Planes and Passengers of 9/11

[Dean Hartwell]

Len, we went to war based on the assumptions that you discuss. We assumed that bin Laden was behind it and that 19 al-Qaeda operatives hijacked four planes and crashed them into buildings and the area in Shanksville.

These assumptions fall short because there are no relevant facts to support any of it – not about bin Laden, not about the “hijackers,” not about the planes and not about the passengers. I have never received satisfactory about the following questions:

Where is the proof of the murders of passengers?

Who was murdered?

How were the victims identified?

Did an independent source confirm the identities of victims? (Yes, an independent source since we sent troops to die based upon the official theory. Our leaders have deceived us into war before. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is one example).

Even if I stipulated to the authenticity of your manifests, how do you know the true identities of all of the people listed? (Operation Northwoods, circa 1962, discussed tactics such as the use of false names in staging an incident that could be blamed on Cuba).

How do you account for several of the “hijackers” reported as being alive after September 11, 2001? (ex: David Bamford’s BBC report of a hijacker, Waleed al-Shehri, in Morocco dated September 22, 2001)?

If there were four hijacked planes, why are only two of the planes listed as having taken off?

I like John Judge, but do you mean to suggest he (or his friend) could not be mistaken or have been given incorrect information about how something was found?

If there was a crime (hijacking and mass murder), why wouldn’t the FBI confirm the remains of the plane found matched a given plane said to have taken off? (This would constitute a major part of who was killed and how it happened).

The links for the Cleveland airport all give support for two separate planes landing at that time period. One was Delta 1989. The other was not. How would people watching confuse 69 passengers with 200?

What difference does it make when these planes were ordered to land? The Cleveland airport believed there was a bomb on one or both of them.

How were all four planes “tracked”?

If the statement attributed to Jane Garvey, which I included in a previous post, is correct, the FAA became confused and thought as many as 11 planes had been hijacked. How could the FAA or other agencies have accurately tracked planes under these conditions? (Note: This comment originally came from Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies, p.4-5).

Have any videos of any of the hijackers at any of the airports ever been authenticated?

The failure of a satisfactory response to these and other questions suggests (1) an incomplete investigation of 9/11 and (2) the legitimacy of at least some theories you do not happen to like.

[Evan Burton]

Points like those above and others are old news and have been addressed many times. The problem will be Dean that when evidence exists contrary to your argument, you will not accept that argument.

For example, passengers were identified mainly through DNA. Now, it's no good just saying "governments lie" (which we all know they do, at times), you have to PROVE the government is lying. Where is your evidence that the passengers were NOT killed, that the identification was NOT true?

It seems that sometimes you are ignoring evidence, or are somehow unaware of it ("dead" hijackers being alive, etc).

The burden of proof is on you, and you haven't presented anything like it.

[Dean Hartwell]

Points like those above and others are old news and have been addressed many times. The problem will be Dean that when evidence exists contrary to your argument, you will not accept that argument.

For example, passengers were identified mainly through DNA. Now, it's no good just saying "governments lie" (which we all know they do, at times), you have to PROVE the government is lying. Where is your evidence that the passengers were NOT killed, that the identification was NOT true?

It seems that sometimes you are ignoring evidence, or are somehow unaware of it ("dead" hijackers being alive, etc).

The burden of proof is on you, and you haven't presented anything like it.

Evan,

You use the statement that "passengers were identified mainly through DNA" as evidence. Len said the following: "...the DNA of all and personal effects of many their passengers and crew were recovered"

But without any indication of who did the identifying, who was identified and how they were identified, I do not see evidence at all. It may well be widely believed that passengers were identified, but that does not make it so.

My evidence of about 200 of the passengers are newspaper accounts of eyewitnesses seeing a group approximately this large in Cleveland later in the day may not be to your liking. However, it is evidence that can be evaluated. Likewise, I have given a source for my argument regarding one of the "hijackers" that may also be evaluated.

Is this a failure of my presentation or is it a failure to observe evidence on your part?

Dean

[Evan Burton]

...Experts from Kenyon International Emergency Services in Houston, which specializes in search and recovery of remains and personal effects in airline disasters, are working in a roped-off area in the white tent.

Kenyon was enlisted after the Flight 587 crash in November, when a few remains did not yield DNA. Its experts started the drying process with those and has since moved on to the World Trade Center cases.

20,000 DNA tests

By the numbers alone, the task has been formidable.

DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have been linked to a single person.

The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.

Using DNA alone, 673 people were identified. Using dental records only, 187 were identified; fingerprints only, 71; photo identification, 16; miscellaneous X-rays, 45.

There have been as many as 10 identifications a day; some days there are none. About 150 people still work around the clock in the sixth-floor lab to run the DNA samples for matches.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/dailynews_halfvictimsidd.html

Experts ID 184 Pentagon Fatalities

News & Media - News Releases

by Christopher C. Kelly

Public Affairs, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology played a major role in Operation Nobel Eagle investigations, officials said. AFIP is an executive agency of the Army surgeon general.

Many of the Pentagon casualties were badly burned and difficult to identify, an official said. Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on American Airlines Flight 77. Only one of those who died made it to the hospital; the rest were killed on site. For some victims, only pieces of tissue could be found.

AFIP's team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators and support personnel worked for more than two weeks in the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, Del., and for weeks at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Md., to identify victims of the attack.

"Our staff represented every branch of service," said Navy Capt. Glenn N. Wagner, AFIP director. "We also received tremendous support from the doctors, nurses and technicians stationed at Dover who participated in the investigation."

AFIP used a well-designed and tested system for identifying the Pentagon victims. When remains arrived at Dover Air Force Base, a scanning device searched for the presence of unexploded ordnance or metallic foreign bodies. FBI experts collected trace evidence to search for chemicals from explosive devices and conducted fingerprint identifications.

Forensic dentistry experts then performed dental charting and comparison with existing dental records. Full-body radiographs followed to document skeletal fractures and assist in identification, followed by autopsy inspection. At autopsy, forensic pathologists determined the cause of death, and a forensic anthropologist determined race, sex and stature of victims when necessary.

An epidemiologist managed the tracking system for data collected during the autopsy process, and tissue samples were collected for DNA identification and further toxicology studies. Forensic photographers documented injuries and personal effects. Finally, mortuary specialists embalmed, dressed and casketed remains.

For eight days a full complement of AFIP forensic specialists worked 12-hour shifts to complete the identification system.

From DNA samples sent to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, scientists there generated DNA profiles of the victims. Their work also included the victims of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County, Pa.

The DNA lab's entire staff of 102 DNA analysts, sample processors, and logistics and administrative personnel worked 12-hour shifts, seven days a week to complete the work.

DNA identifications for Flight 93 victims were sent to the Somerset County Coroner's Office for release. The Department of Defense released identification of Pentagon victims. All but four who worked in the Pentagon were identified. AFIP identified all but one of the passengers of Flight 77.

From the January 2002 Mercury, an Army Medical Department publication.

For immediate release, Jan. 11, 2002.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/afip_pentvictimid.htm

http://www.911myths.com/html/hijackers_dna_profiles.html

Plenty of information out there.

[Dean Hartwell]

You are right, Evan. There is a lot of information out there.

I am familiar with the information from the links you have given. We have, in the “Experts ID 184” writing, a public affairs person for the Air Force Institute of Pathology assuring the public that identifications of victims at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania have been done properly.

You call that evidence, I am sure. That is fine.

My problem with this evidence is that there is other evidence from sources such as the one below that inform us that attempts have been made to get answers to questions through Freedom of Information Act Requests. This:

“request for records establishing the recovery and/or identification of the remains of the terrorists accused of hijacking American airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93”

and

“records establishing the recovery and/or identification of passenger remains of those aboard American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93, who perished in the terrorist attacks of September 11,2001”

was turned down because:

"The review has been completed and the potentially responsive documents are being withheld pursuant to the FOIA under the following Exemptions:

Exemption ((6) prohibits the disclosure of an individual's personal information viewing it as an invasion of their personal privacy; Exemption ((7)(a) which prohibits disclosure of information which would interfere of information that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Additional you request is being denied pursuant to FOIA Exemption ((7)(a) which prohibits the disclosure of information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with an on-going law enforcement investigation. FOlA Exemption (b)7© also provides protection for law enforcement information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of individuals in being associated with criminal activities, including investigators."

What individual’s “personal information” could “reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”? What “on-going law enforcement investigation” was being referred to here at the time of the letter, 2009?

I do not think these are valid reasons to deny the public information about the events of 9/11. After all, they went on to prosecute a war based upon this story of hijackers and victims. So, yes, I think the government is lying here.

http://911blogger.com/node/22200

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Starting with Shanksville and working backwards . . .

Here is a link to killtown's site, which includes some

of the best studies of which I am aware about the

alleged crash sites. I interviewed him on "The Real

Deal", 11 October and 13 October, which he links:

"Killtown"

For more about the Pentagon, for example, see

example, "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon",

http://www.rense.com/general86/911s.htm and

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html

For studies of all four crash sites and related

issues, see my Buenos Aires Powerpoint, "Was

9/11 an 'Inside Job'?", at http://911scholars.org,'>http://911scholars.org,

and also at http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/Buenos-Aires.html

Another discussion of "Are Wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan Justified by 9/11?", may be found

at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ and

other studies of 9/11 at http://911scholars.org

Then try "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11",

http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html

and Leslie Raphael's "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film

was Staged", where I read on "The Real Deal".

Edited November 7, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

Did the FOI request ask what were the methods used? Surely that is the key - or did the requester ask for DNA samples so they could independently check?

You are right, Evan. There is a lot of information out there.

I am familiar with the information from the links you have given. We have, in the "Experts ID 184" writing, a public affairs person for the Air Force Institute of Pathology assuring the public that identifications of victims at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania have been done properly.

You call that evidence, I am sure. That is fine.

My problem with this evidence is that there is other evidence from sources such as the one below that inform us that attempts have been made to get answers to questions through Freedom of Information Act Requests. This:

"request for records establishing the recovery and/or identification of the remains of the terrorists accused of hijacking American airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93"

and

"records establishing the recovery and/or identification of passenger remains of those aboard American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93, who perished in the terrorist attacks of September 11,2001"

was turned down because:

"The review has been completed and the potentially responsive documents are being withheld pursuant to the FOIA under the following Exemptions:

Exemption ((6) prohibits the disclosure of an individual's personal information viewing it as an invasion of their personal privacy; Exemption ((7)(a) which prohibits disclosure of information which would interfere of information that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Additional you request is being denied pursuant to FOIA Exemption ((7)(a) which prohibits the disclosure of information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with an on-going law enforcement investigation. FOlA Exemption (b)7© also provides protection for law enforcement information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of individuals in being associated with criminal activities, including investigators."

What individual's "personal information" could "reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"? What "on-going law enforcement investigation" was being referred to here at the time of the letter, 2009?

I do not think these are valid reasons to deny the public information about the events of 9/11. After all, they went on to prosecute a war based upon this story of hijackers and victims. So, yes, I think the government is lying here.

http://911blogger.com/node/22200

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Unlike Dean, I am inclined to think these were "phantom flights" which had only fabricated passengers. One reason is that a member of Scholars long ago did a study of the 19 passengers who were alleged to have made phone calls from the planes, and found that none of their survivors had received any money from the "survivors' fund" and only one was named on the SSDI.

Since then, Elias Davidsson has explained how the government has never been able to prove that the alleged hijackers were aboard any of the planes, http://newcrisispapers.com/noevidence.pdf , and David Ray Griffin has shown that all of the alleged phone calls were faked, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924

Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret), has observed that, although the planes had (between them) millions of uniquely identifiable component parts, the government has yet to produce even one. And I have FAA registration records showing the planes associated with Flights 11 and 77 were not deregistered until 2002 and for Flights 93 and 175 not until 2005.

So I think any theory about the passengers and planes is going to have to accommodate these data points. When you combine them with the indications that Jules Naudet's film was staged and that there are multiple indications that the South Tower hit was done using something other than a real plane, the problems increase exponentially.

Link to Essay: Misdirection

I wrote the essay above about what I believe happened to the planes and passengers on 9/11. Here is a short summary of my findings:

Bureau of Transportation Statistics records show that only two of the supposedly hijacked flights actually took off: United 175 and United 93.

The other two flights, American 11 and American 77, not only did not take off but WERE NOT EVEN SCHEDULED TO FLY ON 9/11.

None of the crash sites - the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or Shanksville PA - had debris that matched with any of the aircraft that supposedly crashed there.

Eyewitnesses and newspaper accounts mentioned a sighting of approximately 200 passengers at the Cleveland airport after all of the supposedly hijacked planes "crashed."

There is no evidence of any passengers being seen or videotaped in any of the airports they supposedly flew out of.

There is no evidence of any boarding passes for any of the passengers.

Only an FBI report mentions the sale of tickets to passengers, but I have seen no evidence of the authenticity of any tickets or credit card receipts.

There are passenger lists for the airplanes supposedly hijacked, but none can be authenticated and the lists frequently conflict with one another.

My theory: United 175 and United 93 flew out of Boston and Newark, respectively. United 175 did NOT go to the WTC and United 93 did NOT go to Shanksville. Instead, United 175 took the passengers assigned to American 11 and went to Cleveland Hopkins Airport. United 93 flew to a Pennsylvania location. Neither crashed nor was shot down. American 77 never flew. "False blips" were placed on FAA screens to distract those watching and other planes may have been used as decoys. The passengers landed safely and the lists show mostly false names for the passengers.

Do I have the facts right?

What is your theory about the planes and passengers?

Edited November 7, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Evan Burton]

You're the victim of misinformation there, Jim.

The Social Security Death Index (SSDI) will only list a name if they received SS benefits during their lifetime, or if their family send the SS office a copy of the persons death certificate.

Here is an exercise for people: do an SSDI search from victims of ANY plane crash (with American passengers) and compare that to the 9-11 victims.

With respect to the victims compensation funds: did you mention the ones that declined to take the payment and filed their own lawsuits against the airlines? Did you mention that if someone accepts payment, they waive the right to litigation?

Personally, I think it is shameful that some people dispute that these poor people haven't died and that their families must be complicit in some type of massive fraud. Very disrespectful.

[Dean Hartwell]

Did the FOI request ask what were the methods used? Surely that is the key - or did the requester ask for DNA samples so they could independently check?

Here is the complete response from the Department of Defense to Aidan Monaghan about his FOIA request. I have put in bold the words that represent how I believe the Department understood his request:

Dear Mr. Monaghan:

This is in response to your August 28, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records establishing the recovery and/or identification of the remains of the terrorists accused of hijacking American airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93 on September 2001, collected from the Pentagon building in Arlington, VA and Shanksville, PA. And positively identified following the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

You also requested the records establishing the recovery and/or identification of passenger remains of those aboard American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93, who perished in the terrorist attacks of September 11,2001. Your request was received at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology on September 3, 2009, and assigned a tracking number of 1O-W2DL-000I5-F was processed in accordance with the Freedom of lnformation Act, 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 552.

The review has been completed and the potentially responsive documents are being withheld pursuant to the FOIA under the following Exemptions: Exemption ((6) prohibits the disclosure of an individual's personal information viewing it as an invasion of their personal privacy; Exemption ((7)(a) which prohibits disclosure of information which would interfere of information that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Additional you request is being denied pursuant to FOIA Exemption ((7)(a) which prohibits the disclosure of information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with an on-going law enforcement investigation. FOlA Exemption (b)7© also provides protection for law enforcement information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of individuals in being associated with criminal activities, including investigators.

Because your FOIA request has been denied, you are advised of your right to appeal this determination to the Secretary of the Army. If you decide to appeal at this time, your appeal must be submitted within 60 days of the date of this letter. In your appeal, you must state the basis for your disagreement with the denial and the justification for the release of information associated with your request for this command. Your appeal should be addressed to: U.S. Army Medical Command, Attention: Freedom of lnformation Privacy Acts Office (MCPA), 2050 Worth Road Suite 21, Fort Sam Houston, Texas 78234-6021, for forwarding, as appropriate, to the Office of the Secretary of the Army. Please enclose a copy of this letter along with your appeal. To ensure proper processing of any appeal the letter and the envelope should both bear the notation, "Privacy Act/Freedom of Information Act Appeal."

http://911blogger.com/node/22200

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Nice example of special pleading, in which only part of the evidence is citing while ignoring the rest. Burton thinks he can make some cheap shots about the SSDI, when I was offering it as an illustration of why the passenger list may be fabricated. Notice that he does not address the other, more important evidence about the failure to prove any of the hijackers were aboard any of the planes, that the alleged phone calls were all faked, that none of the uniquely identifiable component parts have ever been produced by the government, and that, according to FAA registration data, the planes were still flying long after 9/11--not to mention the extensive evidence the Naudet film was staged and that some kind of video fakery was involved in the tower hits. He thereby creates the IMPRESSION of having dealt with the evidence without actually doing so. This is a familiar mode of op for those who are in denial or want to distract from the truth of 9/11.

You're the victim of misinformation there, Jim.

The Social Security Death Index (SSDI) will only list a name if they received SS benefits during their lifetime, or if their family send the SS office a copy of the persons death certificate.

Here is an exercise for people: do an SSDI search from victims of ANY plane crash (with American passengers) and compare that to the 9-11 victims.

With respect to the victims compensation funds: did you mention the ones that declined to take the payment and filed their own lawsuits against the airlines? Did you mention that if someone accepts payment, they waive the right to litigation?

Personally, I think it is shameful that some people dispute that these poor people haven't died and that their families must be complicit in some type of massive fraud. Very disrespectful.

Edited November 7, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Len Colby]

You are a no planer because you believe no planes were involved in the crashes but since are willing to admit the United flights actually existed if you prefer I’ll refer to you as a 2 planer.

Len, before we go on, I want to discuss this statement that you made (above).

When did I say that no planes were involved in the crashes?

If you mean that I say that none of the named planes - Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 - were involved in the crashes - that is true.

If you say otherwise, I recommend you go to my essay and re-read page 20.

Dean

You think the Pentagon was struck by a missile, no plane crashed in Shanksville and that something other than 767’s crashed into the Twin Towers, thus you are a no planer at the fringes even of the “truth” movement. Do you care to spell out what exactly you think struck 1 & 2 WTC? But in the end your answer is irrelevant because all the problems with your theory that I spelled out in my previous post still apply.

I do need to make a correction not all the people on flights 11 and 175 had remains recovered “By April 30 2004, 52 of those aboard Flight 11 were identified, 45 by DNA. 26 of those on Flight 175 were identified, 26 by DNA” Who They Were: Robert C. Shaler. So 52 of the 87 Pax and crew from flight 11 and 26 of the 60 on board flight 175. This does not include 3 perpetrators whose remains were recovered. They could not be individually identified because the did not have DNA samples linked to specific hijackers.

Contrary to Fetzer’s claims to the contrary there is ample evidence the men identified by the FBI were on the planes including:

1) Their names appear on the flight manifests.

2) Atta and Omari were captured by a security camera at the Portland Maine airport and the flight 77 hijackers were captured by a camera at Dulles. There were no cameras at Newark or Logan.

3) They have never been seen or heard from again.

4) Some of their personal effects were recovered

5) DNA of human remains at the crash sites matches DNA discovered at hotel rooms they stayed at and cars they had driven.

6) The Martyrdom videos

7) After initially claiming his son was still alive Atta’s father told a CNN producer “the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son.”

Dean - The BBC has long since retracted is hijackers still alive story. The people it identified had the same (or similar) names to the men identified by the FBI but were not the same people.

http://911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

Since Fetzer is so obsessed with the serial numbers of the plane parts here is a link to the NTSB database, how many reports can he (or Jack or Dean etc) locate where the serial numbers of parts not suspected of having contributed to the crash are given.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

As for Garvey saying that 11 plane were out of radio contact you have to keep in mind about 4500 planes were in the air at the time so that come out to less than 1 in 400. Someone else from the FAA, Monty Belger I think said this is fairly normal. Another problem with the quote is that AFAIK it only appears in Richard Clarkes book and he made a number of factual errors including claiming people were in places where we no they were not.

[Dean Hartwell]

You think the Pentagon was struck by a missile, no plane crashed in Shanksville and that something other than 767’s crashed into the Twin Towers, thus you are a no planer at the fringes even of the “truth” movement. Do you care to spell out what exactly you think struck 1 & 2 WTC? But in the end your answer is irrelevant because all the problems with your theory that I spelled out in my previous post still apply.

Len: You have stated my thoughts reasonably correctly. So, I do not care what you label me. I do not care to spell out what struck WTC 1 and 2 except that it was not Flight 11 or 175.

I do need to make a correction not all the people on flights 11 and 175 had remains recovered “By April 30 2004, 52 of those aboard Flight 11 were identified, 45 by DNA. 26 of those on Flight 175 were identified, 26 by DNA” Who They Were: Robert C. Shaler. So 52 of the 87 Pax and crew from flight 11 and 26 of the 60 on board flight 175. This does not include 3 perpetrators whose remains were recovered. They could not be individually identified because the did not have DNA samples linked to specific hijackers.

Len: Could you please identify the source on this? Thanks!

Contrary to Fetzer’s claims to the contrary there is ample evidence the men identified by the FBI were on the planes including:

1) Their names appear on the flight manifests.

Len: What is your source for the flight manifests? Is it this one? (From exhibits at the 2006 Moussaoui trial)

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html

2) Atta and Omari were captured by a security camera at the Portland Maine airport and the flight 77 hijackers were captured by a camera at Dulles. There were no cameras at Newark or Logan.

Len: Even if the two were Atta and Omari, how does their presence at the Portland Maine airport show that they went to Boston? Did the camera at Dulles have a time stamp showing the date and time in question?

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=35453.0;wap2

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hani_Hanjour_at_Dulles

3) They have never been seen or heard from again.

Len: How is this inconsistent with my idea that false names were given to many of the victims? Others may have taken on new identities afterwards.

4) Some of their personal effects were recovered

Len: Personal effects have been recovered, but often without explanation as to how they were found. Also, it would have made sense for the government to leave behind some personal effects of the likely few who were going to join a witness protection program

http://www.rense.com/general68/mrev.htm

5) DNA of human remains at the crash sites matches DNA discovered at hotel rooms they stayed at and cars they had driven.

Len: I refer back to my argument to Evan about the refusal of the government to release information as to how the identities of victims or hijackers were made.

6) The Martyrdom videos

Len: Two CIA officials have recently been reported as having admitted to using actors to play the role of bin Laden in a video. There are other reports of fake videos on this topics as well. I simply don’t see the “Martyrdom” videos as strong evidence to connect anyone to 9/11.

http://www.infowars.com/former-cia-officials-admit-to-faking-bin-laden-video/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRJ9mW_hAQ&feature=player_embedded

7) After initially claiming his son was still alive Atta’s father told a CNN producer “the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son.”

Dean - The BBC has long since retracted is hijackers still alive story. The people it identified had the same (or similar) names to the men identified by the FBI but were not the same people.

http://911myths.com/...till_alive.html

Len: Here are links that prove that suspects named by the FBI were alive after 9/11/01:

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/identities.html - Saeed Alghamdi’s “name, place of residence, date of birth, and occupation matched those described by the FBI”

http://web.archive.org/web/20011001123059/www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

Since Fetzer is so obsessed with the serial numbers of the plane parts here is a link to the NTSB database, how many reports can he (or Jack or Dean etc) locate where the serial numbers of parts not suspected of having contributed to the crash are given.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

Len: Maybe you missed the point. As part of the investigation, it would make sense for the authority to match parts of the plane found to the suspected plane to confirm the role of the plane in the incident.

As for Garvey saying that 11 plane were out of radio contact you have to keep in mind about 4500 planes were in the air at the time so that come out to less than 1 in 400. Someone else from the FAA, Monty Belger I think said this is fairly normal. Another problem with the quote is that AFAIK it only appears in Richard Clarkes book and he made a number of factual errors including claiming people were in places where we no they were not.

Len: If the situation was normal, how did our military fail to respond to knowledge about Flight 93 being a hijacking twenty-five minutes before it crashed, as noted by David Ray Griffin? Our military has intercepted numerous flights over the years. If the situation were normal, it would seem that we would have caught Flight 93 (and perhaps the others). This is one reason I doubt the official story of plane hijackings and instead believe our air defense was confused by a story of a bomb on Flight 93. The story turned out to be false.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CMZ12AxBOh8C&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=Monte+Belger+FAA+planes&source=bl&ots=jxdngTkIi-&sig=r_G3Km4FkueYmZQ3LJ89E3r_XxI&hl=en&ei=SBvXTLqmKpGosQOfu_COCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edited November 7, 2010 by Dean Hartwell

[Dean Hartwell]

Unlike Dean, I am inclined to think these were "phantom flights" which had only fabricated passengers. One reason is that a member of Scholars long ago did a study of the 19 passengers who were alleged to have made phone calls from the planes, and found that none of their survivors had received any money from the "survivors' fund" and only one was named on the SSDI.

Since then, Elias Davidsson has explained how the government has never been able to prove that the alleged hijackers were aboard any of the planes, http://newcrisispapers.com/noevidence.pdf , and David Ray Griffin has shown that all of the alleged phone calls were faked, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924

Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret), has observed that, although the planes had (between them) millions of uniquely identifiable component parts, the government has yet to produce even one. And I have FAA registration records showing the planes associated with Flights 11 and 77 were not deregistered until 2002 and for Flights 93 and 175 not until 2005.

So I think any theory about the passengers and planes is going to have to accommodate these data points. When you combine them with the indications that Jules Naudet's film was staged and that there are multiple indications that the South Tower hit was done using something other than a real plane, the problems increase exponentially.

Jim,

You believe that none of the Big Four (Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93) flew that day, while I believe that Flights 175 and 93 did.

If you are to be correct, the following would have be true:

1) The BTS records I have cited are in error

2) The passengers seen in Cleveland can be explained in a way that does not tie them to the 9/11 plot.

As for #1, it would seem odd for anyone "fixing" the BTS records not to have made sure the fixed records accounted for all planes in the official theory. And if the records were innocently mistaken, it would seem likely that the BTS would simply admit that.

And it could be in #2 that the main source of this story, Woody Box, is in error as to his sources or his conclusion, there is solid corroborating evidence of Flight 1989 having a bomb scare and subsequently landing in Cleveland with 69 passengers. The additional evidence of a Flight 89/175 as a live-fly (simulated) hijacking flying in the area at the same time lends credence to two separate groups theory I espouse. And it gives reason for someone keeping the second group away from the media by taking them to a nearby building. It would be a bad idea to allow any of the passengers explain their presence on a simulated hijacking on the day of 9/11.

http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/deans-911-theory.html

Dean

[Len Colby]

You think the Pentagon was struck by a missile, no plane crashed in Shanksville and that something other than 767’s crashed into the Twin Towers, thus you are a no planer at the fringes even of the “truth” movement. Do you care to spell out what exactly you think struck 1 & 2 WTC? But in the end your answer is irrelevant because all the problems with your theory that I spelled out in my previous post still apply.

Len: You have stated my thoughts reasonably correctly. So, I do not care what you label me. I do not care to spell out what struck WTC 1 and 2 except that it was not Flight 11 or 175.

I do need to make a correction not all the people on flights 11 and 175 had remains recovered “By April 30 2004, 52 of those aboard Flight 11 were identified, 45 by DNA. 26 of those on Flight 175 were identified, 26 by DNA” Who They Were: Robert C. Shaler. So 52 of the 87 Pax and crew from flight 11 and 26 of the 60 on board flight 175. This does not include 3 perpetrators whose remains were recovered. They could not be individually identified because the did not have DNA samples linked to specific hijackers.

Len: Could you please identify the source on this? Thanks!

Dr. Robert C. Shaler, director of the Forensic Biology Department at the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner during and after 9/11 wrote a book about IDing the WTC remains.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eI1pVWM38wEC&q=april+30#v=onepage&q=acela&f=false

As for the hijackers being identified there were at least 2 news reports about this one from 2003 in the BBC saying they had IDed 2 and another from 2005 in the NY Daily News saying 3

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2808599.stm

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a100405victimdna#a100405victimdna

Contrary to Fetzer’s claims to the contrary there is ample evidence the men identified by the FBI were on the planes including:

1) Their names appear on the flight manifests.

Len: What is your source for the flight manifests? Is it this one? (From exhibits at the 2006 Moussaoui trial)

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html

As I spelled out in my earlier post three of the manifests were released with in days of 9/11. United release the manifests for its flights (93 & 175) and the Boston Globe released the ones from Logan (11 & 175) copies of all 4 appeared in Terry Mcdermott’s 2005 book Perfect Soldiers.

2) Atta and Omari were captured by a security camera at the Portland Maine airport and the flight 77 hijackers were captured by a camera at Dulles. There were no cameras at Newark or Logan.

Len: Even if the two were Atta and Omari, how does their presence at the Portland Maine airport show that they went to Boston? Did the camera at Dulles have a time stamp showing the date and time in question?

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=35453.0;wap2

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hani_Hanjour_at_Dulles

There were only a limited numbers of destinations from Portland at 6AM, they left Portland had tickets to Logan and are on the manifest for flight 11. Though there is no time/date stamp on the Dulles video a few other passengers appear, so far no one on the tape has said they did not fly that day.

3) They have never been seen or heard from again.

Len: How is this inconsistent with my idea that false names were given to many of the victims? Others may have taken on new identities afterwards.

This is an absurd theory just about every 9/11 victim was profiled by local media, the friends, neighbors and co-workers were interviewed. Their places of work were often identified. So if they did not exist the people who really worked at those offices would be yet another large group of people who would know something was not Kosher. The Hijackers all definitely existed they families were interviewed, though several at first denied their loved ones were involved some have since acknowledged they did or admitted the possibility. For example from Saleh Al-shehri bother of two hijackers,

HOCKENBERRY: Do you think that Waleed and Wail, your brothers, were capable of being a part of this operation?

SALEH: (Through translator) In my judgment, impossible. I know them; I know their behavior.

HOCKENBERRY: What if it is true? What would you say?

SALEH: (Through translator) If that is true we have to be realistic and accept the tragedy...

HOCKENBERRY: It appears that your brother found something else to do, be part

of al-Qaeda.

SALEH: (Through translator) I don't know. It is very difficult to imagine that. It is difficult because the time was very short. There was not enough time for him to be trained to fly a plane. Furthermore, he didn't know English...

HOCKENBERRY: Do you believe they're dead in your heart?

SALEH: For me? Yes...

[…]

HOCKENBERRY: No. Did they talk about getting US military troops out of the kingdom? No? So it looks like your two brothers were brainwashed.

SALEH: Yeah...

HOCKENBERRY: (Voiceover) There is this famous video of Osama bin Laden talking about how some people on the airplanes in New York and Washington did not even know that they were going to die...

(Video of bin Laden)

HOCKENBERRY: ...had no idea that this was a suicide mission. Is it possible that Waleed and Wail were on a plane not knowing what was to happen?

SALEH: (Through translator) It is possible. They were still immature.

HOCKENBERRY: It is possible.

SALEH: Yeah.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc082502.html

The Telegraph interviewed one of their cousins

The brothers disappeared for two or three months in 1999, travelling to Medina. "When they came back they were different," said their cousin. "They had grown beards and were deeply religious. They had their own group of people and had become very secretive."

In December 2000 they disappeared again, this time to Afghanistan with Al-Nami and Al-Ghamdi. The next the family heard of them was reading their names among the hijackers.

"When we read their names we were very proud because the black hand of Americans are in everything," said their cousin. "I don't think my cousins were exploited. I think they did it out of their own convictions."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1407285/The-six-sons-of-Asir.html

As expalined earlier Atta’s father aknowledged he was involved.

4) Some of their personal effects were recovered

Len: Personal effects have been recovered, but often without explanation as to how they were found. Also, it would have made sense for the government to leave behind some personal effects of the likely few who were going to join a witness protection program

http://www.rense.com/general68/mrev.htm

It was evidence not proof personal effects of several people on the flights was recovered. The story of Al Suqami’s passport is that before the collapses an unidentified man (in a suit) gave to a cop. But yes it could have been faked by the NWO.

5) DNA of human remains at the crash sites matches DNA discovered at hotel rooms they stayed at and cars they had driven.

Len: I refer back to my argument to Evan about the refusal of the government to release information as to how the identities of victims or hijackers were made.

As I explain the man who was responsible for identifying the NYC victims wrote a book on the subject, some of the PE victims were IDed by the local coroner.

6) The Martyrdom videos

Len: Two CIA officials have recently been reported as having admitted to using actors to play the role of bin Laden in a video. There are other reports of fake videos on this topics as well. I simply don’t see the “Martyrdom” videos as strong evidence to connect anyone to 9/11.

http://www.infowars.com/former-cia-officials-admit-to-faking-bin-laden-video/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRJ9mW_hAQ&feature=player_embedded /b]

Actually the CIA officials supposedly said they used non-Arab CIA employees but the project was scrapped for being “were patently ridiculous”. The video they described has never appeared.

The Martyrdoon videos were widely circulated and presumably were seen by the hijacker’s friends and relatives; don’t you think they’d know the difference? Yet we have no reports of people saying that wasn’t my brother/son/cousin/friend etc.

7) After initially claiming his son was still alive Atta’s father told a CNN producer “the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son.”

Dean - The BBC has long since retracted is hijackers still alive story. The people it identified had the same (or similar) names to the men identified by the FBI but were not the same people.

http://911myths.com/...till_alive.html

Len: Here are links that prove that suspects named by the FBI were alive after 9/11/01:

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/identities.html - Saeed Alghamdi’s “name, place of residence, date of birth, and occupation matched those described by the FBI”

http://web.archive.org/web/20011001123059/www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

Your links prove nothing and your quote was incomplete:

The Saudi Airlines pilot, Saeed Al-Ghamdi, 25, and Abdulaziz Al-Omari, an engineer from Riyadh, are furious that the hijackers' "personal details" - including name, place, date of birth and occupation - matched their own.

Al-Ghamdi and Al-Omari were wrong the “personal details” of the hijackers with the same names were not divulged the only info give about the two was

“Saeed Alghamdi - Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida”

“Abdulaziz Alomari - Possible Saudi national

-Dates of birth used: December 24, 1972 and May 28, 1979

-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida

-Believed to be a pilot”

Alghamdi was never IDed as a pilot. Though the living Alomari says he was born December 24, 1972 the hijacker used the later date on his visa application.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/9-11-investigation/press-release-9-27-2001-with-photos

I have no idea what you think that stupid video proves.

Since Fetzer is so obsessed with the serial numbers of the plane parts here is a link to the NTSB database, how many reports can he (or Jack or Dean etc) locate where the serial numbers of parts not suspected of having contributed to the crash are given.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

Len: Maybe you missed the point. As part of the investigation, it would make sense for the authority to match parts of the plane found to the suspected plane to confirm the role of the plane in the incident.

Why? Except among a small fringe group years later there never was any doubt which planes crashed where.

As for Garvey saying that 11 plane were out of radio contact you have to keep in mind about 4500 planes were in the air at the time so that come out to less than 1 in 400. Someone else from the FAA, Monty Belger I think said this is fairly normal. Another problem with the quote is that AFAIK it only appears in Richard Clarkes book and he made a number of factual errors including claiming people were in places where we no they were not.

Len: If the situation was normal, how did our military fail to respond to knowledge about Flight 93 being a hijacking twenty-five minutes before it crashed, as noted by David Ray Griffin? Our military has intercepted numerous flights over the years. If the situation were normal, it would seem that we would have caught Flight 93 (and perhaps the others). This is one reason I doubt the official story of plane hijackings and instead believe our air defense was confused by a story of a bomb on Flight 93. The story turned out to be false.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CMZ12AxBOh8C&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=Monte+Belger+FAA+planes&source=bl&ots=jxdngTkIi-&sig=r_G3Km4FkueYmZQ3LJ89E3r_XxI&hl=en&ei=SBvXTLqmKpGosQOfu_COCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

A certain number of plane’s being temporarily out of radio contact is normal which why NORAD is not called unless it persists . It took over 80 minutes to intercept Payne Stewart’s plane which was flying in a straight lane with its transponder on and that was the only NORAD intercept over the “lower 48” in the decade preceding 9/11 it took aboy 4 hours to intercept Bo Rein’s plane in similar circumstances in 1980. The routine intercepts were over Alaska and the ocean of incoming flights. Though truthers claim rapid intercepts over land were routine they have never been able to cite any instances. Griffin is a clown he cited a computer game manual as an FAA document.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Len Colby