Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners, Faked!

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by impressme

 

The spooks make me hurl and I admire you for putting these folks in their proper place.
I have never seem them in such numbers, There are attacking you on this thread like
a band of Indians with no arrows.
Here is some good news posted on a thread by ProtoplasmicTraveler.

The entire thread is dedicated to the 911 spook invasion.
Hopefully someone will pull the URL up here.

An Obama associate has called for "cognitive infiltration"
of inter net web sites dealing with Government conspiracies like
911 and others.
It is totally obvious that you have landed theses spooks one square in the cahoons.
Good work Sand F

Donny

You seem to be a supporter of the idea that phone calls from 9/11 planes were faked.

If so, perhaps you can explain to me how they were faked if the perps could not know beforehand who was to be on them.

It has been suggested that the final passenger manifest would have given the perps sufficient warning. A matter of minutes, is that credible ?

Also, doesn't take account of the fact in relation to UA 93, as has been pointed out, Mark Bingham was not on the manifest because he was so late and Sandy Bradshaw, who swapped duties as flight attendant at the last minute, was not on the manifest being crew.

Please give me your credible alternative scenario.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by impressme

 

The spooks make me hurl and I admire you for putting these folks in their proper place.
I have never seem them in such numbers, There are attacking you on this thread like
a band of Indians with no arrows.
Here is some good news posted on a thread by ProtoplasmicTraveler.

The entire thread is dedicated to the 911 spook invasion.
Hopefully someone will pull the URL up here.

An Obama associate has called for "cognitive infiltration"
of inter net web sites dealing with Government conspiracies like
911 and others.
It is totally obvious that you have landed theses spooks one square in the cahoons.
Good work Sand F

Donny

You seem to be a supporter of the idea that phone calls from 9/11 planes were faked.

If so, perhaps you can explain to me how they were faked if the perps could not know beforehand who was to be on them.

It has been suggested that the final passenger manifest would have given the perps sufficient warning. A matter of minutes, is that credible ?

Also, doesn't take account of the fact in relation to UA 93, as has been pointed out, Mark Bingham was not on the manifest because he was so late and Sandy Bradshaw, who swapped duties as flight attendant at the last minute, was not on the manifest being crew.

Please give me your credible alternative scenario.

No problemo! To be fair----
Get me a court room. A honest judge, an unfixable jury and funds to match those available to the USA and Israel.
Oh! And more protection than the freakin Pentagon had on Sept. 11 2001.
And as an American I would work for free.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by impressme

 

The spooks make me hurl and I admire you for putting these folks in their proper place.
I have never seem them in such numbers, There are attacking you on this thread like
a band of Indians with no arrows.
Here is some good news posted on a thread by ProtoplasmicTraveler.

The entire thread is dedicated to the 911 spook invasion.
Hopefully someone will pull the URL up here.

An Obama associate has called for "cognitive infiltration"
of inter net web sites dealing with Government conspiracies like
911 and others.
It is totally obvious that you have landed theses spooks one square in the cahoons.
Good work Sand F

Donny

You seem to be a supporter of the idea that phone calls from 9/11 planes were faked.

If so, perhaps you can explain to me how they were faked if the perps could not know beforehand who was to be on them.

It has been suggested that the final passenger manifest would have given the perps sufficient warning. A matter of minutes, is that credible ?

Also, doesn't take account of the fact in relation to UA 93, as has been pointed out, Mark Bingham was not on the manifest because he was so late and Sandy Bradshaw, who swapped duties as flight attendant at the last minute, was not on the manifest being crew.

Please give me your credible alternative scenario.

No problemo! To be fair----
Get me a court room. A honest judge, an unfixable jury and funds to match those available to the USA and Israel.
Oh! And more protection than the freakin Pentagon had on Sept. 11 2001.
And as an American I would work for free.

So, you can't explain how the perps could possibly have done it then ? OK

reply to post by amyfriend


Tell us how you Really feel


Please , and use a airphone to be on topic

Bush knew about this . im happy hes not our president anymore.
how could he do that to us .

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by amyfriend

 

Tell us how you Really feel


Please , and use a airphone to be on topic

I really think I pissed myself a little. Hey, that rant was GREAT!!! So many times I myself have wanted to lost control and that was awesome. use an airphone....

reply to post by Alfie1


Alfi I gave you a perfectly clear and logical way to deal with the perps.
Jurisprudence in a court of law. You and or your Marxist masters won't allow that.
Because when they do they wind up indicting themselves.
That's why they have gag orders confiscated video, vaporized humans and perfect drivers licence from those places where steel can not survive.
Are you jumpin up and down now yellin? REINVESTIGATE it's another WATERGATE!!!
Let it out Alfi. It's OK.

Ok here is my opinion about the phones calls since the OS believers have failed to disprove David Ray Griffin work. I do not believe there was any hijacking period.

Since we have the proof that the Barbra Olsen phone call never happened.
Remember, it was that phone call that sold the lies about terrorists hijacking the airplanes and the description of the terrorists came from Ted Olsen, which Ted Olsen then called the Press and pass the information along. This is how the Press got the description of the alleged hijackers; this is a proven fact.

So, without Barbra Olsen phone calls the Press would have been in the dark that day.

There is no proof of any hijacking even occurring that day. The Press went along with hearsay information from Ted Olsen. The alleged hijackers were using stolen identities so, we still do not have any proof who they were and furthermore, seven out of 19 hijackers are reportedly alive and some have sued the government to clear their names.

This is proof of the OS falling to pieces and the lies are being exposed.

I do not believe there were any phone calls.





[edit on 15-1-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Ted Olson was the only one to mention Box cutters

Pretty sure on that.

reply to post by Sean48

Ted Olson was the only one to mention Box cutters

Pretty sure on that.

Yes, it was Ted Olsen phone call that gave the ONLY description that morning to the Press care to prove me wrong?

reply to post by Sean48

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2
Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3
However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.
Olson’s Self-Contradictions

www.globalresearch.ca...

Yep I am sure of that.

reply to post by Sean48

The Account of Box Cutters as Weapons
Its sole living source was the attorney who represented Bush
in the case that gave him the presidency.

www.sf911truth.org...

Here is more if you are interested in the truth.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Sean48

 

Ted Olson was the only one to mention Box cutters

Pretty sure on that.

Yes, it was Ted Olsen phone call that gave the ONLY description that morning to the Press care to prove me wrong?

I'm agreeing with you , lol

I was 98% that he was the one who mentioned box cutters,

And I remember seeing him on Larry King , shortly after .

I remember then thinking that someting was wrong, he didn't act like a

guy who lost his "true love"

He was more interested in getting out the facts.

It took me till the Jeremy Glick interview with O'reilly to wake up

about 911.

reply to post by Sean48

Olson’s Self-Contradictions

Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.

Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6

By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7

However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was CONTRADICTED by American Airlines.

American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “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.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been CONTRADICTED by the FBI.

Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI

The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.

Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians

Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.11

According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”12 This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”13), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.14 Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”15

The Pentagon historians, in any case, DID NOT ACCPT the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”16

Conclusion

This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?

www.zimbio.com...

Here’s more proof that Ted Olsen is a proven lair and cannot be trusted to say anything.

reply to post by impressme


Good read

Thanxx for the info

Why he lied is the million dollar question.

Who put him up to it is the Trillion dollar question.

reply to post by Sean48

Thanks, I have to believe Barbra Olsen is alive and probably had plastic surgery and has a new identity. Someone may want to get Ted Olsen phone bill, perhaps, that would be the best place to see if he continues to stay in contact with her.

Proven Barbra Olsen is alive would prove everything about 911 is a lie.

reply to post by impressme


You have a better chance of finding Bigfoot playing guitar with Elvis. So your theory is that ALL of the passengers are still alive AND all the calls were faked?