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

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by aero56

 

Flight 93 was shot down! A couple of days after 9/11, I volunteered with the Red Cross in NYC and was helping sort out names of missing 9/11 victims, matching up names, removing repeat names from the database…etc The guy in charge (an older man who was in the service when he was younger) told us that his buddy was on the scene (still in the service) and told him that Flight 93 was shot down!

Talk about convincing proof! A guy you know knew a guy who told you!

PROOOOOOOOOOF

If a 'debunker' were to use this logic, they would be accused of being a shill, told that their evidence is pathetic and that they are just making it up, etc, etc.

This is all it takes to convince you is it? Third or fourth hand anecdotal evidence?

reply to post by exponent


Another personal attack?
It's just too bad that my first hand experience is not good enough for you.
That's YOUR issue, sorry.

I wouldn't call my post a third or fourth anecdotal evidence. I WAS THERE working with the Red Cross.
And if I had to go to court and testify, it wouldn't be hard to get the other 30 witnesses that were there working with me to confirm my information.

I HAVE PROOOOOOOOOOF. Deal with it.

reply to post by Seti_Starr


You do? You have the name of the pilot, the tail number of the aircraft, what unit it was from? A statement from said pilot perhaps? Radar tapes of the shoot down?

THAT would be evidence. Some guy in the Red Cross telling you....isn't.

reply to post by GoldenFleece
I find it odd that a high powered attorney would not have "her purse"or have her "credit cards" when traveling, I know even at that time you needed a identification card to travel and if she used the passenger seat phones you still need a credit card number to make the call how many people have their credit card numbers memorized?there are so many lies being told they can't keep their stories straight.I think my kids were better at telling lies(they still got caught) than these people.

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
Another personal attack?

What personal attack? That you are applying biased standards of evidence? If you consider that a personal attack then I'm afraid you'll never be able to accept anything you disagree with anyone on.

It's just too bad that my first hand experience is not good enough for you.
That's YOUR issue, sorry.

I wouldn't call my post a third or fourth anecdotal evidence. I WAS THERE working with the Red Cross.

I'm not sure how you work this out, because it's very simple:

You (first hand)
knew a guy (second hand)
who knew a guy (third hand)

And if I had to go to court and testify, it wouldn't be hard to get the other 30 witnesses that were there working with me to confirm my information.

I HAVE PROOOOOOOOOOF. Deal with it.

Now you're confirming exactly what I just said, you apply biased standards of evidence, some third hand anecdote trumps first hand, as long as it agrees with you.

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

I find it odd that a high powered attorney would not have "her purse"or have her "credit cards" when traveling, I know even at that time you needed a identification card to travel and if she used the passenger seat phones you still need a credit card number to make the call how many people have their credit card numbers memorized?there are so many lies being told they can't keep their stories straight.I think my kids were better at telling lies(they still got caught) than these people.

Who are you accusing of lying and about what exactly ?

So the bottom line is the fact that the whole Barbara Olsen story which includes the whole back story of Middle eastern Terrorists, head bands, and the famous box cutters were a COMPLETE fabrication.

The official story is a fabrication. Dont let anyone try to convince you otherwise.

reply to post by Alfie1


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.

reply to post by Alfie1


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.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

I find it odd that a high powered attorney would not have "her purse"or have her "credit cards" when traveling, I know even at that time you needed a identification card to travel and if she used the passenger seat phones you still need a credit card number to make the call how many people have their credit card numbers memorized?there are so many lies being told they can't keep their stories straight.I think my kids were better at telling lies(they still got caught) than these people.

Who are you accusing of lying and about what exactly ?

a 'contradiction' is a nice way of saying their lying

reply to post by vipertech0596


Very funny! You and your buddies are trying to debate MY OWN EXPERIENCE?
REALLY?

reply to post by TWILITE22


So basically you are accusing Ted Olson of lying about his wife's phone calls because he wasn't sure whether she used a seat-back phone or a cell phone. Do you really believe that was uppermost in his mind when dealing with the calls ?

In any event, he didn't take the calls in the first instance, a DoJ secretary called Lori Keyton did and she gave a statement to the FBI about them on 9/11 itself :-

www.911myths.com...

Perhaps it is Lori Keyton you should be calling a liar.

Btw, it was possible in certain circumstances to make cell phones calls from planes in 2001; at least two were made from UA 93.

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by Alfie1

 

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.

Your 9/11 researcher wouldn't be David R Griffin would it ? Because he admitted his error about AA 77 lacking seat-back phones more than 3 years ago :-

911blogger.com...

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Very funny! You and your buddies are trying to debate MY OWN EXPERIENCE?
REALLY?

Seti-Starr it wasn't your own experience. It wasn't even the experience of the guy you were talking to, but another guy you never laid eyes on.

That is hearsay on hearsay and would not be admissible in any trial.

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by Alfie1

 

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.

If you still believe this your research is way out of date.

This is what infuriates me. Truth movement adherents fetishise their "research", then refuse to subject anything that agrees with them to any level of scrutiny. And once something's in the "agrees with me" column it just stays there forever.

And even if a - frankly gruelling - debunking is finally grudgingly accepted, Truthers just change the subject or stick it in the "well, you must admit it just adds to the idea that something fishy was going on that fateful day" box.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade
My apologies if I have upset you in any way, don't take this personally I did not realize that this info was outdated,I definitely
should have check before posting ,could you please provide a link that states otherwise?for the record I do not believe the os,and further more please do not resort to personel attacks.

reply to post by TWILITE22


I genuinely wasn't aiming that at you personally. But you need to be careful with your research.

The information you're looking for is above, provided by Alfie1.

reply to post by skeptic_al


Ever seen a properly preserved crime scene?.. the local Sheriffs/police are trained by FBI standards to mark, preserve, photograph, diagram and painstakingly document everything "as is".. those guys violating every known procedure in evidence packaging.. which is also known as "tampering with evidence", a felony. Period.

Here are photos of further tampering.. people collecting airplane parts / other evidence.. rather than marking them:
www.rumormillnews.com...

That area should have been cordoned off at some point, everyone.. I mean everyone kicked out and a detailed "crime scene" log kept of the names & serial numbers of every person to enter/exit. AND their purpose for being there. In addition their finger prints and shoe imprints are recorded to exclude them from being suspects. This is done to preserve the "chain of evidence".. it's common SOP for every law enforcement agency in the US...

ALL those parts should have been left alone.. marked, photographed, diagrammed, collected and examined by a team of forensic specialists.. not haphazardly handled by some unknown shady looking g-dudes.

Read this:
Evidence Collection Guidelines
www.crime-scene-investigator.net...
Then compare these guidelines to ALL 9/11 crime scenes.. the govt literally destroyed and covered up vital forensic evidence.. NOT consistent with any known law enforcement evidence gathering procedures.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by TWILITE22

 

sorry in my haste I clicked the wrong post!

I genuinely wasn't aiming that at you personally. But you need to be careful with your research.

The information you're looking for is above, provided by Alfie1.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
So the bottom line is the fact that the whole Barbara Olsen story which includes the whole back story of Middle eastern Terrorists, head bands, and the famous box cutters were a COMPLETE fabrication.

The official story is a fabrication. Dont let anyone try to convince you otherwise.

What I don't get is how she boarded her plane without identification,I mean Ted Olson stated that she did not have her purse with her and I know for a fact that you cannot board the plane without one.another thing I cannot wrap my head around is why would the pilots give up the cockpits over a few box cutters?I just don't believe they would have given up that easily nothing of the os adds up.