Dean Hartwell (with Jim Fetzer)
Once the fabrication of all four of the alleged 9/11 crash sites (which I have documented in “9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery”) begins to sink in, the question which invariably arises is, “But what happened to the passengers?” Since Flights 11 and 77 were not even in the air that day, it seems no stretch to infer that the identities of the passengers on non-existent flights were just as phony as the flights themselves: no planes, no passengers. But we also know that Flights 93 and 175 were in the air that day, even though–astonishingly enough, for those who have never taken a close look at the evidence–they were not de-registered by the FAA until 28 September 2005, which raises the double-questions of how planes that were not in the air could have crashed or how planes that crashed could still have been in the air four years later?
Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed that Flight 93 was in the air, but over Urbana, IL, far from the location of its alleged “crash” in Shanksville, PA; just as Flight 175 was also in the air, but over Pittsburgh, PA, removed from the South Tower at the time it was purportedly entering the building, which–unless the same plane can be in two places at the same time–established that some kind of “video fakery” was taking place in New York, as I have explained in many places. As a complement to the new study of the Pentagon attack by Dennis Cimino, “9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy”, Dean Hartwell, J.D., has considerably expanded our understanding of questions about the passengers, where the manifests may include a mix of the dead and the non-existent, as well as some who may have been killed by the government to make their Hollywood-style event a bit more realistic and emotional. In the methodical fashion of an attorney presenting his case, Dean outlines the crucial questions and the most likely answers, where problems nevertheless abound. My opinion is that these three studies constitute a “one-two-three punch” from which the “official account” can never recover. From beginning to end, 9/11 was a fabricated event.
And, in case anyone entertains any lingering doubts, two of the most powerful indications of fakery and fraud are to be found in the punishment trial of Zacharias Moussaoui, the alleged “20th hijacker”, in Arlington, VA, in April 2006, which Scholars wrote about at the time. He was convicted in April 2005 of having been involved in the 1993 attack on the Twin Towers, but in April 2006 he was being punished for having been involved in the 2001 attack–a federal judicial “shell game” of immense proportions. The trial was used to introduce emotional testimony about the passengers aboard Flight 93 plotting to use a drink cart to break through the cabin door, which was picked up by the Cockpit Voice Recorder. But, as Allan Green, a member of Scholars, noted, CVRs do not record voices in the passenger compartment. A second blunder was noticed by a Muslim member of Scholars, Muhammad Columbo. The last words the “hijackers” on the tape are recorded as having said are “Allah akbar! Allah akbar!” (“God is great! God is great!”). But as he explained, “The last words of a Muslim cannot be these! They are used in the call to prayer or in an attack at war. On the moment of death, a Muslim must confirm that ‘There is but one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet!” Which means that those who were composing this script did not know enough to get it right.
DEAN HARTWELL: The 9/11 Passenger Paradox
According to the official version of events, forty-three people, including the crew members, boarded United 93 on the morning of September 11, 2001. The flight took off from Newark airport with San Francisco as its destination.
During the flight, four hijackers took over the aircraft. After making calls from the airplane to relatives, several passengers rushed the hijackers in an attempt to wrest control of the plane back. Ultimately, the plane crashed in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing everyone on board.
Investigators found human remains in Shanksville and declared that the remains matched DNA samples given by the passengers’ families. Copies of the manifest and boarding passes show the names of passengers who took the flight.
Facts That Contradict the Official Story
The flight was airborne over the Midwest after the alleged crash in Shanksville (see below).
Wallace Miller, Coroner of Somerset County (which includes Shanksville) and one of the first to arrive at the “crash” scene, said of the area, “This is the most eerie thing,” he says. “I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.”
Miller also reportedly said that it “looked like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it…I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service.”
No independent source has identified remains of any of the flight’s passengers.
Did the alleged hijackers use their real names?
David Ray Griffin speaks of the “hijackers” (whose names appear on the manifest available) in his first point in his book The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions. He states that at least six of the hijackers showed up alive and well after 9/11! Do we need any further reason to believe that anyone took over planes and used them in suicidal attacks that day?
MOST LIKELY SCENARIO: The fact that several of the “hijackers” turned up alive makes it obvious that some passengers boarded using the “hijacker” names. Instead of relatives saying that the “hijackers” called them, some of them said their relative was alive!
How Do We Know Who Boarded This Plane?
Jack White quotes expert pilot John Lear, who shared information that calls into question whether the manifest available for Flight 93 is the final one. He says that passenger flights have, as required by the Federal Aviation Administration, what is called “The Envelope.” The Envelope contains “the final passenger manifest, the destination, the amount of fuel on board, the names of the pilot and flight attendants, etc., and the time the DOOR OF THE AIRCRAFT WAS CLOSED.” According to Lear, the chief pilot signs the document.
Could changes in the flight manifest have been made between the time of the generation of the publicly available manifest, noted above, and the time of the aircraft door’s final closing?
White continues his recitation of Lear’s words:
The passenger manifest (a printout of pre-ticketed passengers) may be augmented by the chief flight attendant if passengers do not show up, or late arrivals are added. The manifest in THE ENVELOPE would include the names of hijackers, if pre-ticketed, or their written in aliases if added at the last moment by hand. In any event, every person on board would be accounted for.
Was there a second boarding or deplaning of any passengers before take-off?
This becomes a realistic possibility because there were two departure times for the flight – 8:28 AM (ACARS) and 8:42 AM (BTS). Phil Jayhan of the Internet forum, Let’s Roll Forums, explains why the BTS, the official record, only shows one:
“Why not two different times in the BTS database? We have two separate groups of passengers. One group of people that boarded flight 93 at the terminal boarding ramp. And another group of people which boarded on the tarmac. The way that the **ACARS system works in an airplane is that when the brake is released, whether there is movement to the aircraft or not, it records an away time. The morning of 9/11, there were two of these recorded for flight 93, which might simply be another confirmation that flight 93 picked up two groups of people on 9/11 at two separate locations at Newark International Airport.”
Hypothesis: After the passengers boarded the plane at the terminal (gate 17), the plane moved forward a short distance and then stopped at the tarmac. The passengers who would make calls deplaned at the tarmac. The pilot then released the brake at 8:28 AM (setting the departure time under ACARS) and moved to taxi, taking off (aka “wheels off”) at 8:42 AM, setting the BTS departure time then. The people remaining on the plane continued in flight after the “crash” in Shanksville.
The callers used cell phones from a ground location, which had a much greater chance of working than calls from the airplane. Some of these calls were recorded and provide proof that calls were made. Alternatively, the calls could have been recorded prior to the flight and played to relatives.
This hypothesis explains the long gap in time between the scheduled departure time of 8:01 AM and the BTS departure time of 8:42 AM. It also explains the other departure time frequently given for this departure (8:28 AM). The passengers likely boarded in anticipation of an 8:01 take-off. The callers then likely got up to leave.
The usual boarding issues and their explanation for leaving (perhaps illness) and the resulting shuffle to get them out the door on the tarmac stalled some of the time. According to media reports, a witness (NY Giant football player Clayton White who took flight to New Jersey after Monday Night Football in Denver the prior night), saw passengers on the tarmac during this time.
MOST LIKELY SCENARIO: Passengers boarded the plane but some of them deplaned from United 93 at 8:28 AM. The manifest and copies of boarding passes show the names passengers gave to the airline. Lear’s assertions on manifests and flight policy show the opportunity of how passengers could have boarded under false names and how names could have been altered.
Todd Beamer (air phone)
Sandy Bradshaw (cell)
Marion Britton (cell)
Thomas Burnett (cell, recorded?)
Joseph DeLuca (?)
Edward Felt (cell)
Jeremy Glick (recorded?)
Lauren Grandcolas (air phone, recorded)
Linda Grunland (?)
Cee Cee Lyles (cell, recorded)
Honor Wainio (?)
Were Calls Possible from United 93?
David Ray Griffin explains the utter lack of consistency in the official explanations of phone calls on the planes associated with 9/11. He does a great job explaining how the FBI at first remained silent as to what phones were used from the planes.
He then shows the chronology of A.K. Dewdney’s report (which made it clear that cell phone calls at that time in history were only reasonably possible at altitudes of less than 2,000 feet) to the subsequent FBI report which changed many of the calls from cell to air phone.
From Griffin’s analysis of the work of researchers like Dewdney, we can easily surmise that the official story on the number of cell phones (now given by the FBI as mostly air phone) changed drastically after it became known publicly the difficulty in getting cell phones to work at typical airplane altitudes.
More issues about the alleged phone calls from United 93 arise upon inspection of information provided by the government at the Moussaoui trial in 2006:
(1) One call allegedly went past the time of the Shanksville “crash”, Todd Beamer’s last call on United 93. Furthermore, Beamer’s call could not have happened when it purportedly did because the government’s own records show him making this call and another call from the same phone AT THE SAME SECOND!
(2) No records of calls are sourced to the companies that provided them. This fact calls into question the authenticity of the calls.
(3) Lisa Jefferson, who reportedly took Beamer’s call, failed to mention the phrase “Let’s roll” in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which introduced the heroics of Beamer and others on the flight. She also had never before heard Beamer’s voice.
(4) In fact, the FBI delayed bringing out the story of “Let’s Roll” and the passengers “fighting back” and apparently only did so to stop the story of a flight shoot-down from gaining momentum.
(5) The government, without saying as much, switched several calls in the official account from cell to air.
MOST LIKELY SCENARIO: There were no cell phone calls from the airplane of United 93. And air phones were not available on Boeing 757s in 2001. The additional consideration, even if one were to believe those calls were possible, regardless of type or where they came from, is in the substance of the statements alleged and their inconsistencies. The callers, whoever they were, whatever phones they used and wherever they called from, gave false information to passenger relatives at the behest of the plotters. No reliable records show any calls having gone to Lisa Jefferson. It is likely that Jefferson was persuaded or coerced to give false reports to the media.
Who are the Relatives?
The reaction of the relatives of the passengers to the news of the plane crashes can best be described as perplexing. None of the passenger’s relatives arrived at San Francisco airport, as is common when plane crashes take place. In an accident that took place in Taipei involving a plane that was destined for Los Angeles, the airport set up a Counseling Center for the relatives of the victims.
What then were the relatives’ roles?
If the passengers used real names and made calls, they had to:
a) deceive the relatives OR
b) participate in a simulation or otherwise work with the relatives in holding conversations under false pretenses
Deception of the relatives could have taken place. However, with all of the information out about the details of the phone calls, it would seem likely that at least one of the deceived relatives would question the 9/11 matter publicly. If the relatives had been deceived, they would have believed the passenger calls were real. Under this scenario, it is hard to believe that none of the relatives in the San Francisco area would show up as bereaved relatives usually do.
As there were many simulations on 9/11, the plotters may well have planned one for United 93 passengers. Knowledge on the part of the relatives of the plot could explain how this part of the plot worked easily (none of the relatives apparently questioned what they said or who they were). Of course, it adds to the number of people who must be paid off or killed.
The callers may have been asked to participate in a simulation of a plane hijacking. It would have required some acting skills. This challenge would explain several questionable statements allegedly made by some of them. Here are some examples that do not by themselves prove the calls were fraudulent, but certainly suggest it:
A caller claiming to be passenger Mark Bingham said:
Caller: “Mom? This is Mark Bingham. I want you to know that I love you. I’m on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb.”
Alice: “Who are these guys?
Caller: (after a pause) “You believe me, don’t you?
Alice: “Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?
Another supposed caller, Jeremy Glick said, when asked if he and others were going to fight back against the hijackers, “I have my butter knife from breakfast.” According to Dewdney:
“This is strange because it implies that the caller had already finished breakfast, whereas meals are not normally served until the aircraft reaches cruising altitude, about the time that the alleged hijacking began.”
A caller who said he was Todd Beamer talked to a Verizon operator, Lisa Jefferson, for fifteen minutes instead of preparing to take on the “terrorists” with other passengers.
MOST LIKELY SCENARIO: The callers more likely made the calls as part of a simulation than as a flat-out deception of relatives. To believe in the theory of the use of deception, one would have to believe that (a) none of the relatives discovered they had been lied to and (b) the same relatives would agree to keep silent about the deception.
Why were the calls so important?
If the hijackings and plane crashes never happened, then what were the phone calls all about?
The calls were used to advance the “fact” that the hijackings and crashes happened. Of secondary importance are what phones were used and where the calls were made from.
These calls are part of what holds the official theory together. The plotters needed to make sure the calls got through and the information about hijackers was conveyed.
Whose Remains Were at Shanksville?
There were no traces of the United 93 plane at that location.
Officials claimed there were sufficient human remains to match with DNA samples even though UA93 and UA175 were airborne after the times of their alleged “crashes”.
Several news articles report human remains identified at the scene of Shanksville.
We also know that the FBI was in charge of the area, giving the agency the authority to declare who could and who could not either approach or photograph the “crash scene”.
How were the victims at the Shanksville “crash” scene “identified”?
DNA testing requires a sample from a victim at the “scene” and a sample from the victim or a close relative from somewhere else (usually given by family).
An agent (of the plot) would likely retrieve sample from the “scene” of the victim’s death.
The Agent would give samples to the tester. (The tester, as one who would follow standard procedures, would not have any reason to go to the scene nor to question the Agent).
The agent would also go to the family to ask for samples (ex: hair, toothbrush, etc.)
The agent would then give the family sample to the tester.
If the tester were in on plot, the tests could be easily rigged. But the tester’s statements to the media are needed. If something “happened” to the tester, it would cause too much suspicion. The tester would be suspicious if “scene” samples did not have appearance of involvement in plane crash.
Elias Davidsson points to a lack of a “chain of custody.” This is a legal principle which directs those who investigate a crime to document (1) how and where they find evidence and (2) how the evidence got to the point of the hearing.
He states that “there is no indication that a proper chain of custody between the crash sites and the final disposition of bodily remains had been established by the FBI, as required in criminal cases. The 9/11 Commission did not refer to any such documentation.”
With no solid chain of custody, a prosecutor (the state) can conceivably bring just about any piece of evidence to the attention of the jury. And when the public is the jury with no judge to referee, the state can use this opportunity to perpetuate a false story.
Davidsson names the evidence that the government should have shown to us if it really had a case that could be proven as to the people that boarded the planes:
In order to prove that particular individuals actually boarded the aircraft and died at the known crash sites, at least three types of evidence could and should have been produced: Authenticated passenger lists (or flight manifests) displaying their names, identification of the suspects as they boarded the aircraft and identification of their bodily remains from the crash sites.
Miller said it took several days to get good samples (i.e. body parts not recognizable) and that the passengers were “essentially cremated upon impact.”
The cremated remains could have been distributed around the Shanksville site with some FBI agents allowing the plotters onto the land.
Could the United 93 passengers have been killed and cremated for this purpose?
Probably not. Cremation by law must be done one body at a time and each body takes several hours. Even an unofficial “cremation” would take too long for the plotters, considering the number of bodies (43) needed.
Hypothesis: The plotters used cremation remains of those who died before 9/11.
Issue: How would plotters get the DNA “samples” of the same deceased persons?
Answer: The plotters could have run a phony company that provides or cleans ceremonial caskets for the deceased prior to cremation. The company could have collected “hair samples” that would match those recently cremated:
“Many funeral homes offer a hardwood ceremonial casket for viewing or funeral services prior to cremation. The ceremonial (or rental) casket is specifically designed to provide a very aesthetically pleasing, affordable and environmentally prudent alternative to purchasing a casket for a cremation service.”
MOST LIKELY SCENARIO: The remains were planted at Shanksville. The remains could not have been those of the passengers. No plane with passengers crashed at Shanksville. It would also be hard to deceive the DNA testers.
What happened to United 93?
What if we could find out if messages were sent to the planes that flew and pinpoint when they were sent? What if we could ascertain whether the plane corresponding to this flight received any of these messages? What if any of the messages were AFTER the time the plane allegedly crashed?
We can do that! There is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. It is called ACARS, the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System.
Thanks to the work of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others, we know that the ACARS messages sent to Flight 93 indicate that the plane was heading west over Illinois several minutes after it supposedly “crashed” in Pennsylvania! Pilots for 9/11 Truth found that messages sent after the time of the crash were received by United 93 at ground stations far away from Shanksville. They said that the aircraft would not have had messages routed through the ground stations that were actually used “if it were en route to crash in Shanksville, PA.”
For that reason alone, we know that United 93 did not crash in Pennsylvania. For that reason alone, we know that 43 people were not killed in a Shanksville crash. For that reason alone, we can call off the official story and continue our search for the real history of this day’s event.
There are other reasons to disbelieve the crash story. In the words of Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), had United 93 crashed in Shanksville “there would have [been] literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft.” Yet, as with identification of the passengers, our government has not shown what would be easily understood and conclusive evidence.
MOST LIKELY SCENARIO: The evidence proves that United 93 flew to the Midwest and was last positively traced over Illinois minutes after the “crash” in Shanksville. The “footprints” of the plane and passenger ends here.
Where did United 93 and its passengers land?
From here on it is speculation. The best guess is Cleveland due to its proximity to United 93’s last known position and evidence of irregular activity there.
What happened? Plotters needed to make sure about 30 people did not get away. The passengers may not have been aware of what had happened during the time of the flight as they did not make calls.
They would have left the plane about 11:00 AM and may have been led to a NASA building. The plotters had to keep them away from their cell phones and the news for as long as possible. The plotters knew that the passengers would eventually find out that they had traveled on a flight that would be tied to the official story. At that point, the passengers would no longer have felt safe.
Can anyone tell us what happened to the passengers?
The passengers have not spoken and the plotters will not speak. That leaves the relatives as the only group of people who may know what happened.
Hypothesis I: The relatives received no notice before receiving the calls from the passengers.
If that is the case, then the relatives were left out of the plan and thus had no leverage as to the fate of the passengers. Most likely, the passengers are dead.
Hypothesis II: The relatives received notice about the calls before receiving them.
If that is the case, then the relatives may have been (coerced?) into a deal: for their silence, they would receive assurances that the passengers would not be harmed.
MOST LIKELY SCENARIO: Unknown. Only the relatives can tell us anything about this topic.
Conclusion: The Passenger Paradox
IF the passengers took the flights under their true identities, THEN: a) they were killed in Cleveland or b) they received new identities.
Problem with a) The relatives would be furious that the government lied to them about what happened and would be responsible for the deaths of the passengers. But the families appear to stand with the government.
Problem with b) The relatives would demand contact with the passengers, which could create difficulties in keeping what would be a secret. It would only take one “outed” passenger to ruin the whole cover story.
IF the passengers took the flights under assumed identities, THEN they could return to society in their old or different identities.
Problem: Close friends and family would know the old identities. In an era of the Internet and the availability of records, this might not be too hard for the public to discover.
IF the passengers deplaned United 93 at the tarmac, THEN they could return to society quickly provided that their identity as a passenger be different than their commonly used name AND the pictures shown of them are faked.
Problem: This would mean a lot of false passenger names and a lot of false relatives, though it does not foreclose the possibility of some real passengers who go to Cleveland (see the first paradox). The key for the plotters would be to make sure the fake pictures of “passengers” get to the public quickly to create images of people who do not exist. So the public would look in all the wrong places.
McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone.
The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).
Latest posts by Jim Fetzer (see all)
- JFK: HARVEY & LEE — Peering into a black hole - March 20, 2015
- JFK: The HARVEY & LEE Illusion (Updated!) - March 19, 2015
- New York Times: All the lies they can fit in print - March 14, 2015
Posted by Jim Fetzer on March 15, 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under Corruption, Foreign Policy, Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.