Olson Call not Connected?

[mirandapriestly]

I have no view on this one way or the other, but I saw it on Team8 and wanted to post. The link to the gov. documents takes a while to download, but it has the airplane interior and you can click on the seats and get the passenger's name and enlarge it, it's kind of cool (it's fun to analyze their fake evidence isn't it?).
The following is all from Team8, it's not me posting. There are other posts at Team8 at the link.

http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?3605

(*thx to Brad M.)

This is very interesting.
According to the new released collection of US Courts (regarding the Moussaoui material)
at http://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/moussaoui/flights.zip
the phone call of Barbara Olson, officially recorded from AA77 (a flight which did not exist in the BTS database) was not connected!

Since US Gov didn't provide any other new material which proves the negative,
this supports a conclusion, that this phone call never took place, because there is only this one
and no other record.
(Officially she did only one phone call)

see the source:

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

4. petgoat,

your post is pitiful.

I'd hope you would have read the definition of ad hominem(personal attack) by now, but I guess you haven't.

Stating that an argument or post is ridiculous, isn't ad hominem.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

37. .

[Jazz2006]

48. ..

[mirandapriestly]

8. oh please

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

20. So,

you agree that the kettle is black, but are saying my post is hypocritical?
I just want to make sure we have the same understanding of what "pot calling the kettle black" means, because I can't imagine how "pot calling the kettle black" could be used as a reply to that particular post.

Are you saying I don't know what ad hominem means? You've stumped me.

[Grateful for Hope]

40. Sticking to the topic in the OP is always good. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

38. .

[Jazz2006]

49. ..

[Jazz2006]

5. Excuse me?

You're really stretching there, goat, and worse, you seem to be making things up as you go along... that's sad.


Edit to add: I note that you did not take any issue with the body of my post, and that you did not back up the ridiculous post that I mentioned. So... although you attempt to refrain from ever actually posting anything from your own point of view, what do you say? Was it ridiculous or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

[mirandapriestly]

11. I have had it with your vicious personal attacks

You attacked my abilities as a parent one night, that is as low as a person can go, then your "progressive" friends AZCat and Make7 ganged up on me and started making posts linking to articles on crazy people. I've noticed no one pays much attention to you when you make "normal" posts, which is why you have to do this.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

21. I never linked to any articles about crazy people.

You are simply mistaken once again. Please provide some evidence to back up what you are saying or I will have to assume you are not remembering things correctly.

All I did in that sub-thread was point to some of your previous history of making false claims and accusations. That is exactly what you are doing now. Like I said in that thread, if you are going to accuse someone, at least be prepared to support it with something other than "I remember stuff like that".

Shall we repeat that discussion, or would you rather just stop making accusations that you are unable to verify?

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

22. az cat did and you showed no proof of anything.eom

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

28. You are the one making the accusation - you need to prove it.

If you are unable or unwilling to back up the charges that you make, you should simply stop making them. When you are challenged on an allegation that you have made and are unable to verify that it is correct, it is quite possible that people will think you are mistaken and/or simply making it up.

I think you are either misrepresenting things or you have misinterpreted what occurred. You are the one that needs to verify that what you are saying is accurate.

I am simply asking you to stop accusing people of things if you have no evidence to back it up. If you would like me to start providing proof concerning your posting history, I am prepared to do so. But I think it would be more beneficial if you would just agree not to make charges against people if you are not going to back them up with some proof.

Please do not continue to post things about people that you cannot verify.

- Make7

[Grateful for Hope]

42. The posts in question were deleted.

I remember them.

[Make7]

45. Perhaps you are not understanding the point I am trying to make.

If someone makes an accusation about what another member said in a post that has been deleted, the accusation is not proven by the person simply saying that they remember it.

Anyone could simply invent a story to make another member look bad and then say they remember it clearly but the post was deleted. Without having any evidence to back up an charge leveled at another member, some people would believe that charge, some people would think the person making the charge is inventing it, and some people wouldn't care.

I am simply requesting that people refrain from making charges against other members unless they can actually provide some basis for the accusation.

On a somewhat related note: do you remember the portion of miranda's now deleted post that I am referring to here? If I were to paraphrase what she said in that deleted post, would you be willing to confirm that my recollection of it is accurate?

(BTW - I am trying to illustrate the same thing over there using a different approach.)

- Make7

[Grateful for Hope]

46. I do understand now

and, No, I would not be willing to confirm whether your recollection is accurate because I don't see that you need anyone to confirm it.

But, your point about deleted posts is well-taken, and, it does make a lot of sense.

[salvorhardin]

43. miranda, do you really want to go down this route?

Do you really want to go down this route of making unfounded personal allegations again? Remember the last time you did so?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/salvorhardin/153
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/salvorhardin/155

I'll repeat myself. We're not your enemies. Stop treating us like we are.

[Jazz2006]

47. That is not so, mirandapriestly

Do you really want to go down this route again?

I did not attack your abilities as a parent. I did not "gang up" on you with anyone, and I have no idea why you are mentioning AZCat and Make7. I have no recollection of either of them linking to articles on crazy people, and I know that I have never done so myself.

[AZCat]

52. I didn't link to an article on crazy people.

I linked to a scanned version of "The Strange Case of the Electronic Lover" which (unless I am crazy myself) is not an article about crazy people, but instead is an article about identity and anonymity in online communities (something that seemed relevant to that particular discussion).

[Jazz2006]

60. I never doubted that for a second, AZCat.

As always, I consider the source of unsupported accusations, and given the source of that one, I did not think for a nano-second that you had done anything of the sort.

[AZCat]

51. Articles on crazy people?

Did you even read the article? And how does responding to questionable claims on your part become "ganging up" on you?

[Grateful for Hope]

53. When one posts an article

on net deception, I think it is safe to assume that one is attacking the person to whom the post is directed.

And, when a group of people get in on the act, this is "ganging up".

Also, it can be argued that someone who engages in net deception may suffer from a mental disorder. This is not normal behavior.

[AZCat]

54. It isn't normal?

I think deception of this magnitude is certainly abnormal, but I have encountered deception online so many times (and about such petty things) that it appears to me to be far more common than you might think.

The article on net deception was relevant to the discussion that, alas, is no longer available as reference. I thought it an interesting sidebar, not an attack (but again perception is everything).

[Grateful for Hope]

55. Perception IS everything

and again, I apologize for misinterpreting your intent.

[AZCat]

56. Please see the other thread.

And it should be me apologizing to miranda - I didn't intend to insult her (or imply that she was crazy).

[Grateful for Hope]

58. I believe I responded to your post

in the other thread. If that is not the thread you mean, could you direct me to it?

Thank you, AZCat...I hope miranda sees your post.

[AZCat]

59. Yes, you did.

It was getting a bit confusing toggling back and forth - sorry about that.

[AZCat]

57. I apologize miranda.

I didn't mean to insult you or imply that you were crazy. I just thought that the article was an interesting read and was relevant to the discussion at hand (online identities).

[Jazz2006]

32. Your post is wholly inappropriate, goat.

But you knew that before you before you posted it, I suspect.

Sad, that.

Seriously sad.

[petgoat]

44. A gentleman never insults anyone by accident. I try to live by that. nt

[Jazz2006]

61. .

the obvious response is too obvious to write.

[mirandapriestly]

6. I did not say that

I said was someone else wrote the post. I knew your "apology" was fake.

[Jazz2006]

9. Um, yes you did. See your OP. Direct quote:

Direct quote:

"Since US Gov didn't provide any other new material which proves the negative,
this supports a conclusion, that this phone call never took place, because there is only this one
and no other record."

[mirandapriestly]

12. read again

"The following is all from Team8, it's not me posting. There are other posts at Team8 at the link" - that was from me at the beginning. It is someone Else's post that I am linking to.
Blurry vision?

[Jazz2006]

16. I'll leave it to others to read the OP to decide.

Since that's where the quote comes from.

[mirandapriestly]

18. The verbatim post is at the link.

It is very obvious. It is also obvious that I state it is not mine at the beginning.

[Jazz2006]

19. Yes, it IS obvious... that's my point.

You posted it.

The fact that you are now trying to distance yourself from your own post is equally obvious.


Edit to add: I don't blame you for wanting to distance yourself from it.

[Grateful for Hope]

39. .

[Jazz2006]

50. ..

[KJF]

3. My understanding is that...

... the four calls that were unidentified from American 77 are supposed to be from Olson, as well as the one that was identified. I don't really know why they identified one call from her, but not the other four. Maybe the first one is from a mobile phone and the others from an airphone. The airphone calls from United 93 were traced (at least the names of the recievers are given), so I don't know why they can't trace calls from United planes. Different operator maybe?

[mirandapriestly]

13. That is why I brought it over here

to try to figure it out, because there was more than one call. I knew nothing could be that easy.

[KJF]

17. 9/11 CR

This is what the 9/11 CR says (on page 9):

"At 9:12, Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines. Nancy May and her husband promptly did so.56

"At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. Solicitor General Olson tried unsuccessfully to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft.57

"Shortly after the first call, Barbara Olson reached her husband again. She reported that the pilot had announced that the flight had been hijacked, and she asked her husband what she should tell the captain to do. Ted Olson asked for her location and she replied that the aircraft was then flying over houses. Another passenger told her they were traveling northeast. The Solicitor General then informed his wife of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She did not display signs of panic and did not indicate any awareness of an impending crash. At that point, the second call was cut off.58"

The endnotes are:
56. FBI report,"American Airlines Airphone Usage," Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Ronald and Nancy May, Sept. 12, 2001.
57.The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of four "connected calls to unknown numbers" represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband's office (all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May's parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls). The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 9:20:15 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report, "American Airlines Airphone Usage," Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Helen Voss, Sept. 14, 2001; AAL response to the Commission's supplemental document request, Jan. 20, 2004.
58. FBI report,"American Airlines Airphone Usage," Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001

The two questions I have are:
(1) Why can't they determine which calls went where? There must be some sort of technical issue.
(2) Why do the FBI believe Ted Olson got four calls, not the two he said he got? What happened to the other two? Did they just go to his secretary and not get put through? Why can't the hijackers have been making calls - "Hey Ziad, how do I make this thing turn left then?"
(3) Was the first call from a mobile phone then?

Oh, that was three questions, nevermind.

[Andre II]

34. Thanks KJF

to be the only one that responded to the topic of this thread!

We can resume:
It is widely reported that Olson phoned more often than once to the Department of Justice and that she talked to her husband.
Why does the shown evidence can't identify who phoned and whom she phoned. If they can identify the Department of Justice the first time why not the second.
And, sorry, an aside from Old Europe. Here we identify made calls by the number that was chosen .....

[KJF]

35. My pleasure

It could be either:
(1) There was some way of suppressing the number; or
(2) A different system was used.

I thought there were some unidentified calls from the other flights, too. Right or wrong?

btw, what's your opinion on this thread?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x107724

[RedSock]

41. olson's calls

CR:

"At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband ... She reported that the flight had been hijacked ... knives and box cutters ... hijackers were not aware of her phone call ... all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. ...

"Shortly after the first call, Barbara Olson reached her husband again. She reported that the pilot had announced that the flight had been hijacked, and she asked her husband what she should tell the captain to do. ... aircraft was then flying over houses. ... traveling northeast ... informed his wife of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She did not display signs of panic ... At that point, the second call was cut off."

On the first call, she says the plane has been hijacked and they are all in the back of the plane.

On the second call, she says the pilot announced the plane has been hijacked. Shouldn't she already know that because she's been herded to the back of the plane?

The way it's worded makes it sound like the hijackers got into the cockpit unseen and are making the pilot inform the seated passengers what is going on. Maybe it's just poorly written. ... Though if the hijackers stood up and stormed the cockpit, and she's sitting in first class, she should have seen them and been well aware what was happening.

Anyway, expanding on the times given in the CR footnote for four Olson calls:

Call #1 lasted 1:42 -- from 9:15:34 to 9:17:16

Then nothing for 2:59

Call #2 lasted 4:34 -- from 9:20:15 to 9:24:49

Then nothing for 0:59

Call #3 lasted 2:34 -- from 9:25:48 to 9:28:22

Then nothing for 2:34

Call #4 lasted 4:20 -- from 9:30:56 to 9:35:16

Then nothing for 2:30 until 9:37:46, which is when the CR says AA77 hit the Pentagon.

...

The CR says "About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. ..." It seems a little odd to describe a call lasting 1:42 as "about a minute into the conversation".

[savemefromdumbya]

36. from 9/11 ommission report

from 9/11 ommission report:
At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband,
Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the
flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. She further
indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they
had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the
conversation, the call was cut off. Solicitor General Olson tried unsuccessfully
to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Shortly after the first call, Barbara Olson reached her husband again. She
reported that the pilot had announced that the flight had been hijacked, and
she asked her husband what she should tell the captain to do.Ted Olson asked
for her location and she replied that the aircraft was then flying over houses.
Another passenger told her they were traveling northeast.The Solicitor General
then informed his wife of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She did
not display signs of panic and did not indicate any awareness of an impending
crash. At that point, the second call was cut off.

PS she must have been near the ground if she was using a cell phone?

[mirandapriestly]

14. The OP is another poster from Team8

I provide the link. I thought I made it clear in the opening sentences that it was not my post. But I guess not. I will add quotes to make it more obvious.
The following is someone else, I am neutral on the issue and want opinions as to what it means (which should be what this forum is about)
http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic...

"*thx to Brad M.)

This is very interesting.
According to the new released collection of US Courts (regarding the Moussaoui material)
at http://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/moussaoui/flights.zip
the phone call of Barbara Olson, officially recorded from AA77 (a flight which did not exist in the BTS database) was not connected!

Since US Gov didn't provide any other new material which proves the negative,
this supports a conclusion, that this phone call never took place, because there is only this one
and no other record.
(Officially she did only one phone call)"

[Make7]

23. It could be presented more clearly if you used the DU excerpt code.

If you put text in the following code:

  [div class="excerpt"]text goes here[/div]

It will look like this in your post:

text goes here

It makes it much easier to determine that the text is from another source than simply using a couple of quotation marks. For example:

http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?3605

*thx to Brad M.)

This is very interesting.
According to the new released collection of US Courts (regarding the Moussaoui material)
at http://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/moussaoui/flights.zip
the phone call of Barbara Olson, officially recorded from AA77 (a flight which did not exist in the BTS database) was not connected!

Since US Gov didn't provide any other new material which proves the negative,
this supports a conclusion, that this phone call never took place, because there is only this one
and no other record.
(Officially she did only one phone call)

- Make7

[KJF]

25. I'll just try that

Testing:

The record of the grand jury proceedings would record, to the extent now possible, what really happened up to, during and subsequent to 9/11/01. The U.S. Government’s official reports of what happened, through the 9/11 Commission Report and through other governmental releases, do not tell the story. They are obviously designed to cover up what really happened, and an independent investigation is necessary. No such investigation has been undertaken to this day. I plan to conduct the needed investigation. The course of our country seems to depend on the ability of someone to conduct such an investigation. None of the other candidates for New York Attorney General say they will investigate 9/11.

Also, I would set up a grand jury to investigate what happened prior to, on and after 9/11 concerning 7 World Trade Center, the North Tower and the South Tower, to determine what people had access to any of the buildings when the weekday office employees were not present; what type of work was authorized; who was in charge of any type of work being done in any of the 3 buildings; what payments were made to any of these individuals or companies; what explosives were purchased for any purpose; what demolition experts were hired for any purpose. Particularly, I would be looking for evidence that explosions took place in each of the 3 buildings on 9/11 and the cause of such explosions (which eliminated mountains of evidence in then current money-laundering drug-related cases).
http://www.gnn.tv/B17628

It works! Thanks, I'd always wondered how to do that.

[mirandapriestly]

27. heh heh, wow it's so clear when you do that! eom

[KJF]

29. What you wrote was clear to me

Also, I think the phrase

Since US Gov didn't provide any other new material which proves the negative, this supports a conclusion, that this phone call never took place, because there is only this one and no other record.
(Officially she did only one phone call)

is a little cumbersome, but I sometimes have problems writing in other languages, both with choosing the right words and with punctuation, so I don't complain when a foreigner gets "make" and "do" mixed up, inappropriately prefers the indefinite article or can't get the hang of defining and non-defining relative clauses. I understand the sentence fine.

[Make7]

33. You're welcome, but you should thank DemocraticUnderground.

They defined the 'excerpt' class for us - they have it listed in their HTML lookup table under 'Blockquotes'.

There's a link to the table that will open it in a new browser window on each Post a message page. It's located right above the Subject line.

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

26. It shouldn't be hard to tell what it means

when I clearly stated the following post was from someone else.

[Make7]

30. Sometimes people read quickly and don't fully understand what you mean.

I feel it helps by doing a little formating to a post to make things obvious just so there is less chance of a misunderstanding of what material is from other sources.

- Make7

[quickesst]

31. Being new here....

I was chastised because I wrote a post out of sequence. Instead of replying to a particular post, I just added it to the end of a thread. Now I make a concious effort to make sure the big number to the side denotes the poster I am replying to. Quotation marks and clear statements that these are the words of someone else are so vague. :sarcasm: Maybe the gray will help. Thanks.
quickesst