Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just to highlight the idiocy out there on the internets, this is what I was talking about above.
In this silly blog, Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
is the statement:
When you click on the notation [FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]8 you discover that the source of this "fact" about the passenger seat phones is this:
[/FONT]TFF!
That is stark naked rank hypocrisy. The CR says calls from 77 were made but provides no hard evidence and you accept it without question.
people receiving the phone calls is evidence enough for me that they were made. especially when the phone calls triggered a further chain of events such as the call by the May's parents to american airlines.
if you had any evidence at all that the calls were not made then i would consider your claims. so far you are simply full of shit.
ummm...airphones ARE cell phones.CNN reported that he said cell phones...but they didn't quote him so it is more than possible that CNN was mistaken.Then show us seatback phones on AA 77 were operational.
As for olson, he claimed it as fact and not speculation but good job trying to cover up for him. The DOJ could have easily proved where the call came from if it produced its phone records for that morning.
And later in his interview with Brit Hume he clearly stated that he didn't know what phone she called him from.
Somehow I'm not surprised that you won't find the portion of the video about 50,000 feet...I am now positive that it doesn't exist.
Great job building up a conspiracy out of nothing.
Let's put your "CNN was mistaken" to bed. Olson said it on Larry King:
"OLSON: We are -- we segued back and forth between expressions of feeling for one another and this effort to exchange information. And then the phone went dead. I don't know whether it just got cut off again, because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well, or whether that was the impact with the Pentagon."
CNN.com - Transcripts
That confirms CNN correctly quoted him on 9/11 and he repeats the claim she used a cell on 9/14 as shown with the LK transcript.
The guy doesn't know what phone she called him from, he can only speculate.
You were wrong about the 9/11 Commission stating a cell phone was used by Renee May...it's quite possible you are wrong about the 50,000 quote. But you aren't interested in knowing yourself, which is pretty damn strange.CNN reported that he said cell phones...but they didn't quote him so it is more than possible that CNN was mistaken.Then show us seatback phones on AA 77 were operational.
As for olson, he claimed it as fact and not speculation but good job trying to cover up for him. The DOJ could have easily proved where the call came from if it produced its phone records for that morning.
And later in his interview with Brit Hume he clearly stated that he didn't know what phone she called him from.
Somehow I'm not surprised that you won't find the portion of the video about 50,000 feet...I am now positive that it doesn't exist.
Great job building up a conspiracy out of nothing.
CNN didn't quote olson? Are you serious? That is your explanation? Once again it is proven when OCTAs don't like contradictory information they dismiss it with absolutely nothing.
Your statement you are positive the 50,000 foot quote doesn't exist shows how your agenda is also a blind fold. I don't care if you believe it or not because even if I wasted more time to dig up the transcript or found the video clip it wouldn't make any difference. You would find some way to dismiss it as you white washed the CNN article. Or are you saying you would admit PM is obviously biased if you saw the clip?
What does that have to do with the bogus "proof" used by this troofer? Nothing.I read the various things that Ted Olsen said about phones. It is apparent he never knew if his wife called from a cell phone or an airphone and was merely speculating. She called him at work, and apparently had to go through the office switchboard to speak to him.
A really funny link I found claimed that 757s didn't have airphones and as evidence the conspiracist linked to a forum post authored by someone with the screen name [FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]the Paradroid
I see what happens here. These nuts read something and because someone wrote it and they want to believe it they take it for the truth.
There is probably someone on another forum linking to CurveLight's posts as examples of facts.
[/FONT]
Just to highlight the idiocy out there on the internets, this is what I was talking about above.
In this silly blog, Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
is the statement:
When you click on the notation [FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]8 you discover that the source of this "fact" about the passenger seat phones is this:
[/FONT]TFF![FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]See the submission of 17 February 2006 by the Paradroid on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75. [/FONT]
That is stark naked rank hypocrisy. The CR says calls from 77 were made but provides no hard evidence and you accept it without question.
You were wrong about the 9/11 Commission stating a cell phone was used by Renee May...it's quite possible you are wrong about the 50,000 quote. But you aren't interested in knowing yourself, which is pretty damn strange.CNN reported that he said cell phones...but they didn't quote him so it is more than possible that CNN was mistaken.
And later in his interview with Brit Hume he clearly stated that he didn't know what phone she called him from.
Somehow I'm not surprised that you won't find the portion of the video about 50,000 feet...I am now positive that it doesn't exist.
Great job building up a conspiracy out of nothing.
CNN didn't quote olson? Are you serious? That is your explanation? Once again it is proven when OCTAs don't like contradictory information they dismiss it with absolutely nothing.
Your statement you are positive the 50,000 foot quote doesn't exist shows how your agenda is also a blind fold. I don't care if you believe it or not because even if I wasted more time to dig up the transcript or found the video clip it wouldn't make any difference. You would find some way to dismiss it as you white washed the CNN article. Or are you saying you would admit PM is obviously biased if you saw the clip?
ummm...airphones ARE cell phones.CNN reported that he said cell phones...but they didn't quote him so it is more than possible that CNN was mistaken.
And later in his interview with Brit Hume he clearly stated that he didn't know what phone she called him from.
Somehow I'm not surprised that you won't find the portion of the video about 50,000 feet...I am now positive that it doesn't exist.
Great job building up a conspiracy out of nothing.
Let's put your "CNN was mistaken" to bed. Olson said it on Larry King:
"OLSON: We are -- we segued back and forth between expressions of feeling for one another and this effort to exchange information. And then the phone went dead. I don't know whether it just got cut off again, because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well, or whether that was the impact with the Pentagon."
CNN.com - Transcripts
That confirms CNN correctly quoted him on 9/11 and he repeats the claim she used a cell on 9/14 as shown with the LK transcript.
Mobile or wireless would be a better term...but a lot of Americans call non-land line phones cell phones.ummm...airphones ARE cell phones.Let's put your "CNN was mistaken" to bed. Olson said it on Larry King:
"OLSON: We are -- we segued back and forth between expressions of feeling for one another and this effort to exchange information. And then the phone went dead. I don't know whether it just got cut off again, because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well, or whether that was the impact with the Pentagon."
CNN.com - Transcripts
That confirms CNN correctly quoted him on 9/11 and he repeats the claim she used a cell on 9/14 as shown with the LK transcript.
So after I prove Olson said it was a cell phone you want to claim airphones are cell phones. What a fucking shitbag you are. Thank you for giving another great example of OCTA's affinity for ignoring facts and making painfully obvious ridiculous claims......airphones are cell phones. Holy fuck.
Mobile or wireless would be a better term...but a lot of Americans call non-land line phones cell phones.ummm...airphones ARE cell phones.
So after I prove Olson said it was a cell phone you want to claim airphones are cell phones. What a fucking shitbag you are. Thank you for giving another great example of OCTA's affinity for ignoring facts and making painfully obvious ridiculous claims......airphones are cell phones. Holy fuck.
As I stated way up the thread...your premise is retarded.
Come back when you have some proof of whatever it is you are trying to prove while at the same time being afraid to say whatever it is you are trying to prove.
I'm still trying to figure out what 9E means and what OCTA means...though I've no doubt it is some conspiracy theorist jargon.
[
You never "consider" anything that does not support the OCT. The fact there are no phone records is strong evidence but you ignore that because you have to. Otherwise you would come dangerously close to intellectual honesty and we know you are deathly allergic. Your camp doesn't even begin to offer an explanation why five separate major entities have been unable to produce the records.
Mobile or wireless would be a better term...but a lot of Americans call non-land line phones cell phones.So after I prove Olson said it was a cell phone you want to claim airphones are cell phones. What a fucking shitbag you are. Thank you for giving another great example of OCTA's affinity for ignoring facts and making painfully obvious ridiculous claims......airphones are cell phones. Holy fuck.
As I stated way up the thread...your premise is retarded.
Come back when you have some proof of whatever it is you are trying to prove while at the same time being afraid to say whatever it is you are trying to prove.
I'm still trying to figure out what 9E means and what OCTA means...though I've no doubt it is some conspiracy theorist jargon.
Curvelight never actually takes a direct stand on anything.
9E = 9-11
OCTA - Original Conspiracy Theory something or other.
Mobile or wireless would be a better term...but a lot of Americans call non-land line phones cell phones.ummm...airphones ARE cell phones.
So after I prove Olson said it was a cell phone you want to claim airphones are cell phones. What a fucking shitbag you are. Thank you for giving another great example of OCTA's affinity for ignoring facts and making painfully obvious ridiculous claims......airphones are cell phones. Holy fuck.
As I stated way up the thread...your premise is retarded.
Come back when you have some proof of whatever it is you are trying to prove while at the same time being afraid to say whatever it is you are trying to prove.
I'm still trying to figure out what 9E means and what OCTA means...though I've no doubt it is some conspiracy theorist jargon.
[
You never "consider" anything that does not support the OCT. The fact there are no phone records is strong evidence but you ignore that because you have to. Otherwise you would come dangerously close to intellectual honesty and we know you are deathly allergic. Your camp doesn't even begin to offer an explanation why five separate major entities have been unable to produce the records.
this is where you lose people, jackass. what the fuck makes you think that because call records have not been published on the internet they therefore dont exist?
in order for you to claim "the fact that there are no phone records" you need to prove there are no phone records. you havent dont that.
and who really needs to shorten 9/11??????
morons that have trouble counting past 10
I did not use May's call as evidence cells from high altitudes are not possible. The op link uses several sources from phone companies pointing out it is not reasonable or even plausible cell calls in 01 could be made from high altitudes.
I have no doubt nobody can prove cell phones were capable of conversational operations on 9/11 on flight 77 at 9:12 am. Is there anyone who can prove that was possible? I've provided evidence it was not possible.
I anticipate two usual events: the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch Bitch, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.
Mobile or wireless would be a better term...but a lot of Americans call non-land line phones cell phones.So after I prove Olson said it was a cell phone you want to claim airphones are cell phones. What a fucking shitbag you are. Thank you for giving another great example of OCTA's affinity for ignoring facts and making painfully obvious ridiculous claims......airphones are cell phones. Holy fuck.
As I stated way up the thread...your premise is retarded.
Come back when you have some proof of whatever it is you are trying to prove while at the same time being afraid to say whatever it is you are trying to prove.
I'm still trying to figure out what 9E means and what OCTA means...though I've no doubt it is some conspiracy theorist jargon.
You're nothing but a dishonest shitbag. You first tried to explain olson's cell phone claim by saying CNN was mistaken. Pay. Attention. You. Dumb. Fucking. Lying. Bitch. If airphones and cell phones are the same thing as you claim then how in the hell could CNN have been "mistaken?" You know damn well cell and airphones are two different types of phones.
Your OCTA buddies saw you claim cell and airphones are the same thing and not one of the little bitches had the balls to be honest and call you out on it. I'm not surprised at all because they have proven themselves to cowardly ***** over and over and over. It's almost laughable but this will be a great bookmark showing how dishonest you are.
When you get pwned you simply whine like a little **** and say the op premise is retarded. The good news for you is you are surrounded by lying cowardly bitches who are just like you so you can be sure you can lie as often as you want and they will never call out your bullshit.
Notice the date of the article: November 2000Airborne telephones work via one of two methods: cellular and satellite. The first, cellular communications, mimics the technology used by terrestrially based cell phones. After engineers developed strategies that prevented airborne cell phone transmissions from interfering with terrestrial cell phones (changing the polarity of the signals and keeping the signal strength down), the Federal Communications Commission approved the first of what will surely be a wave of airborne cell phones.
AirCell Inc. now offers its AT.01 cell phone system for $3,995. This includes the phone itself, a transceiver, and a low-profile antenna. AirCell's $7,400 AGT.01 cell phone system comes with two transceivers�one for use in airborne communications, the other for use on the ground�making this a dual-purpose telephone. In either application, the methodology is the same: Pilots and passengers make calls by first contacting terrestrial cell phone antennas; then the transmission is shunted along to the recipient via land lines and/or other cell phone transmission antennas. Faxes, e-mails, connection with the Internet, and uplinking of weather graphics and text information can all be performed using the AirCell network. Today's maximum baud rate of the AirCell system�like every other current airborne phone system�is 9,600 baud. However, AirCell expects to see high-speed modems in use within two years.
I'm sure the Bush administration planted this information on the internets to fool us all.Mobile or wireless would be a better term...but a lot of Americans call non-land line phones cell phones.
As I stated way up the thread...your premise is retarded.
Come back when you have some proof of whatever it is you are trying to prove while at the same time being afraid to say whatever it is you are trying to prove.
I'm still trying to figure out what 9E means and what OCTA means...though I've no doubt it is some conspiracy theorist jargon.
You're nothing but a dishonest shitbag. You first tried to explain olson's cell phone claim by saying CNN was mistaken. Pay. Attention. You. Dumb. Fucking. Lying. Bitch. If airphones and cell phones are the same thing as you claim then how in the hell could CNN have been "mistaken?" You know damn well cell and airphones are two different types of phones.
Your OCTA buddies saw you claim cell and airphones are the same thing and not one of the little bitches had the balls to be honest and call you out on it. I'm not surprised at all because they have proven themselves to cowardly ***** over and over and over. It's almost laughable but this will be a great bookmark showing how dishonest you are.
When you get pwned you simply whine like a little **** and say the op premise is retarded. The good news for you is you are surrounded by lying cowardly bitches who are just like you so you can be sure you can lie as often as you want and they will never call out your bullshit.
Notice the date of the article: November 2000Airborne telephones work via one of two methods: cellular and satellite. The first, cellular communications, mimics the technology used by terrestrially based cell phones. After engineers developed strategies that prevented airborne cell phone transmissions from interfering with terrestrial cell phones (changing the polarity of the signals and keeping the signal strength down), the Federal Communications Commission approved the first of what will surely be a wave of airborne cell phones.
AirCell Inc. now offers its AT.01 cell phone system for $3,995. This includes the phone itself, a transceiver, and a low-profile antenna. AirCell's $7,400 AGT.01 cell phone system comes with two transceivers�one for use in airborne communications, the other for use on the ground�making this a dual-purpose telephone. In either application, the methodology is the same: Pilots and passengers make calls by first contacting terrestrial cell phone antennas; then the transmission is shunted along to the recipient via land lines and/or other cell phone transmission antennas. Faxes, e-mails, connection with the Internet, and uplinking of weather graphics and text information can all be performed using the AirCell network. Today's maximum baud rate of the AirCell system�like every other current airborne phone system�is 9,600 baud. However, AirCell expects to see high-speed modems in use within two years.
AOPA Online: Future Flight: Communications Revolution
I think we've thoroughly debunked Curvy's nonsense and highlighted his inability to be intellectually honest.I did not use May's call as evidence cells from high altitudes are not possible. The op link uses several sources from phone companies pointing out it is not reasonable or even plausible cell calls in 01 could be made from high altitudes.
Yes you did!!! Are you fucking blind?
You SPECIFICALLY point out the call that was made at 9:12 am on flight 77. That is May's call. Then right after that you continue to write the statement that you have provided evidence that it was not possible. Here is the specific part of your quote yet again:
I have no doubt nobody can prove cell phones were capable of conversational operations on 9/11 on flight 77 at 9:12 am. Is there anyone who can prove that was possible? I've provided evidence it was not possible.
You specifically state above that you have provided evidence that the call made at 9:12 am from flight 77 was not possible. You even go on to challenge people, once again referencing the call made at 9:12 am on flight 77, to provide evidence that it WAS possible:
I anticipate two usual events: the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch Bitch, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.
Do you see that? A challenge to people to provide evidence that the call at 9:12 am from flight 77 was technologically possible. Was this another Curvelight that wrote this???
This is getting ridiculous already.
I think we've thoroughly debunked Curvy's nonsense and highlighted his inability to be intellectually honest.I did not use May's call as evidence cells from high altitudes are not possible. The op link uses several sources from phone companies pointing out it is not reasonable or even plausible cell calls in 01 could be made from high altitudes.
Yes you did!!! Are you fucking blind?
You SPECIFICALLY point out the call that was made at 9:12 am on flight 77. That is May's call. Then right after that you continue to write the statement that you have provided evidence that it was not possible. Here is the specific part of your quote yet again:
You specifically state above that you have provided evidence that the call made at 9:12 am from flight 77 was not possible. You even go on to challenge people, once again referencing the call made at 9:12 am on flight 77, to provide evidence that it WAS possible:
I anticipate two usual events: the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch Bitch, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.
Do you see that? A challenge to people to provide evidence that the call at 9:12 am from flight 77 was technologically possible. Was this another Curvelight that wrote this???
This is getting ridiculous already.
I challenged people to provide evidence a cell call from that speed and altitude was technologically possible.
I anticipate two usual events: the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch Bitch, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.
