• 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

little grey rabbit said:
What phone technology is Barbara Olsen supposed to have used and did American Flight 77 have air phones installed or not?
Click to expand...


If your question is about airphone technology in 2001, why is your thread titled "Ted Olsen Not Sorry Enough"?

Do you honestly believe that the demeanor of one family member is evidence of the truth or falsity of the events on 9/11? If so, would you accept this picture as proof of the attacks? I mean, this lady looks pretty sad.

In any case, you do realize that one doesn't become Solicitor General of the United States without some ability to think and speak clearly, without regard to personal feelings. There are just very few Solicitors General who have ever broken down in tears during oral argument and asked the Supreme Court to please, "Give me a minute to get my head together."
 
Loss Leader said:
If your question is about airphone technology in 2001, why is your thread titled "Ted Olsen Not Sorry Enough"?

Do you honestly believe that the demeanor of one family member is evidence of the truth or falsity of the events on 9/11? If so, would you accept this picture as proof of the attacks? I mean, this lady looks pretty sad.

In any case, you do realize that one doesn't become Solicitor General of the United States without some ability to think and speak clearly, without regard to personal feelings. There are just very few Solicitors General who have ever broken down in tears during oral argument and asked the Supreme Court to please, "Give me a minute to get my head together."
Click to expand...

Personally, I was interested in the falsity or not of the claims presented, which is why I asked if what presented was true.

It appears at least that
1. Ted Olsen made a variety of specific claims first cell phone and then no credit card that appear not to be accurate. I agree you don't necessarily expect 100% clarity in these circumstances although its prehaps a little odd that he was even specifying these details
2. The question of whether there were phones on AA77 or not seems unresolved with the airline issuing an ambiguous statement saying there is no record of phones being removed - but specifically stating there are records of the phones being present in the first place. Presumably the phone companies in question should have paper records of the times of these calls.

Have these been released?
 
little grey rabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp
 
little grey rabbit said:
Personally, I was interested in the falsity or not of the claims presented, which is why I asked if what presented was true.

It appears at least that
1. Ted Olsen made a variety of specific claims first cell phone and then no credit card that appear not to be accurate. I agree you don't necessarily expect 100% clarity in these circumstances although its prehaps a little odd that he was even specifying these details
2. The question of whether there were phones on AA77 or not seems unresolved with the airline issuing an ambiguous statement saying there is no record of phones being removed - but specifically stating there are records of the phones being present in the first place. Presumably the phone companies in question should have paper records of the times of these calls.

Have these been released?
Click to expand...

Yes, and entered into evidence at a trial.

I told you to use the freaking search function, champ, instead you went full crazy.

Quality thread truther. Do some *********** research.
 
little grey rabbit said:
Fair enough.

The basis that there were airphones on Flight 77 seems this



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.
Click to expand...

Why would they deactivate and remove a phone, that was non-existant?

Seems somewhat.....impossible?
 
16.5 said:
Yes, and entered into evidence at a trial.
Click to expand...

source? Particularly for Ted Olsen.

I told you to use the freaking search function, champ, instead you went full crazy.

Quality thread truther. Do some *********** research.
Click to expand...

Luckily for you I don't believe in complaining to the moderators because you have broken about 5 different rules in these 3 lines!

Admittedly, I am pretty sure these rule infraction notices only work in one direction.
 
little grey rabbit said:
source? Particularly for Ted Olsen.
Click to expand...

What are you freaking kidding? Look it up yourself. Seriously There has been at least one major trial, and if you think I am going to do the *********** research for you, you are wrong.

This thread is worthless, and you are an idiot.

www.google.com, sport, use it, and until you do STFU.
 
triforcharity said:
Why would they deactivate and remove a phone, that was non-existant?

Seems somewhat.....impossible?
Click to expand...
Precisely. Which is why I was surprised that the airline made no claim that they had records of airphones being installed in that particular aircraft and when.

For example you would expect something like this:
"According to our maintenance logs model XXXXXX phone was installed on April 1996 on that particular aircraft and underwent regular annual checks for operation in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. Due to popularity of cell phones [not permitted to be used on the plane anyway] demand for the service declined. We removed this service from all 757 on whatever whatever"

The formulation they used was peculiar, as though they were avoiding a direct question. After all imagine the uproar if they were to issue a statement "There were no airphones on Flight AA77...."
 
16.5 said:
What are you freaking kidding? Look it up yourself. Seriously There has been at least one major trial, and if you think I am going to do the *********** research for you, you are wrong.

This thread is worthless, and you are an idiot.

www.google.com, sport, use it, and until you do STFU.
Click to expand...

Well is anyone forcing you to read it?
 
little grey rabbit said:
source? Particularly for Ted Olsen.



Luckily for you I don't believe in complaining to the moderators because you have broken about 5 different rules in these 3 lines!

Admittedly, I am pretty sure these rule infraction notices only work in one direction.
Click to expand...

Name the rules......

BTW, I have received infractions. In fact, Mr. Weick was banned from here, and he is very much not a truther.
 
16.5 said:
Anyone forcing you to post like a dumb ass?

Do some research, pork chop, you have already embarrassed yourself.
Click to expand...

Why reinvent the wheel.

You made a particular claim that records from an airphone company for Ted Olsen and Flight AA77 have been presented at a trial.

Yet you are unable to back up your claim and simply hurl bizarre abuse.

Can anyone do any better?
 
little grey rabbit said:
Precisely. Which is why I was surprised that the airline made no claim that they had records of airphones being installed in that particular aircraft and when.

For example you would expect something like this:
"According to our maintenance logs model XXXXXX phone was installed on April 1996 on that particular aircraft and underwent regular annual checks for operation in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. Due to popularity of cell phones [not permitted to be used on the plane anyway] demand for the service declined. We removed this service from all 757 on whatever whatever"

The formulation they used was peculiar, as though they were avoiding a direct question. After all imagine the uproar if they were to issue a statement "There were no airphones on Flight AA77...."
Click to expand...

Ok, so just because YOU haven't seen it, doesn't mean it is not there. I mean, really, do YOU have any RIGHT to see them? No.

Just like you won't find the maintenance records for my computer either.
 
triforcharity said:
Ok, so just because YOU haven't seen it, doesn't mean it is not there. I mean, really, do YOU have any RIGHT to see them? No.

Just like you won't find the maintenance records for my computer either.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that I have a RIGHT to see it. I am just commenting on the peculiar way that airline has dealt with the question about if airphones were installed on Flight AA77
 
little grey rabbit said:
I am not saying that I have a RIGHT to see it. I am just commenting on the peculiar way that airline has dealt with the question about if airphones were installed on Flight AA77
Click to expand...

I find that it is peculiar that you expect an airline to just hand them over.

They belong to a PRIVATE ENTITY! They are not required to hand them over. Just like you cannot call the airline, and get a complete manifest either.
 
triforcharity said:
Sure, just don't be lazy.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200018.html

Good luck!
Click to expand...

So why is AA Flight 77 records being presented in this trial
Exhibit Number Description
P200018 Summary from Flight 11: identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight [Listener discretion is advised. This exhibit also includes information about the other three flights hijacked on September 11]
Click to expand...

Obviously it MIGHT. But you seem just to posting links at random to create a false impression.

Can you be specific about what is contained within?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom