UPDATE YOUR FILES: No Barbara Olson Phone Call - It was a LIE!

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

There is a simple, obvious answer that can clear up all the "have Cake and Eat-it Too" Physics miracles: Allah is the only God, and he was on the side of the Hijackers!

Too early?

Anyway, you can't both have melted aluminum and genetic samples...

Its hard for others to see this, I am glad someone does, there NO WAY THE IDENTIFIED ANYONE FROM 9/11 BY DNA!

reply to post by Phil Jayhan

One question. When did the FBI become a credible source of information especially on 9/11?
Also You said she is the one who gave us the profile of the hijackers. On your own video Ted says she never said how many there were or said anything about nationality. Some guys with knives and box cutters is hardly a profile.

reply to post by Phil Jayhan

Once again stop it. Watch the video again Ted said she never mentioned Arabs or any nationality. Geez People!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by Doomsday 2029

No more than the manipulation going on while they are talking.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


And since you are for the conspiracy I say let us all blindly believe that!

reply to post by skeptic_al

She said they had knives and what looked like card board cutters.

reply to post by theonlyrusty

And then we can burn her at the stake!!!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker



Just to clairify your stance on the melting metals and DNA, I started this thread so not to get OT anymore here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Metal melting and DNA don't mix, like Barbara Olsens phone calls,

it just doesn't exist!



[edit on 7-4-2010 by theability]

[edit on 7-4-2010 by theability]

reply to post by rick1


Looks like I made a mistake. My bad. And their interview with Ted Olson is relevant whether they are a subversive, lying organization or not. And Ricki1, please do not spam this thread with multiple one liner posts, over and over and over again. What you did above is ridiculous and I believe against the rules here.

If you don't believe in this stuff, fine. But don't ruin threads with your condescending and mocking attitude and multiple one liner posts. Why your able to get away with that is beyond me. I have received warnings for far less. Personally I think all your posts above should be removed.

Cheers-
Phil




[edit on 7-4-2010 by Phil Jayhan]

reply to post by theability

Originally posted by theability
there NO WAY THE IDENTIFIED ANYONE FROM 9/11 BY DNA!

Um. "ability", instead of just repeating what the "conspiracy" sites keep writing (lies), research this yourself:

(I imagine that Mrs. Barbara Olson is included as one of the identified victims)----

What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.
A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists, and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, with headquarters at Walter Reed, played a major role in Operation Noble Eagle investigations, officials said.

Many of the casualties were badly burned and difficult to identify, an official said. Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on American Airlines Flight 77. Only one of those who died made it to the hospital. The rest were killed on site, and for some, only pieces of tissue could be found.

AFIP's team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators, and support personnel worked for over two weeks in the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, Del., and for weeks at the DNA lab in Rockville, to identify the victims of the attack.

www.dcmilitary.com...


I suggest for those with any doubts, why not use some due diligence and actually CONTACT these facilities, and ask them?

Better than simply believing the crackpot "conspiracy" websites all of the time.


Ya know....it is mind-boggling how difficult it is to explain such complex events to people who seem to want it simplified, and tied up in a neat "conspiracy" ribbon.

And, for those of you still unconvinced what fire can do to aluminum...





A low-speed crash (landing approach) Delta 191, DFW in 1987. Subsequent fire, but AF&R responded quickly, and extinguished before entire airplane was consumed. Also, aircraft broke up substantially on impact, thus some parts were out of reach of fires.

Again, LOW velocity, major (large) components do remain. Different from a VERY high speed impact with a structure, or the ground.


Air France 358, Toronto Canada, 2005:



Low-speed, landing accident (Runway overrun). Burst into flames.

See the result of the fires.


Swiss Air 111, Nova Scotia Canada. 1998:



HIGH speed impact into hard surface (ocean). No fire, of course, BUT the extreme fragmentation, from high-speed impact, can be seen in the re-construction effort, done to determine the cause.


Finally, a container full of aircraft debris, from a HIGH speed impact. Some confusion as to photo labeling, comes up in search for "Swiss 111", but is associated with "United 93". Might be image of UAL 93 recovered pieces....again, due to terrain, minimal fires, quickly snuffed out, at UAL 93 crash site:



In any case (Swiss 111, or UAL 93), shows extremem fragmentation of airplane parts, when subjected to HIGH speed impact forces.

This is what's left --- the 'aftermath'.

During the actual impact sequences, great forces are unleashed. It's simple physics. Laws of energy and momentum. A large mass moving at high velocity, when forced (by obstructions like the ground, or a building, etc) to decelerate in a very short timespan will release a LOT of energy!

Anyone who studies moving vehicle accidents should realize that be now. The data is out there, not secret, and the physics are easy to look up.


Again --- enough of poor Barbara Olson's body was found (only takes a tiny bit, that is thrown clear in the impact chaos, along with examples from every OTHER person onboard) and DNA was obtained. THAT could then be compared to samples provided by family members...toothbrushes, hairbrushes, etc.

SO...an extensive fire does NOT mean that EVERY bit of DNA is destroyed, since DNA resides in every cell in a human body. The extensive fire did NOT completely consume every portion of the airplane, either. Some, maybe a substantial amount, but no t ALL.

Not sure how to make this any clearer -- but, if no one wishes to take time to understand, then I can't make them drink it in.



[edit on 7 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Um. "ability", instead of just repeating what the "conspiracy" sites keep writing (lies), research this yourself:

So are you saying NIST lied what they had to come with new DNA testing for the WTC?

www.nist.gov...
Due to the nature of the World Trade Center disaster, it quickly became evident that traditional methods for performing DNA typing were not likely to be fully successful in identifying all of the recovered remains. Traditional DNA ID methods depend on the presence of long, intact segments of DNA in order to accurately type the sample. The DNA in many of the samples recovered in this situation were so fragmented that these standard methods were ineffective.

In early November 2001, Dr. Robert Shaler, the director of the WTC DNA identification effort, contacted me and asked if I would be willing to develop some new DNA tests to help in the identification effort. I agreed to fast track our research efforts over the next several months and produce some test materials for his laboratory to try by January 2002.

Might be image of UAL 93 recovered pieces....again, due to terrain, minimal fires, quickly snuffed out, at UAL 93 crash site:

Any proper sources to show UAL 93 pieces? Any reports matching them to UAL 93 ?


[edit on 7-4-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


Your entire reference there is regarding the WTC DNA and victim identifying efforts, NOT what went on at the Pentagon.

Please don't deflect, it's been done too much already. (Mea culpa)

And, you quoted my correctly, about that photo. I said it "might" be UAL 93, but it was associated with my search for Swiss Air 111. The caption on the image references a 9/11 website, "wtc7lies" I believe it is....

SO, maybe someone can authenticate and identify the image, one way or the other?

Doesn't matter, though, because WHICHEVER airplane it is, my point was to focus on AAL 77 (HIGH speed impact) and to illustrate how the airframe of that airplane could have been 'shredded' on impact. Those smaller bits would also be readily consumed in any intense fires, but of course not ALL were, and I hope people stop taking everything I write out of context.

Because, I write 'some' or 'substantial' (because we really do NOT have exact figures) and others come along and twist the meaning, and claim that I wrote "ALL"...when in fact, I did not.

Capisce?

Originally posted by benoni
Sorry weedy...

But you lost that one....

I once had some kind of supressed admiration for you...I honestly believed that you believed what you were saying....your debating skills seemed pretty high....

But as the heat cranks up on the OS, with all its chinks and cracks growing ever wider, i can see you are beginning to stress...which is understandable really, because no matter how much gloss, spin and hyperbole you put on this whole miserable event that was 9/11,
at the end the TRUTH will prevail..NO...the TRUTH HAS prevailled and you are now seen as someone who is at best laughably gullible, and at worst someone who enjoys speading the old DISINFO.....

When is your next flight Cap'n??

That is awesome, absolutely awesome.

Second line, no need to comment, it's all BS, Barbara Olsen is guilty and so are the rest.

reply to post by Phil Jayhan

I reply as I read posts and spamming never crossed my mind. An apology would be acceptable.

reply to post by benoni


Beg pardon?

For those who have actually read the ENTIRE thread....

The OP has failed to deliver the rather unfounded claim, in the headline.

This was discussed, and dismissed, months (and some years) ago, right here on ATS threads.

It is old news. AND, the "source" himself, "Dr." David Ray Griffin (a theologian, BTW...not a man of science) even admitted his error, when he made the claim that there were no AirFones installed on American Airlines B-757s in 2001.

He (Griffin, not OP) admitted he was wrong about that, yet still persists to spew falsehoods, and many other people are duped.


The "premise" of this thread seems to rest, in large part, on cellphones, and their capability (or lack) of being used inflight.

BUT, there is plenty of evidence of the AirFone records of calls made.

Little factoids like that keep getting lost in all the deflection and spinning going on. I am a party to some of that, inasmuch as the subject of the Pentagon crash in general kept coming up, and refutations were needed, occasionally. To dispel yet more misconceptions, and lies and deceptions.

Common trend, in some of these threads, when the original "story" isn't going so well......







[edit on 7 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by Phil Jayhan

 

I reply as I read posts and spamming never crossed my mind. An apology would be acceptable.

Just because you reply as you read does not get rid of the rule against one line posts. Perhaps if you had something to contribute before you responded, it would not look like pointless spam.

reply to post by Phil Jayhan


I'm confused...maybe just ingnorant or at best a poor reader.

One place here is are told repeatedly that no phone calls were possible from planes.

A couple of messages furthr down and we get details of people having called from Flt. 93.

Which is it?

I have no opinion, I just want a reasonable sounding explanation.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Doesn't matter, though, because WHICHEVER airplane it is, my point was to focus on AAL 77 (HIGH speed impact) and to illustrate how the airframe of that airplane could have been 'shredded' on impact.

OMG, here we go again.

An airplane that was shredded on impact, but still managed to fly through SIX 3-foot thick walls of brick and reinforced concrete and dozens of concrete support columns, punching out a perfectly round 8-foot diameter hole.

Does this make sense to ANYONE but Weedwhacker? ANYONE?

For all the loquaciousness and condescending remarks about explaining complex events in simple terms, there's not enough complexity in the world to explain this IMPOSSIBLE scenario.

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by Phil Jayhan

 

I'm confused...maybe just ingnorant or at best a poor reader.

One place here is are told repeatedly that no phone calls were possible from planes.

A couple of messages furthr down and we get details of people having called from Flt. 93.

Which is it?

I have no opinion, I just want a reasonable sounding explanation.

I hope the fact the flight 93 and flight 77 were two different planes is reasonable enough.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Do not contribute anything huh?
One of my posts pointed out that posters kept saying it was because of B. Olson that we got the profile on the terrorists. It was posted over and over. I pointed out she NEVER mentioned how many there were nor did she mention nationality. Though I was right apparently stopping people from repeating disinformation does not count as a contribution.
Another poster stated that saying box cutter did not sound like a term a woman would use. That was their rationale for the calls being fake. Once again if you listen CAREFULLY she did not use the term box cutter what she said was cardboard cutter. I believe that information that I posted was important but apparently not worthy of a contribution.
I also asked a question which I believe to be important. I asked why is the FBI been given so much credibility especially when it comes to 9/11? They are a govt. agency with a questionable track record but as long as they say what people want to hear they listen without question. Why?
Also 2 out of the four of my posts were one sentence. You are correct and that is against the rules. My apologies to everyone on this thread.




[edit on 7-4-2010 by rick1]