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

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

I must have missed the part where the FBI claimed Ted Olson was lying about talking to his wife. Do you have a link?

There are two other witnesses (his secretary and the AT&T operator) who corroborate his statement that Barbara Olson called out from flight 77. Up until now the conspiracy theorists have pointed to the failed calls out of context and deliberately ignored the fact Olson kept calling out until she actually reached him. What do you have that says you're simply not repeating this fallacy and you're just putting words in the FBI's mouth??

This is my first post so be gentle.
If I understand this story correctly Ted Olson said originally that his wife called him from her cell phone when it became apparent a cell call could not have happened and the cell phone records didn't show a call from her cell on 9/11 in their records he changed his story and said it was from a seat back phone. Later the airline responded with the fact that her plane was not equipped with seat back phones this is when Ted went silent. There is a alternate site with pictures of Ted's "new wife" and many have remarked she looks like Barbara's twin except with a face lift and dental work. She even has the same profession a lawyer. FYI Ted Olson is the source for the middle eastern terrorist "Box cutter" story told to him by Barbara Olson.

letsrollforums.com...

The block buster find detailed here as well is the CNN victims bio's posted online with photos of the passengers that died that were edited with Adobe photoshop before 9/11/2001 with descriptions embedded in the EXIF photo data (oops) with names like flight 77 passesnger dated 3/5/2001 The pictures were pulled as soon as CNN found their mistake. How did CNN know to edit a photo of a deceased passenger months before 9/11? How did they know the person was going to die? How would they know what flight they would be on? Doh!!!

Originally posted by dillweed
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.

There is no need for you to state you ignore everything we write and that there's nothing that we could possibly ever say that will make a difference. Since you ventured to post on this specific thread, I know you won't mind when I say it was you who I was quoting on Ted Olson lying to cover up the murder of his wife.

I think it's self evident your ideology is based entirely upon hatred and loathing, rather than any real desire to learn the facts of the 9/11 attack, so there's no need for me to point that out. Somewhere in that head of yours there formed such a mindless fanaticism in the pursuit of your conspiracy stories that you'll even slander a man who lost his wife during the 9/11 attack. You and I both know you're calling him a liar and murderer NOT becuase you have any actual evidence, but becuase you want to believe something else hit the Pentagon other than flight 77 and you make your alliances and accusation accordingly. I'd ask whether you'd be so cruel as to likewise accuse Ted Olson's secretary, the AT&T operator, and that flight attendant's parents of being liars and murderers too, but we both know how you'll answer.

All I will say is that I don't blame you. I blame the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites feeding you such a nonstop diet of this abject paranoia that got you this way (in particular, that French piece of dog [censored] who invented the "cruise missile at the Pentagon" conspiracy that started this whole argument to begin with). You yourself are merely the victim in their con. Think about it- I don't have such an emotional attachment to my statements that I'll interpret an attack on them as a personal attack on myself. Why do you?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dillweed

those damned fool conspiracy web sites

if i could have a pound for every time you post this sentence i would be a millionaire by now,

i have asked you tthis question many a time and you never asnwer me, why do you come on THESE DAMMED FOOL CONSPIRACY WEB SITES? you seem to think you know every aspect of 911 what do YOU gain from engaging in such debates??

Originally posted by gravitomagnetic
This is my first post so be gentle.
If I understand this story correctly Ted Olson said originally that his wife called him from her cell phone when it became apparent a cell call could not have happened and the cell phone records didn't show a call from her cell on 9/11 in their records he changed his story and said it was from a seat back phone. Later the airline responded with the fact that her plane was not equipped with seat back phones this is when Ted went silent.

There would be no physical way Ted Olson would be able to know whether Barbara Olson called him from her cell phone of from an airphone, so he can't be held accountable for saying she called from one or the other. The airline never said flight 77 didn't have airphones- that drivel came from that fraud David Ray Griffin and he later retracted it.

Why no men call from Flight 77?

Kinda weird.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


dave, uh bottom page 3. i provided a link. please review

no replay dave???

thought not!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


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

If that's what you want to believe, that's up to you
.

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?

Yes. It is my view that a thorough and detailed, in-depth forensics examination of all aspects of the destruction of the towers is indispensable, and that such a forensics investigation should examine all the research done to date by experts in their field, such as, but not limited to, Dr. Judy Woods.

The theory put forward in the OS should also be subjected to a thorough, forensics examination as part of a full, criminal investigation.

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.

I know that it's part of your discreditation tactics to keep drawing attention to minorities, such as those you call UFO kooks, but we both know these are peripheral to the core issues - which are the issues which should be focused on. The truth may not please everyone. The point isn't to please everyone or even anyone, it's to establish the facts, and on that basis establish accountability.

...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?

You're trying to create problems where they don't exist. A proper investigation would look at all the anomalies....which are many. As in any criminal investigation it would then have to look at every single other piece of evidence, and examine all reasonable possible scenarios, to establish as far as humanly possible, the full truth of what did actually happen.

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?

As in any criminal investigation, the credibility of every piece of evidence has to be ascertained.. Yes, in principle, German intelligence is credible. Does that mean it is impossible that their information could be flawed/corrupted in some way? No. And the the official story about who Al Qaeda is, and the full body of evidence and information related to the alleged terrorists, also needs to be thoroughly investigated.

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.

And that is his opinion only, and one could hardly claim that he is unbiased. He also has spoken of how the Commission members didn't see all the information put forward. Some of this information was not passed on by 'staff' to the Commission members. He admits serious discrepancies in the NORAD evidence. He admits there was not enough time or money to conduct a thorough investigation, and having to 'make tough decisions' about what to investigate and what not to investigate because of highly pressured, imposed time constraints.

Other comments.

John Farmer Jr., Snr Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, quote from his book.
“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

Thomas Kean, Head of the Commission: was the Republican governor of New Jersey. “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . "

From: www.infowars.com...

On the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, there remain unanswered questions surrounding the events that transpired that day. These questions demand answers, and far from being a “fringe” movement as cast by the mainstream media, many of the 9/11 commission members themselves doubt the official story.

The following are a few examples:

Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a “national scandal”, stated in a 2003 PBS interview,

“I’m saying that’s deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing… series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked… the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration’s policy was, and its priority was, we’re gonna take Saddam Hussein out.”

Cleland, speaking with Democracy Now, said,

“One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

In 2006 the Washington Post reported that several members of the 9/11 Commission suspected deception on part of the Pentagon. As reported,

“Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.”

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry also has unanswered questions. As reported by Salon, he believes that there are legitimate reasons to believe an alternative version to the official story.

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration.

Commissioner Tim Roemer, speaking to CNN, stated that Commission members were considering a criminal probe of false statements. As quoted,

“We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting,” Roemer told CNN. “We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy.”

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?

Yes, this is a real problem. Getting an independent, unbiased investigation would not be easy, but I perhaps not impossible if there was a real will to do so, although it would undoubtedly involve some 'thinking out of the box' to find the right solution. Expertise is not so much the problem, bias and vested interest is the main obstacle.

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..

Selective examples as always, with a view to discrediting everyone involved. There is no shortage of relevant experts in the world who could be commissioned as expert witnesses.

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

Whatever gave you that impression?

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?

My opinion is frankly irrelevant. These are the things that need to be properly investigated in a proper criminal investigation.

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.

If there was a cover up, many things become possible. As I've already said, there are anomalies and serious questions about these and many other things which should be properly investigated in a proper criminal investigation.

If Ted Olson's statement is truthful, a proper criminal investigation would clear his name. If he has lied, that would be exposed. This is just one more of innumerable reasons why a proper criminal investigation is necessary.

The CNN web site obituaries photos for many flight victims were edited with adobe photo shop before the event. Some were photos last edit was over 1 year before 9/11. Photos with similar serial numbers in many cases. These supoosed family provided photos. These photos have data in the acutual picture data describing the victim with captions such as flight 77 victim. How can anyone explain this fact. Some photos were edited on 9/12 as well

Attention!!!

For those who have forgotten:
This forum is dedicated to the discussion and speculation of cover-ups, scandals, and other conspiracies surrounding the events of 9/11/2001. Participants should be aware that this forum is under close staff scrutiny due to general rudeness by some. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

There will be an immediate end to bickering, personal attacks and off-topic posts.
If continued, these posts can and will be warned and removed.

I am amazed how this debate staggers on. If no calls were made from AA 77 then the following must be true :-

Not only is Ted Olson lying but an AT & T operator and three employees of the Dept of Justice are lying.

Flight attendant Renee May's parents are lying about receiving a call from their daughter and lying about phoning American Airlines. And an American Airlines employee is lying about receiving a call from them.

So 3 people are lying to cover up the murder of a wife and a daughter and 5 others for unknown reasons.

All 8 of them must know they are complicit in the mass murder of 3000 people.

This is one of the most infuriating things about trutherism. On the one hand, when it is reasonably pointed out that with such a vast alleged conspiracy somebody was bound to have talked in 9+ years, the response is " oh well, it didn't have to be that many people, a relatively small core. " But when it comes to inconvenient evidence there is no problem with labelling all and sundry as co-conspirators.

Will someone please tell me which of the 8 people I have referred to are lying and why ?

reply to post by Alfie1


whats ridiculous is you denounce theories based on discrepencies right? well thats all we've done with the OS. so.. yea ... lets really investigate this then... what ive been saying the whole time.. makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by gravitomagnetic
This is my first post so be gentle.
If I understand this story correctly Ted Olson said originally that his wife called him from her cell phone when it became apparent a cell call could not have happened and the cell phone records didn't show a call from her cell on 9/11 in their records he changed his story and said it was from a seat back phone. Later the airline responded with the fact that her plane was not equipped with seat back phones this is when Ted went silent.

There would be no physical way Ted Olson would be able to know whether Barbara Olson called him from her cell phone of from an airphone, so he can't be held accountable for saying she called from one or the other. The airline never said flight 77 didn't have airphones- that drivel came from that fraud David Ray Griffin and he later retracted it.

What a load of bull..Caller display has been around for years Dave..
The incoming number comes up on your screen..
I recall, in the days after 9/11, an interview with Ted where he said he knew it was his wife by her mobile number..
So he DID have caller id..
I bet that old interview has mysteriously dissapeared off the net...

reply to post by backinblack


You obviously haven't been reading previous posts. Ted Olson did not take the calls in the first instance, a D o J Secretary called Lori Keyton did and put them through to him. She specifically told the FBI that the phone she was using didn't have caller ID.

There is no way Ted Olson would have known whether they were from a cell phone or airfone and I really don't suppose that establishing that was uppermost in his mind, do you ?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I haven't read any of the replies but I'm pretty certain this was tossed out there but the mere fact that he couldn't remember (and/or changed) his account about his wife's phone calls is in itself very troubling.

It was an epic day. Your wife called you for the last time and you don't remember VERBATIM what she said and/or how many times she called (or tried calling) you? Doesn't hold water. That moment(s) should be frozen in your head.


Every aspect of that day presents problems. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist or an anti-government/Bush hater to question any of this. In fact, you don't even have to dig that deep for dirt.

But your thread is about Ted Olson and whether he covered up his wife's murder. I can't imagine someone on the 'outside' like Olson was complicit so I am leaning more towards him being duped at first then covering things up afterward.
So if ever such a place as a purgatory-state-of-involvement then, that's where he resides!

reply to post by Human_Alien


The only thing that Ted Olson was ever unsure about was whether his wife called from a cell phone or an airfone.

As per my post just above he was not in a position to know which it was nor how many times his wife had tried to call but failed.

This is a man taking calls from his wife in a desperate life-threatening situation and truthers seem to imagine that the most important thing for him to get straight was the sort of phone she was using !

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

The only thing that Ted Olson was ever unsure about was whether his wife called from a cell phone or an airfone.

As per my post just above he was not in a position to know which it was nor how many times his wife had tried to call but failed.

This is a man taking calls from his wife in a desperate life-threatening situation and truthers seem to imagine that the most important thing for him to get straight was the sort of phone she was using !

Her cell phone calls to Teddy never happened........FBI confirms this during the trial of Mossouai. The evidence presented for AA flight 77 shows that calls made from that flight from Barbara Olson to Department of Justice was 0 seconds, unconnected call?



Here's the transcript from Larry King showing Ted saying he spoke with Barbara:

Olson: Yes Larry, she called me twice. She told me the plane had been hijacked and the hijackers had herded everyone to the back of the plane, including the pilots.

(clip)
.................................................................Olson: Larry, I forgot, I’ve been through this before. She did call me from an airplane phone. I remember she called me collect because she didn’t have her credit cards.

King: Ted, this is getting confusing. First you called CNN only hours after the crash and said she called you on her cell phone. Then, just three days later you appeared on FOX and said she used an “airplane” phone. Right after that you came on here Ted, and said again she called you using a cell phone. Ted, I think you can understand why I’m confused. So which was it Ted, a cell phone or an airplane phone? Just curious.

Olson: It was a seat back phone, Larry.

King: You mean one of those phones in the back of the seat.

Olson: Yes Larry, that is what I mean.



www.vaed.uscourts.gov...


You can see/read he's getting all tripped up.

So the question remains.......did he lie?
Yes indeed

Did he know the morning of 9-11 what was going on?
Probably not.

Did he realize afterward (when told what to say?)
Certainly looks that way.

Should he be in jail?
Yes. Along with at least 99 others!

Is his fifth wife "Lady" really Barbara Olson (seeing she isn't listed on the SS death index)?
I won't be surprised!!!

Caller: No seat back phones.

King: Excuse me, I think you said, no seat back phones. What does that mean?

Caller: American Airlines 757’s didn’t have seat back phones.

King: So you’re saying Barbara Olson could not have called using a seat back phone? Is that correct caller? How do you know this?

Caller: That is correct. No seat back call from an American Airlines’ 757. I work for American Airlines. Don’t give out my name.

King: Ted? No seat back phones.