Dean Hartwell

Mr. Colby has apparently not read message #23 on this thread in which I made it clear before his review that I would no longer reply to him. As I no longer come by here often, anyone else who wants to discuss the book should send me a private message first.

You are welcome, Evan. I hope you get out of the hospital soon. Dean

Len, You take something for free and then call it "overpriced." Good one! If people don't like the price for the final version, they don't have to pay, either. No one had to pay for the several previous versions. I use the large font so my wife can read it. And as far as my "convoluted" explanation goes, you must be talking about the book. My post of the planes and passengers (#19) contained no explanation. You are prejudging my book, then. Your review will be totally worthless. You will not waste any more of my time. I will no longer reply to you. Dean

Here is Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11 on a ZIP file for use by the Education Forum members only: PWPPDF.zip

Len, The significant differences revolve around the planes and passengers and the detail I give as to where each went. Here is an outline of my ideas, with an asterisk for each different ideas: What happened to each of the planes? Flight 11 allegedly struck World Trade Center 1 (North Tower) *Flight 11 – There was no such flight *Flight 11 Decoy (“11D”) – Took off from Boston Logan airport and was identified as Flight 11 *Where did 11D go? – It flew toward the World Trade Center and got within one-half mile of it *What happened to 11D? – It landed safely What happened to WTC 1? – Another aircraft struck it Flight 175 allegedly struck World Trade Center 2 (South Tower) Flight 175 – It took off from Boston Logan Airport Where did 175 go? - It flew west, switching its flight # to 89 and doing a hijacking simulation What happened to 175? – It landed safely in Cleveland *Flight 175 Decoy (“175D”) – Took off from Boston Logan Airport and was identified as 175 *Where did 175D go? – It flew toward the World Trade Center and got within one-half mile of it *What happened to 175D? – It stayed in the air (unidentified) and then served as a decoy for 93 What happened to WTC 2? - Another aircraft struck it. Flight 77 allegedly struck the Pentagon Flight 77 – There was no such flight *Flight 77 Decoy (“77D”) – It flew west and was identified as 77 What happened to 77D? – I don’t know; I speculate it flew over the Pentagon Flight 93 allegedly crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania Flight 93 – It took off from Newark Airport Flight 93 Decoy (“93D”) – No Where did 93 go? – It flew west What happened to 93? It went toward Cleveland, then flew back to Pennsylvania and landed safely. As for the SSDI, my point was that the percentage of people identified as dead on SSDI was far lower than what SSDI says it does and lower than my own test. It is a minor point and not worth much of our time.

I have been reluctant. I am waiting for someone to politely ask me to make the book available here.

Evan, I will put the phrase in bold for you: I don't believe that is what Len said; he said: 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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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 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 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

Bernice, Could you please send me a private message as to how I might contact Mr. Dean? Thank you, Dean Bernice, Cancel the private message. Judyth has removed all references to Harry Dean on her web site and has asked me to convey her apologies to him. Dean

Bernice, Could you please send me a private message as to how I might contact Mr. Dean? Thank you, Dean

I have updated my essay on 9/11, "Misdirection." Some of the revision is based upon input from participants on this thread. Thanks to everyone! http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/deans-911-theory.html

If you really believe this, Len, I am not sure why you have persisted with this discussion. Comments like this have made me lose interest in this discussion.

REPORT CARD ON “PLANES AND PASSENGERS” THREAD In regular type, I repeat my assertion of facts and conclusions from first page. In block letters I write the results so far on this thread of these issues. Comments and corrections are welcome: Bureau of Transportation Statistics records show that only two of the supposedly hijacked flights actually took off: United 175 and United 93. RESULT: NOT CHALLENGED 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. RESULT: DISCUSSION OF PLANES BEING TRACKED BUT NO SOURCES CITED 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. RESULT: DISCUSSION THAT FEDERAL AUTHORITIES ONLY FOCUS ON PLANE PARTS THAT FACTORED INTO CRASH Eyewitnesses and newspaper accounts mentioned a sighting of approximately 200 passengers at the Cleveland airport after all of the supposedly hijacked planes "crashed." RESULT: OPINION THAT WOODY BOX ARTICLES ONLY MENTIONED ONE PLANE WHICH I DISAGREE ABOUT There is no evidence of any passengers being seen or videotaped in any of the airports they supposedly flew out of. RESULT: OPINION THAT VIDEOTAPES WERE ONLY AVAILABLE AT PORTLAND MAINE AIRPORT AND DULLES; PORTLAND VIDEO DOES NOT PROVE ATTA FLEW OUT OF BOSTON; DULLES VIDEO LACKS TIME STAMP There is no evidence of any boarding passes for any of the passengers. RESULT: NO DISCUSSION 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. RESULT: NO DISCUSSION There are passenger lists for the airplanes supposedly hijacked, but none can be authenticated and the lists frequently conflict with one another. RESULT: DISCUSSION THAT MANIFESTS ARE BEST EVIDENCE OF PASSENGERS, BUT NO SOURCE CITED 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. RESULT: “FALSE BLIPS” CHALLENGED. SOURCE MICHAEL RUPPERT DID NOT ATTRIBUTE HIS ASSERTION THAT BLIPS WERE ON SCREEN DURING EVENTS OF 9/11. ALSO, I PLAN TO READ WHO THEY WERE BY DR. SHALER, WHICH PURPORTS TO DISCUSS THE IDENTIFICATION OF VICTIMS AT WTC AREA.

Glenn, I will take you at your word that you are not trying to pick a fight. I have answered as to why I believe Judyth before, such as when I wrote my essay “Why I Believe Judyth Vary Baker” and my recent review of Me and Lee. Both of these writings and my thoughts on the debate on the Education Forum thread are here: http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/category/judyth%20baker/1.html I acknowledge that many people have written on threads here and in other places reasons why they do not believe her. I do not feel the need to respond every time someone says something with which I disagree. None of the negative statements that I have read have convinced me that Judyth has deliberately misstated the truth as to her experiences. If I thought she was lying, I would follow some other subject. I do not understand why you and others continue to call her work “fiction” and insinuate that she is lying. It seems that you have stated your case and I can respect though not agree with it. Dean

Len, Re: the Shaler book information – I had some trouble with the link but assume that he says he identified the WTC remains. Is this book an official document from the State of New York? Re: your links from the BBC and History Commons. Both of them say that there were no names attached to ten of the profiles provided by the FBI. Where did the FBI get these profiles? Shaler admitted that “Of course, we had no direct knowledge of how the FBI obtained the terrorists’ DNA.”. This is evidence of officials stating that they have identified people. But as I have pointed out before, the public is still not privy to how DNA and DNA samples were obtained by official sources. No one saw any individual get killed, which is what usually happens in criminal investigations. There were eyewitnesses of “something” happening at the WTC and Pentagon, but there was a disconnect between those events and ready identification of what happened. The government’s refusal to provide information that could establish the official story about hijackers and victims gives fuel to some of the suspicion. I still see no reason why they do not provide it. Re: the manifests. Like the ID of people, a solid chain-of-evidence showing how the manifest was created, where the names came from and other corroborating information like receipts and boarding passes would help establish the official story. This kind of information should be available. (I should point out that I think passengers did leave from Boston on Flight 175 and Newark on Flight 93). Re: the security videos. People posing as Atta and Omari could have taken that flight from Portland and gotten on the video (or even Atta and Omari themselves). The release of the video was a great way to convince much of the public that they participated. As to the Dulles video, I have not heard anyone say the people on the video did go, either. Re: Never seen or heard from again. You believe that large groups of people cannot keep secrets. But if someone went on TV and confessed to being a part of a plot, would you necessarily believe them? James Files has confessed to murdering JFK but not all in the JFK community believe him. False confessions are quite common. In the Nicole Brown Simpson/Ron Goldman murders in LA, hundreds of people falsely confessed. And what if the plotters are the same people in charge of finding the plotters? Re: Saeed Alghamdi. The claim that the FBI had published the personal details I mentioned previously was in reference to the September 14th press release by the FBI. The Telegraph had these comments that I think reflect some of the uncertainty about the “hijackers.” “The FBI had published his [Alghamdi] personal details but with a photograph of somebody else, presumably a hijacker who had "stolen" his identity. CNN, however, showed a picture of the real Mr Al-Ghamd… Last night the FBI admitted that there was some doubt about the identities of some of the suspects. A spokesman said: "The identification process has been complicated by the fact that many Arabic family names are similar. It is also possible that the hijackers used false identities." http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/telegraph_stolenids.html Re: intercepts. Here is my source on intercepts. I have misstated. NORAD has scrambled jets 67 times. My mistake. However, this link makes reference to specific intercepts. http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap

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

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

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