Olson phone calls questioned. 3 official denials.

By David R. Griffin

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story
that began: “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.” According to this story, Olson
reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone
from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “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.”


Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the
only evidence that American 77, which was said to have
struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had
disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been
reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had
crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson
had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report
that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab
Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s
support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted
Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the
sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers
had box cutters.

However, although Ted Olson’s report
of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of
the official account of 9/11, this report has been
completely undermined.

Olson’s Self-Contradictions

Olson began this process of
undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told
CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on
a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September
14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached
him by calling the Department of Justice collect.
Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he
surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her
credit cards.” However, this version of Olson’s story,
besides contradicting his first version, was even
self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed
to activate a passenger-seat phone.

Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second
call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals
from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that
well.” After that return to his first version, he finally
settled on the second version, saying that his wife had
called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the
passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse. 6

By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a
technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed
in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were
impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that
“the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t
work that well” was a considerable understatement). The
technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude
airline flights was not created until 2004.

However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was
contradicted by American Airlines.

American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757,
noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not
have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that
had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer
service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not
have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77
used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls
during the terrorist attack.”

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that
Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used
her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario
is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed
in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the
FBI.

Olson’s Story Contradicted by the
FBI

The most serious official contradiction of Ted
Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias
Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence
presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on
phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on
American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call
to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of
course) lasted “0 seconds.” 9 According to the FBI,
therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his
wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back
on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of
that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that
his wife had called him twice from Flight 77. 10 And yet the
FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006,
indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an
amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of
Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized
claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had
received two calls from his wife on 9/11.

Olson’s
Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians

Ted Olson’s
story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who
wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon
attack put out by the Department of Defense. 11

According
to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight
personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of
the plane by armed hijackers.” This is an inherently
implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that
60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay
by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have
been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This
scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the
alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11
Commission pointed out that even “the so-called muscle
hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the
majority of them were between 5′5″ and 5′7″ in height and
slender in build” ), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic”
Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was
described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile
opponents. Also, the idea that Burlingame would have
turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his
brother, who said: “I don’t know what happened in that
cockpit, but I’m sure that they would have had to
incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done
anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that
airplane.”

The Pentagon historians, in any case, did
not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame
and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the
back with the passengers and other crew members. They
instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or
murdered the two pilots.”

Conclusion

This
rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the
Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost
importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson,
there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington.
Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only
two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone
using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.
In either case, the official story about the calls from
Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of
the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should
we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact
that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other
defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds
for demanding a new investigation of 9/11.

reply to post by mikelee


Long on opinion, supposition and assumption...short on facts. Besides, we already know that DRG botched his research on the Moussaoui trial exhibits.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by mikelee

 

Long on opinion, supposition and assumption...short on facts. Besides, we already know that DRG botched his research on the Moussaoui trial exhibits.

I have to dis-agree with you. The OP shows an extremely important fact that Olson either lied, was fooled, or the FBI lied about an extremely important aspect of the ever crumbling official stroy.

S&F4U
-E-

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by mikelee

 

Besides, we already know that DRG botched his research on the Moussaoui trial exhibits.

Do we already know? Can you point it out for those of us who have not seen it yet?

The facts surrounding these phone calls place doubt on their authenticity and bring up other questions regarding her husband as well. Including his motives. i think it's a shame that on such a trajic day he couldn't even get his story right for the press to honor his deceased wife.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee


thanks for posting this.

it helped solidify (in my mind) that at least this part was absurd.

I think it is unfair to say that if one part is a lie it all is...because that's not how these types of lies work...but that's just my opinion.

anyways S&F and another thanks.

Hang on. If Olson lied, and the FBI went out of their way to prove it, then the FBI must not be in on the "OS".

If, on the other hand, Olson is telling the truth, then why are the FBI making the OS look shaky by disagreeing with him? Are they idiots?

Perhaps Olson is a covert whistleblower, purposely making the "OS" look bad by exposing inconsistencies in it.

I've always had her in back of my mind. I think she was spirited off to an underground facility where she and a few select others remain.
This is just my opinion.

I now believe she is alive and is Ted Olsen's new squeeze...



He recently married her after a brief courting. I never believed she was dead and it may be reaching a little but after looking into Rhinoplasty and the results of ethnic plastic surgery, I'm more convinced now than ever there is a chance she isn't dead.

reply to post by mikelee


That picture makes it abundantly clear that she is alive.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


The bone structures are the most difficult to change in people when they have "procedures" but not impossible. There are "lift bags" and under skin contour plates that can change the outline of the general perceived bone structure. However I think ever whom did hers forgot to change her cheek features. To me, its a dead ringer.

reply to post by mikelee


the lips and the chin are the give away for me!!

reply to post by scubagravy


And old habits are hard to break...Look at the part in her hair, to same side in both photos!

Originally posted by scubagravy
reply to post by mikelee

 

the lips and the chin are the give away for me!!

Well, just being the voice of reason here, so hear me out...

I'd be willing to bet that none of you guys have lost your husband/wife, child, or someone extremely close to you unexpectedly. Add to that a violent death, which can sometimes make it even worse.

The reason I say that is because It would add some insight to what Olson was going through. Imagine on top of all of that now people are expecting you to go on live TV, talk to multiple reporters, explaining what just happened to you. To be precise, what your wife just told you moments be for she and f77 hit the pentagon.

I have a hard time faulting the guy for multiple discrepancies in his recollection of all the events from that day... The attacks, his wife being a victim of the attacks and then having to recount everything to (most likely multiple) federal agents, then to the media.

Believe me, I know this is coming from a guy who thinks its perfectly fine and normal to lie to the public. I also realize that no one twisted his arm to make him go do his multiple public appearances. But you have to take into consideration that he may be telling the truth(that is that his wife called him and she died on 9/11, as far as the details of their phone calls, I doubt even he knows/can recall the exact details).

By the way, I also think that speculating on whether or not Barbara Olson has had some sort of giant plastic surgery overhaul to come back and marry Ted Olson makes no sense whatsoever.

Lets think this theory through... B. Olson decided to fake her death, or even worse someone wanted to fake her death for her for reasons unknown still at this time. Instead of a simple car crash off a bridge into the Potomac, they/she decides to fake her death by terrorist attack of commercial jet crashing into a building. Instead of going into a witness protection program or spending her life on a yacht somewhere, she decides to do massive reconstructive surgery, then create new identity and come back to DC. Where she then remarries Ted Olson.

I don't know, why start at point A, then go through all of that complete nightmare, only to end up back at point A? For what reason?

A better theory might be that Ted Olson likes to date lawyers, possibly being on the rebound, decided to remarry quickly to a woman that slightly resembles his deceased wife.

reply to post by PersonalChoice


Thanks for being "the voice of reason" but please remember that ATS is a conspiracy based website so if the theory's annoy or bother you then perhaps you need to move on.

Good day.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by PersonalChoice

 

Thanks for being "the voice of reason" but please remember that ATS is a conspiracy based website so if the theory's annoy or bother you then perhaps you need to move on.

Good day.

Personal Choice only made a plea to Occam's razor and why it does not belong on a conspiracy site I absolutely fail to understand. People ought to do it a lot more often. Is this all just a game to you?

As for the Olsen case, a simple explanation would be that he's a psychopath and/or he simply traded in his old nagging wife for something more worthwhile, like loads of money or exotic pleasures with 20 ravishing party girls or both.
No plastic surgery necessary.

Originally posted by mikelee
I now believe she is alive and is Ted Olsen's new squeeze...

He recently married her after a brief courting. I never believed she was dead and it may be reaching a little but after looking into Rhinoplasty and the results of ethnic plastic surgery, I'm more convinced now than ever there is a chance she isn't dead.

Yikes!

That is a possibility, wouldn't put anything past anyone. Someone needs to get a DNA sample lol

reply to post by Tussilago


That is probably the most likely scenario brother, but no one is saying this is 100% proof or anything.

But those phone calls were bunk as hell man, so you gotta think anything is possible.

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by Tussilago

 

That is probably the most likely scenario brother, but no one is saying this is 100% proof or anything.

Agreed. A short trip to the archives, however, should be able prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether Barbara Olsen and Lady Booth are the same people or not, yet a DNA sample would of course be even better.

But those phone calls were bunk as hell man, so you gotta think anything is possible.

Oh, absolutely. As far as I can tell, there really is no other explanation.