'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[Jazzz]

There is nothing to suggest that Olsen isn't being truthful about that conversation.

hmm, I'm not so sure about that. If I may be permitted the C&P:

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 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.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/olson_report_of_phone_calls.htm

 

[Blagsta]

Have you got a reputable source?

 

[Pickman's model]

hmm, I'm not so sure about that. If I may be permitted the C&P:



http://www.serendipity.li/wot/olson_report_of_phone_calls.htm

i take it you have a second source to verify that.

 

[Jazzz]

Have you got a reputable source?

The article, as you have no doubt discovered by now, is immaculately sourced.

 

[editor]

hmm, I'm not so sure about that. If I may be permitted the C&P:http://www.serendipity.li/wot/olson_report_of_phone_calls.htm

Really, so what do you think really happened then, Jazzz?

 

[8den]

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Olsoncallrecord1.png

Lori Lynn Keyton, Secretary, Department of Justice (DOJ), Washington, D.C., telephone number (202) [redacted, date of birth [redacted] was contacted telephonically at her residence through the DOJ Command Center at (202) 514-5000. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, Keyton provided the following information:

Keyton was working in Ted Olson's Office this morning. She is regularly called there to cover the telephones. At approximately 9:00am, she received a series of approximately six (6) to eight (8) collect telephone calls. Each of the calls was an automated collect call. There was a recording advising of the collect call and requesting she hold for an operator. A short time later another recording stated that all operators were busy, please hang up and try your call later.

Keyton then received a collect call from a live operator. The operator advised that there was an emergency collect call from Barbara Olsen for Ted Olsen. Keyton advised that she would accept the call. Barbara Olsen was put through and sounded hysterical. Barbara Olsen said, "Can you tell Ted.." Keyton cut her off and said, "I'll put him on the line."

There was a second telephone call a few to five (5) minutes later. This time Barbara Olsen was on the line when she answered. She called direct. It was not a collect call. Barbara Olsen said, "It's Barbara." Keyton said, "he's on the phone with the command center, I'll put you through."
Keyton advised that there is no caller identification feature on the phone she was using. Keyton didn't know if Barbara Olson was calling from the phone on the plane or from her cell phone.

So Lori Keyton is lying too?

Theodore Olson, Solicitor General, United States of America, was interviewed at his residence, [redacted]. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, Olson furnished the following information.

Barbara Olson, Theodore's wife, was a passenger on American Flight # 77, departing Dulles Airport at approximately 8:10am or 8:30am this morning, bound for LAX Airport in Los Angeles, California.

At approximately 9:00am this morning, he did not look at his watch, one of the women in his office advised him of the terrorist attack at the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York. He went to his back office and turned on the television. At that time they were rerunning film of the second plane hitting the WTC.

At this time one of the women in his office told him that Barbara was on the phone. Helen Voss is his regular secretary. She did not relay the call from his wife. It was someone else in the office. At the time he was thanking God that her flight could not have had enough time to get to New York. He picked up the call from his wife and spoke for about one (1) minute. Barbara told him that her plane had been hijacked. She said they had knives and box cutters. He asked if they knew she was on the phone and she replied that they didn't. Barbara told him that they put the passengers in the back of the plane. She had been sitting in first class. Olson's call was then cut off.

After the first call, Olson used his direct line to the Attorney General, but was unable to reach him, so he called the DOJ Command Center and requested someone come to his office. He told them that his wife's plane had been hijacked and gave them the flight number. He wanted to pass this information to someone who could possibly do something.

Shortly after, the same person buzzed him again and said Barbara was on the phone again. Barbara was put through to him. Barbara said the pilot had announced that the plane had been hijacked. She asked Olson what she should tell the captain to do. Olson asked her for her location. She said they were over homes and asked someone else in the plane who said they were traveling North East. Olsen told his wife that two planes had been hijacked and hit the WTC. Barbara did not seemed panicked. This call was then cut off. She didn't manifest anything about a crash. Olson then went back to the television and learned of the crash at the Pentagon.

Barbara did not say anything to describe the hijackers, but did refer to them as "they". She told him "they" had knives and box cutters. She did not make any statements about the hijackers stabbing or slashing the passengers.
Barbara Olson's cell phone number is (202) 365-5889. Olson doesn't know if the calls were made from her cell phone or the telephone on the plane. She always has her cell phone with her.

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.

An utter lie. Other one that has been pointed out to that fucking scumbag Griffin, http://911blogger.com/node/8408#comment-139890


Impeccably sourced my fucking hole. Even the author of that claim admits it's bogus.

 

[phildwyer]

I've said before that I basically believe the official story with regard to 9/11.

But it has to be said that our denialists are making a huge error if they base their argument on the claims of a man like Olson, who has a long record of politically-motivated lying in support of the Bush agenda.

You guys should give this one to Jazzz and move on.

 

[Pickman's model]

The article, as you have no doubt discovered by now, is immaculately sourced.

with the source for the 0 seconds call, it goes back to another source which doesn't appear to support the claim.

 

[8den]

I've said before that I basically believe the official story with regard to 9/11.

But it has to be said that our denialists are making a huge error if they base their argument on the claims of a man like Olson, who has a long record of politically-motivated lying in support of the Bush agenda.

You guys should give this one to Jazzz and move on.

And the secretary who took the call? You're despicable.

 

[Pickman's model]

And the secretary who took the call? You're despicable.

it's dwyer, so that shouldn't be news.

 

[Beanburger]

But it has to be said that our denialists are making a huge error if they base their argument on the claims of a man like Olson, who has a long record of politically-motivated lying....

.... about his murdered wife?

 

[phildwyer]

Look, I'm a denialist myself on this subject. I believe that Bush is telling the truth about 9/11.

But anyone who puts their faith in the claims of Ted Olson will rightly be laughed out of court. He may well be telling the truth about this. But he sure as hell doesn't usually tell the truth. He's a pathological liar.

Seriously, the denialists have much sounder grounds for their case than this. They should use them.

 

[8den]

Look, I'm a denialist myself on this subject. I believe that Bush is telling the truth about 9/11.

But anyone who puts their faith in the claims of Ted Olson will rightly be laughed out of court. He may well be telling the truth about this. But he sure as hell doesn't usually tell the truth. He's a pathological liar.

Seriously, the denialists have much sounder grounds for their case than this. They should use them.

Dwyer, he's a former US Attorney General, people like that don't tend to get laughed out of court on the get go. Where's your basis that he's a "pathological liar". Or y'know covering up the murder of several thousand people. He's also attempted to overturn a ban on same sex marriage in California, that absolute bastard.

 

[Beanburger]

But anyone who puts their faith in the claims of Ted Olson will rightly be laughed out of court. He may well be telling the truth about this. But he sure as hell doesn't usually tell the truth. He's a pathological liar.

But you're talking about his murdered wife. You're suggesting that he can't be trusted to tell the truth about his wife. Who was murdered.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

They don't need to. They're passive-aggressive. Which when you think about it, is a lot more offensive than a bit of swearing. At least when someone's calling you a cunt, they're being straight with you.

Blimey, this is like a psycho-analyst seminar innit?

Got a breakdown analysis of 8dens high octane Cartman-esque sweariness?

Are you qualified to judge it as pathological?

 

[Beanburger]

Blimey, this is like a psycho-analyst seminar innit?

Got a breakdown analysis of 8dens high octane Cartman-esque sweariness?

Are you qualified to judge it as pathological?

Not in the slightest. I was taking the piss.

 

[phildwyer]

But you're talking about his murdered wife. You're suggesting that he can't be trusted to tell the truth about his wife. Who was murdered.

I wouldn't trust Ted Olson to tell me the time of day. He is a completely unscrupulous character who would lie about anything.

But the point is that the denialist case does not depend on establishing the truth of his testimony. Why our denialists continue to insist on this extremely weak element of their case mystifies me.

 

[Pickman's model]

I wouldn't trust Ted Olson to tell me the time of day. He is a completely unscrupulous character who would lie about anything.

yeh, you'd never lie about anything. i mean, you never lied when you said you could prove the existence of god, did you?

 

[8den]

Got a breakdown analysis of 8dens high octane Cartman-esque sweariness?

Lying assholes tend to inflame my tourettes.

 

[Pickman's model]

Cartman-esque

suffixing words with -esque should be a banning offence.

 

[phildwyer]

Dwyer, he's a former US Attorney General, people like that don't tend to get laughed out of court on the get go. Where's your basis that he's a "pathological liar". Or y'know covering up the murder of several thousand people. He's also attempted to overturn a ban on same sex marriage in California, that absolute bastard.

You neglect to mention that gay rights groups have rejected his offer of assistance, on the excellent grounds that he is a known liar whose involvement would bring nothing but shame to their cause.

Why do I say he's a liar? Oh you know, just little things like lying about Iran-Contra, lying to get George Bush's election fraud ratified by the Supreme Court, that sort of thing. Nothing important like.

 

[Beanburger]

Lying assholes tend to inflame my tourettes.

 

[Beanburger]

I wouldn't trust Ted Olson to tell me the time of day. He is a completely unscrupulous character who would lie about anything.

That's a big leap - insisting that someone you've never met would lie about the death of his wife.

But the point is that the denialist case does not depend on establishing the truth of his testimony. Why our denialists continue to insist on this extremely weak element of their case mystifies me.

"Denialists"? What are "denialists" denying, exactly? Conspiraloonacy? Besides which, it's simply another crack in the conspiraloon case - hardly make or break stuff.

 

[8den]

You neglect to mention that gay rights groups have rejected his offer of assistance, on the excellent grounds that he is a known liar whose involvement would bring nothing but shame to their cause.

Phil.

Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, long identified as opposing forces for conservative and liberal groups, filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, arguing that a California constitutional amendment eliminating the right of gay couples to marry violates the U.S. constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Olson said he hopes the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This is a federal question," Olson said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized."

He said that he and Boies, who have become close friends in the years since Bush v. Gore, decided to collaborate on the issue.

"We wanted to be a symbol of the fact that this not a conservative or a liberal issue. We want to send a signal that this is an important constitutional issue involving equal rights for all Americans," Olson said.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on Friday, before the California Supreme Court issued a ruling Tuesday upholding the state's voter-approved Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage.

The lawsuit argues that Proposition 8 creates a category of "second-class citizens" in violation of the U.S. Constitution. It seeks a preliminary injunction against imposition of the amendment until the lawsuit is resolved, immediately reinstating marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The lawsuit names six California officials as defendants, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown. It cites numerous precedents including the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage. It cites language in that decision that holds "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."

The lawyers said that by relegating same-sex unions to "the separate-but-unequal institution of domestic partnership," California is violating the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection for all.

They cite numerous alleged violations of the federal amendment including singling out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status and discriminating on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

"We believe this is the kind of matter where Americans must come together and recognize the rights of all citizens," Olson said.

The plaintiffs in the new lawsuit are Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, a lesbian couple from Berkeley who have been together for nine years and are parents of four boys; and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarillo, a gay couple from Burbank who have been together for eight years. Both couples want the right to get married.

Oh yeah he's an also.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/26/state/n161614D94.DTL

Why do I say he's a liar? Oh you know, just little things like lying about Iran-Contra, lying to get George Bush's election fraud ratified by the Supreme Court, that sort of thing. Nothing important like.

Examples of his lies please. Specific lies. Don't wave me at Iran Contra, or Election fraud.

 

[Pickman's model]

you want the lies you can't handle the lies

[/dwyer]

 

[Blagsta]

The article, as you have no doubt discovered by now, is immaculately sourced.

I asked if you had a reputable source? I'll take it from your answer that you haven't.

 

[Pickman's model]

I asked if you had a reputable source? I'll take it from your answer that you haven't.

it's JAZZZ

surely you don't expect a reputable source from a jazzz post?

 

[Blagsta]

it's JAZZZ

surely you don't expect a reputable source from a jazzz post?

I don't, but it's worth a try.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't, but it's worth a try.

i bet he doesn't even have a reputable sauce in his house

 

[Jazzz]

with the source for the 0 seconds call, it goes back to another source which doesn't appear to support the claim.

I just checked out that one for myself, and you can too, from the US government source:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html

Indeed it features this page on the flash presentation (and no others identified as for Barbara Olson).