9/11 - Media Published Fake Passenger Lists

Media Published Fake Passenger Lists

MEDIA PUBLISHED FAKE PASSENGER LISTS FOR AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11.

By Gerard Holmgren enquiry11@hotmail.com

Copyright. 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 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. 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 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 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 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, 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.

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.
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.

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 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.

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.

At this point, 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