Planes without Passengers

[Dean Hartwell]

I am presenting my own book for discussion. I debated some of its ideas here at the Forum and used the feedback.

The book is available at this Amazon link

[William Kelly]

I am presenting my own book for discussion. I debated some of its ideas here at the Forum and used the feedback.

The book is available at this Amazon link

There's really nothing to debate.

I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone who lost a family member in the attacks, and I think that making such assertions takes away from the real issues that have to be addressed

and the real questions that have yet to be answered.

Tony Summers is working on a 9/11 book that should address the real issues and attempt to answer the outstanding questions.

Bill Kelly

[Dean Hartwell]

Bill,

If you could convince me that the passengers lost their lives, that would be a debate, wouldn't it? I do not believe they died for the reasons I give in the book.

As for Tony Summers, I have asked you before for the name of his upcoming book. You never bothered to reply.

It appears to me that your mind is closed on this issue. That is too bad. Determining what happened to the planes and passengers strikes me as very real issues that are worthy of discussion.

Dean

I am presenting my own book for discussion. I debated some of its ideas here at the Forum and used the feedback.

The book is available at this Amazon link

There's really nothing to debate.

I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone who lost a family member in the attacks, and I think that making such assertions takes away from the real issues that have to be addressed

and the real questions that have yet to be answered.

Tony Summers is working on a 9/11 book that should address the real issues and attempt to answer the outstanding questions.

Bill Kelly

[William Kelly]

Bill,

If you could convince me that the passengers lost their lives, that would be a debate, wouldn't it? I do not believe they died for the reasons I give in the book.

As for Tony Summers, I have asked you before for the name of his upcoming book. You never bothered to reply.

It appears to me that your mind is closed on this issue. That is too bad. Determining what happened to the planes and passengers strikes me as very real issues that are worthy of discussion.

Dean

I am presenting my own book for discussion. I debated some of its ideas here at the Forum and used the feedback.

The book is available at this Amazon link

There's really nothing to debate.

I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone who lost a family member in the attacks, and I think that making such assertions takes away from the real issues that have to be addressed

and the real questions that have yet to be answered.

Tony Summers is working on a 9/11 book that should address the real issues and attempt to answer the outstanding questions.

Bill Kelly

I don't know what Tony's book will be called.

And I don't want to inhibit the debate, as I look forward to reading whatever transpires.

Let the debate continue!

BK

[Evan Burton]

Dean,

No offence but I will not be buying your book; I believe you are wrong. IMO, what you are doing is anomaly hunting - looking for anything that isn't perfect or doesn't conform with what you think should be.

I'm not aware of all the claims you are making in the book but I get the general impression you are saying there were not any planes that day. Based on your Amazon author comments, I think you are making at least two points: the BTS database didn't show two of the aircraft, and you don't believe there was any aircraft wreckage.

Let's deal with the first. Mistakes happen - the database may not have been updated because the responsible person knew those aircraft had been destroyed that day. That's just one explanation. I know this from first hand knowledge. There are a couple of databases I deal with that don't list 805 SQN or the SH-2G(A) aircraft. That's because the aircraft was removed from service and the relevant sections were no longer required and moved to an archive. If someone claimed that 805 SQN never existed and the SH-2G(A) never was in Australian service based on these databases, would they be correct? No - they would not. There are a couple of maintenance databases that have open or unusual entries for Sea King 902. Does that mean that the aircraft never flew, never existed? No - it was destroyed in a tragic accident that claimed 11 lives on 2 Apr 2005. The databases have not been closed off, that is all. So is there any evidence to refute the missing BTS entries? What about the airlines own records - do they show the aircraft having been scheduled? What about ATC records? Do they show aircraft taking off from the departure point?

Next is the wreckage. There are numerous examples of the wreckage from all the crash sites: engines, fuselage, landing gear. Not available on the internet are pictures of some bodies still in their seats. Now, I have heard the nonsense claims that we can't be sure because no-one has matched any serial numbers. Why should you do that? The aircraft are missing and people saw the aircraft (with one exception) crash. Serial numbers are not required unless a particular part is suspected of failure and therefore maintenance records are needed; you know what aircraft went down and there is no requirement to check every part... though they may have done one or two checks to confirm. If they did, I can guess it will not satisfy many hard core 'truthers'. If evidence is presented that serial numbers were checked and matched, I believe that the true believers would just say it is faked and move onto another area.

Sorry, but those aircraft did crash as stated that day.

Congratulations on getting your book published.

[Len Colby]

Congratulations on getting your book published.

The book was self-published and no wonder, Dean’s nonsense has already been discussed here. This bizarre version of the no-planes theory ranks up there with the CIT flyover, the towers were ‘dustified’ with ‘Star Wars’ weaponry and the towers were “missing 40 floors” as among the silliest 9/11 theories ever proposed.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16899&st=0

[Dean Hartwell]

Nice "debate" Evan and Len. Too bad it is not about the contents of my book, which is the point of this thread. Your comments really belong on another page.

[Len Colby]

You yourself said, “I debated some of [the books] ideas here at the Forum and used the feedback”, it has the same absurd premise as the previously linked essay. Since you failed to a) deal on the other thread with the flaws that invalidate your “thesis” or make the text of your book available it was a reasonable to assume there was little (if any) substantive difference between the essay and the book.

If you want to discuss the book here you should make it available, I doubt many people will spend money on a book with an absurd premise when an essay by the same author with the same premise is available online. Perhaps that’s why you could not get any one to publish it.

PS - I just noticed you posted the book's footnotes on your blog. There are only 64 and almost none are from reliable sources. Few are primary sources and many are sources that even with in the truth movement are considered crackpots (Webfairy, Holmgren, CIT,WoodyBox etc). Several make long debunked claims SSDI,too few passengers, no Arab names on manifests. As to the former the SSDI only lists people who were collecting Social Security, Joey Ramone died in 2001 and he's not on it, perhaps he's hanging out with Elvis and Jim Morrison!! As to the latter what cited are names victims.

http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2011/01/footnotes-in-the-new-book-planes-without-passengers.html

Edited January 16, 2011 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

Nice "debate" Evan and Len. Too bad it is not about the contents of my book, which is the point of this thread. Your comments really belong on another page.

I'm sorry Dean, but is it not one of the book's contentions that some of the aircraft claimed to have flown that day never actually took to the air, and this is partially based on missing BTS records, that people say that there is no wreckage associated with those aircraft?

If I am wrong, I am more than happy to be corrected and debate the issues the book does raise.

[Dean Hartwell]

Nice "debate" Evan and Len. Too bad it is not about the contents of my book, which is the point of this thread. Your comments really belong on another page.

I'm sorry Dean, but is it not one of the book's contentions that some of the aircraft claimed to have flown that day never actually took to the air, and this is partially based on missing BTS records, that people say that there is no wreckage associated with those aircraft?

If I am wrong, I am more than happy to be corrected and debate the issues the book does raise.

Sorry, Evan. I have asked those who use this thread to refer to the contents of the book. You are making guesses about it, which is not the same thing. One cannot talk about a book's contents that unless they have read the book.

So get a copy of the book, read it and make your comments here.

Or, choose not to get the book and make comments about my work on some other page.

Just play by the rules. I will not respond to any comments on this thread that do not refer to the book, Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11.

That goes for you, too, Len.

Dean

[Len Colby]

Sorry Dean there are no rules dictating we can only comment here if we’ve read your book, you posted a similar essay online. And since you failed to notice my last post DID make reference to your book. Sorry to break you the news but a 144 page book with only 64 footnotes is a poorly researched one, especially considering the quality of your source material less than 20% of which are primary sources or contemporary news accounts. Instead you depended primarily of faulty analysis by truthers such as Col. Nelson who has been repeatedly debunked here.

You posted an essay with the same thesis as the book so your refusal to tell us what, if any, significant differences there are between lead me to assume there are none. So what are they?

If you want someone to read your book answer my last question and/or post its text online. You couldn’t get anyone to publish it (or your previous books) so I see no reason to spend my hard earned money on it.

[Dean Hartwell]

Len,

In debating the essay with you, I learned the following facts, which have been incorporated into the book:

There is no source for Michael Ruppert's belief that blips were used during the events of 9/11.

There are manifests available for Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93.

I believe you have misunderstood other issues. For example, in the book:

I say that SSDI itself only says that it is 83% accurate. My personal test of people I knew was about 50-60% accurate.

I do not find the number of passengers on the planes significant.

I do not state that no Arab names are on the manifests.

I state that several planes were used and that some of them were decoy planes. Perhaps you call something Flight 11 and I see it as a plane without passengers.

I do not agree with you as to your assertions that certain sources are crackpots. In any case, I believe most sources are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

OK, Len. Tell you what. If you think there are significant differences, I will post the text here in PDF.

P.S. Maybe I like self-publishing!

[Dean Hartwell]

One more thing, Len. You said in post #8 that another version of the same book "is available online." That is not true. I have removed all previous versions, which were rough drafts, from the Internet quite some time ago.

[Evan Burton]

One more thing, Len. You said in post #8 that another version of the same book "is available online." That is not true. I have removed all previous versions, which were rough drafts, from the Internet quite some time ago.

I don't believe that is what Len said; he said:

You yourself said, "I debated some of [the books] ideas here at the Forum and used the feedback", it has the same absurd premise as the previously linked essay. Since you failed to a) deal on the other thread with the flaws that invalidate your "thesis" or make the text of your book available it was a reasonable to assume there was little (if any) substantive difference between the essay and the book.

If you want to discuss the book here you should make it available, I doubt many people will spend money on a book with an absurd premise when an essay by the same author with the same premise is available online. Perhaps that's why you could not get any one to publish it.

PS - I just noticed you posted the book's footnotes on your blog. There are only 64 and almost none are from reliable sources. Few are primary sources and many are sources that even with in the truth movement are considered crackpots (Webfairy, Holmgren, CIT,WoodyBox etc). Several make long debunked claims SSDI,too few passengers, no Arab names on manifests. As to the former the SSDI only lists people who were collecting Social Security, Joey Ramone died in 2001 and he's not on it, perhaps he's hanging out with Elvis and Jim Morrison!! As to the latter what cited are names victims.

http://deanhartwell....passengers.html

I don't see anywhere where he said "that another version of the same book " is available online. In fact he said that if you wanted to discuss the book you should make it available. The closest he came was to say that there didn't appear to be any substantive difference between the essay and the book.

Based on your reluctance to discuss the book, I have to come to a similar conclusion.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Evan Burton

[Dean Hartwell]

Evan,

I will put the phrase in bold for you:

One more thing, Len. You said in post #8 that another version of the same book "is available online." That is not true. I have removed all previous versions, which were rough drafts, from the Internet quite some time ago.

I don't believe that is what Len said; he said:

You yourself said, "I debated some of [the books] ideas here at the Forum and used the feedback", it has the same absurd premise as the previously linked essay. Since you failed to a) deal on the other thread with the flaws that invalidate your "thesis" or make the text of your book available it was a reasonable to assume there was little (if any) substantive difference between the essay and the book.

If you want to discuss the book here you should make it available, I doubt many people will spend money on a book with an absurd premise when an essay by the same author with the same premise is available online. Perhaps that's why you could not get any one to publish it.

PS - I just noticed you posted the book's footnotes on your blog. There are only 64 and almost none are from reliable sources. Few are primary sources and many are sources that even with in the truth movement are considered crackpots (Webfairy, Holmgren, CIT,WoodyBox etc). Several make long debunked claims SSDI,too few passengers, no Arab names on manifests. As to the former the SSDI only lists people who were collecting Social Security, Joey Ramone died in 2001 and he's not on it, perhaps he's hanging out with Elvis and Jim Morrison!! As to the latter what cited are names victims.

http://deanhartwell....passengers.html

I don't see anywhere where he said "that another version of the same book " is available online. In fact he said that if you wanted to discuss the book you should make it available. The closest he came was to say that there didn't appear to be any substantive difference between the essay and the book.

Based on your reluctance to discuss the book, I have to come to a similar conclusion.

That is the phrase that leads me to believe he thought I had a similar version (essay or otherwise) online. Anyway, I have offered to make it available.