Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Witnesses

Postby dbeach » Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:32 pm

OGCT= Official Govt Conspiracy Theory<br><br><br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm">www.vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>"The deliberate little white lie was essential. Ask yourself: What would most Americans have been thinking about on September 12, if CNN had not provided this timely fiction? Would anyone anywhere have really believed the insane government story about failed Cessna pilots with box cutters taking over heavy jets, then hurling them expertly around the sky like polished Top Guns from the film of the same name? Of course not! As previously stated there would have been no Osama Bin Laden, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine.<br> This report is designed to examine the sequence of the Olson events and lay them bare for public examination. Dates and times are of crucial importance here, so if this report seems tedious try to bear with me. Before moving on to discuss the impossibility of the alleged calls, we first need to examine how CNN managed to “find out” about them, reported here in the September 12 CNN story at 2.06 am EDT:<br> “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. Shortly afterwards Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon” … “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said 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. She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to do.”<br> At no point in the above report does CNN quote Ted Olson directly. If the report was authentic and 100% attributable, it would have been phrased quite differently. Instead of “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel…”, the passage would read approximately:- Mr Olson told CNN, “My wife said all passengers and flight personnel…” Whoever wrote this story was certainly not in direct contact with US Solicitor General Ted Olson.<br> Think about it, people! If you knew or suspected your spouse’s aircraft had just fireballed inside the Pentagon building, how would you spend the rest of the day? Initially you would certainly be in deep shock and unwilling to believe the reports. Then you would start to gather your wits together, a slow process in itself. After that and depending on individual personality, you might drive over to the Pentagon on the off chance your spouse survived the horrific crash, or you might go home and wait for emergency services to bring you the inevitable bad news. As a matter of record, Ted Olson did not return to work until six days later.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>“She [Barbara] had trouble getting through, because she wasn’t using her cell phone – she was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. “I guess she didn’t have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy.” … “She wanted to know ‘What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?’ ”<br> "What Can I tell the pilot?" Yes indeed! The forged Barbara Olson telephone call claims that the flight deck crew were with her at the back of the aircraft, presumably politely ushered down there by the box cutter-wielding Muslim maniacs, who for some bizarre reason decided not to cut their throats on the flight deck. Have you ever heard anything quite so ridiculous?<br> But it is at this juncture that we finally have the terminal error. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.<br> It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network. Under these circumstances the passengers’ seat phone on a Boeing 757 is a much use as a plastic toy.<br> Perhaps Ted Olson made a mistake and Barbara managed to borrow a credit card from a fellow passenger? Not a chance. If Barbara had done so, once swiped through the phone, the credit card would have enabled her to call whoever she wanted to for as long as she liked, negating any requirement to call collect.<br><br><br><br> Even without this hard proof, the chances of meaningfully using a seat-telephone on Flight 77 were nil. We know from the intermittent glimpses of the aircraft the air traffic controllers had on the radar scopes, that Flight 77 was travelling at extreme speed at very low level, pulling high “G’ turns in the process.<br> Under these circumstances it would be difficult even reaching a phone, much less using it. Finally, the phones on the Boeing 757 rely on either ground cell phone towers or satellite bounce in order to maintain a stable connection. At very low altitude and extreme speed, the violent changes in aircraft attitude would render the normal telephone links completely unusable. <br> Exactly the same applies with United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed before reaching any targets. The aircraft was all over the place at extreme speed on radar, but as with Flight 77 we are asked to believe that the “hijackers” allowed a passenger called Todd Beamer to place a thirteen minute telephone call. Very considerate of them. The Pittsburg Channel put it this way in a story first posted at 1.38 pm EDT on September 16, 2001:<br> “Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said. He provided detailed information about the hijacking and -- after the operator told him about the morning's World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks - said he and others on the plane were planning to act against the terrorists aboard.” Note here that Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from Todd personally, but was later “told” by an operator that her husband had allegedly called. Just another unfortunate media con job for the trash can.<br> As previously stated it is the Barbara Olson story that really counts, a view reinforced by the recent antics of the London print media. The photo at the top of this page is a copy of that printed in the West Australian newspaper. You only have to study it closely for a second to realize its full subliminal potential.<br><br><br> Here is a studious and obviously very honest man. The US Solicitor General sits in front of a wall lined with leather-bound volumes of Supreme Court Arguments, with a photo of his dead wife displayed prominently in front of him. Does anyone out there seriously believe that this man, a bastion of US law, would tell even a minor lie on a matter as grave as national security?<br> Theodore Olson’s own words indicate that he would be prepared to do rather more than that On March 21, 2002 on its page A35, the Washington Post newspaper printed an article titled “The Limits of Lying” by Jim Hoagland, who writes that a statement by Solicitor General Theodore Olson in the Supreme Court has the ring of perverse honesty.<br> Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of America, US Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out.""<br> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Witnesses

Postby NewKid » Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:38 pm

Babs Olsen is a certainly an interesting question in the whole thing. As for the govt witnesses, no, I wouldn't trust any of them any further than I could spit. It would be very easy to get those folks to lie if you needed to. But I doubt you'd even need to. They could have had other people put words in their mouth before they even said anything and then have them faced the prospect of denying they saw a plane. Or any number of other possibilities. (Remember too that the CNN correspondent was on the air 40 minutes or so right after and said he couldn't see any evidence that a plane had hit.) <br><br>The much more interesting question is whether they may really think they saw something like a plane. <br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Witnesses

Postby dbeach » Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:41 am

babs olson helped condition the masses during the infamous days of OJ ..when the left right debate over his guilt/innocence captivated the sleepers for months..only the monicagate fiasco trumphed OJ..<br><br>both psyche-ops events used babs as a kinda of she is sweet and innocent so she is believable scenario.<br><br>so babs tragic death on 9/11 appeals directly to this preconditioned image of her as a true and loyal patriot..<br>and her relaxed demeanor calms the discomfort zone..<br>Fascism runs deep in the USA and having a new enemy is another method of control..<br><br>the bush ratings soared after 9/11 and the MM repeated the montra that GW Bush was the war time president..wildly popular..capable of seizing the moment..new rightie leaders were launched like adolph ghoulianni.. the mayor who rose to the occassion...<br><br>near 5 yrs later and NO arrests for the HUGHEST crime in US history..plus the evidence was carted off and sold to china the ole stand by pals of the british empire...<br><br>OSS= pre CIA<br>OS wald<br>OS ama<br><br>9/11 was a literal orgy of multiple criminal families ,patrician syndicates and cabals that would dazzle ancient Rome for its impact on the plebians..<br><br>remember after 9/11 the balloons floated that "we can't let osama take away our liberties"<br><br>WELL its way past that as the patsy act can be renewed indefinitely..<br><br><br>the bush dynasty is not surrendering power...<br>and as law enforcement and the DOJ are either complicit with or too scared to act against the Ivy criminals..then its gonna be a ruff ride.. <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

pentagon strike video

Postby dbeach » Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:33 am

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main">www.freedomunderground.or...n.php#Main</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>interesting very slick production<br><br>those giant cable spools undamaged WHY? <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: pentagon strike video

Postby AlicetheCurious » Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:06 am

NewKid, thank you for your lucid, very informative posts. I've been re-reading the thread and am scratching my head at the counterarguments of Jeff and Qutb, which appear to fall very, very far below a reasonable standard of logic and evidence. Go figure....I guess nobody's perfect, eh? <p></p><i></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: pentagon strike video

Postby AlicetheCurious » Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:38 am

By the way, NewKid, that was a very interesting link. Here's another quote, where the author examines the "eyewitness" testimony, leading him to the following conclusion:<br><br>"The truth of the matter is that the "American Airlines 757 Crashes Into The Pentagon!" story did not spontaneously arise from the eyewitness accounts of rank-and-file citizens. To the contrary, it was a product of the work of Donald Rumsfeld, Ted Olson and unnamed Pentagon officials, and it was reinforced by the media largely through the words of the political operatives and media whores we have already gotten acquainted with -- and people like reputed Navy pilot Tim Timmerman, who spoke on the air with CNN correspondent Bob Franken on the afternoon of September 11 (some four-and-a-half hours after the incident at the Pentagon). Timmerman was seemingly on a mission to unequivocally establish what it was that had allegedly struck the Pentagon:<br><br>Bob Franken: What can you tell us about the plane itself?<br>Tim Timmerman: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.<br>Franken: You say it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?<br>Timmerman: 7-5-7.<br>Franken: 757, which, of course …<br>Timmerman: American Airlines.<br>Franken: American Airlines ...<br><br>And who exactly was this witness who was so cocksure of his identification of the plane? No one seems to know. One researcher (Jerry Russell) failed in his efforts to verify that he is an actual person."<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html">www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: pentagon strike video

Postby NewKid » Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:22 am

Thanks Alice. By the way, do you know what's happened to Fourth Base? I'm dying to know how the class is going. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: pentagon strike video

Postby AlicetheCurious » Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:02 am

Yeah, so am I. I hope he wasn't scared away by that numbingly boring, jesuitical "Monty Hall" diversion. <p></p><i></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: pentagon strike video

Postby Qutb » Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:52 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I've been re-reading the thread and am scratching my head at the counterarguments of Jeff and Qutb, which appear to fall very, very far below a reasonable standard of logic and evidence<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Funny, I'd say the same about the arguments of the no-planers. Eye witnesses worked at USA Today? Aha! There were military people at the Pentagon? Aha! All the evidence could have been planted! The moon could be made out of green cheese! <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Witnesses

Postby Qutb » Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:02 pm

Ok, this is from the vialls story:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Note here that Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from Todd personally, but was later “told” by an operator that her husband had allegedly called. Just another unfortunate media con job for the trash can.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>She also met the operator who had talked to her husband later... there are news stories about this and they're easy to find. <br><br>Of course, that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>could</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> have been a CIA actor impersonating the operator. But at some point, when you have to construct so many epicycles just to support an unfounded theory, isn't it better to abandon the theory. The passengers did communicate with the outside world through cell-phones.<br><br>I also find it interesting that some of the passengers/crew reported details that are at odds with the "offcial" story, such as guns, a bomb, and gas. If the government faked the phonecalls, wouldn't they stick to their own story? <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Witnesses

Postby AlicetheCurious » Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:48 pm

Qutb, as sunny said, "Yeesh! Were there any mechanics or waitresses on hand to witness the attack on the Pentagon?" <br><br>Look into my eyes and say that list of "witnesses" doesn't seem odd to you.<br><br>Now, I'm not saying that there's something fishy here (I'm thinking it only). It's just, you'd think with a crime of this magnitude, and such OUTRAGEOUS accusations and conspiracy theories flying all over the place, that someone in the msm would have bothered to remark on the wonderfully odd <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>coincidence</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, that no regular people saw this plane hit the Pentagon. What a fluke, eh? Only people whose relationship with the White House is muy sympatico saw the plane... Could this be like those wonderful emperor's clothes that only smart people could see? Oh, wait! There WERE no clothes... Hmmm.<br><br>By the way, Qutb, I, too am deeply suspicious of "Joe Vialls" and would definitely not use him as a credible source. He provided some good information, but then mixed in a little poison, making it very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. <p></p><i></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Witnesses

Postby NewKid » Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:12 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Funny, I'd say the same about the arguments of the no-planers. Eye witnesses worked at USA Today? Aha! There were military people at the Pentagon? Aha! All the evidence could have been planted! The moon could be made out of green cheese! <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>Unfortunately, defendants who take the witness stand in their own defense aren't normally very credible. And dare I say, these witnesses would be in a very similar position. <br><br>Oh wait, my bad, these witnesses never have taken the witness stand.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br><br>And boy it sure would be a lot of trouble to plant all "the evidence." I think Mark Fuhrman must have been involved. <br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>She also met the operator who had talked to her husband later... there are news stories about this and they're easy to find. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>You mean, real live news stories? And a real operator? Did she wear the headset like the Time/Life ones do? <br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Of course, that could have been a CIA actor impersonating the operator. But at some point, when you have to construct so many epicycles just to support an unfounded theory, isn't it better to abandon the theory. The passengers did communicate with the outside world through cell-phones.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>All I can say is if Greencrow0 ever gets his prosecution, the defendants better hope Qutb's on the jury.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I also find it interesting that some of the passengers/crew reported details that are at odds with the "offcial" story, such as guns, a bomb, and gas. If the government faked the phonecalls, wouldn't they stick to their own story? <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I don't know. Why don't we ask the israeli art students? <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Witnesses

Postby Qutb » Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:45 pm

There will always be some loose ends... and the number of loose ends you see will depend on how suspicious you are. However, seeing the evidence as a whole (of which eye witness reports are the least important), and the absence of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>any</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> evidece to the contrary, I'm quite confident that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. I see no particular reason to doubt it. <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Witnesses

Postby dbeach » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:23 pm

credibile witnesses are as available as money can buy<br><br>seems the truth is loaeded up with lies kinda like according to plane..or is that according to plan...<br><br>Truth being the first casualty in war..<br><br>one site is more credible or one author is less credible.<br><br>I think I can separate whats true for me..adding of course my own personal biasses to the events..<br><br>Flight 77 hit the pentagon? with or without a missle attached?<br><br>was it remote controlled? a technology avalable since 1940s and even earlier.. <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Witnesses

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:17 pm

The very credible witnesses -firefighters and medics- at the WTC who describe controlled demolition ought to be, in my mind, the focus on 9/11.<br><br>Imagine TV Nation's reaction to that. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests