|
Lets
review the problems so far. Of five mainstream media outlets only three
agree. And one of these has published two 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 cant 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 in
question 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 at least 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 with-holding 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. Fox
news http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34223,00.html lists only 81 names. To be fair, it gives
no summation and introduces the list as “Confirmed
on board American Airlines Flight 11 Boston to Los Angeles: “
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 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 “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. “ 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 News Max 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. Sources
seem to be split on the question of whether Smith is Heath or Heather. And yet,
if this is alleged to be simply a typo, nearly all of the other names have
consistently been free of typos 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 sources. If they happen to be copying from a
list which says “Heather”, then that's what appears in their list. But that
theory doesn’t really solve the problem. If different media outlets are simply
copying each others lists - without acknowledgment - why do so many lists
contradict each other so much?
Whatever
the answer to this mystery, we can confidently state that media is not
publishing any kind of any official documentation. These lists are an appalling
shambles, not worth the paper that they’re not written on. This
site http://www.wwnfsept11.com/AmericanAirlinesFlight11Victims.htm makes
no comment on the total number aboard, but if you count the names you’ll find 88
innocent victims. It’s the same as
the CNN list with the addition of Iskander.
The
authors of the site do not identify themselves or their sources in any way, so I
went to the home page
which
also gave no real information about the authors or the sources.
So,
where did this list come from? Whoever put it together has not even uncritically
copied one of the afore mentioned 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. And
it not address the problem that this list implies 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,_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, contradicting the summation of 93.
This makes 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 http://www.crashdatabase.com/cgi-bin/webdata_crashdatabase.cgi?cgifunction=Search&Date=2001 US
govt info/resources http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blattack0911.htm Newsday ABC
News http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/primetime_flightattendants_020718.html 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 Airdisaster.com http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/view_details.cgi?date=09112001&airline=American+Airlines 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
Washington Post 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 awful clanger in
the official story , and tried to solve the problem 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. 95 is the undisputed fact, so commonly accepted that its not
worth sourcing or commenting upon. And just to prove it, they publish 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 afore mentioned 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 of
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
|