Sex, Lies, and Phone Calls: The Ted and Barbara Story

Of all the curious events of 9/11, none has aroused more suspicion among 9/11 truthseekers than Barbara Olson's alleged phone call from FL77 to her husband, Ted Olson, the US Solicitor General who was at his Justice Department office when the call was made. 

With the release of detailed records of all the phone calls from the flights attendant to the Zacarias Moussouia trial, however, we now know who was lying and who was telling the truth.  Barbara Olson is off the hook. She did not lie; nor did she tell the truth. It is not possible to do either in a phone conversation that lasts zero seconds, which is the verified length of the cell phone call she made to Ted.  Yes the call was made, but was disconnected before any conversation could take place.  [Note that the call was placed at 9:18, twenty-two minutes after the plane's transponder was turned off.  The altitude and speed of the plane at this time are unknown, but it may have been flying low and slow, making cell phone calls difficult but not impossible.] 

Ted Olson came forward a few days after 9/11 and reported conflicting accounts of the phone call made by his wife:

A few days later, he says "She told me that she had been herded to the back of the plane. She mentioned that they had used knives and box cutters to hijack the plane. She mentioned that the pilot had announced that the plane had been hijacked.”..... He doesn’t know if she was near the pilots, but at one point she asks, “What shall I tell the pilot? What can I tell the pilot to do?”....By some accounts, his message that planes have hit the WTC comes later, in a second phone call.  In one account, Barbara Olson calls from inside a bathroom.  In another account, she is near a pilot, and in yet another she is near two pilots.  Ted Olson’s account of how Barbara Olson made her calls is also conflicting. Three days after 9/11, he says, “I found out later that she was having, for some reason, to call collect and was having trouble getting through. You know how it is to get through to a government institution when you’re calling collect.” He says he doesn’t know what kind of phone she used, but he has “assumed that it must have been on the airplane phone, and that she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards. Otherwise, she would have used her cell phone and called me.” Why Barbara Olson would have needed access to her credit cards to call him on her cell phone is not explained. However, in another interview on the same day, he says that she used a cell phone and that she may have been cut off “because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”  Six months later, he claims she called collect “using the phone in the passengers’ seats.”  However, it is not possible to call on seatback phones, collect or otherwise, without a credit card, which would render making a collect call moot. Many other details are conflicting, and Olson faults his memory and says that he “tends to mix the two [calls] up because of the emotion of the events.”      -from The Terror Timeline, by Paul Thompson 

This alleged phone call is the only report in which box cutters are mentioned as weapons being used by the hijackers.  It is also unique in that it is the only report placing the pilots of the planes in the cabin with the passengers.  This report has aroused much suspicion because it seems unlikely that pilot Chic Burlingame, an Air Force veteran, would have given up the cockpit to hijackers wielding only knives.

Since we now know conclusively that Ted Olson is indeed a big fat liar, we have to wonder why he lied and for what-- or for whose-- purpose. We should first consider that Ted lied simply because he couldn't resist. He wanted to project himself into such a major news story out of simple human weakness.  He wanted the attention.  We have all heard stories of war veterans tearfully telling stories of their exploits in great battles-- only to later learn that the soldier in question never left stateside, or never was in the military at all. It is a human need to draw attention to ourselves, and some can't resist the urge to lie to do so.  Is this the trap Ted Olson fell into?

The answer to this question has to be no.  Olson's fabricated account has worked too well as disinformation to have been solely the work of one troubled man.  First, his lie was what introduced the idea of box cutters into the official account.  The official story wanted us to believe in a primitive attack, carried out by fanatics with little or no connections at the airports or in the system at large.  The use of box cutters seemed to reinforce that the hijackers fit that description, especially since it was believed at the time that box cutters were legal to bring on to airplanes.  Later, it was revealed that while the government's rules never did ban box cutters, the airlines' own rules did.  The government ultimately dropped its contention that box cutters were used at all, changing the weapon to short knives.  But by then the disinformation had done its job.  Americans were convinced of a primitive attack by conniving Arabs manipulating airport safety regulations.

On another level, Ted's big lie was an even more insidious work of disinformation.  His obviously bogus account of the non-phone call from his wife has led 9/11 truthseekers to distrust all the accounts of phone calls from the planes, and to even conclude that these phone calls are impossible.  That is truly tragic.  As I have demonstrated in this essay,

the phone calls are not only real, but provide us with the best evidence we have of what actually happened on the planes-- and they do not, repeat DO NOT, support the government's official story.

And so we must wonder, who "assisted" Ted Olson in his fabrication of a phone call from Barbara?  It is quite suspicious that Ted received the call while sitting in the Justice Department building.  We know that the coverup was directed from the office of Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff.  Chertoff, a dual Israeli-American citizen, must be suspected of being one of the arch-conspirators of 9/11.  Did he, or some of his operatives, somehow manipulate Olson, perhaps by whispering in his ear that putting out this "information" would be the right thing to do for the country?

There is only one person who knows the answer to that question, and that is Ted Olson himself.  If we had a real media, they would be hounding Olson now, demanding he explain the discrepency between his story and the actual phone call records.  But we do not have a real media, we have a controlled media.  If we want to understand why Ted told his Big Fat Lie, we'll have to figure it out for ourselves.















Did Ted Olson...

testify to the 9/11 Commission as to receiving this phone call from his wife? If so, did he do so under oath and?

I have not looked for this myself yet though I intend to do so. I would assume that Olson's testimony regarding contact with his wife, who was a passenger on one of the doomed flights, would have been highly desirable by the Commission.

From Thompson's Timeline (tiny url replaces the obnoxious one from above, i hope):

"Ted Olson’s recollection of the call’s timing is extremely vague, saying it “must have been 9:15 [am.] or 9:30 [am.]. Someone would have to reconstruct the time for me.” [CNN, 9/14/2001] "

So Mr. Olson, it seems like this has now been done. I hope that you are grateful to those who have done this for you.

Olson's acounting of the event, as reported in the various media and collected in Timeline reminds me of the Liar from Saturday Night Live.

"It was her cell phone. No, it was the in-flight phone, because she could find her credit card to make a cell phone call. No wait. She called me collect from her cell phone. Yeah, that's the ticket."

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

No, to the best of my

No, to the best of my knowledge, Ted Olson never testified under oath about the phone call. He simply babbled about it to various media outlets. Thus, he is off the hook. He lied through his teeth and now doesn't have to answer to anyone about it. These media outlets should track him down and demand he reconcile his comments to them with the evidence that the phone call lasted zero seconds. But don't hold your breath waiting for that...

Ironically, the conspirators got just what they wanted from Olson's lie. The idea of "box cutters" was incorporated into the official story, though no person in an official position of power ever had to document it. The media did it for them. And meanwhile, also, all the phone calls were cast into doubt, which is a tragedy in my opinion.

Keep me posted, dicktater, on what you come up with when you research this episode.


Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that AA77 did not hit

the Pentagon. Ergo, any cell phone call allegedly made by Ms. Olson was either fake or she was calling from elsewhere.

And just what is this

And just what is this "overwhelming" evidence?

The pentagon was hit by a plane

The pentagon was hit by a plane. Don't be surprised when the pentagon finally releases a video with the plane in it and Mr. Fetzer starts to yell its been faked.

I'm dreading this prediction will come true.

I used to believe that no plane hit the pentagon but Jim Hoffman concinginly proves otherwise. Eye-witness testimony alone is conclusive proof.

It is one thing to say 1 person is lying. It is another to say that 200 are lying, or imagining something and that they "imagined" a plane hitting light poles (backed up by physical evidence).

It is my opinion that the 'no plane' at the pentagon will be used as a weapon to hurt the 9/11 truth movement. Don't assume that there was no plane because there were no videos! Just because they haven't released them doesn't mean that a plane did not hit the pentagon.

p.s. another good entry on the phone calls!

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Yes, Arab, I agree with you

Yes, Arab, I agree with you on every point.

-Jim Hoffman persuaded me as well. He's an excellent researcher. Why don't more people here go to his site and learn about the Pentagon hit? The essay on his site "Sifting Through Loose Change" is also brilliant.

-James Fetzer is extremely irresponsible in his use of facts. Whatever he thinks will play with the crowd, he says. I remember him on C-Span making fun of Mark Bingham's conversation with his mother on FL93. The crowd loved it, but I wonder how offended the Bingham family was. What a great way to discredit the truth movement.


If the plane that was headed toward the Pentagon had flown over the building do you think the people would have been able to see that from their angle on the road?

Or would the plane have been out of view in less than a second from their angle?

The huge explosion and the smokeing hole in the Pentagon would have been a great distraction from a plane leaving the scene.

The angle of impact of that plane if it were a plane in order to hit without damaging the lawn like it did .... would have brought the plane in at a downward angle.... causing the kinetic energy to be more angular and not focus and directed.

There is not doubt that there would have been much more noticable debris.... at the very least the tail should have been present.

No. especially not over an hour after the WTC had been struck. Every person in Wahington should have had their eyes on the skies

We are not being told the truth... however you see it.

I think if they had undeniable evidence about their story.... that they would have released it long ago.

because the people who are digging into this are finding lots of tasty nuggets of information which far exceed the scope of 9/11 and go well beyond what they want anyone to know about their dealings

They don't have it... so they must continue to lie
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

"If the plane that was

"If the plane that was headed toward the Pentagon had flown over the building do you think the people would have been able to see that from their angle on the road?

Or would the plane have been out of view in less than a second from their angle?"

-Maybe some of the people who saw the strike would not have been able to see the plane fly away; but hundreds of others who did not see the strike would have been able to see the plane fly away.

"The huge explosion and the smoking hole in the Pentagon would have been a great distraction from a plane leaving the scene."

-Sure it would have been. But enough of a distraction to completely fool hundreds of people into completely missing a 757 fly off into the blue yonder? If you were planning this operation, would you want to take that kind of chance?

"The angle of impact of that plane if it were a plane in order to hit without damaging the lawn like it did .... would have brought the plane in at a downward angle.... causing the kinetic energy to be more angular and not focus and directed."

-I agree that the nose of the plane would have been adjusted downward to compensate for "ground effect" and avoid crashing into the lawn. But by how many degrees would the nose have had to be lowered? Can you honestly say you know what the impact hole should have looked like based on this?

"There is not doubt that there would have been much more noticable debris.... at the very least the tail should have been present."

-Why couldn't the tail have followed the rest of the plane into the building? Again, how can we be confident that we know the impact hole should be different than what it is?

"We are not being told the truth... however you see it."

I agree with you 100% there. But that does not mean the government is lying about every single thing they say. They're lying about Hani flying the plane. But when they tell us AAL77 hit the Pentagon, they're telling the truth.

"I think if they had undeniable evidence about their story.... that they would have released it long ago."

-No, they wouldn't have. It is working too well for them, to suppress the evidence, and send honest truthseekers like yourself on a wild goose chase. And it makes us look silly, trying to refute something that is self-evident.

"They don't have it... so they must continue to lie"

-They do have it, but they'd rather withhold it. Then they don't have to lie. They can just sit back while we make up all sorts of bizarre scenarios right out of the X-files TV show.


There are people who spotted a plane making strange manouvers over DC on 9/11.

What would have been their motivation from day one not to release the video? To try and get people to start with the conspiracy theories? Come on. Why would they release anything at all then?

The tipping of the nose of the plane downward to strike the building would have been at least ten degrees.... at the very least.... probably more.... which would have significantly altered the way the plane would have collided into the building.

Tipping the nose down would have caused the plane to roll forward as it collided instead of creating a straight line penetration like a low cruising missle could easily do.

a ten degree forward tilt would have left the tail of the plane quite a bit higher than the penetration point... the forward momentum would have left it much higher on the side of the building as it crashed.

the forward tilt should have causes a visibly oval penetration hole as well. and if the engine caused the exit hole then it would have had to enter the building somewhere ..... where? the alleged penetration hole?

Those engines would have hit the face of the building long before the wings would have had a chance to fold back like they are trying to say... and if they had folded back then the engines would have been going backwards.... not forwards with enough energy to cause the penetration.

YOu are either shilling or grossly misdirected
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Well, I'm definitely not

Well, I'm definitely not shilling. You have to admit most of your analysis is based on what should have happened involving a 757 crashing into a building at close to 500mph.

How do you know so much about such crashes? Is there another crash similar to this one-- a 757 @ 500mph crashing into a reinforced building-- that you are referencing? Where did you get your expertise on crash scenarios?

I'm basing my thoughts on Jim Hoffman's analysis. I'm not an engineer, but he is:

I challenge you to read these essays and rebut them. Also, please direct me to any analysis that backs up your contentions, and I will read them. But please, not Loose Change or In Plane Site or any other amateur productions by people out to make a quick buck.


Most of what I bring to the table is my architectural knowledge and conceptual physics schooling along with my common sense and visualization skills. Beyond that all I have is a lifetime of demolition fascination... and my extensive research into a bunch of subjects that very few people explore.

In many ways I'm a genius and in many others I'm not.

I can visualize the wings folding backwards.... I can see that if that were to happen the the wings momentum would be moving away from the path of the penetration.... thus the engine would be doing the same....

engineers don't always pack common sense

I know that if a round object penetrates something straight on then the entry hole should be round.... if a round object penetrates something at an angle the entry hole should be oval..... I have seen every episode of Mr. Wizard???

common sense and experimentation and experience and observation??

some things you do not need to be an engineer to understand
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

See Hoffman's research

I suggest that you look at Hoffman's research. Eyewitness testimony shows that the plane did NOT hit the ground before it crashed into the pentagon. Therefore no plane marks on the lawn would be mostly expected.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding that many have about the expectation of plane debris. Jim Hoffman discusses this issue as well. And, there is plane debris. Just very small pieces as well as some larger pieces. There is photographic evidence.

I also recommend Hoffman's analysis of Loose Change which convincingly proved to me that a plane hit the pentagon.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I will look at it

Ignorance is NOT Bliss