Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

If you were going to cut off someone's head, would you use a knife that small? There is a lot of tough, sinewy tissue involved that you would have to cut through, and then you would get to bone.

How could you cut through vertebrae with that little knife? In surgery, they use a saw to cut through bone. They have different kinds. For instance, in heart surgery when they cut through the sternum, they use an oscillating saw, which is like a jig-saw that moves up and down. But, that little knife is no saw. Who would want to do it that way? 

Even if it's possible, why would that be your weapon of choice to cut off somebody's head? 

Here we see the process begin with the killer grabbing Foley around the chin.

Foley is being as still and cooperative here as he would be with a dentist, and maybe more so. He is totally capitulating. He is resigned to die, and he is cooperating with his killer. At this point, why isn't he fighting like a motherfucker? Excuse my French, but I have to use the strongest word possible. At this point, there is no reason to hold anything back. You fight like a dog. Even if it's hopeless, you make it as hard as you can for your killer. You make it as difficult and arduous for him as possible. You get fierce. You go all-out. You go down fighting. So, why didn't Foley? 

Here's the finish:

His feet weren't secured. Although the above picture is cropped, there are other versions that are not.

So, his legs were free. It means Foley could have butted that guy with his head as he rose to his feet, and then he had his feet to use as weapons. He could have started kicking. Alternatively, he could have started running. Was it hopeless? Probably. But, so what? You still try, don't you? Would you actually leave the world making your last act capitulating to killers? And on film no less for all the world to see? Is that how you would want to be remembered? Was Foley a man or a mouse? 

Then what about Foley's speech? He was about to be brutally murdered in the most nightmarish way possible, in fact, beyond anyone's worst nightmare. And yet, he speaks in cliches? Saying: "hit the last nail in my coffin", "signed my death certificate", "that ship has sailed". All these cliches occurred to him when he knew a moment later his head was going to be severed? How could anyone talk like that at such a moment? You might speak in cliches in an address to the Kiwanis Club, but in that situation? No way. 

The Foley beheading was faked, and the only question is: how. What really happened?

Some have suggested that Foley cooperated with them, saying what they wanted on film, etc. in exchange for a quick painless death off camera. But, there is no good reason to give that any serious consideration, in my opinion. That would really be bizarre on both their parts. 

I think the most likely thing is that either that guy was Foley or he was an actor who looked like Foley, but either way, the whole thing was faked. It was just as theatrical as the Turkish tv show. 

But what happened to Foley? Is he alive or dead? I don't know. But, my inclination is to think that he may be alive. And if so,, the idea would be to get him a new identity and a new look, including plastic surgery. 

Does that sound far-fetched? Well, it's not the first time such a thing has been suggested. Do you remember Ted Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States, and his wife Barbara Olson? Both were very outspoken neoconservatives. She was on American 77 on 9/11, and she, reportedly, called Ted from the plane. And then the plane crashed, and she presumably perished along with everybody else. But, the FBI said that such a phone call was impossible, that they never connected. 

Here is what David Ray Griffin wrote about it:

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.”
      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.
      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.”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.” 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.
      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.
      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.”
      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.” 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. 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.
      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." 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”), 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. 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.”
      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.”
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. 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.

Ah, but joy and love came back into Ted Olson's life. A few years later, he got remarried- to a woman who looks uncannily like his deceased wife, Barbara. She looks to be Barbara after losing weight and undergoing some facial plastic surgery. 

 Here's another comparison. What do you think?

There are a lot of people who think they are the same woman. 
When I did a Google search about it, it pulled up over 14,000,000 sites.

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=&ie=UTF-8&q=Lady%20Booth%20Olson%20is%20really%20Barbara%20Olson

You can't deny that there is great similarity in physicality between the two. So, is it just a coincidence that Ted Olson happened to meet a woman who looked that much like Barbara? Is this a case of life imitating art? I am referring to the classic Hitchcock trhiller Vertigo. Here's the synopsis:

• Police detective John 'Scottie' Ferguson is asked by an old college friend, Gavin Elster, if he would have a look into his wife Madeleine's odd behavior. Lately, she's taken to believing that she is the reincarnation of a woman who died many years ago and Elster is concerned about her sanity. Scottie follows her and rescues her from an apparent suicide attempt when she jumps into San Francisco bay. He gets to know her and falls in love with her. They go to an old mission church and he is unable to stop her from climbing to the top of the steeple, owing to his vertigo, where she jumps to her death. A subsequent inquiry finds that she committed suicide but faults Scottie for not stopping her. Several months later, he meets Judy Barton, a woman who is the spitting image of Madeleine. He can't explain it, but she is identical to the woman who died. He tries to re-make her into Madeleine's image by getting her to dye her hair and wear the same clothes as Madeleine. However, he soon begins to realize that he has been duped and was a pawn in a complex piece of theater that was designed to enable his friend to get away with murder.  

So, if that is Barbara Olson reincarnated as Evelyn Booth Olson, as many believe, then maybe James Foley is going to reincarnate and start a new life as somebody else and with an altered face. I don't know if it's true or not, but it's more plausible to me than the story they're telling. Whether he is alive or dead, he definitely wasn't beheaded by the guy with the steak knife.