Corresponden with Chief James Bennett
Nov 18, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
Hello Chief James B.
I found that you run the Screw Loose Change website with another chap. I wonder why you spent so much time in debunking the Truth Movement. Are you paid by anyone for this task? If not, what moral principles impel you to spend your valuable time in this task? Are you worried that the Truth movement will discover some government wrongdoing? And if not, then what’s the problem?
I have noted that few, if any debunkers, are afraid to confront serious Truthers in an open debate. Why are debunkers so afraid? You have, after all, the entire Government behind you. Your response would be appreciated.
On 18.11.2008, at 21:07, James Bennett wrote:
No, I am not paid. I wish I was, I could use the money, but there doesn’t seem to be much demand for my services. We don’t even sell ads t-shirts, or DVDs, unlike most truther sites. Ask your friend Griffin how much he has made off of his books.
I wouldn’t say I spend that much time at the activity. Maybe a few hours a week, probably less than many people spend blogging about their favorite pop group or playing World of Warcraft.
I mostly do it because I find the subject interesting. I am also offended on an intellectual and moral level by people lying about our country and history. Plus it is interesting studying the minds of conspiracy theories. You find much about how logic and science works by studying their logical fallacies, much in the same way that a psychologist would learn about the working of a normal brain by studying a diseased one.
No, I am not worried about whatever "truthers find". They haven’t found anything thus far, although that could just be due to the low level of their investigative skills. If they do find something though, so what, I have no problem with people asking questions, just those who come up with stupid answers.
I would not say that debunkers avoid debate with truthers. Both Mark Roberts and I have challenged David Ray Griffin to a debate, which he has avoided. In fact Griffin for the most part avoids being challenged in the slightest. He even refuses to answer e-mail questions from me. Much of the debate is pretty pointless though, it does not add to the record to argue minutiae, but rather feeds into the conspiracy theory logic, much in the same way that Holocaust deniers argue that there were no holes in the roof of the gas chamber, or creationists argue their "God of the gaps". History and science are about narratives and theories, not about anomalies. Ask your friend Griffin how he feels about "theories".
take it easy,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
Nice to hear about your pet project. I am not interested in asking "my friend" Griffin what he feels. I read his books and draw my conclusions.
Because you are an intelligent person and appears quite knowledgeable about 9/11, I wonder whether you have seen somewhere evidence – I mean credible evidence, not just a newspaper report – that the 19 "hijackers" of 9/11 actually boarded the planes that they have been accused of hijacking. If you can send me some such evidence, I would be thankful. I did not find any.
On 18.11.2008, at 23:00, James Bennett wrote:
What do you define as "credible"?
As one of my economics professors always put it, the difference between a conspiracy theory and a scientific theory is that a scientific theory will produce consistent predictions.
Another way of putting this is scientific theories are falsifiable. For example, if I forward the hypothesis that gravity makes objects fall at 9.8 m/s^2, than I can perform experiments on this, and prove whether this is true. I can then predict in the future how fast an object will fall.
This even applies to the social sciences. I can predict that the growth in the money supply will have an effect on inflation rates. I can observe the past correlation of these two factors and use this to produce reasonable predictions of future activities, if it is a good scientific theory of course.
In conspiracy theory though, this does not exist. For example, if we forward the hypothesis that there were hijackers on board the airplanes. Well, we obviously cannot perform experiments to test this hypothesis, so we have to look for data which would indicate whether there were or not. So, we could, for example reasonably propose that if there were witnesses to hijackers on the planes, then this is evidence of hijackers, if there were not, than this is evidence against hijackers. This both allows us to make predictions, and allows us to falsify our hypothesis.
With conspiracy theorists this does not work though. There were witnesses, over 20 phone calls were made, many describing the presence of hijackers. The conspiracy theorists merely arbitrarily dismiss these phone calls as fake though. On the other hand, if there were no phone calls describing hijackers on boards, the conspiracy theorists would also argue that this was evidence there were no hijackers on board.
Another example, they argue that because Osama bin Laden has not been charged with involvement in the hijackings, that Arab terrorists were not involved. Based on this then, one could reasonably make the prediction then that if an Arab were charged with involvement with the hijackings, then they would use that to support the idea that Arab terrorists were involved.
Wrong, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been charged with involvement, and Zacarias Moussaoui has actually been convicted, but despite the exact opposite situation, conspiracy theorists still use this to support the same conclusion, arguing that they have been set up. Of course if neither had been charged, then they would also be using that to argue that no Arabs were involved.
With conspiracy theory logic, one can never lose, one can never be proven wrong. Their beliefs are not falsifiable. It makes as much sense to argue non-falsifiable beliefs with someone as it would be to argue the existence of God. Intellectually stimulating perhaps, but pointless.
So, I have to ask, what would falsify your beliefs?
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
Thanks James. Your theoretical observations are well taken. So we are on the same wave-length with regard to the scientific method. I forebear to use demeaning terms such as "conspiracy theories" because the official account is also based on a conspiracy of some Muslims in Afghanistan. What is important is simply to know the truth, and let the chips fall where they belond.
You say that "there were witnesses to hijackers on the planes". These made "over 20 phone calls…many describing the presence of hijackers." Let us examine in detail these propositions. We have been informed, both by the FBI and by some of the relatives (who received phone calls) that many passengers made phone calls from the planes and that some provided some physical description of "hijackers". Such evidence must, obviously, be examined carefully for consistency, and…it must be proved that the calls emanated from the planes. This last item was not proved. The FBI did not produce any document proving that the calls were made from the planes. There was equally the question whether the calls were made from cellphones (as reported initially). Only after some "truthers" discovered that cellphone calls cannot be effectively made from above 8,000 feet, did the FBI change the story and attributed most phone calls to "airfone" calls.
But there is another point that must be examined before assessing the credibility and authenticity of the phone calls. These calls may – if credible and authentic – present circumstancial evidence about what went on in the planes, given that it is proved that the "hijackers" actually boarded these planes. Yet, I have not found any evidence that proves they did. No authenticated passenger list has been released. No boarding card stubs. No video recordings of the boarding process. And what is particularly surprising is that not a single person witnessed the boarding of any of the aircraft. Finally, the bodily remains of the "hijackers" were not positively identified. In short, there exists no evidence that any of the 19 Arabs actually boarded any of the four aircraft. The implication of this absence of evidence is that claiming the guilt of Arabs/Muslims for 9/11 constitutes an outrageous case of defamation. How dare anyone accuse 19 named individuals of mass murder without even being able to place these individuals at the scene of the crime?
According to my reasoning, if one accepts that there exists no public evidence whatsoever proving who boarded the aircraft of 9/11, one must refrain from endorsing the official account of 9/11 and one must actively demand the publication of this evidence in order to defeat the "conspiracy theories". Those who accept the lack of evidence but still promote the official account, can only do so on the base of faith, faith in the integrity and honesty of the US government.
You are invited, however, to present evidence known to you regarding the boarding of the aircraft.
I await your response.
James Bennett sent the following to E.D.
2. CAPPS was an FAA-approved automated system run by the airlines that scored each passenger’s profile to
identify those who might pose a threat to civil aviation.The system also chose passengers at random to receive additional
security scrutiny.Ten out of the 19 hijackers (including 9 out of 10 on the two American Airlines flights)
were identified via the CAPPS system.According to the procedures in place on 9/11, in addition to those flagged
by the CAPPS algorithm,American’s ticket agents were to mark as "selectees" those passengers who did not provide
correct responses to the required security questions, failed to show proper identification, or met other criteria.
See FAA report,"Air Carrier Standard Security Program,"May 2001,pp.75–76;FAA record of interview,Donna
Thompson,Sept. 23, 2001; Chuck Severance interview (Apr. 15, 2004); Jim Dillon interview (Apr. 15, 2004); Diane
Graney interview (Apr. 16, 2004). It appears that Atta was selected at random. See Al Hickson briefing (June 8,
3.The call was placed from a pay phone in Terminal C (between the screening checkpoint and United 175’s
boarding gate).We presume Shehhi made the call, but we cannot be sure. Logan International Airport site visit
(Aug. 15, 2003); see also FBI response to Commission briefing request no. 6, undated (topic 11).
4. Flight 11 pushed back from Gate 32 in Terminal B at 7:40. See AAL response to the Commission’s February
3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004.
5. See UAL letter,"Flight 175—11Sep01 Passenger ACI Check-in History," July 11, 2002. Customer service
representative Gail Jawahir recalled that her encounter with the Ghamdis occurred at "shortly before 7
when shown photos of the hijackers, she indicated that Mohand al Shehri resembled one of the two she checked
in (suggesting they were Banihammad and Shehri).However, she also recalled that the men had the same last name
and had assigned seats on row 9 (i.e., the Ghamdis), and that account has been adopted here. In either case, she
almost certainly was dealing with one set of the Flight 175 hijackers. See FBI reports of investigation, interviews
of Gail Jawahir, Sept. 21, 2001; Sept. 28, 2001. Even had the hijackers been unable to understand and answer the
two standard security questions,the only consequence would have been the screening of their carry-on and checked
bags for explosives. See FAA report,"Air Carrier Standard Security Program,"May 2001, p. 76.
6. For Flight 11, two checkpoints provided access to the gate.The second was opened at 7:15
A.M. The FAA
conducted many screener evaluations between September 11,1999,and September 11,2001.At the primary checkpoints,
in aggregate, screeners met or exceeded the average for overall, physical search, and X-ray detection, while
falling below the norm for metal detection. No FAA Special Assessments (by "red teams") were done at Logan
security checkpoints during the two years prior to September 11, 2001. See FAA briefing materials,"Assessment
and Testing Data for BOS, EWR, and IAD," Oct. 24, 2001.
7. See Air Transport Association/Regional Airlines Association (ATA/RAA) report,"Air Carriers Checkpoint
Operations Guide,"Aug. 1999; FAA report,"Air Carrier Standard Security Program,"May 2001, appendix VI.
8. Mary Carol Turano interview (Mar. 11, 2004); FBI reports of investigation, interview of Nilda Cora, Oct. 4,
2001; interview ofWilliam Thomas, Sept. 14, 2001; interview of Jennifer Gore, Sept. 12, 2001; interview of Claudia
Richey, Sept. 15, 2001; interview of Rosarito Rivera, Sept. 25, 2001.
9. See TSA report,"Selectee Status of September 11th Hijackers," undated. For boarding and seating information,
see AAL record, SABRE information on Flight 11, Sept. 11, 2001.These boarding times from the American
system are approximate only; for Flight 11, they indicated that some passengers "boarded" after the aircraft had
pushed back from the gate. See AAL response to the Commission’s February 3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1 451
10. See TSA report,"Selectee Status of September 11th Hijackers," undated; see also UAL letter,"Flight 175—
11 Sep01 Passenger ACI Check-in History," July 11, 2002.
11.The Hazmis checked in at 7:29; the airline has not yet been able to confirm the time of Hanjour’s checkin.
However, it had to have taken place by 7:35, when he appears on the checkpoint videotape. See AAL record,
SABRE information for Flight 77, Sept. 11, 2001;AAL response to the Commission’s February 3, 2004, requests,
Mar. 15, 2004; Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority videotape, Dulles main terminal checkpoints, Sept. 11,
12. See TSA report,"Selectee Status of September 11th Hijackers," undated; see also FAA report,"Selectee List
AALA #77," undated; FBI report of investigation, interview of Vaughn Allex, Sept. 12, 2001;Vaughn Allex interview
(July 13, 2004).
13.The FAA conducted many screener evaluations at Dulles between September 11, 1999, and September 11,
2001.While the test results for physical search exceeded the national average, both the metal detector and X-ray
results were below average. See FAA briefing materials,"Assessment and Testing Data for BOS, EWR, and IAD,"
Oct. 24, 2001.
14. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority videotape, Dulles main terminal checkpoints, Sept. 11, 2001;
see also Tim Jackson interview (Apr. 12, 2004).
15. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority videotape, Dulles main terminal checkpoints, Sept. 11, 2001;
see also Tim Jackson interview (Apr. 12, 2004).
16. For investigation findings, see FAA report,"American Airlines Flight #77: Hijacking and Crash into the
Pentagon, Sept. 11, 2001," undated. For screener evaluations, see Tim Jackson interview (Apr. 12, 2004).
17. See AAL record,SABRE information for Flight 77, Sept. 11, 2001;AAL response to the Commission’s February
3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004.
18.UAL record, Flight 93 EWR bag loading status, Sept. 11, 2001;UAL record, Flight 93 EWR ACI passenger
history, Sept. 11, 2001;UAL record, Flight 93 EWR full bag history, Sept. 11, 2001;TSA report,"Selectee Status
of September 11th Hijackers," undated; FBI report,"The Final 24 Hours,"Dec. 8, 2003.
19.The FAA conducted many screener evaluations at Newark between September 11, 1999, and September
11, 2001. Detection rates for metal detection, physical searches, and X-rays all met or exceeded the national averages.
See FAA briefing materials,"Assessment and Testing Data for BOS, EWR, and IAD," Oct. 24, 2001; see also
FAA report,"United Airlines Flight 93, September 11, 2001, Executive Report," Jan. 30, 2002.
20. UAL record, Flight 93 EWR ACI passenger history, Sept. 11, 2001; see also FBI report, "The Final 24
Hours," Dec. 8, 2003.
21.While Flights 11 and 77 were at or slightly above the average number of passengers for the respective flights
that summer, Flights 175 and 93 were well below their averages.We found no evidence to indicate that the hijackers
manipulated the passenger loads on the aircraft they hijacked. Financial records did not reveal the purchase of
any tickets beyond those the hijackers used for themselves. See FBI response to Commission briefing request no.
6, undated (topic 8);AAL report,"Average Load Factor by Day-of-Week," undated (for Flights 11 and 77 from June
11, 2001, to Sept. 9, 2001);AAL response to the Commission’s supplemental document requests, Jan. 20, 2004;UAL
report, Flight 175 BOS-LAX Load Factors, undated (from June 1, 2001, to Sept. 11, 2001);UAL report,"Explanation
of Load Factors," undated.
22. See AAL response to the Commission’s February 3, 2004, requests, Mar. 15, 2004; AAL record, Dispatch
Environmental Control/Weekly Flight Summary for Flight 11, Sept. 11, 2001;AAL report,"Flight Attendant Jump
Seat Locations During Takeoff And Flight Attendant Typical Cabin Positions During Start of Cabin Service,"
undated;AAL report,"Passenger Name List, Flight 11/September 11," undated.
23. Commission analysis of NTSB and FAA air traffic control and radar data. See AAL record, Dispatch Environmental
Control/Weekly Flight Summary for Flight 11, Sept. 11,2001;NTSB report,"Flight Path Study—American
Airlines Flight 11," Feb. 19, 2002; Bill Halleck and Peggy Houck interview (Jan. 8, 2004).The initial service
assignments for flight attendants on American 11 would have placed Karen Martin and Bobbi Arestegui in first
class; Sara Low and Jean Roger in business class;Dianne Snyder in the midcabin galley;Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney
in coach; and Karen Nicosia in the aft galley. Jeffrey Collman would have been assigned to work in coach, but to
assist in first class if needed. See AAL report, "Flight Attendant Jump Seat Locations During Takeoff And Flight
Attendant Typical Cabin Positions During Start of Cabin Service," undated; Bob Jordan briefing (Nov. 20, 2003).
24. NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording—American Airlines Flight 11, Dec. 21, 2001; NTSB report,
Air Traffic Control Recording—United Airlines Flight 175, Dec. 21, 2001. Given that the cockpit crew of American
11 had been acknowledging all previous instructions from air traffic control that morning within a matter of
seconds, and that when the first reporting of the hijacking was received a short time later (the 8:19 call from Betty
Ong) a number of actions had already been taken by the hijackers, it is most likely that the hijacking occurred at
25.An early draft of an executive summary prepared by FAA security staff for the agency’s leadership referred
to an alleged report of a shooting aboard Flight 11.We believe this report was erroneous for a number of reasons—
there is no evidence that the hijackers purchased firearms, use of a gun would be inconsistent with the otherwise
452 NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
common tactics employed by the hijackers, the alleged shooting victim was seated where witness accounts place
the stabbing victim (9B), and, most important, neither Betty Ong nor Amy Sweeney, the only two people who
communicated to the ground from aboard the aircraft, reported the presence of a gun or a shooting. Both reported
knives and stabbings.AAL transcript, telephone call from Betty Ong to Nydia Gonzalez, Sept. 11, 2001;AAL transcript,
telephone call from Nydia Gonzalez to Craig Marquis, Sept. 11, 2001; AAL transcript, telephone call from
Nancy Wyatt to Ray Howland, Sept. 11, 2001; Michael Woodward interview (Jan. 25, 2004).The General Accounting
Office looked into the gun story and was unable to corroborate it.GAO report, summary of briefing re investigation,
Aug. 30, 2002.
26. Craig Marquis interview (Nov. 19, 2003); Michael Woodward interview (Jan. 25, 2004); Jim Dillon interview
(Apr. 15, 2004). See also AAL transcript, telephone call from Betty Ong to Nydia Gonzalez, Sept. 11, 2001.
At the time of the hijacking,American Airlines flight attendants all carried cockpit keys on their person. See Craig
Marquis, Craig Parfitt, Joe Bertapelle, and Mike Mulcahy interview (Nov. 19, 2003).
27. AAL transcript, telephone call from Nydia Gonzalez to Craig Marquis, Sept. 11, 2001; Obituary, "Daniel
Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2001, p. B7.
28. AAL transcript, telephone call from Betty Ong to Nydia Gonzalez, Sept. 11, 2001; AAL transcript, telephone
call from Nydia Gonzalez to Craig Marquis, Sept. 11, 2001. Regarding the claim of a bomb, see Michael
Woodward interview (Jan. 25, 2004).
29. Calls to American’s reservations office are routed to the first open line at one of several facilities, among
them the center in Cary, N.C. See Nydia Gonzalez interview (Nov. 19, 2003). On standard emergency training,
see FAA report,"Air Carrier Standard Security Program,"May 2001, pp. 139j–139o; Don Dillman briefing (Nov.
18, 2003); Bob Jordan briefing (Nov. 20, 2003).The call from Ong was received initially by Vanessa Minter and then
taken over by Winston Sadler; realizing the urgency of the situation, he pushed an emergency button that simultaneously
initiated a tape recording of the call and sent an alarm notifying Nydia Gonzalez, a supervisor, to pick
up on the line. Gonzalez was paged to respond to the alarm and joined the call a short time later. Only the first
four minutes of the phone call between Ong and the reservations center (Minter, Sadler, and Gonzalez) was recorded
because of the time limit on the recently installed system. See Nydia Gonzalez interview (Nov. 19, 2003); Nydia
Gonzalez testimony, Jan. 27, 2004.
30.AAL transcript, telephone call from Betty Ong to Nydia Gonzalez, Sept. 11, 2001.
I am aware of every item you sent. Here is my response:
1. The 9/11 Commission did not present any evidence about the boarding of the aircraft. Its footnotes do not refer to any certified document. Some of the documents are even "undated". So apparently even the 9/11 Commission did not see any conclusive document relative to the boarding of the aircraft.
2. In a criminal case the prosecution must produce evidence to support its allegations. This evidence can be challenged in open court and it’s up to the jury to decide whether the evidence is credible. In the case of 9/11 the alleged hijackers are dead, or more accurately have disappeared. Therefore no trial is held. There is jury. There is no defense. Just the word of the "prosecution" is allowed to stand, as the full truth. If you want to believe the word of the US Government at face value, you are welcome. I don’t.
3. At the Moussaoui trial no evidence was presented regarding the boarding of the aircraft. It was conspicuously absent. Whatever was allegedly found at the crash site was not accompanied by chain-of-custody reports. It could have been planted there. It could have been found elsewhere. In a criminal case one must have proof. It would not be the first case where evidence is planted. However, you are welcome to believe in the integrity of the FBI.
4. The video recordings you refer to are exactly two: One from Portland airport, allegedly showing Mohammed Atta and his colleague Alomari. This does not prove in any way that either of them boarded AA11 in Boston. The other video is said to be from Dulles Airport, allegedly showing some of the "hijackers", including Hani Hanjour. The recording lacks date, time and camera number. The lighting suggests it was recording around noon. The camera zooms, suggesting human operation and foreknowledge of the subjects to be filmed. All of that suggests that the recording was staged. That it was bogus. So much for these video documents, who anyhow do not document the "boarding" of any plane.
5. No "financial records" were produced of them buying tickets, only transcribed information about these records.
6. In spite of the "hijackers" having spent time in the US, in known addresses and in known cars, the FBI did not attempt to obtain comparison DNA of the "hijackers" in order to positively identify them. The spokesman of the AFIP actually stated that they would not attempt to get comparison DNA and would simply identity them "by default". In addition, no chain-of-custody reports accompanied the samples allegedly found at the crash sites. The entire identification process was tainted by irregularities from the start. The remains of the "hijackers" were issued death certificates under the names John Doe, including the alleged "brothers" you mention. We actually know nothing about the origins of the samples that were probably planted at the alleged crash sites, or more simply shipped from somewhere to the institute for identification.
7. The items you mention were not introduced into the trial "under penalty of perjury" and were not subject to "cross examination" by defense lawyers. The defense lawyers did not even question the disputed allegations made by the prosecution concerning the boarding of the airliners and agreed, through socalled Stipulations to exempt the prosecution from the duty to prove its allegations. This was a sorry display of collusion between defense and prosecution to put a mentally disturbed Muslim who did not commit any crime in the black hole for life and present to the American people the first success in the war on terror. Such lawyers should be denounced for their shameful dereliction of professional duty.
Now, I again ask: Where is the evidence that the 19 "hijackers" actually boarded the planes?
Why are the authentic passenger lists and flight manifests not shown to the public?
Why are the boarding cards stubs torn at the gates not shown to the public?
Why are the videos above the boarding gates not shown to the public?
Why was it decided in advance not to positively identify the "hijackers’" bodily remains?
Why did nobody testify to have checked the identities of the passengers and hijackers at the boarding gates, torn the boarding cards and observed the boarding people?
Even if all items found at the crash sites had actually been found there and not planted, this fact alone would not place any particular person on the crashed plane (given that a passenger plane actually crashed there). In order to place anyone on the plane it must be shown that the person’s name was on the original passenger list, that his boarding card stub was removed and that someone at the boarding gate actually tore that boarding card after checking the identity of the boarding passenger. The lack of testimonies by these people is highly suspicious because these were the last people to have actually seen the "passengers" alive. Even the boarding gate number of AA11 is disputed and remains one of the mysteries. And to add another mystery, AA11 was not even scheduled to fly on 9/11, as reflected by the database of the Dept. of Transportation. Apparentely the boarding of the aircraft is one of the biggest secrets of 9/11, that the US authorities are trying by all means to cover. All of these facts add up to one huge question. So, in the very least, any reasonable person would be wise to refrain from stating any definite opinion upon the identities of the perpetrators, their facilitators and the manner of the crime. It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the US authorities did not prove their case. It is also obvious to the naked eye that the US authorities are extremely worried that anything regarding the boarding of the aircraft would leak to the public. This alone raises suspicion. What actually happened on 9/11 is another chapter. I leave it to you to develop your o
On 19.11.2008, at 00:40, James Bennett wrote
Most of this has been presented as evidence though. It is all in the footnotes of the 9/11 Comission Report. Yes, you may not have physical possession of this, but what criminal case do you have physical possession of the evidence for? Much of this is also shown for the Moussouii trial. ID cards of passengers found in wreckage is pretty good evidence that the people in question were on the plane. The baggage of the hijackers were found, video footage of them going through security, financial records of them buying tickets. DNA was identified for all of the passengers but 1 of those who crashed into the Pentagon. They did not have DNA profiles for the 5 hijackers, but there were exactly 5 bodies which did not match known profiles, two of whom were identified as brothers. Ask yourself, why is this significant?
All of this was introduced as evidence under penalty of perjury during the trial, with cross examination by a team of lawyers. If this is not good enough evidence for you to believe it is legitimate, than I ask, what possibly could be?
On 19.11.2008, at 15:11, James Bennett wrote:
As I mentioned, your beliefs are not falsifiable, any evidence which does not support your beliefs you will just arbitrarily dismiss as fake. Arguing with you is pointless. I could have a taped confession of the hijackers themselves (which in fact do exist) and you would just dismiss it as fake. It is also apparent that you do not understand the US legal system.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
On 19.11.2008, at 15:44, James Bennett wrote:
– I could produce boarding passes.
E.D.: Really? Can you produce boarding passes from the flights of 9/11? Have you connections to the airlines or the FBI?
– Testimony from airline employees.
E.D. Do you mean employees who witnessed the boarding? Really? I am very curious to see these testimonies.
As these documents have never been publicly produced, I wonder how you got hold of them. I am really curious.
You obviously don’t get this, do you? Here, try the following thought experiment. I want you to provide evidence that Germany invaded France in May, 1940. Now I don’t trust historians, everyone knows that history is written by the winners and that historians lie. And don’t just provide proof that these two countries were at war at some point, I want specific proof that Germany invaded France in an unprovoked manner in May, 1940. So no pictures of Hitler standing in front of the Eiffel tower, that doesn’t prove anything. And nothing from the German or French government, everyone knows that you can’t trust them. So go ahead, produce your court certified evidence.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
So I guess you just bluffed before about being able to produce the boarding passes. You also did not respond whether you have connections to the airlines or the FBI. And I am still awaiting for your answers. OK, thanks for the chat. Try your luck elsewhere.
On 19.11.2008, at 17:04, James Bennett wrote:
Here, just to amuse you, more evidence for you to ignore.
September 21, 2008
7 Years Later, 9/11 Hijackers’ Remains Are in Limbo
By SEAN D. HAMILL
Seven years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the remains of 13 of the 19 men responsible have been identified and are in the custody of the F.B.I. and the New York City medical examiner’s office.
But no one has formally requested the remains in order to bury them.
"Politically, one can understand that this is a hot potato," said Muneer Fareed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America and a former professor of Islamic studies. "People don’t want to identify with the political equivalent of Jeffrey Dahmer."
What would happen if someone asked for the hijackers’ remains is not clear.
Neither the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which holds the remains of the nine hijackers whose planes hit the Pentagon and crashed in a field in Somerset County, Pa., nor the New York City medical examiner’s office, which holds the remains of 4 of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center buildings, has policies to deal with such a request.
"If and when it comes up, we’ll address it then," an F.B.I. spokesman, Richard Kolko, said.
The bureau could turn down such requests, Mr. Kolko said, because the Sept. 11 investigation is an open case.
The medical examiner’s office, which, like the F.B.I., refuses to say where exactly the remains are being kept, will eventually put together a committee to come up with a policy, said Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the office.
Groups representing the victims of Sept. 11 are not sure what should be done with the remains.
"It would be sadly ironic if they ended up being properly buried or sent to a Muslim country when many of the remains of the victims remain buried in a garbage dump," said Kurt Horning, a founder with his wife, Diane, of the group WTC Families for Proper Burial. "I know we’d feel very distressed."
The Hornings’ son, Matthew, 26, was working at the World Trade Center and died there on Sept. 11. Their group has been advocating for excavation of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island where ash and other debris from the World Trade Center site was buried. The group believes the debris may contain identifiable remains.
The identified remains of the victims of Sept. 11 are regularly returned to their families upon request, after officials have made positive identifications.
At the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, investigators first identified the victims, and the remains that could not be linked to a victim’s DNA profile were assumed to belong to the terrorists.
For the World Trade Center site, with a much larger area to search and an initially undetermined number of victims, the F.B.I. identified the 10 terrorists’ DNA profiles from personal items, Mr. Kolko said, which included recovered luggage and cigarette butts left in a rental car. The unnamed DNA profiles of those terrorists were then supplied to the medical examiner’s office.
But, since the DNA profiles were unnamed by the bureau, the office could not say which hijackers have been identified, just that 4 of the 10 have been so far.
Three of them were identified as hijackers within two years of the 2001 attack. But the fourth set of remains was not found until September 2007, when the discovery of numerous bone fragments at a building near the World Trade Center site prompted a reinvestigation of the entire site.
The only semblance of a request from a hijacker’s family member to any of the agencies that handled the recovery of remains came in the summer of 2002 from an uncle of one of the men on Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County.
"I got a call from Beirut at 4 a.m.," said Wallace E. Miller, the Somerset County coroner. "He said he was an uncle of one of them and wanted to know what the situation was. I said if he sent a DNA sample, we’d make a cross-reference to confirm, but I never heard anything more from him."
The uncle — Mr. Miller said he could not recall his name or who his nephew was — was apparently prompted by a British or South African journalist who had put the man on the phone after interviewing him about the events of Sept. 11.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
Thank you for the article. I had not seen it.
On 19.11.2008, at 23:33, James Bennett wrote:
Here, some more stuff that I am sure you have never seen.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
Thank you. It’s helpful background info.
On 4.1.2009, at 04:19, James Bennett wrote:
More evidence for you to ignore.
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Elias Davidsson wrote:
One must read carefully and then only draw conclusions. Let us proceed:
1. Mr. Shaler is said to have said: The families said, "These people were criminals and did not deserve to be with them." The families asked for the remains of the hijackers to be separated out and kept someplace else. OK. Let us assume the reporter is quoting Shaler correctly and let us assume he says the truth. This only would mean that some family members BELIEVED that the remains of the hijackers were there mingled and BELIEVED that their own next-of-kin were there too. It does not have any relevance as evidence that the remains of the hijackers were actually there.
2. Mr. Shaler continues: By the spring of 2002, Shaler and his staff of 105 scientists had yet to identify any of the New York hijackers. "I thought we’d never find remains from anyone on the planes," he says. But he promised to try. What? As late as the spring of 2002 they did find remains "from anyone on the planes"? That’s really strange. As he does not mention the "hijackers", I assume he meant the passengers.
3. "Today, 1,126 of the 2,751 victims from the World Trade Center and five individuals from the Pentagon have yet to be identified at all—none of their remains and no traces of their DNA have been found." What could explain such destruction? According to the official theory the buildings crumbled. So at least one would find some remains under the ruins. Not so. The alternative theory is that the buildings were destroyed by powerful explosives or even more esoteric means. This would explain why most so few actual bodies were recovered and why the fragments were so small and were found far from the buildings, on the roof of the Deutsch Bank building. But of course no one wants to deal with the implication of this fragmentation as it would lead them to prohibited territory.
4. The author writes: "[T]he scientists have now ID’d four of the 10 New York hijackers.". Well, the term ID’s means "identified", so I expect anyone doing an identification to tell us WHO these people were. But we are not told. So, no identification after all, or perhaps just a sham identification.
5. The author adds, deceiving the readers: "The remains of the nine hijackers from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites have also been confirmed". Note that he does not say "identified" because they were not identified. Some flesh was determined to belong to the hijackers by "exclusion", because it did not fit other samples. So no identification after all, just a public deception.
6. About the "remains" of the terrorists, we have the word of the Ministry of Truth, an official of the FBI, Richard Kolko. I am not a buyer. Are you?
7. The author writes: "None of the families of the hijackers, and no foreign governments, have come forward to request that the remains be handed over, and it is not clear what the official response would be if they did." Well, no government has dared to challenge the official account on 9/11. By challenging the identification of the hijackers, any government would place itself in an embarassing position, as if suspecting a foul play. This is why many statesmen, who privately suspect US government foul play in 9/11, remain quiet. As for the families of the hijackers, I suspect that they lie low. It would not surprise me that they have been either bribed or actually threatened by their not so democratic governments not to rock the boat. It is also interesting to note that the US authorities have not made any efforts to seek out the families and have not even said how they would react if asked for the remains (as explained by the author). Later in the article, my suspicions are verified by the author who writes: "Reached by NEWSWEEK, one relative of Ziad Jarrah, the hijacker believed to have piloted Flight 93 into a Pennsylvania field, expressed just this kind of ambivalence. "Of course we want to get back his remains, but we are not planning to make any contact before things get clarified," said the relative, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. He couldn’t bring himself to admit that Jarrah had carried out the atrocities. "Maybe he participated," he says. "Maybe there is something we don’t know….If he were related to one of the hijackers, he says, "I’d be scared for the harm that might befall the rest of my family by the Saudi or Egyptian government if I showed an interest," he says. "There is an environment of fear in countries like Saudi Arabia; it’s hard to describe. The culture of terror is suffocating."" I would also be ambivalent about requesting the remains before being convinced that the remains came from the crash site AND that the person in question actually boarded the aircraft that crashed there.
1. None of the alleged hijackers were positively identified, that is by name. The article does not provide, therefore, anything really new.
2. Even if the remains of the 19 alleged hijackers were to be positively identified, we would have to be convinced that their remains actually came from the crash sites AND that the aircraft that crashed there were actually the aircraft on to which these alleged hijackers boarded. In a criminal case, particularly when suspicion exists about official foul play, every piece of the puzzle must be proved. You cannot simply take the word of law-enforcement as the Holy Bible. As the US authorities have NOT produced any evidence that the 19 alleged hijackers boarded the four aircraft, nor positively identified the wreckage of the aircraft that crashed at the various locations, nor produced any material evidence proving the identity of the crashed aircraft, the above article must be regarded as a disinformation effort.
3. That Newsweek chooses to publish such an article now proves that the US elite is uneasy about the widening suspicions. It proves that We The People are on the right track.
You are welcome to transmit my report to your superiors. You might wish to reconsider your beliefs and loyalty.
Happy new year,
8. "In September 2007 the medical examiner’s office in New York announced it had identified a fourth set of terrorist remains —the 13th identified to date.". What did he mean "identified"? Who was this "terrorist"? Why aren’t we provided with his name?
On 14.1.2009, at 15:54, James Bennett wrote:
More evidence for you to ignore. You might want to forward it to David Ray Griffin, so he can quote mine it for his next few books.
On 14.2009 Elias Davidsson wrote:
Thank you for confirming – by your silence – what I wrote below.