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

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Of course, what you wrote doesn't make sense, BECAUSE IT ISN'T TRUE.

It is incorrect, it is wrong:

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.

Note the bolded part?

Now....please provide the 'proof' of those alleged "SIX 3-foot thick walls of brick and reinforced concrete..."

I'm sure everyone is anxious to see that!

reply to post by weedwhacker


I'm sorry, but who the heck are you to say what has and has not been proven in this thread.

Your constant trolling in thread after thread has become quite a nuisance. Just because you clearly have intelligence and can make well written posts does not automatically make it fact or correct....and it certainly does not give you the authority to label someone's thread incorrect, especially with the information you've provided. You constantly degrade other people's sources as conspiracy non-sense, but then cite the same speculative information from the other parallel and label it as fact. Kettle please meet black.

I'm not here to call you a dis info agent, but I seriously have to question your motive here. I mean let's use a little bit of common sense here, why would someone obsessively continue to post and post in 9/11 conspiracy threads if they were a firm believer in the OS? What would be the point? Is it that important to you to try and convince non-OS believers to believe. Remember this is not a "I believe in the O/S thread." If it were then all of you usual suspects could come in here and commiserate to your hearts content.

Let's say someone was interested in 9/11, you know they had questions, maybe something didn't add up to them regarding the events that occurred that day....it would be logical for someone to visit these threads so that they could maybe get some perspective or find new information.

However, you are a contradiction of this normalcy as you clearly are not open to any new information. I think it's safe to say you are not planning on changing your views anytime soon.

It really makes me wonder why someone would spend as much time in these threads unless you were of course being compensated for your efforts. Either that or you have a giant ego and get off in trying to be that guy that thinks he knows everything.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but that' my point, you've made your damn opinion known, so why continue to beat the proverbial dead horse.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by OnTheFelt]

Originally posted by OnTheFelt
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

It really makes me wonder why someone would spend as much time in these threads unless you were of course being compensated for your efforts. Either that or you have a giant ego and get off in trying to be that guy that thinks he knows everything.

Good point. I also wonder when Captain Weedwhacker has the time to fly and what his real purpose here is. He only pretends to know everything:

The hijacked airliner punched a 100-foot-wide hole through three of the five rings (six walls) in the Pentagon's west facade, which is five stories high. The outside walls consisted of 10 inches of concrete behind 8 inches of brick. Those layers were clad in limestone panels nearly 6 inches thick. Masonry at the point of impact was gone, but much of the limestone cladding on either side of the strike point was intact. The limestone panels were 5 feet wide, nearly 2 feet high, about 6 inches thick, and weighed about 600 pounds.

findarticles.com...

We have been told to believe matter-of-factly that some mass from the airplane survived the initial impact and explosion, maintained its immense forward thrust, threaded its way through a 300-foot maze of stout reinforced concrete pillars, hit an exterior wall made up of 21 inch square steel reinforced concrete covered with 6 inches of limestone façade and 8 inches of brick backed with Kevlar mesh with such massive force that it punched a huge, neat, circular cut-out exit hole. And then, in a miracle as yet unexplained, that same mass with such potent forward thrust decelerated and disintegrated in the span of 30 feet, leaving not a mark on the next wall in its path, nor a physical trace of its existence.

No official explanation has been given in response to the obvious problems inherent in this given official narrative. None of the engineering or official structural reports that investigated the Pentagon crash and partial collapse, including the 9/11 Commission Report, bother to explain the exit hole.

www.911hardfacts.com...


[edit on 4/7/2010 by GoldenFleece]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by OnTheFelt


Well!.....(As Jack Benny used to say)


I happen to think when baloney is being posted, and others who have not taken time to look at ALL sides happen along and are supposed to just "lap it up", no questions asked, then I feel it is a disservice.

Can't remember how many times the "information" being spread, and thus repeated, is just plain wrong, and sometimes laughably so.


Is this sort of thing intended as a substitute for reasoned, rational examination?

I'm gonna repeat what was said in another thread, this afternoon.

My suspicions have increased about the 'agenda' behind these 'conspiracy' theories. I happen to think that former President Bush, and/or the Neo Cons responsible for propping him up in the first place, may have a hand in this, as a distraction from what they did, from year 2000-2008 (and continuing, BTW).

Contrary to what has become a new popular belief, amongst 'conspiracy' buffs, the groups responsible for the Middle East mess did NOT need a "9/11-type" event to further their agenda, and plans. They had fully intended to be involved in Iraq anyway, long before they manipulated the "election" in 2000.

We saw those schemes, unrelated to 9/11, trotted out in full force --- "yellow cake", WMD, etc. 9/11 was an added "bonus" to move up their agenda...(and here, not sure...either 'some' saw it brewing, and intentionally ignored, or were caught completely flat-footed, can't tell yet...)

I hope this can be considered relevant to the topic, because your question opened it up, and it seems to be the MOST likely explanation for what has been seen...The constant, most outlandishly inane "conspiracy' theories regarding 9/11 constantly popping up on the Internet.

Why?

This one here, about Barbara Olson, is a prime example. The facts have been brought, the allegation is shown to be false....yet, it serves its purpose, I suppose....by distracting people, getting them riled up about a non-event, and using their emotions against them, in order to deflect and distract from the larger malfeasance, and that is the trumped-up reasons for invading Iraq and Baghdad.

The entire "Mission Accomplished" fiasco! It had nothing to do with 9/11. All of that was scripted in 2000 and early 2001....the terrorist attacks just meant that 'they' edited their plans a little, tweaking the timing.

Think on it....WHEN did major military actions begin in Iraq? Long time lag, compared to 9/11....

One thing 9/11 DID do, though, was give them more Afghanistan cred, but they had that anyways, because of the Taliban. TALIBAN is the real danger, more so than Al Queda, really. But, oblique reference to 9/11 suited them, now and then.

Where was I? Oh, yeah....this "infighting" over "conspiracy minutiae" serves their purposes perfectly.

The REAL focus ought to be on the machinations thatthe Bush administration are responsible for, that has led to this despicable situation in the Middle east. It is a quagmire, and entirely their fault.

BUT, as long as this "9/11 conspiracy" stuff keeps distracting, they can remain scot-free, and focus doesn't turn towards the REAL misdeeds.

THAT is why I hate to see baloney spewed, over and over on this issue.

Simple, really.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OnTheFelt

 

The REAL focus ought to be on the machinations that the Bush administration are responsible for, that has led to this despicable situation in the Middle east. It is a quagmire, and entirely their fault.

We're trying. Thanks for your help. NOT.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OnTheFelt

 

The REAL focus ought to be on the machinations that the Bush administration are responsible for, that has led to this despicable situation in the Middle east. It is a quagmire, and entirely their fault.

We're trying. Thanks for your help. NOT.

I find it amusing that the weed man can jump all over the US government officials but recoils like a rattlesnake when you mention 5 dancing Jews or Mossad. It is almost like he was Larry's brother in law.
WTF?

reply to post by GoldenFleece

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.

It makes sense if you use the CORRECT FACTS - not stuff you make up

Pentagon had NO INTERIOTR WALLS on the 2 lowest floors of the
building

After penetrating the outermost exterior (E RING) wall had a clear path
until encountered wall at C RING where debris including parts of the landing gear came to rest.

Many researchers have asserted that whatever produced the C-Ring hole had to pass through six masonry walls, since it had to traverse three rings -- C, D, and E. However the exterior walls between the outermost three rings did not go down to ground level, since the intervening light-wells were only three stories deep. The outer three rings were unified on the first and second floors, meaning that the only heavy structures between the facade and the C-Ring wall with the hole were occasional columns. Thus it is plausible that an engine could have passed through the three rings, missing the reinforced concrete pillars, and puncturing the C-Ring wall.

Impact damage to the interior of the Pentagon was primarily on the first floor, and extended in a tapering swath from the first-floor facade puncture to the vicinity of the C-Ring punch-out hole.

Floor Space Between Facade and C-Ring is Mostly Unobstructed

On the first and second floors, the Pentagon has continuous interior space extending from the facade to the inner-facing wall of the C-Ring, joining the C-, D-, and E-Rings. This is because the light wells between the C- and D-Rings and between the D- and E-Rings only descend to the bottom of the third floor. The only structural elements interrupting this space are columns apparently spaced on 10-foot centers along the direction perpendicular to the facade, with each first-floor column having a square cross-section measuring 21 inches on a side.

A figure on the left shows a path from the center of the facade impact puncture to the center of the C-Ring punch-out hole. That path could describe the path of fuselage debris from the facade to the C-Ring wall, where it could have produced the punch-out hole. It shows that there was a narrow path for that debris between the columns left standing by the crash.

As I was reading this thread, I realized, as someone who considers himself very knowledgeable about 911 matters, I did not really know anything about Ted Olsson.

I have to say I do take wiki entries, and their selective info with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, here is what wiki says about his "personal life"

Olson's third wife,[6] Barbara Olson, was a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the E Ring of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (his 61st birthday). The following year Olson met Lady Booth, a tax attorney and native of Kentucky, and the two were married on October 21, 2006, in Napa County, California.

heres link for the wiki entry: en.wikipedia.org...

I'd so love to know if he indeed met this woman in 2002, or if he was a loyal husband or not during the time of the attacks. As trivial as this may sound, it would certainly define the man who became a key witness, who discussed his wife blowing in to pieces, on TV, with nothing less than a bizarre calmness.

When you look at his pedigree (same wiki entry) here's what one sees:
(I am not sure if I need to put quotes around the below list since it's a summary)

• Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan administration (together with Dick and Donald and the rest)
• Defended R. Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair
• Was attorney for convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard
• Defended a member of the press who had first leaked the Anita Hill story
• Was a prominent critic of Bill Clinton's presidency, and he helped prepare the attorneys of Paula Jones prior to their Supreme Court appearance
• Represented presidential candidate George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore
• Was confirmed as Solicitor General (the person appointed to represent the Government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States) in May 2001
• Joined with David Boies, his previous adversary in Bush v. Gore, bringing a federal lawsuit Perry v. Schwarzenegger in an attempt to overturn Proposition 8

reply to post by GoldenFleece


well if the impact was from a plane wouldn't the hole and debis be inside the complex and outside? wouldn't the hole be more jagged and not shaped like a circle.and even at that wouldn't there be wing marks where the wings had at least hit somewhere before or on the building i see no evidence in the picture of wings ever being on this plane. i mean there are no hit marks from the wings anywhere in the photos

[edit on 7-4-2010 by killer4281]

Originally posted by may_be_true
As I was reading this thread, I realized, as someone who considers himself very knowledgeable about 911 matters, I did not really know anything about Ted Olsson.

I have to say I do take wiki entries, and their selective info with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, here is what wiki says about his "personal life"

Olson's third wife,[6] Barbara Olson, was a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the E Ring of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (his 61st birthday). The following year Olson met Lady Booth, a tax attorney and native of Kentucky, and the two were married on October 21, 2006, in Napa County, California.

heres link for the wiki entry: en.wikipedia.org...

I'd so love to know if he indeed met this woman in 2002, or if he was a loyal husband or not during the time of the attacks. As trivial as this may sound, it would certainly define the man who became a key witness, who discussed his wife blowing in to pieces, on TV, with nothing less than a bizarre calmness.

When you look at his pedigree (same wiki entry) here's what one sees:
(I am not sure if I need to put quotes around the below list since it's a summary)

• Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan administration (together with Dick and Donald and the rest)
• Defended R. Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair
• Was attorney for convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard
• Defended a member of the press who had first leaked the Anita Hill story
• Was a prominent critic of Bill Clinton's presidency, and he helped prepare the attorneys of Paula Jones prior to their Supreme Court appearance
• Represented presidential candidate George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore
• Was confirmed as Solicitor General (the person appointed to represent the Government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States) in May 2001
• Joined with David Boies, his previous adversary in Bush v. Gore, bringing a federal lawsuit Perry v. Schwarzenegger in an attempt to overturn Proposition 8

Good post and thinking. These folks put their clothes on the same way the rest of us do.
Theier weak links is what will bring them to justice here on earth or where ever.
Thanks for the logic.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by Donny 4 million]

*** ATTENTION ***

GET ON TOPIC AND STOP DISCUSSING EACH OTHER.

STOP THE NAME CALLING, EITHER ADDRESS FELLOW MEMBERS BY
THEIR ACTUAL MEMBER NAMES OR BY QUOTING THE POST OR USING THE REPLY TO FEATURE.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

And on that note, one less abusive member. I don't know what side of the argument he was on but he was definitely against the T&C. Take note people. We are NOT letting up in this forum.

I am not so familiar with this, so someone fill me in: the FBI has records that Olson tried to call out on her cell phone, but the durations logged were 0?

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


Yes, they've just looked at the printout again and it now reads 0,
where as 9 years ago it had a 2 in front. And have just realised the
2 was just a couple ants going at it.

Hope that clears that up.

reply to post by skeptic_al


Interesting, did they think nobody would notice the change? Arrogant buggers.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

That is correct:

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 that lasted “0 seconds.”

www.globalresearch.ca...

In other words, it never happened.