Mother of All Lies About 9/11 Barbara Olson's "Phone Call" From
Flight 77
Copyright Joe Vialls, 27 March 2002 Ted Olson in his Washington
Office
This is a story about a little white lie that bred dozens of
other little white lies,
then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to the point where
the first little white lie must be credited as the "Mother of All
Lies" about events on 11 September 2001.
For this was the little white lie that first activated the
American psyche, generated mass loathing, and enabled media
manipulation of the global population.
Without this little white lie there would have been no Arab
Hijackers, no Osama Bin Laden directing operations from afar,
and no "War on Terror" in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine.
Clearly the lie was so clever and diabolical in nature,
it must have been generated by the "Power Elite" in one of its more
earthly manifestations. Perhaps it was the work of the Council on
Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission?
No, it was not. Though at the time the little white lie was
flagged with a powerful political name,
there was and remains no evidence to support the connection. Just
like the corrupt and premature Lee Harvey Oswald story in 1963,
there are verifiable fatal errors
which ultimately prove the little white lie was solely the work of
members of the media. Only they had access, and only they had the
methods and means.
The little white lie was about Barbara Olson, a conservative
commentator for CNN and wife of US Solicitor General Ted Olson.
Now deceased, Mrs Olson is alleged to have twice called her
husband from an American Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before
the aircraft slammed into the Pentagon.
This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably quickly at
2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT] on September 12, was the solitary foundation
on which the spurious "Hijacker" story was built.
Without the "eminent" Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional
telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played
a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day.
Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on
September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is
critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story
was the only one on September 11 and. 12.
It was beyond question the artificial "seed" that started the
media snowball rolling down the hill.
And once the snowball started rolling down the hill, it artfully
picked up Osama Bin Laden and a host of other "terrorists" on the
way.
By noon on September 12, every paid glassy-eyed media commentator
in America was either spilling his guts about those "Terrible
Muslim hijackers",
or liberating hitherto classified information about Osama Bin
Laden. "Oh sure, it was Bin Laden," they said blithely, oblivious
to anything apart from their television appearance fees.
The deliberate little white lie was essential. Ask yourself:
What would most Americans have been thinking about on September 12,
if CNN had not provided this timely fiction?
Would anyone anywhere have really believed the insane government
story about failed Cessna pilots with box cutters taking over heavy
jets,
then hurling them expertly around the sky like polished Top Guns
from the film of the same name?
Of course not! As previously stated there would have been no Osama
Bin Laden, and no "War on Terror" in Afghanistan and occupied
Palestine.
This report is designed to examine the sequence of the Olson
events and lay them bare for public
examination. Dates and times are of crucial importance here, so if
this report seems tedious try to bear with me.
Before moving on to discuss the impossibility of the alleged
calls,
we first need to examine how CNN managed to "find out" about them,
reported here in the September 12 CNN story at 2.06 am EDT:
"Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted
her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson,
that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted
Olson told CNN. Shortly afterwards Flight 77
crashed into the Pentagon" … "Ted Olson told CNN that his
wife said all passengers and flight personnel,
including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed
hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and
cardboard cutters. She felt nobody was in charge and asked her
husband to tell the pilot what to do."
At no point in the above report does CNN quote Ted Olson
directly.
If the report was authentic and 100% attributable, it would have
been phrased quite differently. Instead of "Ted Olson told CNN that
his wife said all
passengers and flight personnel…", the passage would read
approximately:- Mr Olson told CNN, "My wife said all
passengers and flight personnel…" Whoever wrote this story
was certainly not in direct contact with US Solicitor
General Ted Olson.
Think about it, people! If you knew or suspected your spouse's
aircraft had just fireballed inside the
Pentagon building, how would you spend the rest of the day?
Initially you would certainly be in deep shock and
unwilling to believe the reports. Then you would start to gather
your wits together, a slow process in itself. After
that and depending on individual personality, you might drive over
to the Pentagon on the off chance your spouse
survived the horrific crash, or you might go home and wait for
emergency services to bring you the inevitable bad
news. As a matter of record, Ted Olson did not return to work until
six days later.
About the last thing on your mind [especially if you happened to
be the US Solicitor General], would be to
pick up a telephone and call the CNN Atlanta news desk in order to
give them a "scoop". As a seasoned politician you
would already know that all matters involving national security
must first be vetted by the National Security Council.
Under the extraordinary circumstances and security overkill
existing on September 11, this vetting process would have
taken a minimum of two days, and more likely three.
The timing of the CNN news release about Barbara Olson, is
therefore as impossible as the New Zealand press
release back in 1963 about the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy. As reported independently by Colonel
Fletcher Prouty USAF (Retired), whoever set Kennedy up,
accidentally launched a full international newswire biography on
obscure "killer" Lee Harvey Oswald, without first taking the
trouble to check his world clock.
It was still "yesterday" in New Zealand on the other side of the
International Date Line when the biography
was wired from New York, enabling the Christchurch Star newspaper
was able to print a story about Oswald as the
prime suspect in its morning edition, several hours before he was
first accused of the crime by Dallas police.
If the CNN story about Ted Olson had been correct, and he really
had called them about Barbara on September 11, then he would most
surely have followed the telephone call up a few days later with a
tasteful "one-on-one"
television interview, telling the hushed and respectful interviewer
about how badly he missed his wife, and about the
sheer horror of it all.
There is no record of any such interview in the CNN or other
archives. Indeed, if you key "Barbara Olson" into the CNN search
engine, it returns only two related articles. The first is the
creative invention on September 12
at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT], and the second is on December 12, about
President Bush, who led a White House memorial
that began at 8:46 a.m. EST, the moment the first hijacked plane
hit the World Trade Center three months before. CNN
includes this comment about Ted Olson:
"In a poignant remembrance at the Justice Department, U.S.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson referred
to "the sufferings we have all experienced." He made no direct
reference to the death of his wife, Barbara Olson, who was a
passenger aboard the American Airlines flight that crashed into the
Pentagon…"
Regarding the same event, Fox News reports that,
extraordinarily, Deputy Attorney General Larry
Thompson then said Barbara Olson's call, made "in the midst of
terrible danger and turmoil swirling around her," was a
"clarion call that awakened our nation's leaders to the true nature
of the events of Sept. 11."
So Ted Olson avoided making any direct personal reference to the
death of his wife.
Clearly this was not good enough for someone somewhere. By the
sixth month anniversary of the attack, Ted Olson was
allegedly interviewed by London Telegraph reporter Toby Harnden,
with his exclusive story "She Asked Me How To Stop The Plane"
appearing in that London newspaper on March 5, thereafter renamed
and syndicated around dozens of western countries
as "Revenge Of The Spitfire", finally appearing in the West
Australian newspaper on Saturday March 23, 2002.
I have diligently tried to find a copy of this story in an
American newspaper but have so far failed. The reasons for this
rather perverse "external" publication of Ted Olson's story are not
yet clear,
but it seems fair to observe that if he is ever challenged by a
Senate Select Committee about the veracity of his claims,
the story could not be used against him because it was published
outside American sovereign territory.
Regardless of the real reason or reasons for its publication,
the story seems to have matured a lot since
the first decoy news release by CNN early on September 12, 2001.
Here we have considerably more detail,
some of which is frankly impossible. In the alleged words of US
Solicitor General Theodore Olson:
"She [Barbara] had trouble getting through, because she wasn't
using her cell phone
- she was using the phone in the passengers' seats," said Mr
Olson.
"I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was calling
collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of
Justice, which is never very easy." …
"She wanted to know 'What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How
can I stop this?' "
"What Can I tell the pilot?" Yes indeed! The forged Barbara
Olson telephone call claims that the flight deck crew were with her
at the back of the aircraft, presumably politely ushered down
there
by the box cutter-wielding Muslim maniacs, who for some bizarre
reason decided not to cut their throats on the flight deck.
Have you ever heard anything quite so ridiculous?
But it is at this juncture that we finally have the terminal
error. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with
individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the
variety where you can simply pick up
the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk
from one seat to another in the aircraft free of
charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first
swipe your credit card through the telephone. By
Ted Olson's own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with
her.
It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup"
charge of US$2.50 which can only be
paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per
minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the
crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your
credit card you cannot access the external telephone
network. Under these circumstances the passengers' seat phone on a
Boeing 757 is a much use as a plastic toy.
Perhaps Ted Olson made a mistake and Barbara managed to borrow a
credit card from a fellow passenger?
Not a chance. If Barbara had done so, once swiped through the
phone, the credit card would have enabled her to call whoever
she wanted to for as long as she liked, negating any requirement to
call collect.
Sadly perhaps, the Olson telephone call claim is proved untrue.
Any American official wishing to
challenge this has only to subpoena the telephone company and
Justice Department records. There will be no charge originating
from American Airlines 77 to the US Solicitor General.
Even without this hard proof, the chances of meaningfully using
a seat-telephone on Flight 77 were
nil. We know from the intermittent glimpses of the aircraft the
air traffic controllers had on the radar scopes, that Flight
77 was travelling at extreme speed at very low level, pulling high
"G' turns in the process.
Under these circumstances it would be difficult even reaching a
phone, much less using it. Finally,
the phones on the Boeing 757 rely on either ground cell phone
towers or satellite bounce in order to maintain a stable
connection. At very low altitude and extreme speed, the violent
changes in aircraft attitude would render the normal
telephone links completely unusable.
Exactly the same applies with United Airlines Flight 93 that
crashed before reaching any targets. The aircraft was all over the
place at extreme speed on radar, but as with Flight 77 we are asked
to believe that the
"hijackers" allowed a passenger called Todd Beamer to place a
thirteen minute telephone call. Very considerate of
them. The Pittsburg Channel put it this way in a story first posted
at 1.38 pm EDT on September 16, 2001:
"Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board
telephones and spoke for 13 minutes
with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said. He
provided detailed information about the hijacking and -- after
the
operator told him about the morning's World Trade Center and
Pentagon attacks - said he and others on the plane were
planning to act against the terrorists aboard." Note here that Mrs
Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from
Todd personally, but was later "told" by an operator that her
husband had allegedly called. Just another unfortunate
media con job for the trash can.
As previously stated it is the Barbara Olson story that really
counts, a view reinforced by the recent antics of the London print
media. The photo at the top of this page is a copy of that printed
in the West Australian
newspaper. You only have to study it closely for a second to
realize its full subliminal potential.
Here is a studious and obviously very honest man. The US
Solicitor General sits in front of a wall
lined with leather-bound volumes of Supreme Court Arguments, with a
photo of his dead wife displayed prominently in front of him. Does
anyone out there seriously believe that this man, a bastion of US
law, would tell even a minor lie on a
matter as grave as national security?
Theodore Olson's own words indicate that he would be prepared to
do rather more than that On March 21, 2002 on its page A35, the
Washington Post newspaper printed an article titled "The Limits of
Lying" by Jim Hoagland, who
writes that a statement by Solicitor General Theodore Olson in the
Supreme Court has the ring of perverse honesty.
Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of America, US
Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an
infinite number of situations . . . where government officials
might quite legitimately have
reasons to give false information out."
