Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

BREAKING 9/11 NEWS: FBI Says Barbara Olsen Did Not Call Ted Olsen. Bush Solicitor General LIED !!

page: 3
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
Right! I am going to take the Goverments word. After all THEY never have told us the truth about anything have they.


I'm sure many others here are taking the exact same position as you are. In other words, you pick and choose what you want to believe from the government based on how it fits into your preconceived theories. If the FBI says no cell phone call was made, sure, you'll jump on that like a bulldog on a porkchop, but if the FBI adds that FOUR calls from a plane phone were connected to the DOJ and they believe it was Barb trying to reach her husband, well, we can't trust that because the FBI is the goobmint!

Pretzel logic.




posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
Well it's not too obvious what happened. The first connected phone call in question started at 9:15:34 which is before the unconnected call attributed to Barbara Olsen, which was at 9:18:58.


Ok, so her seatback call gets disconnected and she tries to call right back with her cell, which doesn't connect. She may have thought her cell would work at that point. It didn't, so she went back to the seatback phone. So what? Either way, she's trying desperately to reach her husband between the 2 phones.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GLDNGUN
 


Your right about that too.
I just have a hard time believing anything the Goverment says anymore.
I think the truth about 911 is buried for ever.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
WHAT!?! Oh dear!

What next?! Next you people are going to start to believe 911 was an inside job...


watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
Your right about that too.
I just have a hard time believing anything the Goverment says anymore.


I certainly understand the sentiment. While I don't see a conspiracy under every rock, I don't have much faith in government, either. It's not what the government is doing behind closed doors that worries me as much is what we've allowed it to do, and in some cases demand it do, right before our very eyes. Ultimately, we get the government we deserve. But that's another topic for another thread.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GLDNGUN
 

Gldngun, you may be right about this. I was just pointing out that your first scenario wasn't correct. Your second scenario could be right... or it could be wrong, too. We will never know until we get more information. The FBI may believe the four calls in question were from Barbara, but I'll hold my opinion until they release more evidence rather than their beliefs.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by GLDNGUN
 

Gldngun, you may be right about this. I was just pointing out that your first scenario wasn't correct. Your second scenario could be right... or it could be wrong, too. We will never know until we get more information. The FBI may believe the four calls in question were from Barbara, but I'll hold my opinion until they release more evidence rather than their beliefs.


Yes, the fine details are a little fuzzy, as one might expect them to be under the circumstances of the call and the day of 9/11. But those making a big deal out of the FBI saying Barb's cell call lasted for 0 seconds are guilty of wretched "journalism". It in no way effects Ted Olsen's story. And, as already pointed out, those jumping all over this information from the FBI will conveniently ignore anything from the FBI that doesn't fit into their pet theory.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Time makes memories blur ... so, this link takes you to an article written the day after 911. Note though, the article is from Washington Post, and those of you who KNOW the whole Bush and Reverend Moon story might connect a few dots. Anyway, the article starts off mentioning "cell phones" but does NOT say that Barbara used a cell phone on EITHER of her TWO phonecalls to her husband. Maybe the MKUltra juice-your-brain-with-nonsense operatives got to her husband?

www.washingtonpost.com...

Edit: I checked my Bush - Reverend Moon files and it's the Washington TIMES that Reverend Moon owns ... NOT the Washington Post. My apologies to the Washington Post. And this is for Reverend Moon and his newspaper


[edit on 22-2-2008 by Trexter Ziam]



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
No evidence, DRG just talks about it with no facts. Great way to make up a story, just say what you want and use hearsay. No fault misinformation. Griffin just says so! No facts. I have to read that again, I can not believe some one posted such tripe as worthy for discussion unless this is a study on how to lie without fault; just sort of make it up but blame you lack of evidence by using hearsay information

Sorry I was just thinking out loud as I look and fail to find facts to backup Griffin's implied conclusion

Oh, the (full) article is an advertisement for a fictional book with more made up implied conclusions. Slick. Sell books with false information.

What a sham. Buyer beware...



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
Time makes memories blur ... so, this link takes you to an article written the day after 911. Note though, the article is from Washington Post, and those of you who KNOW the whole Bush and Reverend Moon story might connect a few dots. Anyway, the article starts off mentioning "cell phones" but does NOT say that Barbara used a cell phone on EITHER of her TWO phonecalls to her husband. Maybe the MKUltra juice-your-brain-with-nonsense operatives got to her husband?

www.washingtonpost.com...


Now what are you babbling about? Bush and Moon and the Wash Post? Wow, these fumes ARE bad for your brain. And since the article does NOT say that husband and wife talked on a cell phone, that somehow proves that "they" just got to him right away? LOL Wow, do I feel sorry for some of you people. It's no wonder your minds are fertile ground for the garbage spoon fed to you by the conspiracy profiteers.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:




Thank you for contacting Customer Relations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to assist you.




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. However, the pilots are able to stay in constant contact with the Air Traffic Control tower.




Mr. XXXXXXXX, I hope this information is helpful. It is a privilege to serve you.




Sincerely,
Chad W. Kinder
Customer Relations
American Airlines


pilotsfor911truth.org...

Wow, No seatback cell phones. Its quite obvious now that the 911 official story is unraveling at an alarming rate.

[edit on 21-2-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I vividly remember the incident. Mrs. Olsen was reported to be some what cavalier in her "call" to her husband; nothing suspicous given the surreal circumstance she found herself suddenly thrust into. What I also remember was Mr. Olsen's position as the White House's Solicitor General and I was shocked that the horror of that day knew no boundaries and was touching so many people.
I also remember Mr. Olsen's chillingly extreme composure when interviewed that day. I dismissed his demeanor remembering how I have acted when in a crisis - composed and contained. I was struck by how the networks underplayed it. Now, this new information just piles on more controversy that will either play out for another 40 years (like the JFK assassination) or reach a point where the American people demand that a new administration in Washington D.C. will conduct a fresh investigation into what I now feel was no less than the greatest slight of hand played out to America and the World by a genuine "shadow government". It rivals anything the creators of the movie, "Wag The Dog" could have not conceived of in their wildest and most sinister dreams.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


And we know that this letter to Mr. XXXXXX is authentic how again?

Even if it was, notice the PRESENT TENSE of the response? Apparently, those phones were NOT in the planes when the letter would have been written. It wouldn't be the first time a "customer service" rep for an airline was wrong, and not certainly not the last.

Get back to us when you've talked to this person yourself.

The SAME FBI that you are gushing over about Barbara's cell phone call not connecting is the SAME FBI saying several PLANE PHONE calls DID go through. This again is consistent with what Ted Olsen has said.

If you dare to read some reality from someone with first-hand knowledge you might try this:

www.ratical.org...



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Call them and find out for yourself. Research this yourself.

You want proof to come in the form of a link from Cnn, not going to happen.


This has been researched and posters coming on and saying "I dont understand", "it cant be real", "nothing to see here" should really be ignored till you research all information for yourself.

.




[edit on 21-2-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by GLDNGUN
 


no seatback phones at all on flight 77
wow now there is a fact that destroys a lot of argument
so the question is What phone calls?



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Well done Ivan .
You have seemed to have quietened that somewhat unruly crowd
with a few, I hope, FACTS.
Now lets hound the receiver of said calls if he stays alive long enough.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I would like to say that I have a friend who flys a lot, and she has since 2000 been able to contact myself and her mother while in flight, from her cell phone. Of course the call has been lost or dissconnected before, but we have also carried on 30 minute conversations.

I must agree with another poster here who states that it is possible she used another passenger's phone. I don't buy in to a theory that our government caused 9/11, but I have always believed that our government shot down flight 93 to stop it from being used as a weapon, it was going to hit the whitehouse, and they blew it up. That is why there isn't any plane to find and investigate. Perhaps this sacrifice leads others to belive the entire event was staged by our own government. As for flight 77, and the phone calls, It is my opinion that there are more than one way to explain this.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
This is definitely fishing for evidence to support 9-11 Conspiracy theorists. When 9-11 occured I lived near the Pentagon, and I happen to know many who worked there. I know from personal acquaintences that a passenger flight did indeed strike the Pentagon as stated. One of those I know was an Air Force Officer who happened to be in the parking lot when he witnessed the attack. He had a clear line of visibility, and obviously an expertise that revolved around aerial craft. I was getting reports from him minutes after the attack took place, and the accounts as stated by the general media are true.

First and foremost this was no missile, that garbage needs to be tossed for the most obvious of evidence. Light poles on I-395, Washington Blvd, and Rt. 110 were knocked over by the 757, and a missile does not bounce off of objects then hit its target. Second I witnessed the damage myself, and it was larger than a missile attack.

Third, the damage present was also larger than what a fighter jet would leave, as some have speculated. A fighter jet would also not run into light poles and other objects.

I saw the damage firsthand not even a day after the attacks, and it was a giant gaping hole, with the sorrounding area charred black by an intense fire. Most fail to ever grasp or realize the truly immense nature of the Pentagon structure. It is a huge building with a height of around 77 feet, this 757 only had a height of around 30-35 feet (discounting the landing gear which would matter little, and snap off in such an intense crash). That hole was completely on par with a 757 sized passenger jet, and I have no doubt that such a jet did in fact impact the Westside of the structure.

Some question the FBI for not releasing the full footage of all security cameras in relation to the attacks. The one thing none of you should forget is that the FBI is first and foremost an investigative agency. Part of their responsibility lies with the obtaining and maintaining of evidence in relation to criminal cases. During any active cases, and sometimes even with closed cases, crucial evidence is regularly kept sealed. There are many reasons for sealed evidence, but for the most part it has to do with the all to common problem of tainting it. If any future cases are brought forth where the prosecution finds a need to rely on a particular piece of evidence, they must be certain that the evidence has not been compromised in any way, shape, or form. Allowing for 100% of the Security Camera footage from 9-11 to be made public would take away all leverage investigators would have against suspects and defendants. Everyone would have complete knowledge of exactly how the aircraft made its approach, and imagine how many "Witnesses" we would have attempting to testify? The true witnesses of that day represent crucial evidence, and in allowing the tapes to become full public knowledge would seriously compromise their validity in the court room.

I understand that many of you had no firsthand experience with the attacks that occured that day, and thus you are entitled to various opinions. However, for me to hear such theories when in reality I saw the damage firsthand, and my trusted acquaintences witnessed the attack as it took place, leaves me feeling frustrated, insulted, and absolutely dismayed. I have no sworn testimony to provide you, no smoking gun footage, and no photographs, but I myself do know what occured, and if sharing my account of that day even provided a little more insight into what actually took place, then that is all for the better.



[edit on 2-22-2008 by TheAgentNineteen]



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 


That bit of information was a flimsy attempt to assert an authoritative tone of voice overtop your agenda, which fails to address the real issues I might add. Your first-hand accounts will always fall short against the collective common sense.


I felt compelled to say that, no hard feelings please.


AAC



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Those so called bent over poles don't make sense to me
Personally they looked like a truck ran them over for in my opinion one picture shows a pole bent at the base I would've thought that a wing of a jet flying full bore would or should have annilated it instead of a nice neat little fold at the base and bent so nicely and neatly over.





new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join