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.
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 " ?
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?
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.
woah woah woah... when does a phone call = eyewitness testimony? isnt that hearsay?
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.
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.
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.
That's a secondary issue, born of the fact that the government refuses a proper, official, honest, thorough, criminal investigation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Do YOU think Ted Olson is lying to cover up the murder of his wife Barbara?
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.
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?
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.
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.
.
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.
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?
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..
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 ".
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
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.....