File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0111, message 10


From: "Margaret" <margaret-AT-rie.net.au>
Subject: AUT: Fw: interesting
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:26:19 +1100


> From: "Janice" <Janice_G-AT-free.net.nz>
> Subject: Please Help Solve This Perplexing Puzzle of the Passenger Lists.
> All research and comments welcomed !
> http://www.indymedia.org/print.php3?article_id=78575
>
> The Perplexing Puzzle of the Published Passenger Lists (english) Thursday
25
> Oct 2001
> author: by Gary North
>
> Some fundamental questions to provoke the legitimacy of a war on
> Afghanistan. How do you inflict mass destruction on a nation without solid
> proof?
> web link
> http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR110A.html
>
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
> Please Help Solve This Perplexing Puzzle of the Published Passenger Lists
> by Gary North
> Reality Check, Number 82, 12 October 2001
> Centre for Research on Globalisation, globalresearch.Ca. 20 October 2001
>
> - --------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you like puzzles. I hope so. I don't like them. I regard them as a
> challenge, not a game. I avoid them because, when I cannot find a
solution,
> my mind won't stop working on them. Then I get very frustrated. So, I
avoid
> magic shows, crossword puzzles, and similar brain- twisters.
>
> Yet I am also a historian with a Ph.D. Historians are trained to solve
> puzzles with insufficient pieces. Historians never have all of the
evidence
> that they would like in order to come up with a coherent explanation of
what
> happened. They always want another piece in the puzzle before they go into
> print. (Of course, once they go into print, they will tend to reject any
> newly discovered piece that messes up their version of the completed
> puzzle.) At some point, they are supposed to come to a conclusion. They
are
> supposed to make a judgment about what happened. I am presently stuck. So,
I
> am sending out this report. Maybe there is someone my list who can get me
> unstuck.
>
> Years ago, I saw a movie, "My Cousin Vinnie." Vinnie was studying to be a
> lawyer. He wasn't a good classroom student, but he had a unique ability.
He
> could figure out how things fit together. Show him a magic trick, and he
> could tell you how the magician did it. Tell him a story with a missing
> link, and he could identify where the missing link was, and maybe what it
> was. He could solve puzzles. I am trying to locate Vinnie. This puzzle is
no
> game.
>
> The United States has gone to war on the basis of one solution to this
> puzzle. We have not yet been told what this solution is. The puzzle begins
> with the crash of four airliners. We must work our way backward from this.
> To do this, I decided to begin with official information that was
published
> 16 days after the attack. To work my way backwards, I first leaped
forward.
> Alleged Hijackers
>
> On September 27, the Associated Press released a story about the
hijackers.
> The version that I read, published in the ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION,
> referred to these men as alleged hijackers. I shall do the same. I located
> this article by using www.daypop.com. Daypop is the most complete archive
of
> recent news stories on the Web. Daypop allows you to search for stories
that
> are up to four weeks old. I searched for "passenger list" and "hijackers."
> Daypop produced three pages of links -- not that many. Almost all of these
> links were to the same AP story, which was published by numerous on-line
> news sources. Here is the version I used.
> http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/terrorism/nation/0927hijackerlist.html
> The headline reads: "FBI releases updated list of alleged hijackers."
Above
> the headline is a link that says, "Click here to see 19 suspected
> hijackers." I clicked it. A large box popped up. It took a while for the
> photos to appear. There are 19 photos, along with names. The names appear
to
> be Middle Eastern -- Arabs. Most of the men look like Arabs, although a
few
> might pass as Mexicans. Only one of them looked vaguely like a European.
> They are divided into four lists, according to which flight they are said
to
> have boarded. There were five men on American Airlines Flight 77, five on
AA
> Flight 11, five on United Airlines Flight 175, and four on UA Flight 93 --
> the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.
>
> Let's return to the AP story itself. We read the following: As Attorney
> General John Ashcroft launched a "national neighborhood watch" with the
> release of the photos, FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged that
> questions remained about whether an accompanying list contained the true
> names of the 19.
> "What we are currently doing is determining whether, when these
individuals
> came to the United States, these were their real names or they changed
their
> names for use with false identification in the United States," Mueller
said.
> The FBI director said there was evidence that one or more of the hijackers
> had had contacts with al-Qaida, the network associated with Osama bin
Laden,
> the exiled Saudi millionaire who is the Bush administration's top suspect
in
> the attacks.
> This story indicates that, as of September 27, the FBI was not certain
> whether these suspects had used their real names.
> The remainder of the story listed each of their names, along with possible
> aliases. The aliases all look like Arab names.
>
> I have discovered no additional information released to the general public
> regarding these suspects. I now backtrack to the morning of September 11.
> The issue that I am trying to deal with is airline security. To draw
> rational conclusions about how the alleged hijackers accomplished their
acts
> of terrorism, we must begin with airline security.
>
> The United States has now gone to war because of a breakdown somewhere in
> airline security procedures.
> Yet nobody in government is blaming the specific airlines. They are
blaming
> the procedures.
> This is why I want you mentally to go through the procedures with me. I
have
> hit a brick wall. I am asking you to help me knock it down. I will show
you
> how I went through the procedures mentally. See if you can figure out
which
> step I missed.
>
> Step One: Check-In
> On September 11, airline check-in counters were the only places in the
> United States that required travellers to present a photo ID in order to
> travel.
> A photo ID meant (and still means) a card issued by some branch of civil
> government.
> Years ago, the United States government took the first step toward a
> national ID card when it mandated the requirement that all passengers
> present a photo ID card before being allowed to get on a commercial
> airplane.
> This means that the tightest security that the typical American ever
> confronts is airport security. This is the model for all other security
> systems governing the general public. Let's go through the check-in
routine
> together.
> Pretend that it's September 11, and you are a check-in agent at either a
> United Airlines counter or an American Airlines counter. It is your job to
> ask the standard questions. "Did you pack your own luggage? Have you had
it
> in your possession at all times?"
> Then you ask for a photo ID. The name on the ID must match the name on the
> ticket. The photo must match the person presenting the card.
> I began with American Airlines, Flight 11. This was the plane that crashed
> into the north tower of the World Trade Center. I began with the list of
> passengers. This was not difficult. The passenger lists for all four
planes
> are posted on CNN's Website. Click on the link. This is a long link for
the
> formatting of my newsletter. If it is broken on your screen, you will have
> to paste it into your Web browser's address box. This will take two steps.
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
> The CNN page says that there were 92 people on board. I suggest that you
> print out the list.
>
> Part of my exercise was to count the names of the passengers.
> Besides, you never know when a Web page will disappear.
> Do you have the print-out in front of you? Count the names. I get 86
names,
> including the crew.
> But the CNN page says 92 people were on board. None of the 86 names is an
> Arab name. This is very, very strange.
>
> First, how did the CNN list-compiler know that there were 92 people on
> board?
> Five of them are not listed. Second, how did anyone get on board who was
not
> on the list of ticketed passengers?
> To get onto the flight legally, each passenger had to have a ticket with
his
> or her name on it.
> Each passenger had to present a photo ID to the check-in agent. The
> check-in agent was supposed to look at the picture and the person, and
then
> make a judgment. Was it the same person?
> If the mandated procedure was followed, the check-in agent decided that
the
> ticket's name, the photo ID's name, the photo, and the ID-holder's face
all
> matched.
> If there was any doubt, the check-in agent was supposed to ask for some
> other form of identification.
> If there was none, the person was not allowed to board the plane.
>
> We are told by the United States government that five Arabs somehow got
> through this initial screening procedure.
> How did they do this?
> This is puzzle number one regarding Flight 11.
> Puzzle number two has to do with the incomplete passenger list.
> Airlines keep a list of passengers on board.
> This is for insurance purposes, should there be a crash. It is also for
the
> purpose of notifying relatives after a crash. It is also for the purpose
of
> in-cabin screening. "Has everyone paid who is on the plane?" And, finally,
> is there a hijacker on board?
> On American Airlines Flight 11, there were no Arab names on the passenger
> list. So, how does the government know who the hijackers were?
> Why does CNN's Web page list 92 dead, when there are only 86 name listed?
> Who was the non-Arab? I have seen nothing about government accusations
> against American Airlines for substandard check-in security procedures. In
> fact, I have seen nothing about the discrepancy between the published
names
> and the published numbers regarding how many people were on board.
>
> Let's go to American Airlines Flight 77. This plane crashed into the
> Pentagon.
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
> We are told that 64 people were on board. I count 56, including 6 crew
> members. There is no explanation offered for the absence of 8 names. There
> is no Arab name on this list. Something is definitely wrong here.
> What about United Airlines? Did the company's employees follow the same
> check-in procedure? Presumably, they did. I checked Flight 175, which
> crashed into the south tower.
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
> There were 56 people on board, according to CNN's summation. I printed out
> the list. I counted the names. Once again, they don't add up. The
summation
> says there were 2 pilots, 7 flight attendants, and 56 passengers. I
counted
> the names. The total is 56 -- the number attributed to the passengers.
Nine
> names are missing. None of the listed names is Arab.
>
> This leaves United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania. It had 45
> people on board, according to the summation.
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
> Again, there is a discrepancy. Only 33 names appear on the list. A dozen
> names are missing. Among the missing names are the four Arabs who
allegedly
> hijacked the plane.
> So, the published names in no instance match the total listed for the
number
> of people on board.
>
> CNN really should offer an explanation for this discrepancy. In no case
does
> an Arab name appear on a list, let alone one of the alleged hijackers. How
> did CNN fail to count the names accurately? Did the airlines not provide
the
> full list of each flight's names? Perhaps so.
>
> This raises the next question.
> How did the airlines know how many people were on each of these flights?
The
> airlines must have had a list for each flight. What possible reason could
> they have had for not releasing the full lists? Finally, why are there no
> Arabs listed on any of these lists, let alone the specific Arabs
identified
> by the Attorney General and the head of the FBI in an Associated Press
> story? I do not understand how 19 Arabs could have evaded the check-in
> procedures. I also do not understand why every passenger's name is not on
> the published lists.
>
> I have seen no other source of the passenger lists. (Another search word:
> "manifests.") It has now been over a month since the attack. Where is a
> complete list? I don't know. Where is a complete list of all four flights
> that has the alleged hijackers' names on it? I don't know.
> Finally, where is some enterprising reporter who is trying to get answers?
I
> don't know. What about Step Two?
>
> Step Two: On-Board Seating
> There were multiple terrorists in the cabin of each plane when the plane
> left the ground. They did not get there through the ticket-screening
system.
> Or did they? If they did, then how? I assume here -- again, maybe I am
> wrong -- that they got there through another entrance. Maybe they were
part
> of the food service team. These were all cross-country flights. The planes
> were loaded with lots of fuel, which is why they were selected: flying
> bombs. On cross-country flights, passengers still are given meals, not
just
> pretzels and soft drinks. The number of meals is supposed to match the
> number of people on board, or at least come close. Flight attendants have
a
> list of passengers and their assigned seats. This is to enable them to
> identify passengers who have requested special meals, such as kosher
meals.
> It is also to enable them to identify people who have not bought a ticket.
> Flight attendants are supposed to know who has been assigned to which
seat.
> It is September 11. Here is the situation: there are an extra five men on
> three flights, and four extra men on Flight 93. You have already seen the
> photos of these men. If I had been a flight attendant, and I saw five
extra
> men who looked like they did -- young, Arabic, and without tickets -- I
> would have asked them to explain why they were on board. I would not have
> assumed that they belonged there.
>
> Are we to assume that on four separate flights, none of the flight
> attendants noticed that something was wrong? Are we to believe that they
> failed to notice that five or four extra passengers were on board who were
> not on the passenger list? Furthermore, these men looked as though they
were
> of one ethnic group. They all had Arabic accents, I presume. Why did the
> flight attendants ignore all this?
>
> There is no indication from the government that these men took over all
four
> planes while the planes were still on the ground. Even if they had, the
> pilots would not have taken off if there were hijackers on board. They
would
> have waited to hear the demands, and the demand to "take off now" would
have
> been refused by at least one flight crew -- and I believe all four.
>
> We need a theory of the co-ordinated hijacking that rests on a plausible
> cause-and-effect sequence that does not assume the complete failure of
both
> the check-in procedures and the on-board seating procedures on four
separate
> flights on two separate airlines. If the explanation does rely on a theory
> of check-in procedural breakdown, where is the evidence? I have heard no
> such theory from the government. I have heard no such theory from the news
> media. In fact, I have heard neither the government nor the mainstream
media
> even mention these perplexing problems. Perhaps you have. If so, I would
> like to see the Web link or a reference to the newspaper or other source
> where these matters have been discussed. I don't mean this or that
> discussion forum devoted to conspiracy theories.
> I mean the mainstream press. It is very peculiar that the mainstream media
> and the government have not offered a detailed theory of how the hijackers
> evaded both the check-in procedures and the pre-takeoff seating
procedures.
> Perhaps some airline industry publication has dealt with this. If so, I
> would like to see the document.
>
> I would also like to see passenger lists that include every passenger's
> name. I want to see 19 Arab names on these complete lists. If these
updated
> lists are ever released, I want to see that they match the original lists
> that were not released immediately. I want to know that any new names have
> not been added retroactively. I want evidence -- from travel agencies'
> records and credit card records -- that everyone on each plane's updated
> passenger list actually bought a ticket. Is this too much to ask?
> So far, apparently it is.
>
> Conspiracy Theories
> Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen. Well, not all of them. We have
gone
> to war based on one of them. But I don't see how anyone can make an
accurate
> judgment about who was behind the attacks until he has a plausible
> explanation of how the hijackers got onto the planes and were not removed.
I
> am not interested in any theory about who did it until I have a plausible
> explanation for how he did it. The key to discovering who planned this
> attack is inescapably tied to the procedures used by his agents to do it.
I
> don't see how they did it, yet I know that three planes crashed into
highly
> visible targets. A fourth plane had veered off course, and it seems
> plausible that it was part of a co-ordinated attack.
> This has yet to be proven, but it seems plausible.
>
> We keep hearing about plastic knives and box cutters. But we hear nothing
> about how these 19 men took plastic knives and box cutters onto four
planes,
> and no one noticed that anything was amiss until the planes were in the
air.
> So, you tell me. How did 19 Arabs get onto these planes and then remain
> inconspicuous until the planes were aloft?
>
> Conclusion
> I have no conclusion. I told you this at the beginning. I am stuck. I am
> looking for Vinnie. Maybe you're Vinnie. After you have drawn your own
> conclusion, and it seems reasonable, let me know. But before you do,
please
> run your theory by someone whose judgment you trust. See if that person
> thinks your theory is plausible. See if he or she can pick holes in it.
> Don't make me your first guinea pig. I want to be at least second. Third
> would be even better.
>
> We need to get the division of intellectual labor working here.
> If you have no logical explanation, join the club. Maybe you know a
> potential Vinnie. Use your FORWARD button to send him or her a copy of
this
> report. Ask for feedback. Notice to all would-be Vinnies: with each
> forwarding, e-mail software adds either a carrot -- this is a carrot: > --
> or a vertical line. This pushes the text to the right. If you have
received
> this after several forwardings, the text may be difficult to read. You can
> get a fresh copy by sending an e-mail to puzzle-AT-kbot.com, or click this
link
> and then click SEND: mailto:puzzle-AT-kbot.com
>
> Somewhere out there is a person who can solve this puzzle. There has to be
a
> solution. I just don't know what it is. In future issues of this
newsletter,
> I will report on any conclusions that look plausible to me.
>
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> - ----
> Author's note:
> If you're not yet a subscriber, and you want to read what some of these
> conclusions are, you can subscribe for free. Send an e-mail to this
address:
> unstuck-AT-kbot.com, or click on the link and then click the SEND button:
> unstuck-AT-kbot.com You will receive a welcome letter from me within a few
> seconds. It will explain what my newsletter is all about.
>
> - --------------------------------------------------
> The URL of this article is:
> http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR110A.html
> Copyright, Gary North, Reality Check, 2001. For fair use only.


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005