Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
9/11 questions? (Read 3587 times)
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #15 - Sep 5th, 2010 at 4:51pm
 
it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:39pm:
The segue of my previous post was lost on you, then?

__________

not at all,

i do not contemplate nonsensical hyperbole and distraction

from the topic at hand...

Aww I dunno, have a think... Mangled  welded pipes... 9/11 and all that... After "welcome to my head", you could subtitle it "the Joos dunnit... badassed".... Cashed up nutjobs would be onto them faster than winos on a flagon of meths.

Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #16 - Sep 5th, 2010 at 4:58pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 12:54pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:30am:
it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:16am:
about the 9/11 topic,

any comments?

The segue of my previous post was lost on you, then?

You're a dim-witted nut, that makes you susceptible to conspiracy and crank theories.


Light is a strange person but the cover up after 9/11 is also very strange.


Booby the 'cover-up' on 9/11 could be as simple as "Yes we DID have intell on it but didn't do anything"....which wouldn't be too 'unbelievable'...

However, there is a HUGE difference between being too stupid, or arrogant, to believe the rumours.....and actually running the attack yourself...

Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #17 - Sep 5th, 2010 at 9:50pm
 
If you wanted to nuke/go to war with whoever -would you really need to destroy your own world trade centre first?
It makes sense to complete idiots only. Apparently there are millions of them.






Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
aikmann4
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2093
canberra
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #18 - Sep 5th, 2010 at 9:56pm
 
Jews did WTC. Let's face it guys.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #19 - Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:31pm
 
aikmann4 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 9:56pm:
Jews did WTC. Let's face it guys.




LOL well the 'obvious' high IQ of the film makers (Cletus and Lemuel).. convinces me no end....
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
it_is_the_light
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #20 - Sep 6th, 2010 at 7:09pm
 
co intel pro much?
Back to top
 

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : )  ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯
it_is_the_light it_is_the_light Christ+Light Christ+Light  
IP Logged
 
mikeyy
New Member
*
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #21 - Sep 6th, 2010 at 7:36pm
 
This proves my point. If you take a few million people you can always find a few who will believe anything. Anyway that's what my dog told me this morning.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
it_is_the_light
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #22 - Sep 6th, 2010 at 8:04pm
 
ahem,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjImLL4NnwA

http://afpakwar.com/blog/archives/2557

Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials

By David Ray Griffin1

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” [CNN Story] According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2

Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3

However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.

Olson’s Self-Contradictions

Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.

Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6

By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement.) The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7

American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version

However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI

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,
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html).] 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.

Back to top
 

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : )  ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯
it_is_the_light it_is_the_light Christ+Light Christ+Light  
IP Logged
 
it_is_the_light
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #23 - Sep 6th, 2010 at 8:08pm
 
Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians

Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.11

According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”12

This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “(t)he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”.13, and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.[14.  Shoestring, “The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?” Shoestring911, February 2, 2008 (http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/flight-77-murder-mystery-who-really.html).] Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don’t know what happened in that cockpit, but I’m sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”14

The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”15

Conclusion

This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.

Source: Serendipity (Google Cache of this page)

This essay is based on Chapter 8 (“Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?”) of David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008). ↩
Tim O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN, September 11, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson). ↩
This was pointed out in The 9/11 Commission Report, 8. ↩
Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html). ↩
“America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,” Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html ↩
In his “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture,” delivered November 16, 2001 (http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp), Olson said that she “somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in the airplane to call.” He laid out this version of his story more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, “She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html). ↩
I discussed the technical difficulties of making cell phone calls from airliners in 2001 in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 87-88, 292-97. ↩
See the submission of 17 February 2006 by “the Paradroid” on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75. ↩
United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html). These documents can be more easily viewed in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights” (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html). ↩
FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic ↩
Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007). ↩
O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane”. ↩
9/11 Commission Staff Statement 16
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf). ↩
“In Memoriam: Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame, 1949-2001,” USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html). ↩
Back to top
 

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : )  ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯
it_is_the_light it_is_the_light Christ+Light Christ+Light  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #24 - Sep 6th, 2010 at 11:22pm
 
The truly sad thing about the 9/11 Truth movement is that it's based upon the wildly erroneous proposition that our leaders would ever be frightened enough of public opinion to feel the need to pull off this kind of stunt before acting in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq. At its heart, 9/11 Truth is a conceit, a narcissistic pipe dream for a dingbat, sheeplike population that is pleased to imagine itself dangerous and ungovernable. Rather than admit to their own powerlessness and irrelevance, or admit that they've spent the last fifty years or so electing leaders who openly handed their tax money to business cronies and golfed in Scotland while middle America's jobs were being sent overseas, the adherents to 9/11 Truth instead flatter themselves with fantasies about a ruling class obsessed with keeping the terrible truth from the watchful, exacting eye of The People.

Whereas the real conspiracy of power in America is right out in the open and always has been, only nobody cares, so long as Fear Factor and Baseball Tonight come on a the right times. A conspiracy like the one described by 9/11 Truth would only be necessary in a country where the people are a threat to actually govern themselves effectively.

But none of that even matters nearly as much as what 9/11 Truth says about the mental state of the population. The whole narrative of the movement is so completely and utterly retarded, it boggles the mind. It's like something cooked up by a bunch of teenagers raised on texting, TV and Sports Illustrated who just saw V For Vendetta for the first time and decided to write a Penguin History of the World on the strength of it. A genius on the order of a Mozart or a Shakespeare would be hard-pressed to dream up the awesome comedy that is the alleged plot from the point of view of the plotters. If there was such a conspiracy, remember, something like the following conversation would have had to have taken place:

Read on at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33511
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #25 - Sep 7th, 2010 at 8:21pm
 
Quote:
The truly sad thing about the 9/11 Truth movement is that it's based upon the wildly erroneous proposition that our leaders would ever be frightened enough of public opinion to feel the need to pull off this kind of stunt before acting in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq.


That's not a statement that I would agree with in the least. Governments need the support of their people.
History is littered with fallen governments who thought themselves to be above public support.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
abu_rashid
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #26 - Sep 7th, 2010 at 10:40pm
 
Light,

don't expect any of these sheeple to actually address anything you post, as soon as you question the "official" 9/11 story, your credibility is instantly eroded in their eyes.

9/11 is a sacred experience for them, and anyone questioning the common narrative is blaspheming in their eyes. And although they don't use direct means to stifle that "blasphemy" they do use indirect means, like instantly lampooning the very notion that the official line might not be the truth, in order to dispel any such questioning as irrational and nonsensical.
Back to top
 
abu_rashid  
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #27 - Sep 7th, 2010 at 11:01pm
 
abu_rashid wrote on Sep 7th, 2010 at 10:40pm:
Light,

don't expect any of these sheeple to actually address anything you post, as soon as you question the "official" 9/11 story, your credibility is instantly eroded in their eyes.


The Irony... the paradox... the comedy... the ramma damma ding ding dong...

What can I say?

Abu Ratshit schmoozing it_is_the_fruit...

Ham on Ham

Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
aikmann4
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2093
canberra
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #28 - Sep 7th, 2010 at 11:20pm
 
Helian, I think you mean ham on lamb. Ham on ham is unclean.

Namaste.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: 9/11 questions?
Reply #29 - Sep 8th, 2010 at 7:59am
 
aikmann4 wrote on Sep 7th, 2010 at 11:20pm:
Helian, I think you mean ham on lamb. Ham on ham is unclean.

Namaste.

Yes, of course... Forgot about that Wink

hamassed.
Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print