Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ted Olson LIED to cover up his wife's murder?!?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
A question for you all, if I may...

While I was chatting with a certain conspiracy theorist here...and I won't mention any names since my goal isn't to ridicule others here...this person made the quite flabberghasting accusation that Ted Olson was lying when he said he received a call from his wife Barbara from flight 77. I don't know whether this person realized it, but this necessarily not only means that Ted Olson is actively participating in the coverup of the 9/11 conspiracy (whatever that is), he's also actively involved in covering up the murder of his wife. My view is that making such a hard core accusation simply to advance one's political agenda is dragging his reputation and the grief of his loss through the gutters, which is disgusting and contemptable...BUT as many people here likewise claim, they really don't care what I think. BUT, I do care what YOU think.

I would like to throw this question out to the rest of you so that I can know whether the claim is generally subscribed to among the majority of conspiracy people or whether it's the lone theory of a fringe zealot who listens to Alex Jones too much:

Do YOU think Ted Olson is lying to cover up the murder of his wife Barbara?




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.

American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version
Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI
Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians


afpakwar.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
No, i don`t think he`s lying.
I think he probably did get the call/s from his wife but i don`t think she was on any of the planes that hit the towers.
I believe the planes were switched.
I don`t know what happened to the passengers of those planes but i think the planes that hit the towers were military.
I think phone calls made from the victims were made from the planes that they were on at maybe a low altitude.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Who says she's dead?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I recently read something, can't remember what, that insinuated that the call between Ted and Barbara never took place. I don't know wether it was because of theory that no cell phone calls could have been made because of the altitude, which i have no opinion on, or if it was because of some phone records obtained by the FBI.

So, Dave do you have any idea where this poster got this supposed info from to support such a claim? Can you atleast quote what this poster said and what information he based his claim on without giving his name away?

Edit: Nevermind, xavi1000 seems to have posted what i was looking for.
edit on 3-1-2011 by curious_soul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Well........the call definitely didn't happen from that plane, so what are the possible explanations?

Either he lied and was in on the whole thing, or
He did receive a call from his wife, but she wasn't on that plane, or
He did receive a call, but it wasn't from his wife.

Those are the options, take your favorite conspiracy and run with it, the only thing for certain is that the call did not come from anyone on that particular plane, so the official story is bunk!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


well dave, what is your goal here?

did ted olsen cover up his wifes murder? hard to say. like alot of things regarding that day, its hard to say without evidence. who said she was murdered? if conspiracists are right, well perhaps shes in protective custody, like witness protection. perhaps shes living at home with him. perhaps she was on the plane and they crashed it elsewhere. I recall during air france incident they found debris to several planes that they hadnt known about. theres a lot of scenarios.. but without a video showing 77 crashing at the pentagon, its safe to say she didnt die there..

ill have to dig



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


well dave, what is your goal here?


Well, consider it to be an attempt to help you along in your conspiracy theorizing.

The word "theory" means that you have an idea of something that hasn't been proven yet, and you're currently looking for evidence to prove it. It goes without saying there are more theories of how the 9/11 attack went down than there are guys who slept with Paris Hilton...well, maybe not that many, but you get the idea. It goes without saying that the lack of consistancy and unity is only hurting your chances of being taken seriously, 'cuase every time you try to show, for instance, how Bush was behind it, someone else comes out of the woodwork and insists the Jews were responsible and it makes you take two steps back.

So, perhaps you can identify the things you DO all agree on and start presenting your case from there. I wanted to know if Ted Olson consciously lying to cover up the murder of his wife was one of them.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


well dave, what is your goal here?


Well, consider it to be an attempt to help you along in your conspiracy theorizing.

Aaah, thanks for caring so much to try to help us out.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


well dave, what is your goal here?


Well, consider it to be an attempt to help you along in your conspiracy theorizing.

The word "theory" means that you have an idea of something that hasn't been proven yet, and you're currently looking for evidence to prove it. It goes without saying there are more theories of how the 9/11 attack went down than there are guys who slept with Paris Hilton...well, maybe not that many, but you get the idea. It goes without saying that the lack of consistancy and unity is only hurting your chances of being taken seriously, 'cuase every time you try to show, for instance, how Bush was behind it, someone else comes out of the woodwork and insists the Jews were responsible and it makes you take two steps back.

So, perhaps you can identify the things you DO all agree on and start presenting your case from there. I wanted to know if Ted Olson consciously lying to cover up the murder of his wife was one of them.


so you like to pit us against each other and derail our "theorizing"?
I know the OS is a theory.. I dont get why you dont see that.. since you just described what a theory is..

I would consider it a horrible act if ted had a clue what was up and he played heart strings on 9/11. in all aspects, whether he knows shes alive and said she died. or knows shes dead and put her there? or however it could play out... ill have to dig



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Who says she's dead?


Apparently everyone but you. Nice.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
[

Well, consider it to be an attempt to help you along in your conspiracy theorizing.



Well, coming from you, Dave, that's not something I am prepared to trust. Have you switched disinfo tactics for the new year? Or have you now come to acknowledge the holes in the OS? The latter is unlikely.

Since you believe the OS so completely, why don't you go and offer your services to them? Or better, why don't you ask the gubberment about this? Their theory hasn't been proven yet. I'm sure they would appreciate your services.




So, perhaps you can identify the things you DO all agree on



Those who do not believe the OS do not ALL need to agree on every detail. The Government's Official Conspiracy Theory has yet to be proven. That is the place to start. The Government has refused a proper investigation. Let's start with their evidence being properly investigated - that's the necessary first step.

What is this, a softly, softly approach to 'cause doubt' , 'undermine' and divide and conquer?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Honestly, Dave, the 'truthers' don't need your help - but when the Gubberment official theory is investigated, they will need all the help they can get. Thanks anyway.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Your question is the OP is very loaded, and full of assumptions Dave, as others have pointed out.

What I'm interested in is your opinion of the evidence given by the FBI and the airline which indicates that what Olson claimed happened, did not happen, or at least, could not have happened in the way he said/believed.

It seems like the evidence for this aspect of the "conspiracy theory" is actually rather strong and so I think the burden is actually on you to defend the story Olson gave, in the face of the strong evidence to the contrary.

And simply talking about how "disgusting", "contemptible" or "flabbergasting" a notion it is doesn't really cut it.
edit on 3-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Interesting, one person uses a story by DRG, that even DRG has since dropped because of it isn't true. AA's pr person might have said there were no airfone, but AA's maintenance folks have pointed out that there were still airfones on their jets at that time. And another person points out the FBI report that Barbara did not get through to her husband's office, but ignores the FBI report that SOMEONE on Flight 77 did indeed make a couple of phone calls from the jet TO Ted Olson's office...

Another shining example of "truthers" not bothering to look for the facts.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Well........the call definitely didn't happen from that plane, so what are the possible explanations?

Either he lied and was in on the whole thing, or
He did receive a call from his wife, but she wasn't on that plane, or
He did receive a call, but it wasn't from his wife.

Those are the options, take your favorite conspiracy and run with it, the only thing for certain is that the call did not come from anyone on that particular plane, so the official story is bunk!


It is all very well trying to sound emphatic but what exactly are your reasons for saying Barbara Olson's calls could not have been from AA 77 ?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
dave, if thats your real name.. I gotta say I respect ya, and would so a whole lot more if you werent so coin.

but for the time being you are an adversary, and dont believe your intentions. I still dont get what evidence proved the OS for ya, and I'd really wish you'd reconsider.. I wish you luck in your endeavor, but you cannot break us.. for we are not breakable.. truth lives and we (humanity) will uncover it.. and I wish you'd give us a hand uncovering it. maybe someday g.o.d.. maybe someeday

good luck bringing moral down with your ted olsen lied thread, as its just one piece of your own theory, the OS that has very little meaning or weight.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Those who do not believe the OS do not ALL need to agree on every detail. The Government's Official Conspiracy Theory has yet to be proven. That is the place to start. The Government has refused a proper investigation. Let's start with their evidence being properly investigated - that's the necessary first step.


All right, fine...but I don't need to point out this is NOT what you're doing, or at least, this isn't what the person insisting Ted Olson lied to cover up the murder of his wife is doing. It's clear you/he have such strong beliefs in his/your conspiracy theories that you're not even waiting to find out whether the 9/11 commission's take on things could be correct. You're just grabbing your own independent scenarios and then running with them as if they were already an established fact. Judy Wood filing lawsuits against NIST on the grounds they aren't taking her claims of lasers from outer space seriously is a sterling case in point.

If you don't believe your side needs to agree on every detail, all right, but how about agreeing on *some* details or even *one* detail, other than simply, "there's a conspiracy"? It seems to me that you can't even agree amongth yourselves over a simple question like whether Ted Olson is lying to cover up the murder of his wife.

So the question still stands- if you can't even agree amongs yourselves on what the conspiracy is, then how do any of us know your claims have any credibility?


What is this, a softly, softly approach to 'cause doubt' , 'undermine' and divide and conquer?


If you people can't even understand the obvious fact that you're already doing this to yourselves, then I hope you're prepared to slug it out here on ATS...because that's exactly as far as you're ever going to go with it.
edit on 3-1-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I think the trouble is that Barbara Olson reporting to her husband the hi-jacking of AA 77 is inconvenient for truthers. Simply on that basis it is apparently ok to accuse Ted Olson of complicity in his wife's murder or to imply she is on the run somewhere or had plastic surgery etc.

It all depends whether your message is pro-conspiracy or not. For example, if you are William Rodriguez or April Gallop you can lie, lie and lie again but still be a hero because what you are saying is increasingly what truthers want to hear.

As far as the facts themselves are concerned it seems that truthers almost always forget that it was never suggested that Ted Olson took the calls directly from his wife. They were taken by a Dept of Justice secretary Lori Keyton who spoke briefly to Barbara Olson on both occasions and put the calls through to Ted Olson. Lori Keyton spoke to the FBI about it on 9/11 itself and this is their record :-

intelfiles.egoplex.com...

Was Lori Keyton " in on it " too ?

Barbara Olson's calls were not the only ones from AA 77. Flight attendant Renee May phoned her parents at 0912, told them of the hi-jacking and asked them to phone American Airlines. They did phone American Airlines and how else could they have learnt of the hi-jacking except from their daughter ? They were the first people in the world to learn definitely. Were they " in on it " ?

For those who suggest the passengers were transferred to another aircraft bear this in mind. Neither Barbara Olson nor Renee May said anything about that. AA 77 took off at 0820 but didn't deviate from it's planned flightpath until 0854. The transponder was turned off at 0856 . The crash at the Pentagon was 0937. So, is it seriously suggested that in the 41 minutes between transponder turn-off and crash it was possible to land AA 77 somewhere unseen by anyone, transfer all the passengers and take off again ?

edit on 3-1-2011 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hey Dave, you really don't need to worry about us.


What we all agree on is that the OS has countless holes in it, and that events could not have happened as they describe and that a new, truly independent investigation is needed to establish the truth.

We don't need to agree on all aspect of the various theories of what DID happen - that is what the new investigation would be for - we just agree that the O.S. generally is impossible.

And I too think you are attempting a "divide and conquer" tactic here.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join