Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'm by no stretch of the imagination a conspiracy buff, but....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:14 PM
Original message
I'm by no stretch of the imagination a conspiracy buff, but....
A friend emailed this to me and I wonder......

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.p...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. So where is Ted Olsen's wife?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Eugene Scalia was a partner at Olsons Law firm
so sorry ..this was the conflict of interest not that olson was intern..BUT its as bad IMHO

teddy olson is slipperier than a striped bass..

http://www.thedubyareport.com/olson.html

Republicans Rush Olson Nomination Through In-Depth
Special to The Dubya Report
Updated May 25, 2001


"In a move calculated to avoid a partisan floor fight in the early days of the Democratic majority, following Senator James Jeffords defection from the GOP, majority leader Daschle agreed to let the nomination of Theodore Olson to be solicitor general come to the senate floor, where it passed 51-47. The solicitor general is the government's advocate before the Supreme Court. Democrats could have filibustered the nomination, but chose not to. Senators Zell Miller of Georgia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska broke ranks with their party to vote for Olson. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton derided the Republican leadership for rushing the Olson nomination onto the senate floor. "I think it's an act of raw political partisanship to save a nomination that clearly is in trouble and should not go through," she said.

Earlier this month Democratic senators had achieved a modicum of solidarity when the Judiciary committee voted 9-9 along party lines on the Olson nomination. Two previous votes had been postponed because of concerns raised by Democrats about Olson's testimony. Under the current agreement for sharing political power between major parties in the senate, party leaders can take nominations to the floor of the senate in case of deadlock, and following the vote Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch asked Senator Trent Lott to do so. On the senate floor 60 votes were required to consider the question of the nomination. Democrats asserted that Olson's testimony had been evasive at best concerning his involvement in the "Arkansas Project" -- a group that sought to smear the Clintons. Olson denied being involved in the "origin and management" of the Arkansas project, but that statement has been contradicted in reports by Salon.com and the Washington Post.






Even Olson's current position is questionable in light of available evidence to the contrary. Olson claims he did not know of the project until 1997, despite reports of the 1994 memo. Mr. Olson also changed his story about how came to represent former judge David Hale's. Hale, who has been characterized as a "swindler," and "con-man," became Kenneth Starr's chief witness against the Clintons in the Whitewater investigation. Olson has vacillated about how he met Mr. Hale, but David Henderson, a director of the Spectator foundation and close associate of Richard Scaife, has admitted introducing Hale to Olson. At the time Olson already represented the Spectator, and Mr. Henderson was in charge of the Arkansas Project.


Potential conflict of interest, or at least the appearance thereof, for a Solicitor General designate, surfaced earlier this year when Olson argued for the Bush campaign before the Supreme Court. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's son Eugene, it was revealed, is a partner at Olson's law firm. (Another of Scalia's sons, John, joined the firm of Barry Richard who represented the Bush campaign before the Florida Supreme Court). "


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Find the jet first!
The liars behind the deception got paid well!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Jet what jet??
babs olson is sunnin herself in Nice France with her jet black died hair..Oh that jet!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. That's what it all comes down to!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dora Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. I've wondered too.
It hurts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The guy who sent me this was so gung ho
after 9/11 that I had to divorce myself from him. And we had been friends for over 35 years....

But slowly and surely, like the rest of the country, he is looking at what is behind the curtain....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. Realistically, this thing is fluff and innuendo
It cites a lot of completely inaccurate facts, makes unsubstantiated claims about how the damage would occur, that sort of thing. Using that sort of unrebutted, fast-and-loose presentation, I could make a good case for alien abduction, or the Philadelphia Experiement. As for the eyewitness quotes, assuming that these people ever even said this, there's a rule of thumb in forensic science: one piece of actual evidence is better than twenty eyewitnesses. That's because witnesses frequently don't remember details correctly, change their stories, and perceive things in different ways.

I have to go cook dinner, so I don't have time to rebut it right now, but this thing has plenty of holes in it. Besides which, if you accept the assumption that some sort of missle or fighter jet hit the Pentagon, you have many more unanswered questions, such as the whereabouts of the people who were on the airline flight, where the missle/fighter came from, the reason for using a missle/fighter, the reason for hitting the Pentagon at all, etc..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. If you accept the government story
Then limestone is stronger than steel.

If you accept this?.......I have a bridge to sell you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. forensic evidence
that was carted away from WTC and sold to china..

talk about a crime scene illegality..

but sir rudi ghoulianni can do whatever ..

funny how he was in Londontown on 7/7/05 and he really got interviewed so fast..just a coincidence..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-05 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. Could be disinfo. Hard to say but if you want some disturbing questions...
about 911 check this out.
http://reopen911.org/video/cte_07.mov

The Pentagon stuff makes me suspicious because it all has been so glitzy - maybe disinfo who knows?
The scrubbing of evidence from the WTC site however is a fact. NONE of the steel was checked for explosives, even though scientists have said it looked just like controlled demo, and the FEMA volunteer experts could not determine a cause for the collapse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. I think a LOT of people have turned into conspiracy buffs after 9/11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. Welcome
to the real world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-05 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
16. 9/11: Evidence destruction, Evidence suppression, Cover-up by authorities
& 9/11 Commission

That there has been evidence suppression, evidence destruction, and cover-up regarding all aspects of what happened on 9/11 is well documented; as well as the fact that many things as reported did not and could not have happened that way.

Why all the evidence suppression and massive cover-up if events happened as reported by the 9/11 Commission

http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

and Dr. D.R. Giffin, 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep 17th 2014, 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC