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

reply to post by Alfie1


incorrect.. I dont care to read any more bickering about it

reply to post by vipertech0596


"Believing" ,"could be" , is not what is presented on court, i stated thousands times what is presented on court :
2 calls Renee May , one unconnected call Barbara Olson and 5 unknown calls

reply to post by xavi1000


And also, presented by the FBI as evidence, the sworn testimony of the other individuals who spoke with Barbara Olson that day. But, you seemed to be all too willing to ignore all of the facts.

reply to post by vipertech0596


I dont care about other individuals who spoke with Barbara Olson that day,this thread is about Ted Olson and evidence is that was one unnconected call only with him personally.

reply to post by xavi1000


No, the evidence is that there were a few connected calls from Barbara to Ted that day. The airline says it, the phone company says it, Ted's secretary says it, Ted says it and even the FBI agrees. THAT is the evidence. YOU choose to ignore it.

reply to post by vipertech0596


No ,8 calls on trial , 2 Renee,one Barbara, 5 unknown

reply to post by xavi1000


Gotta hand it to you, you stick to your guns. Even when you are completely wrong.

In a court of law, it was presented by the prosecution and accepted by the defense, that based upon the evidence gathered by the FBI, that one Barbara Olson, attempted to make a phone call using her cellphone. Also, presented and accepted in the same court, was that Barbara used a seat back phone to call her husband at 9:15, 9:20, 9:26 and 9:30. In addition, the on button was pressed at 9:14, but that call did not go through. In case you are keeping score, that's FIVE calls.

Now, in a court of law, in the United States, when something is presented and accepted, it is called EVIDENCE.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


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.

Unlike those in the Gubberment, who never feed the public with non-stop lies and paranoia and always tell the truth. Those who believe the OS have simply become victims of their con - and some are even so deeply conned by their lies that they are employed by them to spread their lies and paranoia on sites like ATS.

reply to post by wcitizen


Ah yes, the ever popular "you are paid by the gubbermint to post their lies on ATS". You know, I've actually tried to apply for that job....it doesn't exist.

reply to post by vipertech0596


are you writing a book ?
give me a link

Wow Dave.

Happy New Year BTW.

I think Ted Olsen's witness testimony is as flawed as the video showing flight 77 penetrating the pentagon.

Only subjective conjecture by someone traumatized by the emotionally traumatic event(s) of the day.

I've seen a post or two of yours where you have questioned/doubted certain things about the OS.

My brother once received a phone call from his fiancee, two hours after she was killed in a car accident...

It's not about "joining" us damn fool conspiracy theorists in our fight for resolution that you should let keep you from continued forward progress in these baby-steps to the justice side of the fence.

Ted might have loved her incomprehensibly to those who are not familiar with such a bond.

His testimony was flawed, and without a "proper" investigation, the OS is subjective conjecture.

Do you not agree?

reply to post by xavi1000


cryptome.org...

Page 330.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Ah yes, the ever popular "you are paid by the gubbermint to post their lies on ATS". You know, I've actually tried to apply for that job....it doesn't exist.

Well, first off my post wasn't directed at you.
Second, it's a variation on the theme like 'you believe that idiot x, y or z , often used by debunkers.
Third, clearly didn't think you were gppd enough for the job - the job exists, they lied to you, the annual budget is approx 4 billion, it has even been reported in the MSM, which I am sure you consider very reliable. But of course, you know all this already.

reply to post by loveguy


And the FBI conducted a proper investigation that concluded Barbara made those calls. So, while Ted may have made one or two minor errors in his recollection the actual investigation backed him up in the major parts.

reply to post by wcitizen


And you are getting your stories confused. The eptiome of a 9/11 truther.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
A question for you all, if I may...

While I was chatting with a certain conspiracy theorist here...and I won't mention any names since my goal isn't to ridicule others here...this person made the quite flabberghasting accusation that Ted Olson was lying when he said he received a call from his wife Barbara from flight 77. I don't know whether this person realized it, but this necessarily not only means that Ted Olson is actively participating in the coverup of the 9/11 conspiracy (whatever that is), he's also actively involved in covering up the murder of his wife. 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...BUT as many people here likewise claim, they really don't care what I think. BUT, I do care what YOU think.

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?

As dozens of others probably have pointed out, your basic assumption is wrong. First,what point does that term "cover-up" serve?
The only sense to be make of his words without a vastly, vastly complex conspiracy plot is that he was trying to make her and himself heros in that awful tragedy. He evidently thought who can this hurt if I make these claims and ch-chings were sounding loudly in his ears.

Originally posted by Aliensun


As dozens of others probably have pointed out, your basic assumption is wrong. First,what point does that term "cover-up" serve?
The only sense to be make of his words without a vastly, vastly complex conspiracy plot is that he was trying to make her and himself heros in that awful tragedy. He evidently thought who can this hurt if I make these claims and ch-chings were sounding loudly in his ears.

Why are you being so lenient and generous to this man?

Where I come from embellishing, lying, exaggerating or omitting is STILL perjury!

To me, the guy creeps me out. He comes off extremely disingenuous and very rehearsed.

You know the irony of the whole thing? It's made a giant rip between us! The innocent ones. The ones ultimately paying the price for that fateful (scripted) day!

And the crooks, liars and omitters laugh all the way to, Paraguay!

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by wcitizen

 

And you are getting your stories confused. The eptiome of a 9/11 truther.

In your dreams, perhaps!

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
AT&T Phone Records

Did you happen to notice the times?

First call 7:18:58 to 7:19:44

Second call 7:15:34 to 7:16:35

Third call 7:20:15 to 7:20:29

Fourth call 7:25:48 to 7:25:59

When did Flight 77 take off?

The flight was scheduled to depart at 08:10 am. Flight 77 pushed back from Gate D26 at 08:09 AM[16] and took off from Runway 30 at Dulles at 08:20 am.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, G-O-D, you want us to believe that Barbera phoned her husband from the plane almost an hour before it took off?

And don't try to say it's central time because the addresses (Coraopolis, PA, and Arlington, VA) are in the eastern time zone.

edit on 6-1-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)

Do you know what time AT & T were using on their airfone accounts ? Did it change from time zone to time zone ? Did it take any notice of daylight saving ?

Fact is that the FBI, the 9/11 Commission and lawyers on both sides in the Moussaoui trial were satisfied the calls were made between 0900 and 0930.

But if you think you have found a smoking gun why don't you pursue it with AT & T and the FBI ?

reply to post by Alfie1


I'm guessing AT&T uses the standard mountain time then? When their corporate office is in Dallas (central time) and the phone calls were in eastern time?

But, I'm guessing it is just a standard to use mountain time?

If so. My bad. But, I seriously have doubts that the standard recording time for AT&T would be mountain time given the above information.

And remember this?

She called me -- we always did this with one another. We always called one another a lot during the day, sometimes very briefly. But she called me around -- it must have been around 7:30 or 7:40, before she got on the plane.

edition.cnn.com...

Fits in pretty well with the times in eastern time huh?

I'm not saying I'm correct, but it seems extremely phishy to me to use mountain time as a standard when your headquarters are in central time and the calls happened in eastern time.

Now, if you could point me to where it is stated by AT&T that they use mountain time as a standard, then I will gladly retract this point of the argument.

Edit: Upon further reflection, central time not adjusted for daylight savings could be the answer. Like I said, I'm not married to the argument.