Funny thing about the truth: it never has to remember, it is simply and transparently self-evident.
Lies, on the other hand – among other sinister elements – are opaque veils which require a near-photographic sense of memory to keep quilted together, an ability which most do not possess, including those employed by the MSM.
Rather than delivering news and information, the true business of the MSM is the formulation of perception management. Their job, primarily through repetition, is to make the public believe in stories which, when put under the glare of objective scrutiny, often prove to be massive deceptions.
Time and again, the MSM are prone to the retelling and even refashioning of their deceptions, and they will stick to the task at hand, no matter how absurd those particular deceptions happen to appear. Oftentimes, those charged with the responsibility of retelling deceptive stories are caught in blatant contradictions, contradictions which cannot be undone by any amount of media spin.
Such proves to be the case, when put under greater scrutiny, with the grand story of Barbara Olson – alleged to have occurred on that fateful day of September 11, 2001.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?165914-2/news-review
Have you ever suffered the frustration of observing a familiar face but, for reasons unknown, could never place it? Upon observing the faces of both the “late” Barbara Olson and her husband, I became immediately stricken with the sense, they both looked very familiar, indeed.
WAS BARBARA OLSON’S PHONE CALL NOTHING MORE THAN A PHANTOM?
It is alleged CNN and Fox news commentator Barbara Olson, on the morning of September 11, 2001, boarded American Airlines Flight 77, on route to a taping of Bill Maher’s television show, Politically Incorrect. While on route to Los Angeles, California from Dulles International Airport, her flight was reportedly hijacked by Saudi Arabian terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda, wielding box cutters. Olson’s official story also alleges she planned to board the flight to California on the 10th of September, but changed her mind. According to Wikipedia, Olson “waited until the next day so that she could wake up with her husband on his birthday, September 11.”
Regarding al-Qaeda, it has already been determined, they were a counterfeit terrorist group; a holographic counter-intelligence structure which, like a similar and more recent incarnation of same, called “ISIS”, was created by the international intelligence octopus (CIA/MI6/Mossad/Stasi, etc. etc.) as a geopolitical perception management tool.
These counter-intelligence structures are routinely engineered to appear to the general public as a plausible casus belli further justifying the additional siphoning of tax dollars towards the US corporation’s military budget expenditures.
In turn, these additional expenditures not only facilitate the goals of predetermined geopolitical agendas, but ensure ample security and adequate protection are always provided for the vast global financial assets of the thirteen, ruling elite Jesuit families.
History has provided us with numerous such scenarios, all of which have been similarly fabricated: 1.) The sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor, prior to the Spanish-American war in 1898, 2.) The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, prior to World War I, 3.) The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, prior to America’s involvement in the second world conflict, and 4.) The Gulf of Tonkin incident, prior to the massive escalation of America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia during the mid 1960’s.
SEE: “Al-Baghdadi” story big Bag of Lies?
The story of Barbara Olson was manufactured as an emotional and psychological manipulation, designed to both conciliate and distract the American general public in the wake of the 2000 election scandal, and to entice their accordance with the goals of American foreign policy. Barbara Olson’s official story further alleges, she made a mid-air phone call to her husband, just before her flight aboard an American Airlines 757 crashed into the Pentagon, near Washington’s District of Columbia.
Over the span of years, much discussion has been bandied about regarding the authenticity of Olson’s phone call to her husband, just before her flight was alleged to have crashed into the Western side of the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, on the morning of September 11, 2001 at 9:37, a crash which allegedly resulted in 64 fatalities, including Olson, 6 crew members, and five hijackers .
Surely, you’ve already noticed the numerological markers represented by the official statistics of the alleged air crash: 1.) Time of the crash: 9:37 (3 7’s/777/intelligence joker code), 9=6 (occult mirrored reversal)=33/high-degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry, 2.) number of official fatalities: 64 (6X4=24/6/33).
During the years following the events of September 11, 2001, Olson’s name was added to the National September 11 Memorial, where it was etched onto Panel S-70, facing the south side of Washington’s reflecting pool.
The number on Olson’s memorial panel represents more evidence of deliberate gematria coding: S(19/Jesuit sun #)+7(Kabbalah Zayin, the hook)=26/2X6=12/21/777/intelligence joker code.
It is also alleged that Olson’s assigned seat while aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was numbered 3E (3/occult mirrored reversal) which, of course, equals 33. On September 11, Barbara’s husband,Ted Olson, turned 61 years-of-age (7/Kabbalah Zayin, the mind weapon61=16/88/aces and eights/mark of the Jesuit order). The numerical marking assigned to the plane alleged to have crashed into the Pentagon provides us with another telltale code. Officially, the plane which struck the west side of the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-223.
223 is a number commonly associated with Yale’s Skull and Bones, the, by now, infamous Brotherhood of Death fraternity.
DID TED OLSON FOLLOW FBI SCRIPT?
Regarding Barbara Olson’s alleged phone call prior to the crash of her hijacked American Airlines flight, the official testimonies subsequently offered by Olson’s surviving husband, attorney Ted Olson, would be found to differ from previous accounts and contradict one another on numerous occasions.
On the very afternoon of September 11, 2001, the FBI conducted an official interview with Ted Olson. It is far more likely, the interview was a formal debriefing, to ensure “Ted” knew and would stick to the official talking points of his assigned script. Even considering this, Olson was still found to have later deviated. Or, were his deviations and misremembrances also part of the script?
According to the FBI’s official transcript of the interview conducted with “Ted Olson”, “Barbara Olson’s cell phone number is (202) 365-5889. {Ted} Olson doesn’t know if the calls were made from her cell phone or the telephone on the plane. She always has her cell phone on her.”
Merely one day later, however, during an interview with CNN on the 12th of September, Ted Olson’s confused recollection of the tragic incident – as to whether his wife Barbara used the phone on the plane or her cellphone to contact him – seemed to have been gifted with sudden clarity.
“Her husband said she called him twice on a cellphone from American Airlines Flight 77, which was on route from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles.” CNN archives, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/
But at the very beginning of 2002, Ted Olson’s memory was amended yet again, and during an interview conducted by Toby Harnden of The Telegraph, he claimed Barbara had called him twice on the morning of September 11, using “the phone in the passengers’ seats”.
“She 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.”
In addition to Olson’s contradictory statements, there is also another consideration which helps to bring forth further doubt upon the dubious hijacking scenario of American Airlines Flight 77 deviously spun by the MSM. Does it seem even remotely likely, the hijackers, while in complete control of the commercial airliner, would have allowed the passengers’ any outside communication – whether via cellphone or otherwise – for fear some of them may have attempted to alert proper authorites, thus jeopardizing the success of their mission and the covert goals associated with it?
Olson’s statements and recollections were later contradicted by an official statement delivered from American Airlines. Olson’s certainty as to his wife’s communication via air phone seemed to have been completely repudiated by Chad Kinder, an American Airlines spokesperson from Customer Relations:
“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 calls during the terrorist attack. However, the pilots are able to stay in contact with the Air Traffic Control tower.”
But the integrity of Olson’s testimonies suffered even further damage when, in 2006, the FBI released an official report stating that Barbara Olson had attempted to make only one phone call from flight 77 which went completely unconnected.
SEE: https://www.globalresearch.ca/phone-calls-from-the9-11-airliners/16924/amp
Turns out, not only have Ted Olson’s statements regarding his wife’s phone calls on September 11, 2001 proved to be fraudulent, but both he and his wife are fabricated media-driven characters hiding behind masks. These findings are not unsurprising, given, we have discovered the MSM has always managed to successfully bottle, market, and sell such putrid flatulence to the general public disguised as golden nectar.
In fact, when analyzing the true significance of the alleged crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 from a purely occult perspective, what the public observed through the medium of their television screens on that day was a massive occult/freemasonic ritual, one which was fully engineered with their cooperative participation in mind. There was a specific reason, after all, flight 77 hit the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and, as we shall soon observe, that reason derived from the requirements of a deliberately staged occult/freemasonic mass ritual.
IS THE PENTAGON AN OCCULTED MAGICAL TALISMAN?
The Pentagon, located in Arlington, Virginia is, of course, five sided. But so isn’t a pentagram, which is often used in the service of occult rituals. The same design is often observed when compared to well-known corporate logos, as can be seen at the following image links, provided below:
The Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia:
Chrysler corporate logo:
Texaco corporate logo:
Heineken corporate logo:
After clicking the second link, which provides an aerial view of the Pentagon, you will notice the footpaths of the inner courtyard are configured – comparative to the design of the featured corporate logos – into the image of a star. Flight 77 was alleged to have struck the western side of the Pentagon’s structure, in the exact location where the two points of the star would be observed pointing up. This, according to master occultist and French freemason, Eliphas Levi, holds great occult significance to the Left Hand Path black magician wishing to invoke or attract evil spirits to perform special work on his behalf:
“The pentagram, with two horns in the ascendant, represents Satan, or the goat of the Sabbath, and with the single horn in the ascendant, it is the sign of the Savior. It is the figure of the human body with the four members and a point representing the head; a human figure-head downward naturally represents the demon, that is, intellectual subversion, disorder, and folly.”
Not yet convinced the event which took place on September 11, 2001 at the Pentagon involving American Airlines Flight 77 was, in fact, an elaborately staged occult/freemasonic ritual?
Well then, let’s read what high-degree freemason and occultist, Manly P. Hall once wrote:
“The pentagram is used extensively in black magic, but when so used its form always differs in one of three ways: The star may be broken at one point by not permitting the converging lines to touch; it may be inverted by having one point down and two up; or it may be distorted by having the points of varying lengths. The black magician cannot use the symbols of white magic without bringing down upon himself the forces of white magic, which would be fatal to his schemes. He must therefore distort the hierograms so that they typify the occult that he himself is distorting the principles for which the symbols stand. Black magic is not a fundamental art. Therefore it has no symbols of its own. It merely takes the emblematic figures of white magic, and by inverting and reversing them signifies that it is left-handed.”
These explanations, provided by highly-regarded occultists, provide more than adequate insights into why American Airlines Flight 77 was designed to hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 when and where it did. This predetermined event was an occult ritual, designed to engage, involve, and exploit the unwitting psychological energies of the American general public, and to foster its eventual mass participation.
MSM “CRASH” FOOTAGE CGI MORPHING
By the time the MSM got around to releasing footage of what was alleged to have been the Pentagon crash site, the emotional investment of the American general public was such that, they failed to notice the glaring anomalies of what was being demonstrated to them. In fact, when observed with a cold and objective eye, none of the footage or photographs of the alleged crash site at the Pentagon from September 11, 2001 clearly or conclusively demonstrate any evidence its western partition had suffered damage – collateral or otherwise – which would be expectantly consistent with an aircraft the size of a Boeing 757 passenger jet.
But, the public’s minds had already been prepared for what it thought it should see.
Once again, the MSM – monopolized by the thirteen families – effectively employed the psychological power of suggestion, combined with creative CGI morphing and photo shop image manipulation. While the collapse of the twin towers and Building #7 were simply real-time controlled demolitions, the footage of the “planes” alleged to have struck the Twin World Trade Center buildings were examples of CGI image morphing dubbed in post-production, which were then sold to the public as real-time news footage.
The footage shown to the public in the aftermath of flight 77’s crash represented nothing more than what we’ve all come to know as a staged and simulated emergency drill.
But the MSM’s skilled utilization of the power of suggestion, as it so oftentimes does, persuaded the American general public to forfeit their critical faculties and, with the additional influence of social pressures to conform, they bought – as it were – the “official” story hook, line, and sinker.
In the wake of the alleged “terrorist attack” on the Pentagon of September 11, 2001, numerous photographs, of what appeared to demonstrate the damage done to the building’s west wing, were widely distributed. Without exception, all of those official images of the Pentagon’s alleged damage show clear evidence of post-production photo shop image manipulation and CGI morphing, rather than what appears to be the result of a collision with a commercial airliner.
Pentagon 911 damage:
You will notice, in the first image shown, the lack of extensive aircraft debris left in the wake of the alleged crash of American Airlines Flight 77. In addition, one does not need to be a certified fire marshal to wonder why, the facades of the Pentagon’s west wing did not appear to suffer from any significant charring.
The second image appears to be an obvious photo shop, and terribly inconsistent with the details of those observed in the first image provided by the MSM.
Below, is a video link to some footage which clearly shows the area of the Pentagon wing alleged to have been struck by American Airlines Fight 77.
But while watching, freeze the video at 1:16.
Clearly, there is no evidence a plane, the size and dimension of a Boeing 757, struck the building. When you pause the video again, at approximately 2:03, the concentrated fire and smoke appears to be controlled within a fenced-in area which is clearly placed far outside of the building’s walls. The fire also appears to have been deliberately set for the purpose of fostering dramatic effect. Notice too, the fire does not seem to emanate from any sort of plane wreckage.
This is so, because there were no planes hijacked on September 11, 2001. The public was merely led to believe the story through the power of suggestion. Therefore, by dint of logic, there could not have been any airliner collision with the Pentagon’s west wing. Neither, is there any evidence Barbara Olson was even aboard flight 77 and, therefore, could not have – as substantiated by the FBI’s report – made a phone call, while on-board, to her husband on the morning of September 11, 2001.
No folks, Barbara Olson was not on board flight 77, and neither did she die on September 11, 2001, because she never existed.
She and her alleged husband, Ted, were media-driven character schemes, role players willfully participating in the phenomenon we’ve come to know as Post-Modern Reality Simulation.
Nevertheless, Barbara Olson’s host actor did survive the alleged crash of American Airlines Flight 77.
But first, before revealing the true identity of both Barbara Olson and her husband Ted, see if you can determine any comparative similarity between the pitch, nuance, and tone of Olson’s voice and that of a well-known ABC newscaster.
The first video excerpt, below, is from an interview conducted by Barbara Walters (AKA Diane von Furstenberg) with Ted Olson, soon after the events of September 11, 2001. Notice, that Olson’s eyes appear to have been altered, and appear to have been blacked or browned out. They have been altered in post-production with CGI markers. His hair has been dyed, and there has been copious stippling applied to Olson’s facial geometry, particularly around the area of his cheekbones.
The second example, is an except from an interview featuring ABC’s Brian Williams circa 2002.
Are you able to hear the similarities between the voices of the pair of characters? According to voice analysis, not only are the voice characteristics nearly identical but, additionally, the most obvious physical similarity between the pair of characters is with the architectural shape of the lips.
Ear biometric and facial recognition both confirm, Brian Williams (AKA Stefano Casiraghi Grimaldi) and Ted Olson are one and the same. As for Barbara, she was also a fabricated character portrayed by Williams’s spouse, Jane Gillian Stoddard (AKA Caroline, Princess of Hanover).
Barbara Olson:
Jane Gillian Stoddard:
Caroline Grimaldi, Princess of Hanover:
Yes folks, both of the actors who portrayed Barbara and Ted Olson are European royals, members of the Grimaldi royal family of Monaco, one of the most prominent of the thirteen, ruling elite Jesuit families.
Another Grimaldi character! I noticed the blackened eyes and the strange jowls on Ted Olson. Is he sticking out his lower lip too? The pentagon footage was telling. Smoke and fire, but no airplane. Of all psych ops in my lifetime, I find 9/11 to be the most disturbing.
What’s most disturbing about it, is that it managed to fool everyone into mass hysteria, much like what we see today with the climate change movement. The Pentagon footage is a farce, and the photographs are obvious photo shops. The thirteen families have been manipulating human psychology in such ways for centuries. As for the Grimaldi family of Monaco, their genealogy extends back before 1066 and William the Conqueror. Some of it – at least at Burke’s peerage – seems to have been either scrubbed or even deleted.
Yes, it’s humbling to think how much everyone got fooled, myself included. The elites are very skilled in psychology. I’m currently studying their use of NLP which is quite complex. I haven’t gotten deep into genealogy yet, but I’m not surprised that there’s deception there, too.
The psychological manipulations they utilize are outlined in the writings of both Freud and those of his relative, Edward Bernays, who wrote about these techniques are used in modern advertising. Those concepts have merely been applied to the “selling” of crisis events like 9/11, Sandy Hook, etc. etc..
By the way, I’m still studying that video you graciously sent my way. Very interesting – in addition the Greta’s father, the moderator drew my especial interest.
I’m glad you found the video useful. 🙂 I personally find it interesting for the codes they use. For example, near the end of the interview, Greta’s father makes a hand sign for the fall of Satan. Then, Greta ends with the phrase, “practice what you preach” (PP = 77, twin lightning strikes) and her father touches his head, indicating an “enlightenment” ocurred. The whole interview is scripted theater.
Yes, I noticed the coding too. There can be no doubt, the actor is a high degree mason. As I’m sure you’re already aware, there was a “school shooting in Santa Clarita, California today. CNN’s Anderson Cooper signaled with both the 666 and 777.
The best way to delegitimize credible theories or movements that question the official narrative is to pose as respectable commentators and take the more reasonable theories and mix them up with completely off the wall theories. This is what they call controlled opposition.
Thank you for your interest in Newsspell. As to your comment, controlled-opposition – like Brian Williams AKA Stefano Grimaldi/Alex Jones (another hidden European royal) – hide behind pseudonyms and concocted characterizations. As for me, I use my verifiable birth name accompanied by a photograph which can also be utilized for identity verification. You make the claim the content of the article is “off-the-wall” when, in fact, every piece of information presented to support one’s “theories” can also be verified. I believe however, there also exists a word – a legal term – for those who make unfounded accusations while their identity remains hidden behind a faceless icon – slander. Tell me therefore, how such a covert method of operation can be considered even remotely respectable?
Barbara also went on to play Cindy Bachman, who was involved in another hoax. All they had to do was change her voice affectation and probably glued a prosthetic piece on her nose whenever she’s playing Cindy. She also has an older sister named Toni, who I suspect may be played by her, but that’s for later research to confirm or disprove.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Barbara+Olson+Cindy+Bachman&iax=images&ia=images
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDHFt6WPEKY
As for Brian Williams playing her husband, it’s an interesting supposition that’s definitely not out of the table. What especially caught my attention were their ears, which are identical. Plus, we’ve seen these people demonstrate their ability to cleverly disguise their agents as different people, if the CIA disguise videos available online are anything to go by (such as the one below). They also could’ve easily played around with his vocal affectations for his role as Ted Olson, just as they did with Barbara’s voice for her role as Cindy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JASUsVY5YJ8
And as for the veracity of Barbara’s 9/11 phone calls, they’re disproven by the fact that calling on flying airplanes is not only illegal (having been banned by the U.S. gov’t since 1991), but also is difficult to do successfully if an airplane is 30,000+ ft. in the sky. It’s only easier to do when the plane is near 10,000 ft. from the ground. We don’t see this in Barbara Olson’s case, unless we are to assume that her phone calls happened when Flight 77 was reportedly seconds away from hitting the Pentagon and was at or near ground level, which would be impossible because she wouldn’t have anytime left to make calls for help by then, or happened before her plane took off. Knowing the story is fiction, the evidence can only point to the recording having been made in advance in some sound studio somewhere at Langley or the Pentagon and not on a hijacked passenger aircraft.
“In practice, at normal cruising altitude of 36,000 feet (11 kilometers), “if you do have your cell connection on in the air, you probably won’t get any cell towers,” Bilén says. “The cell towers don’t expect there to be traffic in the air, so their radiation patterns are focused on the ground.”
It’s probably only when planes descend to less than 10,000 feet (3 kilometers), as they get closer to landing, that passengers could flip on their cell phones, connect and cause interference.”
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/tech-myths/cellphone-call-on-flight.htm
“Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice must be posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft:
“The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.””
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-22/subpart-H/section-22.925
This fact alone challenges the other 9/11 calls that were reportedly made on that fateful day from the alleged hijacked planes, such as the 13 phone calls made on Flight 93. And as you suggested in your above post, it’s illogical to believe that none of the terrorist hijackers thought of confiscating their captives’ phone devices once they assumed full control over the airplanes.
It appears they aren’t showing my comments again, this time about Barbara Olson and her husband. Or, it’s some technical problem.
I can assure you that it’s not due to anything on my end. I’ve never blocked comments from anyone – even including those from shills. I would suggest attempting to post again. If the attempt fails, I will contact Word Press technical support with the hope of receiving some sort of explanation.
Thanks for clarifying. It’s obvious that they didn’t want my extensive post to be seen here until you came along.
And yes, it’s obvious that Barbara Olson’s death story is absolute BS, as I pointed out in my first post above. It’s also possible that it’s not even her true identity, and the same can be said of her husband, Ted Olson.
Perhaps I might clarify even further. Some information previously published has been reinvestigated and updated in more recently published articles. Nevertheless, I was still able to read your post in full which includes several salient points about the implausibility of Olsen’s narrative. The event known as 9/11 was the controlled demolition of some empty buildings in NYC. The additional narrative details – delivered and parroted in typical melodramatic fashion by MSM news outlets – were complete fabrications, derived from the playbook of a military-styled psychological operation/drill simulation planned well in advance, designed to manufacture the public’s consent.
“Barbara Olsen” and her husband are media-generated fabrications, and their alleged story is a crock.
There’s more information concerning “Barbara Olsen” published at the article entitled Exposing Doctor Fetzer’s Grand Deception.
Thanks for mentioning that article. I might read it some other time.
By all means, please read anytime at your leisure.
Another detail that puts into question the official story concerning the Pentagon is the dubious nature of the DOD’s released security footage, which purports to show Flight 77 hit the building. Not only is such footage blurry enough that you can barely tell whether or not you’re looking a plane, they also appear to have been tampered with or forged.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/9FKPdqXp0R57
Compare this to what’s shown below at 1:45, where you do see a striped plane or flying object a few seconds before the explosion. They don’t match. Which means that, at least, one of them is lying here. Make up your own mind on that.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00&pp=ygUKY2puZXdzb244OA%3D%3D
Wikipedia’s version also contradicts what’s shown in the above YouTube video. There’s no clear sign of a plane at frame 1:26. The only consistency is all version show the same white smoke plumes, which could’ve come from a plane or a missile.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pentagon_Security_Camera_1.ogv
Regarding the Pentagon’s footage which alleges to show the “crash” of flight 77, it becomes quite obvious upon further examination that it was contrived with crude video morphing techniques. This observation, combined in consideration of the fraudulent “phone calls” alleged to have been made by “Barbara Olsen”, the audio from which, upon further examination, was also apparently contrived, perhaps even prerecorded, and the credibility of the MSM’s “official” story crumbles.