It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Olson phone calls questioned. 3 official denials.

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Even with AA saying that they have never had airphones on that type of plane before?

OK, lets say it is a mistake, are you saying I guess that the posts above about the FBI commenting on these matters is false? I am not saying I agree or disagree with you, but would like to know why you think that. Is it because the statements made above are outright false? Or you just choose not to believe that?




posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


Not being difficult, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking me. Could you rephrase?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


ok..


1) After reading about the FBI testimony where they said these phone calls did not take place, why do you still choose to believe they did? And lets just also say the comment from American Airlines was an error on the airlines behalf and they really did have airphones on that flight.. Is it :


a) Because you think the story is outright falsified and made up, and that the FBI would not say this? Whomever made this story up is taking something out of context, or just making a fabrication?

b) Because you just choose not to believe this for other reasons etc.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 



Even with AA saying that they have never had airphones on that type of plane before?


Before the discussion moves to FBI...thi sshould be cleared up.

That WAS a mistake, on the part of some AAL spokesperson.

There are other links, in this thread (or another, not sure where) that clear that up.

THIS is from United 93: (I know, but the two airlines are fierce competitors...)




posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


OK, was DEFINITELY A MISTAKE?

OK, I can agree/at least go along with this..

Please continue..



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


David Ray Griffin is full of the bunk, it seems.

You may wish to read this other viewpoint, and see if it makes better sense, and shows the duplicity of "Dr." Griffin:

www.911myths.com...



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Lot of contradictory information on that webpage coming from both sides..

Lots of "unknown" calls as well.. come on unknown calls?.. They have to know what was up..

Also it seems if someone really wanted to know they could check her cell phone records as well to see if these calls have actually taken place. I am sure there has been no investigation into that though..

Still on the fence here, but I gotta say I am still leaning towards these being bunk/manufactured..



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Thanks, I get you now.



Originally posted by GreenBicMan

1) After reading about the FBI testimony where they said these phone calls did not take place, why do you still choose to believe they did?


The key word in your post is "about". We've read about it, but not actually the testimony itself. Furthermore one has read a report of it by an individual who, as shown below, is not always careful with his handling of sources.

Griffin suggests that

--- the FBI report attributed only one call
to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of
course) lasted “0 seconds.”

This is true. But DRG is being intentionally misleading. There are five other unattributed calls, four of which could easily be from Barbara to her husband.

So, in summary I don't choose to disbelieve the FBI, because there's no evidence that they said what you suggest. I do however choose to hold DRG'd "work" in very low regard.




And lets just also say the comment from American Airlines was an error on the airlines behalf and they really did have airphones on that flight..


Let's indeed suggest it. In fact even DRG concurs - and admits his mistake here

www.911blogger.com...

and a more traditional source on seatback phones

news.cnet.com...






Is it : a) Because you think the story is outright falsified and made up, and that the FBI would not say this?


As above, yes. Until someone shows me a primary source, I surmise that we are being misled.




b) Because you just choose not to believe this for other reasons etc.


I think I have pretty firm grounds for not believing it, and have shown them. Posters on here are often eager to say "follow the money", like a character from The Wire. Well, ask yourself - who has the most to gain from this small fabrication? The FBI, or the man who sells books and gets asked to go on radio shows?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Another possibility could be that Mr Olsen was approached by someone and was told something like, "We deeply regret the loss of your wife and offer our deepest condolenses. The question is: Do you want to see the sobs who did this brought to justice? If so, then there`s something you can do to help. We need to bring your wife`s death to the attention of the American people. We think the best way to do this is if you claimed to receive phone calls from your wife while the hijacking took place. We believe this will help us to emphasize that an American Conservative(or whatever) was murdered by ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS. then we can get the green light to go ahead and commence with the invasion of the Middle East. We are counting on you, Olsen. The President of the United States is counting on you as well as the American people, they are counting on you to help us defend and protect their freedom. So what do ya say, can we count on you, Mr. Olsen? Please keep in mind that if you say no, my crystal ball predicts that you just might have to go and commit suicide in a dark alley somewhere...So what do you think, do we understand eachother? ...Great, I knew you would see things our way."
That`s probably not how it went down but it`s a possibility. Or maybe he was in on the 911 thing and he wanted to get rid of his wife so he could get with the other woman so he arranged for his wife to be on "hijacked" flight . And the reason they look alike is because he is attracted to women who look like that. He could even have a specific thing for girls who part their hair a certain way. Serial killer Ted Bundy`s victims all had hair parted down the middle, just like his ex girlfriend (he was madly in love but she rejected him which spurred his rampage).


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


No, I hear where you are coming from. There is a lot of bunk ass information as some has already been (seemingly) debunked on this thread.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


Thanks for being "the voice of reason" but please remember that ATS is a conspiracy based website so if the theory's annoy or bother you then perhaps you need to move on.

Good day.



Not really sure exactly how you came to the assumption that I was annoyed/bothered by your theory about Lady Booth.

I myself have posted some rather misinformed threads.They always seem to rise out of a lack of information, in this case, I suspected that(especially being that LadyB is a lawyer) there would be a very large amount of public information(not to mention private stuff like childhood photos and videos, family and friends) that would beyond a shadow of doubt prove that Lady Booth existed well before 9/11 and was not Barb Olson.

As I suspected, Alfie1 has already located some of this information(posted in another thread), no doubt more will be forth coming.

We really should look at all sides of the problem before we theorize about that problem. Especially, one as sensitive as claiming a mans new wife is really his previously deceased wife who died in the 9/11 attacks. IMHO

[edit on 14-4-2010 by PersonalChoice]

[edit on 14-4-2010 by PersonalChoice]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 





Especially, one as sensitive as claiming a mans new wife is really his previously deceased wife who died in the 9/11 attacks.


No more "less sensitive" as no plane theorys, WTC Towers blown up by demolitions and such.

No more "less sensitive" than the FBI and American Airlines stopping short of calling Ted Olsen a liar.

No more "less sensitive" compared to lying to the American people about what happened on 911 then having the balls to pretend to know the answers rest with the OS. Which was developed in haste by Bush and his band of crooks because all they wanted was to finish what Bush Sr didn't finish in the desert. Yet a bunch of soft minded candy-asses want to come onto ATS with their Obama minds full of slick willy styled rehtoric and chide those of us who ask questions. Just my opinion though.

Take care.





[edit on 4/14/2010 by mikelee]



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join