From recent article by Devvy Kidd quoting David Ray Griffin:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd319.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------
How can any of us forget the heart wrenching phone calls from passengers who perished that day? Phone calls to loved ones. The pain, anguish, fear and courage -- all conveyed via cell phones from these hijacked planes. Or were they? David Ray Griffin has authored several books on 911; a must read by Griffin is Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. In an October 12, 2007, article Griffin drops a bomb shell:

"The most famous of the reported calls from the flights supposedly came from Barbara Olson, the well-known commentator on CNN who was married to Ted Olson, who was then the US solicitor general. Olson reported that his wife had called him twice from American Airlines Flight 77, stating that hijackers with knives and boxcutters had taken over the plane. Besides providing evidence of hijackers, this call also provided the only evidence that Flight 77 was still aloft (it had disappeared from radar and there had been reports of an airliner crash nearby). Although Olson went back and forth on the question of whether his wife had used a cell phone or an onboard phone, he finally settled on the latter.

"In the first edition, I challenged this claim on the basis of evidence from American Airlines that their Boeing 757 (which is what Flight 77 was) had no onboard phones. After publishing the book, however, I became worried, because of some new evidence, that the statement from American Airlines, made in 2004, had referred only to their 757s at that time - that their 757s in 2001 may well have had onboard phones. So I published a retraction, saying that the claim was uncertain.

"That retraction, however, evoked new evidence, including a statement made by American Airlines in 2006 that their 757s in 2001 had had no onboard phones, so that anyone calling out from Flight 77 had needed to use a cell phone. Barbara Olson, therefore, could not have used a passenger-seat phone. That left open, of course, the possibility that Ted Olson was correct when he said that his wife had used her cell phone.

"However, the evidence from the Moussaoui trial ruled out this possibility. In its report on AA 77, it listed one attempted call from Barbara Olson, which was "unconnected" and hence lasted "0 seconds." This was an astounding discovery. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice. And yet it had undercut the testimony of the DOJ's former solicitor general, saying in effect that the two calls that he reported had never happened. The implication is that unless Ted Olson had, like Deena Burnett, been duped, he had lied. Although this should have produced front-page headlines, it has thus far not been reported by any mainstream publication. The Revised and Updated Edition of "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" provides the documentation for these reports from American Airlines and the FBI, which pretty thoroughly undermine the idea that any of the reported calls were genuine: If the cell phone calls were faked, why should we believe that the reported calls from onboard phones were genuine?" Griffin has much more to say on this; click here.

:o

What's the source for this statement by American Airlines in 2006 that their 757's had no onboard phones in 2001?

Chad Kinder, AA employee

http://truthorlies.org/911trutharticle023.html


It isnt about whether AA77 had airfones or not -- that's one small (missing) rivet.

the changing of Ted Olsen's story from cell phone, to airfone, to credit card, to etc, is what's problematic.

no one can subpoena barbara olsen. but you can subpoena Ted, adn the DoJ and GTE airfone records from 2001, if you had an investigation with subpoena powers.

oh, wait, they had one -- and they DIDNT FU"""#ING subpoena anyone.

Question: if the FBI is in on the conspiracy, why would they allow something with even the faintest appearance of impropriety to come to light?

When this phone call never happened, then Ted Olson was lying.
There must be a reason for this lie. Was the reason just to confirm the existence of American 77 at this time(around 9:20)?

hmm... how could we possibly answer that?

the point everyone needs to remember is that whether calls were faked or not, those planes were part of a false-flag terror event, linked to saudi arabia, pakistani ISI, MI6, and of course CIA. Funded through corporate fronts and recruited by controlled assets such as mosques and training camps...

that's the inside job. it was a supra-national scheme that involved shadowy powers in many nations, not just USA and not just "al-cia-duh".

Hang on a second, when was it established that Barbara Olson's phone call "never happened"? I realize there was some confusion over whether she used an on-board phone or a cell, but how does any of that prove that the call didn't happen?

Griffin cites an FBI report in the Moussaoui trial which listed "one attempted call from Barbara Olson, which was "unconnected" and hence lasted "0 seconds." What Dr. Griffin neglects to mention is whether or not there were any other calls from Mrs. Olson. I still think we're a long way from conclusively proving that this phone call did not take place.

lets say it did happen. then there's a problem based on the context of her alleged words. shes asks ted: "what should i tell the pilot to do?". so did the hijackers slit throats of pilots with boxcutters, or were the pilots led to the back of the plane with the rest of the hostages? if so how come there is no record of any struggle or resistance on the part of the captain & co. in the cockpit?

i searched "olson call" and this was the first result:
http://osdir.com/ml/politics.region.albani...2/msg00017.html

might be worth a read. im not saying i have cross referenced any of that author's claims, but some of them should be a matter of public record, so they should be easy to confirm, but if true, then the likeliness of a call having ever come from b.olson is very low (imo):

:blink:

this is fine considering that if you're on a plane hijacked by terrorists, i don't think your words will be very coherent either

The FBI loves you

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/washington/23habeas.html

i dont think anyone has said she was "incoherent". in fact it might have even been said that she showed great courage under stress and was fairly calm and deliberate. she is alleged to have told ted olson that she and others were herded to the back of the plane. she then (allegedly) asked ted olson what she should tell the pilot to do.

so she was clear enough (coherent) and that wasnt the issue. the issue is: was the pilot alive? if so, did he just give up control of his plane? werent the "hijackers" forced to hurt or possibly kill him? does the cockpit recorder reflect any of this?

and what would the pilot be able to do anyway? why would she ask a lawyer about what a pilot should do? so maybe in that way the question is a strange one, relating to the coherency of her state of mind (or lack there of). but its the inferrences of her words and the context thererin that i was wondering about.