|
MEDIA
PUBLISHED FAKE PASSENGER LISTS FOR AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT
11. Copright.
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. It was
part of a crime which killed approximately 3000 people. Any
serious crime, particularly one 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. Thus 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
the authorities decide that such information should be with-held from public
view for fear that disclosure will jeopardize the investigation, then such
information should also be easily available to the media. Assuming that
authorities cleared it for release, 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 with-held for security reasons. We, the public 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 such information had been
with-held, one would expect this to
have been disclosed. There would appear to be no reason to believe that
disclosure of the official passenger lists would jeopardize any investigation,
and even less reason to believe it to be so sensitive that even the fact that
its being with-held must be hidden. 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 rock solid documentation of who the passengers were.
Presumably,
supporters of the official story depend upon the passenger lists published by
the media as proof that the IDs of all the passengers are in the public
domain. Anybody can put up a
website or do a radio interview or send an email, claiming to be family or friend of a
plane victim. But ultimately, 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 anyone to whom the airline may make it available , who can be
reasonably expected to reproduce it accurately - law enforcement authorities and
the media. 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. As noted earlier, this should not be
a difficult thing to do. It is implicit in
the official story that such information has been established in the
public domain by the media. Given
that the passenger lists provided by the media provide an important component of
the official story, it is then
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 the information
from American Airlines or the FBI? If neither AA nor the FBI were consulted, then 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 most reliable sources of 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 of the information. This source is someone who
claims to know such a family member - a second hand attribution a source which
is not official anyway, and should be subject to confirmation from AA, The FAA
or the FBI. Perhaps
the church administrator got this info from the official sources himself and
then passed it on to USAT, who lacked the investigative qualities to do this for
themselves. Or the church administrator may have known McGuiness well enough to
surmise that he was the co-pilot - which would still be an unofficial and
unreliable source. But if so, then how did USAT know McGuiness’ ID to begin
with? How did they know where to go looking for the church administrator? Or if
they already knew that McGuiness was the co-pilot, due to enquiries with AA, the
FAA or the FBI, then why do they cite the church administrator as the source of
the information ? Or did the church administrator contact USAT with this claim,
and USAT fail to confirm it with official sources? 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 in such a situation, but failed to give a
direct disclosure of what that problem was. In
contrast to this, 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
first list 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 this described as 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 less than the 87
which should represent 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 then
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. “ Lets
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 from 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. This
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. Furthermore,
we now have three major mainstream media outlets, publishing 4 lists which all
contradict each other about who was on board, when this information should have
been very simple to source accurately. 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. This creates a real headache for the official story. Is the figure of 92
incorrect? 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 fabricated ? If so,
how,why and by whom? The
Guardian list also has Heath Smith instead of Heather Smith. It has Hashem not
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 they 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 .
|