Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes http://ithp.org/articles/davidraygriffincritique.html

Search

Navigation

HOME U.S WORLD POLITICS BUSINESS SCI-TECH ENTERTAINMENT HEALTH STORE

Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes

Paul Zarembka, Professor of Economics, SUNY at Buffalo | October 14th 2011 ShareThis 27 StumbleUpon 2 Reddit 1 Email 3 6 3

**Click here to read David Ray Griffin's response to this article

-- "The present essay provides various types of evidence that the calls [from 9/11 planes] were, indeed, faked." (Griffin, 2011, p. 101)

Watching and participating for almost ten years in the movement to expose the truth about what happened on September 11, 2001, I have come to feel that some are trying too hard to prove that the government is lying. A population can be manipulated not only by lies but also by sprinklings of truths, half truths, and distortions. Indeed, offering some truths is an effective means of undermining critics who argue for lies everywhere.

A self-confident movement does not need to be exposing just lies and only lies. It can examine evidence and draw disparate conclusions about differing accuracies of the huge amount of material to work with. I have felt that the work of David Ray Griffin, a leading

1 of 11 20.6.2012 14:13 Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes http://ithp.org/articles/davidraygriffincritique.html

commentator on September 11, is an example of turning up stones everywhere with the word “lie” written on them. He seems called upon to write about everything having to do with September 11 in order to turn over stones everywhere. Why?

I hadn't thought to put this worry to paper until I carefully read Griffin’s Chapter 5 "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Planes: How They Fooled America” that appears in his just published 9/11 Ten Years Later (2011, Northampton, MA: Olive Branch).

CeeCee Lyles’ Call

To set the stage, I offer an initial example that a critique of Griffin’s chapter is necessary. This is for what he considers “the most direct evidence of fakery” in the phone calls. Griffin offers the tape recording of the phone call from UA 93 flight attendant CeeCee Lyles to her husband Lorne Lyles at 9:47 a.m. on September 11, 2001. He reproduces the text of what CeeCee says on Lorne's answering machine. After CeeCee completes her message, a female voice is heard in the background, "You did great" (www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUrxsrTKHN4). Griffin then asks, "How could anyone not take this whispered comment as clear evidence that the 'CeeCee Lyles' message was a fake?" He goes on to write a paragraph by way of explanation:

To call it a "fake" means that the message was not what it purports to be. It could have been a fake produced by voice morphing. Or it could have been CeeCee Lyles reading a script she was forced to read -- in which case, the whispered message might have been by a person coaching her. But in either case, the message was not authentic.

Noting also that the government itself provided this tape at the 2006 Moussaoui trial, Griffin concludes that "this whispered comment undermines the official story about 9/11" (for this material, see pp. 115-16).

There is an alternative simple explanation that Griffin fails to even mention: Flight assistant CeeCee Lyles was sitting next to another woman and CeeCee had discussed with her an intention to call her husband. The other woman simply supported CeeCee in how she handled herself with that phone message.

2 of 11 20.6.2012 14:13 Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes http://ithp.org/articles/davidraygriffincritique.html

This possible explanation is ignored altogether by Griffin. It cannot be ignored and thus rendered so improbable as not worth being put to paper. (I asked five persons -- none of whom support the official story about September 11th -- to interpret who likely said, "You did great". Four said that this woman would likely be on the plane. One of them added that if that woman were a government agent, the government would have cut off that "You did great" in the recording when presented as evidence at the Moussaoui trial. Two offered that a quick claim of a fake would be "ridiculous".)

-----

This article will analyze the remaining significant points of Griffin's chapter on phone calls from 9-11 planes. On occasion, we will also cite evidence presented in Rowland Morgan’s Voices, available at http://radiodujour.com/pdf/voices-book.pdf. Ultimately, my purpose is to advance analysis of the calls.

Voice Morphing

Griffin's chapter centers considerably around voice morphing, although he does consider but dismisses another possibility, namely, 'repeaters'. He leads into this discussion by considering the Tom Burnett calls from UA 93, a topic we will address later. Griffin relies on morphing because he needs a mechanism to explain the documented calls as faked, yet has no other alternative to offer to explain the calls as faked. Morphing is discussed on pp. 109-114, noting therein that some ten minutes of the real person's voice is needed to achieve a reliable imitation (p. 110).

An article by Aidan Monaghan is cited by Griffin that advance passenger reservations for the flights could provide the basis for knowing who would be on the planes and thus provide knowledge to perpetrators as to whom to voice morph (p. 111). Morgan in Voices, p. 84, provides much more elaboration of the requirements:

• Foreknowledge of the terror events; • Foreknowledge of the targeted names on the airline passenger manifest; • Foreknowledge of ID information about the passengers, e.g. their families’ forenames;

3 of 11 20.6.2012 14:13 Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes http://ithp.org/articles/davidraygriffincritique.html

• Previous access to their phone lines and recorded samples of their telephone voices; • Foreknowledge of their home telephone numbers; • Knowledge of their credit card data and ready access to the billing systems; • Ready access to seatback telephone billing systems.

Griffin knows quite well that many of the persons who were major figures for the UA 93 story were passengers late to the flight. He knows this because he and I had communicated about this fact and he has my own research to this effect in my chapter “Initiation of the 9-11 Operation, with Evidence of Insider Trading Beforehand” (in The Hidden History of 9-11, P. Zarembka, ed., 2008, New York: Seven Stories Press, pp. 51 and 309).

For late arrivals, Griffin could also read Jere Longman (Among the Heroes, New York: Harper Collins, 2002). There we find that Tom Burnett switched from flight 91 (p. 8), Jeremy Glick’s prior day flight had been canceled (p. 20), Mark Bingham was using a “companion pass” (p. 28), and Lauren Grandcolas switched from flight 91 (pp. 12 and 128). Also, Elizabeth Wainio switched at the last minute from a flight to Denver (www.ebroadcast.com.au/lookup /encyclopedia/ho/Honor_Elizabeth_Wainio.html). Todd Beamer had delayed a September 10 departure (www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=todd_beamer) although it is unclear how late he booked UA 93. For its convenience, I can recommend “Last-Minute Pilots, Passengers, and Flight Attendants: The Unexplained Oddity of 9/11” (at http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/03/last-minute-pilots-passengers-and.html).

Regarding UA 93 passengers who called, Griffin devotes seven pages to Burnett, while Beamer receives four pages, Glick has an equivalent of a page, and Bingham, Grandcolas and Wainio are three more for two short paragraphs each. All of these six were late, stand-by, or transfers from flight 91, making voice morphing of them quite unlikely. Another late person is UA 93 flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw who spoke to her husband (Longman, p. 175). On AA 77, flight attendant Renee May was also late and will be addressed below.

The importance of late arrivals onto the UA 93 flight must be introduced in order to sustain the voice morphing proposal. Griffin does not. The same objection applies to Morgan’s work. Only Todd Beamer’s would not be much of a problem because he did not speak to someone who knew him personally.

Calmness on the Planes

Griffin focuses attention on calmness on the planes, suggesting its consistency with voice morphing actors. "Not only individuals, but also the passengers in general, seem to have been calm and quiet" which "would border on the miraculous" (p. 118). However, Lorne Lyles says of the call he received from his wife minutes before the end of UA 93 that he "could hear other people in the background. It sounded as if they were crying.... Lorne could hear screaming in the background. CeeCee screamed ... and people were screaming and then the call broke off" (p. 180). On p. 120, Griffin himself cites a report that Jeremy Glick's father- in-law heard "screaming" after being handed the phone from Jeremy's wife. Why does Griffin fail to even consider such evidence (even if to discredit it somehow)?

4 of 11 20.6.2012 14:13 Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes http://ithp.org/articles/davidraygriffincritique.html

Five passengers are cited by Griffin (pp. 117-18) for a claimed lack of emotion, suggesting imposters behind the calls. They are Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Jeremy Glick, Lauren Grandcolas, and Elizabeth Wainio. Yet all five were late passengers for which voice morphing is most problematic (although Beamer’s call was not to someone who knew him). Griffin reports from Longman that Lauren Grancolas' voice was so calm "as if she were driving home from the grocery store or ordering a pizza", yet Griffin leaves out the very next sentence, "Still, there was urgency in her voice". We could go on, or simply skim through Longman's book to read of emotions described for each of these passengers (p. 200 for Beamer, p. 132 for Bingham, pp. 146-47 for Glick, p. 128 for Grancolas, and pp. 171-72 for Wainio). Griffin himself says, in a passage a few pages after reporting calmness, that Beamer "expressed fear" (p. 123).

Of course, we don't have to accept Longman's renderings, but Griffin is not entitled to cite only that which might sustain his argument about emotions, while ignoring contrary pieces of evidence.

Calmness of Flight Attendants

Amy Sweeny

Issues concerning flight attendants focus on their calmness. Calmness on the part of professionals is what they are trained to do. While they could not be criticized for becoming emotional, they should not be subject to suspicion for doing what is expected of them. In any case, Betty Ong from AA 11 is described by Griffin as mysterious because she was calm in frightening circumstances. 1 Amy Sweeney on AA 11 is also described as calm and so considered implausible were the real Amy Sweeney the caller. But at the end of her call she definitely was not calm but fearful: "Oh my God, we are way too low". One listener reported that she "started screaming and saying something’s wrong." -- www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=madeline_%28_amy_%29_sweeney).

Regarding UA 93, flight attendant Sandy Bradshaw calling her husband has been described as having "surprising composure, but tumult, too" (Longman, p. 176). Attendant CeeCee Lyles did not maintain calm, although she had previously been a police officer who "knew

5 of 11 20.6.2012 14:13 Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes http://ithp.org/articles/davidraygriffincritique.html

how to remain calm under duress" (Longman, p. 178): At the end of her first call to her husband Lorne CeeCee broke into a cry (Longman, p. 177, or listen to the tape previously cited). On CeeCee's second call, Lorne heard her scream (Longman, p. 180).

Passengers on UA 93 who Called

Tom Burnett

Three years ago I reviewed the differences between Deena Burnett’s statements that her husband Tom Burnett called her via a cell phone -- she said he called four times -- against the government's claim at the Moussaoui trial that there were only three calls at different times from her listing and using air phones (Zarembka, pp. 307-08). Since then Deena's statement that Tom called from his cell phone has been revealed to be unsupported by phone company records: "The call Burnett made from the cell phone did not show up on the cell phone bill, neither did the one he placed to his secretary before take-off. Burnett spoke with his friend Charles from England before take-off. He mentioned the flight was delayed but did not give a reason." -- interview with Deena Burnett at http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR /t-0148-911MFR-00260.pdf).

Griffin does not cite this important report, but focuses on Deena’s affirmations as to Tom’s cell phone number having been displayed on her screen. Meantime, the government claims a record for Tom using an air phone (at www.911myths.com/images /c/c3/Team7_AirfoneRecords.pdf), showing a "CS" credit card being used and approved three times. The government doesn't provide the credit card company records (as far as I know). In any case, Griffin reports that Tom Burnett declines to talk to his children and finds this "difficult to believe" (pp. 114-15). Given that Tom had three very young daughters and was in an emergency situation, I find this easy to believe.

Calls by Todd Beamer and Jeremy Glick are noted by Griffin to have stayed connected after the UA 93 crash (pp. 120-21). This is a puzzle. Griffin also notes that Beamer passed up a chance to talk to his wife (pp. 122-123). On its own, this is unpersuasive as one has to speculate for a reason differing from the stated one of Todd's wife's pregnancy. (Generally, I think speculation as to why someone says this, and not that, in an emergency does not get

6 of 11 20.6.2012 14:13 Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes http://ithp.org/articles/davidraygriffincritique.html

us very far on its own as such speculation seems judgmental designed to get the reader’s agreement.) Morgan’s discussion of the alleged Beamer calls (Voices, pp. 199-234) is more convincing and recommended for those interested.

The government for the Moussaoui trial prosecution reports that only the last two calls from UA 93 by Edward Felt and Lyles were from cell phones. Even these two were "very unlikely", according to Griffin, unlikely because of a 5000 foot altitude and the problem of cell-tower handshaking of a call from a plane going at a reported 580 miles per hour (p. 114). Regarding altitude, Griffin neglects noting that the ground level near Shanksville is itself at 2230 feet ("Shanksville has the seventh-highest elevation of towns in Pennsylvania, at 2,230 feet" -- Wikipedia for Shanksville, PA) and the nearby cell towers would likely be higher on a hill. I had suggested the towers to be around 3000 feet (Zarembka, p. 307). Regarding tower handshaking, both calls were short.

AA 77 Passenger Barbara Olson

Griffin reports (pp. 126-27) several pieces of evidence that air phones were unavailable to passengers on American Airlines Boeing 757s by September 2001. Claiming this lack of access, Barbara Olson using an air phone is then ruled out. Griffin is unsatisfied with leaving it there and provides some other abnormalities.

Morgan’s 2010 extensive discussion of the alleged Olson calls is recommended for those interested (Voices, pp. 12-40). Incidentally, it has been widely noted that Olson had been originally scheduled to fly on September 10.

Not More Passenger Calls?

Surprise is expressed by Griffin that no more passenger calls were made from the 9-11 planes. But in the process of listing each of the four planes on pp. 130-32, he seems to forget that a few pages earlier he had made a full argument that air phones were unavailable for flights AA 11 and AA 77 as they were using Boeing 757s, and elsewhere in the chapter had also argued that cell phones were unavailable except at very low altitudes. In a later chapter, Griffin refers again to the absence of calls from AA 77 (p. 185), continuing to forget what he wrote on pp. 126-27 about those American 757s.

In other words, Griffin had argued that passengers on the American flights could not call. Is he not himself convinced about his own proffered evidence?

Call by AA 77 Flight Attendant Renee May

While Griffin doesn’t discuss her much, Morgan in Voices, pp. 78-84, calls into question the evidence about the call by AA 77 flight attendant Renee May. Hers was initially described as from a cell phone at 25,000 feet, but then the Moussaoui trial documents indicated that her call was from an air phone. In any case, voice morphing of her call to her parents would have been quite difficult: “

7 of 11 20.6.2012 14:13 Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes http://ithp.org/articles/davidraygriffincritique.html

Renee May was only assigned to Flight 77 during the morning of 9/11. American Airlines had earlier called another attendant, Lena Brown, and asked her to take the flight, but Brown said she would be unable to get to the airport in time. ‘Renee May, the next flight attendant on American Airlines' list, accepted.’." [http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/03/last-minute-pilots-passengers-and.html, accessed October 9, 2011]

Both Griffin and Morgan need to address this difficulty.

Conclusion

The internal logic of Griffin’s chapter rather surprised me for its weakness. It isn't that a case cannot be made. It isn't that certain elements of a good case aren't mentioned. Rather, problems in the argumentation are significant and supporters of the official story are offered a target. Trying to defend such work reduces our credibility.

______1 Griffin reports Ong spoke at length with a small flight reservations office in Cary, North Carolina, rather than a security office in Boston or Dallas (p. 119). Regarding this call, I have no information to add, but wonder what punching the number 8 meant in this report: "Ong punched the number 8 on a seatback GTE Airfone and got through to an American reservations agent" [www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack /news/planes_reconstruction.htm, accessed October 9, 2011]. Staying on the call may have made some sense as, within two minutes, a supervisor was brought into the call.

Related Articles

Opel Sonderangebote Nur noch bis 30.6.: Die Wahnsinns Angebote von Opel. Jetzt sichern! www.opel.de/angebote Top-Zins Baufinanzierung Jetzt beim günstigsten Anbieter lt. Stiftung Warentest informieren! Deutsche-Bank.de/Baufi Polnische Singles treffen Viele polnische Singles vertrauen uns. Kennenlernen & gratis testen! www.Mypolonia.PARTNERSUCHE.de SMD-Schablonen Online Platinen und Laser SMD-Schablonen Preisbeispiele & Angebot hier! www.multi-circuit-boards.eu

Evidence of insider trading before 9/11

8 of 11 20.6.2012 14:13 Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes http://ithp.org/articles/davidraygriffincritique.html

Best Alternative Media

Introduction to 9/11

Please Leave a Comment | NO Login/Registration Required to Comment | International Human Press | Unaugmenting Your Reality

Echo 13 Items Admin

truthheader Grifn has done much more help than harm. Without him there would be less of a movement. I agree that some of his conclusions are slightly out of line though! 10/14/2011, 04:10:57 – Like – Reply

jef Grifn uses deductive reasoning.... and what appears to be efectively cherry-picking evidence and then applies sound logic. This can lead to producing a false or misleading result... Very good analysis by Professor Zarembka. This, unfortunately seems to rather a common flaw people stumble into in making up their minds. 10/14/2011, 12:09:34 – Like – Reply

jamie I completely agree with you jef. I wish Grifn would address this issue and clarify his reasoning as I know he is a very intelligent man! 10/14/2011, 21:30:47 – Like – Reply

eric I'm proud of the professor for his outstanding analysis. Though the iconic Mr. Grifn has shed much light on the many anomalies of 9-11, Professor Zarembka rightly calls him to task on this topic. It is not wrong to explore such elements, but thoroughness is a must; lest we become like the perpetrators. Keep up the good investigative work. 10/14/2011, 15:18:06 – Like – Reply

fudgeruckers I wonder how Dr. Grif feels about this? 10/15/2011, 18:59:33 – Like – Reply Liked by Guest

Paul Zarembka Correction:

Under "Not More Passenger Calls?", I reported that AA 11 was using a Boeing 757, but in fact it was using a 767. Thus, passengers should have had air phones available. So, Grifn is correct to ask why are there no reports that any passengers made calls from AA 11? 10/15/2011, 20:50:44 – Like – Reply Liked by Guest

shame on ithp Sure Paul makes some good points but ithp should allow David Ray Grifn to respond with his own article. It's easy to agree with one side when the other is forced to remain silent.. Will be interesting if we see a repsone 10/18/2011, 07:17:31 – Like – Reply Liked by Guest

9 of 11 20.6.2012 14:13 Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes http://ithp.org/articles/davidraygriffincritique.html

Paul Zarembka Upon publication of my piece, I suggested to ITHP to ask David Ray Grifn if he wished to respond. I was assured that ITHP would happily provide him that opportunity. So, Grifn has not been "forced to remain silent". Rather, it is his decision. 10/20/2011, 20:20:29 – Like – Reply

CuiBono911 Anyone who spent any time pouring through the FBI 9-11 files that have been declassified and posted to its website, could not possibly conclude that the phone calls were faked. The FBI files include numerous reports of victims' family members who received these calls -- summaries of interviews with family members conducted by the FBI sometimes on the very day of 9-11 or the day after. Now these files have only been available since April of this year, but responsible leaders in the 9-11 Truth Movement such as Grifn would do well to analyze the new evidence, admit their initial theories were based on incomplete information, and correct their errors. To not do so is an injustice to the Truth Movement, which is too easily discredited under such circumstances. 10/20/2011, 00:56:50 – Like – Reply

Paul Zarembka Do you mean something more than, or later than

www.scribd.com/doc/18885705/T7-B12-DOJ-Doc-Req-3513-Packet-4-Fdr-Entire-Contents- Response-Letters-Reports-403 uploaded on August 20, 2009, and/or

www.scribd.com/doc/15072623/T1A-B33-Four-Flights-Phone-Calls-and-Other-Data-Fdr-Entire- Contents-FBI-302s-843 uploaded on May 8, 2009?

I want to be sure readers have what you are referring to. Both of these are earlier than April 2011.

Thanks. 10/20/2011, 22:29:53 – Like – Reply

CuiBono911 Hi Paul. While the information supporting actual phone calls were made is fairly compelling in the docs you link to above, I was referring to this batch in particular from the April-posted FBI files, which I re-uploaded to Scribd:

http://www.scribd.com/collections/3279843/FBI-9-11-Investigative-Documents-from-Sept-2001

I copied all the currently available FBI 9-11 files to Scribd for better accessibility and search function this month:

http://www.scribd.com/Cui%20Bono%209-11 10/22/2011, 23:08:28 – Like – Reply

A.Wright Since I first heard David Ray Grifn talking on the subject of 9/11, which must be about 5 or 6 years ago, my opinion about him has not changed. He is a debater, a manipulator of facts who presents a one-sided, biased interpretation of evidence and like all debaters omits evidence that conflicts with his thesis. Half truths in other words, half truths carefully crafted into a narrative that too many people, thinking they are getting the whole truth, have been willing to accept. Listening to a group of psychologists talking about 9/11, one of them , a Dorothy Lorig I think, spoke about reading an article by Mr. Grifn and seemingly taking it all at face value, not even apparently questioning whether what was being presented was accurate, unbiased or, most importantly, complete. The least that you would expect from an accademic would be a bit of critical thinking and an ability to recognise when someone is making a case for something, presenting a one-sided argument , that there is another side to the argument to be looked at. I remember hearing Mr. Grifn saying in an interview, on the subject of the phone calls of Barbara Olsen, that her calls were very important , because it presented the story that those evil muslims had killed sweet Barbara Olsen...... and also hers were the only calls to mention boxcutters and, as we all know , the hijackers

10 of 11 20.6.2012 14:13 Critique of David Ray Griffin regarding Calls from 9-11 Planes http://ithp.org/articles/davidraygriffincritique.html

had boxcutters.... Nice combination of the tasteless and the inane with a bit of circular logic thrown in. 10/24/2011, 22:48:48 – Like – Reply

davol Your counter arguments against Grfn don't have much. Grifn is just pointing out that under every 9/11 rock you look under there is something there other than the ofcial story. The plane was delayed for some reason. What if some passengers were singled out by the largest Military exercise in history going on that day to provide some phone calls for the hijack simulation that turned out to not be a simulation. Thas assures that these phone calls get made and when they finish it explaine why someone might tell them, "you did great." Yes the rabbit hole goes that deep. 11/12/2011, 04:15:48 – Like – Reply

Social Networking by Echo

Login Your name here...

Share This Page

What's on your mind...

Add images Follow Cancel Post

Geheimtipp für Englisch In 30 Tagen fit in Englisch mit Englishtown - Jetzt für nur 1 € Englishtown.com/1-Euro-Spezial

Kostenlos chatten Jetzt gratis anmelden & mit vielen attraktiven Singles losflirten! www.flirt-fever.de

Promod Online Shop Französische Damenmode jetzt im Promod Online Shop bestellen! www.promod.de

Top Geldanlage - 12% p.a. Hohe Renditen, krisenfest und steuerfrei in Edelholz anlegen! teak.LifeForestry.com/TopGeldanlage

Please Send Questions to: [email protected]

© 2010 International Human Press

11 of 11 20.6.2012 14:13