Media published fake passenger lists for American Airlines Flight 11
author: Gerard Holmgren
 e-mail: enquiry11@hotmail.com
|
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.)
|
MEDIA PUBLISHED FAKE PASSENGER LISTS FOR AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11.
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."
 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-list.htm
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.
At
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight11.htm
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
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html
"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.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
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.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-list.htm
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.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/victims/flight11.htm
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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,551423,00.html
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
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/victims/default.asp?p=5
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
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/sept11/victims/aa11.html
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
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18970-2001Sep12
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
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34223,00.html
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
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/12/story23539.asp
also dated sept 12.And also at
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m4PRN/2001_Sept_12/78169846/p1/article.jhtml
and again at
http://yellowhawk33.tripod.com/html/powmia.html
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
http://www.wwnfsept11.com
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Plane_casualties
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
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blattack0911.htm
Newsday
link to www.newsday.com
ABC News
link to abcnews.go.com
Massport press release
http://www.massport.com/about/press01/press_news_advisory2.html
Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0913/p1s2-usju.html
Airsafe.com
http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/american.htm
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/american_text091101.htm
Washington Post
link to a188.g.akamaitech.net
Airdisaster.com
link to www.airdisaster.com
Aviation Safety Network
http://aviation-safety.net/database/2001/010911-0.htm
WiredNews
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,46740,00.html?tw=wn_story_related
Times-Herald Record
http://www.recordonline.com/adis/62/stories/timeline.htm
The Straits Times.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/html/webspecial/WTC/timeline2.html
World Statesman
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/index2.html
Biblia Vividia
http://biblia.com/islam/newyork.htm
Higher Praise.com News
http://www.higherpraise.org/news/ArchivedNews4.htm
http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/lookup.html?node=1535
http://www.ezl.com/~fireball/Disaster.htm
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.
http://www.inmemoriamonline.net/List_AA11.html
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
At
http://www.americanmemorials.com/memorial/deathnotice_private.asp?idMemorial=1317
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
http://www.americanmemorials.com/
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.
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=36354&group=webcast
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
http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=28
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
http://thewebfairy.com/911/noplane
Second hit examinations
http://thewebfairy.com/911/2hit
This page presents a comprehensive compilation of evidence for Govt. involvement in the Sept 11 attacks.
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=50
SUGGESTIONS FOR VERIFYING THIS INFORMATION FOR YOURSELF
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.
|
contribute to this article
|
P.O. Box 41750, Mesa, AZ 85274
