The OCT is based on a foundation of lies

[NowHearThis]

It all begins with Barbara Olson, wife of the then U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson. According to the OCT, Mrs. Olson was aboard
AA FL77 which is said to have taken off from Dulles airport.

Mrs. Olson supposedly called her husband while aboard FL77 and reported the KEY facts which were used by BUSHCO when it promulgated
the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

Ted Olson said that his wife told him that the plane she was on had been hijacked by some young Arab men wearing bandannas and who
were armed with box cutters. Ted gave conflicting accounts of various aspects of the alleged calls. He said they were made from
her cell phone. He also said they were made from a seatback phone. He said she told him that all of the passengers had been
herded to the back of the plane. He also said that she told him that the hijackers told all of the passengers to call their loved
ones to tell them goodbye.

Regardless of the conflicting accounts of the MINOR details of what she allegedly told Ted, the KEY facts she allegedly told
Ted are what formed the basis for the OCT: Arab hijackers, wearing bandannas, hijacked airliners by using box cutters as weapons.

I've previously posted an explanation of what I believe probably happened to Mrs. Olson and why I believe she was an innocent Patsy
in the 9/11 events. No one has yet to make a substantive rebuttal to that explanation.

I've also said that there is no credible evidence that Mrs. Olson made any phone calls from aboard a commercial airliner on the morning of 9/11. I've challenged the Untruthers here to provide proof of those calls, but so far, no one has provided any credible evidence that supports the claim that Mrs. Olson made any calls to Ted Olson from an airliner on 9/11.

Unless and until it is proven that those calls were made from AA FL77, it is reasonable to conclude that the entire OCT is a lie.

[SDuderstadt]

1. It's kinda stupid to claim the "OCT" is premised solely upon...

Olson's phone call. To create such a goofy strawman, you'd have to totally ignore all the other evidence, but we've come to expect no less from you.

[NowHearThis]

2. One UP, one down. NEXT.

Thanks for playing. Please step aside for the next KFC.

[SDuderstadt]

3. Now you're pretending you won....

hysterical.

[Subdivisions]

16. You believe in the OCT. That makes you the hysterical one. Next. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

24. "Truther Logic"...

if you kick our ass on our goofy theories and lack of facts, that means you "believe the OCT"

[Subdivisions]

26. Don't you believe the OCT? n/t

[spooked911]

4. it's actually not unlike you saying one of the biggest lies of the truth movement is

that AA11 and AA77 weren't scheduled to fly on 9/11.

[NowHearThis]

5. There's a good mind at work. And a voice of moderation, too.

Excellent reasoning.

[spooked911]

8. thanks-- though really your claim is more vital,

since if the Olson story is false, it casts serious doubt on the OCT, whereas is the BTS flight scheduling claim is false, it only casts doubt on one small aspect of the no-plane theory.

[SDuderstadt]

9. For the last fucking time, Spooked...

the BTS is NOT a schedule.

[Subdivisions]

15. Your stawmen are goofy. And stupid. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

22. Please point to any strawman argument I have created and...

and explain how it is a strawman. Can you?

[Subdivisions]

25. Your belief in the OCT precludes that. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

28. "Your belief in the OCT precludes that"

Dude, it's real simple. You made yet one more false claim. If you can't point to a strawman argument I made and explain how it is a strawman, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to simply admit it rather than flail around and pretend you're engaging in debate?

[Subdivisions]

29. DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT SUPPORT AND/OR BELIEVE THE OCT? It's real simple. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. actually, it isn't

The OCT is pretty much a rhetorical confection of its critics. To me, the idea that the OCT depends on Ted and Barbara makes about as much sense as saying that if John Edwards cheated on his wife, universal health care must be bad. (ETA: This is true for two reasons. First of all, neither term is clear. Second, I'd venture that for any definition of "OCT" or "universal health care" that would make sense to their respective supporters, neither one depends on bit biography.)

[NowHearThis]

Does that mean you're an OCT atheist?

nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. I don't even know what that means... do you? n/t

[NowHearThis]

36. Maybe in reality, you're an OCT Frisbeeterian

They're the folks who believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.

[Ohio Joe]

6. What would you consider proof?

Also, what was your theory?

[SDuderstadt]

7. I'll post NHT's "theory" about Olson so you can see how goofy it is for yourself...

and, no, I am not making this up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, NowHearThis wonders why we don't take him seriously?

[Ohio Joe]

11. ahh yes, thank you

I knew I had seen it but could not remember where or exactly what it was.

I will assume the theory has not changed... Based on your theory, the biggest hole I see in it would be, why did she agree to do Bill Maher's show as a cover? I mean, that is where she was going, he left a seat open in her honor for a week after her death. Even if it came up at the last minute, her appearance would have been canceled. I would think though, at a crowded airport, someone would come forward and say "Hey! I was there and that famous person never got on the plane, they left with a bunch of other people instead". Famous people get noticed like that, people watch them for some reason.

Regarding proof the calls were made from the flight, there is nothing that could exist that would prove it. Phone bill? Nope, you admit the calls were made but theorize they were made from a different location. Footage of her going through security? Nope, you place them at the airport. I can't think of anything that might exist to offer you.

Edit to add - After my first sentence, the rest of the post is directed to the OP and not SDuderstadt.

[NowHearThis]

12. Thanks for your comments

You said:

"the biggest hole I see in it would be, why did she agree to do Bill Maher's show as a cover?"

I'm not sure what your point is. If she had agreed to be involved in a mock secret exercise, then agreeing to be a guest on Maher's
show would be as good a cover as any, don't you think?


"I would think though, at a crowded airport, someone would come forward and say "Hey! I was there and that famous person never got on the plane, they left with a bunch of other people instead". Famous people get noticed like that, people watch them for some reason."

I would think that if she was at Dulles and actually boarded FL77, some people would have said that they saw her there.


"Regarding proof the calls were made from the flight, there is nothing that could exist that would prove it. Phone bill? Nope"
Phone bills, credit card statements, phone records at the Justice Dept. etc. are all examples of what would be acceptable as credible (if verified as legitimate) evidence of phone calls from the flight.

[Ohio Joe]

30. No problem

"I'm not sure what your point is. If she had agreed to be involved in a mock secret exercise, then agreeing to be a guest on Maher's show would be as good a cover as any, don't you think?"

No, I don't think it would be a very good cover at all. If I was going on a super secret mission, agreeing to be on a TV show that I had no intention on being on seems like a lousy cover. I would assume you think she agreed to do this super secret mission with the intention on living afterwords, so would she not pick a cover that would require no explanation as to why she was not where she was supposed to be?

"I would think that if she was at Dulles and actually boarded FL77, some people would have said that they saw her there."

Why would they? If I were a witness to a widely reported event and the reports said exactly what I saw... I don't think I would feel the need to say so to anyone but friends and family. If I was there and saw something obviously different then what was being reported, I would do everything to make it known. Here is a suggestion, place an ad on craigslist asking for people that were there that day and saw her, see if anyone replies.

"Phone bills, credit card statements, phone records at the Justice Dept. etc. are all examples of what would be acceptable as credible (if verified as legitimate) evidence of phone calls from the flight."

I don't understand. If you think the calls were made, how does a phone bill prove the call was made from the plane? Even in 2001 you could spoof a number, it just was not common knowledge like it is today. CC? All that would show was that a fee was paid to the phone company that day... maybe the time... gah, I've not had a CC in twenty years, I don't know if they put a time stamp on the bill in 2001. Justice Dept records... again, if you think the calls were made, how does that prove anything?

Two of these (phone records, CC bill) would have to come from Ted. I do not know how he fits into your theory, willing participant in his wifes murder or fool but - If he is a participant, he would not release them - If he is a fool, he believes the calls came from the plane and if anyone tells him "Your dead wife was a participant in 9/11 and then murdered, can we please see your phone and CC records?" I don't think your going to get either the records or a polite response. The justice dept records may be acquired through a FOI request (I'm guessing here, I don't actually know), have you submitted one?

You also throw in here the caveat that they have to be verified as legit. Justice dept first, if you consider them active and willing participants in 9/11, I don't expect you would believe anything they released. Teds records? As I stated above, I don't expect he will ever release them but if he did, how would you determine they were legit?

I really think you need to look for different evidence to satisfy yourself one way or the other. Sitting back and saying "ha! I asked for evidence I knew I would either not get or not trust therefore my theory is correct" will not win many people to your cause.

I suggest looking for witnesses that either saw her get on the plane or leave the airport.

[Subdivisions]

17. You believe in the OCT. We don't take you seriously. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

10. I need to ask a clarifying question here...

are you claiming that no other passengers observed Arab hijackers wearing red bandanas and carrying knives (a boxcutter is a form of retractable knife) other than Olson?

[NowHearThis]

13. Your question is based on a false premise.

I never claimed that ANY "passengers observed Arab hijackers wearing red bandanas and carrying knives".

[SDuderstadt]

14. Simple question...

are you denying that they did?

[NowHearThis]

19. That's already been explained.

nt

[SDuderstadt]

21. No, it hasn't, dude...

You keep ducking the question because it destroys your goofy claim.

[NowHearThis]

23. If you want to defend the OCT, be my guest. Or, rebut this if you can.

It all begins with Barbara Olson, wife of the then U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson. According to the OCT, Mrs. Olson was aboard
AA FL77 which is said to have taken off from Dulles airport.

Mrs. Olson supposedly called her husband while aboard FL77 and reported the KEY facts which were used by BUSHCO when it promulgated
the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

Ted Olson said that his wife told him that the plane she was on had been hijacked by some young Arab men wearing bandannas and who
were armed with box cutters. Ted gave conflicting accounts of various aspects of the alleged calls. He said they were made from
her cell phone. He also said they were made from a seatback phone. He said she told him that all of the passengers had been
herded to the back of the plane. He also said that she told him that the hijackers told all of the passengers to call their loved
ones to tell them goodbye.

Regardless of the conflicting accounts of the MINOR details of what she allegedly told Ted, the KEY facts she allegedly told
Ted are what formed the basis for the OCT: Arab hijackers, wearing bandannas, hijacked airliners by using box cutters as weapons.

I've previously posted an explanation of what I believe probably happened to Mrs. Olson and why I believe she was an innocent Patsy
in the 9/11 events. No one has yet to make a substantive rebuttal to that explanation.

I've also said that there is no credible evidence that Mrs. Olson made any phone calls from aboard a commercial airliner on the morning of 9/11. I've challenged the Untruthers here to provide proof of those calls, but so far, no one has provided any credible evidence that supports the claim that Mrs. Olson made any calls to Ted Olson from an airliner on 9/11.

Unless and until it is proven that those calls were made from AA FL77, it is reasonable to conclude that the entire OCT is a lie.

[SDuderstadt]

27. "Unless and until it is proven that those calls were made from AA FL77, it is reasonable to...

conclude that the entire OCT is a lie".

Another one of your stupid strawman arguments. Since you can't refute the fact that numerous other passengers recounted seeing Arab hijackers wearing red bandanas and carrying knives, you try to ignore that and pretend it doesn't exist. Repeating your claim over and over doesn't make it more compelling, dude.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. What about Renee May? n/t

[NowHearThis]

20. What about her?

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Renee May called family members from 77 as well.

How does she fit into your little theory there?

[NowHearThis]

34. Do you have any proof that she made calls while flying on 77?

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Her mom and dad said that she did. Are you calling them liars? n/t

[NowHearThis]

38. Objection, your honor. Hearsay isn't admissible.

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Really? Show me your hard evidence convicting Ted or Barbara Olson of anything. n/t

[NowHearThis]

40. Ohio Joe is interested in the discussions you had w/dd about...

Ted and Barbara Olson. Could you help him find some of those threads. Thanks. I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. So you have nothing but "hearsay" yourself?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Does that mean you won't be providing anything like what you demand of others?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.