-->>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/lies911/lies.htm
>----------------------
>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
>Click here for big picture
> 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.

Das ist eine story über eine kleine Notlüge die dutzende weitere Notlügen geboren hat dann hunderte usw wobei die erste als Mutter aller Lügen über den 11, Sep 2001 bezeichnet werden muss. Aus diesem Grunde hat die erste kleine Notlüge die zuerst die amerikanische psyche aktiviert hat Massenhass/-abscheu hervorgerufen und die Manipulation der Medien auf globaler Ebene in Gang gesetzt.

> 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?

Ohne diese kleine Notlüge hätte es keine arabischen Entführer, keinen Bin Laden der aus der Ferne operierte, keinen"Krieg gegen den Terror" in Afghanistan und ein besetztes Palästina gegeben. Sicherlich, diese Lüge war so clever und teuflisch in iher Natur dass sie von der Machtelite in einer ihrer frühen irdischen Manifestationen erfunden worden sein muss. Vielleicht war es die Arbeit des Konziliums für ausländische Angelebenheiten oder der Kommission der Dreieinigkeit.

> 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.

Nein, war sie nicht. Obwohl die kleine Notlüge mit einem eindrucksvollen politischen Namem besetzt war, so gab und gibt es keinen Beweis für die Verbindung (der Dinge zu der behaupteten Geschichte). Genau wie damals 1963 mit mit der korrupten und voreilige Lee Harvey Oswald Story gibt es nachprüfbare verhängnisvolle Fehler die schlussendlich beweisen, dass die kleine Notlüge nichts als die Erfingund der Mitarbeiter der Medien war. Denn nur diese hatten Zugang und sonst niemand hatte die Möglichkeiten und Mittel

> 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.
Diese unbewiesene Bahauptung die vom CNN auffällig schnell um 2.06 am EDT aufgebracht wurde ist/war die e i n z i g e Basis auf der die gefälschte Hijacker Story aufgebaut wurde

> 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:
Bevor wir die Unmöglichkeit der vorgegebenen (2) Telefonanrufe diskutieren müssen wir erst aufzeigen wie CNN diese Telefonanrufe"herausfand"


(Originaltext)
> “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”.
Zu den letzten Dingen die ein US-JAG-General (Rechtsanwalt) getan hätte (nachdem ihn seine Frau kurz vor dem Aufprall aus dem Crash-Flugzeug angerufen hätte) gehört, dass er den Sender CNN angerufen hätte!

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.
Der General hätte den Nationalen Sicherheitsrat angerufen und es hätte, erst recht unter den ausserordentlichen Umständenm MINDESTENS 2 Tage gebraucht bis die Tatsache der Telefonate an die Ã-ffentlichkeit gekommen wäre!

> 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.
... obiges ist ein interessantes Detail vom Kennedy-Mord wo die Zeitzonen beim Fälschen nicht beachtet wurden...

> 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.
... der General wurde nicht im TV persönlich gezeigt und befragt was man hätte erwarten müssen...

> 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…”
... nichts konkretes in den Archiven zu finden...
> 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."
... der Sender Fox-News (Konkurrenz zu CNN) sagt dass die marktschreierische Meldung in diesen tumultartigen, panischen Zuständen (wohl kaum möglich gewesen wäre und) die Nation über die wahre Natur der Ereignisse am 11.Sep. aufgeklärt hatte... hmm...

> 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.
... An einem Jahrestag bezieht sich (behauptet) der General auf ein Interview im London Telegraph was sich (nächster Absatz nie hat auffinden lassen. Der General ist es offen bar nicht gewohnt und kann offenbar nicht gut genug lügen
> 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,” sie benutzte kein Hendy sondern das Flugzeug-Sitz-Telefon
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, == R-Gespräch ins Justizministerium!!! 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.
... Finaler Fehler: Ted Olson sagt Barbara hatte keine Kreditkarte, aber es war nicht möglich ohne solche diese Telefonate zu tun!!

> It gets worse. (kommt noch dicker)
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?.... Möglicherweise hat Barbara ein Kreditkarte geborgt?

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.

Auf keinen Fall, dann hätte sie wohin auch immer telefonieren können - es wäre kein R-Gespräch nötig gewesen!

> 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.
Bei Strafe der Amtsenthebung kann niemals jemand die Entstehung von Telefongebühren beweisen (somit das Gespräch, wie später behauptet, denn keine US Telefongesellschaft würde jemals einem US Rechts-General eine Gespräch in Rechnung stellen!

> 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.

Aber auch ohne dies, die Chancen den ein Boardtelefon erfolgreich zu benutzen waren NULL weil es Radarstörungen gab und es überhaupt wegen technischer Extrembedingungen nicht den Hauch einer Chance zum Telefonieren gab!

> 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.
Unter all diesen Umständen wäre es ein Kunststück gewesen eine Telefon zu ERREICHEN (unbeobachtet auch noch) geschweige denn es erfolgreich zu benutzen und eine längere Verbindung aufrechtzuerhalten, weder über Satellit noch über Telefontürme am Boden wäre das bei der ständig wechselnden Flughöhe (und Radar usw.) möglich gewesen.

> Exactly the same applies with United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed before reaching any targets.... Das selbe gilt für das andere, abgestürzte Flugzeug... 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."

... der General gilt als ein Mann der einen Hang bis zur Perversion reichender Ehrlichkeit hatte...