NOTES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods OPTION

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

Cell Phones Don't Work

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials

by David Ray Griffin

Global Research, April 1, 2008

David Ray 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."[2]

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.[3]

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."[4] 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."[5] 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. [7]

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." [8]

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." [12] 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 "[t]he 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" [13]), 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.[14] 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." [15]

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." [16]

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.[17] 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. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.

NOTES

1. This essay is based on Chapter 8 ("Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?") of David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).

2. Tim O'Brien, "Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane," CNN, September 11, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).

3. This was pointed out in The 9/11 Commission Report, 8.

4. Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html).

5. "America's New War: Recovering from Tragedy," Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html).

6. In his "Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture," delivered November 16, 2001
(http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp),

Olson said that she "somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in the airplane to call." He laid out this version of his story more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, "She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane," Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html).

'She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane'

by Toby Harnden
The Telegraph
March 5, 2002

U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson's wife, Barbara, was the first victim of the September 11 terrorist attacks to be named. He tells Toby Harnden of her bravery during her final call from the hijacked plane - and of his determination to fight back

A little over two months after his wife was killed on September 11, Ted Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States, received a photograph from the U.S. Air Force. It showed a laser-guided missile before it was launched from a strike aircraft against a Taliban target in Afghanistan. The name Barbara Olson had been chalked on the side of the weapon in her memory.

"It looked like a 500lb bomb," says Ted Olson, his grief-racked face creasing into a smile for the first time in nearly an hour. "She would have liked that. Barbara was a warrior, so she would have wanted to fight back. And she would have applauded the people who did go and fight back."

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, has described Barbara, a writer, lawyer and political commentator, as "Ted's departed Spitfire". Apart from the Clintons, she and her husband were probably America's most combative couple - he in the courtroom and she on the talk shows, America's 21st-century court of public opinion. The couple liked to joke that they were at the heart of what Hillary Clinton - the subject of Barbara's excoriating biography Hell to Pay - famously described as a "vast, right-wing conspiracy".

Their beautiful colonial-style mansion in Great Falls, Virginia, was the venue for huge parties at which the conservative intelligentsia would gather. The Olsons were wine connoisseurs and would often travel to California to replenish their cellar.

She always drove a Jaguar; he preferred a Mercedes, after years of favouring Porsches. They shared a love of poetry, Shakespeare and the opera and were keen collectors of modern art. He named their first Australian Shepherd dog Maggie, after Lady Thatcher. She called the second one Reagan, after the president her husband had represented during the Iran-Contra hearings in the 1980s.

They were married in 1996, he for the third time and she for the second, but they seemed more like high-school sweethearts. Throughout the working day, they would speak on what they called the "bat phone". Each would turn down dinner invitations if the other was not included.

Today, Ted looks wretched; his eyes begin to redden and he occasionally wipes away a tear as he talks. He returned to work six days after September 11 and has been putting in 80-hour weeks ever since, leaving home each morning at 5.30am. Among the issues he has championed has been new anti-terrorist legislation.

He has rationalised his wife's death, but still seems unable to accept she is gone. "You see a blonde woman walking through a crowd, or you see something that reminds you of that person, the way a person turns their head, or their shoes - Barbara wore these very flashy, high-heeled shoes - things like that," he says. "I get reminded of her in scores of ways every day, in something I see or something that flashes through my mind."

We are sitting in the office of the Solicitor General on the fifth floor of the Justice Department building in Washington. One wall is lined with leather-bound volumes of Supreme Court arguments. An ancient, well-thumbed copy of the U.S. constitution is propped up on Olson's reassuringly untidy desk.

This is the man who argued in the Supreme Court for the winning side in the Bush versus Gore case that decided the presidential election in 2000. As a result, Olson's Democratic opponents in the Senate came close to blocking his nomination as the Bush administration's chief courtroom advocate. Soon, he will be defending Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to hand over documents to Congress as part of the investigation into the Enron scandal, and he will have to do so without his staunchest ally.

In their 11 years together, the Olsons seemed indivisible, as well as formidable. "Everybody identified us as 'Barbara and Ted'," he says. "It wasn't 'Ted' and 'Barbara' separately. It was a love affair, and a deep, abiding friendship. It was a partnership in every sense of the word."

The final time I saw them together was last summer, at a small dinner on Capitol Hill. Olson had just won his nomination fight and gave us an update on the partisan struggle that was shaping up in Congress. "We are at war," I remember him saying, as his wife nodded vigorously in agreement.

A few weeks later, I interviewed Barbara and three other conservative women about the new mood in Washington. A loose comment of hers - that President Bill Clinton's late mother had been "a bar-fly" who had allowed herself to be used by men - was noticed by the Washington Post and Democrats rushed to castigate her for being cruel and unfeeling. Many people would have blamed the journalist for misquoting her or tried to wriggle out some other way, but Barbara Olson didn't.

"Barbara's reaction was, 'I did say it'," says Ted. "She would never duck responsibility. It was a hurtful thing and she wished she hadn't said it. She thought the right thing to do was to make a forthright, unequivocal, direct apology, so she did. That's the kind of thing that I respect. She didn't try to soften it. She would not run away from the consequences of her actions."

It was her last newspaper interview. On September 11, American Airlines Flight 77 plunged into the Pentagon with Barbara Olson on board. It was Ted Olson's 61st birthday that day and Barbara had delayed flying to Los Angeles so they could celebrate over dinner the night before.

That morning, a nightmare began to unfold in the room where we are now sitting. "Someone rushed in and told me what had happened. I went into the other room, where there's a television," Olson says. "It went through my mind, 'My God, maybe - Barbara's on an airplane, and two airplanes have been crashed', you know."

Then his secretary told him that Barbara was on the line. "My first reaction when I heard she was on the phone was relief, because I knew that she wasn't on one of those two airplanes." But Barbara then explained calmly that she had been herded to the back of the Boeing 757 she was on, along with the other passengers.

"She had had trouble getting through, because she wasn't using her cellphone, she was using the phone in the passengers' seats," says Olson. "I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy."

He was able to tell her about the World Trade Centre attacks before the line went dead, then he called his departmental command centre to let them know another plane had been hijacked. The phone rang again and it was Barbara.

"She wanted to know, 'What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?' I tried to find out where she thought she was - I wanted to know where the airplane was and what direction it was going in, because I thought that was the first step to being able to do something.

"We both tried to reassure one another that everything was going to be OK, she was still alive, the plane was still up in the air. But I think she knew that it wasn't going to be OK and I knew it wasn't going to be OK."

They were able to have "personal exchanges", he says, before they were cut off in mid-conversation. "It just stopped. It could be the impact, although I think she would have There's no point in speculating."

As soon as he heard a plane had crashed at the Pentagon, he says, "I knew it was her". Olson's voice, which his wife once described as a "rich, rumbling, sort of makes-your-ribs-vibrate" sound, begins to scratch like tired feet wading through gravel. It drops to a whisper and he fetches a glass of water.

He returns and explains that his wife's last moments were typical of her. "It was a deeply embedded part of Barbara's character that she would not have stood by and done nothing. She was engaged in living. She would not accept that things could be done to her without her doing something about it. She was passionate. She was brave. She was involved."

He remained in the office for several hours, telephoning friends and family to let them know Barbara was dead. "There was no point in trying to go home," he says. "The streets were jammed with people trying to move, and no one was moving. So I stayed here until about two o'clock."

Soon, Barbara Olson became the first victim of the attacks to be named on television. She was also the most famous person to die that day.

That afternoon, friends began to gather at the Olsons' house. Ken Starr, the independent counsel who nearly removed president Bill Clinton from office, manned the telephone. Among those who rang to offer their condolences were the two busiest men in America - Mr Bush, who called from Air Force One, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York.

Finally, at 1am, Olson went upstairs to bed. On his pillow he found a note his wife had left less than 20 hours earlier. "I love you," it said. "When you read this, I will be thinking of you and I will be back on Friday."

Olson compares her defiance at the end of her life with that of the heroes of Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania. "Barbara didn't have as much warning, and I don't think she had as many resources," he says. "But it would have been entirely within her character to take action herself."

By killing Barbara Olson, the terrorists incurred the wrath of America, from the White House to the scores of thousands of ordinary people who turned her posthumously published The Final Days, about the controversial end of the Clinton presidency, into a best-seller.

During a recent visit to Florida, when Mr Bush was asked by schoolchildren in Orlando how he had felt on September 11, he told them: "I knew that when I got all of the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America." His use of the title of Barbara Olson's first book was no accident.

"9/11 has stiffened the resolve of people in this country, and Barbara was quintessentially American," says Olson. "She was Texan. She was a ballet dancer. She worked in the movie industry. She went to a Catholic college and to a Jewish law school. She was a lawyer. She worked as a government investigator, best-selling author, television commentator. And she was only 45. She was successful because of something about the culture of this country."

Suddenly, the Solicitor General, who has been slumped in his chair, sits bolt upright. "We are going to fight back," he says, deliberately. "We are not going to quit. We are not going to stop. We are not going to forget."

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002.

7. I discussed the technical difficulties of making cell phone calls from airliners in 2001 in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 87-88, 292-97.

8. See the submission of 17 February 2006 by "the Paradroid" on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75.

9. United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution
/flights/P200054.html). These documents can be more easily viewed in "Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights"
(http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).

10. FBI, "Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic]," "9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11," 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008,
(http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-docum
ents.html).

11. Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007).

12. O'Brien, "Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane."

13. 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 16
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf).

14. Shoestring, "The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?" Shoestring911, February 2, 2008 (http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/flight-77-murder-mystery-who-r
eally.html).

15. "In Memoriam: Charles 'Chic' Burlingame, 1949-2001," USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html).

16.Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007), 12.

17. Of these two possibilities, the idea that Ted Olson was duped should be seriously entertained only if there are records proving that the Department of Justice received two collect calls, ostensibly from Barbara Olson, that morning. Evidently no such records have been produced.

This article is based on Chapter 8 of Dr. Griffin's new book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press, (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).

This book reframes the central events of 9/11 as a series of 25 internal contradictions. The only way that its readers will be able to continue to accept the official story is to accept mutually contradictory accounts.

9/11 Contradictions may have the best chance of any of DRG's books (or indeed any book) of opening up a new investigation into 9/11.

David Ray Griffin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by David Ray Griffin

Ted Olson

www.gibsondunn.com/Lawyers/tolson

Theodore B. OlsonHome > Lawyers > Theodore B. Olson

Partner
tolson
T: (202) 955-8668
F: (202) 530-9575
Washington, D.C. Office
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
USA

Theodore B. Olson is a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Washington, D.C. office; a member of the firm's Executive Committee, Co-Chair of the Appellate and Constitutional Law Group and the firm's Crisis Management Team.

Mr. Olson was Solicitor General of the United States during the period 2001-2004. From 1981-1984 he was Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice. Except for those two intervals, he has been a lawyer with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. since 1965.

Mr. Olson is one of the nation's premier appellate and United States Supreme Court advocates. He has argued 49 cases in the Supreme Court, including Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board and Bush v. Gore , stemming from the 2000 presidential election; prevailing in over 75% of those arguments. Mr. Olson's practice is concentrated on appellate and constitutional law, federal legislation, media and commercial disputes, and assisting clients with strategies for the containment, management and resolution of major legal crises occurring at the federal/state, criminal/civil and domestic/international levels. He has handled cases at all levels of state and federal court systems throughout the United States, and in international tribunals.

Mr. Olson's Supreme Court arguments have included cases involving separation of powers; federalism; voting rights; the First Amendment; the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses; sentencing; jury trial rights; punitive damages; takings of property and just compensation; the Commerce Clause; taxation; immigration; criminal law; copyright; antitrust; securities; telecommunications; the internet; and other federal constitutional and statutory questions.

As Solicitor General, during the presidency of George W. Bush, Mr. Olson was the Government's principal advocate in the United States Supreme Court, responsible for supervising and coordinating all appellate litigation of the United States, and a legal adviser to the President and the Attorney General. As Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan Administration, Mr. Olson was the Executive Branch's principal legal adviser, rendering legal guidance to the President and to the heads of the Executive Branch departments on a wide range of constitutional and federal statutory questions, and assisting in formulating and articulating the Executive Branch's position on constitutional issues.

Mr. Olson has served as private counsel to two Presidents, Ronald W. Reagan and George W. Bush, in addition to serving those two Presidents in high-level positions in the Department of Justice. He has twice received the United States Department of Justice's Edmund J. Randolph Award, named for the first Attorney General, its highest award for public service and leadership. He has also been awarded the Department of Defense's highest civilian award for his advocacy in the courts of the United States, including the Supreme Court, on behalf of that Department. He was a visiting scholar at the National Constitution Center in 2007.

Mr. Olson is a Fellow of both the American College of Trial Lawyers and the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. The National Law Journal has repeatedly listed him as one of America's Most Influential Lawyers. The American Lawyer and Legal Times have characterized Mr. Olson as one of America's leading advocates. In December of 2007, Washingtonian magazine listed him as number one on its list of finest lawyers in the nation's capital. The New York Times columnist William Safire has described Mr. Olson as this generation's "most persuasive advocate" before the Supreme Court and "the most effective Solicitor General" in decades.

Mr. Olson received his law degree in 1965 from the University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall) where he was a member of the California Law Review and Order of the Coif. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of the Pacific, where he was recognized as the outstanding graduating student in both forensics and journalism. Mr. Olson has written and lectured extensively on appellate advocacy, oral communication in the courtroom, civil justice reform, punitive damages, and constitutional and administrative law.

Selected Appellate Litigation [PDF]

PRACTICES
Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice
Appellate and Constitutional Law
Crisis Management
Intellectual Property
Media and Entertainment
Public Policy
Securities Litigation
White Collar Defense and Investigations

EDUCATION
University of California - Berkeley, 1965
Juris Doctor
University of the Pacific, 1962
Bachelor of Arts

BAR ADMISSIONS
California
District of Columbia

Ted doesn't look too upset about losing "Barbara Olson" referring to her in the third person. His speech is canned boiler plate!

www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/spring2002/lost/

Cardozo Memorial Speech

Innately American Theodore B. Olson Solicitor General of the United States Four and one-half seemingly endless months ago, on September 11, our nation was savagely attacked, thousands of our citizens were murdered and tens of thousands more lost spouses, children, parents, family members, neighbors, co-workers and friends. This was a brutal assault on America, Americans, and American ideals. The victims of September 11 were persons of all races, backgrounds, religions, ages, and qualities. They were walking, talking, living symbols of America to the impoverished, enslaved, and persecuted people of the world who long to come to America or to live lives of freedom, democracy, and equality, and to enjoy the right to pursue happiness and prosperity. Sadly, two of the persons so cruelly taken from us on September 11, Barbara Bracher Olson and Andrew Steven Zucker, were alumni of this wonderful law school. I did not know Mr. Zucker, but I was blessed to know, love, and be married to Barbara Olson. Let me say just a few words about her. Many people loved and admired Barbara. But whether you loved and admired her values, her spunk, her energy, her passion, her courage, her unconquerable spirit, or her incredible warmth, whether you knew it or not, underneath it all, you admired and were captivated by Barbara, in part because she was pretty darn close to being a quintessential American. Barbara was a Texan, from a family whose ancestors came to this country from Germany, so she was a descendant of immigrants, like virtually all of us. Barbara went to the University of Texas and a Catholic university, St. Thomas, in Houston. She became a professional ballet dancer in San Francisco and New York because of the beauty of dance and the rigor of its discipline, and because you have to be extraordinarily tough and ambitious to do it. And Barbara was extraordinarily tough and ambitious. She could be charming, tough, indefatigable, ferocious, and lovable. And all those things at once. But Barbara always wanted to be a lawyer and to be involved in government. In order to afford law school, she invented a career out of whole cloth in Hollywood because, she calculated, that was the fastest way to earn the money she needed. It did not trouble Barbara that she knew absolutely nothing about the motion picture and television industry. And, in fact, it really didn't matter because, as she later explained to the unwitting producer who gave her a first job, she was a "fast-learner." And, of course, she succeeded. She turned down the last job tendered to her because they were offering too much money and she did not want to be tempted to forego her dream to be a lawyer. She came here to Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, not necessarily the obvious choice for a blond Catholic girl from Texas. But she thrived at Cardozo as she had thrived at St. Thomas and in the ballet and in Hollywood. She loved Cardozo, the students, the classes, the professors, the dean. Barbara created a Federalist Society chapter here in this hotbed of conservative legal thought. She loved to tell me how she talked the dean into allowing her to use his conference room for the first meeting, how she convinced 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kolinsky to be her first speaker, and how she schemed to find the right kosher food to entice a respectable audience to her subversive gathering. In her third year of law school, Barbara somehow managed to finesse herself into an internship in the Department of Justice in Washington. And, as a very brassy and gutsy intern, she managed to be the only employee of the government of the United States willing, feisty, and fearless enough to personally serve the papers on the PLO mission to the United Nations in New York announcing that it was being expelled from this country-because they were terrorists. How proud Barbara was to tell that story to her friends at Cardozo! After law school, she turned down jobs with the finest law firms in New York to go to Washington where, it seems, she was always destined to be. In rapid succession, she succeeded as a lawyer at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in private practice, as a hot and very successful federal prosecutor, as deputy general counsel and solicitor to the house of representatives, and as a top congressional investigator, television personality, and lobbyist. It was typical of Barbara that when her publisher suggested that she write a book about Hillary Rodham Clinton, she literally jumped at the chance. She told me at the time that she wasn't sure that she was a writer, but a friend of ours told her that she didn't have to be a writer to be an author. So, with her legendary energy and limitless self-confidence, she poured herself into the book, finished it in nine months and, against seemingly insurmountable odds, without any previous experience with serious writing, climbed onto The New York Times best-seller list during the most competitive time of the year, and stayed there for nine weeks. Her second book, written in about six months last year and finished just days before her death, has been in the top seven on The New York Times best-seller list for 13 successive weeks. Barbara was everywhere in Washington. A witness for Clarence Thomas at his confirmation, a cofounder of the Independent Women's Forum, hosting Federalist Society members from all over the country in her home, at the epicenter of the Travel Office and Filegate investigations, the second-most invited guest ever on Larry King Live, appearing on MSNBC, Fox, Meet the Press, Cross-Fire, Politically Incorrect, you name it. Ready to talk about any subject, ready to face down any adversary. She always had an opinion. And she always had that disarming, captivating, endearing smile. In short, Barbara partook of everything life gave her. She saw no limits in the people around her, and she accepted no limits on what she could accomplish. She could be charming, tough, indefatigable, ferocious, and lovable. And all those things at once. Barbara was Barbara because America, unlike anyplace in the world, gave her the space, freedom, oxygen, encouragement, and inspiration to be whatever she wanted to be. So, sadly and ironically, Barbara may have been the perfect victim for those twisted, hateful terrorists: because she was so thoroughly and innately an American. And such a symbol of America's values, ideals, and robust ambition. And she died as she lived. Calling for help repeatedly from her hijacked flight, fighting, believing in herself, and determined to succeed. So, if she was the perfect victim, she is also a perfect symbol of what we are fighting for now and for America's strengths, ingenuity, passion, and determination, the qualities that assure ultimate success against hatred, evil, and brutality. I know, and Barbara knows, that her government and the people of America will win this war, however long it takes, whatever we have to do. We will prevail for Barbara Bracher Olson and Andrew Steven Zucker and all the other Americans we lost on September 11. And for the American spirit for which they stood and which their lives embodied. And, most of all, we will defeat these terrorists because Barbara and Andrew and those other American casualties of September 11, and our forebears, and our children, would never forgive us if we did not.

www.fed-soc.org/BKOlsonMemorialLecture/bkolsonlecture-111601.htm
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987032/posts

Ted Olsen Discussed Barbara and WOT - 11/16/01
Federalist Society | November 16, 2001 | Ted Olsen

Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 10:50:13 AM by Peach

A friend and neighbor worked with Ted Olsen in the Reagan Justice Department and sent this via e-mail.

Although it is nearly two years old, the speech highlights excellent analysis regarding the war on terror and why the terrorists want to destroy America.

Ted Olson, 11/16/01:

"As you have been told, the Federalist Society envisions that the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture each year will address the ideals and principles that the Federalist Society holds dear and that Barbara cherished: limited government, liberty and freedom.

I felt that it would be fitting to inaugurate this series with some words about Barbara, why she died, and how much of her life and death were interwoven with those very principles that will animate the lecture series in her name.

On September 11, 2001, Barbara Olson and thousands of other Americans were murdered.

There were victims from other nations that day as well, but they were accidental casualties. Barbara and her fellow Americans were the targets; selected at random to be slaughtered that day precisely because they were Americans.

And the places of their deaths were carefully chosen for what they meant to America, and to the world about Americans, and because they were unique symbols of America's vitality, prosperity and strength.

The World Trade Center Towers were an emblem of America's largest and most prosperous city and an internationally recognized symbol of America's leadership in commerce, free enterprise and international trade.

The Pentagon was an even more fitting target for the perverted minds that planned this day of terror. Construction on it had begun precisely 60 years earlier, on September 11, 1941, as America was awakening to the nightmare of Adolph Hitler and Nazi terror in Europe. Since its construction, the Pentagon has stood for the power, strength and seeming invincibility of a free people. It has been the place from which America, again and again, sent its men and women to fight and die to save not only our own citizens, but millions of others as well, from tyranny, oppression, brutality and murder.

One additional symbol of America, the Capitol I believe, was spared that day only because the brave Americans on that fourth aircraft did what Americans instinctively do when their lives and their country are threatened. They fought. They died, but they saved the lives of countless others and averted an even greater and barely imaginable tragedy.

Barbara Olson had less time, and maybe not as many resources, as the heroes on United Flight 93 that was brought down in Pennsylvania short of its target. But the moment her flight was hijacked, she began to try to save herself and her fellow passengers. She somehow managed (I think she was the only one on that flight to do so) to use a telephone in the airplane to call, not only for help from the outside, but for guidance for herself and the flight crew in the battle that she was already undertaking in her mind. She learned during those two telephone conversations that two passenger jumbo jets had already that morning been turned into instruments of mass murder at the World Trade Center. So she knew the unspeakable horror that she was facing -- and I know without the slightest doubt that she died fighting -- with her body, her brain and her heart -- and not for a moment entertaining the notion that she would not prevail. Barbara died therefore not only because she was an American, but as one more American who refused to surrender to the monstrous evil into whose eyes she and her fellow countrymen stared during those last hideous moments.

September 11, 2001 was unprecedented in our nation's history. Our country has been attacked before. Our soldiers and innocent citizens have been the victims of terrorism before. But never before in our history have so many civilian citizens, engaged in the routines of their daily lives, who neither individually nor collectively had done anything to provoke the savage attack that they were to experience that day, been brutally murdered for the simple reason that they were Americans, and because they stood, in their countless individual lives, for all the things that America symbolizes.

As President Bush immediately recognized, September 11 was an act of war. But, as he has also explained, it was much more than that. It was also a crime, an act of pure hatred and unmitigated evil. It was a ruthless, brutal, intentionally malignant attack on thousands of innocent persons.

Think of the sick calculation that gave birth to these acts. The victims were persons of all races, backgrounds, religions, ages and qualities. They had one thing in common. They were Americans, Americans who believed in the values that their country stands for: liberty, democracy, freedom and equality. Their lives were cruelly extinguished because they were the living embodiment of the aspirations of most of the world's peoples. The people who killed them, and who planned their death, hate America and Americans for that very reason. They despise America and the beacon that America holds out to people who are impoverished, enslaved, persecuted and subjugated everywhere in the world. The men who planned the savage acts of September 11 cannot prevail, they cannot even long exist, as long as American ideals continue to inspire the very people they hope to tyrannize and enslave. Hence they have declared war, in fact they have declared hatred, on this country and the values that we hold dearest.

It is a cynical lie that the animals that killed our loved ones two months ago were motivated by Islam, or because this nation of ours is anti-Islamic. Among our most cherished values, enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution, is freedom of conscience, liberty of expression and the free exercise of religion. This continent was populated by people who surrendered their homes and crossed a terrifying ocean to reach a rugged and inhospitable frontier in order to escape religious persecution and to seek religious freedom.

From its birth, this nation and the American people have offered sanctuary and shelter to persons of all faiths. Our Constitution -- always with the support of our people -- has again and again extended its embrace to the unpopular, the unusual, the unconventional and the unorthodox. We protect not only those who will not salute our flag, but those who would spit upon it or burn it. We regularly pledge our allegiance to a constitution that shelters those who refuse to pledge their allegiance to it.

Far from tyrannizing those who worship a particular God or embrace a particular religion, we protect those who worship any God - or no God. Indeed, Americans have defended with their lives persons whose religious convictions preclude them from taking up arms to defend the same Constitution that gives them the right to refrain from defending it.

It is true, I suppose, that there are many in the Middle East who hate this country for its support of Israel. But how tragic and misguided to despise us for extending comfort and defense to a people who have so long, and so recently, been the victims of indescribable ethnic persecution. Nor has America's support for Israel ever been rooted in or manifested by hostility to the Muslim faith or those who practice it. The terrorists and their apologists have lied about these things, but what is another lie when their goals and tactics are so vastly more evil?

So, while the terrorists of September 11 invoke the name of Islam, that is simply a mask for their hate, envy and despicable ambitions. The terrorists who seek to destroy us do so because America and Americans are everything that their hatred and motives prevent them from being. They are tyrants, and so they hate democracy. They are bigots and religious zealots who persecute Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and women. So they must hate America because America stands for tolerance and freedom and respect for all races, all religions, and all peoples, regardless of their sex, color, national origin or accent. They are despots who will not permit children to go to school. So they must hate the nation that commits vast resources to the education of its children, and whose Supreme Court has said that free public education cannot even be withheld from those who are in this country illegally.

These terrorists can succeed only through corruption, cruelty and brutality. Thus they hate and must tear down America and its system of laws which shields its people from those malevolent acts. And these terrorists can enslave the people they wish to subjugate only by keeping them poor and destitute, so they must undermine and discredit the one place in all the world that stands the most for the rule of law and individual liberty and that allows its people - and the people who flock here daily by the thousands -- the opportunity to rise above all those conditions.

Abraham Lincoln was paraphrasing our declaration of independence when he characterized our nation as having been "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." That revolutionary document set down our collective belief in unalienable human rights to liberty, freedom and equality, the proposition that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, the principle that tyrants who would oppress their people are unfit to be rulers of a free people, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. How can these terrorists ever prevail if these American ideals are not only allowed to be expressed, but to succeed so dramatically, and to inspire so many people throughout the world for so many centuries?

The answer is simple, the terrorists of September 11 cannot prevail in a world occupied by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, the Statue of Liberty, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the White House. They cannot co-exist with these ideals, these principles, these institutions and these symbols. So they cannot survive, much less prevail, in the same world as America and its people. So they must try to destroy America, and the principles for which it stands.

We do not claim that America has been or is today without imperfections and shortcomings. Our constitution was undeniably flawed at its origin. Implementation of our lofty ideals has never been without error, and some of our mistakes have been shameful. But the course of our history has been constant, if occasionally erratic, progress from the articulation of those lofty ideals to the extension of their reality to all our people - those who were born here and those, from hundreds of diverse cultures, who flock to the American soil because of those principles and the opportunities they promise.

Reflect on the fact that there is no segment or class of the world's peoples who have exclusive claim on the term "American," and no segment of the world's population to whom that claim has been denied. We welcome 100,000 refugees per year into this country. Over 650,000 people immigrated legally to America in the most recent year for which we have reliable statistics. Over 5,000,000 people are in this country today who were so desperate to come here that they did so illegally.

There are more Jews in New York city than in Israel. More Poles in Chicago then any city in the world except Warsaw. America is home to 39 million Irish-Americans, 58 million German-Americans, 39 million Hispanic-Americans and nearly a million Japanese-Americans. And there are seven million Muslims in America, nearly the population of New York City.

How tragic it is that the agents of the September 11th terrorist acts were people whom we welcomed to this country, and to whom we extended all of our freedoms, the protections of all of our laws, and the opportunities this country affords to everyone to travel, work and live. But, we welcome immigrants because nearly all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here to enjoy America's freedoms, rights, liberties, and the opportunity, denied elsewhere, to pursue happiness and prosperity. People from all places on the globe give our country its identity, its diversity and its strength.

Ronald Reagan often said that "every once in a while, each of us native born Americans should make it a point to have a conversation with someone who is an American by choice." "A few years back," he said, "a woman who had fled Poland wrote a letter and said: 'I love America because people accept me for what I am. They don't question my ancestry, my faith, my political beliefs . . . . I love America because America trusts me.'"

President Reagan was also fond of quoting from a letter he had received from a man who wrote, "You can go to live in Turkey, but you can't become a Turk. You can't go to live in Japan and become Japanese, [and so on for Germany, France, etc.] But . . . Anyone from any corner of the world can come to America and be an American."

So it is particularly sad and a bitter irony that the 19 savages who took the lives of thousands of Americans on September 11 were able to come here because we welcomed them, and trusted them, and allowed them to learn to fly our airplanes and the freedom to travel. And they took these precious gifts and turned them into instruments of hatred and death. How perverse and twisted. How incredibly sick they must have been - that not one of them had a moment of conscience after all that time in this beautiful and free country. Everywhere they looked they saw Americans and immigrants to America, at work and at play exercising the freedoms and opportunities that this country offers unstintingly to everyone, including them. But their hatred was so intense, their malignancy so advanced, that they never, as far as we know, even for a moment, paused to reconsider the despicable, unconscionable and evil acts they planned to inflict on the people they were walking, working and living amongst.

It has, I suppose, always caused some resentment that we believe so passionately and so unquestioningly that freedom, equality, liberty, democracy and the rule of law are concepts and rights that should belong to all people. But how can that be seen as arrogance, as some have called it? I simply cannot accept that. What can possibly be wrong with the aspiration that moved the founders of this country to believe that people are entitled to self-determination, the right to chose their system of government, the right to freedom within an orderly and secure society, and the maximum liberty to pursue happiness and fulfillment? We know that these are enduring values. We can debate nearly everything else, but we don't need to debate that. We know that these principles lift everyone up. And we know that these principles are only questioned by those who would seek to advance their own twisted agendas by withholding freedom, liberty and prosperity from others.

We have now been reminded, in the most horrible way, that there are those who not only hate our principles, but who would dedicate their lives - and surrender their lives - to banish those ideals and the incentives they provide for tyrannized and impoverished people everywhere to do what Americans did in 1776.

We have tragically learned again, in the most unthinkable fashion, that our values and our principles are neither self-executing nor self-sustaining, and that we must sacrifice and fight to maintain what our forebears sacrificed and fought to bequeath to us.

And now the rest of the world is learning again that Americans will not flinch from that fight or tire of it. Americans will fight, they will sacrifice, and they will not give up or leave the job unfinished. This war is for all living Americans. It is for the parents, grandparents and great grandparents that fought and sacrificed to come here. And it is for our children and generations to come. And it is for those who choose to become Americans in the future.

America will not lose this war because we cannot tolerate, we cannot contemplate, we cannot even consider that we will lose what centuries of Americans fought to create, improve and maintain. We cannot, and we will not, betray the people who gave us this glorious heritage. We cannot and will not, dishonor or wash away the memories of those who somehow clawed their way out of poverty, tyranny and persecution to come to this country because it was America, and because they were willing to risk death to become Americans, and to give their children and grandchildren the opportunity and freedom and inspiration that makes this place America. Americans could no longer call themselves Americans if they could walk away from that legacy.

People who write regularly for newspapers and who offer opinions on television, or who send advice to us from other parts of the world, sometimes say that America is too rich, lazy, complacent, frightened, soft and enervated to fight this fight. That we have no stamina, strength, will, patience, or steel. That we will collapse.

They are so wrong. We will prevail for the very reason that we have been attacked. Because we are Americans. Because the values that made us free, make us strong; because the principles that made us prosperous, make us creative, resourceful, innovative, determined and fiercely protective of our freedoms, our liberties and our rights to be individuals and to aspire to whatever we choose to be. Those values and those characteristics will lift us and will defeat the black forces who have assaulted our ideals, our country and our people.

The very qualities that bring immigrants and refugees to this country in the thousands every day, made us vulnerable to the attack of September 11, but those are also the qualities that will make us victorious and unvanquished in the end. These dreadful, despicable people have hurt us, but they can never conquer us.

So let me return to Barbara Olson. So many people loved and admired Barbara. But whether you loved and admired her values, her spunk, her energy, her passion, her courage, her unconquerable spirit, or her incredible warmth, whether you knew it or not, underneath it all, you admired and were captivated by Barbara because she was pretty darn close to being a quintessential American.

Barbara was a Texan, from a family whose ancestors came to this country from Germany. She went to the all-American University of Texas and also a Catholic college, St. Thomas in Houston. She became a professional ballet dancer in San Francisco and New York because of the beauty of dance, the rigor of its discipline, and because you have to be extraordinarily tough and ambitious to do it. And Barbara was extraordinarily tough and ambitious.

But she always wanted to be a lawyer and to be involved in politics. In order to afford law school, she invented a career out of whole cloth in Hollywood because that, she determined, was the fastest way to earn the money she needed. It did not matter in the slightest to Barbara that when she went to Hollywood she knew absolutely nothing about the motion picture and television industry. And, in fact, it really didn't matter because, as she later explained to the unwitting producer who gave her her first job, she was a fast-learner. And, of course, she succeeded. She turned down the last job she was offered in Hollywood because she had finally earned enough money to go to law school, and they were offering her so much money she did not want to be so tempted to forego her dream to be a lawyer.

She went to Cardozo Law School at Yeshiva University in New York, not necessarily the obvious choice for a blond Catholic girl from Texas. She was even told that she would never fit in, and that she would be miserable. But the people who told her that really did not know Barbara. She thrived at Cardozo as she had thrived at St. Thomas and in the ballet and in Hollywood. She loved the people, the classes, the professors, and she was a huge success, popping up for one reason or another with embarrassing frequency on the cover of Jewish Weekly.

Barbara created a Federalist Society chapter at Cardozo because she believed in the Society's principles - and it only served to goad her on that almost no one at Cardozo shared her political views. In her third year of law school, she somehow managed to finesse herself into an internship with the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice in Washington. And, as a very brassy and gusty intern, she managed to be the only employee of the government of the United States willing, feisty and fearless enough to personally serve the papers on the PLO mission to the United Nations in New York announcing that it was being expelled from this country -- because they were terrorists. How Barbara loved to tell that story to her friends at Cardozo!

She turned down jobs with the finest law firms in New York to come to Washington where, it seems, she was always destined ultimately to be. In rapid succession, she succeeded as a lawyer in private practice, as a hot and very successful federal prosecutor, as Deputy General Counsel to the House of Representatives, and as a top Congressional investigator, television personality and lobbyist.

It was typically Barbara that when Al Regnery suggested that she write a book about Hillary Rodham Clinton, she literally jumped at the chance. She told me at the time that she wasn't sure that she was a writer, but a friend of ours told her that she didn't have to be a writer to be an author. So, with her legendary energy and limitless self-confidence, she poured herself into the book, finished it in nine months and, against seemingly insurmountable odds, without any previous experience with serious writing, climbed onto the New York Times best seller list during the heaviest competitive time of the year, and stayed there for nine weeks. Ten days ago, her second book, written in about six months and finished just days before her death, opened at number two on the New York Times bestseller list, ahead of Bill O'Reilly, Jack Welch and Tiger Woods. Not bad.

Barbara was everywhere in Washington. A witness for Clarence Thomas at his confirmation, a co-founder of the Independent Women's Forum, hosting Federalist Society members from all over the country in her home, at the epi-center of the travel office and filegate investigations, and the China campaign contributions investigation, the second-most invited guest on "Larry King Live," appearing on MSNBC, FOX, "Meet the Press," "Cross-Fire," "Geraldo," "Politically Incorrect," you name it. Ready to talk about any subject, ready to face down any adversary. She always had an opinion. And she always had that smile.

I could tell you Barbara stories for hours, and I think that you would be glad to listen. But, in short, Barbara partook of everything life gave her. She saw no limits in the people around her and she accepted no limits on what she could accomplish. She could be charming, tough, indefatigable, ferocious and lovable. And all those things at once.

Barbara was Barbara because America, unlike anyplace in the world, gave her the space, freedom, oxygen, encouragement and inspiration to be whatever she wanted to be. Is there any other place on earth where someone could do all these things in forty-five years?

So, sadly, and ironically, Barbara may have been the perfect victim for these wretched, twisted, hateful people. Because she was so thoroughly and hugely an American. And such a symbol of America's values, ideals, and robust ambition. But she died as she lived. Fighting, believing in herself, and determined to succeed. And, if she was the perfect victim, she is also a perfect symbol of what we are fighting for now and for why we will prevail.

[NOTE: DON'T EVER CALL ME THE "PERFECT VICTIM". FUCK THAT] I know, and she knows, that her government and the people of America will win this war, however long it takes, whatever we have to do. We will never, ever forget or flinch. We will prevail for Barbara and all the other Americans we lost on September 11. And for the American spirit for which they stood and their lives embodied. And, most of all, we will defeat these terrorists because Barbara and those other American casualties of September 11, and our forebears, and our children, would never forgive us if we did not."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson

Barbara Olson

• Find out more about navigating Wikipedia and finding information •

Jump to: navigation, search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barbra_Olson.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barbra_Olson.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barbra_Olson.jpgBarbara Olson

Barbara Olson (December 27, 1955 - September 11, 2001) was a conservative American television commentator who worked for Fox News Channel, CNN and several other outlets. She was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 en route to a taping of television show Politically Incorrect when it was flown into the Pentagon in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Contents [hide] 1 Biography 2 Death 3 Memorial lectures 4 Books 5 Notes 6 External links

[edit] Biography

Olson was born Barbara Kay Bracher in Houston, Texas. (Her older sister, Toni Bracher-Lawrence, has been a member of the Houston City Council since 2004.) She graduated from Waltrip High School[1] and earned a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Saint Thomas in Houston.

Olson became a professional dancer, performing with the San Francisco Ballet and the Harkness Ballet in New York City. She switched careers and went to Hollywood to work as an assistant producer for television and movies. As a newcomer, she achieved a surprising measure of success, working for HBO and Stacey Keach Productions. When she had raised enough money, she quit to pursue her dream. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. In the early 1990s, she worked as an associate at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Wilmer Cutler & Pickering where she did civil litigation for several years before becoming an assistant U.S. attorney. In 1994, she left to work for the United States House of Representatives, becoming chief investigative counsel for the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. In that position, she led the Travelgate and Filegate investigations into the Clinton administration. She co-founded the Independent Women's Forum with Rosalie Silberman.[2] She was later a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of the Alabama law firm Balch & Bingham.

She married Theodore Olson in 1996.

She was a frequent critic of the Bill Clinton administration and wrote a book about First Lady Hillary Clinton, Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (1999). Olson was working on her second book, The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House (published October 2001) at the time of her death. She was a resident of Great Falls, Virginia.

[edit] Death

Olson was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 on her way to a taping of Politically Incorrect in Los Angeles (host Bill Maher left a panel seat vacant during the first week the show aired after the attacks), when it was flown into the Pentagon in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

[edit] Memorial lectures

The Federalist Society has established the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lectures, "an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom",[3] held every November. The first lecture was a eulogy for her by her husband.[4] Subsequent speakers have included Justice Antonin Scalia, Vice President Dick Cheney,[5] and Chief Justice John G. Roberts.

[edit] Books

• Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (November 1999; ISBN 0895262746)
• The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House (October 2001; ISBN 0895261677)

[edit] Notes

1. ^ "Waltrip Trivia Page," Waltrip High School
2. ^ "Remembering IWF Founder Barbara Olson", Rosalie Silberman, Independent Women's Forum, December 1, 2001
3. ^ Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture, Federalist Society website
4. ^ First Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture, Theodore Olson, November 16, 2001
5. ^ Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture - Past Lecturers, Federalist Society website

[edit] External links

• Barbara Olson at findagrave.com
• Wife of Solicitor General alerted him of hijacking from plane
• Barbara Olson Mourned at Arlington Service
• Barbara Olson: A Sparkling Celebrity 'Full of Energy' Newsday.com-Victims Search
• Barbara Olson, RIP Memorial essay by Alfred S. Regnery, president of Regnery Publishing

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson"

Categories: 1955 births | 2001 deaths | American television personalities | American murder victims | American political writers | Murdered writers | Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in the United States | People from Houston, Texas | Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks | Washington, D.C. lawyers | University of St. Thomas (Houston) alumni | American Airlines Flight 77

www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=2866

Has Barbara Olson been arrested?

Posted in the database on Saturday, October 08th, 2005 @ 18:18:23 MST (215 views)

by Eric Hufschmid iamthewitness.com

Several people have asked me what I think about Tom Flocco's latest article, and several people enthusiastically told me that the 9/11 case has been solved because Barbara Olson has been arrested.

Unfortunately, his story about Barbara Olson is like his story about the grand jury indicting Bush and Cheney, and the story about the gunfight in the Chicago subway. Specifically, there is no way to verify anything he says.

Christopher Bollyn was living in Chicago at the time Flocco's story came out about the indictment and the gunfight. Bollyn called various people trying to figure out if there is any truth to either story. He found nothing.

Is it possible that what Flocco says is true? Sure, it is possible that Tom has received secret information far in advance of everybody else. But the only way he could have access to such secret, important information many weeks before the rest of us is if:

Flocco is part of the gang of criminals that gave us 9/11 and other crimes.

His source is part of that gang of criminals.

His source is an honest government employee who is leaking the information in order to keep his own identity a secret.

No normal person could possibly have access to such secret, information without inside contacts.

One problem with Flocco's stories is that they are never verified, even after months. If Flocco was getting information before anybody else, then eventually other people would have access to the information, thereby verifying Flocco's claims. But nothing he has ever said has been verified. He announced that Bush and Cheney were being indicted at the beginning of August 2005. How much longer do we have to wait before this information becomes public?

One of Flocco's sources of information is Tom Heneghan. On 19 July 2005, Tom Heneghan and Stew Webb posted a news report that four British secret agents were shot and killed as they were trying to put a bomb on the Chicago subway. Sure, it is possible that this event occurred, but that requires that somebody pick up the dead bodies, mop up the blood, and convince the families of the victims that their missing relatives must have run off to another nation to start a new life.

Examples of this story:

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t39570.html

and

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3388

However, if four British secret agents were really shot to death, that means the murders were covered up extremely well. This in turn means we have to ask how Tom Heneghan and Stew Webb were provided with this information. Only somebody with inside information could possibly have access to such secret information.

Let's assume that Tom Heneghan, Stew Webb, and Tom Flocco are being provided with information by some honest government employees who are trying to expose the corruption in our government. In such a case, those government employees are wasting their time because there is no evidence to believe what they are saying. They may as well tell us that the crop circles in England are being created by Martians. Unless secret, insider information can be verified, it has no value.

Actually, unverifiable information does have value. Specifically, it has value for people who are trying to confuse, mislead, and deceive. For some examples, unverifiable information can be useful to:

Give a bad image to the "Barbara Olson is alive" reports

What if Barbara Olson really is alive and living in Europe? Tom Flocco has just created a story that is being ridiculed by thousands of people. If an honest person announces on the Internet that Barbara Olson is living next to him, most people will just laugh, "Oh no, another of those idiotic, Barbara Olson is alive stories!" In other words, Flocco's absurd story will cause people to disregard the truth.

Give a bad image to all conspiracy theories

Another possible reason for Flocco's story about Barbara Olson is to give all conspiracy theories a bad image.

Some people will notice that none of Flocco's stories can be verified, and they might come to the conclusion that the conspiracy theories are coming from sloppy investigators who are at the intellectual level of a teenager. They will be more likely to disregard other conspiracy theories, such as September 11, the USS Liberty, and the Oklahoma City bombing.

For an example of how this concept works, the enormous number of UFO and crop circle articles on the Internet seem to be an attempt to give the field of conspiracy theories a bad image.

For those of you who believe in UFOs, you've got to face the fact that if there are aliens on the earth, nobody has any serious evidence of them. All they have are photos that show mysterious blobs. And crop circles are real, but there is no evidence that Martians created them. The evidence suggest they come from humans, such as www.circlemakers.org

Send investigators down the wrong path

Another possible reason for Tom Flocco to produce false stories is to send us looking in the wrong direction. For example, in his article about JFK Jr., he blames the Bush family, the Clintons, and the CIA. But what if the Mossad and Army intelligence was involved in the killing? In such a case, the people who trust Tom Flocco will wander down the wrong path and never find anything.

The same may be true with Flocco's story about Barbara Olson. She may really be alive, but she may be in Australia. The people who trust Flocco might look for her in Poland, or in Europe, but that might be the wrong side of the planet.

Or, perhaps Barbara Olson has always wanted to be a man, and in return for her role in 9-11, she was provided with hormone treatment and surgery, in which case anybody looking for a woman would be looking forever.

Sacrifice Flocco for some other agent

Another possible reason for Flocco to create a false story is so that some other agent can expose Flocco. This will give credibility to that other agent.

To discredit Tom Flocco

Some of Flocco's supporters suggest that perhaps Tom is being fed false information in order to discredit him because his other stories are accurate. But which of his other stories are accurate?

It is true that when an investigator is providing information that the criminals don't want exposed, they might try to feed him false information in order to make them look like a fool. But this only happens to the investigators that actually provide dangerous information.

Christopher Bollyn is in this category. Bollyn often exposes important and verifiable information. Not surprisingly, he is frequently contacted by people who try to persuade him to report something stupid.

Tom Flocco's friends are suspicious

Everybody who Tom Flocco considers a source of information, and all the people associated with Flocco (e.g., Sherman Skolnick, Lenny Bloom, Mary Schneider, Tom Heneghan, Mae Brussell, Stew Webb, Stefan Grossmann) must be put into the same category as Flocco. In other words, all of them may be government agents, or members of the criminal gang, or useful idiots who are being fed false information.

Some people have accused Stew Webb of being a COINTELPRO agent. For example, there is a person named Ken Adachi who has a site full of articles where various people accuse one another of being government agents.

Take a look at Adachi's site, and see if you can figure out which people are the COINTELPRO agents. There are so many articles, and so many accusations, that no individual who must work for a living has time to research all of these people and all of their connections. For all we know, Ken Adachi is an COINTELPRO agent, also!

A tangled web of accusations

This brings up an issue that many people that I personally talked to have trouble understanding. Specifically, one way for the government to protect their agents is to create a lot of fights and accusations between them. If a hundred agents accuse one of or two of the others of being a government agent, they will create so many conflicting accusations that most people will be overwhelmed with the complexity. None of us ordinary citizens will have the time to figure out that all of them agents.

To further confuse the issue, some of the agents could accuse some honest, ordinary citizens of being agents. This causes people to be suspicious of those honest citizens. The honest citizens will likely react by accusing those particular agents of being agents. How will any ordinary citizen be able to figure out who is telling the truth?

To confuse the issue even further, some government agents could provide slightly inaccurate information to an honest citizen. The honest citizen will announce silly news items, such as the arrest of Barbara Olson. Other people will assume he is an agent, when he is actually what we would call a "useful idiot". In this particular situation, the real agent is invisible to us; he is feeding false information to the honest citizen.

Is Flocco a useful idiot? Or is he an honest agent who is trying to expose the truth? Or is he part of the criminal network?

My guess is that he knows he is lying to us, but what I do not know who he is working for.

Could Flocco be America's hero?

This brings up another interesting issue. Specifically, some of the people that we expose as liars may actually be trying to help America. They may have been fascinated by the James Bond movies and the Mission Impossible television shows, and they may believe that by running some secret, counter scam they will defeat the forces of evil and save the world. In other words, Tom Flocco and his friends may be honest government employees, and they may believe that my posting silly articles they are going to stop the evil doers.

If that is the case, we are in real trouble. If our government thinks they are going to defeat this criminal network with stories of Barbara Olson being arrested, we have no hope.

Or does Flocco work for the Zionists?

It is possible that Flocco and his friends are actually working for some group of Zionists. The reason I say this is that all of them avoid the issue of Zionism. Most of these "truth tellers" put the blame for the world's problems on the CIA, the Bush family, the Italian Mafia, Great Britain, and/or the Vatican.

For example, in this Skolnick article he avoids Israel, Zionists, and the Jewish Mafia and explains that five U.S. presidents were assassinated for the benefit of Great Britain and the Vatican / Jesuits.

Everything Skolnick writes seems to be accurate. However, he avoids certain issues, thereby giving us a distorted view. For example, in that particular article, he mentions the "French Mafia". However, there are more than just French involved in organized crime. There are also Russians, Canadians, and probably every other race, religion, and nationality.

There are also Israelis involved in organized crime. Meyer Lansky is one of them. In Michael Collins Piper's book, Final Judgment, he shows evidence that Meyer Lansky and many Israelis and Zionists were the masterminds in the assassination of President Kennedy.

For another example, Skolnick doesn't mention that some of Britain's policies are due to Zionists within the British government, so they are more accurately described as Zionist policies, not British policies.

In Flocco's article about the murder of JFK Jr., he also avoids implicating Israelis or Zionists. Instead he blames Clinton and Bush. If Tom was truly an unbiased investigative reporter, wouldn't he at least mention that there are some people who believe that Zionists were also involved in that killing?

The evidence that Bush and Clinton killed JFK Jr. is no better than the evidence that Zionists were involved, so why doesn't Flocco provide us with all of the information? Why is he restricting us to only the Zionist's side of this issue?

I think Flocco is trying to manipulate us. The people who trust Flocco will be fooled into looking at Clinton and Bush for the answers to JFK Jr's death, and they will get nowhere with their investigation because they will be on the wrong path. I would bet that Skolnick is also deliberately misleading us.

I also find it interesting that Skolnick sometimes put the following remarks in his articles:

The Middle-Finger News

Sticking It To The Poobahs

Example: click here

What is a Poobah? Perhaps he is referring to you and me.

While that may seem like an outrageous statement, consider the remark at the end of the television show "Dark Side Of The Moon":

No goy was mistreated during the filming

Or watch the Penn and Teller television episode about conspiracies in which they show a person drilling a hole in a Bible.

All of these people may be Zionists, and all of them may be making fun of us goys.

Zionists are not identical

Before I go on, I should point out that Zionism is not a group of people with identical goals and attitudes. Zionism is just like all other organizations. Specifically, what Zionism is depends on who is in control of the organization. Consider the Republican Party to understand this. There are Republicans who support abortions while other Republicans oppose abortions. Whether the Republican Party supports abortion depends on who gets control of it.

There are also Republicans who cover up the raping of boys at Boystown, and there are other Republicans who want to stop all forms of rape and pedophilia.

Zionism is the same. What Zionism becomes depends on who gets control of the movement. In the case of Zionism, it might depend on who in control of Israel, or the Mossad. Ariel Sharon, Sherman Skolnick, George Soros, and Senator Lieberman may all be Zionists, but each of them may have slightly different attitudes on what Zionism should be, and what the Zionists should do with us goys.

Just as Republicans fight among themselves for control of the Republican Party, the Zionists fight among themselves for control of Israel, America, Europe, and the horde of goys.

In fact, there are some Jews who do not support Israel, and who do not seem to care if goys live among them. Take a look: http://www.nkusa.org/

Did Al Gore win the presidency in the 2000 election?

An example of the fighting is the 2000 election between Al Gore and George Bush. Both Democrats and Republicans routinely cheat in elections, but in the 2000 elections, the Gore supporters wanted us to believe that the innocent, honest Democrats were being cheated in Palm Beach by the dishonest Republicans.

I think what was really happening was a fight between the Bush Zionists and the Lieberman Zionists. I think the 9/11 attack had already been planned at that point in time. The Lieberman Zionists desperately wanted Al Gore to be elected so that they could set up Al Gore to die in the 9-11 attack. Lieberman would then become president, and the Lieberman Zionists would have control of America, and then Israel.

Israel may not survive much longer

The Zionists and Israelis may not be laughing at the goys much longer. The American economy is deteriorating, and the result will be that the U.S. Military will soon discover that its weapons systems are less advanced than those of other nations, and their equipment is not properly maintained. The U.S. Military will also find it increasingly difficult to find American companies to produce their weapons and supplies.

Furthermore, each year Americans bring in millions of Mexicans, Chinese, and other people to become a low-cost source of labor. Already some parts of the Southwest are more than 50% Mexican. A nation will cannot survive when it has the attitude that it is acceptable to use other races for labor.

Once America is gone, Israel will be on its own. The Israelis will find themselves surrounded by angry Arabs, Persians, and other nations.

To summarize this, the Zionists may destroy America before they become established. This is as stupid as a horde of ticks sucking so much blood out of their host that the host dies.

Will the Zionists try to save the day for themselves with another fake terrorist attack? Will they make one final attempt to get control of America and destroy the Arabs?

Or are the Zionists planning to set Bush and Cheney up to take the blame for 9/11? Are the Zionists truly holding Barbara Olson in a jail somewhere? Will the Zionists soon provide their Flocco puppet with the actual location of Barbara Olson, thereby bringing down the Bush administration and the top U.S. Military leaders? Will the Zionists then install other puppets in America?

Or will the situation become even worse for us? For example, George Soros might be a member of the gang that is running the sex slaves, or he might be a member of the Russian mafia, or the Jewish Mafia. What if the Soros Zionists gets control of America? How do we know that group of criminals will be better than what we have now?

For the past few years Soros has been trying to get control of the tens of millions of people who call themselves "liberals" or "Democrats". Do you think that Soros is doing this for the benefit of you or I? Do you think that Soros is truly interested in making America, or the world, a better place?

What if George Soros sets up Bush and Cheney to take the blame for 9/11, and then a Soros puppet, such as John Kerry, gets control of America?

Many of the supporters of Kerry and Soros that I have personally met are the failures of America; they are failures in their jobs, marriage, businesses, and other activities. They have a strong "feel sorry for me" attitude. Some of them are so hopeless that they depend on their girlfriends or wives for financial support.

Lots, probably most, of the supporters of Soros are mental nitwits, and they want handouts and pity, not skills, jobs, or responsibility. They remind me of the supporters of communism in Russia during the early 20th century. If Soros were to get control of America, he would have tens of millions of these nitwits supporting him. How is that an improvement over what we have now?

Most of the Kerry supporters are so incapable of thinking that they did not even notice that John Kerry was not the person they wanted as president. They had originally wanted Howard Dean. Obviously, these people are easily taken advantage of. How could such mindless people possibly make America a better nation?

Even when I point out to the Kerry supporters that Dean was their candidate, they ignore me and continue to support Kerry with such expressions as, "Anything is better than Bush!"

We must face the fact that most Kerry supporters are incapable of intelligent reasoning. I am not saying that Howard Dean is a good leader; rather, I am pointing out that the Kerry supporters are such nitwits that they cannot understand that they are being taken advantage of. Don't make excuses for them; don't feel sorry for them. People who are this easily manipulated are dangerous. And you should not be surprised when such people fail repeatedly in life. They are the losers, but feeling sorry for them will not help them, and it will not help you or me.

The anti-war and peace movements are frauds

The Zionists also seem to be getting control of the anti-war movement, the peace movement, and all other anti-Bush movements. I mentioned earlier in this document that Christopher Bollyn is often contacted by people who try to persuade him to believe something stupid. He is also frequently contacted by people who try to become his friends, or who try to recommend that he considers somebody else a friend.

For example, as of September 2005 (when I wrote this) he has been frequently contacted by a woman named Ilene Proctor, and she has been promoting a man named Brad Friedman. Friedman has such web sites as.

http://www.bradblog.com/

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/

Why would Proctor want Bollyn to become friendly with Friedman? Is Friedman really interested in helping make America a better place? Or does Friedman want to manipulate Bollyn? Or does Friedman want to claim Bollyn as a friend in order to increase his credibility? Is Friedman just another Zionist in anti-war clothing?

One of the techniques the Zionists use to manipulate people is to become their friends, and after gaining a person's trust, they quietly stab them in the back. In fact, David Wolper makes a brief remark about this in his autobiography. I mention it here.

In the long run, the nitwits suffer

Life is a competitive struggle for all animals, plants, and humans. A nation needs intelligent, responsible leaders. Unfortunately, the American voters routinely select between one worthless puppet or another.

America is like a child in a boxing ring, and the Zionists are pounding this child so hard that he is about to fall unconscious. Blood is running down his face, his nose is smashed, and his legs are wobbling, but he thinks he is winning the contest because his coach, a Zionist, is telling him that he is the greatest boxer in the world, and that he is doing a great job.

For more on the issues of deception, consider how Jenna Orkin and other "truth tellers" hide the dangers of the dust at the World Trade Center.

Go to Original Article >>>

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Looking Glass News. Click the disclaimer link below for more information.

Email: editor@lookingglassnews.org.

19 It has been widely accepted that the (alleged) call from Renee May was made on a cell phone, because this is what was stated in a story published in her mother's home town. See Natalie Patton, "Flight Attendant Made Call on Cell Phone to Mom in Las Vegas," Las Vegas Review-Journal, September 13, 2001 (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-13-Thu-2001/news/16989631.html).

However, the government's report on calls from this flight, which was presented as evidence at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, did not indicate that the call was a cell phone call (see United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 [http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html]; this information is more readily accessible in "Detailed Account of Phone Calls From September 11th Flights" [http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html#ref1]). However, even if the government is now implying, as we discuss later, that the call from Renee May was from a passenger-seat phone, the idea that only two people availed themselves of these phones would be little more credible than the idea that only one did.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:2WzAtI34Bq8J:pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html+fbi+moussaoui+trial+cell+phone+calls+FLIGHT+77&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui
Criminal No. 01-455-A

Prosecution Trial Exhibits

Download this exhibit. It is a Flash presentation contained in a ZIP file.
This is a 27 MB set of files and may take several minutes to download

www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html

Stills from the DOJ flash presentation:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html#ref1

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/calls/Flight77/PhoneCalls.jpg

www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/flight_77.htm

Flight 77

Let's start by looking at the key points in the story of Flight 77 as told by the 9-11 Commission Report.

8:20 Takeoff
8:51 Last routine radio communication
8:51-8:54 Likely takeover
8:54 Flight 77 makes unauthorized turn to south
8:56 Transponder is turned off
9:05 AA headquarters aware that Flight 77 is hijacked
9:25 Herndon Command Center orders nationwide ground stop
9:32 Dulles tower observes radar of fast-moving aircraft (later identified as AA 77)
9:34 FAA advises NEADS that AA 77 is missing
9:37:46 AA 77 crashes into the Pentagon
10:30 AA headquarters confirms Flight 77 crash into Pentagon

This completely contradicts the testimony of Col. Alan Scott at the 2nd hearing of the Commission (9-11 commission hearing, 23rd May 2003)

"And at about that same time, kind of way out in the West, is when America 77, which in the meantime has turned off its transponder and turned left back toward Washington, appears back in radar coverage. And my understanding is the FAA controllers now are beginning to pick up primary skin paints on an airplane, and they don't know exactly whether that is 77, and they are asking a lot of people whether it is, including an a C-130 that is westbound toward Ohio."

Download and view the Flytecomm video from http://irvingshapiro.tripod.com/cgi-bin/Flight_93/crashother.avi. You will see that Flight 77 actually did reappear to the West. If this radar track (labelled by the FAA with the Flight 77 data block) is Flight 77, then it cannot have hit the Pentagon. The timeline simply does not allow it.

If you are unable to download the video you can view some screenshots and a timeline here..

If this is not Flight 77 then the only other explanation would be that the FAA somehow managed to either automatically or manually label another plane with as Flight 77. How could this happen? How could the controllers not have spotted that it was the wrong plane for such a long period? Why do the locations of this plane fit so tidily into Flight 77's flight path (the red dotted line in the video)?

Now let's look at some diagrams that show how Flight 77 "disappeared completely from radar".

images/Flight77_radar_midpoint.jpgimages/Flight77_radar_midpoint.jpg	Click on the graphic for a larger image. The air traffic control sector that Flight 77 is shown flying through was using the secondary radar site labelled QHY-E. When the transponder was switched off this, in itself would cause the plane to disappear. If the controller decided to try and find the plane using either of the two primary radar sites QWO-E and QRI-E he might also run into problems. Flight 77 is shown heading directly for the centre point between the two radar sites. A relatively low flying plane would not be picked up at this point simply because of the distance from the radars and the curvature of the earth.
images/Flight77radar.gifimages/Flight77radar.gif	This image shows the official flight path from the Commission Report superimposed onto the FAA map of the radar sites. Notice how the attackers used the radar layout to hide the plane for as long as possible. The white area is a mountainous region that is not covered by primary radar at all. The crinkled edges of the radar are caused by the mountains. Notice also how the attackers came in through the least protected area around Washington D.C. Ask yourself how they knew exactly where to turn and where to attack.
images/Flight77_return_journey.jpgimages/Flight77_return_journey.jpg	Here is an analysis of the official return journey of Flight 77. Note how neatly it flies over the two small airports and follows the green ATC sector boundary after it crosses into Washington airspace.
images/kansas.jpgimages/kansas.jpg	The Detroit News clearly obtained its data from Flytecomm.

www.serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm

My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days. With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My comments and additions will be bracketed thus [...]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep the following in mind:

"Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology." (John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.)

[CV comments:
Gen. Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001 that " ... we've actually moved manpower on the order of about 200 people over the years to the FAA to operate these radars." Cited in "Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets?" Part 2. See Eberhart testimony at
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTranscript.doc
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimony.html]

Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the targets. Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not. You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the way those were flown. A flight computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake. The crash of flight 175 was not a pre-programmed flight computer finding the optimum path. What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.

You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I don't have to analyze that again.

[http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html]

I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash. That's a pipe dream. Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which to leave intact.

• The Hijackers

[Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back," September 17, 2001.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes]

Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes of modern America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player, a forest ranger, a woman police officer ...

But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them." It makes a better story, of course. "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report. They weren't dead. If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane? Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"? But they said, "I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag. It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too. And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet. Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

[http://www.Public-Action.com//911/northwds.html]

And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation. How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy. That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife - she didn't talk to him directly, she just got a message from the answering service.

[The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93]

EXHUME HER BODY

And have Cyril Wecht do the autopsy.

www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6048175&ptBarbara%20Olson

Barbara K Olson

Birth:		Dec. 27, 1955, USA
Death:		Sep. 11, 2001 Arlington Arlington County Virginia, USA
Former United States Federal Prosecutor, Attorney, Author, Television Commentator and wife of United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Passenger aboard American Airlines flight 77. Killed in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. (bio by: Erik Lander) Search Amazon for Barbara Olson
Burial: Ellison Bay Cemetery Sister Bay Door County Wisconsin, USA
Record added: Dec 25 2001 By: Erik Lander

Cemetery Photo

Trinity Lutheran Cemetery Ellison Bay, Wisconsin 1938

Added by: vitalrec.com 8/28/2007

Accuracy and Copyright Disclaimer

http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2007/09/in-memory-of-barbara-olson.html

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

In Memory of Barbara Olson

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4695/878/1600/barbaraolson.jpghttp://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4695/878/1600/barbaraolson.jpg
Barbara Olson (December 27, 1955 - September 11, 2001)

Door County encompasses nearly the entire Wisconsin peninsula.

It's a beautiful place. Little towns rim both the Green Bay and the Lake Michigan shores of the county.

Although I like the lake side, it's the bay side of the peninsula that I love.

From the time I was a very little girl, my family would vacation there. We would stay in a cottage steps away from the beach. I spent hours building sandcastles. I loved playing on the swings. I can remember when my grandpa would gently push me, how accomplished I felt when I no longer needed to be pushed, and how proud he was of me.

Door County was where my parents spent their honeymoon. My husband and I spent our honeymoon there, too.

My children would play on the same beach that I did as a child.

I understand why Barbara Olson loved Door County so much.

She used to appear on Larry King Live from Ellison Bay, a little town toward the tip of the peninsula on the bay side.

Her husband Ted Olson talked about Barbara's feelings for the place on a tribute show that Larry King did in her honor. It aired on December 25, 2001.

T. OLSON: ...[S]he's buried up in Door County, Wisconsin, very close to where she appeared on your show so many times last summer and a couple summers before, because she loved that place so much, and she's there now. Thank goodness...

KING: Whenever we see that scene, when it was not this set, it was Wisconsin.

T. OLSON: Ellison Bay, Wisconsin. She just thought it was so great to be on your show from Ellison Bay, Wisconsin. She was proud of the fact that both Larry King in Los Angeles and somebody in New York and somebody in Washington and Barbara Olson in Ellison Bay would sit...

KING: Ellison Bay, Wisconsin.