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

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by superluminal11
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


I don't know if Ted was in on it or as you say 'coerced', the chances are that you are right and Ted found himself in the middle of something EXTREMELY deadly and this was made clear to him in no uncertain terms. People at a certain age tend to lose the will to fight, would a man like him wish to take on a 'threat', I doubt it, he's most likely a wreck of a man, maybe he will have a turn of face when it comes to his deathbed.

If I was him I'd want to be as far out of the public eye as possible.




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:14 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.....


You start off with two false premises. Cell phones could be used in certain circumstances from aircraft in 2001 and the Boeing 757 that was AA 77 was fitted with airfones. If you relied on David Ray Griffin as your source for believing there were no airfones he has since retracted his mistake.

It is not simply a matter of taking Ted Olson's word for the calls from his wife. Various others were involved and gave their accounts to the FBI. This is a small compilation of the reports :-

www.911myths.com...

You will note that an AT & T operator, Teresa Gonzales, took a call from a female passenger on AA 77 reporting a hi-jack and transferred it. Lori Keyton, a D o J secretary, took both calls from Barbara Olson and spoke to her briefly ( one call at least was collect so presumably from airfone ). Helen Voss, a special adviser to the Solicitor General, said that Lori told her of the calls and she told Ted Olson his wife was on the line. A security officer, Alan Ferber, was called to Ted Olson's office as a result of what was heard from Barbara and he was interviewed as well.

Can anyone seriously suggest why these various people should be involved in a plot to kill Barbara Olson, amongst thousands, in order to further GWB's strategic war plans ?

In addition, there are reports in the compilation from flight attendant Renee May's parents. Barbara Olso was not the only person to call out, Renee also did. You will note that she told her parents the plane had been hi-jacked and she asked them to phone American Airlines to tell them. She provided 3 telephone numbers for AA. They did phone AA and spoke to Patty Carson. This was all before the crash at the Pentagon so how could Renee's parents know to do this unless their daughter had called. Please don't tell me they were in on a plot to kill their daughter to help Bush/Cheney out.

You say Ted Olson is a liar and has retracted. What are you basing that on ?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
[
 

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.


You mean ask you like I did in the OP?

"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? "


I was right the first time- you really are arguing for the sake of arguing, at this point.





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.


All right then, may I ask what you consider to be a PROPER criminal investigation? Dr. Judy Woods wants a forensics examination into energy weapons destroying the towers. Do you concur? As you say, you can't speak for all truthers but you're going to have to have some form of standardized investigation methodology, otherwise you're be wasting time placating the one or two UFO kooks who think the towers were destroyed by shapeshifting alien reptiles. Yes, they're out there.




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


...but as the title of this thread states, how can you do any proper criminal investigation when you're bickering over what is credible evidence and what isn't? For instance, the 9/11 Commission report states that German intelligence had been watchign the Hamburg cell and they saw Mohammed Atta and his bunch meeting up with known Al Qaida operatives. We know this is the case becuase German intelligence contributed to the creation of the report. Is German intelligence credible or not?




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.


Give me an example of the document "being discredited by some who were involved in the process". I am going by Lee Hamilton's statement that the 9/11 commission report is still more accurate than any of the alternative scenarios, and he's the one who made the "we were set up to fail" statement to begin with.



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.


Which gets back to the previous question- just what constitutes an "impartial" investigation? Anyone who has expertise on crash site forensics will almost certainly be with the FAA, people testifying on NORAD will be in the military, anyone testifying on Al Qaida will be with some intelligence agency, anyone describing WTC security procedures will be with the NYPA, etc etc etc, all of which you've insisted are part of this imagined coverup of yours. Ted Olson can't even testify on the last telephone conversation he had with his wife without being called a liar, and you yourself admitted you have no proof of that. Who's left to comprise an impartial investigation and who has the expertise to even contribute to any investigation?


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.


The only "relevent experts" I've seen your side produce are people pretending to have expertise they don't really have. You have one economist pretending to be a materials engineer, you have one religious professor pretending to be a physicist, you have a physicist pretending to be an explosives expert, you have one architect who never built anything larger than a high school stadium pretending that he's built mega-skyscrapers, and you have one college kid making internet videos in his dorm room pretending to be an investigative journalist. Oh yeah, there's the internet radio DJ making a blizzard of accusations without a microbe of proof to back any of it up..

The only one who really IS an established expert on their testimony is...yes, you guessed it, Dr. Judy "lasers from outer space" Wood. She really is a structural engineer and physics professor.



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.


??? Are you genuinely accusing Dr Judy Wood of being a disinformation agent?



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.


All right then, how about all the OTHER people who received phone calls from the planes? Don't you think the parents of flight attendant Renee May would be able to recognize whether the voice of their own daughter was actually hers?

Do you concur at least that if even ONE phone call from flight 77 was legitimate, it necessarily means all the calls could be legitimate? If so, then this whole "Ted Olson lied" accusation is nothing but repulsive slander.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Do you concur at least that if even ONE phone call from flight 77 was legitimate, it necessarily means all the calls could be legitimate? If so, then this whole "Ted Olson lied" accusation is nothing but repulsive slander.


Not true, because his phone records had no evidence of a completed call. Even if some other passenger completed a miraculous telephone call with a lucky cell phone signal, it would not help Ted Olsen's story.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
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.


All right then...can you please tell me what your criteria is that defines what is credible evidence and what is not? Ted Olson is saying that his wife called him from flight 77, and he's not the only one either. The parents of flight attendant Renee May received a call from flight 77 too. We clearly have a case where many people witnessed the same event...that people were calling from flight 77 and reporting there had been a hijacking...and yet you don't consider it credible information simply on the circular logic that you don't want to believe it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

Would you mind terribly explaining this?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Are you saying that the AT & T operator Teresa Gonzales, Dept of Justice secretary Lori Keyton, special assistant Helen Voss and security officer Allen Ferber are all lying about the phone calls from Barbara Olson ? They are all fellow conspirators ?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I didn't say any of that, and I haven't really looked into this aspect of 9/11. I have concentrated my attention to the specifics of the NIST report about the collapse of WTC I and II.

What I did say, was that none of the other calls were relavent to Ted Olsens lie. Each call would have to be thoroughly evaluated on its own merit, but Ted Olsens has already been proven to be a lie. I have heard of cell phones working at considerable altitudes, even though we are advised not to use them while in flight, I'm not saying every call was a lie, or that calls were impossible, I'm only saying that Ted Olsen was caught in a lie, and there must be some reason for his lie.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
 


Not true, because his phone records had no evidence of a completed call. Even if some other passenger completed a miraculous telephone call with a lucky cell phone signal, it would not help Ted Olsen's story.


Incorrect. Ted Olson's secretary Lori Keyton reported she received six or eight collect call attempts which were disconnected. These are the ones you are referring to. There were two further calls Keyton received, one from a live operator reporting a collect call from Barbara Olson, and the other from Barbara Olson herself. These are the ones Ted Olson had with his wife. On top of that, the parents of flight attendant Renee May received a call from their daughter and they received more or less the same information about the hijacking as Ted Olson did.

So if Tel Olson is lying to cover up the murder of his wife, then you're necessarily accusing everyone ELSE (Lori Keyton, Renee May's parents, and whoever that operator was) of lying to cover up her murder too. Are you so firmly entrenched into your conspiracy ideology that you're prepared to do that?

EDIT: Thanks to the other posters' inputs. The operator was AT & T operator Teresa Gonzales.
edit on 4-1-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I didn't say any of that, and I haven't really looked into this aspect of 9/11. I have concentrated my attention to the specifics of the NIST report about the collapse of WTC I and II.

What I did say, was that none of the other calls were relavent to Ted Olsens lie. Each call would have to be thoroughly evaluated on its own merit, but Ted Olsens has already been proven to be a lie. I have heard of cell phones working at considerable altitudes, even though we are advised not to use them while in flight, I'm not saying every call was a lie, or that calls were impossible, I'm only saying that Ted Olsen was caught in a lie, and there must be some reason for his lie.


Nowhere has it been shown Ted Olson is lying. You people are accusing him of lying becuase you don't want it to have been flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, and you adjust your alliances and accusations based entirely upon that and that alone.

The only iffy thing you have is that Ted Olson doesn't know whether Barbara used a cell phone or an airphone, but it goes without saying there'd be no way he could possibly know that.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Are you so firmly entrenched into your conspiracy ideology that you're prepared to do that?


No, I'm not willing to accuse all those families of lying. I am firmly entrenched in my conspiracy theory to the point of dedicating many hours evaluating the NIST report and reaching the conclusion that the towers did not fall from heat or impact, and I am thoroughly convinced that no plane struck the Pentagon, but that is not to say the planes were not hijacked, or the passengers didn't make last second calls. I also won't say that no plane went down in Pennsylvania, I just haven't looked at those aspects of the conspiracy. For whatever it is worth, I am 100% satisfied that the NIST report proves the towers did not collapse from heat or impact, and I am 100% certain that no plane hit the Pentagon, but my opinion is really not that important in the grand scheme of things. I do not think we will ever know the truth, and even if someone confessed on their deathbed, there is too much competing information to corroborate anything. We will just never know.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I didn't say any of that, and I haven't really looked into this aspect of 9/11. I have concentrated my attention to the specifics of the NIST report about the collapse of WTC I and II.

What I did say, was that none of the other calls were relavent to Ted Olsens lie. Each call would have to be thoroughly evaluated on its own merit, but Ted Olsens has already been proven to be a lie. I have heard of cell phones working at considerable altitudes, even though we are advised not to use them while in flight, I'm not saying every call was a lie, or that calls were impossible, I'm only saying that Ted Olsen was caught in a lie, and there must be some reason for his lie.


If you are not questioning the integrity of the AT & T operator and others in the D o J who handled Barbara Olson's 2 calls before they got to Ted what lie specifically are you accusing him of ?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


No, the cell phone records show no completed calls. The airfone records, as well as the DoJ phone records DO show the calls.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


No, the cell phone records show no completed calls. The airfone records, as well as the DoJ phone records DO show the calls.

cam you show us the source



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
His retraction and shifting of his story to fit the proof as it comes out makes him the liar.


Don't tell this to the "debunkers" here.

Because according to them if a man states in one testimony "boom" while stating in another "explosion" while not having english as his first language, he is a liar (Rodriguez).

But, when a man says he spoke with his wife then retracts the statement, he is an A number one upstanding individual. The hypocrisy is staggering around here.

On a side note: Look up Olson's birth date. Erie huh?
edit on 4-1-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


dave, the point is, theres contradicting evidence. he claimed tohave received the call, then the fbi claimed he was lying, and that the call lasted 0 seconds. therefor, there should be more of an investigation. for all we know shes been "taken" and being used as a political prost.. the point is, there needs to be an investigation into every aspect of 9/11. from explosive residue, to israeli counter hijacking members on the flight, to ted olsens phone call.. INVESTIGATE IN OPEN COURT



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Can you direct me to where Ted Olson retracted his statement about talking to his wife on the telephone on the morning of 9/11 please ?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 



the call lasted 0 seconds.


Okay , I've seen this a couple of times in this thread already , so I'm forced to ask for a source to confirm this .

If this is in relation to a call from a cell-phone , then I want to know what cell-phone company bills anyone by the second , as every provider I have ever dealt with , bills you by the minute . Also , I've never seen a cell-phone bill that shows how many seconds your calls last . All the ones I have seen , only shows call duration in increments of minutes , not seconds .

Either show a source for this claim , or admit that you don't know this to be a fact .

As far as that goes , what landline service provider bills anyone in increments of seconds , instead of minutes ?

Put up or shut up .
edit on 4-1-2011 by okbmd because: eta



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


dave, the point is, theres contradicting evidence. he claimed tohave received the call, then the fbi claimed he was lying, and that the call lasted 0 seconds. therefor, there should be more of an investigation. for all we know shes been "taken" and being used as a political prost.. the point is, there needs to be an investigation into every aspect of 9/11. from explosive residue, to israeli counter hijacking members on the flight, to ted olsens phone call.. INVESTIGATE IN OPEN COURT


Can you direct me to where the FBI claimed Ted Olson was lying ?

The airfone records for AA 77 indicate various calls of 0 second duration but but also 4 calls to unknown numbers of 102 secs, 274, secs, 159 secs, and 260 secs :-

www.911myths.com...

You have to scroll down a bit.

The only relatives of anyone on AA 77 to report receiving calls were Ted Olson and Renee May's parents.

One of the calls to the D o J was certainly collect, according to secretary Lori Keyton, but Ted Olson's special assistant Helen Voss was of the opinion they both were. It seems likely that if Barbara Olson hadn't the means to pay for one call she probably hadn't for the other. In the which case, for those accusing an AT & T operator and various employees at the Dept of Justice of being " in on it " then the charges for the collect calls should be on the D o J' s account.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
It has occured to me that those of you who are sticking up for Ted Olson's versions of the 'phone call' are wasting valuable time. I know you know this, and that's why you're doing it. It has now reached the point where I just ignore everything you write, because there is nothing you have to say that furthers the pursuit of truth. For a time I believed that pointing out your weaknesses was a valid pursuit. Now I know you are not worth it. There surely must be a special place in hell for people that spend so much time and energy defending such an obvious lie. Good luck with your project, you'll need it because no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it's still a pig.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


look at the coins in unison.

cough cough research

does this help?

in this link it provides just about everything we have discussed up till now in this thread, and provides the sources at the bottom.. so review and feel free to come back and attack
edit on 4-1-2011 by Myendica because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join