Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
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 " ?


I think it goes without saying that the person who originally made the accusation, made the accusation NOT becuase of any particular dislike he had for Ted Olson. He made it because Ted Olson's testimony supports the claim that calls were really made from flight 77. Therefore, yes, anyone else making eyewitness claims of calls from flight 77 would by definition be in on it and/or was suckered by a voice synthesyzer and/or is covering up the murder of their loved ones, including Lori Keyton and the parents of Renee May.

Whatever one eyewitness is doing, it's a given all the other eyewitnesses are doing the same thing. They're not going to synthesise Barbara Olsen's voice while allowing Renee May call out for real, 'cause you mught as well say they both called out for real. Can the conspiracy theorists agree on that, at least?




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
.



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.



No, Dave, that's not going to work. You are conflating 'the person insisting Ted O lied' with my own personal views on this, about which you know nothing at all. I have said nothing at all on the subject of Ted O, or whether I think he's lying. You're simply trying to discredit me by association.



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.

Oh, I've waited several years. Serious anomalies are apparent, which those responsible for the 9/11 commission have not answered, nor does it seem they have any intention of doing so. The Commission is a red herring anyway - what is needed, what has been requested again and again is a proper investigation...that has never happened. That is what needs to happen. The Commission was not a proper investigation...it has had it's day. There are many questions which will have to be answered in a proper, honest, rigorous, criminal investigation. The world has paid the price for the 'conspiracy theory' adopted by the government, now it's time they prove their own theory through submitting it to a proper investigation.


You're just grabbing your own independent scenarios and then running with them as if they were already an established fact.

No, that's what the government did, and it has cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Now it's time for them to prove their theory.



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.

That's a secondary issue, born of the fact that the government refuses a proper, official, honest, thorough, criminal investigation.




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"?


Many people do agree on many things - not everyone agrees on everything. The fact that you seem to be insisting that should be the case is unrealistic and, frankly ridiculous. The fact is, it doesn't matter, because it's not necessary. Not even all those involved in the Commission Report agree with it, or even agree it wasn't rigged and corrupt. Many scientific analyses which have been done subsequently represent information which is very relevant to a proper investigation. As I said, the first step is to investigate the government's own conspiracy theory and prove or disprove it - all the other information can be studied and sifted as part of that investigation. It needs to be a proper criminal investigation.



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.



Why is that surprising? It's one aspect, and since there is as yet no definitive, 100% conclusive evidence either way, it's not surprising. As I said earlier, not even those involved in the 9/11 commission report agree that it was accurate or that it wasn't corrupt, yet you still refer to it as the definitive document. So, pot and black come to mind here.



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?


So, you're saying that if all the truthers don't agree on every single point they don't have an argument? Rubbish. That's a totally false premise and you know it....and another known disinfo strategy.

And if even all those involved with the Commission Report don't believe in its integrity, why do you? And more importantly, why should anyone else?




If you people can't even understand the obvious fact that you're already doing this to yourselves,



That's only true if someone adopts your own false premise. There is across the board agreement that the OS is not reliable, that there are many, many unanswered questions and that a proper criminal investigation should be carried out.


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.

I know that's what you and your bosses believe - but one day the truth will be told and those responsible will pay the price.




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



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


woah woah woah... when does a phone call = eyewitness testimony? isnt that hearsay? without a recording of the conversation, it didnt happen. just speculation and hearsay. and they didnt see anything, thus its not an eyewitness testimony. wow dave..



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 



woah woah woah... when does a phone call = eyewitness testimony? isnt that hearsay?


Admissible as a "dying declaration". Someone's final words are always, unless recorded electronically, going to be hearsay, ergo the courts make the exception.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Myendica
 



woah woah woah... when does a phone call = eyewitness testimony? isnt that hearsay?


Admissible as a "dying declaration". Someone's final words are always, unless recorded electronically, going to be hearsay, ergo the courts make the exception.


theres no way it can be eyewitness.. no way.. regardless if it were their last words.. no proof it was said.. ghandi's last words were NWO will attack the wtc on 9/11. he told me in a phone call.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
 


No, Dave, that's not going to work. You are conflating 'the person insisting Ted O lied' with my own personal views on this, about which you know nothing at all. I have said nothing at all on the subject of Ted O, or whether I think he's lying. You're simply trying to discredit me by association.


In case it's escaped you, the topic of this thread is whether or not Ted Olson lied to cover up the murder of his wife. Your posting here necessarily means you have some thoughts on it one way or the other. If you're not going to say what they are then you shouldn't complain when others assume what your opinion is.



Oh, I've waited several years. Serious anomalies are apparent, which those responsible for the 9/11 commission have not answered, nor does it seem they have any intention of doing so. The Commission is a red herring anyway - what is needed, what has been requested again and again is a proper investigation...that has never happened. That is what needs to happen. The Commission was not a proper investigation...it has had it's day. There are many questions which will have to be answered in a proper, honest, rigorous, criminal investigation. The world has paid the price for the 'conspiracy theory' adopted by the government, now it's time they prove their own theory through submitting it to a proper investigation.


AH HA! you just mentioned one thing the conspiracy people all do agree on regardless of what their conspiracy theory happens to be- the need for another investigation. Can you concur with THAT observation at least, or do we need to argue needlessly over that too?



That's a secondary issue, born of the fact that the government refuses a proper, official, honest, thorough, criminal investigation.



I don't understand your train of thought here. If you subscribe to Judy Wood's "Lasers from outer space" theory then you're necessarily agreeing with me that the conspiracy people aren't waiting for the gov't to prove their case; they're grabbing their own independent scenario and treating it as fact. If you do NOT subscribe to Judy Wood then you're necessarily agreeing with me that the conspiracy people are having issues getting together and forming a single consensus. Either way, you're agreeing with me and you're just arguing for argument's sake, here.



Many people do agree on many things - not everyone agrees on everything. The fact that you seem to be insisting that should be the case is unrealistic and, frankly ridiculous. The fact is, it doesn't matter, because it's not necessary. Not even all those involved in the Commission Report agree with it, or even agree it wasn't rigged and corrupt.


That is true...as far as it goes. I am going by Lee Hamilton's position that the 9/11 commission report was a first draft attempt and that subsequent discoveries may prove much of what they documented as being incorrect....but the existing facts still show that at the end of the day it was still an attack by foreign terrorists.

The problem for you is that not only do you need to prove your case, you also need to show how it disproves all the other cases...which gets back to the original situation all over again that you can't even all agree on what the case you're trying to prove even is.


Why is that surprising? It's one aspect, and since there is as yet no definitive, 100% conclusive evidence either way, it's not surprising. As I said earlier, not even those involved in the 9/11 commission report agree that it was accurate or that it wasn't corrupt, yet you still refer to it as the definitive document. So, pot and black come to mind here.


The problem isn't that it isn't just inconclusive to what the conspiracy is. The problem is that it isn't conclusively supporting *any* conspiracy. I don't need to point out that Judy Wood's "lasers" claim is completely at odds with any of the other claims of controlled demolitions and/or nukes in the basement, but she has pages of pages of calculations backing her claims up. We can't simply brush her off as a crackpot becuase she had enough conviction to file a lawsuit when noone from the controlled demolitions or the no planes side ever did.


I know that's what you and your bosses believe - but one day the truth will be told and those responsible will pay the price.


Here's the rub you face- you conspiracy people are so splintered amongst yourselves that even if the truth was told...even if it really was the truth that had been told...not all of you are goign to accept it. If, by some means, it was proven that the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions, do you genuinely thing the "no plane" people or the "nukes in the basement" people will accept such findings when they don't even accept the 9/11 commission report? You're back in the exact same predicament you were before.

All this is neither here nor there- do you believe Ted Olson is lying to cover up the murder of his wife or not?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Myendica
 



woah woah woah... when does a phone call = eyewitness testimony? isnt that hearsay?


Admissible as a "dying declaration". Someone's final words are always, unless recorded electronically, going to be hearsay, ergo the courts make the exception.


theres no way it can be eyewitness.. no way.. regardless if it were their last words.. no proof it was said.. ghandi's last words were NWO will attack the wtc on 9/11. he told me in a phone call.


Of course you cannot be an eyewitness to a telephone conversation. The clue is in eye. But you can give testimony as a witness to a telephone conversation that you were personally engaged in. That is not hearsay. Ted Olson and Lori Keyton could testify in a court to speaking to Barbara Olson and Renee May's parents similarly in regard to speaking to their daughter.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
hmm sounds like the delphi technique look it up



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

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

No. Barbara Olsen died when her plane hit the Pentagon. She isn't alive running around somewhere and her husband didn't murder her. Radical Islamic Fundamentalist idiots murdered her. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, ya' know?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Originally posted by GoodOlDave




In case it's escaped you, the topic of this thread is whether or not Ted Olson lied to cover up the murder of his wife. Your posting here necessarily means you have some thoughts on it one way or the other. If you're not going to say what they are then you shouldn't complain when others assume what your opinion is.


Absolutely I will complain if you or anyone else makes assumptions about what I believe, and then states it is fact. There's another alternative - if you don't know what my opinion is and you are interested to know, you could ask. Assuming you know what I believe, and then stating that assumption as fact is not acceptable or factual or honest.




AH HA! you just mentioned one thing the conspiracy people all do agree on regardless of what their conspiracy theory happens to be- the need for another investigation. Can you concur with THAT observation at least, or do we need to argue needlessly over that too?



Well Dave, I can't speak for all truthers. As you know, that would be extremely foolish. But clearly, I've already stated that a proper, criminal investigation should be carried out. No, Dave, not 'another investigation' - the first, proper, criminal investigation into 9/11 needs to be carried out.



I don't understand your train of thought here. If you subscribe to Judy Wood's "Lasers from outer space" theory then you're necessarily agreeing with me that the conspiracy people aren't waiting for the gov't to prove their case; they're grabbing their own independent scenario and treating it as fact.

If you do NOT subscribe to Judy Wood then you're necessarily agreeing with me that the conspiracy people are having issues getting together and forming a single consensus.


My train of thought is that if a full, proper, criminal investigation had been carried out, this kind of initiative would not be necessary.



Either way, you're agreeing with me and you're just arguing for argument's sake, here.


No, you are again basing your conjecture on a wrong assumption, and then constructing your own argument around it.

Many people do agree on many things - not everyone agrees on everything. The fact that you seem to be insisting that should be the case is unrealistic and, frankly ridiculous. The fact is, it doesn't matter, because it's not necessary. Not even all those involved in the Commission Report agree with it, or even agree it wasn't rigged and corrupt.



That is true...as far as it goes. I am going by Lee Hamilton's position that the 9/11 commission report was a first draft attempt and that subsequent discoveries may prove much of what they documented as being incorrect....but the existing facts still show that at the end of the day it was still an attack by foreign terrorists.

The document has been discredited by some of those who were involved in the process. It does not include all the available facts. In any case it was not a proper, impartial, criminal investigation. That is what is needed.



The problem for you is that not only do you need to prove your case



No - this is an attempt by you to get into a circular argument in order to confuse the issue. I have stated very clearly that for me the issue is that the government has yet to prove its case, and must do so. It needs to prove its case within the context of a proper, impartial, criminal investigation, the integrity of which is totally reliable.



, you also need to show how it disproves all the other cases...which gets back to the original situation all over again that you can't even all agree on what the case you're trying to prove even is.

That would only be the case if formal charges were made by individuals against the government. Those issuing the charges would need to prove their case, agreed. But the Government has yet to prove its own case, and that needs to be the first step in any credible, official, impartial, criminal investigation.


.
The problem isn't that it isn't just inconclusive to what the conspiracy is. The problem is that it isn't conclusively supporting *any* conspiracy. I don't need to point out that Judy Wood's "lasers" claim is completely at odds with any of the other claims of controlled demolitions and/or nukes in the basement, but she has pages of pages of calculations backing her claims up.


Such disagreement is irrelevant at this stage. In a proper, official, criminal investigation, in the case where, for example, the government's story was evidenced to be inaccurate, all this kind of evidence would be scrutinised and assessed by relevant experts. In a proper criminal investigation, relevant documents can be obtained under subpeona, relevant witnesses can be questioned, and their testimony would not be kept outside of the investigation, etc. The purpose of the investigation being to establish the truth as far as it is humanly possible....given the destruction of so much of the evidence - which also must be subjected to a criminal investigation.



We can't simply brush her off as a crackpot becuase she had enough conviction to file a lawsuit when noone from the controlled demolitions or the no planes side ever did.


My previous comments pertain. It is possible that the two theories are not mutually exclusive.



Here's the rub you face- you conspiracy people are so splintered amongst yourselves that even if the truth was told...even if it really was the truth that had been told...not all of you are goign to accept it.



Well, that's more 'your rub' than 'the rub' because that's an assumption you are making. I guess the general response to a proper, criminal investigation would very much depend on the thoroughness and the integrity of the investigation and the conclusions of such an investigation. Any disinfo which may have been infiltrated into the truth movement, for example, would be identified as such, through proper investigation. The rest of your statement is purely your speculation.



If, by some means, it was proven that the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions, do you genuinely thing the "no plane" people or the "nukes in the basement" people will accept such findings when they don't even accept the 9/11 commission report?


The commission report was not a proper investigation. A proper, official, professional, thorough, transparent, criminal investigation is needed. If some people have a personal investment in their own 'theory' being right, they may be unhappy if there was definitive proof that their specific theory was evidenced as not being correct. However, it is my personal impression that a proper, absolutely thorough, open, honest investigation with credible evidence and conclusions would satisfy many. That's my opinion. I can't speak for others.



You're back in the exact same predicament you were before.

What predicament am I in? I have stated more than once that I don't see these disagreements as a predicament at all, but simply the result of the fact that no proper, official, criminal investigation has been carried out.

You are the one who seems to imagine a predicament....so it's your predicament, not mine.


All this is neither here nor there- do you believe Ted Olson is lying to cover up the murder of his wife or not?


I don't have enough reliable, specific evidence to have an opinion on that. I do believe there are anomalies about this part of the story, but that doesn't mean I am saying he is lying.
edit on 3-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


but it is hearsay if there isnt any evidence that the conversation occured. theres nothing to verify the account. once again though, this part of the story has very little to do with what happened.

and to dave, even if other theories contradict judy wood, doesnt mean shes wrong, it means others feel theres something else at play. the OS is wrong because they dont account for all the evidence.. judy woods theory is plausible, but highly unlikely, doesnt mean shes wrong, it means there needs to be more evidence.. but she does provide evidence, and the evidence she provides, the OS ignores.. the OS is wrong, I dont know whats right, which is why I want a new investigation. if the OS answered the questions and provided the evidence, well we wouldnt be having this discussion, and perhaps you (dave) would be denouncing some other theory or idea.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


You obviously misunderstand what " hearsay " is and need to check it out. It has nothing to do with whether a conservation was recorded or not as you seem to be suggesting earlier above.

Carrying your criterion over to another situation would you say that Lincoln's address at Gettysburg never happened because there is no recording of it ?

Fact is that there is other supporting evidence for Lincoln's address as there is for the Barbara Olson / Renee May phone calls.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


what? Lincolns speech occured because you have an artist drawling him while giving speech. You have countless people reporting it in newspapers.. you had way more witnesses than one single person. I know what hearsay is.. and you obviously dont. please..



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by Alfie1
 


what? Lincolns speech occured because you have an artist drawling him while giving speech. You have countless people reporting it in newspapers.. you had way more witnesses than one single person. I know what hearsay is.. and you obviously dont. please..


What, you just lap up all that stuff the msm feeds you ? Shame on you !

And do check out " hearsay ".



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by Alfie1
 


what? Lincolns speech occured because you have an artist drawling him while giving speech. You have countless people reporting it in newspapers.. you had way more witnesses than one single person. I know what hearsay is.. and you obviously dont. please..


What, you just lap up all that stuff the msm feeds you ? Shame on you !

And do check out " hearsay ".


mSM? what ? this conversations over.. besides the "witness" you need proof.. the proof provided stated the call lasted 0 seconds.. so.. proof? nope..

see ya



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Here's my simple take on this based on a recent TV program, Olson claimed 2 calls from his wife where he spoke to her, after research they found he had been called by her but the call was 0 seconds in length. He then retracted that he had spoken to her at that time.

That's quite an odd going on..

There were no plane phones on the plane at that time and it was proved that a cell phone could not have made the call from the plane. So we have a situation where a person is claimed to have called from a plane with no air phones and no ability from a cell in the plane.

So we have some possibilities

There never were any calls

or

There were calls but not from the plane.

Now we then have other issues.

Lets suppose the people mentioned as making calls were NOT on that plane when calling, then what would have been the circumstances around the calls. Were they fake calls or, were they made under controlled circumstances ie a gun to the head.

That would make more sense, especially with the cabin crew talking about the kidnap and terrorists, he's a very important part of the story, he binds it together but lets imagine he's being made to make the call from elsewhere, who's going to know but the calls impact is huge.

There is one FACT we know and that is that Olson WAS a liar, despite saying he spoke to his wife a second it was proved he didn't so retracted it. That's a very strange thing to do when your wife is in the middle of such a serious situation, normally you can remember with horror every single second of the nightmare.

Not this man.....



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


Good point. His retraction and shifting of his story to fit the proof as it comes out makes him the liar. That fact effectively rules out a coerced or faked phone call. If the phone call happened, he would have stuck by his story to the death! If that was my wife, and her last words, I would not have "misremembered" a thing, and I would never have backed off my account of what happened, even in the face of proof to the contrary. Therefore, Olsen is the liar, and therefore he must be involved in some way.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mclaneinc


Here's my simple take on this based on a recent TV program, Olson claimed 2 calls from his wife where he spoke to her, after research they found he had been called by her but the call was 0 seconds in length. He then retracted that he had spoken to her at that time.

That's quite an odd going on..

There were no plane phones on the plane at that time and it was proved that a cell phone could not have made the call from the plane. So we have a situation where a person is claimed to have called from a plane with no air phones and no ability from a cell in the plane.

So we have some possibilities

There never were any calls

or

There were calls but not from the plane.

Now we then have other issues.

Lets suppose the people mentioned as making calls were NOT on that plane when calling, then what would have been the circumstances around the calls. Were they fake calls or, were they made under controlled circumstances ie a gun to the head.

That would make more sense, especially with the cabin crew talking about the kidnap and terrorists, he's a very important part of the story, he binds it together but lets imagine he's being made to make the call from elsewhere, who's going to know but the calls impact is huge.

There is one FACT we know and that is that Olson WAS a liar, despite saying he spoke to his wife a second it was proved he didn't so retracted it. That's a very strange thing to do when your wife is in the middle of such a serious situation, normally you can remember with horror every single second of the nightmare.

Not this man.....
well said i totally agree with ur points thats the whole point of what truthers are trying to say theres no defininative answer because we need an independent investigation we didnt get one because the bush admin are responsible. were are constantly getting asked what happened we dont know thats why we seek the truth

Dave you doing exactly what others have stated divide and conque and unfortunately uv failed misserably. I dont care what u trusters say to try and sway me ill never give up findinh the truth til the day i die for my granchildrens sakes



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
where is ted olsen now? anyone know? someone should go and ask him again what the story is.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I dont see Ted as a willing participant but a coerced one. Many of them are because fear is used most always even amongst military top brass, politicians, corporate CEOs. Very few are silenced with money.

You say you would stand up to them? You dont really know that until it happens to you






top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join