• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ted Olsen not sorry enough

Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
3,164
This caught my attention

Barbara Olson — a victim of the 9/11 terrorist attack?
Filed under: TV shows,Uncategorized — Tags: Ted Olson, Barbara Olson, CNN, 9/11 — furtherglory @ 12:07 pm

I remember Ted Olson going on several TV talk shows right afterward, and it seemed to me that he was not at all sad about the death of his wife. He calmly told the story of how Barbara called him twice from her cell phone on the plane and gave important details about the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the plane, including the detail of how they used box cutters to threaten the passengers.

I was glued to the TV set on the day of 9/11, switching channels to get all the latest news. Late that day, CNN gave a news report which was later put on the Internet:

“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.”

According to CNN, Ted Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “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.”

Barbara Olson was a commentator on CNN, and she was on TV night after night, so I knew who she was. The two cell phone calls to her husband were evidence that American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, was still in the air after it disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 a.m. At first, Fox News had reported that Flight 77 was headed to the White House, but instead it turned and headed to the Pentagon.

Barbara Olson’s phone calls provided evidence that box cutters were the weapons used, and that the hijackers were Arab Muslims. Barbara’s phone calls helped immensely to get the support of Americans for President Bush’s “war on terror.”

Three days later, Ted Olson was on the Hannity and Colmes TV show and he said that Barbara had actually called the Department of Justice collect from the plane. He explained that she must have used the “airplane phone,” and she called collect because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.” It seems that Ted had learned that the technology for cell phones that could be used at high altitude was not available at that time, so he had to change his story. But wait a minute! To use the phones on the back of the seats in airplanes, you had to first swipe a credit card in order to activate the phone.

It was later learned that American Airlines Flight 77 didn’t even have phones on the back of the seats. So Ted Olson’s story of the phone calls was a total lie. But why did he tell these lies and why did he show no emotion about the death of his wife?

Is this true?
What phone technology is Barbara Olsen supposed to have used and did American Flight 77 have air phones installed or not?
 
In addition, I believe they are incorrect. There were phones, and IIRC, they were (despite DRG saying otherwise courtesy of Captain Bob) active on that day.
 
SO your OP is a question about? The authenticity of comments made by some blogger about whether or not the plane had airfones?

TAM:)
 
The seatback phones on flight 77 were installed and fully operational on 9/11, BTW.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Calls

I can't actually work on the basis for this claim.

Here is the claim that they did not

The initial Debunking 9/11 Debunking claim that American Airline 757's don't have airphones is based on an email conversation carried out by Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, and reported in their book 9/11 Revealed. Griffin explains that in 2004 they asked whether 757's were fitted with airphones, either for passenger or aircraft use, and were told this was categorically not the case.

End of story? Not even close. It seems that Morgan and Henshall asked precisely that question, "Do your 757's have airphones?", and the American Airlines spokesman gave an appropriate answer for 2004: "no". They didn't ask what the situation was in 2001, and so their emails have nothing to say about 9/11 at all. (Even Griffin would later admit this at 911blogger).

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Calls#Airphones_removed
 
You just reposted the same thing I did. Try reading the whole article instead of quote mining it.

Fair enough.

The basis that there were airphones on Flight 77 seems this
Engineers at our primary Maintenance & Engineering base in Tulsa tell me that they cannot find any record that the 757 aircraft flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 had had its seatback phones deactivated by that date. An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time... It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected.
John Hotard, Corporate Communications, American Airlines


The part in bold have uncanny echo that happened to me once. I had a dispute with my employer that involved them spying on my email communications. When I made a request under the Privacy Act the response was "we can find no record of a request to monitor your email account, therefore your privacy was not violated"

You will see the logical fallacy contained within this statement.

So a statement that having no "record of the seatback phones being deactivated" does not mean that the phones were actually present. I assume that there is a huge paper trail of all matters relating to each aircraft - and they should have been able to provide a more statement.
 
Ted Olsen seems all over the place on this issue

HUME: You don't know whether it was on a regular cell phone or one of those air phones?

OLSON: No, I don't. I first of all assumed that it must have been on the airplane phone, and that she somehow didn't have access to her credit cards. Otherwise, she would have used her cell phone and called me.
HUME: Of course.

What was so hard about "I got a call, because of the nature of call I never gave much thought about the exact technology involved"??
 
The part in bold have uncanny echo that happened to me once. I had a dispute with my employer that involved them spying on my email communications. When I made a request under the Privacy Act the response was "we can find no record of a request to monitor your email account, therefore your privacy was not violated"

You will see the logical fallacy contained within this statement.

I definitely see something in that statement.

Probably not what you wanted me to see, however.
 
Yes, well, when in the follow up email I pointed out the obvious logical fallacy and was asking for a specific denial that no access or oversight to the account had been given, they refused to give it, but instead threatened to close the email account (which they were welcome to do by that stage)
 
Yes, well, when in the follow up email I pointed out the obvious logical fallacy and was asking for a specific denial that no access or oversight to the account had been given, they refused to give it, but instead threatened to close the email account (which they were welcome to do by that stage)

You should probably consider some course of treatment.
 
You should probably consider some course of treatment.

Oh there is no doubt the email was being monitored.

The email account was suddenly deleted when I moved 4 journal papers from it to a private account. The four papers detailed how the director of research institute I then worked for was engaging in scientific fraud.

And no one has seriously contested that the work in question was fabricated. My then employer was just engaging in every single possible obsfucation to avoid admitting that the reason for the sudden deletion of the account was due to email monitoring.
 
Oh there is no doubt the email was being monitored.

The email account was suddenly deleted when I moved 4 journal papers from it to a private account. The four papers detailed how the director of research institute I then worked for was engaging in scientific fraud.

And no one has seriously contested that the work in question was fabricated. My then employer was just engaging in every single possible obsfucation to avoid admitting that the reason for the sudden deletion of the account was due to email monitoring.

Wow... just, wow.
 

Back
Top Bottom