Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(911Blogger)   Panicky 9/11 truth nutjobs debate Oakland gas tanker incident, see their WTC conspiracy theories collapse as quickly as that highway did   ( 911blogger.com) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

19551 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Apr 2007 at 3:55 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



589 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-05-02 02:47:07 AM  
Wow, nasty thread.

...and enki, I was expecting a concise, fact-based rebuttal. Why no credible sources? Your immature, "because I said so" response is deplorable for such a serious situation.

And also, do listen here if you ever want to use your argument again, have you ever witnessed melting metal? Seen a steel foundry? Well, picture with me "solid, room temperature" steel in your head and picture "liquid, melting hot" steel in your head. Do you realize now that the steel columns in the WTC need not have been hot enough to melt in order to have buckled under the weight?
 
2007-05-02 03:02:05 AM  
...and, ahem, a 20% fuel load is way off. Here's what I mean by a credible source:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

Two 767's flying from Boston to Los Angeles would have carried no less than half their maximum fuel capacity upon takeoff, in my estimation. That's two and a half times your estimate. Do you disagree?
 
2007-05-02 03:02:54 AM  
You can call the operator from any phone. Then they can make the collect call for you. Why you would do this is unclear. Its NOT impossible, just a little bit odd. You make it sound like it is impossible to place a collect call from a cell phone or the phone on a plane. Maybe the call wasn't collect at all and that bit of information was a mistake. Maybe she used her credit card to make the call from the planes phone.

You have only presented random, meaningless web pages as evidence. Everyone here is against you. The vast majority of the world knows that you are wrong. You have made many points that have been destroyed by us all. This collect call is all you have left but you are still hanging on for dear life.

ur a determined little bugger, i'll give you that much
 
2007-05-02 08:42:30 AM  
Americana: I deal with you people everyday, and you aren't even close to the brighest I've come across.

BWAHAHAHA
 
2007-05-02 10:03:17 AM  
Patty McGee


We seem to see the same flaws in each other. I have been posting links and facts all night and everyone else seems to be saying "no it didn't"

So Let's catch up on the facts I claim and let's hear your rebuttal. I have posted links to what I say and will gladly post again if you are too lazy to google yourself.

1. Ted Olson says his wife called collect.

2. Ted Olson says his wife called collect to a secretary instead of him.

3. Barbara Olson called Ted Olson directly earlier in the day.

4. Ted Olson said his wife called him often on her cell phone.

5. You can not get an operator on a seat phone with no credit card.

6. If you have a credit card, the call goes directly through with no operator assistance.

7. Ted Olson said if she had her cell phone she would not have called collect.

Since you are the expert I would expect direct answers and a logical explanation of these facts, or links that show they are not facts. No "because I said so" responses.
 
2007-05-02 10:14:54 AM  
PattyMcG

"and, ahem, a 20% fuel load is way off. Here's what I mean by a credible source:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

Two 767's flying from Boston to Los Angeles would have carried no less than half their maximum fuel capacity upon takeoff, in my estimation. That's two and a half times your estimate. Do you disagree?"

Gee I guess its only a credible source when you post it. I posted that same link 0n 5/01/7:11 AM

In addition I posted a link that uses your figure of 10,000 pounds at impact, citing FEMA figures. After the subtraction of fuel in the fireball and fuel lost from falling to floors below and elevator shafts, the 20% fuel left for the concentrated fire was on the high side of the estimate.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

Do you disagree? Be specific. No more "no it didn't"
 
2007-05-02 11:00:34 AM  
rickets007

"You can call the operator from any phone."

You are mistaken. You can not call an operator from a seat phone unless you have a credit card. If you have a credit card you don't need to call collect.

"Then they can make the collect call for you. Why you would do this is unclear. Its NOT impossible, just a little bit odd. You make it sound like it is impossible to place a collect call from a cell phone or the phone on a plane."

I am stating facts. facts facts facts. Try to understand. You can not get an operator with out a credit card from a seat phone. Do you understand that simple fact? Let me state it again. You can not get an operator without a credit card on a seat phone. If you have a credit card you don't need an operator. If you have a cell phone you don't need an operator.


"Maybe the call wasn't collect at all and that bit of information was a mistake."

Gee the source for the collect call story is Ted Olson. What's your source? Does it hurt when you pull it out?

"Maybe she used her credit card to make the call from the planes phone."

Pay attention--if you have a credit card, you don't need an operator. Do you understand that simple fact? One more time since I told you. If you have a credit card, you don't need an operator.


"You have only presented random, meaningless web pages as evidence."

The facts stand--you have disproven none of the points presented and have posted no rebuttal links of your own---only---"no it didn't".

"Everyone here is against you."

Wow---so peer pressure is a factor in your life. I callit the sheep syndrome.


"The vast majority of the world knows that you are wrong."

Post your link. You seem to forget that it is you who is part of the 16% minority in this country. Have you forgotten my 11:49 PM post already showing all the polls that say you tinfoil hatters only account for 16% of the public? Sure you have. Let me say it again. Check the links of my 11:49PM post. It shows your views to be shared by only 16% of the population.

"You have made many points that have been destroyed by us all."

I must have Missed that---which point in particular are you talking about?


"This collect call is all you have left but you are still hanging on for dear life."

You ran from all the other points. Let me summarize your views. Correct me where I'm wrong.

1. You believe that smoke does not mean incomplete combustion.

2. You do not believe that smoke means a lower temperature.

3. You do not believe a smoke filled atmosphere restricts air flow to a fire.

4. You believe Kerosene burns hotter than gasoline.

5. You don't believe that there was melted steel at the WTC.
So I guess all these people are lying about seeing molten STEEL. Try scanning past the first few paragraphs.

6. You believe Karen Olson used her cellphone to make a collect call to a secretary instead of her husband. Twice.

"ur a determined little bugger, i'll give you that much"

I wish you had a point or a memory.
 
2007-05-02 11:03:53 AM  
Oops forgot the link for #5

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
 
2007-05-02 01:07:53 PM  
Enki-
If you were talking about air tight vs. open to the outdoors I would agree with you, but you're not.

There's a reason fireplaces and (gas or wood burning) ovens have chimneys; heat accumulates and the ambient temperature of the confined area increases quickly; 'old fashioned' fireplaces that are open aren't nearly as efficient as wood burning stoves, for example. Which wood oven would cook food faster; one open to the air or one mostly enclosed? If you're open to the air you have to worry about heat dissipation.

As for restricting oxygen, there was a gaping hole in each of the Towers that smoke was pouring out of it; eyewitnesses approaching the lobby say a huge fireball that traveled down the shafts and exploded into the lobby. The Towers weren't airtight; aside from the gash, there were broken windows, and an entire system of ductwork for ventilation. Getting air to the fire wasn't hard; don't make it seem like some ridiculously implausible feat; it wasn't.

Loose Change isn't an eyewitness account; that's like saying I get my physics lessons from Looney Tunes. Jet fuel fires are sufficient to warp and weaken metal and that's all the World Trade Centre needed to collape.

Quibbling over a flash on a film or what someone said while everything unfolded is the hallmark of a simple mind. I heard some of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life on 9/11; like a newscaster claiming, while things unfolded, that on a bright, clear day, maybe a highly trained airline pilot got a misreading on an instrument and just flew into the North Tower which was right in front of him. I've seen idiots on conspiracy websites claim it HAD to be thermite because on a piece of film an explosion was whitish.

The problem I have with most of you 'truth' nuts is you ascribe so much intelligence to people that agree with you, while everyone else, even experts, get lower billing. You do this even to the point of denying the world around you. For example, how would anyone who says they saw molten steel know it was molten steel? Different metals and alloys can have drastically disparate melting points. So unless someone stood there collecting samples while refuse rained, dripped and crashed out of the WTC, you don't know for sure. The only way to know is after the fact, through testing.

But that's not good enough for you, because by then, someone has made an assumption and you can say "A-ha! It's a coverup!". You want people to question everything, and focus on just a few things that you think support your assumption; you're looking at a blade of grass and saying there's no forest even though you're not looking up and seeing the trees around you.

The most common sense answer that actually MAKES sense isn't sufficient, nor is a simple litmus test.

Is it possible that the tens of thousands of people around the Towers - trained firefighters, people escaping, crews filming nearby, police officers - is it possible those people right there, with it unfolding in front of their eyes, some of them trained to observe (police) and to recognise different types of fires and explosions (firemen), who are completely surrounded by the sounds and sights... is it possible every single one of them missed a rocket being shot into the Towers, or the loud rapport of cascading thermite explosions? It isn't.

Is it possible that so many experts in their fields have been bought, bribed and threatened into compromising their integrity by lying, falsifying results and helping in a cover-up? No.

Is it possible that tens of millions of people who saw it unfold and additional millions who have subsequently seen the same footage (contiguous and in context), have continually missed hallmarks of an explosion or missle (which even Loose Change has now dropped)? Not buying it.

Is it possible that a relatively small group of people with too much time on their hands, whose population is significantly comprised of virulent America/Bush haters (like Noam Chimpski [sic]) and supported by Neo Nazis (like Eric Hufschmid) and Holocaust deniers (like Rick Rajter) are promoting the 'truth' movement for their own reasons?

Which of my above scenarios seems more likely? My first three postulates ALL have to be true for your contention to be accurate. Only MY last contention needs to be true, in order for my assertion to be true.
 
2007-05-02 02:11:36 PM  
I had a conversation with a 'truther' once...
it went kind of like this

me: so...let me get this straight, a missile hit the Pentagon?

truther: you can obviously tell from the video that that isn't an airplane

me: so, logically we must conclude one of two things if it was a missile.
a) the government got permission from the airline to make up a fake flight that never existed
b) there was an actual flight, but it disappeared, like, maybe they're the crew from 'Lost' or something

truther: it was the first thing you said...obviously.., the government made up a flight

me: hmmmm, ok...so no journalist has ever looked up the names of the the non-existent families of the non-existent passengers of this non-existent flight?...and again, the airline has had no problem confirming the names of non existent pilots and non existent flight attendants on a non-existent flight? and the people who handled the money that went to the victims had to send the money to fake bank accounts and addresses b/c there were no real victims and no real familes?

truther: well.....(backpeddling now) I don't know about all that...all I'm saying is there a lot of stuff we don't know, kind of like with the whole JFK thing. This is just a modern day version of that.

me: yeah...except for the one small detail that in the case of 9/11, there isn't actually a conspiracy and what we're being told is kind of believable, that a group of swarthy terrorists trained for years to fly airplanes and took advantage of our lax system, hijacked our planes and hit our buildings

truther: man..you really need to stop being so lazy and look into the facts of the whole thing...it doesn't add up

me: so it's up to me to prove your theories?...isn't the burden of proof on you?

truther: the burden is on all of us to hold our government accountable

me: sounds like rhetorical mumbo jumbo to me...also don't you think it's a little silly to think the government masterminded this whole thing and never thought to just avoid the whole WMD fiasco by planting a few nukes in Iraqi bunkers? From your theory, they obviously had complicit military personnel wrapped around their finger, getting some air force or navy pilots to go ahead and launch missiles at the HQ of the Dod itself, a place where that pilot ultimately receives his orders from? If you can get an air force pilot to do that, I'm sure you can get some Army captain to sneak a few crude nuclear weapons into Baghad after the invasion

truther: that's different, Bush actually believed the WMD's were there.

me: oh, I see,...so Bush was telling the truth about that...but once he realized there weren't WMD's...wouldn't it have been more convienent to just put them there?

truther: well, by then it didn't matter, they had already invaded...they had the war they wanted

me: but...didn't the whole 'no WMD thing' greatly risk his chances of reelection?...I mean, Kerry only lost by a tiny percentage of votes. Why would he, ......you know what....this is hopeless, I need to get back to work.

truther: the things you don't know man.....the things you don't know...
 
2007-05-02 02:27:19 PM  
"There's a reason fireplaces and (gas or wood burning) ovens have chimneys; heat accumulates and the ambient temperature of the confined area increases quickly; 'old fashioned' fireplaces that are open aren't nearly as efficient as wood burning stoves, for example. Which wood oven would cook food faster; one open to the air or one mostly enclosed? If you're open to the air you have to worry about heat dissipation."

Geez---I've sold vent free fire places---wood stoves and gas fireplaces for six years. The reason you have chimneys is to take the smoke out of the house so you don't die and to create a draft so the fire burns more efficiently. If you close off your flue, your fire will start smoking more, the flames will die down, and put out less heat---not more.


"As for restricting oxygen, there was a gaping hole in each of the Towers that smoke was pouring out of it; eyewitnesses approaching the lobby say a huge fireball that traveled down the shafts and exploded into the lobby. The Towers weren't airtight; aside from the gash, there were broken windows, and an entire system of ductwork for ventilation. Getting air to the fire wasn't hard; don't make it seem like some ridiculously implausible feat; it wasn't."

I realize there was a gaping hole in the side. It was taken into account when I say the airflow was restricted. I see huge amounts of smoke coming out of that hole and very few flames. The smoke resticts the oxygen. That's why people die in smoke filled rooms. It isn't the fire that kills them it is the smoke. There isn't enough oxygen for people or fire. Of course oxygen got to the fire---but not enough to provide the highest temperatures possible, and no where near the point of melting steel. Which is the point---not how much oxygen was in the fire. But did it get how enough to melt steel. It should not have been hot enough to melt steel in even the most ideal situation as my link showed, yet there was melted steel at the WTC. The point is that there was melted steel at the WTC and there should have een no melted steel.


"Loose Change isn't an eyewitness account; that's like saying I get my physics lessons from Looney Tunes. Jet fuel fires are sufficient to warp and weaken metal and that's all the World Trade Centre needed to collape."

You mean kerosene don't you? Kerosene doesn't burn nearly as hot as gasoline, and kerosene never reaches the melting temperature of steel---and again----that's the point---there was meolten steel at the WTC.


"Quibbling over a flash on a film or what someone said while everything unfolded is the hallmark of a simple mind. I heard some of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life on 9/11; like a newscaster claiming, while things unfolded, that on a bright, clear day, maybe a highly trained airline pilot got a misreading on an instrument and just flew into the North Tower which was right in front of him. I've seen idiots on conspiracy websites claim it HAD to be thermite because on a piece of film an explosion was whitish"

Absolutely. That's why we are separating the wheat from the chaff. Don't try to deflct to strawman issues---focus on the points at hand. There was Molten steel at the WTC when there should have been none. Barbara Olson never made that call.

"The problem I have with most of you 'truth' nuts is you ascribe so much intelligence to people that agree with you, while everyone else, even experts, get lower billing. You do this even to the point of denying the world around you. For example, how would anyone who says they saw molten steel know it was molten steel? Different metals and alloys can have drastically disparate melting points. So unless someone stood there collecting samples while refuse rained, dripped and crashed out of the WTC, you don't know for sure. The only way to know is after the fact, through testing."

The problem I have with you 16% nut jobs is the lengths you will go to ignore reality and ascribe complete idiocy to people who are experts on the scene. The reports state that workers removing beams would find the ends of them dripping molte steel. Of course they could have ended in copper. And all the people who reported melted steel could have seen some mysterious "other metal" that would have fooled those idiots. Strrrrreeeeeetttchhhh 16 percenter strrrrreeeeetttccchhhhhhh

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

"But that's not good enough for you, because by then, someone has made an assumption and you can say "A-ha! It's a coverup!". You want people to question everything, and focus on just a few things that you think support your assumption; you're looking at a blade of grass and saying there's no forest even though you're not looking up and seeing the trees around you."

I would say check the man in the mirror. You seem to ignore facts and the people and experts who were on the scene. Check the above link there are more expert witnesses for you to ignore.

"Is it possible that the tens of thousands of people around the Towers - trained firefighters, people escaping, crews filming nearby, police officers - is it possible those people right there, with it unfolding in front of their eyes, some of them trained to observe (police) and to recognise different types of fires and explosions (firemen), who are completely surrounded by the sounds and sights... is it possible every single one of them missed a rocket being shot into the Towers, or the loud rapport of cascading thermite explosions? It isn't."

I don't think anyone said anything about rockets into the towers. As to the rest of it. ARE YOU KIDDING?????????????????????? Do you really want me to link to videos of firemen and policemen who are standing on the scene and telling the world they heard what sounded like explosions AGAIN when you've already ignored it? OK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htTJOeSN0u8&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&mode=related&search=

http://www.whatreallyhappened..com/911_firefighters.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened..com/eyewitness.html

"Is it possible that tens of millions of people who saw it unfold and additional millions who have subsequently seen the same footage (contiguous and in context), have continually missed hallmarks of an explosion or missle (which even Loose Change has now dropped)? Not buying it."

You forget that you are part of the 16% minority. Should I post those links again also? I can find more if you like. You could always post your own. The tens of millions you speak of are shown to be on my side by all polls known. That's why you are a whacky 16 percenter---you don't know reality has cought up with you. Facts are facts.


"Is it possible that a relatively small group of people with too much time on their hands, whose population is significantly comprised of virulent America/Bush haters (like Noam Chimpski [sic]) and supported by Neo Nazis (like Eric Hufschmid) and Holocaust deniers (like Rick Rajter) are promoting the 'truth' movement for their own reasons?"

Never heard of these guys and it seems like you are trotting out another strawman here. Stick to the facts. try reality for a bit.
 
2007-05-02 02:30:25 PM  
i14.photobucket.com
 
2007-05-02 04:01:02 PM  
omg typo now I'm dumb!

I think it goes without saying that I know brightest has two Ts in it.
 
2007-05-02 09:35:54 PM  
She used her credit card to call the operator. I understand that is was not necessary but she did it anyway.
I'm not sure why she did this just like you have no idea how you can get Americans to kill other Americans in such large numbers.

You can't even come up with a single theory on how to convince people to go along with it. It is 100 times as important a point as yours about some meaningless collect call.

You also only post links to sites that you personally made, prove otherwise. I can make as many sites as I want that confirm my beliefs but I choose to use sources that have credibility. Every source you post has zero credibility.

Also, you expect people to take you seriously even though you have no education. Usually in these situations people refer to experts not people who no nothing about anything.

Do you disagree that most people involved with the truth movement have very low IQs?
 
2007-05-02 09:41:15 PM  
And actually it makes sense to call collect from a plane. A collect call is the only type of call you can make from the phone on a plane without using your credit card.

enki40 says that you can not make any call from a plane without a credit card. This is untrue because you can make a collect call from and airplane phone WITHOUT a credit card.

He gets his information from crackpot sites so it's no wonder he believes this lie.
 
2007-05-02 09:58:22 PM  
lets overview

1. enki40 has made many points that have all been destroyed
2. enki40 has basically no education
3. Everyone is against him
4. Everyone is also more educated
5. enki40 is immature and insults people who do not agree with him
6. The official record does not agree with him
7. He has not been able to post even ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE
8. He asks people to post all these links but he only post crackpot meaningless links
9. None of the evidence he has presented means anything
10. It doesn't matter if I showed the phone records of Barbara's call to enki40. He would just say that the government fabricated them. Any other evidence would be explained away by him.
11. No matter what evidence is provided enki40 will just add it as part of the conspiracy.

enki40
We are all disillusioned in our government from the Iraq was but we do not turn our anger into nutty conspiracy theories.

It's too bad you feel the need to kick the people who died on that day while they are down. I really wish you would look at the facts instead of un-cited web pages full of lies.
 
2007-05-02 10:13:41 PM  
Re: how was Excaliber forged in midieval times, long before fire could melt steel?


Bill_Wick's_Friend: A wizard did it.

Radioactive Ass: Well the Lady in the Lake helped...


-------------
DENNIS:
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR:
Be quiet!
DENNIS:
Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR:
Shut up!
DENNIS:
I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
ARTHUR:
Shut up, will you? Shut up!
 
2007-05-02 10:21:00 PM  
Here is what could have happened.
Barbara was on the plane. She did not have her credit card or cell phone with her. She told the passengers her husband worked for the government and that he may be able to help. Another passenger offered to use their credit card and pay the $5 connection fee.
She the called collect to avoid having this passenger pay $10 per minute. This is very possible because 10 per minute is quite a bit and someone's card may reach it's limit.

You can not prove that this is anymore unlikely than her not being on the plane at all or that the call was made up.

This is what we mean by moving the goal posts. When we present evidence like this call that proves it was hijackers you simply say that the evidence doesn't exist.

Here is the link to the billing rates. Notice that it is the American Airlines site. More reputable that all your sources combined.

https://www.aa.com/content/travelInformation/duringFlight/onboardTechn​ology.jh tml
 
2007-05-02 10:23:15 PM  
Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent with the system! Come see the violence inherent with the system!
 
2007-05-02 10:51:19 PM  
"She used her credit card to call the operator. I understand that is was not necessary but she did it anyway.
I'm not sure why she did this just like you have no idea how you can get Americans to kill other Americans in such large numbers."

So she used her credit card to call the operator---then she called collect to a secretary instead of calling collect directly to her husband---is that what you are saying?

So----Your logical, brilliant thinking is that Barbara Olson used her credit card on a seat phone and instead of calling her husband collect, decided to waste time and call an operator first and make it a collect call---even though she was already paying for it with her credit card---and then not make it a collect call to her husband, but make it a collect call to the secretary pool. And she did this twice. Is that what you think happened?

Please verify if this is true---I would like anyone who cares to see your logic.

My logic is this. She never made the call, and Ted Olson lied his ass off about it. the calls are direct and I'm sure this wasn't her first plane ride and she knew how to use the phones--besides, the pilot was right next to her to give her a hint if she had any questions and so was everyone else if she needed help in making the call. Olson had to say she called collect because if he said she used her cell phone or called his cell phone, there would be a record of the call. By saying she called collect to some secretary eliminates that possiblity of discovering the lie easily. There is no operator saying she took the call, and the official story is that the call went to an "unknown" number.

But we each have to make the decision as to which scenario makes the most sense. Yours or mine.

The rest of your posts are simply lies and the way you react to being humiliated post after post after post.

I only called you a punk liar because you are a punk liar. Proven.

You lied like a punk and got caught--deal with it.

Of course you can still make me apologize and leave the site forever---all you gotta do is prove your statement that the call is a matter of public record. Produce the record of the call. That's what you get for talking out your ass. It makes you a punk. And a liar. That's how you get punk liar. Can you get that much? Does that much sink in? Tell me about the credit card and the collect call again.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
 
2007-05-02 11:37:21 PM  
"Barbara was on the plane. She did not have her credit card or cell phone with her. She told the passengers her husband worked for the government and that he may be able to help. Another passenger offered to use their credit card and pay the $5 connection fee.
She the called collect to avoid having this passenger pay $10 per minute. This is very possible because 10 per minute is quite a bit and someone's card may reach it's limit.

You can not prove that this is anymore unlikely than her not being on the plane at all or that the call was made up.

This is what we mean by moving the goal posts. When we present evidence like this call that proves it was hijackers you simply say that the evidence doesn't exist."


As usual, you ignore whole parts of the question. But let's start with the part you DO attempt to address. Let's assume the following according to your scenario.

1. Barbara did not have her cell phone or credit card--yet other passengers somehow had theirs.

2. No one on the plane ever watched Barbara Olson on CNN, and even though someone trusted her word that her husband was a Washington BigWig---they still didn't think she was good for a couple of hundred bucks for a phone call so they made her call collect---even though it wasted valueable time to do so. And they did this twice.

3. And let's assume she made this call collect exactly as you say.

Now let's get to the part you DON't address.

1. Why make this collect call to the secretary pool instead of directly to her husband?

2. Why do this twice?

3. Why were no other passengers making calls from this plane--even after they knew the fate of the other planes--not even the one loaning her his card?
 
2007-05-03 01:45:40 AM  
1. Yes other passengers had theirs. Barbara left her purse in the front of the plane and other people may have not left theirs, been sitting in the back to begin with or had their in their pocket. Your insinuation that no one on the plane could possibly have had a credit card shows how crazy you are.

2. Again your assertion that no one had ever seen he on television her is insane. I think in a crisis even if they hadn't they would probably trust her. Now at this time they did not know that the planes were going to crash so they didn't think spending an extra 30 seconds making the call collect was a big deal. It just saved money.

3. Her husband was likely at his desk or his phone was busy. Therefore calling the secretary instead in not only normal but makes sense. The fact that you did not think of this also shows your insanity.

4. If it is in fact true that that was the only call maybe the passengers did not want to get caught using the phone. They would therefore choose the best person to make one or two phone calls. Barbara was the best choice.

5. The testimony of Barbara's husband backs this up. You say he lied but provide no evidence.

You lied like a punk and got caught--deal with it.


Do you have evidence that Barbara or any of the other passengers were not on the plane?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.htm​l

You need to tell me where the people listed in this link are. WHERE ARE THEY?????

enki40, where did the passengers go???
 
2007-05-03 01:46:49 AM  
enki40

You've never thought anything. You just parrot what those around you say. You lied like a punk and got caught--deal with it.
 
2007-05-03 02:14:08 AM  
These links are not a phone record but they are evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/
There are many others just like these.

You have not provide evidence that these sources are not accurate. The sources you use have no weight compared to mine and that is why no reputable informations sources agree with you. If you think any significant portion of people believe in this nonsense you must be crazy. Just look at this forum, you are the only one who believes.

That's what you get for talking out your ass. It makes you a punk. And a liar. That's how you get punk liar. Can you get that much? Does that much sink in? Tell me about the credit card and the collect call again.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
 
2007-05-03 02:55:18 AM  
Barbara Olsen was an honorable and good person, and acted like a hero in the face of death. Her memory, and the others who died that day, should never be forgotten "what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain."

That's why I believe both the Afghan and Iraq war are good and honorable and just wars, and the effects of promoting democracy in those 2 countries will have a great effect of pacifying the Middle East, as nothing that has been tried in centuries has. The impatience and short attention span of modern Americans isn't helping, but I think those noble causes will prevent more people like Olsen dying in a similar cause.

Have some respect for the lady, what does it matter how she spoke to her husband. Its irrefutable that she DID, that she was calm, brave and accepting in the face of death. Better to devote yourself to stopping the violent Islamofascists who killed her than arguing over phone records. Get some perspective.
 
2007-05-03 03:32:48 AM  
Turok

1.Yes other passengers had theirs. Barbara left her purse in the front of the plane and other people may have not left theirs, been sitting in the back to begin with or had their in their pocket. Your insinuation that no one on the plane could possibly have had a credit card shows how crazy you are.

Strawman. The fact of whether other passengers had credit cards is not a factor in my scenario--only in yours. If you know anything about women they don't go anywhere without their purse. If Barbara Olson was forced to leave hers other passengers may have been forced to leave theirs. But the fact that other passengers did or did not have credit cards was a factor only in your delusions. Not mine. Try not to forget this whole scenario is you trying to stretch her making a collect call. Ever heard of Ockhams Razor?

2. "Again your assertion that no one had ever seen he on television her is insane. I think in a crisis even if they hadn't they would probably trust her. Now at this time they did not know that the planes were going to crash so they didn't think spending an extra 30 seconds making the call collect was a big deal. It just saved money."

Geez, your comprehension level is low for a Super Genius. I was just trying to justify why someone would NOT trust a famous person for a few hundred dollars in a crises scenario and make them call collect. OF COURSE THEY SAW HER ON TV. My contention is that there would be no reason not to trust such a famous person for the money and make the call direct---even if it took my card over the limit, I'm sure they would be good for it. Why do you think she would make the call collect again? In this emergency you think somebody wants het to save them a few bucks and charge the government--is that it? Do you think there was a dixcussion? UHHH Barbara--I know you're rich and famous and everything but could you make that call collect? Is that what you are saying? Just trying to clarify your position since it changes so often.


3. "Her husband was likely at his desk or his phone was busy. Therefore calling the secretary instead in not only normal but makes sense. The fact that you did not think of this also shows your insanity."

Let's say you are correct(even though Olson never states this, in fact he sounds surprised she didn't call his phone seeming to indicate the line was free, but do you think his lines wouldn't be open for the SECOND call). Barbara gets the operator and says make this collect call to my hushand at 555555. The operator says yes ma'am--she calls--the line is busy. Does Barbara say---A) Gee That's too bad--put me through to some secretary in the front office. or B) Operator this is an emergency, I'm Barbara Olson and Ted Olson needs to know we are on a hijacked plane--please break in the line--NOW. The fact that you haven't thought this through shows your faulty thought processes


4."If it is in fact true that that was the only call maybe the passengers did not want to get caught using the phone. They would therefore choose the best person to make one or two phone calls. Barbara was the best choice"

Ah--so the passengers were pussies--even after they knew the fate of the other planes. There were several military personnel on board that flight--do you think they would be afraid of a few arabs with boxcutters after learning what happened to the other planes? Do you think they were such big pussies they wouldn't even try to make a last call. You insult their memories.

5. "The testimony of Barbara's husband backs this up. You say he lied but provide no evidence."

What testimony are you talking about. Post your link liar. I stand 100% behind the words of Ted Olson as proving him a liar. Get that link out. Don't you get tired of being caught in your lies? post that "testimony of Barbara's husband backs this up" that you talk about. Put up or shut up.

As to where the passengers are--they should be in the Pentagon. Whether the passengers are in the Pentagon or not has nothing to do with Barbara Olson making that collect call.

You can add plagiarist to you description of punk liar. You don't even have enough imagination to come up with your own insults. That's why you are a 16 percenter.
 
2007-05-03 04:03:59 AM  
"These links are not a phone record but they are evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/
There are many others just like these."

Um--your two links say she used her cell phone to make the call would you like to go back to that scenario again? hehe Maybe you should read your links before you post them PL. Now my links quote Ted Olson directly---why don't you post some links that quote Ted Olson directly?


"You have not provide evidence that these sources are not accurate."

I believe we've already put the cell phone nonsense to rest, so your statement is simply another lie from a punk liar. Ted Olson says she didn't use her cell phone and your links say she did. That makes your statement a lie, and you a liar. The punk part was a given.


"The sources you use have no weight compared to mine and that is why no reputable informations sources agree with you."

LOL what sources are you talking about? The only links you posted to were for the amount it cost to make a seatphone call and two links that have hearsay evidence that she made the call on her cell phone---again--would you like to go back to the cell phone scenario? My links quote Ted Olson directly, and they are from different sources.

"The sources you use have no weight compared to mine and that is why no reputable informations sources agree with you."

Haw haw, you mean your source to the cost of making a call and the two that say she used a cell phone when Ted Olson says she didn't use her cell phone? Those sources?HAHAHAHAH ahem sorry. What "reputable information sources" are you talking about bigmouth? Post that link---don't talk about it. Again--put up or shut up---oh yeah----that "reputable informations source" is in your head. Now you just attack the sites I link to but never provide links that refute the INFORMATION on the sites I link to. Your rebuttal consists of "no it isn't".


"If you think any significant portion of people believe in this nonsense you must be crazy"

I posted several links that showed that people who think like you are in the 16 percent range. Where are your links? hint--I already know how much a seatphine call costs--try another link. I guess if your thinking falls into the 16 percent reange, people might consider you crazy. Facts are, the 16 percent is shrinking---and guess what, on 911, ninety nine point nine percent thought like you--including me.
 
2007-05-03 04:07:31 AM  
enki40

What is your theory to where the passengers of the hijacked flights are? There were many passengers on those flights.

How do you think the government got Barbara's husband to lie if they are the ones that killed her?

How do you get the Americans involved with the conspiracy to go along with killing so many of their fellow citizens?

These are 3 huge questions that you have not answered. If it is part of the conspiracy you should at least have a theory explaining these things. We all want to hear it.
 
2007-05-03 04:11:51 AM  
Your last two posts are not worth a response. All your points have been refuted in this thread so I will not be arguing about this with you anymore.

You are over 50 years old and you debate like a child. You are a pathetic excuse for a grown and mature adult.
 
2007-05-03 04:20:32 AM  
Yeah, enji40 is now just posting incoherent arguments that do not make sense. He actually states that only 16 percent of people don't believe this stuff. Or in other words 84% of people do believe in it?

now who is crazy?
 
2007-05-03 04:47:10 AM  
Torok

You have refuted nothing and said nothing but lies. You have posted no links of value and have lost on every point. It has clearly been shown that Barbara Olson did not make that call. Both the cell phone scenario, and the seatphone scenario have been shown to be implausible. Your insults are the result of being made to look foolish post after post, and especially being shown to be the punk liar you have always been, and probably always will be---unable to accept reality and without the moral character to admit mistakes or the intelligence to have an open mind. The 16percent fits.

So let's summarize your new stance on the cell er seatphone call.

1 Barbara Olson borrowed a credit card and instead of calling her husband direct in a life and death situation, called an operator and made a collect call to the secretary pool rather than a direct call to her husbands private line or even a collect call to her husband directly. In fact she made a collect call to the secretary pool twice instead of calling her husband directly or making the call collect to him.

2 You have no problem with no other passengers making calls even though they knew the fate of the other planes.

3. You have no problem that no operator claims to have taken her collect call.

4. You have no problem with the fact that there are no records of this call anywhere. As I said--produce them and I leave the site forever oh great punk liar. You know in some cases lying punk works better. I'll be more flexible in the future.

5. You have no problem that no secretary has come forth saying they took the call and Olson won't say who took the call. Hint: No one took the call--it was never made.

6 You have not refutted one fact I have stated.

7. You have not refuted any information on any links.

8 Your links are weak----only linking to the cost of a seatphone call, and to links that claim she made the call with a cell phone.

9. I link to direct quotes by Ted Olson and from various sources. You never link to direct quotes to Ted Olson.
Here's a whole pageful of Ted Olson quotes---where's yours?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA erk eck ahen BWA BWWAA BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"Well, she managed to - Barbara was capable of doing practically anything if she set her mind to it. In retrospect, I'm not surprised that Barbara managed to get collect calls through."

CALLS--more than one.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/ted_olson.html
 
2007-05-03 04:52:04 AM  
Rickets

Only 16 percent believe as you do. I posted several links. Should I post them again for you or can you scroll up all by yourself. Where are your links that say the majority think as you do? I'll wait. Go get em 16 percenter--I'm sure there are lots of links that show whackos like you in the majority.hehehehe

As to the incoherent bit---post an incoherent sentence and I'll break down the big words for you. You 16 percenters need all the help you can get.
 
2007-05-03 05:25:55 AM  
enki40

Again, nothing worth responding to.
 
2007-05-03 07:45:53 AM  
torok--That's because you've got nothing--as usual. So long 16 percenter. I doubt you could even get 16 percent to support your whacky cell phone collect call theory.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"she called collect on a cell phone.

BWWHAHAHAHAHA

No wait--she called collect from a seatphone---to a secretary instead of her husband.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

When she could have just called him direct

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Twice!!!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

and you believe it.

sad

not really--------BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2007-05-03 08:05:15 AM  
Whatever, no one cares.

Anyway, time for some fun. There is this guy on the internet named Maddox. Maybe you have heard of him? I think he is a

pirate or something.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Now I figure if a pirate had a web page he would always tell the truth. Normally pirates would probably lie about stuff

but a pirate that lies on the internet seems unlikely. Plus he was also the one who proved that the government sank the

titanic.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

I think his previous conspiracy experience makes him that much more credible.
 
2007-05-04 11:39:30 PM  
I'm surprised this hasn't been refuted yet:

Why did all of the columns fail at once?

They didn't. They failed in successive order as mass, increasing with each floor's collapse by a factor of that equal to an entire floor, slammed down onto them from above.


If this were true, there would have been a brief delay as each floor was squished, drawing out the collapse time to more than a minute. However, both buildings collapsed completely in less than 10 seconds - THE SAME SPEED AS AN OBJECT FALLING UNIMPEDED THROUGH AIR. Even given the mass of the falling building, 60-70 floors of reinforced concrete and steel would have given some resistance and slowed the speed of collapse.
 
2007-05-05 02:41:36 PM  
Easy, I did not fall that quickly. Watch the video again.
 
2007-05-05 02:42:52 PM  
Sory, typo.

It did not fall that quickly. The dust obstructs the view anyway.
 
2007-05-05 02:50:43 PM  
Like I said before, I have a Civil Engineering education and I know many Civil Engineers. We simply do not think that there was anything suspicious about the collapse. I have never met an engineer that did.

destrip
Sure some things may seem odd to you but you do not understand structural mechanics the way I do. It's not so much your viewpoint that I object to as the fact that you are insulting my field of work by pretending to understand it.
 
Displayed 39 of 589 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report