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: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
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.


OK, well let him come back on here and say he didn't realise it was a fake and we can go on from there.




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


well thats between you and him cause to be honest I dont really care


I was however, caring about seeing some real discussion going on here, not this trivial junk.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


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

edition.cnn.com...



Interesting parts of the interview:


OLSON: I had heard a few moments before -- a few minutes before -- of the disaster occurring at the World Trade Center. There is a television set in the back of my office. I turned it on and watched with horror the film being replayed of the airplanes crashing in to the World Trade Center.

KING: Both crashes?

OLSON: Both. The second one had just occurred, I think, when I had turned it on, but they occurred in such a fashion they had film of it, which as this station -- I think I was watching CNN.


Question is Mr. Olson: "How did you see both plane crashes just after the second plane crash on CNN when it wasn't until the next day that the Naudet Brother's film was released?"

Is it just that he "mis-spoke" like Bush? Or did he really see both plane crashes?

And why are both the president and the SG saying they watched the first plane crash when it's quite obvious they couldn't if the OS is to believed? Not to mention Rumsfeldt's slips of the tongue about missles and being shot down.

When you can't get your story straight, it makes you appear to be lying about something.





edit on 5-1-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Alfie1
 


well thats between you and him cause to be honest I dont really care


I was however, caring about seeing some real discussion going on here, not this trivial junk.


You don't care and you think it is "trivial junk" if someone puts in a completely made up interview as evidence ?

What sort of truther are you ?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


In regard to substantiating stories. Are you now in a position to offer evidence of your allegation, on page 3 , that Ted Olson retracted his account of speaking to his wife on the telephone on the morning of 9/11 ? thanks.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Nutter
 


In regard to substantiating stories. Are you now in a position to offer evidence of your allegation, on page 3 , that Ted Olson retracted his account of speaking to his wife on the telephone on the morning of 9/11 ? thanks.



He retracted the statement that she called him on her cell phone. That is what was implied.

Now, back to the more pressing issue.

Did Olson see the first plane crash on CNN not long after the second plane crash? Or did he mis-speak? Or did he not remember his lines?

Or are you going to continue to call Rodriguez a liar for changing "booms" to "explosions" but defend Olson when he flip flops?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 
Yes, I'll offer up the charge that Ted's lying. And I'll bet there's a hundred more who will join in in a New York minute. And I'll also bet that Ted won't sue for slander because he would have to defend his statements made that day. Sure is a good thing Ted has you knuckleheads sticking up for his good name. I'll bet he's dying to thank you guys for your unwavering support throughout his difficult time.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Alfie1
 
Yes, I'll offer up the charge that Ted's lying. And I'll bet there's a hundred more who will join in in a New York minute. And I'll also bet that Ted won't sue for slander because he would have to defend his statements made that day. Sure is a good thing Ted has you knuckleheads sticking up for his good name. I'll bet he's dying to thank you guys for your unwavering support throughout his difficult time.


OK, so where did he lie exactly ?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
OK, so where did he lie exactly ?



KING: Both crashes?

OLSON: Both.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Nutter
 


In regard to substantiating stories. Are you now in a position to offer evidence of your allegation, on page 3 , that Ted Olson retracted his account of speaking to his wife on the telephone on the morning of 9/11 ? thanks.



He retracted the statement that she called him on her cell phone. That is what was implied.

Now, back to the more pressing issue.

Did Olson see the first plane crash on CNN not long after the second plane crash? Or did he mis-speak? Or did he not remember his lines?

Or are you going to continue to call Rodriguez a liar for changing "booms" to "explosions" but defend Olson when he flip flops?


So, it turns out you cannot substantiate your allegation that Ted Olson retracted his statement about receiving calls from his wife on the morning of 9/11.

What you are saying is quite different; that he didn't know whether it was from a cell phone or not. Why should he ? He didn't take the calls, a secretary called Lori Keyton did. If you took a call from your spouse in a life threatening situation would the sort of phone he/she was using be your first priority ?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
i think its more likely lying about the phone call than seeing both crashes. the reason being; there were countless camera pointed at the world trade center, almost 24/7. news liked to use a live feed of the towers as an intro or segway.. with that said, its possible the networks showed government officials the feed before their signal was disconnected due to the impact/explosion. this is the only thing I can think of to explain how officials, including bush, were able to view the first impact, if infact they were huddled around waiting for it to occur.

the thing about olsen is, he has tried too hard to mitigate the damages of his testimony, that has been contradictory to itself.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
What you are saying is quite different; that he didn't know whether it was from a cell phone or not. Why should he ? He didn't take the calls, a secretary called Lori Keyton did. If you took a call from your spouse in a life threatening situation would the sort of phone he/she was using be your first priority ?


Then why even make the statement in the first place? Why not just say "she called me"? Why go in to detail that she called from her cell then flip flop to airphone? Especially if it's not that important?
edit on 5-1-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Here's a very early interview with Ted Olsen..
He does briefly mention seeing the two planes hit..
He mentions that CNN must have recorded the first hit..Confused.??

The Olsen part starts at 2:30..




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


It's almost painful to listen to that script.

For 2 lousy minutes, they sure were able to express a LOT to one another.

Wonder why he wasn't able to produce any proof of this magical conversation at the trial?

Now I ask you, if this were you or I....in a court of law, do you think we'd get away with all this? Of course not!

I guess the old saying "it's all a matter of who you know not what you know' that buys freedom (and protects criminals)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Talking about getting away with stuff. Have you nothing to say about the made up Larry King / Ted Olson interview you posted earlier as if it was genuine ?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


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


I did review it. You're quoting one of the same internet con artists spewing drivel that I've been trying to get to you wake up and understand he's an internet con artist to begin with- David Ray Griffin. He's been caught red handed at making stuff up and manipulating everything he quotes time and time again (I.E. no phones on the planes, antiaircraft batteries at the Pentagon, etc), so that horse is dead so I'm not going to beat it anymore. Sheesh, the guy doesn't even think planes hit the towers..

...So I'll ask again- what do you have that actually shows the FBI is accusing Ted Olson of lying. That is, that's actually from the FBI? You know, the ones supposedly accusing Ted Olson of lying?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
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...


All right, I accept that point of argument. Ted Olson would have been able to recognize the caller from the caller ID. So when Ted Olson said his wife was calling from a cell phone, why are you insisting he's lying? You just ponted out right now how he would have know.

From the phone records to Ted Olson's office as well as his secretary's testimony, there were a number of calls coming into his office (six to eight) that were disconencted, Afterwards, another one came in from an operator asking to approve a collect call which turned out to be from Barbara Olson, and a following one came in from Barbara Olson herself. It is not for debate that if Barbara Olson wanted to call her husband in an emergency and couldn't get through, she would have kept trying to call out on every phone in arm's reach until she did get through. Plus, it is not for debate there were two other witnesses to her calling through (the operator as well as the secretary).

As far as I'm concerned, Barbara Olson called or tried to call Ted Olson on BOTH her cell phone and the airphones, so bickering over trivialities like which phone Ted Olson said she was using for each individual call is pointless and counterproductive for you. If you want to accuse Ted Olson of lying to cover up the murder of his wife you're going to need to find something more tangible than this.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone. Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10,” “9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11,” 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008, intelfiles.egoplex.com:80...).] And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred. This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:25 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..


I pretty much stick with this one...though occasionally I'll post in other areas when I see an outrageous enough title that I'd want to respond. I used to post to the History Channel's discussion board but the moderators there are idiots and have NO rhyme or reason for their moderating. People on both sides of the debate would post material on something concerning 9/11 and they'd delete it without explanation, but when I posted a muffin recipe it stayed there for months. Believe me when I say posting here on ATS is like a breath of fresh air.

We now return to our regularly scheduled program...



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

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


First, I am sincere that simply accusing Tel Oldon of lying to cover up the murder of his wife entirely becuase you don't want to believe it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon...or even worse...because you're mindlessly quoting some made up BS David Ray Griffin cooked up to sell his conspiracy books...is ignorant and reprehensible. Between the multiple phone calls from Barbara Olson, the other witnesses reporting that Barbara Olson called out, plus the fact that Barbara Olson wasn't the only person to call out, there is simply too much legitimate proof backing up Ted Olson's claim to just sweep it under the rug and pretend it's not there.

Second, I am sincere in wanting you conspiracy people to get your act together with your three ring circus of controled demolitions, Lasers from outer space, Jewish World order plots, secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists, no planes, etc etc etc. How can you deny that this lack of a cohesive momentum is only hurting you, not us. DO you really not understand that to the average Joe Smith on the street, your coming up to him and accusing Ted Olson of lying to cover up the murder of his wife is only going to make YOU and your fellow conspiracy theorists look reprehensible?

Here's a crazy, way out thought for you...suppose there really WAS a conspiracy involving controlled demolitions, and it really WAS flight 77 that hit the Pentagon? There's no rule saying that becuase one happened, the other couldn't happen.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join