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.

 

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

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien



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.





Your reference is to a spoof, truther made up, supposed Larry King interview. Please give me a source to an original one.




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   


Olson: Larry, as an ex-Solicitor General, I can follow the argument: FBI: no cell phone call, American Airlines: no seat back phone. Therefore, how two calls? Pretty good argument if I don’t say so myself.

King: And?

Olson: We’ll be right back after the break.

King: Ted, you’re not the one that says “we’ll be right back after the break,” I’m the one who says “we’ll be right back after the break.” We’ll be right back after the break!






Seems like Olson was very anxious to take a break. I wonder why...................

Oh.....here's why!


King: We’re back. Ted, how two phone calls?

Olson: Walkie Talkie.

King: I’m sorry, what did you say?

Olson: Walkie Talkie.

Timmy: Mr. King, I think he said, “walkie talkie.”

King: Thank you Timmy, I heard it the second time. Ted, you’re saying Barbara called you using a “walkie talkie?”

Olson: Must have been. What other option is there?

King: I understand, but “walkie talkie?”

Olson: They’re pretty good these days. Technology these days is incredible. Have you heard of “voice morphing?”

King: I wouldn’t know, Ted. But “walkie talkie?”

Timmy: This is pretty interesting stuff.



What other options is there? That's a strange question. I guess it depends what other options the 'script' allows.....

And noticed WHO mentioned 'voice morphing'...........how would Ted even KNOW about that (even if he heard about it afterward, that should've been dismissed as nonsense to such a conservative gent like Ted)


It's okay guys. You can start questioning the script called "The Official Story" now. We won't make fun at you. We only wonder what took you so long.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
FBI Compilation of Olson Phone Records
www.911myths.com...


Just remember Liars lie about lying.


I am outta here.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Never mind, I have found the original Larry King / Ted Olson transcript myself :-

edition.cnn.com...

You have to scroll down through the first interview.

Why isn't it anything like yours ? Because yours is malicious made up rubbish from a conspiracy site. Do you know that ? I have seen it before.

Please let us know the source of your supposed transcript .



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



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


Just like creating this thread. Thanks for trying to act sincere, not!

www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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?


For idiots, they seem to have accomplished their mission.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien


Olson: Larry, as an ex-Solicitor General, I can follow the argument: FBI: no cell phone call, American Airlines: no seat back phone. Therefore, how two calls? Pretty good argument if I don’t say so myself.

King: And?

Olson: We’ll be right back after the break.

King: Ted, you’re not the one that says “we’ll be right back after the break,” I’m the one who says “we’ll be right back after the break.” We’ll be right back after the break!






Seems like Olson was very anxious to take a break. I wonder why...................

Oh.....here's why!


King: We’re back. Ted, how two phone calls?

Olson: Walkie Talkie.

King: I’m sorry, what did you say?

Olson: Walkie Talkie.

Timmy: Mr. King, I think he said, “walkie talkie.”

King: Thank you Timmy, I heard it the second time. Ted, you’re saying Barbara called you using a “walkie talkie?”

Olson: Must have been. What other option is there?

King: I understand, but “walkie talkie?”

Olson: They’re pretty good these days. Technology these days is incredible. Have you heard of “voice morphing?”

King: I wouldn’t know, Ted. But “walkie talkie?”

Timmy: This is pretty interesting stuff.



What other options is there? That's a strange question. I guess it depends what other options the 'script' allows.....

And noticed WHO mentioned 'voice morphing'...........how would Ted even KNOW about that (even if he heard about it afterward, that should've been dismissed as nonsense to such a conservative gent like Ted)


It's okay guys. You can start questioning the script called "The Official Story" now. We won't make fun at you. We only wonder what took you so long.






Without your help, I have now re-discovered where your alleged Larry King / Ted Olson transcript came from :-

kennysideshow.blogspot.com...

The item makes clear towards the end " I hope you, the reader, realize this discussion never took place ."

You can't have missed that can you ? But you were apparently prepared to put it forward as an accurate record of an interview ? No wonder you are " outa here " !



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
dave, or anyone else in the OS crowd.. any of you guys or gals read the debate on 9/11 in the debate forum? just curious is all..

eta.. alfie, your post above me is a little off topic and sort of attacking.. you may want to edit and add topic material, or tone down the attack.. just looking out since mod came in once already bout that stuff.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Myendica because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
dave, or anyone else in the OS crowd.. any of you guys or gals read the debate on 9/11 in the debate forum? just curious is all..


Thanks, which one in particular did you have in mind ?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


the debate with September 11th in the title. Schrodingers Dog v Souls.. ? its a good read, and a good start..

enjoy



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica

Originally posted by Alfie1

Blow me ! Human_Alien is on ATS now and still has nothing to say about posting a bogus Ted Olson / Larry King interview.


excuse me? alfie, with all do respect, which should be 0, you just lost any and all creds from me.. your insults have gone a little too far.. calm down and stop acting childish.


Myendica, we are on different sides of the fence but I don't think you would do this. Are you saying that it is perfectly o.k. for Human_Alien to post a bogus, made up, purported interview by Larry King of Ted Olson when he must have known it was bogus/made-up because the site it came from said so.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


i think we all have the right to investigate sources and come to our own conclusion. no one needs to attack others.. you make a mental note and bring it to an admins attention if it bothers you that much.. you dont lose your cool. I havent read the link or the stories.. and honestly, dont care to because it has little effect on this ted olsen arguement..



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by Alfie1
 


i think we all have the right to investigate sources and come to our own conclusion. no one needs to attack others.. you make a mental note and bring it to an admins attention if it bothers you that much.. you dont lose your cool. I havent read the link or the stories.. and honestly, dont care to because it has little effect on this ted olsen arguement..


Everyone certainly has a right to investigate what they want. But what they don't have a right to is to misrepresent something, clearly identified as a spoof, as being real. That is just plain fraud in anyones book.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


well, do you have proof he knew it was fake and posted it anyways? thats a huge assumption. and people cant make mistakes.? my problem is, those who believe the OS tend to jump on these little mistakes and run with it till the olympics start..

so, like I said, it makes no difference in this ted olsen arguement.. theres still "real" discrepencies.. so focus on that



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by Alfie1
 


well, do you have proof he knew it was fake and posted it anyways? thats a huge assumption. and people cant make mistakes.? my problem is, those who believe the OS tend to jump on these little mistakes and run with it till the olympics start..

so, like I said, it makes no difference in this ted olsen arguement.. theres still "real" discrepencies.. so focus on that


No, it's not a huge assumption, the whole piece is subject to the caveat " I hope you, the reader, realize this discussion never took place.". Not easy to miss.

So what are the real discrepancies ? Ted Olson didn't know whether his wife's calls were from a cell phone call or an airfone. He didn't take the calls in the first place so why should he have clue ? Was it something of importance to him ?

On the other hand, truthers are actually trying to shoe-horn in made up evidence to make the case.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


to play devils advocate, he may not have read the entire website, including the part that said it was fake.
I dont think anyone here is dumb enough to argue a blatant lie with you OS'ers.




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join