Was Barbara Olson an innocent Patsy?

[NowHearThis]

This is a possible solution to the mysteries surrounding the death of Barbara Olson and everyone else who was allegedly aboard AA FL 77.

In my opinion, Barbara Olson (along with everyone else listed as passengers/crew aboard FL 77) died at the Pentagon. But not in an airplane. Rather, as the result of the explosions and fire that occurred at the time FL 77 allegedly crashed into the building.

I believe that Mrs. Olson and the others were all innocent Patsies who were taking part in what they had been told was a Top Secret military exercise.

Furthermore, I think that it’s even possible that Mrs. Olson DID make phone calls to her husband as claimed by the Government. I think she probably was reading from a script during the calls. They were most likely made from the site inside the Pentagon where she perished.

This scenario would explain how it’s possible that her DNA and that of her co-Patsies could have been found at the Pentagon.
The group was probably told to meet at a secure location at Dulles airport and from there they were whisked to the Pentagon, either individually or as a group.

Once at the Pentagon, they were led to the reinforced portion of the building where they all perished in the horrific explosions and fires which consumed the area they were in.

[Ohio Joe]

1. Are all the family members in on it as well?

Not a single family member noticed that the people did not leave when and where they were supposed to have left? Not a single family member was told that their loved one(s) were going somewhere secret? I don't buy that for a second.

[NowHearThis]

2. "Are all the family members in on it as well?"

I'm unsure exactly what you're asking. Are you asking if, for example, Ted Olson knew that his wife was going to take part in a Top Secret military exercise? If so, the answer is, I don't know if he knew or not, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if he didn't.
After all, if it was a Top Secret military exercise and if she was an innocent Patsy, she would have no reason to betray her Government. She wouldn't have had a reason to be afraid. BTW - do you know how she got to the airport and who may have accompanied her?

[defendandprotect]

15. How do you know these things .. . ?? Would they tell YOU otherwise . . . ?

There were very limited passengers involved --
the phone calls are obvious fakes --

How would YOU know what the family members told anyone else?

In fact, one of the planes supposed landed safely -- Cincinnati? -- and all
passengers disembarked safely.

So how many were actually killed? Who knows?

Many of these passengers also trace back to connections to military/intelligence, etc.

None of 9/11 official story is believable . . .

Why would this part of it be any different?

[LARED]

3. No planer alert - nt

[NowHearThis]

21. Yes, we know there was no plane crash at the Pentagon.

Don't you have any NEW knowledge to contribute? The only people who don't know by now that there was no plane crash at the Pentagon or anywhere else on 9/11 are those whose entire knowledge of 9/11 is based on what the Bush administration told them. Maybe you are trying to educate them.

[William Seger]

33. My parents' neighbor told me he saw the plane hit

He's an electrical contractor.

[NowHearThis]

37. He was either lying, hallucinating, on drugs, or pulling your leg.

Worse yet, he doesn't have the excuse of saying that he knows he saw it happen because it was on TV. You say he's an electrical contractor. Maybe his brain has been fryed.

[William Seger]

41. If I had to guess

... I'd guess that those are good guesses where your delusions are coming from. This guy was driving past the Pentagon and saw it happened. There are probably hundreds of other people who saw it but never had any interviews published.

[NowHearThis]

44. You guessed wrong.

You really do get agitated and seem to be easily frightened. You sure it wasn't just your neighbor who got too close to the electricity?

[defendandprotect]

52. It's clear now that many saw a plane which flew OVER the Pentagon . . .

and others may have seen something like a drone dressed up with fake tacked on
wings --

I recall some witnesses saying the thing had "no windows."

Additionally, the taxi cab driver who claimed to have been a witness is totally
discredited.

Again, the Pentagon section where the alleged hit happened had just been reinforced
with concrete and steel -- I think triple thick. A plane would have been no match
for that and you'd have seen bodies, luggage and debris scattered widely outside the
Pentagon.

In fact, the small round hole is just the size that would be made with a Bunker Buster--
and it's suspected that was what was used from INSIDE the building.

Additionally, we know from the Minetta testimony that Cheney was being regularly warned
and updated re "incoming" -- yet no Pentagon alert system went off?
The Pentagon wasn't evacuated?
Their anti-missile system was turned off?

[SDuderstadt]

57. name one n/(

[defendandprotect]

53. and . . .would I be guessing properly --

that you also believed Bush/Cheney re WMD?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

154. there was no flight 77

[SDuderstadt]

156. What bullshit...

and your proof of this is???

[Rosa Luxemburg]

157. all will be revealed

[SDuderstadt]

159. We're waiting with bated breath...

What are you waiting for? What decade do you guys plan to do this?

[Bolo Boffin]

161. Tell that to the parents of the kids on the National Geographic field trip. n/t

[LARED]

62. No planes No brains

Established once again for the world to see.

[hack89]

4. So what did crash into the Pentagon?

that mysterious flying object seen by hundreds if not thousands?

[defendandprotect]

16. Evidently, a large white blurrrrrrrrr . ..

And until we get to see the confiscated films from the businesses in the area,
we won't know.

Except that it looks like explosions were set off inside the Pentagon and a
Bunker Buster used from inside to blast out that round hole!

[hack89]

17. There was something large, with wings

that many people definitely identified as an airliner. So I think we do know. You just don't like the answer so you will dismiss eyewitness accounts from those that were there.

[defendandprotect]

36. It looks like a plane flew OVER the Pentagon just as the explosions were set off inside . . .

And the small amounts of plane debris outside which were carried by hand look
just as faked.

Yes, there are witnesses who say that explosives went off inside the Pentagon.
People who are familiar with explosives.

And, of course, we also have the eye witness account of the CNN reporter who was
at the site of Pentagon who reported that "no plane hit the Pentagon."
He later retracted that information about which he couldn't have been clearer when
he was reporting it -- and at the time of the retraction he looked and sounded as
tho under great stress.

You just don't like the answer so you will dismiss eyewitness accounts from those that were there.

Let's hope that what we both like is truth.

Again, just as many witnesses either saw nothing or were highly confused about what
it was -- but certainly not a commercial jetliner!

[William Seger]

43. I never could decide...

... whether Craig and Aldo are mentally ill or just stupid. After watching them make personal appearances in their videos, my best guess now is: One each.

[defendandprotect]

55. You're replaying the same two cards -- "mentally ill" or "tinfoil" . . .

but it doesn't disguise the fact that you're unable to debate the information
being given to you.

[William Seger]

58. It must be very frustrating...

... that hardly anyone takes you seriously.

[defendandprotect]

59. Rather, I think it's the reverse . . .

you seem frustrated and obviously have only two notes you can hit --

both of them inane and worn out personal attacks.

Try debate for a change --

[William Seger]

60. Oh, I debate here all the time

... but I don't care to waste much time on the invincibly ignorant who keeps spewing the same old crap that's been debunked a hundred times. Get some new material.

[defendandprotect]

69. You post here . . .that I agree with --

[William Seger]

70. I've noticed that you are not very observant

I wonder if that's why you cling to discredited bullshit? You just miss a lot?

[defendandprotect]

71. Not "observant" in your regard ....? Is that what you're saying . . .

When I said you "post here" . . . I was differentiating from your

actually debating here --

Again, without access to obscenity or personal attack, you have no debate.

[William Seger]

72. I'm just sayin'...

... that you must not pay much attention to what I post, which is fine with me, but "debating" no-planers is a waste of time, since anyone who gets suckered into Truthism by the no-plane idiocy isn't likely to respond to reason.

[defendandprotect]

74. On the contrary, I don't pay attention to usernames . . .

but I do pay attention to posts --

The simultaneous hijacking of four planes would be impossible to begin with ---

and a total impossibility unless you had a guarantee of a standdown by NORAD --

but also because two of the flights weren't even scheduled for that day!

"Idiocy" isn't debate -- keep trying . . .

[SDuderstadt]

75. "The simultaneous hijacking of four planes would be impossible to begin with ---"

What stupidity. Please prove that.

[NowHearThis]

79. How did you get suckered into the UNtruthism? Or were you...

suckered at all? Did it maybe just come naturally to you, given your worldview? Either way, anyone who posts as much nonsense and
asinine inanities isn't likely to respond except with tactics from a very professionally-prepared "how to" notebook on truth suppression.

[William Seger]

81. Pretty simple, really

The "official story" of 19 Arab terrorists hijacking 4 planes and managing to hit 3 large targets is A) far more plausible on its face, and B) the only one supported by the real evidence. I give the "truth movement" every opportunity to convince me that either of those assertions is false. But it wouldn't be all that hard to get me to change my mind: Show me the "smoking gun" the "truth movement" keeps yammering about. So far, all the "movement" has shown me is that it doesn't understand the meaning of the term.

This is simply not a religious or a political issue. I know you don't really understand what I'm saying, but as I've said before, that seems to be because you don't understand how rational people think.

[SDuderstadt]

82. "Truther Logic"

"Anyone who disagrees with me is trying to suppress the truth". LOLOLOL

[NowHearThis]

87. Untruther logic

"Anyone who questions Government actions must be trying to learn the truth and therefore they must be attacked."

[SDuderstadt]

92. "Truther Logic"

vigorous debate = being attacked

[NowHearThis]

102. You sure got THAT right.

Untruthers, by definition, aren't debaters; they're truth suppressors. They always look foolish whenever they attempt to
do what they would call debate. Oh, I'm not saying they can't do well in a debate with small animals or school children.
I'll also concede that they can do well in a "debate" with naive adults. But knowledgeable people make their "arguments"
sound like the bleating of a herd of sheep.

[SDuderstadt]

103. If what you say is true.....

why do you fold when asked tough questions?

[hack89]

64. So why did no one see a plane fly over?

[defendandprotect]

182. Evidently because the explosions went off simultaneously . . .

rising smoke and fire would have confused any onlookers --

they would have presumed the plane went into the building.

[NowHearThis]

184. Exactly. He's known it too. For years.

Maybe he's got old timer's symptoms, because the smoke-as-cover/confusion explanation has been written about here many times.

[defendandprotect]

187. One of the most telling experiences I've had at 9/11 DU . . .

was about a year or so ago when I was posting something on the "no plane" at Pentagon...

conflicting witness stuff -- CNN reporter being their right at the scene, etal.

And suddenly this post appeared by a female saying that she had seen the plane!

When I looked her up, she had been her two years and had made two posts . . . the

one I was reading and one when she first joined!

[NowHearThis]

188. "They're" EVERYwhere. Sometimes hidin' and waitin'.

Odd how those kind of things just seem to happen from right out of the blue. BTW - how do you know it was a woman?

[defendandprotect]

189. From something she said in her post or from her profile which I checked right away . . .

I think she said she was on the street --

She never replied to my comments about the strangeness of her popping up --

or to challenges to her claim.

[NowHearThis]

191. What I'm getting at is this: that "she" could have been a HE in...

real life. You know, off the clock.

[defendandprotect]

192. Yes . . .

but I don't think it makes a difference whether it was a "he" or a "she" . . .
the interesting thing, IMO, is someone sitting around here checking and waiting
essentially just to say "I saw a plane!" . . .

Of course, that is the catch in arguing the "no plane" theory that they obviously
were flying planes around near the WTC that morning -- and seemingly flew something
towards the Pentagon, other than the supposed flyover -- something perhaps more like
a missile? But many of the witnesses describe something with "no windows."

Until we get some info from inside this conspiracy, we won't really be able to confirm
what actually happened. But, I do think the arguments against actual planes being
used -- that the conspirators would have really had to hijack four commercial jetliners
simultaneously and fly them of them around for more than an hour -- and to have hit
the specific floors of the WTC they seemed interested in would be a lot. Of course,
they knew they didn't have to worry about NORAD -- but that's another argument against
the alleged Muslim hijackers . . . they would have had to worry about that!

Same with the Pentagon . . . they were aiming at the reconditioned area - not hunting
Rumsfeld. And, again, they flew over the White House and Capitol and didn't strike?

The WTC planes flew over a nuclear reactor in NY near Manhattan and didn't strike?


PS: Plus having to actually control passengers!
I think the cell phone calls suggest that they gave a lot of thought to the possibility
that there would be heroic passengers. They had a lot of other things to do that day
that required their attention!

[NowHearThis]

193. You're right. In the scheme of things, it doesn't really matter...

if that she is a HE. I thought you might get the drift that I was making light of the possibility that you had indeed found
something peculiar about "her".

"Until we get some info from inside this conspiracy, we won't really be able to confirm
what actually happened."

True, but since the government controls the evidence and has effective control over those in a position
to know (via threats etc.), it's unlikely that the details of what happened will ever be discovered. We already know the most
important thing -- that it was an inside job. Anyone who spends more than a few minutes here on this forum also knows that the perps are going to great lengths to keep the public fooled about what really happened.

[SDuderstadt]

197. simple question...

why doesn't the obama administration blow this whole thing wide open or are they ''in on it'' too? btw, what evidence would it take to convince you it wasn't an ''inside job''?

[defendandprotect]

200. Ah, I see . . .

you don't think that there are people who are paid to monitor websites?

Didn't the Bush government suggest that they were going to be putting people
out on the internet? That was a long time ago that I read that. I trust some recall it.

Needless to say, if 9/11 was an "inside job," I would imagine they would be quite
interested in what information is being moved across the internet in regard to 9/11.

"Until we get some info from inside this conspiracy, we won't really be able to confirm
what actually happened."

What I'm suggesting here is whistleblowers -- certainly much of the JFK info came out this
way. People coming forward -- many died. In the case of 9/11, I'm sure they worry about
this possibility.

Investigations will continue on -- and there is no such thing as a perfect crime.
Indeed, they usually depend upon cover-ups.

[SDuderstadt]

201. I'm pretty sure the "perps" don't feel threatened in the least by your silly yammerings...

D&P. I suspect your life is safe for a long time.

[NowHearThis]

202. Friendly advice: Proceed carefully.

Don't be lured, tempted, baited, or bullied into posting too much about this. We'd miss you if you were gone.

[snooper2]

195. They are just sitting there...

waiting...

waiting for you to post...

to keep the cover alive.....

be afraid...

be very afraid......







:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[NowHearThis]

22. " So what did crash into the Pentagon?"

Nothing.

[hack89]

63. And all those eye witness accounts? nt

[NowHearThis]

80. They saw explosions, fires, and at least one plane fly over the building.

nt

[SDuderstadt]

83. Yeah....

if you have multiple planes, one of which crashes into the building and at least one of which "flies over" the building, does that mean no plane hit the building??

[leftofthedial]

5. nothing innocent about that skank

[NowHearThis]

6. Okay, but I meant innocent in the same sense that Oswald was...

unaware that he was being set up. He was cool, calm and collected right after JFK was shot and during his encounter with the DPD officer (Marion Baker) who had his pistol out when he met Oswald in the lunch room at the TSBD. Behavior that was consistent with
being innocent. It wasn't until Oswald was in the Texas Theatre that he panicked because THEN he realized that he had been set up and his behavior changed from cool and calm upon realizing that he had been betrayed by his handlers.

The main difference between Oswald and Mrs. Olson is that SHE almost certainly never realized that she had been betrayed. If Oswald had been killed at the TSBD (as many people believe was the plan), he might not have come to realize that HE had been betrayed.

[SDuderstadt]

10. Why did Oswald even leave the TSBD?

More importantly, why do you omit information that contradicts your theory?

[jberryhill]

12. Well, he had to deliver those curtain rods to the movie theater

I know that when I show up in the morning with a package of curtain rods, and the president is killed outside of my building, I pretty much would need to take in a good movie to settle my nerves.

[SDuderstadt]

13. I would buy a pair of shoes first...

or, at least, just lurk outside a shoe store. But then, that's just me.


BTW, I noticed that the OP has not answered the question why Oswald fled the TSBD.

[William Seger]

31. Well, I hope you brought your pistol

You never can tell when one of those uniformed gang members will try to mug you on the street.

[NowHearThis]

24. "Why did Oswald even leave the TSBD?"

No one knows for sure. Two prominent theories are:

1. As a low-level intelligence operative who believed that he was taking part in a simulated attack on the President, he left because he was supposed to meet up with someone.

2. Like some other TSBD employees, and as he himself said, he figured there would be no more work that day, so, as some others did, he left to go home.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Please prove # 2...

Oswald was the only employee who left and did not return. And, woyldn't employees niormally turn to their supervisors to see if work would continue? Why did Oswald shoot and kill J. D. Tippit? If Oswald was part of what he "thought was a simulated attack on the President", why was he firing live ammunition?

[NowHearThis]

35. You need to do some research. I posted a list of sites where...

objective JFK researchers gather. From all of your posts on this and other threads, it's obvious that your knowledge of the facts is extremely thin, shallow and consist more of propaganda than reasoned logic, informed opinion, and plausible conclusions.

[SDuderstadt]

56. then it should be easy for you to prove your claims...

rather than just toss aspersions at me. i'll go toe-to-toe with you on the jfk assassination anytime. i ask for specific evidence and you can't seem to provide it.

[NowHearThis]

67. This thread is about B. Olson, but here's a tidbit for you to chew on...

regarding J.D. Tippit's murder.

"From page 342, Crossfire The Plot that Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs:

"Another witness was Warren Reynolds, who chased Tippit's killer. He too, failed to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer until after he was shot in the head two months later. After recovering, Reynolds identified Oswald to the Warren Commission."

*Regardless of who actually killed Officer Tippit, that event was the catalyst that set off a flurry of police activity in Oak Cliff resulting in the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald."

*page 350


The only firearm that HARVEY Oswald handled on 11/22 was a pistol which had been tampered with so that it wouldn't fire a bullet.

[SDuderstadt]

68. And you know Marrs got it right how, exactly?

Have you bothered to fact-check Marrs in any way? Have you corroborated Marr in any way? Have you bothered to think through what could possibly be wrong with Marrs' account? How do you ignore all the other witnesses who IDed Oswald as Tippit's killer?

Just because you read something in print doesn't make it true. It's called "false certainty". You should look it up.

[jberryhill]

7. Wouldn't it have been easier just to crash the plane there?

So, all of those kids on the school trip were Top Secret operatives too?

[NowHearThis]

8. "Wouldn't it have been easier just to crash the plane there?"

No. Way too many problems with that scenario.

To my knowledge, the only possible "Top Secret operatives" who perished in the Pentagon were maybe some of the people who worked
in the reinforced section of the building.

[jberryhill]

9. Thanks for the chuckle

To my knowledge, the only possible "Top Secret operatives" who perished in the Pentagon were maybe some of the people who worked
in the reinforced section of the building.


But I thought you said....


The group was probably told to meet at a secure location at Dulles airport and from there they were whisked to the Pentagon, either individually or as a group.


So, uh, this included the little kids on the school trip, right?

[LARED]

11. This is just obvious

perished in the Pentagon

vs

whisked to the Pentagon

Obviously all these kiddies were killed outside the pentagon building.

Or something like that.

[NowHearThis]

25. Your insensitivity over the loss of life is chilling.

Especially, when it comes to innocent children...whether here in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NowHearThis]

98. No one ever said the perps were Christians

Not even Untruthers have said THAT.

[jberryhill]

100. I think you are replying to the wrong thing?

Who said anything about Christians?

Christians are as capable of mass murder as anyone else.

[NowHearThis]

101. Most of the perps ARE Christians.

Yes, sadly our "Christian" nation has a long history of ethnic cleansing (starting with Native Americans), murder of innocent civilians (too many incidents to list), lying to cover up its crimes (another long list), employing thousands of people to
deceive the public thru various media (radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, speeches, INTERNET) and providing billions of dollars
to support every single brutal right-wing dictator since what seems like the beginning of time.

[jberryhill]

104. Aside from your various irrelevant rants....

Your point is that all of the children on the "flight" were taken to the Pentagon and executed somewhere, is that correct?

[SDuderstadt]

105. Quit trying to...

"suppress the truth".

[defendandprotect]

39. Reinforced Section was purposefully aimed at and unlikely target . . .

First, the reinforced section was reinforced with concrete and STEEL --
any aluminum plane crashing into it would not have gone thru it like a bullet
into a small round hole! Most of the plane would have been seen outside the
Pentagon walls.

The Pentagon

It must be noted that the Office of Naval Intelligence in the Pentagon, which sustained a direct hit from an airliner that day, was without a doubt, a target that was pinpointed for destruction. There are a number of indicators that this was the case:

· The command centers of the US Armed forces and the Office of the Secretary of Defense are located on the River and Mall, northern facing segments of the Pentagon.20 This is public information. Either of those facades should have been the prime target for a well-planned attack. It needs to be remembered that the individuals responsible for September 11 had almost three years to plan their assault. The targets and methods were not haphazard.

· The western facing section of the Pentagon that was attacked had been under constructions for almost two years, and would not have been considered as a target, unless it was targeted for a specific reason.

· The Naval Command Center had been moved into that newly opened section of the Pentagon a month
earlier21;

· The attacking aircraft went through great effort to hit the west side of the Pentagon, under either of contentious scenarios, looping around the Pentagon by 270 degrees after approaching from the north east, or looping 360 degrees with it’s approach from the West. Under either scenario, the additional looping created an opportunity with extra flight time for defense systems to take out the attacking plane, and the hijackers took a significant risk of being shot down by executing this maneuver. 22(See Figures 1 and 2)

· If one looks carefully at the Koeppel flight path approach seen in Figure 1, the attacking flight path went almost directly over the Whitehouse, bypassing what should be considered a primary target, for a supposedly empty section of the Pentagon. With the alternative approach presented by the National Transportation Safety Board, the extra distance in the loop would have allowed it to hit either the White House or the Capitol had it continued straightforward.

· Derek Vreeland who claimed to be an agent for Office of Naval Intelligence had predicted the attack several weeks in advance23;

· The ONI has been attributed by several sources with responsibility for leaking copies of the faxes which document the illegal transaction of 1989-1991.24

Also in the case of the "planes" which hit the WTC towers, they flew over a nuclear power
plant in Poughkeepsie on the way to the towers!

http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/C...

[NowHearThis]

48. Excellent.

The significance of the information you posted cannot be overestimated.

In my own case, I've long wondered about what happened to Mrs. Olson. Thus far, none of the usual suspects have posted anything which undermines the basic plausibility of the theory I presented. Maybe at some point, someone will.

As you know, there are new people here nearly every day and they need all the help they can get in learning and understanding what happened on 9/11, and I'm sure that you agree that all most of us want is the unvarnished truth about that very important date in history.

Thanks again for your posts.

[defendandprotect]

54. It's the "Disney" syndrome . . .

every 7 years a new crop of people who never saw a Disney movie!

Basically, I never saw anyone so not upset as Barbara Olsen's husband!

[defendandprotect]

38. "Easier" than what?

In order to have a plane to crash into anything, you have to hijack one first.
Is that easy?

Then you have to fly it around for a while hoping that NORAD isn't chasing you!
Lucky them, NORAD didn't respond.

How is it possible that four commercial airliners were simultaneously hijacked?

Most of what happened on 9/11 was faked -- as to planes and "fires" which were
actually begun by explosives/bombs going off -- and in the case of the WTC towers,
perhaps much more.

One of the planes evidently landed safely and disembarked all passengers safely.
Cincinnati?

Unfortunately, the deaths of those at the WTC weren't faked.

[defendandprotect]

14. I've been thinking something like that re Barbara Olsen . . .

First, Ted Olsen is another vile Repug ---

and though she was a right-winger, what I've been thinking is she may have had
something going on like what went on with Martha Mitchell --

If you don't know that story, you'll find lots on the internet -
she was John Mitchell's wife and very badly manhandled --
and I don't think we're entirely sure that they didn't kill her.
She also called them "Nazis" . . .

Evidently Martha had found out a lot about what Nixon was doing --
probably including her own husband -- and had quite a bit to say about it --
in telephone calls to journalists.

I've been wondering if maybe Barbara Olsen came upon some info of Bush/White House
involvement in 9/11?

[cali]

20. I doubt Martha Mitchell was killed

she died of cancer.

[NowHearThis]

27. Jack Ruby also died of cancer. Was HE killed?

nt

[NowHearThis]

26. Interesting theory about Mrs. Mitchell. Thanks. EOM

nt

[hack89]

18. Did the parents of the student group know it was an exercise? nt

[NowHearThis]

28. "Did the parents of the student group know it was an exercise?"

I don't know, but since most of the people who perished inside the Pentagon were either in the military or had been or was an employee of the Pentagon or a relative (husband, wife, child) of someone who was, or was in the defense industry or was with a company that wanted to
get a contract with the military/Pentagon (btw - wouldn't that be a great lure to gain cooperation in participating in a Top Secret exercise!) --- some parents and some family members may have known, but probably not.

Remember: it was only supposed to be an exercise. That's one of the main reasons why the Bush administration HAD to try and fool the public into believing the Official story version. The Bush administration needed an airplane crash into the building in order to rationalize how all those people died and how the one building section collapsed. All who participated (and/or their legal guardians) most likely were required to be sworn to secrecy (with who knows what kind of threats if they were to break their oath -- starting with either not receiving any compensation/death benefits, to having to return any funds received, to something much worse).

[hack89]

65. So the parents cooperated with the murderers of their children

for money? OK

[NowHearThis]

96. So the Untruthers cooperate with the murder of 9/11 truth...

for propaganda purposes? OK.

[cali]

19. wow. that's quite the towering tin foil chapeau you're wearing.

what bullshit. you present not so much as a shred of evidence for this.

[jberryhill]

23. Hey now...

This is the DUngeon, dude.

Evidence?

[NowHearThis]

29. It's actually a very CONSERVATIVE theory of the case.

nt

[William Seger]

32. I think cali's point was you pulled it straight out of your ass

Have you considered the possibility that perhaps a UFO (one of ours) teleported all the passengers off the plane just before it hit?

[NowHearThis]

34. You seem to be more than a little agitated. Is it because you...

know that my theory is plausible and you are unable to demonstrate any great weakness in it that would render it implausible?

[William Seger]

40. LMFAO, the "great weakness" is...

... is that you pulled it straight out of your ass. There's not a shred of evidence to even suggest that anyone should go about speculating such an absurd "theory." It's not even clear what this "theory" is supposed to explain, except to come up with some narrative where there was no plane but the passengers' DNA ended up in the Pentagon. But there certainly was a plane, so there's already a far better theory about how that happened. You live in a world of delusion.

[NowHearThis]

42. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I'm sure that you are trying to do the best you can, but honestly, scraping the bottom of the Untruther barrel in order to gain attention seems to be all you can do.

[William Seger]

45. I'm sorry...

... that you can't see the spiral of delusion that you've fallen into. All I'm suggesting is that others can see it clearly.

[NowHearThis]

46. "I'm sorry"

Agreed. But don't let that stop you.

[William Seger]

51. Serious question

How old are you?

[defendandprotect]

50. There's no proof of a plane -- just the opposite . . .

We spend billions on the Pentagon and equipment --
supposedly they had an anti-missile system which was turned off -- just coincidentally --
and an expensive camera that captured nothing!

Plus NORAD which just happened to fail to make it anywhere in time that day--!!

The coincidence of the four drills/simulations being run that day which even one of the
young military controllers didn't buy . . . "they expect us to believe this is coincidence?"

There was absolutely no debris which suggested anything but fakery --
and a flight path that even military pilots question as an impossibility.

And, intentionally targeting the empty "reinforced" area - ?
Btw, it had been reinforced with concrete and STEEL --

This "plane" also supposedly flew over the White House and Capitol but failed to strike
there?

Good thing the Russians weren't coming!

The official conspiracy theory is coincidence delusion!!

[KDLarsen]

124. The anti-missile thing..

.. got proof?

Because you may want to load up Google Earth/Maps, find the Pentagon and see what lies about a mile south-/south-east. It might give you an idea why a missile system at the Pentagon would be a waste of money.

[defendandprotect]

142. --got proof?

that they didn't have an anti-missile system?

Obviously they would have had one -- it's a fortress.

In fact, the reinforcement of the wall was providing even more steel and more concrete!

And how many missiles would be too many for the Pentagon?

Plus Minetta's testimony suggests that there were reports of "incoming" to Cheney and

a constant questioning each time as to whether the instructions still stood.

For cripes sake . . . they didn't even sound an alarm that there was incoming!!!

And there's a lawsuit based on that, in part.

[KDLarsen]

145. I can't prove a negative

However, it would be absurd to think that the Pentagon is/was relying on a missile system for defence, when there's a busy international airport less than a mile to the south-/south-east. The same airport also has an arrival route that basically snakes from north of the Pentagon and follows the river all the way to the runway.

Which means that unless you're going to count on a missile system that can detect an intruder in less than a mile (and at the same time differentiate it from a stray aircraft cutting short) and neutralize it, that missile system is going to be useless against threats coming from the north/east/south.

[defendandprotect]

190. Do you know that when George W travelled they would install an anti-missile system . . .

even on the roof of a hotel in Italy where he stayed??!!!

Of course, the Pentagon had an anti-missile system and reported turned off.

Read the 9/11 Commission report/Minetta testimony -- actually think there's video

on it at YouTube . . . where he relates that an aide came to warn Cheney a number

of times, reporting incoming -- asking if the instructions should be changed --

and the reports were 30 miles out, 20 miles out, 10 miles out ---

Again, the Pentagon is a fortress -- if there is any known protection, they have it!

eh . . . except on 9/11!!!

[defendandprotect]

47. One of the flights reportedly landed at an airport and passengers disembarked safely . . .

The story has been circulated here at DU . . .

You can suggest a UFO, but I think the reported answer is more likely -- !!!

[Realityhack]

49. +1 All aboard the woo woo express. n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

66. Folks never thought it could happen

but we are seeing new records levels of mental illness in the dungon lately.

[William Seger]

77. Seems to me...

... we've also become infested with a bunch of kids who think The Matrix was a documentary.

[NowHearThis]

88. "seeing new records levels of mental illness in the dungon lately"

Not only mental illness, but their spelling skills aren't that great, either.

[bottomtheweaver]

73. I think something like that is very possible

I think the Olsen phone calls were fake altogether though and that Olsen was in on the fix and for some reason ready to ditch his wife. But I think the wargame ruse probably accounts for any actual phone calls that WERE made, also for getting all the patsies and inconvenient knew-too-much types to where they needed to be for their final "sacrifice."

[SDuderstadt]

76. Oh, for Pete's sake...

Again I ask...is there any conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it??

[NowHearThis]

78. Thanks. It's true that no records have shown that Ted...

actually received any of the alleged calls from Mrs. Olson, but since they were made before the explosions and fire erupted in the Pentagon area where she and the others had been taken, I think the exercise script may well have included having her make the calls.
Especially, since the calls were of such critical importance in conning the public to believe that there were Arab Muslim extremist terrorists who hijacked four airliners using box cutters etc.

I haven't really thought it through completely, but I can easily imagine that there might be some reason(s) for not providing any proof of the calls (records) - maybe because they would show that the calls weren't made from aboard a flying aircraft (FL 77).

Ted Olson may have been "in on the fix" as you say, but I'm inclined to think not. He is definitely someone who, in my opinion, wouldn't hesitate to dive headfirst into a pool of sleaze, but the main reason why I doubt he was in on it is because of the
potential risks involved. He's a well-known heavy drinker/womanizer, plus in a sophisticated operation like 9/11, things are compartmentalized to the nth degree and information is given/shared on a need-to-know basis. I see no reason why Ted would need to know in advance. ESPECIALLY, if he did receive what he believed to be actual real-time calls from Mrs. Olson.

Ted can drink himself into believing that the woman he might well have been ready to "ditch" was a patriot hero and he can bask in
her reflected glory and enjoy the prestige by association of having been married to her. I'm sure that every time Ted gives a speech to the Federalist Society or any other right-wing group, he is met with loud applause at the very mention of her name. Hard drinkers have low self-esteem and even if he no longer drinks heavily, he still has the low self-esteem problem.

I like the way you phrased your second sentence...especially the last phrase dealing with "their final sacrifice".

[SDuderstadt]

84. Of course, you have zero evidence for any of this...

again I ask...is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it?

[NowHearThis]

90. Answer to your question

"is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it?"

YES. The Official conspiracy theory.

[SDuderstadt]

93. Of course not...

there's actual evidence for it, something you seem to be allergic to. How are you guys doing at finding a witness that saw AA 77 fly over the Pentagon rather than crash into it? Oh, that's right...ZERO.

[NowHearThis]

85. Why was Barbara used?

I think that Mrs. Olson was used by the perps because they needed/wanted someone whose credibility would be accepted at face value, and the wife of the Solicitor General of the United States was an ideal person to use in making the case for the Official 9/11 story.
The claims that "terrorists" hijacked her plane using box cutters and that they were wearing bandannas all came from her alleged calls to Ted.

Did Ted know in advance about the simulated attack Pentagon attack exercise and that his wife was going to take part in it? Maybe, maybe not.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Umm

This was recovered at Shanksville.

[NowHearThis]

91. Sure looks like a box cutter

Must be a magical Muslim-made box cutter, so it would be easy to spot in all that "wreckage" at Shanksville. That, or else it
was planted.

[SDuderstadt]

94. I'd reply to this but...

it's my night to go plant evidence for the next government plot.

I can't help but recall all the back and forths I've had with evolution-deniers who claim all the fossils proving evolution were "planted".

[NowHearThis]

95. "I'd reply to this but..."

You can't be so naive and uninformed as to not know that perps plant evidence all the time - indeed, it happens so often that
many people such as yourself say "it's my night to go plant evidence for the next government plot." Of course, you'd probably also
reserve the right for yourself to then later DENY that you had ever done such a thing. Standard ethic for Untruthers.

[SDuderstadt]

97. great...

when you can actually show that 9/11 evidence was planted, you might have something. how about starting with the jet engine that was found at church and murray streets? how did that get there? put those great deductive reasoning skills of yours to work and help those of us who are ''naive and uninformed'' out.

[BeFree]

99. Good job, Now Hear This

Read thru this whole thread and just wanted to say that I like what I'm hearing, reading and seeing. You really did a number on 'em.

[NowHearThis]

106. Thanks, BeFree. I think the case I laid out is solid. For sure,...

if it had a major flaw, the Untruther brigade would have fallen all over themselves trying to show it.

The mystery of what happened to Mrs. Olson and everyone else who was allegedly aboard what was claimed to have been AA FL 77
on 9/11 is pretty much, if not totally solved, as far as I'm concerned. We've long known that no airliner crashed at the
Pentagon, but questions have remained about the fate of Mrs. Olson and the rest who are alleged to have been aboard what
the Government claims was AA FL 77, on 9/11.

My solution doesn't require voice morphing but instead posits that Mrs. Olson DID make phone calls to Ted Olson and it
explains the circumstances under which the calls took place and WHERE the calls were made from (inside the Pentagon, most likely
in the section of the building where Mrs. Olson and others lost their lives...directly opposite that part of the building where
then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office was located).

The basic outline is similar to many other intelligence operations in which various kinds of military and other security exercises
were used to provide cover for the operatives to carry out a covert mission. HARVEY Oswald was led to believe that HE was
taking part in a mock assassination exercise. Mrs. Olson, like Oswald, was an innocent patsy who paid the ultimate sacrifice while
performing what she surely believed was her duty as a patriotic citizen.

None of the efforts of Untruthers here to change the subject, divert attention, and otherwise subvert the truth have been effective.
The truth will always come out and prevail, as I hope and believe it has with regards to this aspect of 9/11.

[BeFree]

107. Little by little...

...the truth must come out.

About all I have seen to rebut you is this: "Bushco says it's not true".

Glad to see your story here... it makes sense.

[Bolo Boffin]

108. It is a nice scenario.

Got evidence?

[BeFree]

109. Evidence?

You can't see that Bushco is all the evidence one really needs to discount the OCT?

With the lack of evidence and faith in the OCT, or its ensuing commission, coupled with the evidence that truthers have brought to the fore, makes for an absolutely compelling and trustworthy story.

Don't take any of this personal, we know you didn't invent the OCT, and imagine that if you could you would run away from it as fast as possible, eh?

[Bolo Boffin]

110. So you have no evidence whatsoever for the fanciful scenario presented in the OP other than

"Bushco said the OCT happened"?

That's it?

[BeFree]

111. Look Bolo

I know it's hard for you guys these days... the OCT is dying a slow death.

I feel for ya. The OCT industry has wasted billions of dollars on keeping Bushco in power and yet it fails. That's gotta be tough. Oh well, at least I am on the winning side. Come join us, question authority.

[Bolo Boffin]

112. Again, you have no evidence of the OP's fanciful scenario

other than the statement "Bushco said the OCT happened."

Yes or no?

[BeFree]

113. Yes

Now Hear This, won the argument, indeed.

[Bolo Boffin]

114. Yes, you have no evidence. Thanks.

However, I must respectfully decline your offer to join you in your mission. I prefer evidence and rationality. The OP offers neither, and you happily admit so.

[NowHearThis]

126. "I prefer evidence and rationality." Me too.

If those aren't empty words, then provide some credible evidence that Mrs. Olson called Ted on an airphone while FLYING aboard FL 77.

[Bolo Boffin]

128. I think you have the cart before the horse. You need to provide some evidence backing your OP.

You haven't done that yet.

[NowHearThis]

131. Then you agree that no airphone calls were made...

to Mr. Olson from Mrs. Olson while she was allegedly flying aboard AA FL 77 on the morning of 9/11? Federal bureaucrats are well-known for keeping meticulous records so if any such calls had been made you should be able to produce official records
of such calls noting from what number they were dialed, what number or numbers were dialed, who was billed for them, when they
were paid, by whom and in addition, you should provide receipts for payment. All such should be originals and available for
independent inspection and verification. Summaries or other hearsay claims or accounts are not acceptable proof evidence.

I don't believe you can produce such evidence (no pun intended) but if you can, please do so. The world has been waiting for
it for nearly eight years.

[Bolo Boffin]

132. Are you not going to present any evidence for your OP at all? n/t

[NowHearThis]

134. It isn't MY claim that airfone calls were made from FL 77

It's your side's position and your obligation to provide proof evidence in support of your claim. I take it from your
responses that you are unable to back up those claims with credible proof evidence.

Readers who are somewhat familiar with the Official Conspiracy Theory now know that a nail has been
driven through the heart of its (arguably) most critical claim in support of the Official Pentagon 9/11 storyline - which also
provided the foundational support for the entire Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

That foundation now rests on very shaky ground and it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the extant evidence does not
support the Government's theory.

This isn't the first time our Government has lied to us about a major event. Sadly, it won't be the last.

Thanks for your participation.

Goodbye.

[Bolo Boffin]

136. I am trying to discuss YOUR claims, the ones in the OP.

Why won't you discuss your own OP?

[William Seger]

138. It's pointless showing no-planers the evidence

... and I'll prove it. Here you can download some of the AA77 evidence from the Moussaoui trial, including the call records:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html
Now, hurry back; everyone is anxiously waiting for your unsubstantiated denials.

Four of the Airfone calls were to unidentified numbers. Two are believed to be to Olson, but if you think it makes any difference whether or not they were, then you're lost in the David Ray Griffin mental fog. If you prefer to think Olson lied about the calls, knock yourself out; those calls are not how we know a hijacked AA77 was crashed into the Pentagon. You're wasting your time and DU bandwidth.

[NowHearThis]

147. Calls were likely made, but not from aboard a flying airliner

You've cited what you believe (or contend) is evidence that calls were made to Mr. Olson from his wife. What you haven't provided and can't, in my opinion, is proof that calls were made by Mrs. Olson while she was aboard FL 77 in the sky.

The reason why you can't provide any evidence proof that she made calls while flying aboard FL 77 is because there was no such flight 77 on 9/11.

[William Seger]

149. Olson's calls are irrelevant to anything

Olson's calls are NOT the evidence that tells us that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. As I said, you've stumbled into the Griffin Fog of fuzzy thinking when you go down that path. There are other calls -- supported by both the call records and the testimony of the people receiving the calls -- that corroborate the ATC and FAA evidence that those planes were hijacked. The DNA evidence from the crash site proves that those people were on those planes.

And you prove why "debating" with no-planers is a complete waste of time. You've got absolutely nothing but denial and fairy tales you pulled out of your own ass.

[NowHearThis]

151. Olson's calls were integral to the OCT. That's why they're...

they aren't merely relevant. They're critical to the entire OCT case which you are here presumably to defend.

[William Seger]

152. Total bullshit

Even if you assume Olson lied about receiving calls, AA77 still crashed into the Pentagon with Barbara Olson on it. The calls are "critical" to absolutely nothing. Your knowledge is lacking, but your understanding of even what little you know is appalling.

[NowHearThis]

158. Prove it.

You can't, but what you CAN do is help keep this thread active so that those who have long wondered whatever happened to Barbara Olson and the other "passengers" - none of whom could have been killed on a non-existent flight - can learn about what most likely
DID happen to her and to them.

Your role in that regard is helpful, and I thank you.

[SDuderstadt]

160. And your proof that AA 77 was not scheduled to fly that day" is???

n/t

[William Seger]

168. The reason I keep kicking it

... is so that anyone curious can read about how you simply deny all the real, corroborated evidence that we have, for no reason other than you just don't like the story it clearly tells, then pull fairy tales out of your ass, without a shred of evidence or logical reason to think that your delusions have any connection whatsoever with reality, yet still expect to be taken seriously.

Your role in making yourself look foolish and irrational is absolutely vital, and I thank you.

[SDuderstadt]

150. What's truly stunning here...

is you lecturing anyone on their supposed lack of proof when your claim has ZERO.

[BeFree]

135. Don't you get the feeling...

...they don't want to know anything about the airphones? It's like you are being ignored when you bring up the airphones.

Which leads to another question for the OCTers: did the Commission ask about the airphones? If not, why not.

[Bolo Boffin]

165. Your question about airphones has been answered.

I've produced a recording from Flight 93 on 9/11. And yet, when I bring it up, you ignore it and pretend you're being ignored. Strange.

[OnTheOtherHand]

115. congratulations on the coup de grace

Just don't hold your breath waiting for BeFree to figure it out.

[BeFree]

119. Actually

I was just toying with Bolo and if you guys think Bolo won one, you are sadly mistaken. There is no sense trying to discuss with Bolo, he just gets upset and stalks away. You've seen it. I mean, if he can't even read the thread and the case put forward by NHT, and ask me what I think about a certain aspect, then he really isn't serious. So, we toy with him. Amuse and entertain.

Is that alright, or do you have a problem with that?

Coup de grace? In your dreams.

[Bolo Boffin]

121. I'm giving you the opportunity to choose one "certain aspect"

and present all the evidence you have supporting it. Choose any part of NowHearThis' fanciful OP and his or her furthering of the scenario -- whichever part you choose!

Because so far, there's a lot of speculating from you both and there's a hell of a lot of self-congratulatory bullshit from the both of you, and an equal amount of how the Untruthers are running and hiding...

...but not one single scrap of evidence. Stay away from the bickering and the bullshit and simply present your evidence for any part of NowHearThis' scenario.

[BeFree]

122. I knew it!!

I knew you couldn't do it, that's why I just mess with your head. I mean, here you are attacking me instead of asking Now Hear This, just one question in this whole thread!! How lame is that?

But I will ask you this: Who told you it was an airphone call? The TV?

[Bolo Boffin]

123. I'm not attacking you. I'm asking you for evidence.

Do you consider asking you to back up your assertions with evidence attacking you? How strange.

NowHearThis, feel free to do this as well. There, BeFree, I've asked NowHearThis a question. If either of you would present any evidence of the OP other than some variation of "Bushco lies all the time," then we'd be getting somewhere.

[BeFree]

125. Haha

""There, BeFree, I've asked NowHearThis a question""

And you didn't answer mine. You see, you are useless. You'll never get anywhere, Bolo. The OCT is going down. Down, and you can't save it... It's like Humpty Dumpty. LOL. ROFLMAO.

Thanks for the laugh, Bolo.

[OnTheOtherHand]

127. once again, I accept your concession

It's nice to have on record that your posts aren't intended to contribute to substantive discussion.

[BeFree]

129. Not to Bolo

Or even you. I mean look at yours and Bolo's posts right here!
Ya got nothing!! NOTHING!!

The two of you are useless to my agenda. Then there are one or two - three, others here who are useless, but many, many others who make sense discussing things with.

[OnTheOtherHand]

130. as much as it stings to be "useless to (your) agenda"...

I suppose that after a few nights of weeping myself to sleep, I will find a way to carry on.

[BeFree]

133. Remember how Bush....

...used to say things and we could count on the opposite being the truth?

Anyway, I asked the other two and they haven't answered, maybe you can?

Who told you it was an airphone?

[OnTheOtherHand]

137. who told you someone told me "it was an airphone"?

Whatever. As long as you're entertained.

[NowHearThis]

116. Thanks, BeFree.

Bushco's record of honesty isn't exactly comforting unless you prefer snake oil to truth.

[BeFree]

118. Indeed

Ya know, Bushco never offered much proof of their theory... in fact, it covered up more facts than freely offered, and the 'facts' they did offer have been rebutted time and again. Yet we get attacked by some here for theories as good and in most cases better than Bushco's.

It's weird. Time and again I've asked them to offer up substantial disagreements the OCTers have with their OCT but all we get is crickets. It's the same reaction as we get when we discuss religion with the fundies about their bible. I wonder how many OCTers are bible beaters, also?

[AZCat]

141. That's not true at all, BeFree.

It was hardly a month ago that you posed such a question and I answered seemingly to your satisfaction, yet I see here that you're claiming nobody has ever done so. Is this the sort of game you're playing here? If so, count me out. You can use somebody else as a foil for your fantasies.


On Edit: LARED also expressed his concerns at the same time, in the same thread.

[BeFree]

153. Oh Bullshit

If you replied then and you can remember what you said then say it again.
This bullshit: "I answered that last week" is the same kind of crap a cheating husband tells his wife.

Answer the questions here and no or go fly a kite.

[SDuderstadt]

155. "Answer us! Answer our goofy questions! Answer our goofy questions now!".

Jesus, "no-planers" are a hoot.

[AZCat]

167. Are you fucking kidding me?!

Do I need to keep a running log of everything I say to you because you're too fucking lazy to remember? That's pathetic. I answered it here, and I answered it in response to a question from you. If you can't find it, then you'll have to live with your own inadequacies - I'm not holding your fucking hand while you walk across the street.

[SDuderstadt]

117. here's just one of many major flaws with your goofy theory...

explain how the airfone calls were made from '''inside the pentagon''. i also notice that you can't answer numerous other questions about this and other equally goofy theories you have advanced. it's truly comical.

[BeFree]

120. Airphone?

Who told you it was an airphone? The TV?

Also notice there is no substantive arguments put forward from the OCT. Is that because it is goofy, told by us by the goofiest president ever and his sidekick Dearth? Goofy and Dearth. Two sides of the same bad penny. They make me sick, the bastards. They stole elections, tortured innocent people and lied while they ripped off the little guys with gas prices and now the banking fiasco. Fuck Bushco!!

Now, who told you it was an airphone?

[SDuderstadt]

139. Like Seger, I was looking at the shockwave presentation from the...

Moussaoui (sp) trial, but I notice that the underlying documentation is not present or, at least, I could not find it. I suspect it is in the first batch of archived records released beginning in January but, so far, I have been unable to find it. Maybe somebody has a better bead on it than I do?

[Bolo Boffin]

140. Yes, the recent release of information has that.

But we don't need that here. That exhibit has a phone call in it. The government says it came from the plane. NowHearThis says it came from passengers in a location other than the plane.

I say, listen to it and decide if that person is trying to fool her husband into thinking she was on a plane.

[NowHearThis]

148. You misstated what I wrote. I hope it wasn't intentional.

Bolo Boffin said:

"That exhibit has a phone call in it. The government says it came from the plane. NowHearThis says it came from passengers in a location other than the plane.

I say, listen to it and decide if that person is trying to fool her husband into thinking she was on a plane."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, I've only written about calls from Mrs. Olson.

Second, I said that HER calls came from inside the Pentagon. I did not say that more than one person made the calls attributed to her.

Third, it appears that you are intentionally trying to fool readers into believing that an alleged phone call from FL 93 is actually
a recording of one by Mrs. Olson.

Perhaps you simply aren't very familiar with factual details of the case and didn't realize that what you wrote could be very
misleading to many readers.

Which is it in your case: intentional deceit or ignorance of the facts communication incompetence?

[Bolo Boffin]

162. So what's your opinion about where the phone calls from 93 came from?

I assume that you don't think they came from Flight 93.

[NowHearThis]

163. STOP hijacking this thread.

If you have anything to contribute about Mrs. Olson, do so. Otherwise, start your own thread.

[SDuderstadt]

164. Bolo is asking a perfectly reasonable question...

and I notice you can't seem to provide any proof that "AA77 was not scheduled to fly on 9/11".

[Bolo Boffin]

166. So back to my original question - do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your OP?

I was trying to discuss your OP and you kept asking me questions to support something different. So I try to start answering them and you say I'm hijacking your thread.

So back to my original question: Do you have the slightest shred of evidence to support your fanciful OP? Now would be a good time to produce it. That would help minimize "hijackings" because then we could discuss the evidence instead of continuing to ask for it and being tricked into hijacking your thread by answering your questions.

[NowHearThis]

169. Maybe with YOUR connections, you could get some of the...

evidence released that the Government has thus far failed to disclose.

[Bolo Boffin]

170. It's not my job to prove your case. That's your job.

And my connections seems to enjoy the same status of fancy in your mind as your OP does. I repeat: do you have any evidence whatsoever to verify any part of that OP you are spinning?

[NowHearThis]

171. This isn't a law suit. If it were, your claim would have been...

thrown out for lack of evidence. I proposed a solution to what happened to Mrs. Olson. The Official story claims that
Mrs. Olson called her husband while she was flying aboard FL 77. That claim is unsupported by the evidence. You've had
plenty of opportunities to provide any additional evidence which might support your claim. You have failed to produce
any credible evidence that would support the contention that Mrs. Olson placed telephone calls while she was allegedly
aboard FL 77.

In your mind, you may feel and/or sincerely contend that the accounts given by Mr. Olson are sufficient, but
Mr. Olson's credibility on this issue is impeached by his contradictions and admissions that the Government is free to lie.
Additionally, neither Mr. Olson nor any other employee of the Federal government has ever produced a single document which
would tend to prove the veracity of his accounts. Neither have the airlines nor any credit card companies provided any
such business records.

Low-information readers might be swayed by your arguments (sic), but is that something to be proud of?

[Bolo Boffin]

172. You proposed a solution but you don't present any evidence that supports it.

That's what I am asking you to do.

[NowHearThis]

173. There is no evidence that Mrs. O. called from FL 77. How many...

times do you need to be told? That being the case then the question arises, if she didn't die in a plane crash, what happened to her? Her DNA was recovered at the Pentagon and my solution to how that could be is that she expired in the explosions and fires which erupted in the section of the building where Mrs. Olson was located at the time. As of this date, I know of no possible
evidence which would positively prove exactly where she was at the time she died. The only people who WOULD know haven't said and
aren't likely to. They probably had to sign an oath of secrecy about any knowledge they have concerning the events at the Pentagon
on the morning of 9/11. They may have even been threatened with severe consequences if they were to ever reveal what they know.

[Bolo Boffin]

174. You are hijacking your own thread. You have a proposal. I'm asking you to present the evidence

that supports it. Every time I do, you say "the other side doesn't have evidence." But that's beside the point. Where is YOUR evidence?

[NowHearThis]

175. See post #173.

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

176. So you don't have any evidence. You just have excuses to prop up your fantasies.

Well, that's just sad.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snooper2]

196. Don't hijack my parnoid fantasy

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[wildbilln864]

177. How do you know "that person"....

is really the person you're told it is? Did you know her personally or have previous confirmed recordings to compare? :shrug:
How do you know other than you're taking someone's word for it?

[Bolo Boffin]

178. Because her husband is the one who gave that recording to the government.

He vouches for it, wildbill.

Go ahead and listen to it. Then come back here and tell me that woman is faking it.

[defendandprotect]

144. Don't tell me . . . they found a Box Cutter in the debris????

Wow -- how lucky can you get?

A Passport and a Box Cutter --

IMO, throw-downs.

[defendandprotect]

143. Very interesting question . . .

I guess she was fairly well known from TV -- I only saw her on TV once - probably
Larry King?

Most of these "passengers" are connected in one way or another to the right --
also true of Barbara Olsen. I wouldn't see her, however, as someone being "in" on
something like 9/11, knowingly. And would she have sacrificed her life, knowingly?
Doesn't feel right.

Quite a number of people heard rumors of 9/11 in advance -- I wonder if she heard anything
from her sources? Was she trying to find out what was going on?

[NowHearThis]

146. Mrs. Olson was a celebrity in right-wing circles

The "passengers" were innocents who, in my opinion, because of their relationships to the military and defense sectors, had been
invited to serve their country as participants in a secret military/national security defense exercise in which they were probably
told their roles would involve the aspect of the exercise in which there would be a mock hijacking and mock plane crash at the Pentagon. It's unlikely that they knew anything at all until they were assembled at the Pentagon, presumably after having been
taken there from Dulles airport, but it's just as likely, or even more so, that they never went to Dulles. That would explain why
there are no photos of them at Dulles (except for the one Arab's photo, which may or may not be from that morning).

Unlikely, in my judgment, that Mrs. Olson (a then-prominent CNN commentator) knew anything in advance, therefore, it's unlikely that she tried to find out as you put it, "what was going on".

Did she actually make phone calls to her husband, as claimed by the Government, was voice morphing used to simulate those calls, or
is it simply the case that she made NO phone calls? My view is that she did make calls to her husband, then-U.S. Solicitor General Theodore "Ted" Olson, from the Pentagon, via cell phone.

What she allegedly said in those phone calls became the critical foundation for the entire OCT. For that reason alone, the perps
needed someone to make those calls - someone whose credibility would be readily accepted by the public. The wife of the U.S. Solicitor General, herself a lawyer, fit that need perfectly.

[defendandprotect]

179. Sounds good --

you could be very close to the truth . . .

We'll see --

How many people were supposedly assembled at the Pentagon . . . ?

Wouldn't that have attracted some attention?

Plus, they would have had to have been shuffled into the new unoccupied wing?

Would be interesting to know what the coroner actually found on examination of

these bodies. A body crashed in a plane certainly would look different from one

killed by explosions inside the Pentagon?

[NowHearThis]

180. Answers to your questions

"How many people were supposedly assembled at the Pentagon . . . ?"

Answer: I don't know but I assume it would be everyone whose DNA was found.


"Wouldn't that have attracted some attention?"

Answer: Maybe, but probably no more than often happens whenever there are visitors to a major building.


"Plus, they would have had to have been shuffled into the new unoccupied wing?"

Answer: I'm unsure what you mean by "shuffled". Do you mean escorted into that wing?


"Would be interesting to know what the coroner actually found on examination of

these bodies. A body crashed in a plane certainly would look different from one

killed by explosions inside the Pentagon?"

Response: There are several versions. Take your pick. One version claims that all or most of the bodies were all incinerated,
but their DNA was somehow recovered and matched to names of "passengers" alleged to have been on FL 77. Another version has it that
there was a combination of incinerated bodies and others that were mutilated and some that survived with minor to severe wounds and horrific burns. NO ONE who was allegedly from FL 77 survived, according to news accounts of the event.

Remember, it wasn't just "passengers" who were killed or wounded at the Pentagon. There were many civilian employees, military personnel, and contract workers in that same section of the building.

There is no account that I'm aware of in which anyone specifically described differences between bodies that were allegedly victims from FL 77 and bodies that were allegedly victims of explosions and fires that occurred - other than the story version which posits that the bodies of FL 77 "passengers" were all incinerated.

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NowHearThis]

183. There might have been 64 there, but maybe not.

We don't really know how many people were actually accounted for, either by virtue of their bodies having been found or via DNA of
body pieces.

Even if there was 64 "passengers" and crew, as you noted, so many of them had military and defense associations, and having grown up
in two places that have large military installations, I know that military exercises take place all the time, and many of them
are of a nature that the participants are forbidden to talk about them.

When it comes to understanding what most likely happened to Mrs. Olson and the implications of what happened to her, versus what we
have been told, I believe and stand by the explanation I have proposed.

Think about it. The Untruthers here have a pretty good knowledge of the Government's theory and some of them are very well informed about many of the facts and the extant evidence. They also seem to have ready access to a wide variety of resources regarding just
about every aspect of 9/11. Therefore, if there was a major flaw in the scenario I've proposed, don't you agree that by now we would have heard it? I explain what I believe is the answer to what happened to Mrs. Olson. Their only response, other than the usual
insults, distractions, diversions, and demands for evidence which only the perps would have...is to say that Mrs. Olson DID make phone calls to Mr. Olson. A very curious response in light of the fact that I specifically said that I believe she made calls to her husband, just not while aboard an airliner that wasn't scheduled to fly on 9/11.

Whenever vital evidence is withheld by the Government, you do the best you can do with what you have. That said, if someone is able to explain why my scenario isn't plausible, I'm willing to listen. It could still happen. We'll see.

[Bolo Boffin]

185. "I believe and stand by the explanation I have proposed"

even though you don't have a scrap of evidence for this "explanation." All you give are excuses as to why people shouldn't even expect you to have evidence. After all, if you don't have evidence, that's the conspiracy's fault, too!

[SDuderstadt]

186. yeah...explain the 100+ witnesses who saw the plane crash into the building...

while you're at it, why wouldn't military personnel there raise a huge outcry about 100+ of their colleagues having been killed by explosives set off by the government rather thab a plane crashing into the building. if you go down the path i think you'll go down and claim they were all intimidated, why has no one come forward under the obama administration?

[NowHearThis]

198. Ask Pat Tillman's family.

I take it you've not served in the military. (U.S. military)

[SDuderstadt]

199. This post makes zero sense...

then again, yours never do.