For the record.....

I believe that Barbara Olson is a VICTIM.

I question the motives and involvement of her husband Ted Olson who has said under oath as a witness in front of the supreme court:

"There are lots of different situations when the government has legitimate reasons to give out false information."

It is well known that in most murder cases of married women that the husband is quite often the culprit and therefore always a suspect by default.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If you STILL don't understand the implications of this then I doubt you have the mental capacity to ever understand. Most likely it is just denial.

This is a good example of how to lose an argument, when one resorts to questioning the mental capacity of another.

Is there any point in asking people involved here to keep the discussion civil, and avoid making it or taking it personal?

Please, keep the discussion civil, and by all means please avoid personal attacks of any kind.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Craig...once again your wrong. There were actually in addition to those two calls...4 more calls made to unknown numbers. And one more than never got connected.

Flight 93 was DELAYED... the passengers had heard from loved one about the highjackings... they KNEW their fate!

Barbara Olson allegedly asked what she should tell Chick Burlingame, the pilot, who was allegedly coward in the back of the plane with her AFTER the 2nd tower was hit.

You don't think she would have had a pretty good idea of her fate?

Calls to "unknown numbers" by who? Evidence?

Obviously you have none otherwise you would have posted it.

Hey Craig, show me the transcript of the last phone call you made to your mother! TALK ABOUT STRAWMEN!!

How about a single quote? Quotes and transcripts exist of the other alleged calls. I am not saying that this is proof of anything. Simply that the evidence in support of the official story is flimsy while evidence in support of the north side claim is rock solid.

There you have it... a "victim" as Craig put it... but since its the wife of a "croonie" it must be collateral damage...she was sacrificed for the good of the country!! Why? Well becasue husbands do that.

No because Olson has ADMITTED to the Supreme court that it's OK for the government to lie and because the evidence the plane flew on the north side of the citgo is extremely strong while this particular evidence in support of the official deception is extremely weak.

IS anyone else reading this filth that he is posting?
I guess if you keep repeating the word STRAWMAN... some others will come to your aid and help you with your theory.... which come to think of it... you can't come up with...

I am posting heavily researched and supported facts.

You are posting empty rhetoric and attacks.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

This is a good example of how to lose an argument, when one resorts to questioning the mental capacity of another.

Do you honestly and truthfully believe that I am "losing" this argument?

The question is rhetorical.

Sleep on it.

I did not report the witnesses that "agreed" with me.

I am not a witness to the plane.

I am a reporter who set out to determine where the eyewitnesses saw the plane fly.

The results are conclusive since all the witnesses agree.

I'm sorry that you refuse to accept where everyone who was actually present on that day saw the plane.

I'm sorry that you are so upset that it conflicts with the official story.

But I did not have a belief about what side of the station the plane flew until all the eyewitnesses who were actually there and can prove it told me the same thing.

The plane flew on the north side of the gas station.

Per 3 witnesses! Thats all you got Craig. 3 ...that does NOT prove anything. We have close to a hundred that saw a plane slam into the pentagon... You say that they didn't see that.... well... where is your proof to that ?? Of all the witnesses that have come forward ... NONE stated that the plane at the last moment pulled up. NONE! Your theory although interesting and well researched..is baseless.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Per 3 witnesses! Thats all you got Craig. 3 ...that does NOT prove anything. We have close to a hundred that saw a plane slam into the pentagon... You say that they didn't see that.... well... where is your proof to that ?? Of all the witnesses that have come forward ... NONE stated that the plane at the last moment pulled up. NONE! Your theory although interesting and well researched..is baseless.

3 critical witnesses with ZERO refuting them and another corroborating them up the street.

You are INCORRECT or dishonest in your erroneous claim that "close to a hundred" literally saw the plane hit the building.

Believing/deducing an impact does not count as witnessing it.

You are also incorrect or dishonest in your statement that "none" saw it pull up because that is EXACTLY what Robert Turcios saw.




And he would have had the best possible vantage point of any last moment pull up.

"Close Staff Scrutiny" in the 9/11 forum is not a joke or recommendation... it means we're watching for members insulting or attacking other members.

It seems the "9/11 conspiracy" topic either brings out the worst in people, or brings out the worst people, or both.

This thread is closed... and we have a couple temporary posting bans as a result.