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.

Thank you for allowing us to read it, Dean; I'll get to it when I have time and comment on the material within the book. Unfortunately I'm in hospital for a few days.

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:

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.

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!

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

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

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 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

With Harrys knowledge; to post;

Judyth; A Heads up.... Permission was not asked for nor granted,from Harry, why not...??.

Hi BerniceAs JVB has spread my face with some confessedly incorrect statements on her recently discovered blog, I wish to verify the significance re; flowers...http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/

placed on Oswald's grave from 24 November 1965 and continued forseveral years. {It is not possible to access her blog}.The purpose of the flowers was simply to support specific four to eightline poems,intended to provoke authorities into cracking open the Archivedoor.At some point I read that the then president Johnson furiously ordered his people to find who the guilty party was.The Los Angeles bureau office, tried 'every method to discourage' thoseannual deliveries.Just wanted this known. Until later... Harry aka Hj

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

With Harrys knowledge; to post;

Judyth; A Heads up.... Permission was not asked for nor granted,from Harry, why not...??.

Hi BerniceAs JVB has spread my face with some confessedly incorrect statements on her recently discovered blog, I wish to verify the significance re; flowers...http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/

placed on Oswald's grave from 24 November 1965 and continued forseveral years. {It is not possible to access her blog}.The purpose of the flowers was simply to support specific four to eightline poems,intended to provoke authorities into cracking open the Archivedoor.At some point I read that the then president Johnson furiously ordered his people to find who the guilty party was.The Los Angeles bureau office, tried 'every method to discourage' thoseannual deliveries.Just wanted this known. Until later... Harry aka Hj

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

Two were supplied by United itself but I doubt anything would satisfy you, if the boarding pass stubs were produced along with a affidavit from the people who collected them you would ask how we know they were telling the truth and that the stubs were authentic. You have unrealistic expectations about what evidence should be produced only a small fringe shares your doubts.

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.

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

LEN, I have read Dr. Shaler's book. With the exception of the portion you have selected in the link above, all of the discussion of DNA is about victims who worked in the World Trade Center. I have never disputed that there were victims there.

Dr. Shaler, in the book Who They Were, talks of meeting with some of the family members of Flights 11 and 175. He speaks of finding two matches among the family members of these families. These discoveries took place shortly before the end of the DNA matching, which makes me a bit skeptical. He also gave no way of corroborating these matches.

I am also unable to find the quote you cite above about Flight 11 and 175 passenger DNA anywhere in the book.

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

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.

LEN, If you could cite where you found the manifests, I could determine whether we are speaking of the same ones. On the manifests I cite above in the 911research link, I noticed that Mark Bingham, who supposedly made a call from Flight 93, is not listed. Furthermore, the date shown at the top of the manifests for 93 and 175 is October 4, 2002

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.

Dean,

I know you are a staunch supporter of Judyth Baker and her story. And I am not out to pick a fight. But as I'm sure you are well aware by now, I don't believe her story is anything but fiction.

So therefor it would be interesting to know, having in mind what you are saying above, how you've reached your conclusion? In this thread alone - and especially in the "exile thread - many things have been pointed out as incorrect/changed or all together removed from her current version.

Does these changes mean anything to you when evaluating what she now says? You don't find these never ending changes to have at all a negative effect on JVBs credibility? Or, as another example, the way she told the "political asylum" story before I told the correct version does nothing to her credibility?

Or if you, for instance, would comment on the subjects Barb has shown in this thread I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

Glenn V.

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

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

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

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

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