Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
Olsen's secretary said she rceived a rquest to accept a collect call from Barbara and actually says she spoke to her. Collect calls are always carefully logged for billing purposes. Otherwise the phone company wuld not know who to bill. Yet the 9/11 commission says that all four of rhese calls were to 'unknown numbers'. Therefore those calls were not from Barbara Olsen.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's a lot of unproven assumptions you have there. Let's consider one possible reason why you might be wrong.

The 9/11 Commission referenced a document called American Airlines Airphone Usage to highlight the four calls to "unknown numbers".

David Ray Griffin himself says that document "appears to be simply one portion of the complete report on telephone calls from all four flights, which was made available at the Moussaoui trial" (9/11 Contradictions, page 77).

If Dr Griffin is correct then it's quite possible that the Moussaoui trial is simply putting a graphic face on the same source document used by the 9/11 Commission. That is, it's repeating call details from there, not other documents.

That's just one way you might be wrong, but it really doesn't matter. The fact is the FBI aren't arguing this point, and the Moussaoui trial exhibit contains nothing to contradict the Commission Report. In fact, as we've seen, the stipulation shows both sides agreed that the calls took place.

Now, if you or Griffin want to build a house of cards based on flimsy assumptions, then go right ahead. But it's you doing that, not the FBI.
 
MikeW said:
Wow, that's a lot of unproven assumptions you have there. Let's consider one possible reason why you might be wrong.

The 9/11 Commission referenced a document called American Airlines Airphone Usage to highlight the four calls to "unknown numbers".

David Ray Griffin himself says that document "appears to be simply one portion of the complete report on telephone calls from all four flights, which was made available at the Moussaoui trial" (9/11 Contradictions, page 77).

If Dr Griffin is correct then it's quite possible that the Moussaoui trial is simply putting a graphic face on the same source document used by the 9/11 Commission. That is, it's repeating call details from there, not other documents.

That's just one way you might be wrong, but it really doesn't matter. The fact is the FBI aren't arguing this point, and the Moussaoui trial exhibit contains nothing to contradict the Commission Report. In fact, as we've seen, the stipulation shows both sides agreed that the calls took place.

Now, if you or Griffin want to build a house of cards based on flimsy assumptions, then go right ahead. But it's you doing that, not the FBI.
Click to expand...

Well if you think it has no significance Mike that is of course up to you. I am happy that the evidence is very powerful and will persuade many people. We will have to see.
One last thing on the subject. Those airphones were exclusively credit card I think.
 
Guys, you're arguing with a boy who seriously suggested that the "new investigation" should be a televised reality show, with call ins.

I just felt I should point this out.

Carry on.
 
Pardalis said:
Guys, you're arguing with a boy who seriously suggested that the "new investigation" should be a televised reality show, with call ins.

I just felt I should point this out.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
girl, the boy is a girl

she is falling into a trap set by someone who does not have to google his posts and compose them, they are in his head.

... the resreach 911Truth never did ...

how does it go? bait them, hook them
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Well if you think it has no significance Mike that is of course up to you. I am happy that the evidence is very powerful and will persuade many people. We will have to see.
Click to expand...
Summing up time? Fair enough.

On my side I have the airfone records, the reference to an AT&T operator taking a call from Olson, the references from Olson's office about receiving a call from Barbara, Ted Olson's testimony, and the acceptance of the calls from both the defence and the prosection at the Moussaoui trial.

On your side you have a bunch of non-expert opinions and assumptions based on nothing at all.

bill smith said:
One last thing on the subject. Those airphones were exclusively credit card I think.
Click to expand...
You're using the old "she couldn't call collect on an airfone" argument?

Then perhaps you need to read these airfone instructions from 1998.

Airfone_instructions.gif


If your credit card didn't work, just pressing 0 would get you to an operator. It's really amazing what truther articles leave out, isn't it?
 
Pardalis said:
Guys, you're arguing with a boy who seriously suggested that the "new investigation" should be a televised reality show, with call ins.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know - debating truthers is always futile. It's good to get a reminder of that, though, and it can give me the energy to do more useful things. I'm thinking now that 911myths really needs a central reference for the 9/11 phone calls, for instance, with links to all the relevant FBI documents, phone records and so on. That might be something to do next, along with all the other documents I need to upload, audio to listen to etc (sigh).
 
MikeW said:
Summing up time? Fair enough.

On my side I have the airfone records, the reference to an AT&T operator taking a call from Olson, the references from Olson's office about receiving a call from Barbara, Ted Olson's testimony, and the acceptance of the calls from both the defence and the prosection at the Moussaoui trial.

On your side you have a bunch of non-expert opinions and assumptions based on nothing at all.


You're using the old "she couldn't call collect on an airfone" argument?

Then perhaps you need to read these airfone instructions from 1998.

[qimg]http://911myths.com/images/f/f7/Airfone_instructions.gif[/qimg]

If your credit card didn't work, just pressing 0 would get you to an operator. It's really amazing what truther articles leave out, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Personally I find your case very shaky. But there is little point in pursuing it further here. I am satisfied from these exchanges that I have a strong case which will be useful elsewhere.
 
Delusion above; "strong case".

911Truth lost again.

911Truth lost and goes away in denial and in a delusional rant claims victory to spam other forums with strong nut case ideas, strong hearsay, and more strong delusions.

Good work MikeW - you got a 911Truth cult member to claim victory and leave for now... maybe...

You got 911Truth to fall deeper into the pit of 911Truth ignorance. 911Truth does not hand out ladders of knowledge and evidence; he could be stuck down there for years with RedIbis and HI.
 
Last edited:
MikeW said:
Oh, I know - debating truthers is always futile. It's good to get a reminder of that, though, and it can give me the energy to do more useful things. I'm thinking now that 911myths really needs a central reference for the 9/11 phone calls, for instance, with links to all the relevant FBI documents, phone records and so on. That might be something to do next, along with all the other documents I need to upload, audio to listen to etc (sigh).
Click to expand...

Keep us up to date Mike I hope you include a comments section.
 
bill smith said:
Personally I find your case very shaky. But there is little point in pursuing it further here. I am satisfied from these exchanges that I have a strong case which will be useful elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you think that. In reality, you have pretty much nothing that would even have a chance of standing up in an internet forum, much less an actual court of law. But if it makes you sleep at night...
 
twinstead said:
I'm glad you think that. In reality, you have pretty much nothing that would even have a chance of standing up in an internet forum, much less an actual court of law. But if it makes you sleep at night...
Click to expand...

Considering he's had his case decided for some time prior to making it here... If he's decided his argument already I'm not sure why he feels the need to make it again and again knowing he would not be convinced
 
Last edited:
MikeW said:
Unfortunately I know no Japanese at all, but I translated a couple of pages at Google and it gave me a good idea of what you're doing.
Click to expand...

I　never used Japanese-to-English translation funciton of Google.
But I know that E-J trans. version of Google gives me an awful mess.
I hope J-E version did not confuse you too much.
 
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of the blog Debunking the Debunkers

... The MO and possible motives of defenders of the official story is also spoke of, and put into a larger historical context. Mentioned is a declassified CIA memo from April 1967 entitled, Countering Criticism of the Warren Report, which states that one way to achieve this goal is to...

"Employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories."
Click to expand...


Direct download: visibility911_debunkers.mp3 :cool:
 
Childlike Empress said:
Direct download: visibility911_debunkers.mp3 :cool:
Click to expand...

And I should take a podcast whose hosts clearly from their discussion have no qualifications nor prior study in engineering concepts seriously for what reason? What does the warren commission excerpt you pasted have to do with the conclusions I've made concerning the paranoia of people who clearly have no educational background or competence in the areas they're trying to convince me to point to an inside job? Because clearly I have no political interests, & no financial gains. I assume by hasty and inaccurate research you, rather THEY must be speaking of professionals of the likes of AE911truth who have blundered considerably in their efforts to convince me they had any merit and are themselves infatuated with their propagandist fantasy theories.
 
Last edited:
Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.
Click to expand...


Countering irrational criticism by pointing out the truth! Those sneaky bastards!

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Childlike Empress said:
Grizzly Bear, i've read the first version of your post. Interesting development. :D
Click to expand...

You mean the barf-inducingly paranoid podcast? Or the fact that it doesn't change the dumbed down qualifications applying to AE911truth? :D

I listened to the podcast... and it was like a trip through the wizard of OZ... the fantasies were parasitic :)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom