America's Betrayal Confirmed. Elias Davidsson

had visited Maui often, was working as a horticulturist in Washington State but decided to enter medical school a few years ago. A week later, the same newspaper reported that it had been "unable to confirm the identity of (...) Steve Jocelyn," and was unable to locate him.{113}

      On 18 September 2001, the Honolulu Star Bulletin reported that the newspaper had received an email from Jude, giving notice that he and his wife were alive.{114} According to the paper, "a person claiming to be with the airlines" had called Jude's father and told him that his son and daughter-in-law had been passengers on flight AA11.{115} The Honolulu Advertiser of 20 September 2001, which published a detailed report on this apparent hoax, wrote that Jude’s father Curtis Larson, a "sculptor and jewelry maker," now claimed he had been duped. According to Jude, the report continued, his real name is not Larson but Olsen. He also said he is 30, not 31, years old, that he does not study in Los Angeles but works as a landscaper in Olympia, Washington State, and that his wife is not pregnant.{116} Assuming that a prestigious news agency, such as Associated Press, would check with American Airlines and the FBI whether the Larsons were in fact passengers on flight AA11 before releasing its story, it would follow that the Larsons had been listed on the original passenger lists of flight AA11 or their names changed.

      (b) Curious discrepancies in names

      According to the Boston Globe, one of the passengers on flight AA11, suspected to have been a hijacker and sitting next to ‘Mohamed Atta’, was Abdulrahman Alomari. In the list of alleged hijackers released on 14 September 2001 by the FBI, Alomari’s first name is spelled Abdulaziz. Unnamed federal investigators “said they could not explain the discrepancy between the American Airlines passenger list and their list.”{117} The name Abdulrahman Alomari was also mentioned by the Washington Post on 14 September 2001, as one of the “five hijackers who took over American Airlines flight 11 (…) according to a source familiar with FBI’s list of the hijackers.”{118}

      As early as 12 September 2001, the TV network NBC displayed a photograph of ‘Mohamed Atta’ and mentioned his name, but of no other suspects.{119} In the late afternoon of 13 September 2001, various American TV networks displayed photographs of ‘Mohamed Atta’ and ‘Marwan al-Shehhi,’ designated as suspects in the mass-murder of 9/11. Surprisingly, ABC News (13 September 2001, 7:02p.m. EST) captioned the photograph of ‘Atta’ with the name ‘Amanullah Atta Mohammed.’{120} It was not explained from where the network got ‘Amanullah.’ Was there someone impersonating Mohamed Atta, using Amanullah as a first name?

      On 22 September 2001, T.A. Badger of Associated Press reported that one of the alleged hijackers whom he named Ziad Jarrahi (with a final “i”) had been seen in San Antonio, California, in mid-June 2001.{121} Who was the Jarrahi who was repeatedly{122} mentioned by the American media? Was he someone else, distinct from Ziad Jarrah (without final “i”) who is alleged to have piloted flight UA93? Perhaps, if we believe the testimony of Charles Lisa, the landlord of an apartment he rented to a certain Jarrahi and who told The Miami Herald that this Jarrahi and his friend Alhaznawi had “German passports.”{123} Ziad Jarrah, who had studied in Germany, was, however, a Lebanese citizen and is not known to have obtained a German passport. Was Jarrahi perhaps the name of someone whose role was to impersonate Ziad Jarrah? According to Elizabeth Neuffer, whose detailed report on Ziad Jarrah and his family was published in the Boston Globe of 25 September 2001 “FBI agents, reviewing flight manifests, found a Ziad Jarrahi – the ‘i’ in the last name a possible misspelling – on United Airlines Flight 93.”{124} Yet, the unauthenticated passenger lists circulating on the internet spelled his name without final “i”. Elizabeth Neuffer, incidentally, died on 9 May 2003, in Iraq in what was reported as a car accident.

      The fluctuations in the number and names of the alleged “hijackers” could not have occurred if the names had been based on authentic flight manifests.

      (c) Releasing bogus passenger lists five years later

      In 2006 a seven-page set of faxes, purporting to represent the original flight manifests, was published in a book by Terry McDermott.{125} These released images are of bad quality and cannot constitute, for the following reasons, faithful copies of the original flight manifests: (1) The published lists appear to have been pasted together from various computer printouts;{126} (2) The lists are not authenticated by any airline or law-enforcement official and are not signed by anyone; (3) It is not clear when and by whom the lists were printed; (4) Ziad Jarrah’s name is spelled correctly on the list of flight UA93, whereas the FBI referred to him initially as Jarrahi;{127} (5) The name of Hani Hanjour appears on the AA77 list, whereas the Washington Post reported that his name did not appear on the original American Airlines list for the flight (see above); (6) The list does not include names originally claimed as suspected hijackers; (7) Neither the FBI nor the airlines have been willing to confirm that these lists faithfully represent the original flight manifests.

      (d) FBI and airlines refuse to release copies of authentic passenger lists

      In 2004 I attempted to obtain from American Airlines copies of authenticated passenger lists for the two American Airlines flights of 9/11. Karen Temmerman, Customer Relations, American Airlines, responded on 9 September 2004:

      At the time of the incidents, we released the actual passenger manifests to the appropriate government agencies who in turn released certain information to the media. These lists were published in many major periodicals and are now considered public record. At this time we are not in a position to release further information or to republish what the government agencies provided to the media.{128}

      The airline did not explain why it was not in a position to confirm what had already been for a long time in the public domain.

      On 29 November 2005, I tried again to obtain the passenger list of flight AA77 from American Airlines.{129} Sean Bentel of American Airlines first sent me a typed list that consisted of nothing more than the first and last names of 53 passengers from that flight. The list did not include Arab names. Asking again for “something more authentic,” Sean Bentel responded that ”the names I sent you are accurate… There may have been a formatting problem.” In turn I responded that the problem was not the formatting of the data. Here is what I wrote:

      What I am asking is a replica of the original passenger list (either a scan of the original, or at least a document faithfully reflecting the contents of that list)…[namely] the list of the paying passengers who boarded AA77. Can I take it that the list you sent me faithfully reflects the names of the paying passengers who boarded AA77?

      Within hours Sean Bentel answered in the most laconic manner: “Mr. Davidsson, Names of terrorists were redacted. Sean Bentel.” Asked in return “why can’t you send me a facsimile copy of the passenger lists, including the names of the terrorists?” Sean Bentel answered, “This is the information we have for public release.” This was the end of this exchange.

      I also turned to United Airlines. On 21 October 2004, I asked per email why the original flight manifests have not yet been publicized and whether United Airlines had provided some media with a copy of the original flight manifests. The airline answered that “[a]ll matters pertaining to the September 11th terrorist attacks are under the investigation of the U.S. Federal Authorities. Please contact the FBI.” That was it.

      In February 2012, I requested on the base of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the FBI the release of Document 302, serial 7134, which contains “flight manifests for hijacked flights” and “information related to manifests.”{130} The request was denied.

      As the names of all victims and alleged hijackers were publicized within days after 9/11, there could be no plausible reason for refusing to confirm the accuracy and authenticity of information that already exists in the public domain. Authenticated flight manifests were neither provided to the Congressional Joint Inquiry of 2002 nor to the 9/11 Commission. It must therefore be presumed that no genuine flight manifests for the four 9/11 flights exist or that whatever the airlines and the FBI do possess does not correspond with the official allegations.

      To sum up: No document has been produced by the airlines or the U.S. government proving that anyone, let alone the alleged