portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

9.11 investigation

Media published fake passenger lists for American Airlines Flight 11

An examination of anomalies surrounding published passenger lists for American Airlines Flight 11 on Sept 11, 2001. (Alleged to have hit the WTC at 8.46.)

By Gerard Holmgren  enquiry11@hotmail.com

Copyright. May 16, 2004. This article may be freely reproduced as long as it it is not for commercial purposes. Please include the authors name, the URL where you found it, and the copyright notice.

As everyone knows, on Sept 11 2001, 5 Arabs allegedly hijacked American Airlines flight 11 and crashed it into the Nth Tower of the World Trade Centre at 8.46 A.M. It was part of a crime which killed approximately 3000 people.

Any crime of this magnitude, is - or should be - subject to rigourous examination by investigative and law enforcement authorities, such as the FBI. In any crime involving the illegal use of a plane, it is obvious that one of the first investigative steps taken by such authorities is to find out who was on the plane.

This is not a difficult thing to do. Airlines keep well organized records of everybody on any particular flight. The apparent ID of anyone on that flight - regardless of whether they used a true or false ID - should be immediately available to authorities.

Unless authorities decide that disclosure of such information may jeopardize the investigation, it should also be easily available to the media. It should be as simple as an exchange of faxes or emails between the media and either the airline involved or one of the relevant authorities to which the airline has released the information. Or possibly printed copies handed out at a press conference.

In relation to the alleged AA11, there has never been any indication that such information has been withheld for security reasons. We have been given the clear impression that the information relating to exactly who was on that plane has been made available to us via the media - which presumably sourced it in the manner suggested above. If the information had been withheld, one would expect that to be known.

Supporters of the official story seem to support this view. In the face of mounting evidence that none of the Sept 11 crashes were actually caused by the planes alleged to have been involved (some of this evidence is linked at the conclusion of this article), supporters of the official story will often reply with a demand to know exactly what happened to the alleged passengers, illogically imagining the lack of a specific answer to represent a flaw in the no planes/substitute planes argument. Implicit in this demand is the belief that there is solid documentation of who the passengers were.

Anybody can put up a website, do an interview or send an email, claiming to be family or friend of a plane victim. But the only credible, official source for such information is the airline passenger list, and the only credible source for obtaining this information is the airline itself, or authorities and media to which the airline makes it available. One can't demand an explanation of what happened to particular people alleged to be on the flight unless one can prove that they were on the flight. Implicit in the official story is the assumption that such information has been established in the public domain by the media.

It is therefore incumbent upon any serious investigator to properly examine such passenger lists and ensure that they match with other alleged facts we have been given, and with the processes by which one would expect the information to have been sourced.

In this context, the following statement by "USA Today" in relation to its published passenger lists is of some concern.

"Partial lists of passengers and crew killed in Tuesday's terrorist attacks, according to family members, friends, co-workers and local law enforcement."


This is a very strange way to source such information. Why not get it from American Airlines or the FBI? If neither of these were consulted, how did USAT know who's "family members, friends, co-workers" to go looking for? Or if AA and the FBI were the first source of inquiry, why a partial list from hearsay sources?
Why "local law enforcement" rather than the feds, who would surely have any complete database of the victims? This statement appears to make no sense at all, except to confirm that the obvious sources where any media outlet should be looking - American Airlines and the FBI - seem to have been left out of the process. And it gets more ridiculous.


USAT gives the following bio of one of the alleged victims.

"Tom McGuinness, of Portsmouth, N.H., was co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, an official at his church confirmed...He said church pastors were with his wife when she was notified Tuesday morning. "

Surely American Airlines, the FAA or the FBI would be the only sources which could confirm who was co-piloting the plane. A family member, who's ID can be verified would be a reasonably good unofficial source, but first one needs to find out which family one is looking for. In the process of ascertaining that, one should have already received official confirmation. This source is someone who claims to know such a family member - a second hand attribution to a source which is not official anyway, and should be subject to confirmation from AA, The FAA or the FBI.

Why does USAT cite the church administrator as the source, indeed the confirmation of the information, when they can't have found out anything about how to find the church administrator without first consulting the official source, which could comfirm it far more authoritively ? The indications are that the church administrator contacted USAT with this claim, and USAT accepted this hearsay at face value. If so, this is very poor journalism.

One can't be certain of the exact processes employed by USAT, but its fair to say that there are strong indications that its passenger list is based on hearsay, because they had some kind of problem in obtaining the routine documentation which one would expect to be available, but failed to give a direct disclosure of what that problem was.

By contrast, CNN, introducing its passenger list ,says


"authorities from American Airlines, United Airlines, the Department of Defense, the New York City Medical Examiners Office and the New York City Fire Department, have released partial lists. They are linked below."

This is a clear indication that CNN claims to have sourced its passenger information as one would expect.

The firs passenger list for AA11 which I studied was that presented by CNN.


It says that there were 92 people aboard, but if you count the names listed there are 87 - and no Arabic names. On the surface, this seems reasonable. One can speculate that CNN has published the names of all 87 innocent victims, and deleted the names of the 5 hijackers for sensitivity reasons.

If so, why is said that American Airlines released a "partial list" ?

For the moment, lets give CNN the benefit of the doubt and assume this to be a complete list (in contradiction to what they wrote) of the 87 innocents alleged to be on board - a list sourced from AA, whether directly, or indirectly via a law enforcement agency. A reading of the names suggests that the CNN list may actually represent only 86 people - one name duplicated with different spelling.

Robin Caplin and Robin Kaplan are listed as two different people. There is a brief bio for Kaplan, but nothing for Caplin, except the home town.

Perhaps this is just an enormous co-incidence and two people with such names actually were on the flight ? Lets suspend judgment for the moment, while we investigate further.

I then checked the passenger list provided by USA Today.


Again, it is described as a partial list. It contains 86 names. - one short of a complete list. Robin Caplin is missing. However, two other names from the CNN list - Jude Larson and Natalie Larson - are also missing, and the list contains two names which are not on the CNN list.

Kelly Booms and Pendyala Vamsikrishna.

Lets think through the possibilities.
1) Two of the names from the collective passenger lists are fictitious.
2) Neither list is complete, and the complete list of innocents only emerges from a collective viewing of the lists - as strongly implied by the term "partial list" used in relation to both lists. If so, then we have 89 innocents. If this is the case, there can't be 5 hijackers for a total of 92 people. And yet nobody seems to dispute these two figures.

At  http://www.boston.com/news/daily/12/victims_list.htm

We find a list of AA 11 victims published on Sept 13 2001, which, judging by the introduction, may have come from exactly same the source as that used by USAT today. It begins thus.

"By The Associated Press. Partial list of those killed in Tuesday's terrorist attacks, according to family members, friends, co-workers and law enforcement. "

Compare it with the introduction to the USAT list.

"Partial lists of passengers and crew killed in Tuesday's terrorist attacks, according to family members, friends, co-workers and local law enforcement."

However, this list is quite different to that published by USAT - or CNN . While not giving any summation, it contains the names of 89 alleged innocents and introduces two new names - Robert Jalbert and James Roux. Vamsikrishna and Booms are the two names not included from the collective CNN and USAT lists. Since it publishes 89 names as a "partial list " this implies a minimum of 90 innocents aboard the plane.
From the three combined lists, we now have 91 alleged innocents and 5 hijackers for an apparently undisputed summation of 92. The Boston Daily list ,in isolation, implies a minimum of 95 aboard, while the collective lists imply 96 - if one is to believe in 5 hijackers. Alternatively, there must be four fictitious innocents.

The Boston Daily list also contains "Heath Smith", which would appear to be a substitute for "Heather Smith" named on the previous two lists.

A year later, the Boston Daily published a very different list, seemingly without acknowledging any previous error.


It contains only 87 names. Jalbert ,Roux,Caplin and the two Larsons have been dropped for Booms,Vamsikrishna and another new name - Waleed Iskander - who is not alleged to be one of the terrorists. Heath Smith has become Heather Lee Smith. A person named on every other list as Antonio Montoya has become Antonio Jesus Montoya Valdes. Peter Hashem has been replaced by Peter el-Hachem.From the bio, it appears to be a different name for the same person While the odd spelling discrepancy or missing hyphen is quite plausible, this much of a name change is stretching the credibility a little. I can believe that "Green" could become "Greene" or "Catherine" become "Katherine", but "Hashem" becoming "el- Hachem" - from an official passenger list - is more difficult to accept.

This is most unsatisfactory. The combined lists now name 92 innocents, so if one is to believe in 92 aboard, 5 of which were hijackers, we now have 5 fictitious innocents.
We have three major mainstream media outlets, publishing 4 lists which all contradict each other about who was on board, when this information should have ultimately come from one official,well organized source. We have lists claiming to be "partial lists" publishing more names than should be in a complete list.

I checked another list - from the Guardian dated sept 13 ,2001

This also claims 92 people aboard. It published only 75 names, saying

"This is a preliminary, partial list of passengers aboard the flight whose next of kin have been notified. Some families asked the airline not to include their loved ones' names: these do not appear. "

Fair enough. So this list is unable to be fully tested for consistency with either of the other four conflicting lists. However, it does agree on the number of people aboard. 92. This creates a real headache for the official story. Is the figure of 92 correct? Should it be really be 97 - the 92 collectively listed innocents plus 5 hijackers? If so, why is everyone saying 92 ? Or were there no hijackers? If so, why is everybody saying 5 ? Or are 5 of these names fictitious ? If so,why ?

The Guardian list also has Heath Smith instead of Heather Smith, and Hashem rather than el-Hachem.

There's another problem. If AA released only 75 names on Sept 13, how did the Boston Daily mange to publish 89 on the same day ? Where did it get the extra names that the airline was still withholding ?

Now the list from NBC

It lists 87 names for a summation of 92, and is the same as the USAT list, except for the addition of Iskander. That is - the same as the anniversary list from the Boston Daily.

I checked another mainstream media source - PBS


which entitles its list " One year later. Remembering the victims."

This agrees with the NBC and Boston anniversary lists.

Lets review the problems so far.

From five mainstream media outlets we have four conflicting lists.

Robin Caplin and Robin Kaplan on the same flight is difficult to believe, especially as Caplin is one of the frequently missing names.

The lists can't agree on the correct names for three of the passengers - Hashem/el- Hachem, Heath/Heather Smith, and Antonio Montoya/Valdez .

There are collectively 92 innocents and 5 hijackers for a total of 92 aboard.

So these are the possibilities
a) 5 of the innocents are fictitious
b)There were no hijackers
c) Some of these people were the real hijackers
d) There were 97 people aboard.

I will clarify what I mean by "fictitious". It may be that the extra names represent real people, who are missing and presumed dead. It may be that they have family and friends who honestly believe that the missing person boarded a flight called American Airlines 11. That's a matter for further research. But for five of these individuals who have been listed, (although we can't at this stage specify who ) the belief that they were on AA11 is proven to be false - unless one is to accept one of the other possibilities above.

The Washington Post from Sept 12

Introduces its list as

"American Airlines partial passenger lists"

and then lists 89 names, (no hijackers) implying a minimum of 95 aboard. Once again, how did it get 89 names on Sept 12, if AA was still withholding some of them on Sept 13 ?

Those missing are Iskander, Vamsikrihna and Jalbert. This doesn't even agree with the missing three from the Boston Daily's first list of 89, published the day after. The missing names there were Iskander, Vamsikrishna and Booms. So even if it were to be argued that the Boston Daily and the Washington Post somehow found a source of which the Guardian was unaware, their lists still don't match.

Fox news

lists only 81 names. It gives no summation and introduces the list as

"Confirmed on board American Airlines Flight 11 Boston to Los Angeles: "

perhaps implying that this is only a preliminary list and that a complete list is still awaiting confirmation. The problem is that this report is dated Sept 20, 2001. Why does it take more than 9 days to achieve the simple task of obtaining an official passenger list? Perhaps the story about AA only releasing 75 names on Sept 12 is true, and that by Sept 20, this had risen to 81. If so, then those who were publishing 89 names on Sept 12 and 13 have some explaining to do. But if they were telling the truth, then the Guardian has some explaining to do, and so does Fox in relation to why it was only able to confirm 81 names more than a week later. And yet, even those who were publishing 89 names were calling them partial lists and disagreeing on the names. Someone is fibbing.

At  http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/12/133231.shtml

dated Sept 12, 2001, NewsMax.com introduces its passenger list thus, appearing to support the Guardian's version of how the information was being released.

"American Airlines Wednesday released a partial list of passengers and crewmembers aboard the two flights downed by terrorist acts in New York and Washington. The following is a list of passengers whose next-of-kin have been notified. American has honored the requests of those families who have asked that their loved ones' names not be included. "

Note that like the Guardian, it does not claim to withheld the names itself. AA didn't supply the missing names.

It publishes 77 names, including Heath Smith, not Heather. And Hashem, not el-Hachem. This would appear to be the identical source as the Guardian. So why did the Guardian - the following day - publish two less names? The lists are identical except for these two - Judy Laroque and Carlos Montoya - missing from the Guardian list.

The same intro as NewsMax with a matching passenger list to NewsMax appears at


also dated sept 12.And also at


and again at


Except that this list is identical to the Guardian. 75 names, with Laroque and Carlos Montoya omitted. Well...almost identical. Heath Smith has become Heather Smith.

Even more puzzling in relation to Smith, is why large news agencies such as CNN and USAT who one would surely expect to have also received this early list, made the same mistake in relation to Smith, naming him as Heather.(Unless Heather is correct and sources such as the Guardian and NewsMax somehow made Heather into Heath.)

If this is alleged to be simply a typo, why are nearly all of the other names consistently free of typos or variations (other than who was included ) in list after list ? Why does every office typist develop a severe case of dyslexia or fumble fingers every time Smith's name comes up ? In isolation, this problem would strongly indicate that some news sources are just copying from other news sources. Someone initially made a mistake in copying Smith's name, and this mistake got passed on to some other lists. But that theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If different media outlets are simply copying each others lists - without acknowledgment - why are nearly none of them the same ?

Whatever the answer to this mystery, we can confidently state that media is not publishing any kind of reliable, official documentation. These lists are an appalling shambles, not worth the paper that they're not written on.

This site  http://www.wwnfsept11.com/AmericanAirlinesFlight11Victims.htm

makes no comment on the total number aboard, but if you count the names you'll find 88 innocent victims. It's the same as the CNN list with the addition of Iskander.
The authors of the site do not identify themselves or their sources in any way, so I went to the home page


which also gave no real information about the authors or the sources.
Where did this list come from? Whoever put it together has not even uncritically copied one of the previously examined lists ( while failing to source it). They've created a new combination of names from the combined lists. Or if they've uncritically copied it without acknowledgment from some other mainstream source which has eluded my searches, then we have yet another contradictory list. Why does it imply 93 aboard ?

At this point it is worth doing some searching to see if there's any significant disputation of the figures of 92 aboard, including 5 hijackers.

In relation to the five hijackers, it would appear not. The 5 hijacker story is so integral to the official myth, that it's not worth linking the sources which claim it, and I can't find anything which disputes it

At  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_flight_11

which describes itself as an encyclopedia about Sept 11, is a link to what is confidently described as a "flight manifest " for A11, although it gives no source for this information. Clicking on this link takes one to


which introduces AA 11 as having 93 aboard, including 5 hijackers. The list does contain the names of 5 suspected hijackers (All Arabic names) , so there should be 88 innocents.It specifies this directly by stating

"93 people: 82 passengers (including 5 hijackers), 9 flight attendants, 2 pilots "

This makes 11 crew and 77 innocent passengers. 88 innocents in total.

But if you count the names, there's only 92 - 5 hijackers and 87 innocents,making a mockery of the rather official sounding title of "flight manifest." The missing names are Caplin, Jude Larson, Natalie Larson, Roux , Jalbert and Iskander. The reason why six names have been dumped from the collective list of 92 to make 87 is that this list has a new name - Lana Tu. So we now have - collectively - 93 innocents and five hijackers for a total of 92 or 93 aboard.

Here are just a few of the sources which agree on the summation of 92 aboard.Most of them are sites with reasonably good reputations as reliable sources of information. None of them represent sources which question the official story in any way.

Crash database.com
 link to www.crashdatabase.com

US govt info/resources

 link to www.newsday.com

ABC News
 link to abcnews.go.com

Massport press release

Christian Science Monitor


Washington Post

Washington Post
 link to a188.g.akamaitech.net

 link to www.airdisaster.com

Aviation Safety Network


Times-Herald Record

The Straits Times.

World Statesman

Biblia Vividia

Higher Praise.com News



So, if we have universal agreement that there were 92 aboard - 5 hijackers and 87 innocents - why can no-one agree on who those 87 innocents were? Which 6 of the 93 names are fictitious ?

It appears that some spin doctor became partially aware of this problem, and tried to solve it by putting up another of these hearsay sites - again failing to provide identification or sources.


According to this list, there were 90 innocents aboard, and 5 hijackers, for a summation of 95. Not a word is said about the universally accepted figure of 92. This is simply swept aside as if the figure had never existed. It publishes 90 names - 90 of the 93 collectively published in all of the other conflicting lists. But where did this list come from ? The site has not copied from any of the previously examined mainstream media sites. Or if its copied (without providing documentation), from some other mainstream source which has eluded my searches , then we have yet another contradictory list. But since this site broke basic documentation protocol, by providing no sources, we are entitled to assume the worst. That they fabricated their own list, by cobbling together 90 names from other collective lists - indicating that they were well aware of the discrepancies, but failed to note three of the names - and then fabricated the summation of 95 aboard to try to make the figures add up - hoping that no-one would notice.

The missing names are Jalbert, Tu and Vamsikrishna


is a list from "ObituryRegistry.com which describes itself as " a service of AmericanMemorials.com"

Upon first viewing of the site, its not immediately apparent what the official status, if any, of this site is. Since anyone can post anything they like on the internet, one needs to check these things carefully. So I followed some of the links to find out more about the site and its authors, and its official status, if any. I clicked the link for AmericanMemorials.com which took me here


It describes itself as the "The internet's most complete database of current obituaries and death notices. Searchable by name,city and state, keywords and more."

It invites one to create one's own memorial for $US49.95. Following various links around the site gives no indication that it is anything other than a commercial operation, with no official status. So it appears as if anybody could create a memorial to anyone- real or fictitious - as long as they came up with $49.95. So lets have a look at the list for AA11.

It lists 90 innocents, and introduces two new names. Bill Weems and Timothy Ward. So we now have 95 alleged innocents. Those missing from this list are Tu, Booms, Vamsikrishna, Jalbert and Roux.

There are now a minimum of 8 fictitious innocents -unless someone wants to suggest that there were 100 people aboard in total -or else get creative with the practical application of abstract maths and suggest that the plane was hijacked by a group of Arabs numbering minus three, making the total passenger load 92 - in which case the media owes an explanation for why it keeps publishing 5 names for these minus three individuals.

Someone is fibbing.

Here is a summary of the anomalies between the lists.

Collectively, these sources list the names of 95 alleged innocents.

CNN lists 87 names, which should be a complete list ,but indicates that the list is incomplete. The 8 left out are Vamsikrishna, Roux, Iskander,Jalbert, Tu,Weems,Ward and Booms.

USAT lists 86 names, citing this as a "partial list", Those missing are Caplin, Jalbert, Jude Larson, Natalie Larson, Roux, Tu,Weems,Ward and Iskander.

NBC lists 87 names. Its the same as USAT with the addition of Iskander, but changes Peter Hashem to Peter el-Hachem.

PBS is identical to NBC.

The Boston daily lists 89 innocents and describes it as a a partial list. Those missing are Iskander,Vamsikrishna, Tu , Weems,Ward and Booms. It is the only list to name Jalbert.

A year later it lists 87 names, changing Heath Smith to Heather Smith, Hashem to el-Hachem , and losing Caplin, the two Larsons, Jalbert and Roux for Iskander, Vamsikrishna.and Booms.

The Washington Post published a "partial list" containing 89 names. Those missing are Iskander,Vamsikrishna, Jalbert , Tu , Weems and Ward .

The "we will never forget" website lists 88 names. Those missing are Vamsrikrishna, Jalbert, Booms, Tu,Weems,Ward and Roux.

The AA11 memorial website lists 90 names and claims 95 aboard. The missing names are Vamsikrishna, Tu, Weems,Ward and Jalbert.

Wikipedia claims a summation of 93 aboard, but lists only 92 names (including hijackers).It is the only site to list Lana Tu. Those missing are Iskander, Caplin, the two Larsons, Jalbert,Weems,Ward and Roux. This makes it the same as the USAT list with the addition of Tu or put another way - the same as the NBC and PBS lists except that Tu is in for Isaknder.

The American Memorials/Obituary site lists 90 names and is the only list to name Weems and Ward. It leaves out Tu, Jalbert,Vamsikrishna, Roux and Booms.

Several sources claim that AA released 77 (or 75) names on Sept 12, but the Washington Post published 89 names the same day, and the Boston Daily published 89 - but not the same 89 - the day after, while Fox News was still claiming that only 81 names were confirmed a week later.

We still can't rule out the possibility that Caplin/Kaplan is a genuine co-incidence, but suspicion is justified, especially as Caplin is one of the frequently missing names. Some lists have Peter el-Hachem, others Peter Hashem. Some lists have Heather Smith and others Heath Smith. Most lists have Antonio Montoya but one has Antonio Montoya Valdes.

Since the media which sells us the official story universally agrees that there were 92 aboard - 87 innocents and 5 hijackers, then 8 of these names (although we can't yet specify which 8 ) must be fictitious. If 8 are confirmed as fictitious, then we are perfectly entitled to speculate with some validity that any number of the 95 could be fictitious.

What's even more curious is that four of these names also appear on the lists for UA 175, alleged to have hit the Sth Tower of the WTC at 9.03. Jalbert ,Roux, Ward and Weems.

What a mess ! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people , and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented ? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims ?

It's previously been demanded by many sceptics that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the alleged flight.

The fact is - that in nearly three years - the media has tried to give the impression that they have published valid passenger lists, when all that has been provided is the contradictory rubbish exposed in this investigation. We are left with no choice but to conclude that these AA11 lists are fabrications. Personal stories of those allegedly involved have been built on the basis of these fabricated lists. As qualified earlier, some or all of them may be real people who are really missing, and may have friends or families who genuinely believe that they got on to a flight called AA11. We don't know at this stage. But the passenger lists as complete entities are lies.

I say "alleged flight" because the article linked below presents official documentation that there was no such flight as AA11 on Sept 11, 2001.

"What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11, 2001. by Gerard Holmgren Nov 13 2003.


The article linked below presents documentation that if one is to use media reports as the basis to claim the existence of such a flight, then one would have to believe that there were two AA11s that day.

Flight 11 - The Twin Flight - by Woody Box


This website presents video evidence that neither of the objects which struck the WTC were the planes alleged in the official story.

First hit examinations


Second hit examinations


This page presents a comprehensive compilation of evidence for Govt. involvement in the Sept 11 attacks.



For those who would like to seriously scrutinize my analysis - and I welcome and encourage such scrutiny - here is a suggestion for a way to analyze this mass of data while minimizing the likelihood of mistakes.

Print each list linked in this article. Choose one list as a reference list, which I will call List 1. Count the names - at least twice - and write down the number. Take list 2. Count the names - at least twice- and write down the number. Cross check it , name by name, with list 1. On list 1 write down any names from list 2 which are missing, and on list 2, write down any names from list 1 which are missing. Ensure that the summary of conflicting names reconciles with the numbers of names on both lists. Take list 3, count the names and write down the number. Cross check the names against lists 1 and 2 in the same way, writing on list 3 any names missing from the compilation of lists 1 and 2, and adding any new names appearing in list 3 to lists 1 and 2. Ensure that the numbers match the name discrepancies and move through the rest of the lists in similar fashion. When you are finished, each list should contain a listing of names it has omitted from the collective list. This was the method I used for this research.

In case anyone is thinking of removing or doctoring the lists linked in this article, they've already been backed up and widely distributed.

Craptacular! 16.May.2004 08:38

Christopher mankey

I see the alleged flight "11" that supposedly hit the alleged world trade on the allged date of september 11, 2001, suposedly in an alleged city named new york. I remember all the alleged victims and the alleged collapse of the alleged towers in the imaginary city on the east coast. Allegedly

what about other plane crashes? 16.May.2004 09:17


What has the procedure been in other plane crashes? Have there ever been discrepancies about the names and numbers? What sources have the media used in the past to publish their passenger lists?

planes half full 16.May.2004 09:51

Nori J. Muster exkritter@yahoo.com

It is clear that the passenger lists are fictitious and that there were no planes. That may be one reason why we only hear from the families of the victims who died in the towers. Also, planes such as the ones allegedly involved in 9/11 carry 186 passengers. What are the chances that all four were half full? If you are concerned about these (and other major) discrepancies send your comments to: Thomas H. Kean, Chair Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chair info@9-11Commission.gov You may say "what's the use, they'll just lie to protect the president and endorse the official story anyway." But if they hear from enough people, they will be more likely to actually say something of substance in their report. They can't ignore it if they see the 9/11 hoax has become common knowledge. I have collected hundreds of links on the 9/11 hoax at my site: http://surrealist.org/prayforpeace/9-11truth.html

P.O. Box 41750, Mesa, AZ 85274

Mafattavanazool! 16.May.2004 10:27

Mulberry Sellers

"It is clear that the passenger lists are fictitious and that there were no planes."

Okay, then exactly what was the bloody great thing with, like, wings, and a tail, and engines and airline markings and stuff which was both seen and filmed crashing into the tower?

"Also, planes such as the ones allegedly involved in 9/11 carry 186 passengers. What are the chances that all four were half full?"

Ever taken a really early-morning flight from, say, the East Coast to LA? It's pretty common for those to be sparsely booked. The only people who are hauling their asses to the airport and going through all the crap that early are the people who are stuck with it. In fact, if you want to have the best chance of having an entire row of seats to yourself, taking an early bird flight is an excellent way to do it.

The suggestion above of looking into the accuracy of passenger lists from previous air disasters is a sound one. My recollection is that it often takes a few days to get the identities of all the people on a crashed flight sorted out, and that the passenger list is only a starting point, not a definitive solution to that problem.

Of course, that's only an impression formed from news reports of air crashes. YMMV.

reply to YMMV 16.May.2004 10:48

Nori J. Muster exkritter@yahoo.com

Dear YMMV,
There's only one video and no photos that show the planes hitting the Twin Towers. Where were all the tourists and journalists who might have had cameras with them that day? The one video that exists shows a puff of smoke hitting one tower, and a plane going into the other tower with no crash, no explosion, but rather just melting into the tower like a knife into a cake. The explosion occurs about 10 - 20 floors above the floor where the plane hit.
Show me a photo - show me a video - there has to be more than just one.
This is not a partisan issue where you have to get so rankled. This was the worst crime in the history of the world. We're just trying to understand the facts. Nothing adds up. All for now. I gotta go to work today.

verification of deaths 16.May.2004 12:02

N.Kollerstrom (London 9:11 Sceptics Group)

Of the 86 or so passenger names on the given lists for flight AA11, I found that only 17 appear on the SSDI (Social Security Death Index) for the date of 9:11 (http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/). One can't get far in America without a social security number, unique for each individual, and at death this transfers into the SSDI: this is the most reliable American index of who has really died and when. Of the given crew list of 11, for the flight AA11, only one was thus registered, for that date. Thus flight assistants Betty Ong and Madeleine Sweeney that we've heard so much about, are not recorded as dying on or around that date, as far as the SSDI is concerned. The supposed pilot of that plane, John Ogonowski, is not recorded as dying on or around 11th September 2001: how can that be? Of interest is the name Xavier Suarez on the AA11 pasenger list: for this distinctive name the SSDI gives only one person, not surprisingly - however, the date given is 28 Nov, 2003 (NJ). Does this mean that Suarez kept using his social security number for two years after his claimed death? I agree with Mr Holmgren that more research is worthwhile over who really died that fateful morning.

America : lies are US 16.May.2004 15:09

John Cameron

I understood that George Washington was revered in America because of his integrity.No.43 TAKE NOTE. 911 is a cesspool of lies from day one. 1.Buildings dont fall out of the sky.eg.Implosion of WTC building # 7. 2.Lack of wreckage Boeing 757 200 AA Flight 77 ( 100 tons.) Pentagon 911 etc.etc. American voters are like lemmings, easily led. "Whilst secrecy prevails,Democracy withers & fails."

The SSDI is apparently far from definitive 16.May.2004 15:14

Mulberry Sellers

SSDI searches on family members who I know to be dead produce mixed results.

"Nothing Found" for my father, whose death must have been reported to the SSA as my mother and I received survivors benefits.

"Nothing Found" for my uncle Tony, whose death can easily be verified on the net by other means (it appears in a footnote to an SEC filing, of all places).

They do have a record of my paternal grandmother's death in 1982, but nothing for any of my other deceased relatives.

That might give some indication of the futility of using the SSDI to try to prove that someone is *not* dead.

Other online public records searches have produced similar results. Somethimes there really isn't any substitute for going to where the paper records are kept and searching the hard way.

As for the claim that there's only one video of the second plane hitting, a set of captures from a video which is *obviously* not the one we all saw endlessly repeated on TV (taken from a completely different angle) can be found here:

 link to www.magnumphotos.com

Examine them in sequence. They show very clearly that the fireballs appear on the same level as the crashing plane.

I've found a source for the video we all remember, but can't review it until I get home, as they require RealPlayer, which is not installed on this computer.

The main point 16.May.2004 19:23


Mulberry sellers writes

[[what was the bloody great thing with, like, wings, and a tail, and engines and airline markings and stuff which was both seen and filmed crashing into the tower?]]

It would helpful if some of the debunkers actually read the article, and checked its links, and then did a bit of basic research before shooting off their mouths.

The footage that Mulberry Seller is referring to is of the second crash. AA11 was allegedly the first. In the first video, there is nothing that looks anything like a 767.

The links to this video evidence were provided at the conclusion of the article.

Sorting out which crash we're talking about should be basic stuff.

The first commenter, unable to find anything factually incorrect or illogical about the article, had to resort to attributing to me things which I didn't write - for example, misrepresenting me as saying that there was no such city as NY. Its easy to discredit someone if you simply make up stuff which they didn't say and then criticise that. Official aviation records say that there was no such flight as AA11 on Sept 11. The links are provided.

Even if a 767 hit the tower- and the video shows quite clearly that it was not - that wouldn't prove that it was AA 11. The fact that official records show no such flight, and that the media has resorted to publishing fake passenger lists doesn't help the cause.

Nevertheless, lets have a little focus.However anyone might tellytubble about the other issues, this article was about one very specific issue.
The so-called passenger lists for AA11 are not worth byte space they take up.

The story has internal contradictions. There can't be 95 innocents and five hijackers for a total of 92 aboard. Clearly, wherever these lists came from, it was not from a routine flight manifest of the type that airlines keep.

Someone is fibbing. The onus is on those who want to claim that AA11 hit the WTCto provide evidence that AA11 even took off, let alone hit the tower.
As the evidence has stacked up to the contrary, they have all begun to bleat "Well what happened to the passengers?"

Which passengers - specifically?

Would any of the debunkers care to hazard a guess as to who was on the plane and who wasn't, and provide some documentation for it ?

Whilst secrecy prevails, democracy withers & fails 16.May.2004 20:46

Nori J. Muster exkritter@yahoo.com

Whilst secrecy prevails, democracy withers & fails. i like that so i added it to my web page:
Do you have an attribution for that? . . . I love my country, but i get mad when people lie. For ten years i was in a dishonest guru group. I had put my faith in the guru, thinking that he represented God. It was a painful disillusionment when i found out what was really going on: drug dealing, child abuse, etc. Now i feel the same way about my own government. . . . When i was seven years old JFK was murdered and then the government glossed it over. Many people were unhappy with the official answer, but they conducted a mock investigation and concluded "that's the way it is." That was the first real news story that i understood as a child. That had a huge effect on how i see the world. It did not have to be that way. But if that was a lie, then they have continued lying all these years and now they have told the biggest lie in the history of the world. The only reason people believe it is because it would be more unbelievable to think someone could tell such a big lie. . . . We owe it to the children who are coming up now to straighten this out and give them a sense of resolution. If we leave this big hoax dangling, our world will slide toward hell. . . . The Kennedy assassination had several lingering question marks, but 9-11 has about 3,000 question marks. Why is there practically no evidence of the planes? If there were planes, why did NORAD stand down when the planes went off course? Why did the hijackers leave their luggage and passports behind so that authorities would find them? Why did the government ignore intelligence warnings? Why are the Bush people so afraid to investigate anything? Why did Bush sit with children at an elementary school on 9-11 after a month-long vacation in Texas? Why did WTC 7 implode? For that matter, why did WTC 1 & 2 implode? . . . . I was in a cult and you may look down on me for that if you wish, but now YOU are in a cult. You have been brainwashed and indoctrinated and now you're being asked to look the other way while the leaders pursue their crimes and follies. That's called having bliners on. Your leaders are arrogant, narcissistic, careless, ruthless, and charismatic, just like cult leader gurus. Half the people love them, no doubt. . . . Now you know what it feels like to belong to a cult. The USA has become a cult that violently sexually abuses innocent people (it started with their inquisition of Clinton). In my cult they pretty much stuck to abusing women and children, but these people seem to like to abuse men too. Are these people trying to start World War III with the Moslems? It might be part of their plan. They own the weapons companies, remember. Even Hitler's concentration camps did not sexually abuse people. In my cult the abusers got their jobs by giving big donations. What did those people have to do to get those jobs? Is this a Haliburton thing? You ever feel like our world has been taken over by aliens? This has turned into a cult and we better do something about it or future generations will suffer.

Twin flight link... 17.May.2004 11:41

is not


thankyou for this article 17.May.2004 12:50


after this long a time people still don't know how to talk about "it" (wtf?!)it's like if you question the mantra and the "facts" behind it, then it's poo on you. this passenger list thing is ridiculous. i'm sure there is a real one out there...somewhere. questioning and cross-examination is good. amerika IS a cult. cult culture, it klls. and please john cameron, don't compare lemmings to amerikan voters.

**the lemming thing -i hope that wasn't a reference to "suicidal" lemmings (some ppl ACTually think that's true). it wasn't suicidal tendencies that made them run off a cliff -it was disney film makers ('white wilderness' -terrible film "documenation") who tossed them off cos they "wouldn't jump".

Twin Flight 17.May.2004 19:02


The article "Flight 11- The Twin flight" is mirrored on 911physics. You find it, if you scroll down at http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=28 It deals more with the departure(s) of the "flights", not with the arrival of the "planes". However, both research fit with each other. The further analysis of the passenger lists lead to the possibility, that the passengers boarded on totally different planes and died "somewhere else" Please check out also 9/11 -The lost "war drill"? (Chapter 2) http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=4&start=45 The Abu Ghraib-Titan- 9/11 Connection http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=165

Gerard on Urban Moving Systems and the Pentagon 17.May.2004 23:10

Already Published

Gerard Israel said,

>>> "Even if a 767 hit the tower- and the video shows quite clearly that it was not"

No Gerard, the video does NOT clearly show that it was NOT a 767, because the video--actual 25fps video (not algorithmicaly compressed pixels)--is not a particularly clear enough resoultion to make a judgement until the camera zooms into the damage after impact, by which time the plane (whatever sort of plane it was) is destroyed, and a large burning hole is all that remains. That hole happens to be rather similar to the hole we saw when a plane that definately looked like a 767 crashed into the second tower.

a) You ommitted the military-precision testimony of Keith Wheelhouse and other C-130 witnesses from your analysis of an arbitrary collection of Pentagon witness reports. Why?

b)Why did you write the following nonsense, Gerard?

>>> "some Israeli kids who were *supposedly* arrested"


(full debunk here:

Curious methods of argument 17.May.2004 23:30


My name is not Gerard Israel - I'm not sure where the above anonymous commenter got that from. I'm Gerard Holmgren.

A curious characteristic of those who support the official story is that they always want to distract the issue to something other than what's just been written about. If you write an article on pentagon witnesses, they want to talk about the physical aspects and avoid the witness evidence thats been disclosed. If you write an article about the physical evidence, then sudddenly they want to talk about witnesses. If the article is about video evidence, they want to talk about passengers, and if the article is about passengers, suddenly they're interested in videos again.
This article has the following title.
"Media published fake passenger lists for american Airlines flight 11."

Thats the evidence it presents. It gives some links to rerlated issues, such as video and BTS documetnation.

Because apologists for the mass murdering US gov, can't find any real evidence for their spin, they always restrict themselves to attacks on the linked related issue, rather than the issue under specific discussion.

In any article about video evidence, you can bet that the above commenter will be bleating "what happened to the passengers, then?" , pretending that this piece of research doesn't exist.

So tell me, anonymous debunker - whats your position on the passengers.
Are you claiming that we've ben given the truth about who was on board on the alleged flight? If not , then what specifically is your problem with this article? If so, then please supply the list of names - with documentation.

cult leaders / blind followers 18.May.2004 00:26

Nori exkritter@yahoo.com

Back in the temple there were several levels of knowing. . . . On the outside coating, naive peole like me followed the rules of celibacy, chanting, and so on; worked hard, and thought the teachings were true. That could compare to average Americans who think the leaders are good hearted and would never intentionally do anything dishonest. . . . . On the next level are the skeptics who suspect that something's amiss. That's like us. . . . But the inner circles of the organization were composed of extremely dishonest people, the people living the lie. They were the most pathetic people i've ever known. Over the last 25 years their secrets have been exposed and they have fallen from their lofty pedestals. It takes time and hard work to expose the truth. . . . Get ready for a lot of brainwashed people who will try to shut you up. Don't push against them, find ways to move forward with what you believe is right.

apologist for explosive-tainted Mossad 18.May.2004 09:27

Already Published

>> So tell me, anonymous debunker - whats your position on the passengers.

Leon Carter from Australia, actually - aka: "Already Published" or "Count Folke Bernadotte" (remember him?)

My position on the passenger lists is that they are very old and plausibly-deniable news ("fake passports"!)--unlike the explosives-tainted Urban Moving Systems activities on 911 that included "fake passports")--and are therefore curious and a little murky, but hardly worth pursuing in excruciating detail.

I note that you didn't address my claim that the video evidence doesn't permit you to say, with confidence, that a 767 didn't hit tower #1.

"In any article about video evidence, you can bet that the above commenter will be bleating "what happened to the passengers, then?", pretending that this piece of research doesn't exist."

This fallacy is called "posioning the well", Gerard.

My actual response was "My position on the passenger lists is that they are very old and plausibly-deniable news".

I'm interested in knowing why you spread Urban Moving Systems disinformation and hyper-analysis of trivia instead of promoting hard-core incontrovertible facts - eg: the 9.25AM stand-down order published in Time, Spetember 14 - two days after the attacks.

As for NON-trivia:

a) You ommitted the military-precision testimony of Keith Wheelhouse and other C-130 witnesses from your analysis of a seemingly arbitrary collection of Pentagon witness reports. Why?

b)Why did you write the following nonsense?

>>> "some Israeli kids who were *supposedly* arrested" <<<--- curious method of lying


(full humiliating debunk here:

Leon Cater's hilarious rant 18.May.2004 18:13


In repsonse to my request to Leon Carter to state his position on the passengers, we got this.

[[very old and plausibly-deniable news". ]]

Can you translate this gibberish, please, Leon ? My question was:

Do you believe that we've been told the truth about who was on board the alleged plane? Yes or no? It's a very simple straight forward question. Please answer it. If yes, what specifically is your problem with this research? If no,please provide the list of names with documentation. Why are you to frightened to state your position clearly?

As for Leon's "humiliating debunk"


I suggest people read it for themselves. It is indeed quite humiliating for Leon. Its quite a hoot. Leon has been posting this exact same message all over IMC, whenever the topic of Sept 11 comes up. It seems to be his opus magnum, so brilliantly researched and written that he feels no need to move on.

I've now worked out that his reference to me as "Gerard israel " was actually meant to be a attempt at what passes for wit in Leon's mind.

The fact that I questioned the authenticity of claims that Israeli's were arrested for cheering at the WTC disaster, somehow makes me an apologist for Mossad. If one properly researches the documentation for this story, one will find several contradictions and uncertainties. It may have happened, but it is far from established fact. The poor quality of documentation in Leon's Opus Magnum refelects this.

However, before Leon expires from the apoplexy he's currently having over my alleged Mossad sympathies, let me state my position on this clearly.

I believe that the Israeli govt and intelligence services definitely knew about sept 11 before hand. There's considerable evidence for that. Whether they were actually involved in logisitcal support for it is questionable. Its a plausible suggestion, but there's little in the way of direct evidence. Certainaly they are playing a criminal role in covering up the truth and using it as an excuse for their own brutality against the Palestinians. But then again, pretty much every country in the world is aiding the cover up, for their own reasons. The govts of Australia, Britian and Pakistan also knew before hand, and its equally plausible to suggest that they may have assisted in some way, although again the evidence for that is scarce. But Leon doesn't seem interested in those three countries.

The Israeli govt is an awful bunch of murdering criminals. That doesn't prove anything about how much they were or were not directly involved in Sept 11. The Chinese and Russian govts aren't so flash either, but no one's accusing them of doing sept 11 - just because they're bad people. One has to produce evidence. The quality of such evidence in relation to Israel can be reviewed at Leon's hilarious Opus Magnum as linked above.

I like it when the Tellytubblers like Leon tell lies about me. It shows how desperate they are, that they can't find in a hole in my research, so they have to resort to misrepresenting me to justify their shift with troll central.

Take this lie for example.

[[your analysis of a seemingly arbitrary collection of Pentagon witness reports]]

If one actually reads my article


you'll find that it was anything but arbitary. I spent a considerable amount of time in the intro to the article, specifiying the exact parameters of my research. Someone like Leon wouldn't understand the importance of qualifying parameters of research. What I was looking for - specifically - was reports which appeared to be someone claiming that they had actually seen a large jet hit the building. Thats all. People who actually saw the collision.
I then searched both the web and Lexis Nexus using various keywords in an attempt to find as many such reports as I could. And then analyzed them. There was never any guarentee that I'd find everything, but I searched as thoroughly as possible. It also needs to be remembered that this was the first serious effort by anyone to properly assess witness reports as to whether a large plane actually hit the building. Prior to that, we had heard vague cries of "but there were hundreds of witnesses!" without anybody bothering to actually systematically research the question. I was the first to do so. And I missed Wheelhouse's report. Horrors !

Except... I didn't miss it. It just didn't come within the paramters of my research. Why? For two reasons. 1) It was a second hand report. It came not from Wheelhouse himself, but his sister. I had a consistent policy in the article of not using second hand reports. Hearsay peddlers like Leon wouldn't understand such research standards. 2) There was no claim of actually having seen the jet hit the building. As stated in the intro, I was only interested in reports where the witness actually claimed - in quotes - not paraphrased or inserted by the media - to have seen the plane hit the building.

That doesn't mean that such reports are useless to any inquiry. but they simply didn't fall within the parameters of that particular article - parametetrs which were clearly stated at the beginning. Hearsay peddlars like Leon don't understand the importance of carefully deconstructing the different aspects of evidence before trying to put them all back together for a complete picture.

Check some of the links for Keith Wheelhouse below, and view them in the context of the introduction to my article, where i gaver some exapmles of reports I chose not to consider, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 link to www.911review.org



It would help,Leon if actually read my articles properly and summarized them accurately.

Now to Leon's ludicrous claim that a 767 hit the Nth tower of the WTC. Look at the size of the object for a start. Poor resolution does not change the size of an object. The wingspan of a 767 is approximately 2/3 the width of the tower. Nowhere near it. A 767 also can't fly in the divebombing kind of motion that we see on the video.

Leon resorts to inventing new properties of video in claiming that poor resolution changes - by orders of magnitude- the sizes of specifically selected objects in the video - but not others. Having established this delusion, he then concludes that because one can't really tell what it is, that its plauisble to speculate - amongst other possiblities - that it could be a 767, and from there proceeds to the extrapolation that the existence of the mythical plane is proven.

"Aha!" I can't see a 767 in the video ! That proves that it was there!"

Witness reports overwhelmingly support a small plane or missile - (as seen the video) - and a sonic boom before the impact, indicating some kind of supersonic object. Official aviation records say there was no such flight as AA11 that day, and the media resorted to publishing fake passenger lists for the alleged flight. So what's left of the 767 story?

Ahh...CNNN and the US govt tells us it was a 767 - so people like Leon believe it.

Now that I've answered Leon's questions - more throuropughly than he deserved - its time for him to answer mine.

1) Are you claiming that reliable passenger lists exist for the Alleged AA 11. Yes or no?

2)Why do continually ignore the fact that according to Bureau of transportation records, there was no such flight as AA 11 on Sept 11 ?

3)Since you've admitted that the object on the video doesn't look like a 767, you can't produce any witness reports to a large jet being responsible, you can't produce any avaition record saying that the alleged plane flew that day, and can't produce a passenger list for the alleged flight, what specifically is your evidence that it was a 767?

BTW - that the media and govt tell us so, doesn't count as evidence.

Plausible Denial and the procedural step-by-step algorithm of "proof" 18.May.2004 23:24

Goedel's Theorem of Incompleteness (Already Published)

>>> and from there proceeds to the extrapolation THAT THE EXISTENCE of the MYTHICAL PLANE [!] is PROVEN.

Shall I highlight *all* the bold-faced lies you produced, Gerard?

check html! (fix) 18.May.2004 23:28

Already Published

>>>amongst other possiblities - that it could be a 767,

I'm afraid it could be a 767 Gerard. Not that I'm saying it definately IS or ISN'T, as you seem so dangerously obsessed with doing. I have the uncompressed video - would you like a few high-res non-compressed stills?

the Emperor Wears No Clothes

Reader: "I'm Unimpressed with Attempts to Link Israel and 9-11"
[Posted 15 September 2002]

Dear Emperor's Clothes,

There's a disturbing trend developing among some activists concerned with Sept 11. They seem obsessed with trying to implicate Israel. Myself, I'll listen to any evidence with an open mind, but I'm concerned at the readiness of otherwise rational, ethical people to jump at these accusations on the flimsiest pretexts. There's a fair bit of this stuff floating around the net. I've read a lot of it, and haven't been impressed by the quality of the evidence.

The text below is from a letter on the subject, which I recently sent to one of my networks.

Best regards,
Gerard Holmgren

I'm Unimpressed with Attempts to Link Israel and 9-11
by Gerard Holmgren

Regarding Israel's alleged involvement in September 11th let me first state that I'm open to anything but I want to see evidence. Everything I've seen on this accusation has been at best highly circumstantial and speculative and at worst completely without foundation.

Five Men Detained As Suspected Conspirators
Eight hours after terrorists struck Manhattan's tallest skyscrapers, police in Bergen County detained five men who they said were found carrying maps linking them to the blasts. The five men, who were in a van stopped on Route 3 in East Rutherford around 4:30 p.m., were being questioned by police but had not been charged with any crime late Tuesday.

However, sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot. "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said. Bergen Record, September 12, 2001 (copy)

The White Van
Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." ABC June 21, 2002

Spies, or students?
Were the Israelis just trying to sell their paintings, or agents in a massive espionage ring? Ha'Aretz, May 14, 2002

Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students at DEA Facilities
Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Security, June, 2001
In January, 2001, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Office of Security Programs (IS), began to receive reports of Israeli art students attempting to penetrate several DEA Field Offices in the continental United States. Additionally, there have been reports of Israeli art students visiting the homes of numerous DEA employees. These incidents have occurred since at least the beginning of 2000, and have continued to the present DEA

Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth
Americans Probing Reports of Israeli Espionage

Despite angry denials by Israel and its American supporters, reports that Israel was conducting spying activities in the United States may have a grain of truth, the Forward has learned.[...]

According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official, who asked not to be named, the FBI came to the conclusion at the end of its investigation that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey last September (Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel) were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J., served as a front.[...]

In addition to their strange behavior and their Middle Eastern looks, the suspicions were compounded when a box cutter and $4,000 in cash were found in the van. Moreover, one man carried two passportsand another had fresh pictures of the men standing with the smoldering wreckage of the World Trade Center in the background.[...]

On December 7, a New Jersey judge ruled that the state could seize the goods remaining inside the warehouse. The state also has a lawsuit pending against Urban Moving Systems and its owner, Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen. The FBI questioned Mr. Suter once. However, he left the country afterward and went back to Israel before further questioning. Mr. Suter declined through his lawyer to be interviewed for this article.[...] Charlene Eban, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Washington, and Don Nelson, a Justice Department spokesman, said they had no knowledge of an Israeli spying operation.

"If we found evidence of unauthorized intelligence operations, that would be classified material," added Jim Margolin, a spokesman for the FBI in New York. Forward, February, 2002

Dominik Suter of Mossad on an FBI List of September 11 Suspects (large pdf)

First: One thing I've heard a lot is the question, "Who has the most the to gain?"

This doesn't constitute evidence. It merely constitutes grounds for inquiry.

The moment the Sept. 11 attacks happened, I knew that the US would use it for it's strategic agenda, but I never regarded that as evidence of the complicity [of the US establishment].

It took me a month of reading Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel's articles on the standing-down of the U.S. Air Force and the behavior of Bush on the morning before I was convinced. That's what I call evidence, not vague generalizations about who might have the most to gain.

5 Israelis detained for `puzzling behavior' after WTC tragedy
Five Israelis who had worked for a moving company based in New Jersey are being held in U.S. prisons for what the Federal Bureau of Investigation has described as "puzzling behavior" following the terror attack on the World Trade Center in New York last Tuesday.[...] They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.Ha'Aretz, September 17, 2001

Even so, I can't really see what Israel had to gain. We know what the US stood to gain. Cheap oil, strategic influence for a long-standing imperialist policy agenda, and profits from arms trading.

Israel's agenda is completely different and far less duplicitous. Its main concern has been securing its borders....

Unlike the forked tongue propaganda of the US, Israel makes it quite clear and open what its agenda is. It pursues it ruthlessly so what you see is what you get. I see no evidence of a shadowy covert strategic chess game of the type the US plays.

"kee betachbulot ta'ase lecha milchama"
"By way of deception thou shalt do war"


"Ha'Mossad Le'modiein"
"The institute for the collection of Information"

When I wrote these things- [these instructions to the embassies to frame Arabs for Israeli terrorist attacks against U.S. targets in Egypt] - I still didn't know how crushing is the evidence that was
refuting our official version. The huge amounts of arms and explosives, the tactics of the attack, the blocking and mining of the roads ... the precise coordination of the attack. Who would be foolish enough to believe that such a complicated operation could "develop" from a casual and sudden attack on an Israeli army unit by an Egyptian unit?
- Moshe Sharett, Prime Minister of Israel 1954 & 1955.

This web site is dedicated to the memory of thirty-four fine young men
who gave their lives on June 8, 1967, defending the USS Liberty
against a sustained air and sea attack by the armed forces of the State of Israel

I fail to see how engineering a war between the US and Afghanistan or the US and Iraq provides anything useful to Israel.

In Washington, Team Chalabi is led by Deputy Secretary of Defense [zionist] Paul Wolfowitz and [zionist] Richard Perle, the neoconservative strategist who heads the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Chalabi's partisans run the gamut from far right to extremely far right, with key supporters in most of the Pentagon's Middle-East policy offices -- such as Peter Rodman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Michael Rubin. Also included are key staffers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, not to mention Defense Secretary Donald [so-called occupied territories] Rumsfeld and former CIA Director Jim Woolsey.

The Washington partisans who want to install Chalabi in Arab Iraq are also those associated with the staunchest backers of Israel, particularly those aligned with the hard-right faction of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Chalabi's cheerleaders include the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

Free Iraqi Resistance Calling on Jewry For Support in Quest to Depose Saddam

Allies of Chalabi Meet Ambassador Gold, Warn of White House Folly

An adviser to INC chairman Ahmad Chalabi, Francis Brooke, and a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser, met with Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations, Dore Gold, last Friday to begin the process of getting Israel to back the INC. Representatives of the group have also met with a spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu, David Bar-Illan.

Domestically, the INC advisers believe that the core of America's organized Jewish community could rally the requisite amount of political support for the Iraqi opposition group to enable it to successfully challenge Saddam Hussein.

With regard to the American Jewish community, [Richard] Perle said: "There's no question that the Jewish community's been at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein."

Bush aide: Inspections or not, we'll attack Iraq

Exclusive By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor

GEORGE Bush's top security adviser last night admitted the US would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons.

Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a "clean bill of health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not halt America's war machine.

Netanyahu says Iraq-Israel oil line not pipe-dream.

LONDON, June 20 (Reuters) - Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he expects an oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel to be reopened in the near future after being closed when Israel became a state in 1948. - "It won't be long when you see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa", the port city in Northern Israel, Netanyahu told a group of British investors, declining to give a timetable.

In fact the reverse. All Israel has gained out of Sept 11 is a certain amount of political justification for going a bit harder against the Palestinians, and I find it preposterous to suggest that they would use the convoluted route of engineering Sept 11 for this purpose. First, they have a much richer source of justification in the terrorist bombings of Palestinian extremists than in any marginal increase in justification for attacking "terrorism" in general in the aftermath of Sept 11. And any gains in this area are well and truly offset by the stirring up of the Arab and Muslim states following September 11.

This network [Note from http://www.tenc.net As Mr. Holmgren said, this text is based on a letter he sent to an email-list] has spent many words and hours examining in minute detail the finest points of what the US has to gain out of Sept 11, but when it comes to Israel, seems to be satisfied with the vague generalisation that more hostility to the Arab world might prove useful to them. I find this approach unbalanced, unscientific and inconsistent.

Second point. There have been numerous [post Urban Moving Systems exposure] reports that Mossad warned US intelligence agencies about Sept. 11 prior to the event. This is also presented as evidence that they were involved because "they knew." But why would they have tried to warn the U.S. if they were part of it? [Why were the alleged warnings only published after the arrest of the happy Mossad agents?] These reports point to the involvement of US intelligence, not the Mossad. [EMPEROR'S CLOTHES NOTE: Apparently the Russians, French and Egyptians also tried to warn the CIA...]

Third point. It's all very well to say that "Israel was involved" but I'm yet to hear anything specific about how they actually contributed to it.

sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot. "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said. Bergen Record, September 12, 2001

....In addition to their strange behavior and their Middle Eastern looks, the suspicions were compounded when a box cutter and $4,000 in cash were found in the van. Moreover, one man carried two passports - Forward, February, 2002

Standing down the airforce could only be done by US authorities. If the planes were flown by remote control this would have required complicity of US authorities and possibly some officials in the airlines. Slackening or manipulation of airport security measures would have to be organised by US authorities. Issuing of passports and ID to the terrorists, which some think happened, would require the work of US authorities. Did Israel have interests in Enron, or the Carlyle group? Does Mossad have connections with the Bin Ladens? Everything we know suggests a domestic US intelligence operation, tied in with US business.

I want to see evidence and research of real quality before I'll take these allegations seriously, and quite frankly, I haven't seen a shred. Vague stuff about Israeli spy rings or some Israeli kids who were supposedly arrested after cheering the WTC disaster from a rooftop in New Jersey - and who knows if they even knew what was happening [!!!] - do not constitute evidence of the quality needed. When I see things like the Chief of the Israeli airforce being in Washington on Sept. 11 and meeting with Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers as the attacks were going on, or hijackers with Israeli-issued passports, then I'll get interested. I haven't seen anything like that.

Why is it that everywhere we look we find evidence of the US Establishment's collusion lying around in heaps so big we keep tripping over them, but we're having to resort to the most circumstantial, vague and twisting speculation to find anything at all to pin on Israel?

-- Gerard Holmgren
Australia *****

Emperors Clothes

Note: the passenger list disparities IS, in fact, a very old and much analyzed story. Unlike many other hard-core frequently-ignored facts surrounding 911 (eg: stand-down order, Time, September 14), the passenger manifesto is plausibly deniable, and thus not worth wasting too much time investigating in excruciating detail.*

The very important witnesses that Gerard conspicuoulsy ignored

* - "The principle of plausible denial is simply if an operation or action is later disclosed, for example, as an action of the United States government, the government can plausibly deny it, deny any involvement or connection with the action."
a lesson for Gerard from E. Howard Hunt

More to follow on F11, Gerard.

F11 on CNN on 911 - what'll be interesting about this 18.May.2004 23:53

Already Published

"that's at least a thirty-minute run there."
flight explorer radar archive
flight explorer radar archive

Still no answer from Leon 19.May.2004 00:32


I answered all Leon's questions. But he's too scared to reciprocate.

Simple questions.1) Are the passenger lists for AA11 faked? Saying that its "old information" is no answer. Vague mumblings about Leon's perception of how politically useful the info might be does not tell us what his opinion is. Leon - either admit that the passenger lists are faked, or if you disagree, provide the documented proof of who was on that plane. Leon's backed himself into a corner, so he simply refuses to give us his opinion.

And after all, that was the subject of the article. Leon responded to an article entitled

"Media published fake passenger lists for American Airlines flight 11"

with a furious tirade against the author, but won't actually tell us whether or not he agrees with the information and conclusions of the article. What's the big secret ,Leon ?

Bereft of ideas to hide this problem, or support his ludicrous theroies about poor video resolution selectively reducing the size of various objects by orders of magnitude, Leon took to a cut and paste of his treasured Opus Magnum referred to in the previous post. Can't think of anything new to say ,Leon?

Leon asked why I didn't include Keith Wheelhouse in my pentagon article. I gave a detailed reply. Leon's only response was to link to more of these kinds of reports which weren't covered for exactly the same reasons as Wheel-house. There was no direct claim by a witness to see the plane hit the building. Leon seems incapbable of understanding the concept of setting specific research paramters and sticking to them. He also seems incapbale of reading my replies to his questions.

He's also not prepared to reciprocate my gesture in answering his questions. He thinks it all one way.

Leon admits that he has no evidence for a 767 at the Nth Tower. His best argument is that it "could be" (if one accepts that video selectively minimizes certain objects, while leaving others unchanged). We had already established that this was Leon's position.

So I attempted to move the discussion forwards by asking him for actual *evidence* for a 767. No video evidence for it. No witness evidence for it. No documented evidence that such a flight took place. He refused to provide anything - simply pleading that the video just might show a 767 if we shrink the object by orders of magnitude.

I'm going to be away from my computer for 4 or 5 days, so even someone of Leon's limited mental acumen might find this enough time to dream up some more pointless lies, to try to spam himself out of the corner he's backed himself into.

If he completely runs out of ideas, he can always resort to endless more pastes of his treasured Opus Magnum.

4 or 5 days all to yourself Leon ! I'll embarrass you some more when I get back if you're stupid enough to hang around.

As for highlingting "*all* the bold-faced lies" I've produced, Leon - please do! I wait with bated breath ! I'm shaking in my shoes ! There's so many of them, that you 'll need that 4 or 5 days to fabricate them all. I'll check back then.

Return to the Middle Ages 19.May.2004 07:19


Fascinating midnight musings in above posts.

Undoubtedly the 9-1-1 Commission is part of a major whitewash that will in the end (already has) officially blame "poor communications", wring hands for a while and consign the whole matter to the same dustbin as the Kennedy, Kennedy, MLK, Sen Heinz, microbiologists, Paul Wellstone, etc. investigations. Then move on to continue consolidation of power in a new world-wide aristocracy.

It is amazing to watch the development of this new royalty-- right under the noses of us skeptics, who just don't seem to be able to get any traction with the majority of the public. It is as though the public collectively is just uncomfortable with democracy and truly wants to avoid the rigors of self government.

Apparently, the 21st century is the century of the development of a new fundamentalist feudalism. It appears to me that the bulk of the American people have chosen (by default) to help forge their own chains.

Yet another step-by-step problem solving procedure from Leon 19.May.2004 07:46

Turing (Already Published)

I'll come back with a point by point rebutal soon, as humiliating as the one I produced using extracted evidence alone to expose Gerard's whitewashing of the Urban Moving Systems activities on the day of the "catastrophic and catalyzing event". For the moment, however, note that Gerard promiscuously and incorrectly refers to the Urban Moving Systems activities compendium as my "Opus Magnum", begging me to come up with "something new". But the fact that the plausibly-deniable flight list discrepencies are "old news" is not considered reason enough for Gerard Israel (it's a prosody thing) to "move on", as he nicely put it.

When is Gerard going to "move on" with these plausibly deniable passenger list discrepencies? I was discussing them more than two years ago during a game of bait and switch; Sunday February 17th to be precise:

 link to www.cybersoapbox.com

more steps to follow
qua PNAC - by Leon (not quite new)
qua PNAC - by Leon (not quite new)

"Supposedly" 20.May.2004 13:42

Already Published

In repsonse (sic) to my request to Leon Carter to state his position on the passengers, we got this.
>>>"very old and plausibly-deniable news". <<<
Can you translate this gibberish, please, Leon ?

MARK LANE: What is a plausible denial?
E. HOWARD HUNT: Denial that is believable.
LANE: Is that a term of art within the CIA?
HUNT: In the intelligence community it means a story that is plausible, it could be believed by a substantial number of people. Plausibly denying, a denial that is believable, that is credible.
LANE: Do you recall testifying on June 28, 1974, in the case of United States versus Ehrlichman, page 761, were you asked these questions, and did you make these answers:

"Question. What was the reason given, or was any reason given, why you and Mr. Liddy couldn't perform this operation?
"Answer. Because of our connection with the White House and the fact that plausible denial would have to be maintained.
"Question. You said plausible denial would have to be maintained?
"Answer. Yes.
"Question. Would you explain what you mean by that?
"Answer. "The principle of plausible denial is simply if an operation or action is later disclosed, for example, as an action of the United States government, the government can plausibly deny it, deny any involvement or connection with the action."

Do you recall those questions and answers?

HUNT: Yes.
LANE: Would you accept as a fair definition which you gave, when you testified as to what a plausible denial is?
HUNT: Yes.

Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, Plausible Denial, pp 261-262, Mark Lane, 1991

My question was: Do you believe that we've been told the truth about who was on board the alleged plane? Yes or no?

I don't believe anything: I estimate the likelihood of any explanation based on the quality and quantity of tangible, relevant, non-contradictory evidence. In the absence of good evidence it isn't wise to jump to conclusions. But I can conclude, logically, that we have not and cannot have been accurately informed about the actual passengers on flight 11, as the contradictions alone demonstrate. This doesn't lead me to conclude that no passengers and no flight 11 existed.

...what specifically is your problem with this research?

There's nothing wrong with the referenced research detailing contradictions and the unusual methods used for compiling the flight manifesto. In fact, it's good work, Gared. But the Rorsach's-based conclusion that a 767 certainly didn't hit the first tower doesn't fit the available evidence, nor does the repeated inference that flight 11 didn't exist in the first place (contradictory to non-government radar evidence). These claims poison an otherwise interesting well, and--perhaps intentionally--provide handy levers for trolls to press. Eg. from above: "...alleged flight "11" that supposedly hit the alleged world trade on the allged (sic) date of september 11..."

As for Leon's "humiliating debunk"
I suggest people read it for themselves. It is indeed quite humiliating for Leon.
Its quite a hoot. Leon has been posting this exact same message all over IMC, whenever the topic of Sept 11 comes up. It seems to be his opus magnum, so brilliantly researched and written that he feels no need to move on.

"It's quite a hoot" that you continue to assert that Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari, Yaron Shmuel, Ro'i Barak and Moti Butboul of Mossad's Urban Moving Systems were only "supposedly arrested" in explosives-tainted circumstances, because--supposedly--"contradictions and uncertainties" exist that you seem unwilling to detail. At no point have you referenced or quoted any of the relevant reports.

"It's quite a hoot" that you can shamelessly claim that I've not only posted this "exact same message all over IMC", but that I've done so "whenever the topic of Sept 11 comes up."

It's quite a "hoot" that you berated me for my anonymity, thus falsely implying that my identity has any relevance whatsoever to the accuracy of the referenced information I posted (see argumentum ad hominem and ad verecundium), and it was subsequently a "hoot" when you responded to my ID disclosure with a derisive appeal to ridicule that presupposes knowlege of all my contributions on a substantial range of subjects posted under various imaginative pseudonyms on a very small subset of all the available IMCs.

And what a "hoot" it was to be told that I should "move on" from the explosives-tainted evidence linking Mossad's "suspected conspirators" to the "bombing plot", whereas to "move on" from the dubious inference that flight 11 didn't exist or was certainly not a 767 should be interpreted, according to you, as support for the official narrative.

I've now worked out that his reference to me as "Gerard israel " was actually meant to be a attempt at what passes for wit in Leon's mind.

While your lack of wit is irrelevant, I've now worked out that fallacies and insults do nothing to support your case. I've also worked out that the following examples of your implausible-denial haven't devalued the quality of evidence linking Israel to PNAC's "catastrophic and catalyzing event":

  • I questioned the authenticity of claims that Israeli's were arrested
  • If one properly researches the documentation for this story, one will find several contradictions and uncertainties.
  • It may have happened, but it is far from established fact.
  • The poor quality of documentation in Leon's Opus Magnum refelects (sic) this.
  • I believe..Israeli govt and intelligence.... knew...There's considerable evidence for that. Whether they were actually involved...is questionable.... plausibl...but...little...evidence.

Apart from the fact that "surveilance mission" is not concordant or compatible with "evidence linking the men to the bombing plot", false passports, box-cutters, jubilation, or the explosives-tainted moving van, I see no contradictions, no "uncertainties" nor problems with the "quality of documentation". Once again, every reference was provided with working hyperlinks.

As for the Pentagon witness reports--many of which refer at least to an AA-marked jet of some kind--it's a fairly standard practice (and not one I particularly like) for journalists to explain that Jerard claims a 767 didn't hit the north tower because there is "no documented evidence that flight 11 took place". The fact that a journalist doesn't quote Jerard verbatim in entirety doesn't automatically devalue the journalist's re_presentation of Jerard's claims, particularly in the context of reporting, uhhh...live verbal exchanges, such as ...uhhh...witness interviews.

"according to Bureau of transportation records, there was no such flight as AA 11 on Sept 11"
-Gerard Holmgren, possibly trying to explain that no record of the flight is available from the Bureau of Transportation:

American Airlines #11World Trade Center118192
United Air Lines #175World Trade Center95665
American Airlines #77Pentagon65864
United Air Lines #93Shanksville, PA73744

"1) The recordings of communications, transcripts and any documents relating to your request are part of an ongoing, sensitive investigation. Therefore, the contents of the investigative file are protected from mandatory disclosure under Exemption 7 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (7). Exemption 7(A) protects information to the extent that if disclosed it could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, your request for recordings of communications and any documents contained in the investigative file is denied."
The Memory Hole

questions 20.May.2004 17:57

Nori J. Muster exkritter@yahoo.com

Hi - Can anybody tell me how much Larry Silverstein paid for the World Trade Center, when he bought it, and how much he got from the insurance after 9/11? I know it was a billion less than he wanted, but did he break even, or did he made money? . . . My ex-husband got upset when i told him i doubted whether there were planes involved in 9/11, so he is sending me a CD with the original Dan Rather broadcast on the day of 9/11. I'm waiting for the disk. . . . If there were planes involved, i still doubt that they were hijacked. I think the Bush administration need a "Pearl Harbor-like" event so they could start changing things in the Middle East. The rest is a cover-up.

P.O. Box 41750, Mesa, AZ 85274

Larry on 7 21.May.2004 04:20

Already Published

"Firemen evacuated the area AS THEY PREPARED FOR the collapse of Building Seven."
Tom Franklin, photographer
Thursday, September 13, 2001

Firefighters from Engine 255 and Ladder 157 in Brooklyn had been digging in the rubble for survivors for six grueling hours, when THEY GOT THE CALL TO immediately EVACUATE.

Firefighter Dan McWilliams from Ladder 157 headed out with the rest of his crew. It was then that the 35-year-old firefighter spotted a flag flying from a yacht docked behind the World Financial Center. He made his way to the boat, rolled the flag up around its pole to be sure it didn't touch the ground, and carried the pole back to the evacuation area.

As McWilliams passed his buddy and fellow 157 firefighter George Johnson, he slapped him on the shoulder. "Gimme a hand, will ya, George?"

"I knew exactly what he was doing," Johnson, 36, said.

Then Billy Eisengrein of Rescue 2, another Brooklyn fire company, and McWilliams' childhood friend from Staten Island, jumped in, "You need a hand?"

The three firefighters quickly found a perfect spot -- a single flagpole anchored in the rubble about 20 feet off the ground on West Street.

They climbed a makeshift ramp so they could easily raise the flag in its new home. It was at that moment that Record photographer Thomas E. Franklin spotted the three from a distance.

Jeannine Clegg, staff writer
Thursday, September 14, 2001

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, MAYBE THE SMARTEST THING TO DO IS PULL IT.

AND THEY MADE THAT DECISION TO PULL and we watched the building collapse."

Larry Silverstein, Leaseholder, Word Trade Center
America Rebuilds, PBS, September 2002
Big Wings (de-interlaced)
Big Wings (de-interlaced)

the "no plane at WTC" is disinformation 21.May.2004 11:42

muddying the waters

New at questionsquestions.net: an analysis by Eric Salter, refuting several widely-circulated claims about the WTC airliner impacts on 9/11. These include the claims that original video recordings of the impacts were fabricated or altered using computer graphics, that aircraft other than 767s struck the the towers, and even that no planes hit the two towers, the planes supposedly being replaced by super high-tech "holographic" illusions [!]. The analysis shows that these claims, which unfortunately have been lingering around for some time, have no solid basis in the evidence -- video, photographic, or otherwise -- nor any solid basis in logic, and could help to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?

pipe down, holograms are valuable concept and as US mil tech, do exist 22.May.2004 04:29


There is nothing called 'muddying the waters' in this case, ***unless you somehow already know*** every fathomable detail. There are plenty of smoking guns in my opinion in many different directions. Use your energies researching the 9-11 events, instead of without any data that you mention, lambasting others.

intentional mud, untenable conclusions, sowing confusion and doubt, etc 22.May.2004 06:19

Already Published

>>> "nor any solid basis in logic, and could help to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement."

Exactly: thanks!

>>>>> "There is nothing called 'muddying the waters' in this case, ***unless you somehow already know*** every fathomable detail."


"The objective of this lesson is for you to comprehend pychological operations, and how they may be employed to influence an adversary's behaviour. At the end of the lesson you will be able to define 'psyop', as well as explain its different categories and types. You will be able to identify the tools used to conduct psyop, and you will be able to explain the principles and objectives of psyops."

great link too 22.May.2004 06:29


"Holmgren and Webfairy base their analysis on the fact that a 767 is not visible in the 1st strike mpeg, and therefore was not there in real life. Of course it's not visible-the reduction in resolution removed half the visual data, and compression artifacts distort the shape of the plane. Holmgren and Webfairy show a profound lack of knowledge of digital imagery by failing to consider that this movie was a highly compromised version of the original footage."

worth reading

Thanks Leon 24.May.2004 18:18


Finally we get an admission from Leon that the passenger lists are not credible and that this research is "good work ".

This says something about Leon's motives that he's more interested in smothering the comments page of "good work" with angry rants about the alleged past misdeeds of the author, than looking at the implications of the research.

Good work is good work - whoever does it.

Leon's paste from the Bureau of transportation does not provide any official documentation of the existence of AA 11. Its simply a general commentary on the methods of working out fatalities - based on the unsubstantited myths about the flight. We can have the alleged calls from Sweeny and Ong splashed across the media, and media reporting of when the flight took off, how many people aboard, etc - but to list the routine stats confirming an official record of the flight in the media would be compromising security? Hmm - wheels off time - really sensitive info !
The tail number of the flight - top secret ! Its scheduled departure time - heavily classified ! Its taxi out time - this a matter of urgent national security ! All of this stuff is far too sensitive to to list in a page of routine stats. Everything about AA11 is so secret, that people mustn't even know that the flight existed - well not officially anyway. Knowing everything about - unofficially - is fine. CNN can report whatever it likes about it. We just can't list it on the official stats page. That would be dangerous !

As for the ludicrous idea that the video shows a 767 hitting the North Tower - I have two questions.

1) Does video -of whatever quality - *selecvtively* change the size of objects? That is - change the size of some objects by orders of magnitude, while leaving others unchanged ? Yes or no? If so, please give other examples.

2) I've asked for anyone to produce a verifiable witness report to a large plane, which could could conceivably be consistent with a 767. I note the deafening silence. So - to those who claim that a 767 hit the tower, are you

a) refusing to link to such witness reports that you've found ?

or b) admitting that you can't find any ?

The Alleged "Gerard" and hiu intentionally whacky no-plane hypothesis 24.May.2004 22:50

Already Published

Finally we get an admission from the alleged "Gerard Holmgren" that discussing Urban Moving Systems and their explosives-tainted moving van, and their false passports, and their box-cutters, and their maps linking them to the bombing plot, and their boss Dominik Suter of Mossad being listed by the FBI as a 911 suspect, is a good way to solve the mystery of 9/11.

Or did we?

1) Does video -of whatever quality - *selecvtively*[sic] change the size of objects?
-the alleged "Gerard Holmgren"

What I will do partly for your benefit, "Gerard"--but mostly for the benefit of genuine researchers--is to post Eric Salter's exquisite analysis (referenced above) in its entirety to a fresh position on the newswire, thus exposing you to a more public form of ridicule. Can't wait to see how you explain your Rorsach's pixel-test, demonstrating, yet again, your ignorance (or deliberate misrepresentation) of resolution limitations (film and video), lensing limitations, photon behavior, Charge-Coupled-Devices (CCD video), photon-reactive chemical emulsions (film) and compression algorithms for digital video. See you there!

"The objective of this lesson is for you to comprehend psychological operations, and how they may be used to influence an adversary's behaviour..."

equisite what ? 25.May.2004 08:16


Planes wings - yellow. So clearly seen that they have to be drawn in. Heh !

I love the bit where Eric says "The shape of the airplane is much clearer in the high quality movie:"


so clear in fact that he has to draw in arrows to tell us what parts of the tiny blob represent the various parts of the plane. And so clear that one part is labelled as 'right wing or engine" and another part (which doesn't line up at all) is labelled as "left wing or engine."

Hee hee ! An engine is about 10 ft wide and a wing about 160 ft long, but Salter can't quite decide which it is, but nevertheless assures us that its clearly a plane with a 160 ft wingspan.

I also love the crazy angle at which the bit labelled "tail" with the informative arrows sits against the bits labelled "wing or engine."

Thats one mighty strange looking plane.

The reason why Salter published this is because I debated him in an email list in April and he got so severely beaten that he ran off from the debate, and now hides behind a website where I can't argue with him.

He was so backed into a corner, that when I asked him to state whether he was
a) claiming that it was clearly a 767
or b) saying that it was so indistinct that we cant tell what it is, and that he was simply speculating that it *might* be a 767

that he refused to answer the question. He also recklessly and stupidly claimed that there were thousands of witnesses to a large plane hitting the building. I asked him three times to produce any and he refused.

His claim at the website that

"I asked Holmgren to provide me with the complete list of these eyewitness reports and he refused. " is a straight out lie.

It was Salter who refused to supply any witnesses to back up his wild claim of thousands of witnesses. I was perfectly prepared to debate him on the witnesess, but he demanded that I send them to him privately and not to the list in which we were debating.

I said that I was perfectly happy to post them to the group, as part of the ongoing debate, which prompted Salter to run away and post the above defamatory satement on the website.

Heh! I like it when people tell lies about me...

But since the question of witneses came up... Witness? Witness? Anyone got a witness? I never get tired of asking...

Infinite Resolution in Every Capture! 25.May.2004 12:20

Already Published

I love the way that no hint whatsoever of the 16 inch perimeter-columns can be seen in the video of the "alleged" towers, either before or during impact - don't you, "Gerard"?

Yet here they are! Spooky, isn't it?

Witness,witness...anybody got a witness ? 25.May.2004 16:12


Well... asking for a fourth time can't do any harm.

Thousands walk around with eyes turned to sky!! 26.May.2004 00:12

Already Published

You can ask th e question over and over and over again, Jerard. Doing so does nothing to strengthen your case or refute the evidence that was already published - including rather good quality video evidence.

The Only Published Witness: Milan

Plane Hits Milan High-Rise
Crash Called Accident, but Sept. 11 Memory Stirs Panic

MILAN, April 18 -- A small private plane flying in clear skies crashed into Milan's tallest high-rise today, killing the pilot and at least two people in the building and triggering global fears that terrorists were seeking to repeat the devastation of Sept. 11.

The plane headed toward the 417-foot Pirelli Building, a 1950s structure that was formerly home of the Pirelli tire and cable company and now houses offices of the Lombardy regional government. It sits across THE BUSY PIAZZA Duca d'Aosta from Milan's central train station.

At 5:45 p.m., the plane plowed into the 25th floor of the building, while flying on an upward trajectory. Glass, metal facing and concrete crashed to the street below and spread about 40 yards around.

At the moment of impact, the streets below were full. Pedestrians screamed and ran for cover as debris fell to the ground. "Madonna mia!" a woman yelled. "IT'S A HELICOPTER!" She evidently thought that a helicopter, not a plane hit.


Sean Murtagh, a CNN vice president, was in an office near the World Trade Center towers at the time of the first crash. HE WITNESSED THE CRASH.

Murtagh said he saw the plane "teetering back and forth, wingtip to wingtip" before the plane smashed into the side of the building.

Steve's Cousin & Bob's Wife (contactable) 26.May.2004 01:21

Already Published

Third Person Report (Score:4, Insightful)
by SteveM (11242) <stevemattan@co m c a s t .net> on Tuesday September 11, @08:49PM (#2283135)
My cousin, Maryann, worked in the WTC for the Port Authority of NY and NJ.

She was on her way to work, on a bus in NYC, when she saw the first plane hit. She, and the others on the bus thought it was an accident.

Then she saw the second plane hit and realized it was no accident.

She got out of the bus and started walking north. She went to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, but it was closed. As she worked for the Port Authority, they let her in to sit a while. She is short and overweight, and not used to all that walking.

She then heard that trains were leaving from Penn Station. So she walked on down and got on a very crowded train.

She didn't want to go home and be alone, so she went to my parent's who live a couple of miles from her home.

She told her story to my mom and dad. And cried and cried. She had worked there for over thirty years. She doesn't know how many of her freinds and coworkers are dead. She does know that her best friend is alive. She can't get the images out of her head.

My Wife Was In WTC #2 When the First Plane Crashed (Score:5, Informative)
by Brooklyn Bob (132045) on Tuesday September 11, @09:50PM (#2283518)
She's okay. Here's what happened:

My wife, Stacy, worked in tower #2, 21st floor. She was in a
meeting at 8:45 when the first plane crashed into tower #1. She
heard the plane coming in, loud enough to make her think it was
flying unusually close to the buildings.

After the crash, she saw large chunks of burning debris falling
down. Her office decided to evacuate immediately. Thanks to all
the fire drills they've done since the '93 bombing, they knew
exactly what to do, where to go. They got into the staircase
quickly, and started walking down the 21 floors.

Stacy didn't hear any alarms or building announcements. There
were other people in the staircase, heading down, but it wasn't

When Stacy and her coworkers got to the lobby, security guards
directed them away from the Liberty St. exit. They used the
Church St. exit instead. Outside the building, security guards
told them to move away from the building. One of the guards kept
shouting, "It was a plane, not a bomb!"

At first Stacy hesitated, because she saw debris coming down,
but she realized it was paper from offices. So she crossed Church

As Stacy was crossing Church St., she turned and looked back for the
first time. She saw the flames shooting out of the top of tower #1. She
stopped in her tracks for a few seconds, stunned.

Across Church St., Stacy found a bunch of her coworkers in front of
Century 21. Their boss told them to go home. Stacy turned and starting
walking down Cortlandt St. towards Broadway.

Near Broadway, Stacy stopped to look again. She didn't see the
second plane crash into tower #2, but she saw the enormous
fireball explode. People started screaming. Everyone on the
street started running away from the Trade Center.


PS: Jerard's malicious mis_re_presentation 26.May.2004 07:42

Already Published

the alleged Gerard: - "Planes wings - yellow. So clearly seen that they have to be drawn in. Heh !" [!]

Salter: "plane of wings: yellow"

Mathematics. A surface containing all the straight lines that connect any two points on it.

And this is how Leon lies 26.May.2004 17:30


This will be my final comment on this page because I will now demonstrate how Leon has lied about the witness evidence. I knew he'd pull out this one if he were goaded enough. From Leon's above post.

[[Sean Murtagh, a CNN vice president, was in an office near the World Trade Center towers at the time of the first crash. HE WITNESSED THE CRASH.

Murtagh said he saw the plane "teetering back and forth, wingtip to wingtip" before the plane smashed into the side of the building.
 http://europe.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.03.html ]]

What Leon very, very conveniently failed to mention was this - from the very same CNN transcript which reported Murtagh's statement.CNN interviewed a number of witnesses.


Here's one extract.

TRACTSONBURG: Well, I'm not an expert on planes, but it didn't seem like a big passenger jet. It was smaller type plane, because it made some pretty radical turn, and flying low.

Here's another:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jim, I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft, or to be more specific, some people said they thought they saw a missile. I don't know how people could differentiate, but we might keep open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings.

And another

YURMAN: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange.

LIN: Fortunately so. When you say a sonic boom, did you feel anything? Were things shaking in your apartment?

YURMAN: Yes, you could feel it. It was a gigantic sonic boom. The TV went off for a second and went back on. And the windows -- you felt the vibrations on the windows.

This all began at about 8:48 this morning. Again, what we know in case you are just joining us, a small plane, not a Cessna-type or five or six seater, but instead, perhaps a passenger flight ran into the north side of the World Trade Center.

OK, we actually have an "Eyewitness News" reporter, Dr. J. Atlasberg (ph) who was downtown at the time and he is on the phone with us live

Dr. J., what can you tell us?

DR. J. ATLASBERG (ph), REPORTER: Hello, Steve.

I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center.

But what does Leon do? he picks out Murtagh who was the only one who said that it was anything like a large Boeing. But what Leon also carefully omitted was that this is how he actually described it.

"It was a jet, looked like a two-engine jet," Murtagh said. "It looked like maybe a 737."


A 737 has a wingspan of 93 ft and a length of 94 ft - approximately 58% of the size of a 767. It is conceivable that someone could mistake a 160 ft plane for a 94 ft plane. And its equally concievable that someone could mistake a 60 ft plane for a 94 ft plane. So ,in isolation, Murtagh's report leaves open the possibility that he may have seen something the size of a 767. When taken in context with other witness reports, if they were all reporting something as big or bigger than what Murtagh said, then we would be entitled to interpret his report as underestimating the size of the plane.
If some said bigger, some smaller and some about the same , then it would indicate that he got it about right - in which case we would have evidence of a medium sized Boeing - which gives the govt an awful lot of explaining to do. If other witnesses consistently said something smaller, then it indicates that Murtagh has overestimated the size of the plane.
And thats exactly what we see in this transcript.

But Leon fraudulently picked out the most selective quote he could find - ommitted the specific reference to a 737 - a medium sized plane, significantly smaller than whats being alleged and ommitted the other witnesses - which all indicated that Murtagh's estimate was on the high side.

Also note the reference to a missile.

Here's another one.


WTC Ch. 07
MALE: Either ... either a plane crashed into the Trade Center, or a rocket hit the Trade Center. And, uh, people are all over the place, dead.

... MALE A: The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building. And the second one they think is an airplane that was circling to watch it, and hit the World Trade.

INSPECTOR: One more question. Why do you think it might be an airplane?
PAPD RAY MURRAY: Uh, that's what one of the units, uh, said over the air. That's all. That's the only reason I say that.
Here's another
From the NY POST (08-29-03):
"The Woolworth Building! The Woolworth Building! They're shooting at the
Trade Center from the Woolworth Building!" a police officer screams.
... "There's fucking explosions going off on Vesey street!" another officer

"Can you send somebody over to the Woolworth Building to check the roof?" a
Port Authority police officer asked. "There's a possible ... they said it
was ... we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of
the Woolworth Building."
"The Woolworth Building?" replied a police operator.
"`Yeah, on ... on Broadway," the officer said.
Also note the reference to a sonic boom.

Here's some more. Note that nearly all of them are explicit about hearing the sonic boom *before* the impact.


A witness named Gail told Associated Press radio, "I was watching TV, and there was this sonic boom and the TV went out. And I thought maybe the Concord was back in service because I've heard about those sonic booms and I got up to my window (I live in Battery Park City right next to the twin towers) and I looked up and the side of the World Trade Center exploded."


A witness reported a "sonic boom" as a commercial passenger jet hit the north tower of the 110-story building between the 80th and 85th floor.


Then I heard what sounded like a sonic boom. I ducked next to the window to get a better view of the sky, and the first tower exploded in flames.


An eyewitness who was working in Tower 2 told WCBS-TV in New York, "I heard what was like a sonic boom, then there was smoke everywhere


There's plenty more like this. Thats just a small sample.

And there's plenty like this.

A year ago today, Alan Leidner left his apartment on the Upper West Side a little before 9 o'clock. "I heard someone yelling that it looked like a small plane went into the World Trade Center," he said


scroll about 1/2way

. When he answered, he told me that he was watching the TV ó he didn't really engage me ó after a long pause he told me that someone had flown into the World Trade Center and didn't know what was going on. He thought it had been a small plane, maybe a twin-engine Cessna.


My co-anchor and I were told it was a small plane.. according to AP wires..


A medium size or small plane flies very low overhead - straight into the north tower of the World Trade. There is no way to think of it. He stares. Is it real? It is burning three quarters of the way up the building. It must be real, but it cannot be. It flew very low overhead. He stares at it and shouts to everyone who can hear him, Come out right away!
One expects some variation. One can't put forward a really confident opinion on exactly what it was from these reports. But one can get a general sense. Something small to medium. Something supersonic. We can't rule out that there was more than one object involved. Perhaps a small to medium plane and a missile. Perhaps a supersonic craft and a slower one.

But there is no indication whatsoever from these reports that it was a big Boeing. Even Murtagh's report doesn't indicate that. The best that one can say about it that it sits at the very margins - to the small end - of what might be interpreted as a 767 sighting.

But what does Leon do ? He selects the only report which could concievably come within this range, selectively quotes from it, to hide the fact that it was actually reporting a much smaller craft, and omits other reports, which strongly point to something that size or smaller - from the very same transcript. As well as conveniently omitting the report about the sonic boom.

Then he tries to smother this with an irrelevant witness report about a different plane crash and gives two reports which *make no reference* to the size of the plane.
Here the relevant excerpts from those.

[[when she saw the first plane hit]]

The other one didn't even see the plane.

[[She was in a
meeting at 8:45 when the first plane crashed into tower #1. She
heard the plane coming in, loud enough to make her think it was
flying unusually close to the buildings. ]]

Ugh... Leon - this person didn't even see the thing.

So Leon couldn't produce a single witness. But instead of admitting it, he resorted to selective quoting and unfocused, irrelevant spamming to try to hide the lack of evidence.

This is why I had to ask 4 times. This is why I always have to ask the 767 huggers 4,5 or 6 times, and then they run away or resort to this kind of junk.

This is why Brian Salter refused three requests to provide any witness evidence, after initially boasting that there were thousands and then ran away and posted a downright lie in his artice that I had refused to supply witnesses.This is why, in a recent debate with Sean McBride, I had to ask 6 times (from memory), before he ran off- after initially boasting of overwhelming witness evidence.

Witness evidence is actually the most unreliabale from of evidence, so its value needs to be kept in perspective. But its the 767 huggers who constantly make wild unsubstantited claims about witness evidence and then run away when you ask them to produce it.

Because leon is more stupid than most of them, he allowed himself to be goaded into exposing himself as an active liar.

I now have better things to do. Leon will doubtless continue to spam this page with more lies and idiocies in a petty attempt to have the last word, but I'm out of here.

"Gerard" - the Charles Spiesel of the 911 Turth Movement 27.May.2004 11:10

Already Published

the alleged Gerard: - "PLANES WINGS - yellow. So clearly seen that they have to be drawn in. Heh !" [!]

Salter: "PLANE OF WINGS: yellow"

Mathematics. A surface containing all the straight lines that connect any two points on it.


Al Jabr: step by step 27.May.2004 11:23

Already Published

"Witness? Witness? Anyone got A witness?"

 http://europe.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.03.html ]]

"What Leon very, very conveniently failed to mention was this - FROM THE VERY SAME CNN transcript which reported Murtagh's statement.CNN interviewed a number of witnesses."


Here's one extract.


click here for the transcript -->  http://europe.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.03.html

search the page for "TRACTSONBURG"

Why are you such a malicious liar, "Gerard"?

appreciate the substantive information and patience, Gerard 14.Jun.2004 17:45


Gerard is very patient, and I appreciate his actual substantive comments. As for the troll, it's sort of comic relief to read it between Gerard's posts.


And Gerard, thanks for all the 'sonic boom' witnesses in detail--an issue I had yet to actual see documented anywhere and which really fleshes out the 'missile hit' hypothesis with added audial witnesses. In other words, it is easier to match this audial evidence of witnesses with the visual missle lauch strike evidence (and the attempts to digitally remove it is definitaley a smoking gun that it was something like a missle or laser or whatever) the split second before the hit.


These were the only Woolworth building connections I was able to find in earlier searches. Anyone with any more?

More great research frrom GH! 27.Jun.2004 13:56

werewolf wwerewolff@yahoo.com


Thanks Already Published 06.Jul.2004 23:56


You're easily making him look like the fool that he is.

This reader appreciates it. I've also appreciated your work on sf.indymedia.

much appreciated 07.Jul.2004 23:47

Opere Citato (AP)

thank you very much, reader.

Which passengers - specifically? 29.Jul.2004 13:20

victim's friend

I keep an open mind about what exactly happened, and how and why it happened, on Sept. 11. But pointing out every possible anomaly is not in and of itself very helpful. Let me make a couple of points that may clarify some of the mysteries presented here:

In his article, Gerard Holmgren writes of "another new name - Waleed Iskander - who is not alleged to be one of the terrorists."

And later, he writes: "Since the media which sells us the official story universally agrees that there were 92 aboard - 87 innocents and 5 hijackers, then 8 of these names (although we can't yet specify which 8 ) must be fictitious. If 8 are confirmed as fictitious, then we are perfectly entitled to speculate with some validity that any number of the 95 could be fictitious. ... some or all of them may be real people who are really missing, and may have friends or families who genuinely believe that they got on to a flight called AA11. We don't know at this stage."

We DO know of at least one (wouldn't take much digging to find dozens of others: perhaps 87?) who is really missing, and believed by family and friends to have been on that flight. It's my buddy from college, Waleed Iskandar. (Note that he spelled his name this way, with "ar" at the end, not "er" -- but seeing alternative or mis-spellings even in supposedly authoritative texts is hardly surprising.) When word of this got out and was passed among his friends, it was noted that he did not appear on some early published lists of passengers, a fact attributed, plausibly, to his Arab name. His memorial website, created by his family, is:  link to www.iskandar.com. He was a good man and is much missed.

Another anomaly strikes me, after just a quick reading of the article, as easily solvable. The folowing is mentioned in passing:

"What's even more curious is that four of these names also appear on the lists for UA 175, alleged to have hit the Sth Tower of the WTC at 9.03. Jalbert ,Roux, Ward and Weems."

Doesn't it seem likely that these four were UA 175 passengers, but were mistakenly listed as AA 11 passengers by some media? It happens.

I don't have the time or inclination to check that out myself, but if it were confirmed, the mystery behind at least 5 of the names in this article -- the question of whether they belong on an accurate list of AA 11 passengers -- would be cleared up.

P.S. If such a grand conspiracy was in fact so spectacularly successfully cooked up, one would think "they" (the cookers, whoever they be) would have gotten their alleged-passenger cover-story straight.

P.P.S. Sentiments from the article about Waleed that I cited above:

"He [Waleed's father] said he is even more terrified now that President George W. Bush has declared war against terrorism, and against the main suspects: Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaida, his network of extremist Muslims.

"'War means killing. I don't want another father or mother to go through the grief and sorrow that we're going through,' said Iskandar. He strongly urged the American government not to retaliate but to seek other solutions, to pursue more peaceful means. At the bottom of a Web site he created for Waleed, Iskandar posted an illustration of Jesus. Underneath, a text read: 'When I forgive, I forget.' Somewhere, Iskandar said, there has to be room for forgiveness."

critical notes 23.Dec.2004 09:57


critical additions
by critical notes 5:34pm Thu Dec 23 '04 comment#49777

______________5 Arabs allegedly hijacked American Airlines flight 11 and crashed it into the Nth Tower of the World Trade Centre at 8.46 A.M. It was part of a crime which killed approximately 3000 people.___________________:

this your statement is only partly rational.
To make it entirely rational,you'd have to have said:

"it was part of a crime which killed.allegedly,approximately 3000 people".

that's because the 3000 figure is the official figure,which is unverifiable.

and since bush and his thugs have been lying all down the line about 911,they might well have lied about the 3000 figure too.

for example if AA11 and AA77 were fabricated as you yourself maintain.

not to mention the scam of the WTC and UA 93 figures,for which i refer you to:


this comment refers to

but i thought it would be appropriate here too

same for this other coment:
________It was part of a crime which killed approximately 3000 people.______________:

the official 3000 figure,which is gravely suspect because of the reasons you bring and because of the reasons brought by this author:

has been trumpeted by the lying massmedia whores simply because it's bigger than pearl harbor (officially some 2400 dead) therefore if pearl harbor justified WW2,the association is 911 may well justify something even bigger and longer than WW2.

anyway i've just checked the link i provided,and i see it's dead - i'm not surprised since cybersabotage of rational thinking on indy and in general is precisely what this nazi NWO system based at wall street is all about...

anyway it was an essay by an author called Adrian More titled Fuzzy Math,maybe you can still find it on google or something,it's definitely worth the search.

it anticipated many of the things holmgren says here.Make a rating on this comment.
select a ratingUninformativeOKGood stuffRecommendedExcellent

an interesting reference
by logique 5:45pm Thu Dec 23 '04 comment#49778

alright now the link i referred to

seems to be working again

anyway i'll paste the essay i was referring to here,just in case:

by Adrian More ‚&#128;Ę Saturday May 24, 2003 at 08:33 AM

The war on terror is the war on Bush.


I argue that the U.S. establishment has been inflating the 9-11 death toll wildly for warmongering purposes.

Fuzzy Math (Nov.4, 2002 version)

a T.I.P. (Text In Progress) by

Adrian More

charles v. campisi, chief of the New York police department‚&#128;&#153;s internal affairs bureau:
you've raised more dead in 14 months than Jesus ever did in 3 years.

On Nov.1, 2002 you reported an ever-so-slowly-slimming-down total of 2,795 WTC victims, deep down from your September 24, 2001 high of nearly 7,000 [The Associated Press, Nov.1, 2002, 16:35 ET: Death Toll at WTC Drops by Two, by Sara Kugler].
- 1,411 death certificates have been issued, reportedly, by the medical examiner‚&#128;&#153;s office: that is, 1,411 victims have been reportedly identified, having been found whole or fragmented; official figures exclude the "19" hijackers", but still I'd like to know: are any of the alleged AA11 + UA175 victims among the 1411 allegedly identified? It's high time you let humanity know, so we could better assess the plausibility of the official story that AA11 + UA175 with 92+65=157 people on board crashed into the WTC; especially since the Associated Press reported on Aug.16, 2002 that "no remains have been linked to the 10 hijackers who crashed two airliners into the World Trade Center", contradicting early press reports ( http://cooperativeresearch.org/completimeline/timeline911topresent.htm );again: have any remains been linked to any passengers/crew?
- 1,327 death certificates have reportedly been issued without a body, reportedly at the request of victims‚&#128;&#153; families;
- 59 people were reportedly missing, on Oct.7, 2002. I guess it should be 57 by now, though the Nov.1 AP dispatch doesn‚&#128;&#153;t give the breakdown.

(See the Associated Press web site for figure updates. They make it harder and harder to find data, as their special contribution to the general obfuscation/falsification, but if one seeks hard enough one will find.)

Summing up: according to you, campisi, as reported by the associated press on Oct.7, 2002, 17:38 ET ("Official Count of Sept.11 Victims"), and on Nov.1, 2002, 16:35 ET:
1,411 + 1,327 + 57 = 2,795 people died at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
Adding the 184 alleged Pentagon victims + the 40 alleged Pennsylvania victims, the Sept.11 victims total would be 3,019.
As of Nov.1, 2002. The official figures exclude the alleged "19 hijackers".

Readers will soon realize from this essay why a critical thinker may only speak of ALLEGED WTC dead, ALLEGED Pentagon dead, ALLEGED UA93 dead.

The vast majority of the 911 dead has, to date (Nov.1, 2002), NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED.

As a first example among many, "there has been some discrepancy regarding the number of people aboard the plane [UA93, Pennsylvania]". This is in the 911- regime-myth-spreading book "Among The Heroes", by Jere Longman, Harpercollins, 1st edition, 2002, author‚&#128;&#153;s note, p.XIII.
Authorities had first spoken of 45 people on board UA93, says Longman.

Apparently, one passenger - Marion Britton - had bought two tickets. "A capacious woman, she suffered from diabetes. Usually, she purchased two seats so that she would be comfortable on a plane.‚&#128;Ě

So again: the updated authorities figure for the people on board UA93 - hence its dead - is an alleged 44 (including the alleged 4 hijackers). 4 perpetrators + 40 victims on UA93. Allegedly.

But, Longman continues: "Terry Tyksinski, a longtime United flight attendant, said she was told six months after the crash, by a customer service supervisor who witnessed the incident, THAT TWO PASSENGERS LEFT THE PLANE WHEN IT WAS ANNOUNCED THERE WOULD BE A FIVE-MINUTE DELAY IN PUSHING BACK FROM THE GATE. THE FIRST-CLASS PASSENGERS WERE DARK-COMPLEXIONED, ‚&#128;&#152;KIND OF BLACK, NOT BLACK‚&#128;&#153;, THE SUPERVISOR SAID, ACCORDING TO TYKSINSKI, a flight attendant for thirty-five years [‚&#128;¶]. The supervisor said SHE NOTED THE NAMES OF THE PASSENGERS AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TWICE INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI, Tyksinski said. This incident could not be independently confirmed. "




4. COULD IT BE THAT THE 2 "BLACK, NOT BLACK" PASSENGERS WHO REPORTEDLY LEFT UA93 BEFORE DEPARTURE WERE ALLEGED "HIJACKERS" "ZIAD SAMIR JARRAH" ("black, not black", according to photo in  link to news.bbc.co.uk ; the other two alleged UA93 "hijackers", "Al Haznawi" and "Alnami" appear to me from the photos to be white or anyway less dark);


First officer LeRoy Homer Jr. maybe would - but he was the uniformed co-pilot, not a passenger. The report was about "2 passengers".

UA93 passenger Waleska Martinez appears, from the photo section of Longman‚&#128;&#153;s book, to also possibly fit the "black, not black" description.
But, according to Jere Longman, he interviewed a colleague of hers at the N.Y. Census Bureau where Martinez worked, and this colleague speaks as if she‚&#128;&#153;s dead. Longman also appears to have talked to her father and her director.

So unless these people are all lying at the same time, Waleska Martinez hasn‚&#128;&#153;t been heard of since 911.

The rest of the alleged UA93 passengers appear all white from Longman‚&#128;&#153;s book‚&#128;&#153;s photo section.



The possibility that the people on board UA93 were 42 not 44 is unwittingly confirmed by Longman himself on p.260: "A dozen passengers and crew members were identified by fingerprints or dental records, the remaining twenty-six by matching DNA samples [...].DNA profiles for the four hijackers were also established, although they were not identified by name":
12 + 26 + 4 = 42, NOT 44!

[As for the "4 hijackers" having been DNA-profiled, note:
1. they were reportedly not identified by name;
2. it's the FBI saying this; noone can independently check and verify;
3. if passengers + crew were all identified as Longman says, but their total is 38 not 40, then who are the 2 people to be crossed out from the list of 40 UA93 passengers + crew published by Longman on p.V?]
4. authorities' figures are self-contradicting, from what Longman says: how can authorities claim at the same time that there were 40 victims + 4 hijackers = 44 people on board UA93, but that all...38 victims + 4 hijackers = 42 people on board UA93 were identified/DNA profiled?]

Anyway, the official 3,019 total for the victims of 911 is by no means the final death toll. Here‚&#128;&#153;s some additional evidence.

First, how come the AP database of 911 victims has a total of 2,999 (Nov.1, 2002, 3:48:10 PM EDT), not the 3,019 one gets adding your WTC total to the pentagon + UA93 totals, campisi?

How come this difference of 20 victims?

If official Bush spokesparrots like you, campisi, and the AP can‚&#128;&#153;t even agree with each other, what is one to think of the reliability of your figures?

Second: according to the AP, Feb.8, 2002, 18:12 ET, "The toll is likely to drop slightly as investigators make changes." That‚&#128;&#153;s because your cops, campisi, are hypermeticulous. Or maybe because they‚&#128;&#153;re under orders to go as slow as it gets? Why haven‚&#128;&#153;t you brought the matter to closure yet after WELL OVER 1 ENTIRE YEAR?

Third, "seven foreign countries still need to confirm their missing-persons lists, which could cause the death toll to drop." Who are those seven "snails"? You‚&#128;&#153;re in no hurry to push them, right campisi? AFTER WELL OVER 1 ENTIRE YEAR!

According to your own data, campisi:
1,411 alleged identified dead + 1,327 alleged declared dead by a death certificate = 2,738 "confirmed" alleged WTC dead.

It is NOT correct/logical to add the alleged "57 missing" to the WTC victims total, as campisi does (that‚&#128;&#153;s how he gets his total of "2,795": 2,738 confirmed dead + 57 missing = 2,795).

It is not correct because you yourself, campisi, have said, as reported by the associated press, March 7, 20:33 ET, that:
- of the "158" (then) allegedly still missing, only "SOME ‚&#128;¶[ARE] ALMOST CERTAINLY DEAD [my caps]";

That‚&#128;&#153;s to say, you campisi have no proof yet (after well over 1 year!) allowing you to classify those "57" missing as victims.
So why did you add them to the Sept.11 "official count" of WTC victims - if not to artificially inflate that count?

Putting it simply: your "official count" is (at least in part) a lie, campisi. Because it includes "57 missing" of whom you yourself said that a big chunk may be mistakes or fakers, and you only "estimate" that the rest did die but you can't prove it.

That you, campisi, and your former slavemaster giuliani have been lying for almost 14 months about the difficulties of culling the WTC victims list is further attested to by an Oct.8, 2002, 04:25 ET Associated Press report (‚&#128;&#152;WTC Death Toll Drops Below 2,800‚&#128;&#153;, by Sara Klugler):
just one little example among many: Nickola Lampley, who "was removed [from the WTC missing list] after a reporter for The Associated Press tracked her down by phone in Brooklyn" on Sept.11, 2002.

But you, campisi, had not managed to accomplish this extraordinary feat of picking up the phone book & dialing Nickola Lampley‚&#128;&#153;s number FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR!! "POLICE COULD NOT LOCATE HER"!!!


Another telltale indicator that your alleged WTC victims total of "2,795" is inflated, surfaced in the associated press, Aug.23, 2002, 07:44 ET (‚&#128;&#152;Few Sept.11 Families Apply for Aid‚&#128;&#153;):



Don‚&#128;&#153;t you think, campisi?

Again: the alleged (provisory) confirmed WTC total is 2,738. 2,738, NOT "2,795"!

Plus Pentagon + Pennsylvania: 2,738 + 184 + 40 = 2,962 alleged Sept.11 dead.

2,962 "confirmed" alleged Sept.11 victims - NOT 3,019 (the AP-reported "official count" as of Nov.1, 2002).

And if and when you‚&#128;&#153;ll come up with proof that the "57 missing" are really dead, I‚&#128;&#153;ll add them to the total. NOT NOW!

Furthermore, even that other official spokesparrot, medical examiner spokeswoman Ellen Borakove, cautioned (AP, Aug.20, 2002 7:35 ET: 'WTC Victim Toll Lowered by Four', by Sara Kugler) that the list of 2,819 WTC victims she gave to City Hall to be read aloud by a bunch of liars at the Sept.11 memorial "WASN'T BEING CALLED THE FINAL NUMBER" [my caps].

As a matter of fact, from Aug.20 to Sept.11 (3 weeks) the WTC total slimmed down by 18, to 2,801. And as of Nov.1, 2002 it stood at 2,795.

And there is no end in sight.

And there is no way to independently verify if all of the 3,019 official 911 victims are really dead or not.

Where are the 4 original flight manifests for the 4 planes? Why haven't they been published integrally, AFTER OVER 1 YEAR?



Eric Lipton on The New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/11/nationchallenged/11EXAM.html ) confirmed on Sept.11, 2002 that "in New York, a year after the attack, the culling of the list is still not complete."


Wonder how much longer it'll take you, campisi, to remove those 35/40 from your list.

You said you could not prove that they were not killed. But the official count must include only those you CAN prove to have been killed.

The others about whom you're uncertain should be given as a separate category, otherwise your "2,795" official WTC count is a lie, because it gives the false impression that you're certain each and every one of those 2,795 really died. Which you are not.

Ongoing fabrication of inflated numbers to keep the hatred high for warmongering purposes - that‚&#128;&#153;s what you are all about, campisi.


As early as late October 2001, everyone else who conducted an independent count of WTC victims, from USA Today to the New York Times to the Red Cross and the associated press, had come up with victims totals under 3,000 (International Herald Tribune, October 26,2001, p.3), while you were still touting close to 4,800 dead.
Your WTC totals, campisi, which are the only ones most people have been fed by the mass media, have as-slowly-as-possible slimmed down from a sensational 'nearly 7,000' in late September (full-blown headlines) to the much less than 3,000 of today (no headlines).
Sloppy work at best. Yet most effective in brainwashing worldwide TV-fed public opinion into believing the lie of 5 or 6 thousand Sept.11 dead.


Once more: using your WTC total, campisi, the total confirmed death toll of September 11 at all three sites (New York, Pentagon, Pennsylvania) would be 2,962 by now.


NOT EVEN THE NEW YORK TIMES COULD VERIFY IT: "THE NAMES RELEASED [‚&#128;¶] COULD NOT BE VERIFIED INDEPENDENTLY AFTER THEY WERE PROVIDED TO NEWS ORGANIZATIONS" (The New York Times, Aug.20, 2002: ‚&#128;&#152;City Compiles List of Dead and Missing From Sept.11‚&#128;&#153;, by Thomas J. Lueck,  http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/20/nyregion/20DEAD.html ).
And I‚&#128;&#153;ve already reported how the 2,819 slimmed down to 2,795 between Aug.20 and Nov.1, 2002.

At least you, campisi, and your former slavemaster and co-liar Giuliani have been faintly whispering (though not always, not nearly enough) from the beginning that your figures were in a state of flux due to "duplications"/"errors" and were/are likely to drop further.
But the following liars are more than a match for you, as shown by a Nov.21,2001 New York Times report:

colin powell had the straightface to repeat the 5,000-dead lie in a Nov.19, 2001 Louisville speech, although you, campisi, had made officially known WEEKS earlier that the Sept.11 toll had dropped well below 5,000. Actually, by Nov.19, 2001 it stood at little over 4,000. You're busted colin, you spouter of lies.

The 2nd certified liar is general richard b. myers , chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who during November 2001 briefings repeatedly bleated the "5,000" myth.

The 3rd certified liar is don imus, the radio talk show host, who topped everyone else by inventing "6,000" WTC dead on larry king live, saturday Nov.17, 2001.

The list is long. Too long. Longer than anyone can bear. Overblown casualty lists printed by massmedia whores and trumpeted by power pigs will always "create a helpful wave of national indignation" - a time-honored dirty trick.

See, campisi, these are not trivialities, or morbid curiosity. How can Bush possibly be waging a "proportionate" war (as he and Blair driveled all over the media after Sept.11: see for example International Herald Tribune, Oct.6, 2001,p.1: "Blair‚&#128;¶Calls for ‚&#128;&#152;Proportionate‚&#128;&#153; Strikes"), if the death toll is still uncertain? How many people does Bush have the right to murder back? 2,962 (your PROVISORY confirmed total)?

This "proportionate" war has long since become savagely disproportionate: in only 10 days in November 2001, 6,000 alleged Talibans and Qaidas were killed, according to U.S. and French experts (International Herald Tribune, November 19, 2001, p.8). If this is true, then the total death toll of over 1 year of war since Oct.7, 2001 is much higher than 6,000, considering:
- the fighters killed outside those 10 days;
- the refugees who starved and froze to death;
- the ever-increasing "unintended victims" (who amount to "certainly hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent Afghans", according to the International Herald Tribune, Feb.11, 2002,p.1, continued on p.8; who amount to "at least 3,767 civilian casualties from Oct.7 to Dec.6", 2001, according to Marc Herold of New Hampshire University, as reported ibid.; who amount to "1,000 to 1,300 deaths" according to Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives, as reported ibid.: that is, only until before Feb.11, 2002).

Maybe it‚&#128;&#153;s time to shed some light on your WTC victims list, campisi - lest more and more unpatriots should start thinking you are a liar who's been fabricating inflated figures all along to whip Americans up into a war frenzy.

War ought to be the first casualty of the Truth.

Nov.4, 2002 version. I wrote the first version on September 24, 2001.

Adrian More