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

page: 6
46
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


I realise you are probably not here... and this page is old...

But I am reading through the FBI docs, and Peter Hanson's (flight 175) call whilst plane on the ground struck me odd.

That fbi doc was made on the morning of Sep 12 2001, and subsequently everywhere I have looked thus far says he called when the plane was in the air and the stewardess wasn't shot, like how it was in the initial FBI doc, but stabbed. It doesn't make sense. How come no one has questioned this??

vault.fbi.gov...

Does this mean that although there was a murder whilst plane still on tarmac, the plane was given orders to take off as planned??


Anyone? Thoughts?!




posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
If your not aware. Barbara olsen's call was the backbone of the 'terrorists with headbands and 'boxcutters' story.


Here's my personal challenge to you: visit Barbara Olsen and repeat this accusation to her face.

Let me know how that works out for you.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 






Here's my personal challenge to you: visit Barbara Olsen and repeat this accusation to her face.


Barbara Olson is dead.

You better chill with the trolling for a while.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by Sankari
 






Here's my personal challenge to you: visit Barbara Olsen and repeat this accusation to her face.


Barbara Olson is dead.

You better chill with the trolling for a while.


Seconded without hesitation.

Certain members around here seem to be treading on very thin ice..a simple search of post history is all the evidence one needs to prove a members agenda or otherwise...fair warning i think.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by auroraaus
reply to post by NIcon
 


I realise you are probably not here... and this page is old...

But I am reading through the FBI docs, and Peter Hanson's (flight 175) call whilst plane on the ground struck me odd.

That fbi doc was made on the morning of Sep 12 2001, and subsequently everywhere I have looked thus far says he called when the plane was in the air and the stewardess wasn't shot, like how it was in the initial FBI doc, but stabbed. It doesn't make sense. How come no one has questioned this??

vault.fbi.gov...

Does this mean that although there was a murder whilst plane still on tarmac, the plane was given orders to take off as planned??


Anyone? Thoughts?!


You may be interested in this reconstruction of United Airlines Flight 175. It is synchronized with the actual Air Traffic Control tapes.

The tapes show that communications between ATC and UA 175 were normal until about 30 mins into the flight so I think an earlier murder on the tarmac can be ruled out.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Brilliant!! Thank you for replying and posting that!!

I would tend to agree with ruling out a murder on the plane on the ground, with this evidence...

but...

My inner tin foil hat wearing self wonders if the initial FBI log was correct. And this plane had to get in the air.

I'm going to keep listening, I'm 10 mins in so I'll see what comes up.

Thank you once again!



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by auroraaus
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Brilliant!! Thank you for replying and posting that!!

I would tend to agree with ruling out a murder on the plane on the ground, with this evidence...

but...

My inner tin foil hat wearing self wonders if the initial FBI log was correct. And this plane had to get in the air.

I'm going to keep listening, I'm 10 mins in so I'll see what comes up.

Thank you once again!


The report you cite said that at 10:20 Peter Hanson of flight 175 called in and said a flight attendant had been shot. Seeing flight 175 smashed into th south tower at 9:03 it means it didn't even exist at the time the report claimed Peter Hanson called out.

I think it's a given why this document is in their document vault; it was apparently a first draft chock full of mistakes and they tucked it away as a reference for future revisions. You're essentially digging through their trash and complaining about the mistakes that got the paper put into the trash to begin with.

Don't you think this is grasping at straws just a tad? Not even a little?



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Thank you for your input and another perspective for me to look from, I do appreciate it.

I don't believe I was going out of my way to "clutch at straws" as you have said. I'm genuinely interested in the variability of information that is out there and interested in what others have to say, whether they believe 9/11 was an inside job or not.

I was out in the bush on camp and in our cabins we watched live as people jumped to their own deaths before witnessing two seemingly strong towers collapse, falling and crushing almost everything in their wake.

A couple of years previous I watched an implosion unfold before my eyes... unfortunately the implosion turned out to be an explosion and killed a girl one year older than myself.

At least with her death, they found more tangible answers... but for me, I "clutch at straws".

I'm not however, having a go at you, just stating my perspective, as I am also taking in your own perspective. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by auroraaus
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Thank you for your input and another perspective for me to look from, I do appreciate it.

I don't believe I was going out of my way to "clutch at straws" as you have said. I'm genuinely interested in the variability of information that is out there and interested in what others have to say, whether they believe 9/11 was an inside job or not.

I was out in the bush on camp and in our cabins we watched live as people jumped to their own deaths before witnessing two seemingly strong towers collapse, falling and crushing almost everything in their wake.

A couple of years previous I watched an implosion unfold before my eyes... unfortunately the implosion turned out to be an explosion and killed a girl one year older than myself.

At least with her death, they found more tangible answers... but for me, I "clutch at straws".

I'm not however, having a go at you, just stating my perspective, as I am also taking in your own perspective. Thank you.


You misunderstand me. I'm not here to "have a go with people". I'm here to point out something which conspiracy pundits uniformly overlook. Regardless of what we saw happen, what we were told happened, and what actually happened, on 9/11 there are two undebatable, clad in armor truths which cannot be argued-

1) Lots of things happend that day which noone ever saw before, and

2) lots and lots and LOTS of con artists and/or paranoid kooks are conjuring up their own explanation for the things that happened which noone saw before, either to make a fast buck off us or to get us to become as unreasonably paranoid as they themselves are.

Thus, we see a very large building collapse and characters start imagining they were destroyed by lasers from outer space. We see a plane smack into a building and people start imagining they're really holograms. And so on and so forth. Knowing that the 9/11 conspiracy movement are populated by con artists and/or paranoid kooks, the first step to perform true research is to first determine what sources of information can be considered credible and what probably won't be credible, correct? After all, you're not going to search out a drunk lying in his own urine in a back alley on Saturday night and ask him for "the truth" on what happened on 9/11 simply because you know he's going to give you an alternative explanation, are you?



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Mr Dave?

We need a private chat, please message me



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I don't know.
I'm no kook.
I don't need lasers or holograms.
Just 3 straws to grasp will work for me;

Cheney
Blackwater
State of the Art explosives

But I guess no motive...
It's not like Cheney or Blackwater
made a ton of money in the ensuing war ....
Right?



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 





It's not like Cheney or Blackwater

Consider Cheney's health at the time.
He had already had several heart attacks.
Power and greed goes out the window after your first. You just want to live to a normal age.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
But I guess no motive...
It's not like Cheney or Blackwater
made a ton of money in the ensuing war ....
Right?


Name one conflict in all of human history where somebody or another didn't make a ton of money off it. During the civil war, contractors made huge profits by selling the gov't shoes for the union armies, but it's beyond idiotic to claim the civil war was just a flalse flag conspiracy to sell shoes.

This is nothing but innuendo dropping, and the only reason why people resort to dropping innuendo is because they don't have any actual proof to back up their accusations. Yoiu do know that, right?
edit on 15-6-2013 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
I don't know.
I'm no kook.
I don't need lasers or holograms.
Just 3 straws to grasp will work for me;

Cheney
Blackwater
State of the Art explosives

But I guess no motive...
It's not like Cheney or Blackwater
made a ton of money in the ensuing war ....
Right?


I guess one needs to personally determine if they think planes hit the towers or not. To suggest not then that spirals down some really kooky paths of reasoning i.e. lasers, alien holographs etc.... To suggest they did but it was different planes then we have a lot of missing people and even crazier people then those that did it for basically religious reasons. There are no other reasons to kill oneself that fit since religious reasons are the only ones that would follow you past death.

To suggest it was a setup with planes hitting but augmented with "State of the Art explosives" all one would need to look at is the complexity of variables to see this would almost be impossible to do. As one simple example: How could they predict where the planes would hit? Both buildings started their collapse at the impact points that could have been anywhere on the buildings. Kind of hard (impossible?) to sync up explosives ahead of time to such a huge variable.

We also have little things like the tower that was hit second collapsed first due to many more floors above the impact point. Things like this can not be planned or played out.

All in all we typically have a Government that can not do anything right, but when it comes to conspiracies they are perfect, and we can't have it both ways.....


edit on 15-6-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
46
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join