misquoted a claim that said airfones were removed *after* 9/11 as a claim the planes had no airfones *at all*.

David Ray Griffin withdraws his "no airfones" claim

If he's trying to slip his "the planes had no airfones" again EVEN AFTER NOW ADMITTING THE PLANES HAD AIRFONES then he is lying through his teeth. I really find the truther movement's blatant double standard in their pro-conspiracy bias to be thoroughly disgusting. We have a man who simply said he received a call from his wife in the last 1/2 hour of her life, and these truthers have the unrepentent gall to accuse him of lying and/or being some secret gov't agent entirely becuase they don't want to believe that his claims are true, and yet characters like Griffin who have been caught red handed changing his story as it suits his tastes are treated as unimpeachable gospel.

Just come out and admit it- credibility to you has absolutely nothing to do with the source, but with whether it happens to agree with your conspiracy stories.

Perhaps you should better take the time and read the whole article to which the OP has linked, before you write such accusations and start to ridicule other persons. Those people who gave you stars, should also first read a source before they evaluate comments.

Retracting the Retraction: Although the second of these two sentences was written with tongue in cheek, I was completely serious about the importance of correcting errors. Six weeks later, that same policy led to retract my retraction because of three new pieces of information:

...The third new piece of information, which I also learned from Balsamo, was that another AA representative had made a statement about the absence of phones on AA 757s, which, being more precise than the statements that Morgan and Henshall had received, left no room for misinterpretation. This statement, which had appeared on a German political forum, had been evoked by a letter to American Airlines saying:

“[O]n your website . . . there is mentioned that there are no seatback satellite phones on a Boeing 757. Is that info correct? Were there any . . . seatback satellite phones on any Boeing 757 . . . on September 11, 2001?” The reply, which was signed “Chad W. Kinder, Customer Relations, American Airlines,” said: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”88

After confirming the authenticity of this reported exchange,89 Balsamo and I co-authored an article entitled “Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls? An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones.” In a section entitled “Correcting an ‘Error,’” we reviewed the reasons that had led me to conclude that my claim about AA 77 – that it would have had no onboard phones – was probably wrong.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Here is a link to the original article mentioned.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 13-1-2010 by Drunkenshrew]

How about the cell call from the bathroom? The mans name was Ed Felt. It was received minutes before impact.

www.historycommons.org...

Also, why is Mr Kramer shut up by our own government. You see, there is a conspiracy within a conspiracy. Take away any evidence of a shoot down and you have nothing. Kind of the opposite of the WTC discussions.

Non use of cells is also a FCC regulation and if you look into it.

www.fcc.gov...

The reason that you cannot use your phone is that there is potential interference to wireless networks on the ground. So if they restrict use because it can interfere with ground signals what makes you think a cell cannot 'reach' the ground within a specific range which 93 was well under I believe.

As it states with newer technology this may be lifted. I know that my iPhone has worked at low altitude on a couple of my flights.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by esdad71]

reply to post by Drunkenshrew



A portion of your snippet:

“[O]n your website . . . there is mentioned that there are no seatback satellite phones on a Boeing 757. Is that info correct? Were there any . . . seatback satellite phones on any Boeing 757 . . . on September 11, 2001?” The reply, which was signed “Chad W. Kinder, Customer Relations, American Airlines,” said: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack...

First of all, not sure who's asking the question there, but he/she keeps asking about "seatback satellite phones". It appears to be somewhat pestering in tone, as well, repeated several times. But, never mind that part, my point here is the questioner is already making a false assumption and exhibits poor knowledge of the type of Airphone technology in use at that time. Whether that was intentionally misleading, in order to elicit the response he/she wanted, or a completely innocent mistake is going to be difficult to determine.

By referring to the onboard phones as "satellite" phones, the questioner is asking a non-sequitor question. The innovation that the Airphones provided, when introduced in domestic US airspace, did NOT rely on satellite links to operate. They were linked to a system of ground-based stations.

Now, AA 77 phone calls:

Renee May's phone call
At 9:12, Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight (American Airlines Flight 77) was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines. Nancy May and her husband promptly did so.

It is not specific (debunk911.org) about the method of this call. Perhaps someone can research it better.

Per www.ntsb.gov... in Fig.1, "Autopilot and Autothrottle Modes & Aircraft Response" we can see the timeline, and tie it with the phone calls, both made by Renee May, and:

Barbara Olson's phone call
At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. Solicitor General Olson tried unsuccessfully to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft.

At 0912 EDT the airplane (American 77) had already been commandeered. You can see the altitude change from FL350 (35,000 feet) at approximately 0901. BUT, I also see an unauthorized (by ATC) turn commencing at 0854. This indicates it was initiated by the hijacker(s) at the controls, so they had full control at that point.

Also, the Mode Control Panel (MCP) setting was switched from 'LNAV' to "HDG SEL" at the same time. (It is done merely by pressing one button).

The autopilot remained engaged during that turn. At 0901, when the descent was initiated, we see the vertical programming change to "FL CHG", when it had been in "VNAV" (where the real pilots had left it). Again, this is very easy to do, and anyone can understand how to basically operate the system in this manner, with minimal instruction required.

(I'm using those times, and providing details, to correlate with Fig. 3, page 11, from the NTSB link, that shows AA 77's ground track. Since the turn to heading 090 was finished at 0859, I can then extrapolate to that chart, since it provides no times for us).

At about 0907 the heading fluctuates a bit, and that corresponds to the Autopilot being OFF.

That's in the vicinity of the HVQ VOR (Charleston, WV). The terrain there is varied, but an average of about 2,000 feet MSL. It gets higher, briefly, as you go east, then lowers nearer the Washington Metropolitan area.

He(they) leveled briefly at FL250, and it was during that time at that altitude that Mrs. May made her call. I will assume it was by using an Airphone (despite what the rattled American Airlines representative said in the snippet above, I believe that person has been shown to be incorrect).

Mrs. Olsen called at "between 9:16 and 9:26". At 0925 the airplane was descending through 15,000 feet MSL. They followed a line roughly parallel and north of a line between Beckley (BKW) and Gordonsville (GVE). Plenty of places in that region for cell phone towers to be mounted on hill tops, quite possibly.

Mrs. Olsen's calls were said to be via her cell phone, but I understand they were brief, and of poor signal quality, which is to be expected. As the wife of an administration official, one would also tend to think she may have had a better-than-average cell phone too, but that's pure speculation.

AA 77 reached 7,500-8,000 feet at about 0928, at which time it was lined up on the Pentagon (as seen in the NTSB video recreation), the autopilot was disconnected (seen in the NTSB Fig. 1 graph) and the descending right turn was begun. Certainly in the near vicinity of Washington, even at 8,000 feet one wouyld expect a cell phone to work...and minutes prior, the airplane would have been over Dulles...and the tech corridor area of Norther Virginia.....

So, what say ye all???

Oh, and BTW, I still think someone should ASK AA again for the history of their Airphone installations on their fleet.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Your 911 debunking website is a proven disinformation website, nothing but the authors opinion and no facts to support their conclusions, nice try.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Sorry but you are kicking a dead horse in supporting the idea that cell calls were going through from any of the flights. Clearly, you are clueless about the cellular telephone systems in use on 911. If you only knew how much egg is running down your face.

reply to post by Sanity


Sanity, I assume you're basing that on flawed reports from folks like Ted Twietmeyer, and the like.

Of COURSE anyone who wishes to promote a 9/11 "conspiracy" theory is going to cloud the issue with nonsense. We see it every day on ATS!!

Or, perhaps YOU are an expert in the subject??

IF so, and it's not just a case of your relying on what you've read, and choosing only to believe those who fall in line with your views, then please provide some expert technical knowledge for everyone to see, regarding how the cell phones operated in late 2001, and provide the proof of their inability to connect, AT ALL, form inside an airplane while airborne.

We will all be tuned in.

reply to post by impressme


You accuse a site of being a "proven disinfo" site, because it's based on opinion?!? ?

Is this the same "impressme" who was posting 'opinion' after 'opinion' in a number of recently started threads, or has someone hacked in and is using your screenname???

Never mind, just support the assertion that the site you mentioned (well, actually, you DIDN'T mention it, could you be specific?) does as you claimed.

Pretty please......

Originally posted by Sanity
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Sorry but you are kicking a dead horse in supporting the idea that cell calls were going through from any of the flights. Clearly, you are clueless about the cellular telephone systems in use on 911. If you only knew how much egg is running down your face.

You'll find that happens a lot here.

The OS is a fading Fable, like the tooth fairy, only a few believe.

reply to post by esdad71



Another lost patriot. Your lack of knowledge about 2001 cellular phone systems, equipment, (nothing to do with seatback airphones) and operation is obvious in your post. Even worse, not one iota of factual information regarding the actual reasons the alleged cell phone calls from the planes is found in the info you rely on.

I just wish I still had a copy of my ticket from my flight from 1999 on AA from SFO to DFW - and a copy of my Visa bill when I used a seat back phone to call the UK en route!

I would swear that was a Boeing 757.



[edit on 13-1-2010 by Silk]

reply to post by Sean48

The OS is a fading Fable, like the tooth fairy, only a few believe.

Indeed, it is just the opposite, Sean.

Using your analogy, those who initially get taken in by the many, many hucksters who are promoting the "tooth fairy" as a viable alternative to your parents putting the money under your pillow (because NO kid wants to believe that!) the "truth movement" uses distraction and outlandish (sometimes) tactics of lying and misinformation in order to get those to go along with the "tooth fairy" concept.


This thread, per the OP, is a prime example (not by the OP, he was merely fallen victim to the hucksters). It, at the risk of being off-topic, extremely similar in many ways to the Apollo Space Program and Moon landing deniers.

The examples of mis-and dis-information seen on THAT issue are strikingly familiar in this debate, and the tactics employed.

Always ask yourselves: "Is someone trying to sell me something, or asking for my money in 'donation', or anything of that sort?"

"Do they have a DVD, a T-shirt, a button, any other trinkets to hawk"?

Stick to the motivations driving this entire subject, and you will (maybe) see the answers.....

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave when are you going to bring something to the table.
Let see YOU prove, or anyone else in here to show that all cell phone calls could be made at 25,000 to 30,000 feet in 2001 from any of these planes where is your hypothesis

Show us a proof with sources from science that prove these phone calls can be made in commercial airlines in 2001 at 30,000 feet for 12 long minutes uninterrupted.

reply to post by Silk


Silk, do you remember the month? Because, BTS data www.bts.gov... goes back to 1995.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I could point you in the direction of several discussions that prove

Bush was aware of pending attacks 100% .

But you wont listen to them, thats ok, live in denial.