Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Mons Venus on June 14, 2010, 11:50:09 AM
-
US General says 9-11 was inside job !!
Who can refute this Major General?
-
^^^^^^ hey 333's you are a SUCKER !!!!!
-
I have heard and seen this guy on various internet talk/TV shows saying this for quite some time. i guess the US military will use the excuse that he is old and somewhat kooky as an excuse to dismiss his accusations. I think every intelligent person at this point knows more went on other than some supposed 19 Arabs with box cutters hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings....
-
Utterly absurd clip.
The guy offers nothing but speculation at best, appears drunk, and offers nothing but guesses.
-
yes. message board members know more about the military than generals now.
It's funny... it used to be, "Nobody of any ranking or importance has come fwd about 911". Now you have tens of thousdands of ppl - including phd engineers, this general, reagan's father of star wars, nypd, fdny, etc...
And they still ignore it. And in 5 or 10 or 15 years, the vast majority of educated people will understand it's quite the fishy day, and only those with a hard-on for dubya, or those who shite their pants in fear taht day who are unable to accept their daddy could do such a thing, who will deny it.
Fishiness. it's that simple. If you doubt the fishiness, you now claim to konw more than a General.
-
Utterly absurd clip.
The guy offers nothing but speculation at best, appears drunk, and offers nothing but guesses.
^^^^^^ F'n Clown.
-
yes. message board members know more about the military than generals now.
It's funny... it used to be, "Nobody of any ranking or importance has come fwd about 911". Now you have tens of thousdands of ppl - including phd engineers, this general, reagan's father of star wars, nypd, fdny, etc...
And they still ignore it. And in 5 or 10 or 15 years, the vast majority of educated people will understand it's quite the fishy day, and only those with a hard-on for dubya, or those who shite their pants in fear taht day who are unable to accept their daddy could do such a thing, who will deny it.
Fishiness. it's that simple. If you doubt the fishiness, you now claim to konw more than a General.
Why would every single general be involved in a cover-up? He's in the military. Must be an expert on the subject! ::)
Tell us about the holograms again. LOL.
-
US General says 9-11 was inside job !!
Who can refute this Major General?
Answer: No one.
-
This guy was not even a general at the time 911 occurred from what I can tell.
240 and mons - tell me what hard proof this guy offered?
-
You know how we know that 9/11 wasn't orchestrated by the Bush Admin?
It worked.
-
You know how we know that 9/11 wasn't orchestrated by the Bush Admin?
It worked.
Good point.
-
haha oh brother... if this old general had told us he looked at the photos, and declared a plane had 100% hit the Pentagon, you'd be calling it proof positive.
haha maybe we can find a liveleak video on it? Like the one where Obama fired secret service guards for racists reasons that never materialized? Or that whitey tape?
face it, the level of proof varies so much with some of you guys. A US General says not a plane, and he's nuts. but "some liveleak video" says obama racist firing, and we all believe it.
-
haha oh brother... if this old general had told us he looked at the photos, and declared a plane had 100% hit the Pentagon, you'd be calling it proof positive.
haha maybe we can find a liveleak video on it? Like the one where Obama fired secret service guards for racists reasons that never materialized? Or that whitey tape?
face it, the level of proof varies so much with some of you guys. A US General says not a plane, and he's nuts. but "some liveleak video" says obama racist firing, and we all believe it.
240 - please tell me what shocking evidence this guy provided in the video beyond speculation that you believe warrants consideration of anyone other than yourself and mons?
Also - the SS thread I apologized for. so why bring it up? Ha ha. Fake but accurate? ;D
-
haha oh brother... if this old general had told us he looked at the photos, and declared a plane had 100% hit the Pentagon, you'd be calling it proof positive.
haha maybe we can find a liveleak video on it? Like the one where Obama fired secret service guards for racists reasons that never materialized? Or that whitey tape?
face it, the level of proof varies so much with some of you guys. A US General says not a plane, and he's nuts. but "some liveleak video" says obama racist firing, and we all believe it.
You can't even hone in on a single theory. One gets refuted and you move onto the next. Just makes you look like a clueless idiot.
Your entire argument revolves around you claiming that there are experts who disagree with the findings (there are those who do agree), some rotating carousel of a dozen different theories (even some as far-fetched as holograms, LOL) and not being able to find the time to read or watch counter-arguments despite logging dozens of posts in every thread that pops up about this topic.
-
You can't even hone in on a single theory. One gets refuted and you move onto the next. Just makes you look like a clueless idiot.
Your entire argument revolves around you claiming that there are experts who disagree with the findings (there are those who do agree), some rotating carousel of a dozen different theories (even some as far-fetched as holograms, LOL) and not being able to find the time to read or watch counter-arguments despite logging dozens of posts in every thread that pops up about this topic.
BF - the last month or so you have been on fire with your posts.
-
Utterly absurd clip.
The guy offers nothing but speculation at best, appears drunk, and offers nothing but guesses.
^^^^^^ Bubbleboy
-
I find it difficult to believe that terrorists could have such bad luck as to strike the one small narrow section of pentagon wall that had been previously re-inforced. I mean... talk about having a bad day! ::)
But you know who had an even worse day?
Buzzy Krongard and friends who couldn't collect the billions they made shorting stock that day. That's gotta bite! ;D
-
I, like most americans polled, would like to see another investigation. He spent his lifetime analyzing military photos for information, and he's seen a shitload more crash pics than you or I have.
So yes, if he says it stinks, I believe him more than I believe you and my's take on it.
Doesn't matter - you shit your pants on 911 and you can't believe daddy bush would do this to you - so you keep on believing 19 dead morons brought down WTC7 lol.... you could have a THOUSAND GENERALS and half the Bush admin admitting it stinks, and you'd still lap up the milk and ask for more.
-
US General says 9-11 was inside job !!
Who can refute this Major General?
Watch and LISTEN Bubbleboy!!!
-
I, like most americans polled, would like to see another investigation. He spent his lifetime analyzing military photos for information, and he's seen a shitload more crash pics than you or I have.
So yes, if he says it stinks, I believe him more than I believe you and my's take on it.
Doesn't matter - you shit your pants on 911 and you can't believe daddy bush would do this to you - so you keep on believing 19 dead morons brought down WTC7 lol.... you could have a THOUSAND GENERALS and half the Bush admin admitting it stinks, and you'd still lap up the milk and ask for more.
I thought you said you did not believe GWB did it?
-
Watch and LISTEN Bubbleboy!!!
I did watch it. It sounded like the ramblings of someone who just had a 3 hour liquid lunch with nothing specific whatsoever.
-
You can't even hone in on a single theory. One gets refuted and you move onto the next. Just makes you look like a clueless idiot.
Your entire argument revolves around you claiming that there are experts who disagree with the findings (there are those who do agree), some rotating carousel of a dozen different theories (even some as far-fetched as holograms, LOL) and not being able to find the time to read or watch counter-arguments despite logging dozens of posts in every thread that pops up about this topic.
My belief is that there are too many Qs about that day not to have another investigation.
This General agrees. Maybe you know more about analysis of plane crash pics than this general who did it for a lifetime, who knows. I doubt it.
So that's it. If there is one hole in the story (and there seem to be many), then a major crime which led to 2 continuing wars, sure needs to be investigated.
But hey, some ppl dont want an investigation. That's fine, we're allowed to have differing opinions. It does't pass the smell test to me. Maybe you buy the official story (which the authors of say is incorrect and incomplete and we need a second investigation).... maybe...
-
I thought you said you did not believe GWB did it?
dude, dude, dude, youre an educated man.
please read pnac and stop embarassing yourself. his cabinet wrote it. you haven't read it, so youre arguing something you dont even understand dude.
bush was a clueless idiot that day.
-
US General says 9-11 was inside job !!
Who can refute this Major General?
BTW.....Major General Albert Stubblebine is in the Military Hall Of Fame.
-
BTW.....Major General Albert Stubblebine is in the Military Hall Of Fame.
Sorry, his expert analysis has been refuted by some message board members who watched a liveleak video that destroyed every single PhD question out there...
-
BTW.....Major General Albert Stubblebine is in the Military Hall Of Fame.
And what evidence did he provide in that video? Nada.
-
The Military Intelligence Hall of Fame is a Hall of Fame established by the Military Intelligence Corps of the United States Army to honor soldiers and civilians who have made exceptional contributions to Military Intelligence. The Hall is administered by the United States Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.[1]
[edit] Hall of Fame inductees
MG Albert N. Stubbelbine III
MAJ Benjamin Tallmadge
CPT Daniel M. Taylor
MR. Herbert W. Taylor
MG Charles W. Thomas
MG John D. Thomas, Jr.
MG Edmund R. Thompson
LTG Arthur G. Trudeau
MAJ Walter Unrath
MG Ralph Van Deman
Ms. Elizabeth Van Lew
COL William F. Vernau
COL Humbert R. Versace
COL Eric Vieler
COL Harold W. Vorhies
BG George J. Walker
LTG Vernon A. Walters
COL William P. Walters
Mr. Junius A. Watlington
LTG Sidney T. Weinstein
COL Norman S. Wells
COL Jerry G. Wetherill
LTG James A. Williams
MG Charles A. Willoughby
MSG John R. Wilson
LTG Samuel V. Wilson
CSM Ronald D. Wright
LTG William P. Yarborough
MAJ Herbert O. Yardley
COL Charles D. Young
-
That proves nothing at all.
-
And what evidence did he provide in that video? Nada.
have you ever tried a case? What do experts do? They get on the stand and give their OPINION based upon detailed analysis of evidence, combined with their own education and experience.
Shit man. He's one of the top 50 military minds in American history, and youre shitting on him? I guar-an-fvcking-tee, if one of the top military minds was shitting on it, you'd be drinking a beer masturbating talking about how he 'just answered every single Q about 911".
Bottom line - this military legend and expert shared his belief that no plane hit the pentagon. that's it.
-
have you ever tried a case? What do experts do? They get on the stand and give their OPINION based upon detailed analysis of evidence, combined with their own education and experience.
Shit man. He's one of the top 50 military minds in American history, and youre shitting on him? I guar-an-fvcking-tee, if one of the top military minds was shitting on it, you'd be drinking a beer masturbating talking about how he 'just answered every single Q about 911".
Bottom line - this military legend and expert shared his belief that no plane hit the pentagon. that's it.
Amen. 9-11 WAS an inside job.
-
My belief is that there are too many Qs about that day not to have another investigation.
This General agrees. Maybe you know more about analysis of plane crash pics than this general who did it for a lifetime, who knows. I doubt it.
So that's it. If there is one hole in the story (and there seem to be many), then a major crime which led to 2 continuing wars, sure needs to be investigated.
But hey, some ppl dont want an investigation. That's fine, we're allowed to have differing opinions. It does't pass the smell test to me. Maybe you buy the official story (which the authors of say is incorrect and incomplete and we need a second investigation).... maybe...
I find it amazing that you hang onto the opinion of "experts" that fall in line with your beliefs but you systematically discredit or dismiss any opinion by a PhD-holder that refutes your claims. Nice double standard.
"Maybe you know more about analysis of a plane crash than the physicists and other experts who don't believe it was an inside job." See how that works? ::)
I personally don't care about another investigation because it will accomplish nothing more than wasting millions of dollars this country doesn't have. And I would bet the only thing it would end up showing is that there were massive incompetencies and failures in the chain of command in the events leading up to 9/11 that could have prevented it. Not that some shadowy government group used holograms to fly fake planes into a building while simultaneously detonating it with thousand of pounds of explosives that they lined the insides with. ::)
-
Bottom line - this military legend and expert shared his belief that no plane hit the pentagon. that's it.
-
Amen. 9-11 WAS an inside job.
So it was planned, war gamed, and excuted with 8 months? ::) ::)
-
Bottom line - this military legend and expert shared his belief that no plane hit the pentagon. that's it.
I love how you keep using "legend and expert" as if it lends credibility to your opinion. Give it a rest.
-
The Military Intelligence Hall of Fame is a Hall of Fame established by the Military Intelligence Corps of the United States Army to honor soldiers and civilians who have made exceptional contributions to Military Intelligence. The Hall is administered by the United States Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.[1]
[edit] Hall of Fame inductees
MG Albert N. Stubbelbine III
MAJ Benjamin Tallmadge
CPT Daniel M. Taylor
MR. Herbert W. Taylor
MG Charles W. Thomas
MG John D. Thomas, Jr.
MG Edmund R. Thompson
LTG Arthur G. Trudeau
MAJ Walter Unrath
MG Ralph Van Deman
Ms. Elizabeth Van Lew
COL William F. Vernau
COL Humbert R. Versace
COL Eric Vieler
COL Harold W. Vorhies
BG George J. Walker
LTG Vernon A. Walters
COL William P. Walters
Mr. Junius A. Watlington
LTG Sidney T. Weinstein
COL Norman S. Wells
COL Jerry G. Wetherill
LTG James A. Williams
MG Charles A. Willoughby
MSG John R. Wilson
LTG Samuel V. Wilson
CSM Ronald D. Wright
LTG William P. Yarborough
MAJ Herbert O. Yardley
COL Charles D. Young
BubbleBoy 33's knows better. ::)
-
have you ever tried a case? What do experts do? They get on the stand and give their OPINION based upon detailed analysis of evidence, combined with their own education and experience.
Shit man. He's one of the top 50 military minds in American history, and youre shitting on him? I guar-an-fvcking-tee, if one of the top military minds was shitting on it, you'd be drinking a beer masturbating talking about how he 'just answered every single Q about 911".
Bottom line - this military legend and expert shared his belief that no plane hit the pentagon. that's it.
Has no time to...must spend his days on the GB boards...
-
Has no time to...must spend his days on the GB boards...
How's Sorcha Faal doing?
-
You know how we know that 9/11 wasn't orchestrated by the Bush Admin?
It worked.
Who says the Bush Admin orchestrated it? And since all administrations are puppets it does not really mean anything that Bush was an idiot. He was not the guy responsible for creating a deception. If he was in charge then yes it would not have worked as well.
-
Has no time to...must spend his days on the GB boards...
I have tried many cases, but if it gets to that I am usually losing money. I try resolve my cases out of court if possible.
Again - what groundbreaking evidence did this guy put forward that doesnt consist of 240'esqe speculation and conjecture?
-
Major General Stubblebine
-
So where are the passengers on the plane that are missing Mons?
-
have you ever tried a case? What do experts do? They get on the stand and give their OPINION based upon detailed analysis of evidence, combined with their own education and experience.
Shit man. He's one of the top 50 military minds in American history, and youre shitting on him? I guar-an-fvcking-tee, if one of the top military minds was shitting on it, you'd be drinking a beer masturbating talking about how he 'just answered every single Q about 911".
Bottom line - this military legend and expert shared his belief that no plane hit the pentagon. that's it.
Exactly, that is the bottom line. But you're attempting to push this as though it's one more piece of "evidence" contributing to the theory. No, it's one more opinion.
And there you go again in this thread attempting to portray yourself as somebody "in the know". Reminds me of the other day when you were claiming the Patriot Act is no longer being audited - even though they just released an audit in February. ::)
Why? Because just like that issue, your "knowledge" of the subject is really "YouTube" deep. And that's why you can't answer even the most basic questions about the CT or proffer even ONE credible reason why.
-
^^^^^ Jesse Ventura, Major General Albert Stubblebine, Robert Bowman
-
I find it amazing that you hang onto the opinion of "experts" that fall in line with your beliefs but you systematically discredit or dismiss any opinion by a PhD-holder that refutes your claims. Nice double standard.
"Maybe you know more about analysis of a plane crash than the physicists and other experts who don't believe it was an inside job." See how that works? ::)
I personally don't care about another investigation because it will accomplish nothing more than wasting millions of dollars this country doesn't have. And I would bet the only thing it would end up showing is that there were massive incompetencies and failures in the chain of command in the events leading up to 9/11 that could have prevented it. Not that some shadowy government group used holograms to fly fake planes into a building while simultaneously detonating it with thousand of pounds of explosives that they lined the insides with. ::)
See you cannot make up your mind about another investigation before it has even begun. That means you are already convinced everything happened the way the media portrayed it. You have more to lose by not supporting an investigation. Because WHAT IF this was orchestrated?? How would you view your leaders when you realize this is what they were spending their time and minds planning. Instead of planning a mass transit system, alternative energy plant or something that would benefit everyone they instead planned an attack on their own country!?
There are too many question unanswered at least just come out and be honest and transparent about events!
A few issues on a long list:
1. No plane Debris at Pennsylvania Site.
2. No lawn damage in front of Pentagon Impact Zone.
3. Small hole in Pentagon.
4. Pentagon video showing a blurry object that is too small to match the size of the "plane" identified by media.
5. Surveillance tapes near Pentagon confiscated. Why not released??
6. Witnesses at WTC (Two) claiming No Second Plane on video. Were they on crack? One committed "suicide".
7. WTC 7 collapsing and owner Silverstein later admitting they pulled it. Since when do they make such huge decisions without informing the public? This was a 50 story building!
8. Some hijackers alive and well abroad. What??
-
^^^^^^ Larry Silverstein WTC owner: "WTC #7 was pulled"
-
So where are the passengers on the plane that are missing Mons?
Which passengers? Can you prove to me that they existed in the first place? Did you ever have coffee or tea at their homes? I don't know if they even existed. I am open to the idea that they did but if this was a lie I would not even be able to confirm or deny.
-
Which passengers? Can you prove to me that they existed in the first place? Did you ever have coffee or tea at their homes? I don't know if they even existed. I am open to the idea that they did but if this was a lie I would not even be able to confirm or deny.
Barbara Olson. Her husband was the the Solicitor General of the USA, the top lawyer position in the USA was on the plane.
-
US General says 9-11 was inside job !!
Who can refute this Major General?
Military EXPERT General Albert Stubblebine: "No jetliner hit the Pentagon."
-
^^^^^^ Larry Silverstein WTC owner: "WTC #7 was pulled"
Larry Silverstein: "WTC building #7 was Pulled"
-
Barbara Olson. Her husband was the the Solicitor General of the USA, the top lawyer position in the USA was on the plane.
That is what MSM told you, now prove it...
-
-
That is what MSM told you, now prove it...
So the husband is lying or is he hiding his wife on the same Island madoff and Ken Lay are at?
-
So the husband is lying or is he hiding his wife on the same Island madoff and Ken Lay are at?
;D
-
I guess he is lying:
David Ray Griffin
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
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 accept 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?
The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.
NOTES
1 This essay is based on Chapter 8 (“Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?”) of David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).
2 Tim O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN, September 11, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).
3 This was pointed out in The 9/11 Commission Report, 8.
4 Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html).
5 “America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,” Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html).
6 In his “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture,” delivered November 16, 2001
(http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp),
Olson said that she “somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in the airplane to call.” He laid out this version of his story more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, “She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html).
7 I discussed the technical difficulties of making cell phone calls from airliners in 2001 in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 87-88, 292-97.
8 See the submission of 17 February 2006 by “the Paradroid” on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75.
9 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html). These documents can be more easily viewed in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights”
(http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).
10 FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic],” “9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11,” 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008,
(http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html).
11 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007).
12 O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane.”
13 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 16
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf).
14 Shoestring, “The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?” Shoestring911, February 2, 2008 (http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/flight-77-murder-mystery-who-really.html).
15 “In Memoriam: Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame, 1949-2001,” USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html).
16 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007), 12.
17 Of these two possibilities, the idea that Ted Olson was duped should be seriously entertained only if there are records proving that the Department of Justice received two collect calls, ostensibly from Barbara Olson, that morning. Evidently no such records have been produced.
This article is based on Chapter 8 of Dr. Griffin's new book, "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press," (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).
This book reframes the central events of 9/11 as a series of 25 internal contradictions. The only way that its readers will be able to continue to accept the official story is to accept mutually contradictory accounts.
"9/11 Contradictions" may have the best chance of any of DRG's books (or indeed any book) of opening up a new investigation into 9/11.
-
So the husband is lying or is he hiding his wife on the same Island madoff and Ken Lay are at?
I asked you to prove your claim...what's the problem?
Oh and BTW...Maybe she just disappeared for no reason like the people who were on flight 93. Remember them? A crashed plane...no bodies, no seats, no engine, no pilots, no fuselage, no engines....POOF...JUST DISAPPEARED...
-
What about Todd Beamers' wife? is she in on this?
-
I guess he is lying:
David Ray Griffin
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
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 accept 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?
The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.
NOTES
1 This essay is based on Chapter 8 (“Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?”) of David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).
2 Tim O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN, September 11, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).
3 This was pointed out in The 9/11 Commission Report, 8.
4 Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html).
5 “America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,” Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html).
6 In his “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture,” delivered November 16, 2001
(http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp),
Olson said that she “somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in the airplane to call.” He laid out this version of his story more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, “She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html).
7 I discussed the technical difficulties of making cell phone calls from airliners in 2001 in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 87-88, 292-97.
8 See the submission of 17 February 2006 by “the Paradroid” on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75.
9 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html). These documents can be more easily viewed in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights”
(http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).
10 FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic],” “9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11,” 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008,
(http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html).
11 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007).
12 O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane.”
13 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 16
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf).
14 Shoestring, “The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?” Shoestring911, February 2, 2008 (http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/flight-77-murder-mystery-who-really.html).
15 “In Memoriam: Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame, 1949-2001,” USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html).
16 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007), 12.
17 Of these two possibilities, the idea that Ted Olson was duped should be seriously entertained only if there are records proving that the Department of Justice received two collect calls, ostensibly from Barbara Olson, that morning. Evidently no such records have been produced.
This article is based on Chapter 8 of Dr. Griffin's new book, "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press," (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).
This book reframes the central events of 9/11 as a series of 25 internal contradictions. The only way that its readers will be able to continue to accept the official story is to accept mutually contradictory accounts.
"9/11 Contradictions" may have the best chance of any of DRG's books (or indeed any book) of opening up a new investigation into 9/11.
BubbleBoy 333's pwned again.
-
Idiot.
She was a mainstream legal commentator on all of the news stations. So she just gave up a legal and media career to help the RW 911 plot? ::) ::) Or was it the Clinton admn since she investigated travelgate and some of the other bs Clinton pulled?
-
US General says 9-11 was inside job !!
Who can refute this Major General?
^^^^^^ Larry Silverstein WTC owner: "WTC #7 was pulled"
^^^^^^ No answers from BubbleBoy 333's
-
^^^^^^ No answers from BubbleBoy 333's
Your idiotic posts have been debunked hundreds of times on this site before. i'm not wasting my time on this nonsense when all you have to do is drag out any other 911 thread where you got owned and brutalized.
-
a buddy of mine, his uncle was on the first plane that hit one of the towers, i know for a fact he's dead
-
a buddy of mine, his uncle was on the first plane that hit one of the towers, i know for a fact he's dead
OOOPPPPPSSS. Blacken just debunked 240's hologram theory.
-
That is what MSM told you, now prove it...
I'm inclined to believe passengers died on those planes.
This occurred during the Toronto International Film Festival, and I remember a few crying because one of their colleagues had taken a quick flight home to Boston to visit family before heading home to California. he was allegedly on one of the flights from Boston to LA.
-
^^^ Opps BBC reports WTC #7 collasped...........too early !!!!!
-
The plane could have been flown to a secured location, the passengers removed and EXECUTED!
Spouses like Mrs Beamer or Olsen would not have to be privy to or even part of the charade for their spouses to have been murdered. We all know those sailors who died at Pearl Harbor didn't have to die. The government let it happen. Surely you aren't suggesting that all those seamen who died in Pearl Harbor were in on it... or their wives? If this were Palestine or Gaza perhaps, ...but there's quite a shortage of suicide bombers in the west. Even those PNAC chickenhawks who believe so strongly in their endgame don't even have the stones to martyr themselves for their deranged cause, what makes you think ordinary American citizens would. You don't have to be in on a plot in order to die from it.
-
The plane could have been flown to a secured location, the passengers removed and EXECUTED!
Spouses like Mrs Beamer or Olsen would not have to be privy to or even part of the charade for their spouses to have been murdered. We all know those sailors who died at Pearl Harbor didn't have to die. The government let it happen. Surely you aren't suggesting that all those seamen who died in Pearl Harbor were in on it... or their wives? If this were Palestine or Gaza perhaps, ...but there's quite a shortage of suicide bombers in the west. Even those PNAC chickenhawks who believe so strongly in their endgame don't even have the stones to martyr themselves for their deranged cause, what makes you think ordinary American citizens would. You don't have to be in on a plot in order to die from it.
So where was the plane disposed of? What air strip did it land at/ no traffic controllers noticed this and they were silent?
Ground crew?
Dont you see how utterly absurd this gets when reality comes into conflict with your dwelusions?
-
The plane could have been flown to a secured location, the passengers removed and EXECUTED!
Spouses like Mrs Beamer or Olsen would not have to be privy to or even part of the charade for their spouses to have been murdered. We all know those sailors who died at Pearl Harbor didn't have to die. The government let it happen. Surely you aren't suggesting that all those seamen who died in Pearl Harbor were in on it... or their wives? If this were Palestine or Gaza perhaps, ...but there's quite a shortage of suicide bombers in the west. Even those PNAC chickenhawks who believe so strongly in their endgame don't even have the stones to martyr themselves for their deranged cause, what makes you think ordinary American citizens would. You don't have to be in on a plot in order to die from it.
Motion to have this multi personality disorder suffering fucktard banned for life from this board. Mods, what say you?
-
US General says 9-11 was inside job !!
Who can refute this Major General?
The 757 vaporized BEFORE striking the Pentagon. Silly General.
-
What about Todd Beamers' wife? is she in on this?
Are you conceding all the questions quad asked about Olsen?
Or just realizing he pwned the arguing point you've used for the last year - and you're searching for another?
-
I guess he is lying:
David Ray Griffin
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
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 accept 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?
The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.
NOTES
1 This essay is based on Chapter 8 (“Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?”) of David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).
2 Tim O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN, September 11, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).
3 This was pointed out in The 9/11 Commission Report, 8.
4 Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html).
5 “America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,” Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html).
6 In his “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture,” delivered November 16, 2001
(http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp),
Olson said that she “somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in the airplane to call.” He laid out this version of his story more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, “She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html).
7 I discussed the technical difficulties of making cell phone calls from airliners in 2001 in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 87-88, 292-97.
8 See the submission of 17 February 2006 by “the Paradroid” on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75.
9 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html). These documents can be more easily viewed in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights”
(http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).
10 FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic],” “9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11,” 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008,
(http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html).
11 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007).
12 O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane.”
13 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 16
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf).
14 Shoestring, “The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?” Shoestring911, February 2, 2008 (http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/flight-77-murder-mystery-who-really.html).
15 “In Memoriam: Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame, 1949-2001,” USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html).
16 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007), 12.
17 Of these two possibilities, the idea that Ted Olson was duped should be seriously entertained only if there are records proving that the Department of Justice received two collect calls, ostensibly from Barbara Olson, that morning. Evidently no such records have been produced.
This article is based on Chapter 8 of Dr. Griffin's new book, "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press," (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).
This book reframes the central events of 9/11 as a series of 25 internal contradictions. The only way that its readers will be able to continue to accept the official story is to accept mutually contradictory accounts.
"9/11 Contradictions" may have the best chance of any of DRG's books (or indeed any book) of opening up a new investigation into 9/11.
Holy fucccking shit, 333386.
PLEASE - Since YOU are the one who continually brings up Olsen -
PLEASE tell us what you think of this. I've been hearing you harp on and on about Olsen for 2 years now.
Suddenly, the facts are in front of you - the loads of inconsistencies.
Don't run and change the subject - please address the Olsen issue YOU introduced into the convo.
-
So where was the plane disposed of? What air strip did it land at/ no traffic controllers noticed this and they were silent?
Ground crew?
Dont you see how utterly absurd this gets when reality comes into conflict with your dwelusions?
The ridiculousness is the fact you are a lawyer (or at least that is what you tell us) and as such are inclined to research information and find out the TRUTH on matters and NOT just scream wild eyed statements (then again I might be wrong on you with that) that show a clear lack of knowledge and facts not only about the country you live in and its government, but the all to well known history of false flags, murder, assassinations, subversive movements etc etc. These facts about what happened to the planes, people, towers, Pentagon have been discussed until it is practically 1st nature with everybody. Planes magically crashing into the side of the Pentagon that happens to be empty, happens to have been recently reinforced and just happens to somehow swallow and make all the plane parts, people, luggage, gear, etc etc DISAPPEAR. Towers that collapse CONTROL DEMOLITION STYLE... the owner admitted to saying PULL IT, a third building just falling for no reason hours later even though it was hit by NOTHING. Passengers supposedly on planes talking to their mothers and fathers and calling referring to themselves by their first AND LAST NAME TO THEIR OWN MOTHER!!!! WTF? People talking to their mothers, fathers, families and wives WHEN CELL PHONE COMMUNICATION OF THAT SORT IN THAT TIME DID NOT EXIST YET!!!!!! Wild bullshit excuses of massive plane parts VAPORIZING or of Arabs being on planes that have no Arab names on the manifest or pictures of any Arabs boarding the plane, 19 hijackers somehow managing to fly the planes into the WTC and somehow 9 managing to live through the crash, the explosion and the collapse of the building and somehow able to make it back to their home countries ALIVE!!!! Yeah 3 that makes a whole helluva lotta sense... What law firm are you working for???
Her is some info on flight 175 and 93 in regards to where they were on 911 and why they were still in existence years later
http://factsnotfairies.blogspot.com/2008/04/flight-93-and-175-were-deregistered.html
-
So where is Barbara Olson? I agree that the post by quad looks awful. However, she still is either dead or alive correct? If it was a missle and not a plane why was she targheted for assination?
-
lol.
(http://www.javanivey.com/images/shirts/ji_screw_ball.jpg)
-
So where is Barbara Olson? I agree that the post by quad looks awful. However, she still is either dead or alive correct? If it was a missle and not a plane why was she targheted for assination?
Did you NOT read all of the posts everyone made? Why are you so hung up on Barbra Olson? In americas FALSE FLAG adventures there is what aare known as COLLATERAL DAMAGE...essentially people and things DESTROYED unintentionally or intentionally to rile up the anger of a government, people, nation etc. To make it clear Barbra is DEAD...killed by the US government along with so many others who worked in the WTC, Pentagon, those assassinated for knowing too much...let us not even get into those killed in Iraq, which I hope you know had nothing to do with 911
-
UPDATE..
Hey 3
I found Barbara Olson http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/09/is-barbara-olson-still-alive.html
You can sleep easy now knowing that BITCh was in on the whole 911 domestic terrorism event
-
^^^^^ Jesse Ventura, Major General Albert Stubblebine, Robert Bowman
Set to the theme music from Predator. That's funny.
-
Larry Silverstein: "WTC building #7 was Pulled"
Apparently the first two towers were also pulled. I'm no engineer by any means. However, The buildings fell at nearly free fall speed.
I don't know who the masterminds of the operation were.
However, the official story can't be true.
-
Im pretty sure silverstein was talking about getting fireman,cops out of wtc when he said "pull it"
still, good ammo for some ct'ers ;D
-
Here is the # 1 reason that a new investigation is needed.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM (http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM)
-
Im pretty sure silverstein was talking about getting fireman,cops out of wtc when he said "pull it"
still, good ammo for some ct'ers ;D
All the more reason to base your opinion on fact and not your delusional thoughts. Silverstein said PULL IT in regard to building 7 which was not struck by anything. BTW did you know that the company CONTROLLED DEMOLITION was the first on the scene as well as teh company awarded teh task of clean up...Hmmmmm? What a coincidence
-
All the more reason to base your opinion on fact and not your delusional thoughts. Silverstein said PULL IT in regard to building 7 which was not struck by anything. BTW did you know that the company CONTROLLED DEMOLITION was the first on the scene as well as teh company awarded teh task of clean up...Hmmmmm? What a coincidence
So much evidence, and so many mindless people in the united states don't care. They are more concerned with allocating there 480 dollar unemployment checks right now. :'(
-
All the more reason to base your opinion on fact and not your delusional thoughts. Silverstein said PULL IT in regard to building 7 which was not struck by anything. BTW did you know that the company CONTROLLED DEMOLITION was the first on the scene as well as teh company awarded teh task of clean up...Hmmmmm? What a coincidence
silverstein was cearly talking about the fire inside wtc7 and "pull it"was referring to evacuating fireman. Go ahead and believe he was talking to a demolition crew though. rofl.
-
silverstein was cearly talking about the fire inside wtc7 and "pull it"was referring to evacuating fireman. Go ahead and believe he was talking to a demolition crew though. rofl.
ha-ha-ha. Yeah right sure. That is what he meant. I agree with you...
NOT! First of all where were these massive fires inside WTC 7? Second do you know what the chances are of WTC 7 collapsing at the speed of gravity because of fire damage?!
0%!! Go watch video footage of the hotel in Beijing that was burning like a blow torch for hours with massive explosions going on. It never collapsed and the fires were 100 times worse than WTC 7.
WTC 7 fell at the speed of gravity because all columns at the base were severed simultaneously.
-
silverstein was cearly talking about the fire inside wtc7 and "pull it"was referring to evacuating fireman. Go ahead and believe he was talking to a demolition crew though. rofl.
Clean the wax out of your ears...Silvestein said We have had such a awful lost of life (meaning from the collapse of the other two buildings) that we should PULL IT ( a word used by CONTROL DEMOLITION COMPANIES) an we watched the building collapse. The term PULL IT and watched the building collapse are used in conjunction to mean detonate the charges and watch the building fall...NOT PULL IT and watch the firemen leave the building. Building 7 had small fires within, of which no one has been able to say why the building was on fire in the first place. The small fires would have easily have been put out by a group of firemen. Nonetheless the small fires in no way could have caused a nearly 50 story building to collapse like a controlled demolition implosion unless IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IMPLOSION...
-
ha-ha-ha. Yeah right sure. That is what he meant. I agree with you...
NOT! First of all where were these massive fires inside WTC 7? Second do you know what the chances are of WTC 7 collapsing at the speed of gravity because of fire damage?!
0%!! Go watch video footage of the hotel in Beijing that was burning like a blow torch for hours with massive explosions going on. It never collapsed and the fires were 100 times worse than WTC 7.
WTC 7 fell at the speed of gravity because all columns at the base were severed simultaneously.
I never said fire brought down wtc.
"pull it" was referring to evacuating fireman out of wtc7. Are you denying there was fire on wtc7 rofl? Do you honestly believe Larry silverstein meant "pull it" in reference to a demolition? Are you that deluded? Sit down.
(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g15/bajitar/WTC/wtc7nbc00001az0.jpg)
-
Clean the wax out of your ears...Silvestein said We have had such a awful lost of life (meaning from the collapse of the other two buildings) that we should PULL IT ( a word used by CONTROL DEMOLITION COMPANIES) an we watched the building collapse. The term PULL IT and watched the building collapse are used in conjunction to mean detonate the charges and watch the building fall...NOT PULL IT and watch the firemen leave the building. Building 7 had small fires within, of which no one has been able to say why the building was on fire in the first place. The small fires would have easily have been put out by a group of firemen. Nonetheless the small fires in no way could have caused a nearly 50 story building to collapse like a controlled demolition implosion unless IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IMPLOSION...
So When he said "there was an awful loss of life and we should pull it" - meant they should level the place with the people and fireman in it? rofl.
No.
(in the clip) silverstein said (The fireman) couldnt contain the fire anymore. Silverstein said the loss of life was so great from the previous towers that there was no point in risking more deaths(fireman). So they "pulled it" (stopped fighting the fire)
God, how fucking hard is that to comprehend for you morons? Do you REALLY think if silverstein had any gain from this that he would actually admit to leveling the building? Fuck no.
-
have you ever tried a case? What do experts do? They get on the stand and give their OPINION based upon detailed analysis of evidence, combined with their own education and experience.
Shit man. He's one of the top 50 military minds in American history, and youre shitting on him? I guar-an-fvcking-tee, if one of the top military minds was shitting on it, you'd be drinking a beer masturbating talking about how he 'just answered every single Q about 911".
Bottom line - this military legend and expert shared his belief that no plane hit the pentagon. that's it.
This military expert.....
A proponent of psychic warfare, Stubblebine was involved in a US military project to create "a breed of 'super soldier'" who would "have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls". He encouraged visitors to his office to walk through walls and has said that the ability to do so is a great idea, but that it would also be a disappointment, similar to levitation.[3] He features prominently in Jon Ronson's book The Men Who Stare at Goats[6], where he is described as firmly believing that he himself can walk through walls.[7]
Are you fucking kidding me......
-
I really honestly can't believe we know all the facts about what happened. There are many branches of government and other entities that could have easily pulled something like this off, without anyone else knowing about it. All kinds of black ops operations happen around the globe on a daily basis without anyone ever knowing the truth. I don't believe that the Bush administration had anything to do with it, someone did though.
I don't think we'll ever know the truth though, so there's no point in me ever worrying or thinking about it.
-
US General says 9-11 was inside job !!
Who can refute this Major General?
Where is the Pentagon plane?
Please explain BubbleBoy 333's
-
^^^^^ Media agrees
-
NO PLANE.......... BubbleBoy!!
-
Pentagon eyewitness reporter: "A cruise missile with wings hit Pentagon"
-
This military expert.....
A proponent of psychic warfare, Stubblebine was involved in a US military project to create "a breed of 'super soldier'" who would "have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls". He encouraged visitors to his office to walk through walls and has said that the ability to do so is a great idea, but that it would also be a disappointment, similar to levitation.[3] He features prominently in Jon Ronson's book The Men Who Stare at Goats[6], where he is described as firmly believing that he himself can walk through walls.[7]
Are you fucking kidding me......
Hahahahahahah! Guy sounds like a nutcase. Not surprising the tinfoil hat crowd is throwing their weight behind him. After all, 240 thinks the govt. flew holograms into the twin towers.
-
After all, 240 thinks the govt. flew holograms into the twin towers.
no i dont. it was one of the hundreds of theories that were discussed on getbig in the last 5 years. I dont give it any credence.
-
no i dont. it was one of the hundreds of theories that were discussed on getbig in the last 5 years. I dont give it any credence.
How do you feel about this general believing he can walk through walls? He sounds like a credible guy. HA.
-
How do you feel about this general believing he can walk through walls? He sounds like a credible guy. HA.
There is not one CT'er I have seen that will commit to any of the hundreds of various CT's floated around.
-
So When he said "there was an awful loss of life and we should pull it" - meant they should level the place with the people and fireman in it? rofl.
No.
(in the clip) silverstein said (The fireman) couldnt contain the fire anymore. Silverstein said the loss of life was so great from the previous towers that there was no point in risking more deaths(fireman). So they "pulled it" (stopped fighting the fire)
God, how fucking hard is that to comprehend for you morons? Do you REALLY think if silverstein had any gain from this that he would actually admit to leveling the building? Fuck no.
I love how you completely IGNORE the controlled demolition of tower one and two ans the lost of life, but you are somehow concerned about tower 7 which by that late in the day on 911 when it was controlled demolitioned (PULL IT) was completely EMPTY!!!! What loss of life was there in tower 7?.....NONE!
What massive fires were there in building 7?...NONE
What plane hit building 7?...NONE
What reason was there for building 7 to even be on fire...NONE
What reason was given for its collapse...NONE
Why then did it collapse...well it seems the SEC was in that building and was being investigated for massive FRAUD...how convenient afterward the SEC was cleared as the EVIDENCE was destroyed in the building collapse. Add to this the FBI terrorism program was in the building (an dsupposedly they were looking for Osama Bin Laden), beginnings of Homeland Security was in the building etc etc...all were supposedly destroyed in the collapse which happened for no reason...how convenient...
-
There is not one CT'er I have seen that will commit to any of the hundreds of various CT's floated around.
They can't. The second they commit to one and it gets refuted, their credibility and argument goes out of the window. It's much easier to float among dozens of different theories that encompass all possible aspects.
-
I never said fire brought down wtc.
"pull it" was referring to evacuating fireman out of wtc7. Are you denying there was fire on wtc7 rofl? Do you honestly believe Larry silverstein meant "pull it" in reference to a demolition? Are you that deluded? Sit down.
(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g15/bajitar/WTC/wtc7nbc00001az0.jpg)
PULL IT is NOT a term used by the fire department any where in the world. Please show me where the FIRE DEPARTMENT uses that word or has ever used that word/term to mean leave a building.
-
Pentagon eyewitness reporter: "A cruise missile with wings hit Pentagon"
Bump
-
Let's see. We've got one gimmick that pulls all his information off fictional writer Sorcha Faal's website. Another fake soldier that condones the mass murder of American citizens. Another person that thinks the govt. used holograms to fake an attack and a General that thinks he can walk through walls.
Lots of credibility there. LOL.
-
Let's see. We've got one gimmick that pulls all his information off fictional writer Sorcha Faal's website. Another fake soldier that condones the mass murder of American citizens. Another person that thinks the govt. used holograms to fake an attack and a General that thinks he can walk through walls.
Lots of credibility there. LOL.
Ha ha ha ha.
I almost spit my drink out. ;D ;D
-
3 I can honestly say your ass has been handed to you in this thread. Oh and btw I did not get a response from you about Barbara Olson...I found her for you she is alive in Europe. I put the information in this thread a few posts ago...have a look. Now can you let the BO (that's Barabra Olson) questions go and realize 911 was a massive well coordinated domestic terrorism event perpetrated by your US government.
-
3 I can honestly say your ass has been handed to you in this thread. Oh and btw I did not get a response from you about Barbara Olson...I found her for you she is alive in Europe. I put the information in this thread a few posts ago...have a look. Now can you let the BO (that's Barabra Olson) questions go and realize 911 was a massive well coordinated domestic terrorism event perpetrated by your US government.
He hardly his ass handed to him. ::)
Give it a rest, already. You post fabricated fairy tales written by a discredited, for-profit, creative writer looking to push sales of his books. You have no credibility.
-
3 I can honestly say your ass has been handed to you in this thread. Oh and btw I did not get a response from you about Barbara Olson...I found her for you she is alive in Europe. I put the information in this thread a few posts ago...have a look. Now can you let the BO (that's Barabra Olson) questions go and realize 911 was a massive well coordinated domestic terrorism event perpetrated by your US government.
I agreed that there were issues regarding the telephone call.
However, again, you live in Canada. She was a very public figure on tv and media all the time. Are you saying she is in on this CT since you now claim she is alove and well in Europe?
-
333386,
Since you are the one who continually brings up Olsen dozens of times in 911 debates...
What do you think about that big pile of questions and inconsistencies on the Olsen story?
You use that as your main debating chip - but when the dude gave you something that really punched holes in the story - you didn't address it. Why?
-
I guess he is lying:
David Ray Griffin
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
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 accept 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?
The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.
NOTES
1 This essay is based on Chapter 8 (“Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?”) of David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).
2 Tim O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN, September 11, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).
3 This was pointed out in The 9/11 Commission Report, 8.
4 Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html).
5 “America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,” Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html).
6 In his “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture,” delivered November 16, 2001
(http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp),
Olson said that she “somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in the airplane to call.” He laid out this version of his story more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, “She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html).
7 I discussed the technical difficulties of making cell phone calls from airliners in 2001 in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 87-88, 292-97.
8 See the submission of 17 February 2006 by “the Paradroid” on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75.
9 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html). These documents can be more easily viewed in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights”
(http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).
10 FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic],” “9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11,” 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008,
(http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html).
11 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007).
12 O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane.”
13 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 16
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf).
14 Shoestring, “The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?” Shoestring911, February 2, 2008 (http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/flight-77-murder-mystery-who-really.html).
15 “In Memoriam: Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame, 1949-2001,” USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html).
16 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007), 12.
17 Of these two possibilities, the idea that Ted Olson was duped should be seriously entertained only if there are records proving that the Department of Justice received two collect calls, ostensibly from Barbara Olson, that morning. Evidently no such records have been produced.
This article is based on Chapter 8 of Dr. Griffin's new book, "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press," (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).
This book reframes the central events of 9/11 as a series of 25 internal contradictions. The only way that its readers will be able to continue to accept the official story is to accept mutually contradictory accounts.
"9/11 Contradictions" may have the best chance of any of DRG's books (or indeed any book) of opening up a new investigation into 9/11.
*Bump* 4 BubbleBoys answer.
-
333386,
Since you are the one who continually brings up Olsen dozens of times in 911 debates...
What do you think about that big pile of questions and inconsistencies on the Olsen story?
You use that as your main debating chip - but when the dude gave you something that really punched holes in the story - you didn't address it. Why?
Yes there are issues with the alleged call. i agree with that.
however, the woman was amajor media figure and very much in the spotlight. So either she is alive or dead correct?
So if you believe she is alive, you have to believe that no one recocnizes her wherever she is. Or, if she is dead, and a missle, not the plane, hit the pentagon, why was she murdered, who did it, where is the body, etc?
You see, you cant look at these things in a vacuum. Why would she give up such a huge career? Did her husband know? Is he in on it?
-
Yes there are issues with the alleged call. i agree with that.
however, the woman was amajor media figure and very much in the spotlight. So either she is alive or dead correct?
So if you believe she is alive, you have to believe that no one recocnizes her wherever she is. Or, if she is dead, and a missle, not the plane, hit the pentagon, why was she murdered, who did it, where is the body, etc?
You see, you cant look at these things in a vacuum. Why would she give up such a huge career? Did her husband know? Is he in on it?
You have a lot of Qs about Olsen.
I think you're right - with this many questions and holes in the story... and with her alleged phone call being such a big part of selling the pentagon story despite minimal hole and plane parts...
Well, you're right. This would certainly warrant a new investigation, if only for the Qs you just asked. Great call bro.
-
I agreed that there were issues regarding the telephone call.
However, again, you live in Canada. She was a very public figure on tv and media all the time. Are you saying she is in on this CT since you now claim she is alove and well in Europe?
I said in anther post I said it is without question you are a lawyer, because you can not distinguish fact from fiction. I do not live in Canada neither am I Jag...how many times has that been said.
Public figure or not no one is deemed irreplaceable...every one and everything is expendable in the world of politics.
*Correction for you*
.
I DID NOT SAY BARBARA OLSON IS ALIVE AND WELL IN EUROPE...If you read the article (which you clearly haven't) in the link I provided you would have seen that the Germans found her in Europe in 2005. So yes indeed Barbra Olson like Condolezza Rice, Dick Cheney, George Bush and so many other were and are in on the DOMESTIC TERRORISM EVENT THAT OCCURRED IN AMERICA ON 911.
-
I thought you said you were in Toronto area?
-
This military expert.....
A proponent of psychic warfare, Stubblebine was involved in a US military project to create "a breed of 'super soldier'" who would "have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls". He encouraged visitors to his office to walk through walls and has said that the ability to do so is a great idea, but that it would also be a disappointment, similar to levitation.[3] He features prominently in Jon Ronson's book The Men Who Stare at Goats[6], where he is described as firmly believing that he himself can walk through walls.[7]
Are you fucking kidding me......
Oh that's hilarious. :)
-
BUMP