| Alleged Flights and Passengers |
|
|
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION N°3:
Q: “What about the 4 flights - and the passengers on those flights? Where did they go? Do we have any solid documentation certifying their very existence?”
A: Before asking oneself these questions - one must of course verify the available, relevant official data. Prominent researchers have revealed (throughout years of cross-examined investigations) that both flights and passengers lack the required data necessary to establish the alleged flights'and passengers' very existence.
|
ALLEGED FLIGHTS
The 4 purported hijacked flights have grave problems as far as their authenticity is concerned: A long list of documentation (or plain lack of it) reveals inconsistent NTSB, BTS and FAA data. The 2 American Airlines flights lacked records of required airport log data such as taxi-off and wheels-off times. The 2 United Airlines flights were not deregistered until October 2005, as of official FAA records. Both should have been listed, by law, as 'destroyed'. Shortly thereafter, the FAA rectified this 'oversight' in a peculiar manner : in place of 'destroyed', the wording used was 'cancelled'. This evidence has not been challenged, to this day, by any of those air-regulating agencies nor by the airlines themselves.
ALLEGED PASSENGERS
Since no evidence has been forthcoming of the very existence of the 4 ‘hijacked’ airplanes, the question of the passengers allegedly on board of them should be moot. However, multiple and repeated people-searches have attempted to backtrack and contact the alleged families of those passengers - to no avail. Thus, the prevailing indications of those longstanding investigations suggest that none of these people have ever existed. Moreover, the stories created around the alleged passengers simply do not stand up to scrutiny. As for the cell phone calls that they allegedly placed to their loved ones, they have by now been established as a technical impossibility.
|
|
--------------------------------------
| An Interview with Gerard Holmgren |
| by David West, June 27, 2005 |
DW: Hello Gerard, thank you for agreeing to an email interview.
I know that many people, including myself, have read much information and disinformation about the aircraft/no-aircraft used on 11th September 2001, and it is quite confusing.
You appear to have a clear-cut picture, and are prepared to debate your opinion, so it is very kind of you to provide answers to some simple questions.
Q1. — Is it true that the official account of events on 11th September 2001 claims that four planes crashed, one into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre, one into the South Tower, one into the Pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania?
Yes.
North Tower
Q2. — What was the flight number of the plane which reportedly hit the North Tower?
American Airlines Flight 11 from Logan to LA.
Q3. — What did you discover about flight AA11 regarding which aeroplane was used, and what happened to it? Please give references to your source material.
According to official flight logs, no such flight existed on Sept 11, 2001.
The Bureau of Transportation logs every domestic flight ever scheduled from a US airport, conducted by a carrier accounting for more than 1% of domestic air traffic. All scheduled flights, whether actually completed or not must by law be reported to this database, unless the flight is cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.
No such flight appears in the records.
Therefore there are three possibilities.
1. No such flight was ever scheduled
2. Such a flight was scheduled but was cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.
3. If such a flight was scheduled and not cancelled more than 7 days prior, then the database has been illegally manipulated or tampered with in some way, which of course raises new questions.
In summary, the situation is that *according to official records* no such flight ever took place.
It should be noted that after this information was discovered and published as an article, the BT almost immediately shut down its data base, and when it put it back up it had moved it to a different URL without leaving a forwarding address at the old URL (the one which was given in the published article), strongly indicating consciousness of guilt. Ten months later they doctored the database to try to include the flights, although the doctored data, while now claiming that the flight was scheduled, still has it as never departing.
Thus all the evidence points to options 1 or 2, although option 3 is still a theoretical possibility.
Q4. — Has any aircraft wreckage, or black box been found at the purported crash site?
Nothing which can be identified as from an aircraft.
Q5. — Are there any official records of passengers boarding the flight?
If so, they have never been released. However, many media outlets did publish lists which purported to be official lists, but which were proven on close examination to be fabrications.
So while one can never 100% rule out the theoretical possibility that the flight existed and the theoretical possibility that somewhere there are official passenger lists, the fact that the media published fake lists and passed them off as official, leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that no such official lists exist.
Q6. — Are any recorded passengers known to be missing, or have had death certificates issued?
To my knowledge there is no official documentation, but it's certainly possible that such documentation exists. Through local enquiries I have confirmed from personal contacts that at least one person listed by the media as being on that flight is definitely missing and that his family believes that he was on the flight.
While I have seen little to prove the missing/dead status of those allegedly on the flight, I have also seen nothing to disprove it. There is a hole in that area of my knowledge of the subject.
Q7. — Is there any video or other evidence that a commercial passenger airliner hit the north tower?
No. the video shows clearly that the object was not a large passenger jet, nor a conventional plane of any type.
Exactly what it is, is difficult to tell but it appears to be some kind of highly advanced secret technology.
South Tower
Q8. — What was the flight number of the plane allegedly involved here?
United Airlines 175 from Logan to LA.
Q9. — What was the tail number of the plane allocated to that flight?
N612UA. The BTS flight logs record the tail number.
Q10. — What is the status of that registered plane today?
Valid, according to the FAA aircraft registry. Search the registry at
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm.
Q11. — So your research indicates that aeroplane N612UA, which was allocated to flight UA175, which is purported to have hit the South Tower is, according to official FAA records, a valid registration today?
Yes.
Q12. — Is there any aircraft wreckage or video or other evidence that a commercial passenger aircraft hit the south tower?
No wreckage.
The videos which purport to show such a crash have been exposed as fakes.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/http://911hoax.com/
The live shot (which did not actually show the plane hitting the building, but passing behind it, giving the illusion that it has impacted the hidden face) appears to have been animated in real time with this technology:
Lying with Pixels, by Ivan Imato, MIT's Technology review, July/August 2000.
http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp
And the footage shown retrospectively which appeared to show the strike directly has been animated with flight simulator. See the two links above for video analysis.
Pentagon
Q13. — Regarding flight AA77, which purportedly hit the Pentagon, what is known of this aircraft?
The answer is the same as for AA11. Not scheduled according to the BTS records.
So far we appear to have established that no commercial aircraft hit either the North or the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, and that the aircraft which is purported to have hit the Pentagon was not even scheduled to fly.
Q14. — At the scene of the Pentagon incident was there any evidence at all which indicated that a commercial aircraft was involved?
No. In fact the damage to the building shows that its impossible for an aircraft of any significant size to have been involved.
Pennsylvania
Q15. — What information is available regarding flight UA93, which is purported to have crashed in Pennsylvania?
It was flown by tail number N591UA. The plane is still valid in the FAA aircraft registry. The scene where it is alleged to have crashed shows no evidence of any aircraft wreckage.
It therefore appears that considerable evidence exists to demonstrate that none of the four aircraft mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report actually crashed as stated.
Additionally, there appears to be a total lack of evidence to support the Kean Commission's claim.
Q16. Is this summary correct?
Yes.
Q17. Do you have anything further to add, before we offer this interview for debate?
There's plenty more which could be added on the subject of Sept. 11 generally.
DW: Thank you, Gerard.
David West may be reached at
davidgordonwest@yahoo.co.uk and Gerard Holmgren at
holmgren@iinet.net.au.
Comment by Peter Meyer: When Gerard Holmgren first announced his discovery that there was no record in the BTS online database of AA11 and AA77 departing on September 11, 2001, I checked if what he claimed was true, and I found that it was. Accordingly I (as well as Gerard) saved the relevant web pages. They are available for download both from Gerard's website (as stated above) and from this
Serendipity website. I discussed this matter in my article
Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11(published March 14, 2005), and I reproduce this section below:
As regards the planes, we must first note that the terms "AA 77", "UA 93", etc., do not denote planes, they denote flights. The statement "AA 77 hit the Pentagon" really means "the plane which departed (assuming it did) from Dulles Airport at 08:10 on 9/11 bound for Los Angeles hit the Pentagon."
The official story posits four planes, associated with four flight numbers, namely, AA 11, AA 77, UA 175 and UA 93. But we have no physical evidence of the existence of any of those four planes. According to the official story, the planes which departed as AA 11 and UA 175 completely disappeared as a result of the collapse of the Twin Towers, the plane which departed as AA 77 completely disappeared when it hit the Pentagon, and the plane which departed as UA 93 completely disappeared when it hit the ground at Shanksville. All four Boeing jets, big 757s and 767s, completely disappeared, with not one single piece of metal which can be proven to have come from any of those planes. Isn't this a bit odd?
So no physical evidence. But how about evidence from records of those flights? Records concerning domestic flights within the US are maintained online by the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. When 9/11 researcher Gerard Holmgren checked those records he discovered that flights AA 11 and AA 77 were
not scheduled to fly on 9/11. He published his discovery on
2003-11-13 and it was confirmed by others, including the author of this article (who saved
the BTS web pages). Late in 2004 the BTS doctored their database so that now when one tries to confirm the original observation one reaches
a web page (local copy
here) stating:
On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.
But there were originally records confirming that UA 93 and UA 175 departed (see
the BTS web pages), so apparently these flights did exist. BTS removed those records to conceal the fact that there were never any records for AA 11 and AA 77.
If flights AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then there are only two planes, not four, to be accounted for. Investigators who have checked the tail numbers for the planes which departed as UA 93 and UA 175 on 9/11 (namely N591UA and N612UA respectively) believe that these planes are
still in service. If so, and if AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then the number of Boeing 757s and 767s destroyed on 9/11 was not four, as the US government maintains, but rather zero.
Note added by Peter Meyer, 2005-06-29:
For those few who need it spelled out, the significance of Gerard Holmgren's discoveries in the BTS database is as follows: The Bush administration declared on 9/11 that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were hit by Boeing 757 and 767 jetliners which had been hijacked by Arab terrorists. On the basis of this assertion it implemented a (previously-prepared) plan for an attack on Afghanistan (to remove the Taleban and install a US-friendly government in Kabul), and it rushed through (previously-prepared) legislation restricting civil rights to the extent that the US Constitution was violated and every person subject to US jurisdiction became a potential terrorist until proven otherwise.
If Flights AA 11 and AA 77 never flew on the morning of 9/11 then they could not have been hijacked, and so could not have been hijacked by Arab terrorists. If Flight UA 175 was not destroyed on 9/11 then it did not crash into the South Tower and so whatever caused the South Tower explosion was not a jet flying under the control of Arab terrorists — though it may have been a (previously-prepared) napalm-loaded jet flying under remote control.
Thus if the records in the BTS database are to believed (and we have no reason to question the original records) then the claim made by the Bush Administration that 19 Arab terrorists (named within two days by the FBI) hijacked four Boeing jetliners on 9/11 is not only false, it must have been concocted as a deliberate attempt to deceive the people of the United States and the rest of the world, a deception intended to justify the ensuing US wars of aggression. Clearly whoever was responsible for the deception (no doubt the same people responsible for the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks) must be removed from office, indicted, tried, convicted and punished appropriately. This is necessary if the U.S.A. is ever again to recover any degree of respect by the rest of the world.
The only way to identify the perpetrators is a commission of inquiry made up (in contrast to the Kean Commission) of people with experience in forensic investigation who are independent of, and not subject to influence by, those perps. Since 9/11 must have been carried out, at least in part, by elements within the US government, this excludes from service on such a commission anyone in Congress or the Justice Department who cannot prove beforehand that they will look at all the evidence, listen to all arguments, and follow that evidence and argument to wherever it leads, even if it leads to the highest levels of the US government. Until that happens the profound suspicion will remain that the US government is led by psychopathic thugs and murderers.
============================
Evidence that Flights AA 11 and AA 77
Did Not Exist on September 11, 2001 |
| |
According to the official story of what happened on September 11, 2001, four commercial jetliners were hijacked by Arab terrorists, two of them were flown into the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center and a third was flown into the Pentagon. This article presents evidence obtained from US-government-supplied records whose implication is that this cannot be true.
The four commerical jetliners allegedly departed from the airports, and with the flight numbers, shown below:
| Airport location | Name | Flight no. |
| Newark, NJ | Newark Liberty International | UA 93 |
| Boston, MA | Logan International | UA 175 |
| Boston, MA | Logan International | AA 11 |
| Washington, DC | Dulles International | AA 77 |
The U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics has a website at
http://www.bts.gov/. The Bureau is reported to log every domestic flight scheduled from a US airport and conducted by a carrier accounting for more than 1% of domestic air traffic, and the database is required to include all scheduled flights, whether actually completed or not, unless the flight is cancelled more than seven days prior to the departure date.
The Bureau has a page on "Departure Statistics" at
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/OAI_B1.PL?DetSta=DepSta&FirLevSel=DetSta
To follow the reasoning of this article the reader is requested to go to that page and select "Scheduled departure time".
Select the "Newark, NJ" airport, then "United Airlines", then "September 10, 2001" (not 11). We find that UA 93, bound for San Francisco, was scheduled to depart at 08:00, and that the tail number of the plane assigned to this flight was N570UA.
Now do the same for "September 11, 2001" and we find the same, except that the tail number of the plane assigned was N591UA.
Now go back to the page on "Departure Statistics" and select "Actual departure time". Selecting airport, airline and dates as above we find that UA 93 departed at 7:57 on September 10th and at 8:01 on September 11th.
We can do the same for all of the flights listed in the table above. The results (where, for a tail number, "UNKNOW" is the BTS entry presumably meaning "unknown") are:
| Date | Flight no. | Destination | Scheduled
departure | Tail no. | Actual
departure |
| Sept. 10 | UA 93 | San Francisco | 8:00 | N570UA | 7:57 |
| Sept. 11 | UA 93 | San Francisco | 8:00 | N591UA | 8:01 |
| Sept. 10 | UA 175 | Los Angeles | 8:00 | N618UA | 7:59 |
| Sept. 11 | UA 175 | Los Angeles | 8:00 | N612UA | 7:58 |
| Sept. 10 | AA 11 | Los Angeles | 7:45 | N321AA | 7:41 |
| Sept. 11 | AA 11 | Los Angeles | 7:45 | UNKNOW | 0:00 |
| Sept. 10 | AA 77 | Los Angeles | 8:10 | N632AA | 8:09 |
| Sept. 11 | AA 77 | Los Angeles | 8:10 | UNKNOW | 0:00 |
So according to this information Flights AA 11 and AA 77 were scheduled on September 11. One might wonder, however, why there are no tail numbers for the scheduled flights. If planes were assigned to those flights then the tail numbers would be known in advance of September 11, but the tail numbers are listed as "unknown". And if those flights actually occurred, why are the entries for actual departure time given as "0:00"?
But, more importantly, this information is not what was originally given on the BTS website. Up until sometime in 2004 queries to the BTS database returned different information. The results of these queries were reported by Gerard Holmgren in November 2003
here (and later updated
here).
Others who read his report saved the relevant BTS pages directly from the BTS website. They were previously discussed in an article on this website by the present author (
Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11) and since April 2005 they have been available for downloading via:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/bts.zip
But as of January 2006 most 9/11 researchers apparently remain unaware of this data, so it seems that it is necessary to discuss it in more detail, and make explicit what it implies.
Let us see what the original BTS webpages have to say. Click on the links below to see copies (saved in November 2003) of the "Departure Statistics" pages for September 11, 2001, for United Airlines flights and for American Airlines flights at the relevant airports:
From which we obtain:
| Date | Flight no. | Destination | Scheduled
departure | Tail no. | Actual
departure |
| Sept. 11 | UA 93 | San Francisco | 8:00 | N591UA | 8:01 |
| Sept. 11 | UA 175 | Los Angeles | 8:00 | N612UA | 7:58 |
| Sept. 11 | AA 11 | No record exists |
| Sept. 11 | AA 77 | No record exists |
Thus for September 11, 2001, and for Flights UA 93 and UA 175, the destination, tail number and departure time are the same as that given
above. But for Flights AA 11 and AA 77 the situation is totally different — these flights are not scheduled at all. The implication is that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist on September 11, 2001.
Further evidence for this can be found by considering the diversion data.
Go to this page on the BTS website:
http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/OAI_B1.PL?DetSta=Divers&FirLevSel=DetSta
and select "Newark, NJ". On the next page select "United Airlines" and September 11, 2001. Three planes are listed as being diverted, namely, UA 81, UA 83 and UA 641. But in the original records UA 93 (with tail number N591UA) was also listed as being diverted. Click
here to see a copy of the original page.
Now check the diversion statistics in the same way for the other airports. The original BTS pages can be seen by clicking on the links below:
The results are as follows:
Flight
number | Diversion record exists in: |
| original BTS records | current BTS records |
| UA 93 | yes | no |
| UA 175 | yes | no |
| AA 11 | no | no |
| AA 77 | no | no |
Thus the records for the diversion (alleged hijacking) of UA 93 and UA 175 were removed from the BTS database. This was presumably done to disguise the fact that although, in the original database, there were records for the diversion of UA 93 and UA 175, there were none for the diversion of AA 11 and AA 77. The reason why there were no records for the diversion of AA 11 and AA 77 is that these flights did not exist.
Further evidence for this can be found by considering the Airline On-Time Statistics.
Go to this page on the BTS website:
http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/ddisp/OntimeSummarySelect.xml?tname=OntimeSummaryFlightData
and select "United Airlines", flight number "0093" and the date range September 10th to 11th, 2001. A page appears which gives data for UA 93 on September 10th, but above this is a note:
On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.
But this note was added sometime after November 2003. Before that the same query (but for September 11, 2001, only) produced the page shown
here.
In the original BTS database similar queries returned the following pages for
UA 93,
AA 11 and
AA 77. Thus the summary on-time statistics (over any specified time period) for the four flight numbers differ in the current version of the BTS database from the version which existed until sometime in 2004 in this respect: In the original version that summary included data for UA 93 and UA 175 on September 11, 2001, whereas data on AA 11 and AA 77 is explicitly stated to be non-existent. But in the current version, data for all four flights on September 11, 2001, is excluded. This change was made presumably to disguise the fact that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist on September 11, 2001.
According to the official story an American Airlines Boeing 767 took off from Logan International in Boston as Flight AA 11, was hijacked by Arab terrorists, and was flown into the North Tower of the WTC. But since Flight AA 11 did not exist on September 11, 2001, this assertion cannot be true.
According to the official story an American Airlines Boeing 757 took off from Dulles International in Washington DC as Flight AA 77, was hijacked by Arab terrorists, and was flown into the Pentagon. But since AA 77 did not exist on September 11, 2001, this assertion cannot be true.
Consequently the official story, put out by the Bush Administration on September 11, 2001, and maintained without change for over four years now, is false. Arab hijackers could not have hijacked Flights AA 11 and AA 77, and crashed them into WTC1 and the Pentagon, because those flights did not exist. All the talk of Arab hijackers armed with box cutters and intent on the destruction of the Twin Towers must have been a concoction, a hoax, designed to cover up what really happened on 9/11, and, of course, to conceal the identity of the real perpetrators of this atrocity, in which about 3000 people were killed.
Of course, if Flights AA 11 and AA 77 never existed then there are questions to be answered.
1. What of the Naudet video, which is claimed to show Flight AA 11 crashing into the North Tower?
This video is the principal evidence put forward that a hijacked passenger jet was flown into WTC1. But there is good evidence that
Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged, in other words, that the Naudet brothers had advance knowledge of the attack on WTC1, and positioned themselves in just the right spot to capture the explosion on video. If this is so then this in itself refutes the official story, since the alleged Arab hijackers or their leader are very unlikely to have informed the Naudet brothers of their plans. And if it is so then we can have no trust in the video, since it was made in order to provide "evidence" to support the official story, and it is not implausible that Jules captured only the explosion on tape, with the fuzzy flying object being added back in the video lab, before the tape was released to the media 24 hours later (though it can also be argued that he captured one or more real objects flying into WTC1, just not a Boeing 767).
2. What of the eyewitnesses who claim to have seen AA 77 fly into the Pentagon?
There are several reasons why these reports are not admissible as evidence:
(a) According to the 9/11 Commission Report the object which hit the Pentagon approached it at a speed of 530 mph, so witnesses had just a few seconds to observe the object.
(b) An object flying into the Pentagon is so anomalous that people could make sense of it only after the event, especially after being told by the media what it was they saw.
(c) The 9/11 perpetrators could be expected to plant false witness testimony to support the official story.
(d) If an eyewitness reports what is physically impossible (such as a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon and leaving no identifiable part of itself — wings, engines, etc. — among the debris) then we cannot believe that person.
On this subject see also
The Eyewitness Reports.
3. What about the passengers on Flights AA 11 and AA 77?
Obviously, if these flights did not exist then there were no passengers (or crew members) on them. So what about the passenger lists for these flights? We must draw the obvious conclusion: These passenger lists were fake. They were supplied to CNN, Newsweek, etc., by the perpetrators as "evidence" to support the official story. Some of these passengers were probably fictitious (with "memorial websites" later set up by the perps), but there were also real people whose names were included on these lists (e.g.,
Barbara Olson) so one has to ask which of them are still alive (and where) and what happened to those who are not.
=============================
| Exchange of letters between Elias Davidsson and American Airlines |
|
|
Letter 1: Elias Davidsson to American Airlines, 29 November 2005 Dear Mr. Bentel, I was advised to contact you by Naomi Klaus of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. My request was for the names and email/telephone numbers of AA employees who personally attended the boarding/departure of AA77 from Dulles Airport on September 11, 2001. I wish to interview these people in relation with my research on the events of 9/11. I would be most grateful for your assistance in locating these individuals
Letter 2: Reply by American Airlines to Elias Davidsson, 30 November 2005
Dear Mr. Davidsson
Ms. Klaus contacted me in relation to your request, which I misunderstood as a request for the passenger list of American Airlines’ flight 77 on 9/11/01. That information is a matter of public record and I had hoped to assist your search by providing it. The names and contact information of the employees attending the boarding and departure of the flight, however, are not public information. In the interest of protecting my colleagues’ privacy, I do not feel at liberty to disclose this information. At this point, without knowing the nature of your research, I am at a loss to know how we might further assist you.
Sincerely, Sean Bentel American Airlines |
Letter 3: Elias Davidsson to American Airlines, 1 December 2005 Dear Sean Bentel, Thank you for your prompt reply. I did not know that the passenger list of AA77 was a matter of public record. Could you please send me that list (that is a replica of the original passenger list). The purpose of my research is to document in their own words the comments of AA employees who saw off the passengers board AA77. I have not seen yet any such comments in the media and would be most interested to add their comments to the various other testimonies regarding the various flights. I hope you will be kind enough to communicate to me their names and means of contacting them. Sincerely yours, Elias Davidsson
Letter 4: American Airlines to Elias Davidsson, 1 December 2005
Mr. Davidsson,
The passenger list for the flight follows: [a typed list includes 53 names, only names, one full name per line]
As for the remainder of your research, I again do not feel at liberty to disclose personal contact information in this pursuit, as a matter of respecting privacy.
Sincerely, Sean Bentel American Airlines |
Letter 5 from Elias Davidsson to American Airlines. 1 December 2005 The list you sent to me is useless. It does not reflect the original passenger list. I would be thankful if you could send me something more authentic. Kindly, Elias Davidsson
Letter 6 from American Airlines to Elias Davidsson, 1 December 2005
Mr. Davidsson,
The names I sent to you are accurate. From what I see below, there may have been a formatting problem in transition. The information is in the public domain and accessible from a variety of internet resources; perhaps those would be more useful or readable on your system.
Sincerely, Sean Bentel American Airlines |
Letter 7 from Elias Davidsson to American Airlines, 1 December 2005 Dear Sean Bentel, I am not concerned about formatting. The email you sent contained correct adequate formatting. What I am asking is for a replica of the original passenger list (either a scan of the original, or at least a document faithfully reflecting the contents of that list). By passenger list I mean, of course, the list of the paying passengers who boarded AA77. Can I take it that the list you sent me faithfully reflects the names of the paying passengers who boarded AA77? Thanks, Elias Davidsson
Letter 8 from American Airlines to Elias Davidsson, 1 Decembeer 2005
Mr. Davidsson,
Names of terrorists were redacted.
Sean Bentel |
Letter 9 from Elias Davidsson to American Airlines, 2 December 2005 Why can’t you send me a facsimile copy of the passenger lists, including the names of the terrorists? Elias Davidsson
Letter 10 from American Airlines to Elias Davidsson, 2 December 2005
This is the information we have for public release.
I am glad to have been of some help to you; best wishes on the remainder of your project.
Sincerely, Sean Bentel American Airlines
|
|
|
===========================
| The Case of American and United Airlines |
|
|
AA and WS as accomplices in covering up the crime of 9/11 /Section: 11 September 2001/ Category: Foreknowledge by the airlines Written by Elias Davidsson Sunday, 27 February 2005 Within minutes of the first terrorist attack on 9/11 involving American Airlines, Weber Shandwick [one of the world's largest Public Relations companies], put in motion a national strategic support network, comprising more than 75 Weber Shandwick professionals, to assist American Airlines during this unprecedented crisis situation. Over the following week, the team worked around the clock on site at the AA corporate headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas, as well as in New York, Washington, D.C., Boston and Los Angeles, providing strategic counsel and tactical support for both internal and external communications. Additionally, the Dallas office of W.S. was staffed 24 hours a day, monitoring national broadcast and online news. Communications specialists in crisis management, consumer relations, internal communications, and government affairs provided support....Externally, AA faced the difficult challenge of controlling what was being said about the airline by unauthorized spokespeople. Flight attendants, pilots – and their unions - along with contracted security firms, airport authorities, government agencies including the FBI, FAA and National Transportation Safety Board, and local government agencies all issued statements regarding the events. Eyewitnesses, stranded passengers and post-September 11 travelers were also of concern. All of these external groups has an impact on American Airlines’ commnications strategy, requiring that the W.S. team ensure consistent communications with all audiences. Participants in the Cover-Up of 9/11:
The Case of American and United AirlinesElias Davidsson 8 November 2004 (corrected on 4 May 2005, edited 8. Oct. 2005) According to the official account, 19 Arabs hijacked four passenger planes on September 11, 2001 and crashed these planes with passengers and crew onto the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Two of the aircraft belonged to American Airlines and two to United Airlines. In view of the huge losses incurred by these airlines in terms of human lives and materiél, one would have expected them to help shed light on the criminal events. As will be shown below, the airlines have, on the contrary, refused to disclose crucial evidence to the families of the victims and to the public in general and continue to do so. One of the immediate worries of American Airlines on September 11, 2001, was how to mould information flow to the general public and prevent “rumors” and wrong “theories” to leak out. A prestigious public-relations agency was put on the scene by AA “minutes after the first crash” to help carry out that communications task. Concurrent to such public-relations efforts, both airlines refused and continue to refuse to disclose the most fundamental data in their possession regarding the murderous events, such as passenger lists and access to eye-witnesses. This evidence suggests airlines’ complicity in covering up the truth on 9/11. THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNTWhile the US administration has not issued any authoritative “official account” (or “white book”) of the events of 911, as promised shortly after the events by Secretary of State Colin Powell (1), the report issued by the bi-partisan Congressional Commission of Inquiry in June 2004 (2) may be regarded as the nearest thing to an “official account”. According to this report, 19 Arab hijackers, whose names and photographs have been posted shortly after the attacks on the FBI website (3)(4), perpetrated the atrocities on September 11 through a collective suicide operation. Two AA and two UA passenger jets were, according to this account, flown as living missiles into the named targets. The first AA aircraft (flight AA11, tail no. N334AA) is said to have left Logan airport in Boston at 7:59 with 92 people on board (crew, passengers and hijackers) and crashed at 8:46 on the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The second AA aircraft (flight AA77, tail no. N644AA) is said to have left Dulles airport in Washington, D.C. at 8:20 with 64 people on board and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37. The above departure times, incidentally, are still disputed and in the case of AA11. As of November 13, 2003, the statistical database of the Department of Transportation (BTS) did not even mention AA11 as a flight scheduled for September 11, 2001 (5). At a later date the Department added a record for this flight with the departure time set as zero. Checking again the BTS database for this article on November 18, 2004, I discovered that the DoT again amended its database by setting the scheduled departure of AA11 to the “official time” of 7:45 (6). It appears that the DoT had received orders to align its database with the “official account” on the crime of 9/11. Should this have happened, there would be grounds to charge the DoT for falsification of official records and participation in a criminal cover-up. Hundreds of questions regarding the events of 9/11 remain unaddressed by the Congressional Commission of Inquiry. The present article examines only one particular question: Whether American Airlines (and United Airlines) are participants in the vast cover-up of the crimes committed on September 11, 2001. WAS THERE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE?On the morning of September 11, 2001, the Dallas office of Weber Shandwick, one of world’s largest public relations agencies, mobilized a nationwide network of public relations professionals to assist the American Airlines corporate communications department. The details are reported on Weber Shandwick’s website:
“Within minutes of the first terrorist attack involving American Airlines, Weber Shandwick put in motion a national strategic support network, [comprising] more than 75 Weber Shandwick professionals, to assist American Airlines during this unprecedented crisis situation. Over the following week, the W.S. team worked around the clock on site at the AA corporate headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas, as well as in New York, Washington, D.C., Boston and Los Angeles, providing strategic counsel and tactical support for both internal and external communications. Additionally, the Dallas office of W.S. was staffed 24 hours a day, monitoring breaking national broadcast and online news. Communications specialists in crisis management, consumer relations, internal communications, and government affairs provided support....Externally, AA faced the difficult challenge of controlling what was being said about the airline by unauthorized spokespeople. Flight attendants, pilots – and their unions - along with contracted security firms, airport authorities, government agencies including the FBI, FAA and National Transportation Safety Board, and local government agencies all issued statements regarding the events. Eyewitnesses, stranded passengers and post-September 11 travelers were also of concern. All of these external groups has an impact on American Airlines’ commnications strategy, requiring that the W.S. team ensure consistent communications with all audiences.”(6)ù
|
Timothy Doke was AA Vice President of Corporate Communications at the time of the 9/11 events. He is now Vice President – Corporate Communication at Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. As a response to the present author’s inquiry, Tim Doke responded by email on October 6, 2004:
“Dear Elias. There seems to be some confusion around the way AA handled the crisis at the time of 9/11. We did not ‘outsource’ all our crisis communications to Weber Shandwick. We managed it from beginning to end in-house. Because of our staffing resources were limited and the air transportation system was shut down, precluding us from getting our staff to key locations around the country, we relied heavily on W.S. professionals to supplement our PR resources at our headquarters in DFW and to provide on-site personnel to support our people in Boston, LA and New York...Nothing in [our crisis] plan contemplated having the FBI move into our offices, declare an incident a criminal investigation and shut-off any of the traditional external media communications we would do in the case of a crash.”
|
Tim Doke added, laconically: “Most of the people who were involved in the crisis on 9/11 have left AA.” According to Sherri Green and Claire Murphy of PR Week USA of November 11, 2001(7), who interviewed Tim Doke, he “immediately called Ken Luce, president of Weber Shandwick Worldwide’s Southwest US office. The agency sent more than 20 people to American’s headquarters and to airports around the U.S. [according to the agency, the figure was 75 professionals, see above – E.D.]..It seemed like every media call raised a new issue”. Doke also reportedly said that “spokespeople subtly steered reporters away from false rumors and leaked information. Employees from WSW and American’s other agency, Burson-Marsteller, served as the firm’s eyes and ears in the airports its staff couldn’t reach while planes were grounded”. The above account raises various questions with far-reaching consequences: (a) Weber Shandwick states on its website that it deployed 75 P/R professionals around the country in support of AA “within minutes” of the crashes. The accuracy of this statement was confirmed to a colleague of the present author by Weber Shandwick’s Ken Luce on October 5th 2004. How could Tim Doke, let alone Ken Luce of Weber Shandwick, know within minutes that AA aircraft were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when it is publicly claimed that neither the US President, the US military and other security agencies, knew at the time what was going on, let alone could know the identity of the crashed aircraft? Is it plausible that a service agreement, detailing the nature, scope and costs of Weber Shandwick’s P/R services for American Airlines, could have been drafted, finalized and negotiated within minutes of the attacks? Or were AA and Weber Shandwick executives forewarned on the attacks, ready to act on the spur of the moment? If so, by whom were they forewarned? In an email of November 7, 2004 to the present author, Tim Doke dismisses that AA or Weber Shandwick “had any premonition of the events of 9/11. It was the furthest thing from our minds.” Regarding the promptness of Weber Shandwick’s reaction he merely explained that “Weber Shandwick had people ready to respond quickly to this event.” (b) What were the specific interests that prompted AA to engage in a massive P/R efforts on the very day of the attacks? A hint is given in the statement by Weber Shandwick that it was necessary for AA to “ensure consistent communications with all audiences”. In his email of November 7, 2004, Tim Doke shed some light on the term “consistent communications” by saying: “Lots of people claimed to have knowledge or theories about what happened that they shared with any reporter who would listen. It was important for us to go ‘off the record’ with certain media who were straying from the facts as we, at AA, uniquely knew them. We did this to prevent inacurate reporting.” However, in his email he maintained that “employees who were in contact with the terrorists on the ground were fully interviewed by the FBI, but had no desire to speak to the media. Of course, they could not talk to reporters anyway under the FBI's restrictions.” One may surmise that AA employees were strictly forbidden to talk to media and the public about what they knew so that only “authorized” individuals could describe the events in line with what the corporation wanted the world to know. This required to “subtly steer[...] reporters away from rumors and leaked information”. AA was apparently concerned, and seriously so, that some facts regarding the events of 9/11 and AA’s relation to these events, would reach the public. Weber Shandwick's chairman, Jack Leslie, appears to have privileged links to the U.S. foreign policy bodies. He was the only public relations executive to testify before the U.S. House International Relations Committee, already in November 2001, in relation to the U.S. government's efforts to promote the "war on terror" (see article entitled War on Terror is "Greatest Communication Challenge of Generation") PARTICIPATING IN A CRIMINAL COVER-UP?As mentioned already in the previous section, part of the public relations efforts carried out by Weber Shandwick, at the request of American Airlines, was to “subtly steer[.,.] reporters away from rumors and leaked information”. What type of “leaked information” was AA concerned with? It is argued here that the information AA did not want to “leak” to the public was the same information that AA refuses to reveal to the families of the victims and to the public in general since 9/11. Such information includes: (a) Names of ground personnel who saw off the passengers and crew at the departure gate on 9/11 and could testify on what they saw; (b) Authentified copies of the flight manifests, which would show the names of the alleged hijackers and of the passengers; (c) Copies of boarding cards, which would show the names of the alleged hijackers and of the passengers and confirm their seat numbers; (d) Computer listing of the boarding times of individual passengers and hijackers; (e) Positive evidence that the aircraft which left the airport was indeed the aircraft which later crashed into the known target (aircraft serial number, tail number, engine serial numbers, black boxes, etc.); (f) Names and contacts of AA personnel who reportedly communicated by cellphones with crew or passengers on the hijacked aircraft and could publicly testify on these conversations. The present author asked both American and United Airlines to provide some of the above information. Both airlines declined to provide the information and referred the author to the FBI for all such data. The last attempt to obtain information from American Airlines (a letter to AA spokesman Marty Heires of October 6, 2004) did not elicit any response at all. Neither airline, however, justified in its answer its refusal on a legal restraining order or on the need to protect the privacy of the families of the victims or of its personnel. The author has not come across any Justice Department order, or any legal ruling, that prohibits airlines from releasing the above information and airline personnel to communicate freely with the media on matters relating to 9/11. However, Tim Doke, in his email to the present author claimed that the FBI “limited what we could say publicly through the media” and that “employees who were in contact with the terrorists on the ground... could not talk to reporters... under the FBI's restrictions.” A spokesperson of the FBI, asked why the agency has not publicized the original flight manifests in support of its allegation against 19 named hijackers, did not maintain that the FBI or the airlines were legally prohibited from disclosing the original flight manifest. She simply referred the present author to the airlines for such information. The airlines’ apparently uncoerced refusal to produce the above information suggests that this refusal is prompted by their interest to prevent their employees, the families of victims and the public from knowing the full truth on the events of 9/11, DID AA OFFICIALS POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THE CRASHED PLANES?In order to obtain insurance benefits, owners of a crashed plane must positively identify the plane as theirs. Yet, in the case of the reported crashes of the four planes on September 11, 2001, no evidence could be found in the public domain that airline experts positively identified the crashed planes from the planes’ wreckage. If such expertise did take place beyond public gaze, why would American or United Airlines not announce such positive identification on their website or in a press release? The Report by the Congressional Inquiry Commission does not either, for its part, refer to any positive forensic identification of the aircraft by the airlines or by public agencies. According to the “official account”, the aircrafts were the weapons with which the passengers were killed. In a proper criminal investigation, one of investigators’ first tasks is to identify the owner of the murder weapon and find out how that weapon reached the scene of the crime. Yet, no reference to such an investigation could be found in the allegedly “comprehensive” report by the Congressional Commission of Inquiry. The lack of positive identification of the aircraft means that the families of the dead or missing passengers cannot know with certainty where and how their beloved ones actually died nor who caused their deaths. WHAT COULD THE AIRLINES BE COVERING UP?It might be argued that the airlines’ secrecy is prompted by their fear of being sued for negligent security measures rather than by charges of criminal complicity. If this were the case, what would explain the refusal of the airlines to release the original flight manifests or allow eyewitnesses to be questioned publicly? It appears, therefore, that the airlines cooperate with US public agencies in covering up the crime of 9/11. Unless American and United Airlines show readiness to produce the above evidence, duly authenticated, and cooperate fully with the families of the victims and the general public to shed light on the events of 9/11, they must be regarded as suspects in the vast criminal conspiracy to commit a mass murder in America on September 11, 2001. Notes
1. "We are hard at work bringing all the information together--intelligence information, law enforcement information—and I think in the near future we'll be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack," said Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/09/mil-010924-usia13.htm (mirrored at: http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=371&Itemid=107)
2. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
3. http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm
4. http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm
5. According to Gerard Holmgren’s report dated Nov. 13, 2003 (http://members.surfeu.fi/11syyskuu/holmgren.htm), and a display of BTS database records of all American Airlines flights scheduled on September 11, 2001 from Logan Airport, Boston (at http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/american_airlines_flight_11_did_not_takeoff.htm ), no AA11 flight was scheduled from Logan on that day.
6. Weber Shandwick removed sometimes between Nov. 8, 2004 and May 4, 2005 from its website the page on which this text appears. The author has, however, kept a hard-copy example of the page and possesses, in addition, a confirmation by Ken Luce of Weber Shandwick , dated October 5th 2004, that the cited text is accurate. This hard copy is shown below the Notes.
7. http://www.sherrigreen.com/American%20Airlines%20braces%20for%20most%20turbulent%20journey.htm mirrored at: http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=107
|
|
===============================
No comments:
Post a Comment