9/11 Misinformation: Flight “Passenger Lists” Show “No Hijacker Names”

9/11 Misinformation: Flight “Passenger Lists” Show “No Hijacker Names”

By Arabesque

Misinformation: Passenger “Manifests” Contain “No Arab or Alleged Hijacker Names”

The assertion that 9/11 passengers lists “contained no Arab names” is frequently seen in the 9/11 truth movement.[1]  For example, this article by Enver Masud is headlined, “Why are there no Arab names on the passenger list for the planes used in the September 11, 2001 attack…?”[2] The 9/11 website 9/11 Hard Facts claims, “[On] officially released passenger lists provided by the airlines to the media, no Arab names appear on any of the four passenger lists.”[3] In David Ray Griffin’s 9/11: The Myth and the Reality, he repeats the claim that, “[Their] names should be on the flight manifests. But the flight manifests that have been released contain neither the names of the alleged hijackers nor any other Arab names.”[4] John Leonard, Webster Tarpley and Kevin Barrett’s publisher repeats the claim that “Scholars [for 9/11 Truth]… report things like ‘there were no Arabs on the passenger lists’”[5] As well, Michael C. Ruppert, citing Gary North wrote, “Another easy and non-debatable hole is with the passenger lists and the hijackers. Gary North, Ph.D. - a history professor… relied on lists published by CNN… Official reports state that there were only 19 hijackers. Second, none of listed passenger names are Arabic, Muslim… The government needs to provide an explanation for this glaring discrepancy.”[6]

Passenger Manifests versus Victim Lists

In fact, the U.S. Government withheld the actual passenger lists for years.  An earlier version of Jim Hoffman’s page on the passenger lists reported correctly that there was previously “no public evidence… Researchers who have attempted to obtain this information from the airlines have been rebuffed.”[7] However, many 9/11 researchers mistakenly cited “victim lists”—not passenger lists.  Jim Hoffman explains:

“According to the official story, teams of four and five Islamic hijackers took over Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93. Victims lists for the four planes published by CNN and elsewhere are free of Arab names…  This fact has been highlighted as suspicious by some researchers describing the lists as passenger manifests. However, these lists are not passenger manifests, but lists of victims… CNN describes its criteria for including persons in its memorial in a pop-up window labelled ‘About this site’… ‘(Those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included)…’ In July of 2006 a large collection of documents was published on a website containing prosecution and defense exhibits for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui… The faxes, reproduced below, include the names of the alleged hijackers.”[8]

Referring to “victim lists” as if they were “passenger lists” would be significantly misleading.  The CNN website frequently cited reveals that the alleged hijackers were intentionally not included.  The Complete 9/11 Timeline also cites “Terry McDermott’s 2005 book, Perfect Soldiers… Names of the five hijackers [on the manifest] are highlighted.”[9] McDermott apparently got these images and other material from the FBI, but 9/11 blogger and researcher Reprehensor claims, “When [Elias] Davidsson tried to get the manifests via FOIA, he was denied [access].”[10] These printouts are criticized by Elias Davidsson who says that, “these printouts contain no authentication and were not accompanied by chain-of-custody reports. These lists were released discreetly, without comments or indication as to their source… the FBI and the airlines have consistently refused and continue to refuse to release the authentic, original, passenger lists and flight manifests, of the four 9/11 flights… As the names of all victims and alleged hijackers have been publicized within days after 9/11, privacy considerations cannot explain the refusal to simply confirm—by releasing the original, authentic, documents—what has been publicly asserted since 9/11.”[11] In other words, the authenticity of these documents have been questioned by some 9/11 researchers.

Who Had Access to Flight Manifests on 9/11? 

The Complete 9/11 Timeline citing Tom Murphy reports that Ed Freni, the director of aviation operations at Logan, “[Received] the manifests for Flight 11 and Flight 175 at 9:30 a.m… [circling] the names of the… men later accused of being the plane’s hijackers.”[12] Richard Clarke claims in his book Against All Enemies that he received information about the passenger manifests from the airliners at around 9:59 A.M. on 9/11. An FBI official informed Clarke that, “We recognize some names, Dick. They’re al-Qaeda.”[13] The FBI timeline confirms that at 10:59 A.M., “United Airlines Flights #175 and #93 manifests [were] obtained by FBI Chicago CP… 5 Muslim names on UA fL 93 manifest, 6 Muslim names on UA FL 175 manifest.”[14] By 11:00 A.M., Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection claimed, “We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs… looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information… within 45 minutes.”[15]

When was the List of Alleged Hijackers Finalized? 

Although Bonner claimed that “Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers” at 11:00 A.M. on 9/11, documented reports show that it took until September 14th until the list of alleged hijackers was finalized.[16] On September 13th, CNN reported that “The FBI is working on the assumption that there were between 12 [and] 24 hijackers directly involved in the attacks.”[17] This same report issued a correction stating, “CNN reported that Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari of Vero Beach Florida, were suspected to be two of the pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center… Federal sources had initially identified the brothers… Their names had been tied to a car founded at an airport in Portland, Maine… their identifications were stolen and… had no role in the hijackings.”[18] In fact, Ameer was dead a year before 9/11.[19] According to the Complete 9/11 Timeline, “Hani Hanjour’s name is not on the list” at this time.[20] The next day, “CNN managed to grab a list of the names of the 18 suspected hijackers”, but proceeds to add “Mosear Caned” to form a total of 19 suspects.[21] Without explanation, the name “Mosear Caned” is removed and replaced with Hani Hanjour later in the day in a report taken from an “FBI press office document listing 19 ‘individuals who have been identified as hijackers aboard the four airliners.’”[22] According to the Washington Post, Hanni Hanjour’s name was “not on the American Airlines manifest for [Flight 77] because he may not have had a ticket.”[23] There is no source for this claim, but presumably, it comes from the FBI.  This claim is interesting considering that it is contradicted by the fact that Hanjour’s name shows up on the reproduced faxes provided by the Moussaoui trial.[24] On September 20, 2001 Director Mueller acknowledged that “the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.”[25] In September 2002, Mueller admitted on CNN that there was “no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.”[26] However, this claim is contradicted in 2006 with the FBI claiming they are “confident” that they have “positively identified the nineteen hijackers.”[27]

What about the Security Videos? 

Airport officials and the U.S. Government are either refusing to release them or claiming that they do not exist.  Unbelievably, the Boston Herald reported a few weeks after 9/11 that, “Logan International Airport is missing… surveillance cameras… Logan officials acknowledged the ‘deficiency’…”[28] This is significant because two of the flights originated from Logan airport on 9/11.  As Jim Hoffman confirms, “The public has not been treated to any video showing any of the alleged hijackers at Boston Logan Airport, the origin of Flights 11 and 175, or Newark Airport, the origin of Flight 93.”[29] Citing Michael Taylor, president of American International Security Corp, Jim Hoffman reports that “Newark airport does have video cameras in its departure lounges.  So does Dulles International Airport… the FBI has refused to release any video from these airports.”[30] In 2004, USA Today released images from a “surveillance video from Washington Dulles International Airport the morning of Sept. 11, 2001” which showed “four of the five hijackers being pulled aside to undergo additional scrutiny after setting off metal detectors.”[31] The video was only obtained after a lawsuit from the “Motley Rice law firm… representing some survivors' families who are suing the airlines and security industry over their actions in the Sept. 11 attacks.”[32] Family members have commented on the video.[33] Unusually, the video does not have a time stamp on it.  However, the released video has clearly been edited since the film is slowed down and zoomed in at certain parts to emphasize the alleged hijackers.  As well, the footage appears to be a combination of two different camera shots because there is more than one camera angle.[34]  Airport security manager Ed Nelson describes the FBI confiscating this video some time after 10:00 A.M. on 9/11 saying: “They pulled the tape right away… They knew who the hijackers were out of hundreds of people going through the checkpoints… It boggles my mind that they had already had the hijackers identified… Both metal detectors were open at that time, and lots of traffic was moving through. So picking people out is hard… I wanted to know how they had that kind of information.”[35] If other passengers from flight 77 or anyone else at Dulles airport on 9/11 were seen in this video, it would confirm that it originates from 9/11.  However, Elias Davidsson claims that he has been prevented from speaking to airline employees, stating:

“Airline personnel traditionally see off passengers… one would have expected to see, hear and read international media interview airline employees under headlines such as ‘I was the last to see the passengers alive’. Yet no such interview is known to have taken place. The 9/11 Commission does not even mention the existence of any deposition or testimony by airline personnel that witnessed the boarding of the aircraft. And even the identities of these employees remains secret: As a response to this author’s request to interview American Airlines employees who saw off passengers of flight AA77, the airline responded that their identities cannot be revealed for privacy reasons.”[36]

The only other video evidence of the alleged hijackers does not come from airports involved in the 9/11 attack.  On their way to Logan International Airport in Boston, the Boston Globe reported images showing “Mohamed Atta and… Abdulaziz Alomari, passing through a security checkpoint at the Portland, Maine, airport at 5:45 a.m. on Sept. 11.”[37]

Other Problems with the Hijackers

As Hoffman also explains, there are other problems with the official story in relation to the hijackers including, the existence of a handful of reports in mainstream newspapers of those suspects proclaiming their innocence after the attack…   Six of the 19 suicide hijackers identified by the FBI shortly after the attack by name, photograph, and other personal details reported themselves alive… [and] the reported lack of piloting skills of the suspects.”[38]

Conclusions

While some 9/11 researchers have mistakenly referred to victim lists as “passenger lists”, 9/11 researcher Michael Ruppert correctly points out, “Every journalist makes mistakes from time to time. The New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, all of them publish hundreds of corrections every year. It’s the journalist who does not acknowledge and correct errors who cannot be trusted.”[39] Ruppert does not endorse the claim that “no hijacker names appear on the passenger lists” in his book Crossing the Rubicon.[40] Promoting mistakes even after they have been pointed would be an example of disinformation.[41]

What is striking about official reports is that it took several days to confirm the total number of hijackers.  There is no explanation why someone named “Mosear Caned” was placed on a list of Hijackers and why he was replaced by Hani Hanjour.  The explanation given for this was that Hanjour “was not on the flight manifest.”[42] This cannot be the case however, because Hanjour’s name appears on the flight manifests provided in the Moussaoui trial.  This is a clear contradiction that must be explained. 

By withholding evidence pertaining to the 9/11 attacks like the airliner passenger lists, videos of passengers boarding the planes on 9/11, and videos of the Pentagon attack, the U.S. Government is actually encouraging misinformation.  For years, there was no verifiable evidence that the alleged hijackers were on the passenger manifests because the U.S. Government refused to release these documents.  By not releasing these documents, the U.S. Government actually encouraged speculation that the hijackers names did not show up on the passenger lists.  In fact, the authenticity of these documents are in question by some 9/11 researchers.  However, there is a difference between asserting “evidence is being withheld” and “there is no evidence”—only the first claim can be verified.  Misinformation benefits the U.S. Government and its cover-up of the 9/11 crimes.  As Thomas Pynchon explains, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.”[43]



[1] Ran Prieur, 9/11 FAQ, http://www.ranprieur.com/, September 5, 2006

[2] Enver Masud, 9/11 Commission Report: Why No Arab Names on Passenger List? July 26, 2004

[3] 9/11 Hard Facts, Flight Manifests and Passenger Lists, http://www.911hardfacts.com/

[4] David Ray Griffin, 9/11: The Myth and the Reality, http://www.911truth.org/, April 5 2006

[5] John Leonard, Moussaoui: Mad Patsy Playing for the Prosecution. Show Trial Unconstitutional, Experts Say, http://www.waronfreedom.org/, April 21, 2006

[6] Michael C. Ruppert, It’s A Lie, From The Wilderness Publications, http://www.copvcia.com/, October 15, 2001

[7] 9/11 Hard Facts, Flight Manifests and Passenger Lists

[8] Jim Hoffman, Passenger Lists: Victims Lists, Passenger Manifests, and the Alleged Hijackers, http://911research.wtc7.net/, page last modified: August 27, 2008

[9] Paul Thompson, September 13, 2001-September 14, 2001: 18 Hijackers Named, Mysterious Name and Then Hanjour’s Name Follows One Day Later, Complete 9/11 Timeline

[10] Reprehensor, McDermott got the ‘faxes’ from the Effa Bee Eye, 911blogger.com comment, Friday August 29, 2008

[11] Elias Davidsson, No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11, http://www.aldeilis.net/, February 8, 2008

[12] Tom Murphy, Reclaiming the Sky: 9/11 and the Untold Story of the Men and Women Who Kept America Flying, (AMACOM), September 5, 2006, pp. 30-33

[13] Richard A. Clarke, Against all enemies: Inside America's war on terror, (New York, NY: Basic Books), March 22, 2004, pp. 13-14

[14] FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, & FBI Chicago, timeline of investigation, Sept. 11-12, 2001

[15] Gail Sheehy, Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show, http://www.observer.com/, February 15, 2004

[16] Gail Sheehy, Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show, http://www.observer.com/, February 15, 2004

[17] CNN, Feds think they've identified some hijackers, http://archives.cnn.com/, September 13, 2001

[18] CNN, Feds think they've identified some hijackers

[19] CNN, Feds think they've identified some hijackers

[20] Thompson, September 13, 2001-September 14, 2001: 18 Hijackers Named, Mysterious Name and Then Hanjour’s Name Follows One Day Later

[21] CNN, America Under Attack: List of Names of 18 Suspected Hijackers, http://transcripts.cnn.com/, September 14, 2001

[22] CNN, FBI list of individuals identified as suspected hijackers, http://archives.cnn.com/, September 14, 2001

[23] Washington Post, Four Planes, Four Coordinated Teams, http://www.washingtonpost.com/, September 16, 2001

[24] Jim Hoffman, Passenger Lists: Victims Lists, Passenger Manifests, and the Alleged Hijackers, http://911research.wtc7.net/, page last modified: August 27, 2008

[25] BBC, Hijack 'suspects' alive and well, http://news.bbc.co.uk/, September 23, 2001

[26] Timothy W. Maier, FBI Denies Mix-Up Of 9/11 Terrorists, http://www.insightmag.com/, June 11, 2003

[27] Steve Herrmann, 9/11 conspiracy theory, www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors, October 27, 2006

[28] Doug Hanchett and Robin Washington, Logan Lacks Video Cameras, Boston Herald, September 29 2001

[29] Hoffman, Airport Video: No Video Shows Hijackers Boarding Targeted Flights, http://911research.wtc7.net/

[30] Hoffman, Airport Video: No Video Shows Hijackers Boarding Targeted Flights

[31] The Associated Press, Video shows 9/11 hijackers' security check, http://www.usatoday.com/, July 21, 2004

[32] The Associated Press, Video shows 9/11 hijackers' security check

[33] Bill Hutchinson, Shocking video of hijackers Set off metal detectors, http://www.nydailynews.com/, July 22, 2004

[34] Court TV Online, 9/11 Hijackers Screened Before Flight, http://www.courttv.com/

[35] Susan B. Trento and Joseph J. Trento, Unsafe at any Altitude: Failed Terrorism Investigations, Scapegoating 9/11, and the Shocking Truth about Aviation Security Today, (Steerforth Publishing), October 3, 2006, p. 37.  See also:

Thompson, (After 10:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: FBI Immediately Identifies Hijackers on Dulles Security Video, Complete 9/11 Timeline

[36] Davidsson, No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11

[37] Denise Lavoie, Company helps 9/11 probe after losing one of its own, Associated Press. September 11, 2002. 

Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline cites news reports that the alleged hijackers were “caught on security cameras visiting a gas station, two ATMs, and shopping at a Wal-Mart. The next morning they fly back to Boston.”

Thompson, Context of 'February 2008: Considerable Video Footage of 9/11 Hijackers Remains Unreleased', Complete 9/11 Timeline

[38] Hoffman, Passenger Lists: Victims Lists, Passenger Manifests, and the Alleged Hijackers

[39] Michael C. Ruppert, MICHAEL RUPPERT RESPONDS TO VICTOR THORN'S TEN QUESTIONS, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/, October 7, 2004

[40] Hoffman, Passenger Lists: Victims Lists, Passenger Manifests, and the Alleged Hijackers

[41] Arabesque, 9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

[42] Washington Post, Four Planes, Four Coordinated Teams, http://www.washingtonpost.com/, September 16, 2001

[43] Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow, page 251.

Yeah, but...

I've been aware of McDermott's jpegs of faxes for some time, and I agree that it is unfair to say there is "no evidence" of the alleged hijacker names on the manifests.

However, these black and white digital reproductions would be incredibly easy to fake in Photoshop, even by a Photoshop novice, so it's impossible for us to say they are genuine.

But again, it's not fair to say that there is NO evidence of hijacker names on the manifests. I agree with you there. Is the evidence definitive proof on its own? I don't think so.

(You don't allege that, but I don't want people to get that impression, either.)

Good point

"However, these black and white digital reproductions would be incredibly easy to fake in Photoshop, even by a Photoshop novice, so it's impossible for us to say they are genuine."

This is a possible I suppose . I should update my article to include this disclaimer. "Could have been faked" however, is speculation. It has not been proven so I can't make this as an assertion.

That's a completely different claim than "no hijackers names show up on the lists". The claim that they "don't appear at all" however, is damaging because it is false. The lists cited are actually "victim lists" that specifically point out that "the hijacker names are not included".

They are withholding the videos as I point out in my article. It seems strange that the date has been removed from the Dulles Flight 77 video. It just occurred to me to ask if any of the victims who boarded flight 77 show up in this video. It was released due to a lawsuit and no one complained, so that would seem to suggest it is genuine. This would prove that the video actually came from 9/11 and not another date.

EDIT:

Ok, I found this source for the above claim:

Elias Davidsson claims that, “these printouts contain no authentication and were not accompanied by chain-of-custody reports. These lists were released discreetly, without comments or indication as to their source… the FBI and the airlines have consistently refused and continue to refuse to release the authentic, original, passenger lists and flight manifests, of the four 9/11 flights, if such lists exist at all. As the names of all victims and alleged hijackers have been publicized within days after 9/11, privacy considerations cannot explain the refusal to simply confirm—by releasing the original, authentic, documents—what has been publicly asserted since 9/11.”

I also added this line:

In 2004, USA Today released images from a “surveillance video"[...] Presumably, if victims from flight 77 were not seen in this video, some of the family members who received the video through a lawsuit would proclaim it to be a hoax. If other passengers from flight 77 were seen in this video, it would confirm that it originates from 9/11.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Yeah, but...

"Presumably, if victims from flight 77 were not seen in this video, some of the family members who received the video through a lawsuit would proclaim it to be a hoax."

Not necessarily. That is a screening gate. Not a boarding gate dedicated to a specific flight, if I'm not mistaken. There have been no images released depicting any of the alleged hijackers boarding any of the allegedly hijacked flights, through a dedicated flight gate.

Because this is just a generic screening gate, there is no guarantee that other Flight 77 passengers would necessarily be passing through this one at the same time as the alleged hijackers.

I can't tell you how many times I have passed through security screenings with a bunch of people who were not on my flight. The missing date is a major authenticity problem.

(If anyone out there knows more about the particulars of Dulles, chime in.)

Right

"Because this is just a generic screening gate, there is no guarantee that other Flight 77 passengers would necessarily be passing through this one at the same time as the alleged hijackers."

Right. I guess this means I should correct it again...

But anyone in the video who was there on 9/11 would confirm that the video is legitimately from 9/11. Anyone who is in the video who was there on only on 9/11 could confirm this.

I suppose it's possible that the video could be staged. But it seems unlikely. The patsy is always better off dead. You know, in case he wants to demonstrate his flying skills to us. It seems very possible that some of the "hijackers" identities were faked. All of this needs to be investigated.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Staged.

Remember the James Woods story. He claims that "suspicious" looking men were traveling together in first class. If we assume that the patsies were on a dry run for, oh I dunno, a war game exercise, then they could very well have been filmed previously. I believe they call it "stock footage". Several of the alleged hijackers also traveled together to Las Vegas, but I can't remember if they traveled together by air or ground.

Then I guess Woods could be spewing propaganda;
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/2698

?

These guys could have also walked right back out the front door and never boarded these planes. We may never know. There are no cameras watching people leave.
They were running a drill. That much was clear. Look at their baggage. It was meant to throw up a red flag so to trigger a security response if found. They were told to pack those things. This much is obvious.

The report that their names were not on the flight manifests is suspicious. Several of these guys were in first class. If you have ever flown in first class you would know that your name would have been on several manifests.

I was bumped into first class once at the last minute and they knew my name before I got ass to seat. My name and every other in that section. I was flying American.
___________________
Together in Truth!

"no hijacker names" claim

I hope you understand that the point of my article is not to discount anything you say above.

It is only about the "no hijacker names" claim. As I point out in my article, the reason why "hijacker" names were not included in lists by CNN, etc., is because they are victim lists. CNN specifically says that they did not include the names of "hijackers". The official lists were not released until the 20th patsy trial, Moussaoui.

A victim list is not a passenger list. The CNN lists cited even have the word "victims" in the URL

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

This link here explains:
"Those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included"
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/interactive/about/frameset.exc...

So when someone cites the CNN cite and calls it a "passenger list" and says that "no hijackers" are on it, they are promoting misinformation because they aren't "passenger lists". They are victim lists that intentionally left their names of them. David Ray Griffin for example, cites this webpage as evidence that "no hijackers" appear on the flight lists on 9/11.

David Ray Griffin:

"Another problem in the official account is that, although we are told that four or five of the alleged hijackers were on each of the four flights, no proof of this claim has been provided. The story, of course, is that they did not force their way onto the planes but were regular, ticketed passengers. If so, their names should be on the flight manifests. But the flight manifests that have been released contain neither the names of the alleged hijackers nor any other Arab names.... [footnote:] The flight manifest for AA 11 that was published by CNN can be seen at www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html. The manifests for the other flights can be located by simply changing that part of the URL. The manifest for UA 93, for example, is at www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html. "
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

James Wood

Seymour M. Hersh, Annals of National Security, "Missed Messages," The New Yorker, June 3, 2002, p. 40

"... describes an incident where Hollywood actor James Woods saw four Arabic men together on a flight and was concerned enough to attempt to warn the crew that the four were hijackers... Throughout the spring and early summer of 2001, intelligence agencies flooded the government with warnings of possible terrorist attacks against American targets... For years, however, the airlines had essentially disregarded the F.A.A.’s information circulars... A senior F.B.I. official told me that the bureau had subsequently investigated Woods’s story but had not been able to find evidence of the hijackers on the flight Woods thought he had taken. "We don’t know for sure," the official said... The fact that the terrorists managed to bring down the World Trade Center may simply mean that seizing an airplane was easier than the American public has been led to believe..."
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/06/03/020603fa_FACT
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Family members of F77 comment on Dulles video

Some family members commented on the video:

"Furious relatives of the passengers who died that day believe the tape shows the last missed chance to save their loved ones.
"I'm angry, very very angry," said Rosemary Dillard, 56, of Alexandria, Va., whose husband, Eddie, was on the doomed flight. "I think absolutely it could have been prevented."
Officials of the 9/11 commission believe the hijackers at Dulles were carrying box cutters either on their bodies or in their luggage.
At the time, box cutters and utility knives could legally be carried onto commercial flights.
The tape surfaced on the eve of today's release of the report by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The video was taken about two hours before Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon at 9:39 a.m.
All 59 passengers and crew aboard the flight and 125 workers in the Pentagon were killed.
"I guess my reaction is it's too late," said Randall Caswell of Silver Spring, Md., whose son, William, died aboard Flight 77. "Nothing is going to bring our son back."
Lawyer Brian Alexander, whose law firm represents hundreds of 9/11 victims' families, said the video supports the contention that little was being done to thwart terrorists from breaching aviation security.
"If you study it, collectively every one of the red flags went off and yet they were unable to realize what their duties were, and that is keep bad guys off the planes," Alexander said of the failures at Dulles."
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2004/07/22/2004-07-22__shocking...
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

dulles video anomaolies

it is not just the missing datestamp on the "security video" that makes the video suspect. the viewpoint of the dulles video moves 6 feet to the right, this is self evident by observing the central line. there are also shadow and light issues with the video which indicate that videos taken at different times of the day, morning and midday, were spliced together. . since when did airport security cameras have no time/datestamp and move 6 feet to the right?

what makes sense to me is that the video segements we have been shown are not the airport tapes, they are surveillance tapes filmed by ordinary hidden cameras on the person of someone tracking the suspects, perhaps for a non-terrorist case, or perhaps for the purpose of setting up these guys as "terrorists".
http://release.theplatform.com/content.select?pid=qxIddPLP2yLjPSvo-xwt8S...

explained in detail here:
http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-9-11-Paul-Zarembka/dp/158322825X/re...

"the viewpoint of the dulles video moves 6 feet to the right."

"the viewpoint of the dulles video moves 6 feet to the right."

Aha. I was going to add this to my piece. It turns out that this is because the film was enhanced to highlight the hijackers. My understanding is that it is not the original version. In an article, they discuss how the film was enhanced to show the hijackers more clearly.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

No, that cannot be the case.

" It turns out that this is because the film was enhanced to highlight the hijackers"

Eh?

No, that cannot be the case.

go here:
http://www.courttv.com/video/archive/

look for the video titled
"9/11 Hijackers Screened Before Flight"

look at the line on the floor in the middle of the screen. it is to the left of the camera viewpoint. it is positioned at about 60 degrees from the horizontal.

keep watching up to 1:08:00

where is the line now? what angle is the line to the horizonal?
why has the "security camera" moved? in fact it has moved the the other side of the line.
that is not enhancement.
that is a mobile camera!

My mistake

This is my mistake. Sorry. I was confusing this article:

"The company loaned the FBI digital editing equipment that allowed investigators to enhance and sharpen video images of two of the hijackers taken hours before the attacks. One of the images showed lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and another one of the hijackers, Abdulaziz Alomari, passing through a security checkpoint at the Portland, Maine, airport at 5:45 a.m. on Sept. 11. Hours later, they were at Logan International Airport in Boston."
http://911research.com/cache/planes/evidence/globe_airport_video.htm

Back to your point:

"look at the line on the floor in the middle of the screen. it is to the left of the camera viewpoint. it is positioned at about 60 degrees from the horizontal.

that is not enhancement.
that is a mobile camera!"

I don't see what you are talking about.

You can clearly see in this video that is not the original, because it uses circles to highlight the alleged hijackers. Furthermore there is a slowdown and close-up. This means it's not the original and that it was edited. So there could have been editing done to highlight the suspects. This seems pretty obvious. What we need to see is the original video.

The camera is not "moving". In the closeup, the edit moves to follow the person. Otherwise he would disappear from the screen when the edit (i.e. not the actual camera itself) is zoomed in. Think of it this way. If you have an original video and you want to highlight someone or something that is moving by doing a closeup--you have to edit the shot so that the person is always on your screen. If you don't, your shot is stationary, and the person leaves your view.

Because there is a slow-down it proves that this is not the original. Any "moving" could have been post-editing to highlight the suspects. Only the original video can completely confirm this, but it seems to be the best explanation.

Here is a witness who describes the video being taken at about 10:a.m. on 9/11.

"Shortly after arriving at Washington’s Dulles Airport, from which Flight 77 took off, the FBI confiscates a security tape from a checkpoint through which the hijackers passed before boarding the plane. Airport security manager Ed Nelson will later say: “They pulled the tape right away.… They brought me to look at it. They went right to the first hijacker on the tape and identified him. They knew who the hijackers were out of hundreds of people going through the checkpoints. They would go ‘roll and stop it’ and showed me each of the hijackers.… It boggles my mind that they had already had the hijackers identified.… Both metal detectors were open at that time, and lots of traffic was moving through. So picking people out is hard.… I wanted to know how they had that kind of information. So fast. It didn’t make sense to me.” [Trento and Trento, 2006, pp. 37]
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

the camera HAS moved

there is a vertical dividing line on the floor - in the picture you posted above, the guy is being frisked by the security guard, they are both standing on it.

compare the start of the video to the end of the video.
the viewpoint of the camera has moved 6 feet to the left - look at the vertical floor dividing line!
I am not arguing that the camera "is moving". i am arguing that the camera "has moved"
it cannot be a fixed security camera.

please watch the video - compare these two sections (0:00-0:46) and (1:07-1:44), look at the floor diciding line in each segment.
ignore the zoomed and circling bits.

http://www.courttv.com/video/archive/
look for the video titled
"9/11 Hijackers Screened Before Flight"

It appears to be a combination of two different camera shots

"compare these two sections (0:00-0:46) and (1:07-1:44), look at the floor diciding line in each segment.
ignore the zoomed and circling bits."

Ok, I see your point. Thanks for pointing this out. However, one explanation could be that they have more than one camera. Since we don't have the original, we can't tell if this is one continuous shot or a combination of cameras. Since both "shots" are pointing almost straight ahead (the first is angled to the left slightly and the second is "straight ahead"), this looks to be a reasonable explanation.

Again, this could all be cleared up definitively if we had the original footage. It has clearly been edited.
http://release.theplatform.com/content.select?pid=qxIddPLP2yLjPSvo-xwt8S...
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

more than one camera

In isolation, it is unlikely in my opinion that there would be 2 fixed security cameras right next to each other pointing in the exact same direction. in addition, in your own words "they pulled THE TAPE", that is not plural, it indicates a single tape.

however when we take into consideration the other anomoalies - no date or timestamps, the spliced together shots appearing to be taken at diferent times of day, and the movement of the camera then things get even more unlikely.

i would seriously consider that this tape is not the security tape taken from Dulles airport, but one which has been switched into evidence.

The same argument can be made...

For FOIA requests, etc... no, I'm not accusing people like Aidan of putting forward false FOIA requests (I know someone who knows Aidan and says he's legitimate), but I work in Photoshop and Illustrator everyday, and know how easy it would be to do.

The one thing that always stood out for me with regards to the hijackers is the speed in which they were identified. According to Richard Clarke, the FBI had the names of the hijackers before Flight 93 crashed.

As Kristen Breitweiser said:

It was only after the devastation of September 11th that our intelligence agencies seemed to get back on track.

On September 12, 2001, the New York Times report, "On Tuesday a few hours (emphasis added) after the attacks, FBI agents descended on flight schools, neighborhoods, and restaurants in pursuit of leads. The FBI arrived at Huffman Aviation at about 2:30 a.m., Wednesday morning. They walked out with all the school's records, including photocopies of the men's passports."

The New York Times also reported that students at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University said that within hours (emphasis added) of the attacks FBI investigators were seen at their school.

How did the FBI know exactly where to go only a "few hours" after the attacks? How did they know which neighborhoods, which flight schools, and which restaurants to investigate so soon into the case?

The New York Times went on to report that "federal agents questioned employees at a store in Bangor, Maine, where five Arab men believed to be the hijackers tried to rent cell phones late last week. Store employees at first refused to sell the phones because the men lacked proper identification, but they gave in after the five offered $3000 cash, store employees and an airport official said."

The article goes on to state, "the men then phoned Bangor airport trying to get a flight to Boston but were told there was no flight that matched their desired departure time, the authorities said. The men then phoned Portland International JetPort, where two of them apparently made reservations for a flight to Boston on Tuesday morning."

How would this information be gleaned so quickly? How would the FBI know to visit a store in Bangor, Maine only hours after the attacks? Moreover, how would they know the details of a phone conversation that occurred a week prior to the attacks? Were any of the hijackers already under surveillance? It has been widely reported that the hijackers ran practice runs on the airline routes that were chosen on September 11th. Did our intelligence agents ever shadow these men or any of their prior practice runs?

Furthermore, on September 12th, the New York Times reported that, "authorities said they had also identified accomplices in several cities who had helped plan and execute Tuesday's attacks. Officials said they knew who these people were and important biographical details about many of them. They prepared biographies of each identified member of the hijack teams and began tracing the recent movements of the men."

How were complete biographies of the terrorists and their accomplices created in such short time? Did our intelligence agencies already have open files on these men? Were they already investigating them? Could the attacks of September 11th been prevented?

The speed by which the FBI was able to locate, assimilate, and analyze a small amount of information so soon after the attacks--barely one day later, perhaps answers this question for itself? But, if the terrorists were under investigation, then why were they ever permitted to board those planes? Perhaps, even more potently, why if such an investigation was already underway, why was our nation so late in responding to the emergency that quickly unfolded that day?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Second, none of listed passenger names are Arabic, Muslim…

That's not true. Waleed Joseph Iskandar was immediately on the passenger list!

On September 11, 2001, at 8:46 a.m. EDT, American Airlines, Flight 11, out of Boston, Massachusetts, was hijacked with Waleed, a passenger, aboard.
http://www.iskandar.com/george/waleed.html

The family is from Lebanon!

Waleed is a typical muslim surname. Google it!
Iskandar too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iskandar_(Timurid_dynasty)

(RIP man!)

The government or whoever set up the lists seems to be sure about the fact that he wasn't a terrorist early on. How? Simply deleting arab sounding names couldn't be the case.

What's even more strange about Waleeds case: The family received a ATM card more then a year later, found in the rubble.
http://iskandar.com/waleed911/atmcard.html

On September 11 2002, one year Anniversary of the death of our son, we were informed that the Recovery team at Ground Zero have found the ATM Bank card of Waleed and that it will be mailed to us in Northridge. When we received it, we found it in good condition.

How could a plastic card survive the fire of the terrorist attack of the Black Tuesday on the USA?

***

Maybe another "evidence" puzzle of framing intelligence work to make a case against muslims? Many of the other alleged hijackers reported stolen passports. Ajaj, a man who was a known terrorists travelled with Ramzi Yousef with a suitcase full of false passports. All known to the admin.

Jay Kolar - Hidden History of 9/11

FBI released the names of 19 arab hijacker suspects which they obtained from the manifests. Later the FBI release a different list with 4 different names for the flight 11 hijackers (Atta'a name stayed but 4 others changed). In order to switch 4 named suspects from the manifests, there should have been 9 arab names on the manifest - but there were not. So it appears the FBI used arab names that were not on the manifest. This would be a good reason for not releasing the manifests.

I thought 911blogger heavily promoted an earlier edition of this book on their front page?
http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-9-11-Paul-Zarembka/dp/158322825X/re...

Thanks for pointing this out

I seem to remember something about this. If I can find a source, I'll add it to my article. Thanks for pointing this out.

Here is a witness account of the video at Dulles airport where Flight 77 took off from:

(After 10:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: FBI Immediately Identifies Hijackers on Dulles Security Video

"Shortly after arriving at Washington’s Dulles Airport, from which Flight 77 took off, the FBI confiscates a security tape from a checkpoint through which the hijackers passed before boarding the plane. Airport security manager Ed Nelson will later say: “They pulled the tape right away.… They brought me to look at it. They went right to the first hijacker on the tape and identified him. They knew who the hijackers were out of hundreds of people going through the checkpoints. They would go ‘roll and stop it’ and showed me each of the hijackers.… It boggles my mind that they had already had the hijackers identified.… Both metal detectors were open at that time, and lots of traffic was moving through. So picking people out is hard.… I wanted to know how they had that kind of information. So fast. It didn’t make sense to me.” [Trento and Trento, 2006, pp. 37]
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=aafter1000fbitapedulles#a...

(9:59 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Richard Clarke Is Told Some Hijackers Have Al-Qaeda Connections
"Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke is told in private by Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, “We got the passenger manifests from the airlines. We recognize some names, Dick. They’re al-Qaeda.” Clarke replies, “How the f_ck did they get on board then?” He is told, “Hey, don’t shoot the messenger, friend. CIA forgot to tell us about them.” As they are talking about this, they see the first WTC tower collapse on television. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 13-14] Some hijacker names, including Mohamed Atta’s, were identified on a reservations computer over an hour earlier."
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a959clarkealqaeda#a959cla...

(9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Boston Airport Director Requests Flight Manifests
Edit event

9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: Boston Airport Director Receives Passenger Manifests for Flights 11 and 175; Singles Out Arab Names
As he learns of the two plane crashes in New York, a director at Boston’s Logan Airport—from where the two crashed aircraft took off—contacts the airlines to request the passenger manifests for these flights. At around 9:00 a.m., Ed Freni, who is Logan’s director of aviation operations, has just been informed that a plane—believed to be from his airport—has hit the World Trade Center, and another plane from the airport is missing (see (8:50 a.m.-9:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001). He calls the American Airlines station in Logan’s Terminal B. A friend of his there tells him they are concerned about American Airlines Flight 11. The friend says Amy Sweeney, one of its flight attendants, called from the air (see 8:22 a.m. September 11, 2001), said they were flying low over Manhattan, and then her line went dead (see (8:44 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Freni asks to be faxed a copy of the manifest for Flight 11. The manifest holds the names of passengers on an aircraft by seat number. If there is an accident, it allows officials to begin contacting next of kin. At 9:05, he arrives at the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) aviation office on the 18th floor of the FAA control tower at Logan, where he has arranged to meet John Duval, the airport’s deputy director of operations. Freni sees on television the footage of the South Tower being hit just two minutes earlier. He calls his contacts at various airlines at Logan and learns that United Airlines is concerned about its Flight 175. He asks United to fax him the manifest for this plane. According to author Tom Murphy, Freni will receive the manifests for Flight 11 and Flight 175 at 9:30 a.m. (see 9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001).
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a930frenimanifests#a930fr...

(11:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Customs Claims to Determine the Names of All 19 Hijackers
Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, later testifies, “We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs—two were hits on our watch list of August 2001.” (This is presumably a reference to hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, watch-listed on August 23, 2001.) “And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn’t take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes. I saw the sheet by 11 a.m. And that analysis did indeed correctly identify the terrorists.” [New York Observer, 2/11/2004] However, Bonner appears to be at least somewhat incorrect: for two days after the attacks (see September 13, 2001-September 14, 2001), the FBI believes there are only 18 hijackers, and the original list contains some erroneous Arab-sounding names on the flight manifests, such as Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari. [CNN, 9/13/2001] Some hijacker names, including Mohamed Atta’s, were identified on a reservations computer around 8:30 a.m. (see (Before 8:26 a.m.) September 11, 2001), and Richard Clarke was told some of the names were al-Qaeda around 10:00 a.m. (see (9:59 a.m.) September 11, 2001)
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1100customclaim#a1100cus...

"CORRECTION
We would like to correct a report that appeared on CNN. Based on information from multiple law enforcement sources, CNN reported that Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari of Vero Beach Florida, were suspected to be two of the pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center. CNN later learned that Adnan Bukhari is still in Florida, where he was questioned by the FBI. We are sorry for the misinformation. A federal law enforcement source now tells CNN that Bukhari passed an FBI polygraph and is not considered a suspect. Through his attorney, Bukhari says that he is helping authorities. Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crash last year.... Federal sources had initially identified the brothers as possible hijackers who had boarded one of the planes that originated in Boston. Their names had been tied to a car founded at an airport in Portland, Maine. But Bukhari's attorney said it appeared their identifications were stolen and said Bukhari had no role in the hijackings. "
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.terrorism/

So from this information we can gather that Adnan Bukhari was reported only by CNN to be on the flight manifest. CNN issued a correction apologizing for this "misinformation" by including him on the flight list. They tell us that it came from "law enforcement" sources. Of course, they mean the FBI. Why would he be doing a lie detector test? It looks like they considered him a possible hijacker not on the flight manifest, but on the fact his car was found in Maine. That's pretty interesting.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but does this mean they are saying the FBI was naming suspects off a car based in Maine before looking at the passenger lists? Something doesn't make sense here. How did they know that the "hijackers" visited Maine before seeing the flight lists and figuring out who was on them?

September 13, 2001-September 14, 2001: 18 Hijackers Named, Mysterious Name and Then Hanjour’s Name Follows One Day Later
"On September 13, the FBI says there were 18 hijackers, and releases their names. Hani Hanjour’s name is not on the list. [CNN, 9/13/2001] On the morning of the next day, CNN announces on the air that “CNN managed to grab a list of the names of the 18 suspected hijackers that is supposed to be officially released by justice sometime later today.” An announcer reads the list, which actually contains 19 names. It is the same list as the day before, except for one new name: Mosear Caned. (Note that the name is a very rough phonetic spelling from a CNN transcript.) [CNN, 9/14/2001] Later in the day, the list is revised. Caned is gone and is replaced by Hani Hanjour. It is never explained who Caned is, how he got on the list, or even how his name is correctly spelled. No name even remotely similar to his appears on any of the released manifests of the hijacked 9/11 flights. [CNN, 9/14/2001; Associated Press, 9/14/2001] A few days later, it is reported that Hanjour’s “name was not on the American Airlines manifest for [Flight 77] because he may not have had a ticket.”"
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091301hijackerlist#a0913...

None of the manifests for the hijacked flights have ever been released, except for this partially obscured page which appears in Terry McDermott’s 2005 book, Perfect Soldiers. McDermott has not explained how or where he got this document. Names of the five hijackers are highlighted. [Source: Terry McDermott]

None of the manifests for the hijacked flights have ever been released, except for this partially obscured page which appears in Terry McDermott’s 2005 book, Perfect Soldiers. McDermott has not explained how or where he got this document. Names of the five hijackers are highlighted.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

McDermott got the "faxes" from the Effa Bee Eye

I got this email from "Mike" at 911myths.com when I inquired about these jpegs in April of 2006;

--------------------------------

He told me that, while researching the book, he got several files directly
from the FBI. The passenger lists were amongst these, so yes, they are
documents from FBI investigative files. Doesn't actually guarantee they're
genuine, as I say on the site, but as they raise questions as well as answer
them I think it's likely.

Hope this helps,

Mike Williams

----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 8:20 PM
Subject: Flight Manifest jpegs.

Mike,

Is Terry McDermott claiming that the FBI provided him with these manifests
referenced on your website;
http://911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html

Your site just says he 'obtained them'.

Thanks,

--------------------------

When Davidsson tried to get the manifests via FOIA, he was denied, yet, when OCT flack McDermott asks for stuff, he not only gets these jpegs but a bunch of other shit as well.

(something tells me McDermott didn't try too hard to authenticate them)

Adnan Bukhari

"On September 19, an FAA employee named James P. Hopkins was fired for independently going through FAA records and reporting to the FBI that Bukhari had trained at the FAA's academy in Oklahoma City twice, in 1991 and 1998. The Office of Special Counsel reviewed the case and awarded Hopkins his employment back, citing unfair termination."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Bukhari
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

The Bukhari story alone

is sufficient evidence for me that there was some patsie built up with framed ID's.

How very convenient (and unbelievable) that the hijackers would

use their real names for everything! I guess they weren't worried about being on any watch-lists or anything like that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

At least

Al-Midhar and Al-Hamzi were on such a watch list and could board with their real names! Added shortly after august 23rd 2001, with a Mossad warning.

Although their names were on an FBI national watch list starting in the late summer of 2001, they traveled without trouble in the United States and also boarded the death jets on Sept. 11 with passports in their real names.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/derspiegel100102.html

It was spun that the Airline wasn't informed.
http://130.94.183.89/magazine/la-watchlist.html

Damn ..

Now we also need to establish for certain whether alleged hijackers where later found to be alive and well or not .
Obviously, if just one of the alleged hijackers latter turns up alive that would strongly suggest that the alleged hijackers
did NOT use their "real" names ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

Hanjour "didn't have a ticket", yet name is on "flight manifest"

This is a new section that I will add in an update to my article:

"Referring to “victim lists” as if they were “passenger lists” would be significantly misleading. The CNN website frequently cited reveals that the alleged hijackers were intentionally not included. The 9/11 Timeline also cites “Terry McDermott’s 2005 book, Perfect Soldiers… Names of the five hijackers [on the manifest] are highlighted.” 9/11 blogger and researcher Reprehensor adds that he was informed by email from an administrator at 911myths.com that McDermott got these images from the FBI but pointed out in contrast, “When [Elias] Davidsson tried to get the manifests via FOIA, he was denied [access].”

Who else has had access to the 9/11 flight manifests? Richard Clarke claims in his book Against All Enemies that he received information about the passenger manifests from the airliners at around 9:59 A.M. on 9/11. An FBI official informed Clarke that, “We recognize some names, Dick. They’re al-Qaeda… CIA forgot to tell us about them.” The Complete 9/11 Timeline citing Tom Murphy reports that Ed Freni, the director of aviation operations at Logan, “will receive the manifests for Flight 11 and Flight 175 at 9:30 a.m… [circling] the names of the… men later accused of being the plane’s hijackers.” The FBI timeline reports at 10:59 A.M. that, “United Airlines Flights #175 and #93 manifests obtained by FBI Chicago CP - 5 Muslim names on UA fL 93 manifest, 6 Muslim names on UA FL 175 manifest.”

However, it took until September 14th until the list of alleged hijackers was finalized. On September 13th, CNN reported that “The FBI is working on the assumption that there were between 12 [and] 24 hijackers directly involved in the attacks.” This same report issued a correction stating, “CNN reported that Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari of Vero Beach Florida, were suspected to be two of the pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center… Federal sources had initially identified the brothers… Their names had been tied to a car founded at an airport in Portland, Maine… their identifications were stolen and… had no role in the hijackings.” In fact, one of the brothers was dead before 9/11. According to the Complete 9/11 Timeline, “Hani Hanjour’s name is not on the list” at this time. The next day, “CNN managed to grab a list of the names of the 18 suspected hijackers”, but proceeds to add “Mosear Caned” to a total of 19 suspects. Without explanation, the name “Mosear Caned” is removed and replaced with Hanni Hanjour later in the day in a report taken from an “FBI press office document listing 19 ‘individuals who have been identified as hijackers aboard the four airliners.’” According to the Washington Post, Hanni Hanjour’s name was “not on the American Airlines manifest for [Flight 77] because he may not have had a ticket.” There is no source for this claim, but presumably, it comes from the FBI. This claim is interesting considering that it is contradicted by the fact that Hanjour’s name shows up on the reproduced faxes provided by the Moussaoui trial."
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog