Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I found a news story reporting on the AFIP's project

Did you find it in my post on the first page?!

I'd put in an FOIA request for the passenger manifests, but I'm not in the US.

You don't have to be in the US (or an American) to make a request, although obviously it's trickier to get help other than online.

[edit on 9-10-2005 by ashmok]

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I found a news story reporting on the AFIP's project.

Originally posted by ashmok
Did you find it in my post on the first page?!

DOH! Sorry dude! Missed that completely.

[edit on 2005-10-9 by wecomeinpeace]

God damn it I knew it looked familiar! Sorry I didn't pick up on that either dude, when I get the red mist.... - good work though!

[edit on 9-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
DOH! Sorry dude!

S'okay! Although I was beginning to wonder if my posts were invisible.

Anyway, I was also thinking about making an FOIA request for the passenger lists. Don't know much about the mechanics of that, though (II'm in the UK) so I'm thinking I'll email the FOIA lawyer that Flight77.info are using and ask him what's involved, how much it'll cost. As long as it's not horrendously expensive then that's probably the most effective way to go -- I'll report back when he replies.

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
DOH! Sorry dude!

S'okay! Although I was beginning to wonder if my posts were invisible.

Anyway, I was also thinking about making an FOIA request for the passenger lists. Don't know much about the mechanics of that, though (II'm in the UK) so I'm thinking I'll email the FOIA lawyer that Flight77.info are using and ask him what's involved, how much it'll cost. As long as it's not horrendously expensive then that's probably the most effective way to go -- I'll report back when he replies.

Excellent idea, I cast a glance over that page sometimes myself - simple as it is, it is probably one of the most informative sites on the subject available.
In fact I'd say it would be good if more people followed this guy's example and did something themselves rather than expect it handed on a plate to them.

I too am in the UK, so I can't really do anything personally to help either. That's assuming foreign countries don't have FOIA rights to information, which I would hope to be the case!

But your idea is spot on there, in my opinon - I'm not sure what chance of success there is likely to be though. I imagine as the data direct from the airline is private and not government information ,it may not be applicable under the act? I may be wrong - I honestly have no idea but you don't know unless you try.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I imagine as the data direct from the airline is private and not government information ,it may not be applicable under the act?

That's what I was wondering. But then if the Government have the manifest now then maybe that's enough.

Anyway, I've emailed the FOIA lawyer so hopefully he'll give us a better idea of whether it's possible or not. I'll let you know what he thinks.

(Oh, and anyone can make a request, you don't have to be a US citizen. Although I'd guess arranging things like paying administration fees might get quite complicated, if you're not.)

[edit on 9-10-2005 by ashmok]

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I imagine as the data direct from the airline is private and not government information ,it may not be applicable under the act?

That's what I was wondering. But then if the Government have the manifest now then maybe that's enough.

Anyway, I've emailed the FOIA lawyer so hopefully he'll give us a better idea of whether it's possible or not. I'll let you know what he thinks.

(Oh, and anyone can make a request, you don't have to be a US citizen. Although I'd guess arranging things like paying administration fees might get quite complicated, if you're not.)

Very good point, if it's now 'evidence' then it would be covered I imagine. Useful not on the not needing to be a citizen there, though I don't want to poke aroudn too much as I enjoy travelling through the States and I don't want that to change! LOL

the arabs are pure heresay.
the fbi/homeland gestopacy could have feasibly gotten dna samples from the residences of the accused arabs.
you know, hair, nail clippings, etc.

the original passenger lists released by american to cnn had NO ARABS on ANY flight.
flight 77, once again, also had three regular passnegers that weren't listed.

there is NOTHING that indicates that these initial passenger lists were not the COMPLETE passenger lists. nothing except heresay and rhetoric, that is.

so, once again,

autopsy -no arabs
flight lists -no arabs

so, why do we believe there were arabs?

Sorry chum, but constantly repeating yourself with nothing to back it up when you've clearly been shown your wrong does not constitute proof in any way and still does not make you right. Believe what you want

Besides, as you refuse to believe any information you are given by official sources, who are the ones in possession of the evidence, without actually physically checking for yourself you will never know one way of the other.
But even then you would argue evidence was manufactured or planted, the point is you believe what you want with a complete disregard for facts and common sense. It is therefore impossible to discuss it with you any further, I'm sure you'll find plenty of other narrow, sorry I meant like-minded individuals to fantasize with.
At best all you can therefore argue for, based on your own standards and assumptions, is a stalemate.

But you definately do not have the ability to make any statements one way or the other, sorry, not going by your own rules.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by billybob
the original passenger lists released by american to cnn had NO ARABS on ANY flight.

Hmm, why was that? Hint: visit the Memorial main page ( www.cnn.com... ), click "About this site", and you'll find a couple of important sentences.

The list includes those listed as "confirmed dead" and "reported dead" by the Associated Press

So the CNN lists came from press reports, not American Airlines. And...

Those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included

...the hijackers have been intentionally left out, perhaps because including them on a "Victims" page was seen to be just a tiny bit insensitive. Odd how you forgot to tell us that. Or didn't you investigate enough to know?

Originally posted by ashmok
So the CNN lists came from press reports, not American Airlines. And...

...and the press reports got the lists from....
...and they knew right away which names to hide from the public, because....


and, everything that you said, agent smith, right back at ya...no proof for you!

i haven't been proven wrong by anything.

on the naval site, they list 58 as the number.
on cnn, there 56.
on the DoD site, they list 59.
people don't just walk onto planes.
all the arabs were brought into the myth after the fact.
it would have been possible to find some dna from the alleged hijackers at their places of residence, which were most certainly inspected with a very fine tooth comb. if they did not do dna matching, and they were unsure if these were even real identities, and not stolen ones, how do they know who the alleged unidentified bodies belong to?
why were no independent agencies allowed to study the remains?
more secrecy, that's why.
i don't know if you babes are aware, but excessive government secrecy and increased secret police powers pave the road to dictatorship. it's a pattern repeated constantly throughout history. you are WAAAAY too trusting. (yes, i'm repeating myself)

simply put, all the most critical evidence regarding 911, is hidden from the public.
criminal destruction and removal of evidence at ground zero.
the infamous pentagon video tapes.
the blueprints for the towers.
the original passenger lists.
joe average on the street doesn't even know that tower 7 'collapsed'.
the blue tarp. why hide it? ridiculous. a bunch of white collars, no less.
air traffic controllers destroyed tapes.

if you can sit at your war keyboard, and truly convince yourself that there is nothing amiss with this kind of behaviour, well then HALLELUJAH, you have won an esteemed seat in the New World Order, or simply, the New Order.

these arguments about being sensitive are the lamest things i've ever seen. will not publishing the names of the criminals bring anyone back? does not the public have the right to the truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth? we're talking about some broken hearts of a few thousand victims vs. the the truth which is the foundation for wars which will cause millions of innocents to be literally sacrificed(millions have already died at the hands of the empire. how many have starved in afghanistan?).
and what will the prize be?
MORE TERRORISTS! YAY!

the cabal needs eternal war. it's been true since george orwell wrote 1984. do you think he just made that book up out of thin air? no. he was writing social commentary. 1984 describes the world as he saw it in 1948. he just switched around the 4 and the 8 to make it a futurist 'fiction'.


if you want to talk about disrepecting victims, how about being consistent with the names and numbers of them?

Originally posted by billybob
these arguments about being sensitive are the lamest things i've ever seen

Lame? No, I think that's your argument. To claim that the passenger manifests didn't contain the hijackers, for instance, you must a) pretend that the CNN lists are official and direct from the airlines, which they say they're not, and b) you must ignore the fact that CNN specifically say they've left those named as the hijackers out, and c) you must ignore the Boston Globes account of getting manifests which included the hijackers, just as claimed.

Then you have to dodge around these issues whenever anyone brings them up. And finally you've got to hope that no-one notices. Now that really is lame, I think.

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by billybob
these arguments about being sensitive are the lamest things i've ever seen

Lame? No, I think that's your argument. To claim that the passenger manifests didn't contain the hijackers, for instance, you must a) pretend that the CNN lists are official and direct from the airlines, which they say they're not, and b) you must ignore the fact that CNN specifically say they've left those named as the hijackers out, and c) you must ignore the Boston Globes account of getting manifests which included the hijackers, just as claimed.

Then you have to dodge around these issues whenever anyone brings them up. And finally you've got to hope that no-one notices. Now that really is lame, I think.

i expect cnn to be ACCURATE. i expect the navy and DoD to be ACCURATE.
and you must ignore that big media is synonymous with big government and big banks.
show me the boston globe's list.
i have not dodged anything, i am pointing out discrepencies and inaccuracies in data from different 'official' sources. you'd think i started this thread or something.
agent smith is right when he says the title should say 'no arabs on autopsy report of flight 77'.
maybe if it was my title, i'd call it, "conflicting reports on names and numbers of passengers on flight77", or, "where are the arabs?", or "where is the evidence or proof of arabs on 911?".

whatever. jedi mind tricks only work on the weak.

Originally posted by billybob
i have not dodged anything, i am pointing out discrepencies and inaccuracies in data from different 'official' sources. you'd think i started this thread or something.

Well, you did decide to bring it back to life after more than two years...

agent smith is right when he says the title should say 'no arabs on autopsy report of flight 77'.
maybe if it was my title, i'd call it, "conflicting reports on names and numbers of passengers on flight77", or, "where are the arabs?", or "where is the evidence or proof of arabs on 911?".

That's a little different to posting "no arabs on flight 77. get it?", as you did earlier, which is the type of thing I was responding to. The facts are that Olmsteds list doesn't prove that -- it's entirely consistent with the official story. Also the hijackers do appear on at least two of the manifests according to the Boston Globe (www.cbsnews.com...).

Anyway, if you want to say there's something significant in any particular discrepancy then feel free (which I'm sure you will), although I don't see inaccuracies in a CNN list that they accept is just based on general press reports proving anything at all, and certainly not that there were no hijackers on board.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by ashmok]

Originally posted by JediMaster
And who said those al-Qaida members were Arabs? If this report is true, you have to realize that whites,blacks, and other ethintiecis could've helped with al-Qaida.

I don't think the goverment did 9/11.

Ok days after the planes hit the towers they pasted pictures of 19 highjackers. All of them Arab. Deny Ignorance

an update.

[url=http://yardtv.gotdns.com:88/frytv_audio/911_truth_the_power_hour_with_nila_sagadevan.mp3]nila sagadevan interview

this is a two hour interview, so only people who really care about the truth will listen to it. i did, however, and i can tell you that in this interview, nila claims to have the original passenger manifests of ALL the flights, and, .....no arab names are on the lists.

you will also hear him relate his story of an interview with the ticket agent who sold tickets to the hijackers. the ticket agent said they weren't wearing the same clothes as the ones you see in published airport security videos.

[url=http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=7651]james woods saw four of the hijackers on a flight from boston to los angeles on august 1st, and told the pilot during the flight, resulting in an official FAA report, AND he reported it to the fbi.
if you read the linked interview, you will find that these four were supposed to be from different cells, and, according to the official story, not in contact with each other, ie. 'seperate cells'.

So this one man has managed to get what no-one else has been able to and we are supposed to believe this and go on his word?

Tell me, if I recorded a convincing sounding podcast and distributed through through the Internet making some wild claims, would you believe that too?

Can you explain how and where this person got these lists and why no-one else, even those who have been investigating it since it happened, have been able to?

I'm not sure what the purpose of your second link is as it seems to back-up claims of Middle Eastern men hijacking the aircraft, as it appears they were conducting a 'dry run' a month before. The article also says that it was confirmed to him that the men were on the 9/11 flights.

WOODS: So they came in ( Woods Referring to the FBI ) And I said, "Look, I'm dying to know, were these the guys? And he said, "Well, we've had 36,000 tips in one day. And there's two of us and we're going to be at your house all this morning. So you can do the math, but we can't tell you." You know, so since then, I have identified for sure two of them as two of the terrorists.


O'REILLY: Really?

WOODS: Who actually were not on Flight 11, but one was on flight 175 and one was on flight 77. And I've been told unofficially, not by the FBI, but by someone else in a -- actually a higher level of government, believe it or not, just through a coincidence, through a mutual friend, that all four of them were terrorists involved.

O'REILLY: That is -- so it was basically a rehearsal, what these guys were doing?

WOODS: Right. But what's significant about this is that it was a rehearsal with four men. And I can't say it as a fact that they were the four, but I've been led to believe without going into the details of how, that they were on different flights. So the notion that they were separate cells when -- and this is tricky territory, but I think in the Moussaoui trial, there's going to be some contention that, you know, he was a soldier and didn't know what was going to happen...

O'REILLY: Right.

WOODS: ...until he stepped on the plane and then decided in a fit of good conscience not to be a terrorist anymore. In fact, the fact that these two people were identified by myself and other people, and were on the Boston-L.A. flight, and ended up dying on two other flights of the four flights on September 11 shows that they were...

O'Reilly either doesn't let Woods finish his statement above, or the interview was edited prior to broadcast, perhaps to eliminate further comments by Woods about how coordinated he believed the hijackers were in advance of the September 11th attacks? In any event Woods never finishes the above sentence during the duration of the interview.
archive.democrats.com...

[edit on 30-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

The guy being interviewed doesn't say he obtained the passenger manifests via an FOIA request himself, he says they've come from a couple of other sources. These are unnamed, so this is a vague second-hand report.

He says he verified they were authentic, but doesn't say why or how.

Also there are no details about the lists, and that's crucial. He's calling them "passenger manifests", but how do we know that's what they really are? Olmsted (as in this thread) treats his "autopsy list" as a manifest, even though it's nothing of the kind. People often treat the CNN lists as manifests, although they're not, either. So could Nila be calling these lists manifests when they're something else? I think so, although as he provides no details at all it's impossible to say for sure.

[edit on 30-11-2005 by ashmok]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
So this one man has managed to get what no-one else has been able to and we are supposed to believe this and go on his word?

Can you explain how and where this person got these lists and why no-one else, even those who have been investigating it since it happened, have been able to?

I'm not sure what the purpose of your second link is as it seems to back-up claims of Middle Eastern men hijacking the aircraft, as it appears they were conducting a 'dry run' a month before. The article also says that it was confirmed to him that the men were on the 9/11 flights.

i don't have to explain anything. this smacks of the old "scott ritter says bush signs off on iran attack in june" days. i am reporting what some else said. because it has not been confirmed elsewhere, does not mean it is not true, especially in these orwellian days of information totalitarianism.

confirmed by the fbi, and, ....higher ups. yeah, ...THEY can be trusted, *wink*. and that is also heresay. just because it is james woods saying it, does not mean that HE is not lying.

that is why we like empirical evidence. ever heard of it? things like official lists, recordings, signatures, the like....

IF nila is telling the truth, and he has ACCESS to these original manifests, and olmstead really does have the full autopsy list, ......

the only ones who have EVER 'verified' the identity of the hijackers are the secret POLICE services of the states. so, as the POLICE STATE ensues, following 911, and the constitution is shredded, and legal process is wrestled under control by the skull and bones shadow government, and MORE and MORE police are hired, and MORE and MORE godlike powers are 'legally' given to them by the STATE......

like i said before, i'm going to start flying for free. apparently there is no need to ever buy a ticket. you can just walk on (you can even fly it like an expert yourself, if your in the mood!).

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Tell me, if I recorded a convincing sounding podcast and distributed through through the Internet making some wild claims, would you believe that too?

try it.