UPDATE YOUR FILES: No Barbara Olson Phone Call - It was a LIE!

Originally posted by govtflu
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

Here are photos of further tampering.. people collecting airplane parts / other evidence.. rather than marking them: www.rumormillnews.com...

The primary source of that article, Sam Danner, has admitted to making up the whole story. He was never at the Pentagon in the first place.

And there was no need to collect and mark evidence, as it fairly soon became obvious what had happened there. You can read all about that in the book called Firefight by Patrick Creed and Rick Newman.

Originally posted by TWILITE22

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
So the bottom line is the fact that the whole Barbara Olsen story which includes the whole back story of Middle eastern Terrorists, head bands, and the famous box cutters were a COMPLETE fabrication.

The official story is a fabrication. Dont let anyone try to convince you otherwise.

What I don't get is how she boarded her plane without identification,I mean Ted Olson stated that she did not have her purse with her and I know for a fact that you cannot board the plane without one.another thing I cannot wrap my head around is why would the pilots give up the cockpits over a few box cutters?I just don't believe they would have given up that easily nothing of the os adds up.

Ted Olson didn't know for sure. Keep in mind that Barbara Olson had been seated in business class and that she, along with the rest of the passengers and crew had been herded to the back of the plane, it is entirely plausible that she may have left her purse at her seat. For instance if she had kept it in a bag that went in the overhead compartment.

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by govtflu
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

Here are photos of further tampering.. people collecting airplane parts / other evidence.. rather than marking them: www.rumormillnews.com...

The primary source of that article, Sam Danner, has admitted to making up the whole story. He was never at the Pentagon in the first place.

And there was no need to collect and mark evidence, as it fairly soon became obvious what had happened there. You can read all about that in the book called Firefight by Patrick Creed and Rick Newman.

edit on 17-10-2010 by roboe because: (no reason given)

To a trained investigator, NOTHING is obvious.. every crime scene is treated PER POLICY with the same meticulous care, "by the numbers" because everybody is a suspect. Not even bush could tell pentagon incident investigators what happened. The only obvious thing was apparent explosive damage to the pentagon.

Your excuse is hilarious because every police dept/law enforcement/Federal/ and/or "official" agency has a written POLICY that will be adhered to. Law Enforcement & other "official" investigators are also usually "sworn" to uphold a "duty".. one of those duties is to follow policy, and policy says all crime scenes are processed the same way, every time, always, period,... to the exclusion of all else. Ergo it's part of one "duty" to process all crimes scenes per policy with the same level of un-biased professionalism... even if a suspect is a fellow govt employee.

I defy you to find one iota of official law enforcement/accident investigators crime/incident scene policy that even hints to treat "obvious" crime scenes different from, uh.. "not obvious"? That could be the weakest excuse on the entire internet.

edit:
Interesting that media clowns, government shills and political parties KNOWN to lie/wildly exaggerated war into being (Gulf of Tonkin/Iraq) THEN support the lie until some 70,000 US kids were dead... these same people were telling us what happened minutes afterward on 9/11..or as in the case of BBC.. minutes BEFORE... LONG before incident investigators on the ground had a reasonable amount of time to even definitively figure out WTF just happened. Keep in mind incident investigators probably did not see planes fly into buildings and hadn't had time to sift through the debris & compare it to witness statements, the Airlines statement and what physical evidence they found on the scene... all of which need to be compared, analyzed, diagrammed, verified.. hours of work needs to be done before an investigator can properly perform their duty.

Unprecedented, never before in history poop was going down.. yet what became the official story was being opined on the airways in mere minutes by political insiders, pundits and other assorted characters who didn't have the slightest idea what on scene investigators knew.. and just happened to have nothing more important to do on 9/11 than be available in the middle of a work day to blather about an incident they cant possibly have a tangible clue about. Amazingly enough, these guys on TV solved the story long before the people actually investigating.. lmao

reply to post by govtflu

*scratches head*

I'm not exactly sure what that rant was all about, but just for you, I'll cite the relevant section of the book:

Then he (Special Agent John Adams) took up another matter: how to deal with all the physical evidence on the scene. At the beginning, it made sense to gather up every part of the airplane, or anything else that might help document the crimes. But there was an overwhelming amount of debris. Plus, more than 24 hours later, there was little mystery about what had happened: Terrorists had hijacked the plane and deliberately flown it into the Pentagon. Yet agents were still gathering evidence as if the Bureau needed to piece together a giant puzzle. At one point Adams saw several agents picking up some wreckage that looked like airplane and parts and bringing them over to the FBI command post. "What are they doing?" he said to a colleague. "Cleaning the lawn?"

Several FBI supervisor got together to discuss what, exactly, the recovery effort was supposed to recover. One supervisor aruged that every airplane part was significant and ought to be treated as valuable evidence. "That can't be," Adams countered. "We know what happened here. Do we really need to collect every piece of the airplane?"

It goes on to describe how the NTSB crash specialists on the scene weren't interested in airplane parts either, apart from the black boxes.

ETA: Just re-read an earlier section of the book, which describes the effort by Special Agent Garrett McKenzie to photograph as much of the crime scene in its original state, prior to the rescue and recovery operation going into full swing.

Hi folks. I realize this is extremely old but I'm new here and ran into this thread through a research effort. I'm just wondering if the excerpt from that book doesn't give further evidence from fist hand on the scene sources of how inappropriately the initial site management was handled? Very early on a small faction was trying to organize and catalogue evidence, and others running be site are basically saying there is no need since the cause is already determined. While this may support photos of men collecting pieces of wreckage, doesn't it just prove that the crash site management wasn't taken seriously enough? a reply to: roboe

a reply to: TheBolt

I commend you on your diligent research.... I have no answers myself; but I suspect you - and many others - can sense the vacuum of information... I usually collect the various ways they contrive to fill them. Good luck!