FBI SAYS BARBARA OLSEN 911 CALL NEVER HAPPENED!!!!
CRIMINAL
I told you so. It's all BS.
Excerpt:
We were fed a lie by Ted Olsen who served as Solictor General for the Bush Administration, when on 9/11 he held a press conference to tell America and the world that his dead wife had called him before her demise from the jet she was on that had just been hijacked. Personally, I thought it was odd at the time that a man would decide to hold a press conference minutes after hearing of his own wife’s death, when it happened on 9/11. If my own wife had just died, the last thing I’d want to do would be to talk to anyone, let alone call a press conference. It didn’t “smell” right. Now we know why it didn’t smell right. It was a lie. The FBI has reported that no such call between Barbara Olsen and Ted Olsen ever took place on 9/11/2001. It was part of the rapidly unraveling scam that is the official story of 9/11. In fact, Griffin went on to explain that there is zero evidence that any hijackers had commandeered a plane at all. True Bush believers will say, whao, wait a minute, we all know they did. How do you know? Because Bush told you. But, as Griffin rightly points out, in this interview, there is no “EVIDENCE” of their existence. Which also reveals that mis-information shill, Popular Mechanics, in their 9/11 interview on the Charles Goyette Show months ago, lied when they told us there was DNA evidence of the so-called Muslim hijackers. LIES, all lies.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/21 @ 08:04 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/21 @ 08:08 PM — (Reply)
he's another alex jones
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/21 @ 08:13 PM — (Reply)
As far as I can see he backs up everything he says. Caught the whackjobs dancing around a Molech Statue and performing mock sacrifices on video tape! What more do you want?
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/21 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
Well I showed you and you never responded.
Here it is again in its entirety.
you only said once right?
Under the heading of “Police State” he has an article titled “Couple banned for life from shopping centre and branded ‘terrorists’ - for taking photos of their grandchildren” he copies an article from another site detailing the story of a couple who was removed from a shopping center in Fareham, Hants. The couple’s story is well documented in the portion of the article shown on his site, yet he cuts the story off after the first paragraph of the shopping center’s response. The article on his site ends with…
They wrote a letter of complaint to the centre, and received a reply from manager Pam Gillard who said taking photos was a security risk.
In the reply to the Sparshotts, Ms Gillard said: “By the sounds of it my officers/duty manager didn’t explain the position very clearly and for that I apologise.”
But the whole story goes on to say much more. I quote from it here.
Speaking after the incident, she added: “Fareham Shopping Centre is private property and has a policy to support the security of the shops, where the taking of photographs needs prior permission.
“The Sparshotts are welcome back to the centre.”
Ms Gillard refused to comment further on the centre’s security policies, but added that the camera ban was not because of a terrorist threat.
So for a fact, the headline of the article is a lie. Indeed, they are not banned for life from the center, they were not branded terrorists, and the fact that they were taking pictures of their grandchildren had nothing to do with the incident. As the article states, they were removed from the property when they continued to take pictures after they were informed by security that they were in violation of shopping center policy by doing so.
Such tactics are seen repeatedly throughout the site. In this article he tells of a man who was “arrested after using $2 bills“. Indeed, he was arrested because the ink on the bills was smudged, and the bills were sequentially numbered, hence, believed to be counterfeit. There is a headline on his homepage reading “Giuliani Backer Calls For Extermination of Muslims” which links to an article from Boston.com which is actually titled “Giuliani Backer Resigns Over Muslim Remarks”. The article goes on to explain how Giuliani’s campaign asked for, and got, the resignation of the man who made the remarks from the group he lead. Despite that fact, Alex used the deceiving headline to imply a connection between the two. And this was done after he called the american thinkers article about Ron Paul meeting with white supremest groups a smear. For a fact, a similar article exposed not only evidence that these meetings took place, but one of the racist groups endorsement of Paul on their website and posts from a neo-nazi forum where these racists were talking about how closely Ron Paul represented their views.
Now, having established Alex’s lies and deceptions, move on to the premise of the article. On August 10th of 06, Alex Jones site featured an article titled “Debunking Popular Mechanics’ 9/11 Lies“. As it states, it was an attempt to debunk the Popular Mechanics article which uses scientific fact to debunk the circumstantial claims of the 9/11 truth crowd. The Popular Mechanics article is a great piece that exposes these charades. I highly recommend reading it in its entirety. As for this article, I will expose the problems with the infowars attack on it.
1. The infowars article states that the “One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the ‘Intercepts Not Routine’ section where it is claimed that, “In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, in October 1999.” It cites Douglas Martin to refute this statement. “”From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.”
The problem? The Popular Mechanics article does not state that this was the only intercept. It actually states the following.
In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). “Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ,” FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.
So we see here that this claim from info wars is a lie. The article did indeed address the other intercepts, and did not deny their existence.
2. The info wars article addresses the fact that traces of thermite were found after the Popular Mechanics article was written. That is actually misinformation as well. Indeed, the substances found were iron, sulfur, potassium and manganese. These are not thermite. They are simply characteristics of Thermate. This is not proof that thermate was used, but is rather circumstantial evidence. It proves only that the above listed elements were found in trace amounts at the scene. All of these substances except the sulfur would commonly be found in such a collapse, and the Greening Papers state an alternative explanation for the presence of the sulfur. The sheetrock used in the WTC was sulfur based. These papers state that the jet fuel would have caused the sulfur to seperate and hence be found in the debris.
3. All of the other complaints are things the info wars article states were left out of the Popular Mechanics article. The listed omissions are war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 and statements from WTC construction manager that the buildings would withstand multiple airliner impacts. My contention is that the war games were likely not addressed because they are not part of the actual crashes or collapse. And while the managers statements may not have been directly addressed, the article does describe in great detail why the buildings collapsed.
I think the ridiculous nature of this article is most deeply exposed by the comparison between the WTC collapse and the Windsor building in Madrid. The article makes the following assertion.
So we have one building that burned incessantly for over 24 hours and did not fall, compared to two buildings which were structurally far superior, burned briefly from limited fires, and yet both collapsed within an average time of 79 minutes - and Meigs claims they should have collapsed sooner!
This, of course, leaves out the obvious. The Windsor building was simply a fire. A commercial airliner did not crash into it. And this is the basis for what makes Alex Jones and the rest of the “9/11 truthers” dangerous rhetoric treasonous in nature. When one questions the official story, he is patriotic. When one lies and omits half the story to indict his own country he is a traitor.
Now I am not one to jump on the bandwagon of calling people who deviate from the generally accepted cultural line un-American. However, for those who have actually researched this and, despite all the evidence, still wish to indict our government in the horrible attacks of September 11th, what other term is there?
Alex Jones is an extremist, true and Alex Jones is a liar.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/21 @ 08:30 PM — (Reply)
Second - never heard about this.
Third - The Popular Mechanics article was penned by Homeland Security's Chertoff's cousin and is highly suspect and bias.
Fourth - What you site was probably an honest mistake on a website that links to dozens of articles. Of course some of it is questionable - it can't help but be when the truth is so elusive. In the end - he has dozens of stories that actually originated from his website(not just stuff linked to) that are excellent and researched. He has undeniably shed much light where it wasn't wanted.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/21 @ 09:27 PM — (Reply)
Well if some of it is...detail your method for determining the *hit from shinola?
Benjamin Chertoff and Michael Chertoff related?
Nope
Speaking of disinformation. For the umpteenth time, Michael Chertoff and Benjamin Chertoff are not known to be related. The only basis to make this claim this is an interview in that scholarly source, the neo-Nazi propaganda rag the American Free Press. The editors at Popular Mechanics are obviously annoyed by this, because they mention it in the book, from page 102:
Soon after the Popular Mechanics report appeared, conspiracy buffs began parsing the names of the various researchers who contributed to the article, noting the odd coincidence that Benjamin Chertoff, then head of the magazine's research department, has the same last name as the then newly appointed head of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. In a rare instance of reportorial initiative (most 9/11 "Internet researchers" rarely venture beyond Google), Christopher Bollyn phoned Ben's mother, who volunteered that, yes, she thinks Michael Chertoff might be a distant cousin, "Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece," read the headline on Bollyn's next American Free Press story. "This is exactly the kind of 'journalism' one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq," he concluded. Later a headline was added to his article: "Ben Chertoff: Propagandists & Illuminati Disinformation Tool."
As often happens in the world of conspiracy theories, a grain of truth- it's possible that Ben and Michael Chertoff are distantly related- was built into a towering dune. In fact, Ben and Michael Chertoff have never spoken. And no one at Popular Mechanics had any contact with Michael Chertoff's office while preparing the article.
Speaking of disinformation tools.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/21 @ 10:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/21 @ 09:30 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/21 @ 09:33 PM — (Reply)
as opposed to what??
the stuff Alex Jones has been shoveling?
If he admits it's an honest mistake we'll talk, other wise you're just apologizing for a guy who can't get his facts straight...which
makes you no better than him
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/21 @ 10:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/21 @ 09:34 PM — (Reply)
Dugg gets PWNED
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/21 @ 10:20 PM — (Reply)
BG
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/21 @ 09:36 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/21 @ 09:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/21 @ 10:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/21 @ 09:41 PM — (Reply)
BG
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/21 @ 10:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/21 @ 11:33 PM — (Reply)