IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th February 2008, 10:49 AM   #1
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
OpEdNews: FBI Says Barbara Olsen didn't Call Ted

AS far as I looked, this just turned into a loop of URLs. I didn't find the
meat of the claim that would support the headline.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...1_news_3a_.htm

February 20, 2008 at 13:53:26

BREAKING 9/11 NEWS: FBI Says Barbara Olsen Did Not Call Ted Olsen.
Bush Solicitor General LIED !!

Nationally syndicated talk show host Charles Goyette uncovered blockbuster information in his drive-time interview with author David Ray Griffin.

A center piece of the increasingly apparent
Edited by tim:  Please refrain from bad language.
story our government and corporate media have fed us for six long years was a complete fabrication!

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.
...
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.

Find links to the entire interviews of February 19, 2008, at:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13946
....



Last edited by tim; 27th February 2008 at 01:12 AM.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 10:53 AM   #2
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
This is a DRG claim and I think it's being discussed here. I know it's being discussed at DU.

Bottom line: DRG says FBI says BO didn't call TO.

FBI actually says 4 unknown calls from 77 and identifies none of them as BO's, not that BO didn't call TO.

DRG lies again. I guess when you're about to publish your seventh 9/11 book, you gotta hype something. Retirements don't pay for themselves!

Last edited by boloboffin; 25th February 2008 at 10:54 AM.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 10:54 AM   #3
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
So, the FBI is not in on the conspiracy now?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 10:56 AM   #4
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,072
The purpose of this is to sell books of woo.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 10:58 AM   #5
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,015
So the "BREAKING 9/11 NEWS" is from the Moussaoui trial evidence. Barely two years old!

Well, at least they are starting to actually read the evidence.
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 11:07 AM   #6
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
There were 4 very long calls that came from Flight 77, none of them with an identified caller according to the Moussauoi trial data.

9:15:34 - 102 seconds
9:20:15 - 274 seconds
9:24:48 - 159 seconds
9:30:56 - 260 seconds

The only call on record, from the trial data, attributed to Barbara Olsen is an unconnected call (lasts 0 seconds).

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 11:15 AM   #7
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
Guys, I'm a bit hazy on this specific issue. I thought that the argument was that Barbara Olsen was shown to not have called from an Airphone, but that the call must have been from a cell. Do I have that right?

There's so much stuff to remember...

ETA: Oh, wait... http://911myths.com/html/barbara_olson.html... found the info I was looking for.

Quote:
He says he doesn't know what kind of phone she used, but he has "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." [Fox News, 9/14/01] But in another interview on the same day, he says that she used a cell phone and that she may have gotten cut off "because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well." [CNN, 9/14/01 (C)] Six months later, he claims she called collect "using the phone in the passengers' seats."
So in other words, it's unresolved.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."

Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 25th February 2008 at 11:23 AM.
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 11:27 AM   #8
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
There were 4 very long calls that came from Flight 77, none of them with an identified caller according to the Moussauoi trial data.

9:15:34 - 102 seconds
9:20:15 - 274 seconds
9:24:48 - 159 seconds
9:30:56 - 260 seconds

The only call on record, from the trial data, attributed to Barbara Olsen is an unconnected call (lasts 0 seconds).

TAM
Again, I'm hazy on this, but: Can we safely say that the consensus is that one of these "unidentified callers" must be the Olsen call?

Also: I'm going to go through the Moussauoi trial evidence later and see if I can dig up the stuff specific to the calls. I simply don't remember any of this stuff; there's just to durn muchto remember. Anyone got a good link to something with layman-level summaries? If not, I'll just (*gack!*) locate the raw presentations and deal with it.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 11:35 AM   #9
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
There are two calls of Barbara's that went through to Ted. All four calls are thought to be Barbara's. However, the Moussaoui exhibit labels them all to an unknown number.

At DU, someone suggested that Barbara used the airphone system to get through to an operator and call her husband's office collect. If that's so, then each time she would be dealing with a different operator, having to explain the situation each time, keeping her voice low and hanging up if the hijackers seemed to notice what she was doing.

However, someone else brought up another airphone call that went through the operator, and that number is listed. I don't know why these numbers are listed as "unknown" since they know the length of the calls.

I can't imagine that Barbara wouldn't have called her husband, the Solicitor General. The FBI interviews found no other family member that reported a call besides Ted Olson and the family of Renee May. May's came from her cellphone. Therefore by elimination, these four are from Barbara.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 11:37 AM   #10
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,726
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Again, I'm hazy on this, but: Can we safely say that the consensus is that one of these "unidentified callers" must be the Olsen call?

Also: I'm going to go through the Moussauoi trial evidence later and see if I can dig up the stuff specific to the calls. I simply don't remember any of this stuff; there's just to durn muchto remember. Anyone got a good link to something with layman-level summaries? If not, I'll just (*gack!*) locate the raw presentations and deal with it.
There is a flash animation that covers the phone calls, the hijackers' seat locations, the passengers' seat locations, etc; it even has audio of Cee Cee Lyles call to her husband, and Betty Ong's call to American Airlines.

This is ancient history trying to be pushed as big news.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 11:37 AM   #11
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
Ahhh. Thanks, man!
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 12:09 PM   #12
AMTMAN
Muse
 
AMTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 579
How could she have made any calls at all? According to DRG the phones were deactivated. Oh that's right, they were fully operational. Seems like he gets more and more confused with each interview.
__________________
You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.

Last edited by AMTMAN; 25th February 2008 at 12:09 PM.
AMTMAN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 12:26 PM   #13
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
Wow, that OpEd News piece was the Pepsi Zero of substance. "Lies, all lies!"... "Because Bush told you!"...

Sheesh.

Anyway, let me get this straight about Griffin: He's now claiming that the list of calls he insists couldn't have happened now prove that a specific one didn't happen? Have I got that right? Because if he's invoking the FBI evidence, he's admitting that their evidence regarding passenger calls is valid, therefore he's admitting that other calls did in fact take place.

How is it that this logical contradiction loop doesn't send him into cognitive dissonance? The magnitude of observational selectivity necessary to hold both the "can't call" and "FBI records prove Olsen didn't call" opinions simultaneously is beyond belief.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 12:32 PM   #14
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
There were 4 very long calls that came from Flight 77, none of them with an identified caller according to the Moussauoi trial data.

9:15:34 - 102 seconds
9:20:15 - 274 seconds
9:24:48 - 159 seconds
9:30:56 - 260 seconds

The only call on record, from the trial data, attributed to Barbara Olsen is an unconnected call (lasts 0 seconds).

TAM
And let me guess you don't think the FBI can identify the 4 numbers on the recipient end, right?

These 4 calls would be cleared up instantly by anyone who access to the information.

If you identify the recipient, you identify the caller. But for some reason the FBI doesn't want you to know who called who 4 times from the plane.......

Naturally the government withholding evidence is always acceptable to you TAM.

TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 12:37 PM   #15
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
And let me guess you don't think the FBI can identify the 4 numbers on the recipient end, right?

These 4 calls would be cleared up instantly by anyone who access to the information.

If you identify the recipient, you identify the caller. But for some reason the FBI doesn't want you to know who called who 4 times from the plane.......

Naturally the government withholding evidence is always acceptable to you TAM.

So, why don't you post your phone number so everyone here can check if you were the one calling?

Here in the US, we do slightly more than just pay lip-service to the concept of "Privacy".
There is no overwhelming need to know, here.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 03:27 PM   #16
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
So, why don't you post your phone number so everyone here can check if you were the one calling?

Here in the US, we do slightly more than just pay lip-service to the concept of "Privacy".
There is no overwhelming need to know, here.
Every phone call is marked from the location of the plane the call was made (i.e. row 25 seats DEF), the length of the call, the recipients name, & phone number like this : 412-656-XXXX (last 4 deleted for privacy).

You could actually look at the evidence or continue to run your mouth with ignorance.

Now anyone else want to take a guess as to why they are withholding this information?

Also note - Flight 93 passenger Ed Felt who made a 78 second call to Westmoreland County 911 does not have the length, nor the time of his call listed in the presentation.

Feel free to explain why that is too almighty "debunkers".......
TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 03:30 PM   #17
hellaeon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,488
TC329,

Rather then just not say anything about the unknown calls from a couple of illuminati agents, I am assuming its the FBI once again putting out some obviously suspect information just to tantalize the truthers and make it even more obvious that they helped do it. Help you and the others join those dots to lines...

Last edited by hellaeon; 25th February 2008 at 03:32 PM.
hellaeon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 03:34 PM   #18
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Sarcasm doesn't explain any anomaly.
TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 03:37 PM   #19
hellaeon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,488
perhaps - oh my god - the calls did not connect properly....Ever worked with mobile phones?

I still think they are just releasing little tidbits of suspicious information to tease the public...you know like a schoolyard bully...
hellaeon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 03:41 PM   #20
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
There is a flash animation that covers the phone calls, the hijackers' seat locations, the passengers' seat locations, etc; it even has audio of Cee Cee Lyles call to her husband, and Betty Ong's call to American Airlines.

This is ancient history trying to be pushed as big news.
That is correct. The data I provided above was from that flash animation. the trouble, causing the truther frothing, is that these 4 calls are listed in the flash animation as "Unknown caller". the only call listed as from "Barbara Olson" in that animation, is the unconnected one.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 03:44 PM   #21
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Wow, that OpEd News piece was the Pepsi Zero of substance. "Lies, all lies!"... "Because Bush told you!"...

Sheesh.

Anyway, let me get this straight about Griffin: He's now claiming that the list of calls he insists couldn't have happened now prove that a specific one didn't happen? Have I got that right? Because if he's invoking the FBI evidence, he's admitting that their evidence regarding passenger calls is valid, therefore he's admitting that other calls did in fact take place.

How is it that this logical contradiction loop doesn't send him into cognitive dissonance? The magnitude of observational selectivity necessary to hold both the "can't call" and "FBI records prove Olsen didn't call" opinions simultaneously is beyond belief.
Because he is the granddaddy of truthers, and like all of them, he is not interested in the logic, or the pieces fitting. He merely wants to sew seeds of doubt through pointing to alleged inconsistencies, even when two of them may contradict each other.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 05:26 PM   #22
Walter Ego
Illuminator
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
There is a flash animation that covers the phone calls, the hijackers' seat locations, the passengers' seat locations, etc; it even has audio of Cee Cee Lyles call to her husband, and Betty Ong's call to American Airlines.

This is ancient history trying to be pushed as big news.


Item P200018

Summary from Flight 11: identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight.

Item P200054

Summary of Flight 77 depicting: the identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight.

Item P200055

Summary from Flight 93 depicting: the identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight .


http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...osecution.html
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 05:39 PM   #23
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by hellaeon View Post
perhaps - oh my god - the calls did not connect properly....Ever worked with mobile phones?
9:15:34 - 102 seconds
9:20:15 - 274 seconds
9:24:48 - 159 seconds
9:30:56 - 260 seconds

Everything seems to disagree with your conclusion.........
TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 07:17 PM   #24
hellaeon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,488
Ok I forgot TC 329, you view words a unique way

Connect properly would be everything that could be considered where a voice to voice conversation is made. This can but may not always include a connection that only establishes a link but fails to go further for some reason.

Why are you bothering trying to pull apart what I said? Its been answered

Quote:
Anyway, let me get this straight about Griffin: He's now claiming that the list of calls he insists couldn't have happened now prove that a specific one didn't happen? Have I got that right? Because if he's invoking the FBI evidence, he's admitting that their evidence regarding passenger calls is valid, therefore he's admitting that other calls did in fact take place.
Kind of sums this up for me. In one moment you claim one thing, then in the next use what you claim as false as truth to help another claim.

Dont blame me for you failures.
hellaeon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 07:39 PM   #25
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Every phone call is marked from the location of the plane the call was made (i.e. row 25 seats DEF), the length of the call, the recipients name, & phone number like this : 412-656-XXXX (last 4 deleted for privacy).

You could actually look at the evidence or continue to run your mouth with ignorance.

Now anyone else want to take a guess as to why they are withholding this information?

Also note - Flight 93 passenger Ed Felt who made a 78 second call to Westmoreland County 911 does not have the length, nor the time of his call listed in the presentation.

Feel free to explain why that is too almighty "debunkers".......


In order to pretend that Barbara Olson didn't make any calls, you must acknowledge that all the other calls were real. Excellent work. Your evil movement is proud of your effort.

Do you hear that singing? It's the fat lady.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 09:44 PM   #26
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
In order to pretend that Barbara Olson didn't make any calls, you must acknowledge that all the other calls were real. Excellent work. Your evil movement is proud of your effort.

Do you hear that singing? It's the fat lady.
I asked this of the troofers over on the old blog. No surprise, I didn't get a response.



Quote:
What does this mean, however? There are only a few options.

A. None of the phone calls ever took place. The FBI, under penalty of perjury, on a massive scale (over 7,000 agents where involved in the investigation at one point) made up the record of the dozens of phone calls for the trial, but then decided for some bizarre reason to incriminate themselves by saying that Barbara Olson's call was not connected, despite the fact that this phone call was widely publicized for years before the trial.

B. All of the phone calls but Barbara Olson's took place, and Ted Olson, for some strange reason decided to lie about it. That would be weird, but dozens of phone calls reporting hijackings hardly supports Griffin's case.

C. All of the phone calls, including Barbara Olson's took place, but for some reason (typo, computer error) it was reported as disconnected. There is also the strong possibility that since it was a a collect call, it may not have been recorded on a per minute basis like the other calls.
Maybe I will get more luck here. Which is it?
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 10:15 PM   #27
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
In order to pretend that Barbara Olson didn't make any calls, you must acknowledge that all the other calls were real. Excellent work. Your evil movement is proud of your effort.

Do you hear that singing? It's the fat lady.
Why doesn't the FBI list the phone number(s) and identity(ies) of the recipients?
TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 10:26 PM   #28
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,726
I listened to Goyette's Griffin interview on an MP3 today, and he does the "Oh, my gosh, are you kidding me?" routine, so some troofer is convinced that finally the great breakthrough has arrived. But in the end this is classic case of what I call the sacred list fallacy. The idea that the troofers really seem to believe is that the government pulled off this incredibly complex plot to murder thousands of people and they concealed it really well, but they forgot to update this one list somewhere, and because they can't update that list without really getting into trouble, they don't.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2008, 10:45 PM   #29
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I listened to Goyette's Griffin interview on an MP3 today, and he does the "Oh, my gosh, are you kidding me?" routine, so some troofer is convinced that finally the great breakthrough has arrived. But in the end this is classic case of what I call the sacred list fallacy. The idea that the troofers really seem to believe is that the government pulled off this incredibly complex plot to murder thousands of people and they concealed it really well, but they forgot to update this one list somewhere, and because they can't update that list without really getting into trouble, they don't.
So after you cut through all the ******** your answer is that you don't know.
TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2008, 03:15 AM   #30
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Why doesn't the FBI list the phone number(s) and identity(ies) of the recipients?
Why should they?
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2008, 03:37 AM   #31
8den
Graduate Poster
 
8den's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,293
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Why doesn't the FBI list the phone number(s) and identity(ies) of the recipients?
So Killtown can harass some more innocent people?

Can you offer some examples where the FBI have published the names and phone numbers of people involved in a criminal investigation?
__________________
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out again and nothing was passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again.
If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it out again."
- Penn Jillette in God, No!

Last edited by 8den; 26th February 2008 at 03:38 AM.
8den is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2008, 05:16 AM   #32
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
who wants to wage money that not Griffin, or any other Truther leader has bothered to ask the FBI, or the prosecutors in the Moussaoui Trial, why there is no description of the Barabara Olson Calls in the flash presentation of calls made from the flights?

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2008, 07:21 AM   #33
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Still no answer. No surprise. Come one troofers, which is it, A, B or C?
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2008, 10:24 AM   #34
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Why doesn't the FBI list the phone number(s) and identity(ies) of the recipients?
Of the millions of possibilities, why do you make vast assumptions about the reasons? And doing so with no evidence.
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2008, 10:28 AM   #35
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
 
Drudgewire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,421
Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
Why should they?
So twoofers getting bored with calling them murderers and liars on the internet can take it to the next level and make anonymous phone calls.

You know, because it's more patriotic that way.
__________________
"You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc."
-lapman describing every twoofer on the internet
Drudgewire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2008, 10:48 AM   #36
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Those of you who replied to my question without an answer - GOOD JOB!!!!!

You are an embarassment to your side and I hope many many lurkers come across this thread.

So far my favorite is the "why should the government release evidence to prove they're telling the truth to you, an American citizen?" (paraphrased but thats taking out the neonazicon spin factor)

Keep it up!
TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2008, 10:52 AM   #37
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 33,287
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Why doesn't the FBI list the phone number(s) and identity(ies) of the recipients?
Because in Western society the right of the individual privacy has to be balanced against the right of the individual to scrutinise official information, and in this case it has been ruled that the privacy of the individuals concerned is of greater importance. These people are close relatives of victims, are not accused of any wrongdoing, and have in no way voided their right to privacy. Please feel free to make an argument to the contrary, but note that this is a singularly pointless place to do so.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2008, 10:54 AM   #38
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,489
TC,
Why should people's personal information be issued to the world for abuse?
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2008, 10:57 AM   #39
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
neonazicon
Well that settles it! 9/11 was an inside job!1!!111!

__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2008, 10:58 AM   #40
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
So far my favorite is the "why should the government release evidence to prove they're telling the truth to you, an American citizen?" (paraphrased but thats taking out the neonazicon spin factor)
I don't believe that you're an American citizen. Why don't you post your birth certificate along with your Passport. BTW, I'll need your phone number so I can contact you if something needs clarification. Also, I'll need your bank account number in order to verify that you have funds to pay for the investigative work and copies of the material. All of that should be no problem at all if you are who you say you are and you have nothing to hide. Got something to hide?

ETA: I almost forgot that I'll need your home address too as I'll need to mail the copies to prove to you that I have the information. Post Office Box is not allowed as that method is subject to intercept by the neonazicons.

Last edited by Reheat; 26th February 2008 at 11:05 AM.
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.