The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) of Flight 77 supports the official flight path
The Animation could not exist without the FDR data. The Flight animation is supposed to be a "reconstruction" based on the black box data (FDR), and yet it does not match the data found in the FDR for Flight 77.
Many mistakenly believe and claim that the flight animation "is" the FDR when they are two separate things.
It cannot reasonably be claimed that the "animation" represents the actual flight path of Flight 77 because the animation does not match data found in the FDR. An animation is a "reconstruction" and is not the "original" source of the data.
It is frequently claimed that the "Black Box" data of Flight 77 shows a flight path which contradicts the official story of the Pentagon attack. On the truthaction forum, Snowy Grouch, also known as Callum Douglas, a 9/11 researcher who has studied the flight data recorder and animation writes:
I would also like to know who EXACTLY are these people who are claiming that the animation is the black box data or similar. Provide some links please otherwise its just conjecture.
Unfortunately, this belief is fairly widespread from the comments on forums that I have encountered. I have had to post responses several times on 911blogger, correcting this claim. In fact, shortly after Callum Douglas requested evidence of these individuals, a forum poster in the very same thread no less, repeated this false claim saying, "The 'imaginary' north flightpath is supported by the FDR raw data file". So much for "conjecture", then. It is hardly the only example. Pilots for 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo also confuses the FDR and animation on the radio stating:
The information that we have from the NTSB right now as it stands, this airplane's not hitting the Pentagon. Andthat's from the flight data recorder. What they say is from the Flight data recorder.... The NTSB data. The plot, the animation that they plot out, It has it on the north side of that CITGO gas station... [The CIT witnesses]... corroborate the flight data recorder as far as the flight path being North... The heading... that they show in the hard data file that we have...it shows that it kind of lines up with the south path.
In this interview, Rob Balsamo refers to a "flight data recorder" and "animation they plot out". These are two separate things and the flight data recorder (FDR) does NOT support a north path. In fact, as you can see above, Balsamo also later acknowledges thatthe "hard data file" supports the official flight path. Callum Douglas writes that the claim that the "FDR" supports the north path is completely false:
The Animation and FDR are two separate things. In the 9/11 truth movement, many confuse this and mistakenly believe that the FDR and flight animation are the same thing. As a consequence of this mistaken belief, many mistakenly claim that the "FDR" contradicts the official flight path. While it is true that the animation contradicts the official flight path, it is also true that the FDR supports the official flight path as shown in the image above.
Several points should be made here:
The Black box data is not the same as the flight path animation data
The animation is supposed to be a "reconstruction" of the black box data and yet they do not match
The Black box Data supports the official flight path.
Why the contradiction between the FDR and animation? This is unclear and where there is controversy. On his blog, Caustic points out that the animation has an incorrect magnetic declination and Calum Douglas responds:
The question is... do you believe that seasoned professionals at the NTSB with decades of experience in crash re-construction FORGOT about magnetic declination! One of the most basic concepts in map reading and navigation... Most unlikely, so the question iswhy does the animation give a north path and the FDR file a south one? If I were you I`d try phoning the NTSB, see how far that gets you.
Unfortunately, at this time the NTSB has refused to clarify or explain the discrepancy between the FDR and animation. This has resulted in adding to the ongoing controversy.
However, the "animation" cannot exist without the original black box data. This is because the original source of the data for the animation should originate from the FDR. It cannot be claimed that the "animation" is right and the "black box is wrong" since the animation is a reconstruction based on the black box data. It is possible that a mistake was made in the reconstruction of the data and seems to be the most plausible explanation at this point. John Farmer writes:
I have put in an FOIA with the NTSBrequesting the parameters used to generate the animation, but to date there has been no response. Some have said that the animation is generated using the physics data in the FDR. If that is the case, then that would account for the deviation observed if the heading data had indeed been tampered with. That does not mean that is the case, but certainly is a possibility. That is why it is important to understand how the animation was generated. I will leave that to others since it really is in the domain of professional pilots and aeronautical engineers (outside my expertise).
The NTSB explains how they generate an animation from the FDR:
Dan Bower is an Aerospace Engineer at the NTSB who is directly involved with analyzing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders. Unfortunately, there are many different formats this information can take. The FDR data, says Bower "is different for each airplane and each style of Flight Data Recorder." Because of that, he adds, "as soon as we have an accident, we call the airplane manufacturer to get the conversion algorithms... On Bower's PC, which runs the Windows NT Operating System, he uses multiple software packages to manipulate and animate the FDR data in a variety of ways. "We have some flight performance software that allows simulations with three, four and six degrees of freedom," explains Bower. Within that software and other packages, Bower can animate the data as charts and graphs, using an airplane model or as cockpit instruments changing over time. While these animations don't offer the level of detail or realism that comes from the SGI, they are used to illustrate factual data in the best way possible. The software that Bower uses can also output data in the format used for the SGI-based animations. Once the data is moved to that machine, one goal is to make the animation look as realistic as possible. For this process, detailed models are used, backgrounds are carefully constructed and terrain models are incorporated into the scene. A lot of time is also devoted to determining which viewpoint or viewpoints to use for viewing the animation."
Far from being a "simple" process, it seems that there is indeed room for error in creating a flight animation. It stands to reason that it is possible that a mistake could have been made in the creation of the animation. And this is where the controversy only gets stranger because the 9/11 commission also had an animation of Flight 77 and this animation supported the official flight path. In other words there are at least two animations and they do not match.
Also of interest is that the FDR data ends about "4-6 seconds" before impact. Caustic Logic quotes John Farmer who believes that the FDR was modified:
“The significance of this," Farmer contends, "is that at the final recorded position, the altitude data begins to make sense. The elevation of the area in the vicinity of pin #1 is ~150 – 160 feet above MSL. Add to that the radar altitude of 273 feet above ground level (AGL), […] an altitude of 420 – 430 feet above MSL matches well with witness accounts...” and explains in the conclusion: "Since investigators have assumed that the FDR data is representative until ~1 second prior to impact (stopping recording at impact) numerous false assumptions regarding the data have resulted. In fact, as discussed before, the EOF for the FDR reflects a position 4 – 6 seconds prior to impact due to the time error in the RADES data. Further investigation is warranted to determine how and why the FDR data set was altered."
It certainly appears as though data from the FDR is missing which I agree does warrant an explanation and additional investigation. This is not an insignificant question.
While some have claimed that they "faked" the FDR data, it cannot reasonably be claimed that the "animation" represents the actual flight path of Flight 77 because the animation supposed to be a "reconstruction" of the "original" data found in the FDR.
Interestingly, Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) has never used the animation to support their claims of an alternate flight path.
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]
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:
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.
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]
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 manifestfor [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]
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 the airports directly involved with the 9/11 attacks. 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]
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]
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 Hanjour's absense from the initial list of suspects 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]
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.”
Exclusive video of emergency official Barry Jennings discussing explosions inside WTC 7 before either of the twin towers had collapsed and having to step over dead bodies of victims as he attempted to vacate the building has been released for the first time... what Jennings witnessed completely contradicts the official story of what happened to Building 7. On the morning of 9/11 in his capacity as Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority, Jennings and Michael Hess, who is a founding Partner and Senior Managing Director of Giuliani Partners LLC, visited the Office of Emergency Management inside Building 7 only to find it had been abandoned...
"When we reached the 6th floor the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and walk back up to the 8th floor," said Jennings. "The explosion was beneath me....so when the explosion happened it blew us back....both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing," he added. "I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down - all this time I'm hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I'm hearing explosions, said Jennings, adding that when firefighters took them down to the lobby it was in "total ruins". "For me to see what I saw was unbelievable," said Jennings... The firefighters kept saying to Jennings "do not look down" because, according to Jennings, "we were stepping over people and you can tell when you're stepping over people."
... Jennings' eyewitness report of explosions inside WTC 7 before the towers had collapsed as well as dead bodies inside the building completely contradicts the official story, which maintains that there were no fatalities inside Building 7.
1. When did the conspiracy theories start to come around?
The 9/11 official story is a "conspiracy" of 19 hijackers and Osama Bin Laden. In response to the attacks, 9/11 Family members demanded an investigation. Mindy Kleinberg, in an opening address to the 9/11 Commission:
“It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time. And the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value, because the 9-11 terrorists were not just lucky once. They were lucky over and over again. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point, we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs, properly, then how can we ever expect for terrorists to not get lucky again?”
The 9/11 family members demanded accountability for the 9/11 attacks. Who was held responsible for the attacks? Instead of reprimand, key officials were promoted:
Former Senator Gary Hart observes that, “in terms of accountability, I think this is one of the great mysteries of the last three or four years. Three thousand Americans died three years ago, and no one lost his or her job over it. A president who says that he is a strong president, and those around him say he is, did not fire anyone. Either he was misled, in which case, somebody should have been fired. Or he misled us, in which case he should be fired.”[4] Senator Charles Grassley similarly noted that “I can’t think of a single person being held accountable anywhere in government for what went on and what went wrong prior to Sept. 11. It seems that nobody in government makes any mistakes anymore.” According to testimony given to Congress these statements are accurate; not one single individual within the CIA, FBI, and NSA has been reprimanded, punished, or fired for the events of 9/11.
2. Do you think we will ever find out the "truth"? Explain.
It depends. Key facts will remain unknown unless another investigation takes place. Will the truth ever be known? Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern explains that, "The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.” In other words, while the entire truth may or may not be known, a great deal of the facts are available to us. Only another investigation could get answers to some key questions.
3. What do you think happened to the Pentagon on 9/11?
A commercial 757 airliner impact as explained in an excellent analysis by Jim Hoffman. There is significant controversy over this among skeptics of the official story. A significant reason for this is that physical evidence can be ambiguous in real life situations. However, the overwhelming eyewitness testimony reports of an impact, plane parts, light poles, and other evidence points to a plane impact. The key question here is why was there no interception of the incoming plane 80 minutes after the first off course plane? As Norman Mineta said in testimony to the 9/11 commission (but omitted from the final report):
"[Does] not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached." NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12
In other words, the 20 million dollar report does not explain or even offer a theory to explain how the towers collapsed completely to the ground. The pancake theory was discarded and abandoned by NIST and the report only attempts to show that fires initiated the collapse. For these and other reasons, many have offered alternative explanations for the collapse of the towers. I believe that a controlled demolition was responsible for the destruction of the towers, but we need an investigation to determine how this was accomplished and who exactly was responsible.
5. What do you think happened to Flight 93 on 9/11?
“Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft.”[13] —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6) “If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.”[14] —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)
In fact, Laura Brown of the FAA testified to the 9/11 commission that:
6. Were you in any of the areas where the attacks occurred at the time? If so, did you think any mischievous activity was going on?
No, I was not directly impacted by the attacks. I saw them on the news later in the day. I was surprised that hijackers were identified so quickly, the collapse of building 7 which looked like a perfect controlled demolition, and the Pentagon scene, which I found it surprising that a plane was supposed to have crashed there. The collapse of the World Trade Center looked shocking, and I waited to hear the official explanation, which I now reject.
7. What do you think about the 9/11 commission report?
The 9/11 commission report omitted key pieces of evidence and testimony that was even reported to them directly, some of which was listed here (see Norman Mineta and Laura Brown testimony). Other key facts and questions were not addressed, such as the War Games and their impact on the attacks. Some officials gave contradictory and even false statements that were not seriously addressed or questioned by the commissioners.
8. Why did you start believing in these conspiracy theories?
Not all "conspiracy theories" are true. Not all theories account for all of the facts or offer the best explanation. There are many theories about 9/11 that are spread deliberately to discredit legitimate questions about the attack through guilt by association. The phrase "conspiracy theory" has been used by the Mainstream media to silence and intimidate discussion about serious questions about the attacks that many family members have had since the beginning. For example, only 30% of their 400 questions were ever addressed by the 9/11 commission. This is a "conspiracy fact", not a "theory".
As well, the media has reported extremely damaging facts about 9/11 only to never follow up on their own facts or put them together.
Furthermore, "Conspiracy theory" is a term often used in a misleading and biased way. The 9/11 official story is a conspiracy theory of outlandish incompetence. It alleges that terrorists successfully evaded a multi-billion-dollar defense establishment including NORAD, standard FAA intercept procedures, US airbases, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, international intelligence agencies and more, without any significant or effective resistance. To believe the official story, you have to dismiss countless contradictory facts left out of the 9/11 commission report and believe that it is acceptable that instead of reprimand, those most responsible for preventing the attacks were promoted. The head of NORAD--responsible for air defenses on 9/11 was promoted three days after the attack.
9. What are some good books, articles, websites, etc. on 9/11 conspiracy theories?
There has been great research into 9/11, but there has also been misleading information spread by even the most careful and credible researchers and authors (disinformation and misinformation). Some present accurate information mixed with inaccurate information. I recommend, 9/11 Truth: Essential Reading
10. Can you tell me any information that I have not thought of?
We neither endorse nor espouse any theories or conclusions other than those that will grow out of a responsible, thoughtful, judicious, and comprehensive examination of the facts. We welcome and encourage the support of all Americans, as well as concerned citizens around the world.
We do so because we firmly believe that the victims of the 9/11 attacks have yet to receive proper justice. We firmly believe as Americans we have a moral obligation to take the necessary steps to obtain that justice.
We assert as fact that no authorized, sanctioned body at any level of government has properly investigated the crimes of 9/11, nor the environmental aftermath of the World Trade Center collapses. The extent to which these environmental consequences have negatively affected the health of first responders and others exposed is well known. The fact that almost none of the more than $1.5 billion allocated for the healthcare of our nation’s heroes has been utilized for its intended purpose is a national disgrace. Our heroes deserve better than this. They need medication, not litigation; respect, not neglect.
We believe that Congress and our politicians have forsaken us. Now is the time for all patriotic Americans to unite-in-action in order to secure justice for our fallen, justice for our heroes, and justice for our country and the world.
And we can.
New York State Home Rule Law #37 allows for the citizens, through ballot referendum, to vote directly on whether or not a new investigation will take place. In doing so, it allows for the creation of a Citizen’s Commission to Re-Investigate 9/11.
We, of the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative, have initiated a petition drive in order to secure the required number of signatures of registered voters necessary to get the referendum on the November 2008 New York City ballot. We have until May 1, 2008 to do so.
The quest for truth and justice is our sole agenda. We neither endorse nor espouse any a priori theories or conclusions other than those that will grow out of a responsible, thoughtful, judicious, and comprehensive examination of the facts. We welcome and encourage the support of all Americans, as well as concerned citizens throughout the world.
Yes. Up to 70% of First Responders and others afflicted have become ill or died, or will likely become ill in the future. There are also reports of birth defects in children of the afflicted workers. The illnesses that have been reported in workers include cancers of the lung, throat, tongue, testicles, breasts, bladder, kidney, colon, intestine, and rare blood cancers, as well as other cancers such as lymphoma, leukemia, Hodgkin's disease and myeloma. The government has yet to allocate the necessary funds to deal with this health crisis, consistently refusing to acknowledge that any of these people are sick because of 9/11. Congress allocated $1 billion to a fund for First Responders and other injured parties, under the name World Trade Center Captive Insurance Company, but so far, none of the over 8,000 sick and injured workers claims filed toward this fund have been granted. To make matters worse, many have suffering terrible financial losses from medical expenses and inability to work.
The Petition:
THE FOLLOWING IS HEREBY DESIRED AND APPROVED AS AN INITIATIVE FOR ADOPTION OF A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER, TO BE PRESENTED TO VOTERS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AT A GENERAL ELECTION OF VOTERS:
1. The title of this local law is “Act to Create a Temporary Independent Commission to Investigate 9/11”. 2. An independent, temporary NYC commission (the “Commission”) is hereby created to conduct a comprehensive, fact-driven investigation into the events that took place on 9/11, as well as to thoroughly examine related events before and after the attacks, including any activities attempting to hide, cover up, impede or obstruct any investigation into these 9/11 events, following wherever the facts may lead. The Commission shall publish one or more reports of their findings. 3. The Commission shall consist of up to 15 Commissioners including Dr. William Pepper (international attorney), Ralph Schoenman (historian), Dr. Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14 astronaut), Lincoln Chafee (former Senator), Splitting-the-Sky (Mohawk tribal member), Lorie Van Auken (9/11 widow), Ed Asner (actor/activist), Bishop Thomas Gumbleton (Roman Catholic) and others to be appointed by majority vote of the Commission members to bring the Commission up to as many as 15 members and to fill any vacancies thereafter from nominees proposed by any member of the Commission. The Commission shall have a duty to maintain the number of Commissioners at no less than nine and to fill vacancies promptly. 4. The Commission shall act by majority vote, adopt its own Rules of Procedure and shall choose its Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary. 5.The Commission shall have the power to issue subpoenas for documents and testimony, take and record testimony, and to apply to the appropriate federal, state, out-of-state or foreign courts for the issuance of subpoenas, Letters Rogatory, or Applications for Mutual Assistance, for service upon persons, corporations, agencies or other entities beyond the subpoena power granted to the Commission. 6. The Commission shall have no authority to act beyond 3 years from the date of their creation by the voters of NYC, except by extension of term and financing through NYC legislation enacted by the City Council or Mayor, or by vote of the electorate at a general election, pursuant to appropriate statute such as Section 37 of the Municipal Home Rule Law or Section 40 of the New York City Charter or other law. 7. The Commission shall have a budget of $10,000,000 per year, for the conduct of its investigation and related activities. Financing shall be entirely drawn from private contributions. No public funds shall be requested or accepted. Pledges and/or promissory notes of specific contributions from wealthy private individuals are being obtained with payment subject to enactment of the Initiative by the voters of New York City. A substantial five figure seed money fund has been established as of January 2008, and a world wide internet fund raising campaign has been launched. In addition, four prominent citizens have pledged substantial matching fund contributions. Celebrity parties, concerts and other fund raising gatherings and activities are also being planned to take place throughout the months of the Petition drive. Cumulatively, these sources will provide for the funding of the investigation. 8. Commission disbursements shall require the signatures of at least two Commissioners serving under the Treasurer on the Commission’s Finance Committee which shall consist of a total of three Commissioners appointed by the Commission. The Commission’s finances and accounts shall be audited each year by an independent public accounting firm appointed by the Commission. 9. The Commission will also endeavor to consider the effects of the 9/11 attacks on the health and well being of police, firefighters, the enormous numbers of other first responders, local residents and others affected, and examine ways and means of alleviating the health care crisis which afflicts many of the above through the enforcement of their the right to health care services and compensation. 10. As a law-enforcement agency, the Commission shall have the right not to publicly disclose activities of a secret or confidential nature and shall have the duty of recording the taking of testimony by film or video, and the duty of providing an opportunity for CSpan and other television networks, stations and programs to broadcast Commission proceedings on a live or other basis. 11. Each Commissioner shall be paid a base annual salary of $112,500 (or such other base salary as is then being paid to members of the New York City Council) and the same benefits received by such members, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses actually incurred on behalf of the Commission, economy air and train fares to and from a Commissioner’s residence outside of New York City. 12. Commissioners may come from any part of the world and shall not be required to maintain a residence in New York City or New York State. 13. The Commissioners are not required to devote 100% or substantially all of their time to the work of the Commission and it is expected that Commissioners will be able to continue with non-conflicting activities. 14. The Commission by a majority vote shall have the right, to seek indictments in any relevant Court located in the City of New York, or elsewhere and, at its discretion, to work with existing prosecutorial agencies or to seek the appointment of a special prosecutor under Section 701 of the New York County Law. 15. Accordingly, the Commission shall have the power to seek the appointment of a special prosecutoranywhere within New York State or in any other State, country or jurisdiction. 16. The Commission as a temporary investigative office of New York City shall, during its lifetime, enjoy the same immunities, privileges and prosecutorial discretion granted under law to elected prosecutors. 17.No New York City employee, past or present, shall have the right to avoid testifying before the Commission based on any prior agreements not to disclose or testify with any officials or agencies of New York City or other governmental agency; the Commission has the power to maintain secrecy and confidentiality of testimony or other disclosures where appropriate. 18. The Commission shall have the power to hire and fire clerical and other employees, attorneys, accountants, paralegals, experts, consultants and others in performance of their respective duties. 19. The Commission shall have the power to enter into contracts; and to create and enforce its rules. 20. This law shall be construed liberally to enable the Commission to conduct an independent investigation into 9/11, and issue one or more reports on the Commission’s investigation, and create one or more websites to provide public information about the work of the Commission. 21 If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.
The 9/11 official story is a tale of outlandish incompetence. We are led to believe that Al Qaeda successfully evaded a multi-billion-dollar defense establishment including NORAD, standard FAA intercept procedures, US airbases,[1] the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, international intelligence agencies and more, without any significant or effective resistance. While any serious investigation of the 9/11 attacks was blocked by President Bush and Dick Cheney for more than a year,[2] a theory of systematic and incredible incompetence emerged: Al Qaeda got “lucky”. Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee in an opening address to the 9/11 Commission criticized this notion:
“It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time. And the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrongin its value, because the 9-11 terrorists were not just lucky once. They were lucky over and over again. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point, we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs, properly, then how can we ever expect for terrorists to not get lucky again?”[3]
What happened to those who “failed”, and what exactly were their “failures”?
Former Senator Gary Hart observes that, “in terms of accountability, I think this is one of the great mysteries of the last three or four years. Three thousand Americans died three years ago, and no one lost his or her job over it. A president who says that he is a strong president, and those around him say he is, did not fire anyone. Either he was misled, in which case, somebody should have been fired. Or he misled us, in which case he should be fired.”[4] Senator Charles Grassley similarly noted that “I can’t think of a single person being held accountable anywhere in government for what went on and what went wrong prior to Sept. 11. It seems that nobody in government makes any mistakes anymore.”[5] According to testimony given to Congress these statements are accurate; not one single individual within the CIA, FBI, and NSA has been reprimanded, punished, or fired for the events of 9/11.[6]
How could this be possible? The 9/11 Commission admitted that its aim was “not… to assign individual blame.”[7] Why not? Paul Craig Roberts notes that “the purpose of a government investigatory commission is to place blame where it does the least harm politically.”[8] “In… blaming everybody a little, the Commission blames nobody,” observed Harper’s Magazine.[9] But not only were no individuals seriously blamed, held accountable, or reprimanded for the 9/11 attacks, as 911truth.org observes, “officials who ‘failed’ (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.”[10] A Justice Department official commented that the FBI, “basically promoted the exact same people who have presided over the… failure.”[11]
Who was responsible for these “failures” and who got promoted?
Aside from this statement, it was standard protocol to intercept off-course and/or non-responsive aircraft:
“Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft.”[13] —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)
“If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.”[14] —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)
Despite these statements, Nick Levis observed that “[the] official investigation of the September 11th events has failed to explain or even to ask why the top officials in the U.S. military chain of command were missing in action during the attacks.”[19] What happened? Promotions.
Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11—Promoted
Who was in charge at the Pentagon? Richard Myers,[20] who gave several contradictory accounts of his actions on 9/11,[21] was promoted as a new Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on August 24, 2001 by President Bush.[22] As Jim Hoffman notes, “General Richard Myers was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 11th… As Acting Chairman, Myers was the highest-ranking military official, and the principal military advisor to the President.”[23] On 9/11, Myers was in charge because Chairman Henry Shelton[24] was out of the country.[25] Amazingly, just three days after 9/11, following NORAD’s stunning failure to intercept any of the planes on 9/11, he was promoted from Vice-Chairman to Chairman, replacing Henry Shelton.[26] A few months after this second promotion, Myers curiously said that “the goal has never been to get Bin Laden.”[27]
Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11—Promoted
On a day in which routine procedures should have prevented 9/11 from even happening, the attacks were mirrored in military drills.[28] NORAD commander-in-Chief Ralph Eberhart[29] was asked by the 9/11 Commission if these war games “helped” response to the 9/11 attacks and responded nonsensically, “sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews—they have to be airborne in 15 minutes and that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped.” This was clearly a false statement since none of the planes were intercepted during the attacks. In fact, there is very strong evidence that these drills coordinated by Dick Cheney hindered the response since they moved air defenses away from New York and Washington,[30] added “injects” to radar screens, and created general confusion.[31] Like Richard Myers, Eberhart was promoted[32] shortly after 9/11; “nominated by President Bush to command the… U.S. Northern Command,”[33] a new creation of the Department of Defense which Eberhart said was “needed” after the attacks.[34]
The lack of response to the off-course aircraft could be clearly seen in the case of the Pentagon strike. Over an hour into the attacks, Norman Mineta reported that a plane was flying towards the Pentagon while tracked from a NORAD-equipped bunker where Dick Cheney was in charge.[35] When an aide periodically reported the incoming aircraft’s distance from the Pentagon, he finally asked Dick Cheney “Do the orders still stand?”[36] Cheney responded angrily, “of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?”[37] This embarrassing testimony, completely left out of the 9/11 Commission report, strongly suggested that the hijacked aircraft were deliberately allowed to hit their targets without response. Despite knowledge of this aircraft by the FAA, Dick Cheney, and NORAD with its superior radar capability, no obvious action was taken to intercept or shoot down the planes. Instead, while NORAD was nowhere to be seen, a C-130 cargo plane was sent by civilian air traffic controllersto intercept and observe the incoming aircraft from Andrews Air Force Base.[38] This base was 10 miles away from the Pentagon and had fighter jets available on 9/11.[39] Why weren’t fighter jets scrambled to intercept the incoming plane and defend the Pentagon? Were civilian air traffic controllers left in charge of defense and intercepting planes on 9/11 in place of NORAD’s responsibility? Why wasn’t the Pentagon evacuated when the White House was evacuated?[40] Why was Ralph Eberhart promoted?
Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director—Promoted
Captain Charles J Leidig was asked by Brigadier General Montague Winfield the day before 9/11 to take over his responsibilities.[41] Leidig “assumed duties as the Deputy for Command Center Operations in the J3 Directorate of the Joint Staff… responsible for the maintenance, operation, and training of watch teams for the National Military Command Center (NMCC).”[42] In testimony given to the 9/11 Commission, Leidig explained that “the Command Center then became a focal point for coordinating information flow… I convened a conference called a Significant Event Conference. And what that does is that brings leadership and combatant commanders into the conference to start discussing what actions should be taken or might be taken… I… [controlled] the conference that gets all these folks on the phone.”[43] Leidig was not reprimanded and was later promoted in 2004 to Admiral.[44]
Brigadier General Montague Winfield—Promoted
Brigadier General Montague Winfield was in charge of the National Military Command Center (NMCC).[45] But as Nick Levis observes, “Montague Winfield was originally scheduled to be at his command post on morning of Sept. 11. But on Sept. 10, he arranged for his deputy to relieve him the next morning at exactly 8:30 a.m. This turned out to be just eight minutes before the military was alerted to the diversion of the first flight.”[46] Winfield’s absence was significant because the NMCC was responsible for coordinating information on the 9/11 attack. In May of 2003, he was promoted to the two-star rank of major general.[47]
Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11—Promoted
9/11 was Ben Sliney’s first day on the job as National Operations Manager, described as “the chess master of the air traffic system.”[48] He successfully accomplished the landing of all commercials aircraft—an unprecedented event carried out “flawlessly”.[49] David Ray Griffin observes, “[is] it plausible that FAA personnel, on the same day that they carried out an unprecedented task so flawlessly, would have failed so miserably with a task that they, decade after decade, had been performing routinely?”[50] While the 9/11 commission attempts to shift the blame away from NORAD to the FAA by completely omitting Laura Brown’s statement and other evidence from their final report,[51] the interception of aircraft was a routine protocol as noted previously. Perhaps it was a bad day to start his job, but Sliney was not reprimanded and was later promoted.[52]
Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney’s task force on problems of national preparedness—Promoted
Admiral Steven Abbot was appointed by Dick Cheney to lead the domestic terrorism task force in June 2001.[53] After 9/11, Abbot was promoted to become deputy director of the office of Homeland Security headed by Tom Ridge in October 2001.[54]
Marion (Spike) Bowman, blocked FBI investigations into the alleged hijackers before 9/11—Promoted
FBI director Robert Mueller awarded Bowman with a presidential citation and cash bonus of about 25 percent of his salary.[55] Bowman, who was head of the FBI’s National Security Law Unit, was given an award for “exceptional performance” after a 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report claimed that his unit gave Minneapolis FBI agents “inexcusably confused and inaccurate information” that was “patently false.”[56] As well, Bowman’s unit “blocked anurgent request by FBI agents to begin searching for Khalid Almihdhar after his name was put on a watch list.”[57]
Pasquale D’Amuro, in charge of counterterrorism in New York—Promoted
Pasquale D’Amuro,[58] was the FBI’s counterterrorism chief on 9/11 in New York City, and was promoted to the top counterterrorism post after the attack.[59]
Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit—Promoted
According to FBI Agent Harry Samit, he “wrote FBI headquarters about 70 memos about Moussaoui's likely terrorist plans between his arrest on Aug. 16 and Sept. 11, all to no avail.” He was warned by his supervisor Michael Maltbie that pursuing this could be “bad for his career”, and that he should not pursue this to “preserve the existence of his advancement potential” in the FBI.[60] Instead of being reprimanded, Michael Maltbie was promoted to the Joint Terrorism Task Force at the FBI’s Cleveland office after 9/11.[61]
David Frasca, head of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit—not fired
It has been observed that when it came to the success of the 9/11 attacks, “most roads lead to counterterror chief’ David Frasca”,[62] head of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit.[63] Interestingly, he came into the job a week before 9/11 and was not fired for his performance after the 9/11 attacks.[64] Paul Thompson observes that, “The Phoenix memo, which was addressed to Frasca, was received by his unit and warned that al-Qaeda terrorists could be using flight schools inside the US…[65] Two weeks later Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested while training to fly a 747, but Frasca’s unit was unhelpful when local FBI agents wanted to search his belongings—a step that could have prevented 9/11.”[66]Time Magazine reported that, “The Phoenix memo was buried; the Moussaoui warrant request was denied.”[67] The New York Times indicates that Frasca, “[threw] up roadblocks” even after 9/11 in the Moussaoui investigation.[68]
Apparently, the FBI was so “incompetent”, that some of the alleged hijackers lived with an FBI informant without intervention.[69] The Able Danger program similarly identified some of the alleged hijackers.[70] Not only this, some of the alleged hijackers trained on US military airbases.[71] Despite this, the hijackers themselves were widely described as “incompetent”,[72] and several were reported to be “alive” after the attack.[73]
FBI: “Incompetent” then Suddenly “Competent” after the Attack?
Immediately following the attacks, the FBI suddenly changed from being “incompetent” to very competent. Family member Kristen Breitweiser in testimony to the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry asked, “[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 in the case? …How are 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?”[74] Most of the hijackers were identified within hours of the attacks.[75] While the attack at the Pentagon was not prevented despite observations of an incoming aircraft on radar, videos of the Pentagon strike were confiscated from multiple locations by the FBI minutes after it happened.[76]
Failures Promoted, Whistleblowers Silenced?
While not one single individual was reprimanded for the 9/11 “failures”, many whistleblowers were punished for speaking out. Coleen Rowley,[77] Sibel Edmonds,[78] Robert Wright,[79] Kevin Ryan,[80] and many others were silenced, fired, punished, and ignored for speaking out about what happened behind the scenes before and after the 9/11 attacks.[81] As well, many credible professionals, scientists, professors, and others have expressed their doubts about the 9/11 “official story”.[82] The mainstream media has been curiously silent about these facts.
The US Government Knew the Date, Method, and Targets of the 9/11 Attack
“Cui bono… is a Latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for a thing may not be who it appears at first to be… Commonly the phrase is used to suggest thatthe person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain. The party that benefits may not always be obvious or may have successfully diverted attention to ascapegoat, for example.”
To believe in the 9/11 “official story” is to believe in a massive, coordinated, and “coincidental” failure at many levels in which those most responsible for preventing the attacks were not fired or reprimanded and instead promoted. The 9/11 official story depends on your ignorance of these and other facts, not on your knowledge of them. On top of this, there is very strong evidence to suggest that other parts of the attacks including the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7 were deliberately orchestrated to make sure that the attacks were successful.[84]
Who really benefited from the 9/11 attacks? Why were whistleblowers silenced? Why weren’t officials reprimanded? Why were they promoted? Why were routine FAA procedures to intercept aircraft not followed? Why did the FBI suddenly become “competent” immediately after the attacks? Who has profited from the billions of dollars spent on the 9/11 wars?[85]Cui Bono?
Former Counter-Terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke and Dick Cheney both confirmed this statement. Dick Cheney admitted on a live TV interview that “the Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was…” Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, (After 8:46 a.m.) September 11, 2001: FAA Establishes Open Telephone Line with the Secret Service
“One exercise titled NORTHERN VIGILANCE pulled Air Force fighters up into Canada simulating a Russian air attack, so there were very few fighters remaining on the east coast to respond. All of this paralyzed Air Force response ensuring that fighter jocks couldn’t stop 9/11.”
Mike Kelly, “NORAD confirmed two mock drills on September 11,” NJ.com, December 5, 2003.
“NORAD confirmed it had only eight fighters on the East Coast for emergency scrambles on September 11. Throughout Canada and the United States, including Alaska, NORAD had 20 fighters on alert — armed, fueled up, and ready to fly in minutes.”
“The use of ‘injects’ (phantom blips projected onto radar screens electronically) is a technique employed to test the defending side in air defense exercises.”
“In the wake of the largest failure of the U.S. military to defend the civilian population in the country's history, there were no repercussions for people responsible for air defense. There was no serious investigation of the inexplicable failure to follow standard operating procedure and scramble interceptors promptly once each of the four jetliners started going off course. To the contrary, the people in charge of defending us were rewarded. General Myers, who was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 11th, was quickly confirmed as Chairman just two days later. General Ralph Eberhart, Commander in Chief of NORAD at the time of the attack, was promoted to head the new "Northern Command" a year after the attack.”
He was also awarded a Meritorious Service Cross by the Governor General of Canada:
On behalf of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Meritorious Service Cross presented to General Ralph Edward Eberhart, http://www.gg.ca/, November 5, 2004: “A Meritorious Service Cross… [for] his leadership, astute initiative and clear direction ensured the appropriate decisions were made during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.”
“General Ralph Eberhart, who was in charge of NORAD (air defense) on 9/11, was made the first commander of the new ‘Northern Command,’ the domestic unified military command established in October 2002. If the domestic use of the U.S. military escalates into full-scale martial law, the Northern Command would essentially manage it. If 9/11 had been an ‘intelligence failure,’ it is likely that General Eberhart would have been court-martialed instead of promoted.”
A Blog Devoted to Discussing 9/11 News, Research, and Disinformation
"When we act, we create our own reality"
“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore… We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.'"
“Arabesque is the best writer in the movement, bar none. Arabesque writes with great clarity on all areas of the 9-11 cover-up, meticulously documenting each point through the use of extensive endnotes. Arabesque has also proven that he isn’t afraid to take on the disinformation specialists who would serve to discredit legitimate questions, research, and evidence which would directly contradict the 'official conspiracy theory' about the events of September 11th, 2001. This, I believe, is one of the most important issues facing the 9-11 movement today.” — Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9-11
The Animation and FDR are two separate things. In the 9/11 truth movement, many confuse this and mistakenly believe that the FDR and flight animation are the same thing. As a consequence of this mistaken belief, many mistakenly claim that the "FDR" contradicts the official flight path. While it is true that the animation contradicts the official flight path, it is also true that the FDR supports the official flight path as shown in the image above.
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.”
