Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

David Ray Griffin and Barbara Olson Cell Phone Analysis (3 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    Not a big fan of the cell phone angle or Barbara Olson doubt angle.

    Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
    David Ray Griffin
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&...

    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.


    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.

    http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/fetze...


    Colmes: Wasn’t Barbara Olson on one of the planes? The one that hit at—

    Fetzer: Great, let’s talk about Barbara Olson, we have discovered that those cellphone calls would have been physically impossible at speeds—at altitudes above 2000 feet and speeds above 230. AK Dewadney (sic), who’s a professor of computer science from Western Ontario has discovered that it becomes less and less possible to make those connections at the altitudes and speeds of these planes they would not have been possible. Now, Barbara Olson, according to her husband, called him, but he has given three different versions of her call, and get this, Alan, her name is not listed on the Social Security death index. If she’s dead her name ought to be listed there. It’s not.

    Colmes: Are you suggesting Barbara Olson’s not dead?

    Fetzer: There have been reports, that I haven’t been able to verify, that she was arrested in Europe, her husband is now retired and he has moved to Europe. You figure it out.

    Colmes: Ted Olson’s living in Europe?

    Fetzer: That’s what I understand. And Ted Olson’s an interesting guy, you know, even though he was the Solicitor General, he observed that—this is probably his most famous quote—that he could imagine infinitely many reasons why the American government might lie to the American people. That’s a lot of reasons, Alan.

    Colmes: So you’re suggesting that Ted Olson and his wife are together, living in Europe?

    Fetzer: That would be my best guess, Alan. I can’t claim to know that, but it makes sense with what we do know.


    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. truthmod
    Administrator

    The ticker on the top of the page says, "Did Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. New Evidence"

    And this picture leads the story:

    r

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. Arabesque
    Member

    Here's what I posted on 9/11 blogger: http://www.911blogger.com/node/14688#comment-18150...

    (Griffin:) "Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife." http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&...

    voice-morphing? Anyone can invent bogus stories about phone calls, but suggesting voice-morphing just doesn't seem remotely plausible to me.

    I like Griffin's work very much, but no one is above criticism as long as its done in a constructive way. We don't need to speculate about voice-morphing unless there is actually some compelling evidence (i.e. not wild speculation) that it was used. The facts about 9/11 speak for themselves, there is no need to muddy the waters with unprovable theories.

    One successful way to manage a cover-up is to have a lot of conspiracy theories going around, when the (conspiracy) facts are enough to hang people for treason.

    But hey, what do I know? Perhaps I should quote Mr. Griffin himself:

    "Do you have a personal theory of what really happened on Sept. 11?

    No, and I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this, because insofar as there are antagonisms and disputes within the movement, they're related primarily to those things, where people say, well, here's what hit the Pentagon, and others say that's not true. I put my focus on evidence that the official story is false, and that evidence is so abundant and overwhelming, to make the case you don't have to prove what really happened and who did it and so on. It's like if you had a murder trial, and Jones is accused of murder. The defense attorneys can prove that Jones didn't do it without having a theory about who really did. All you have to do is a good alibi and lack of evidence and so on. Likewise, we can show that there is no evidence that al Quaeda did it, there's no way they could have done it, when you look at the details-for example, bringing the buildings straight down at virtual freefall speed. There is a sketch of a theory, that it was an inside job, that explosives were used in the buildings. But what kind of explosives exactly? When they were they put in there? How many were there? All those things some people want to get into. Or the critics say, you've got to have a theory. No, you don't have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that's what the debunkers love, they want to say, that's nonsense and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false." http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/conspir...

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.