9/11 Misinformation: Flight “Passenger Lists” Show “No Hijacker Names”
The assertion that 9/11 passengers lists “contained no Arab names” is frequently seen in the 9/11 truth movement. 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…?” 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.” 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.” 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.”
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.” However, many 9/11 researchers mistakenly cited “victim lists”—not passenger lists. From the 911 research website, Jim Hoffman explains:
“According to the official story, teams of four and five Islamic hijackers took over Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93. Victims lists for the four planes published by CNN and elsewhere are free of Arab names… This fact has been highlighted as suspicious by some researchers describing the lists as passenger manifests. However, these lists are not passenger manifests, but lists of victims… CNN describes its criteria for including persons in its memorial in a pop-up window labelled ‘About this site’… ‘(Those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included)…’ In July of 2006 a large collection of documents was published on a website containing prosecution and defense exhibits for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui… The faxes, reproduced below, include the names of the alleged hijackers.”
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.
What about the security videos? 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’…” 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.” 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.” 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.” 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.” Unusually, the video does not have a time stamp on it. The only other video evidence does not come from airports involved in the 9/11 attack. 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.”
Elias Davidsson claims that, “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.”
By refusing to release evidence, the U.S. Government is actually encouraging speculation and misinformation. 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.”
However, as 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.” Ruppert does not endorse the claim that “no hijacker names appear on the passenger lists” in his book Crossing the Rubicon. Promoting mistakes even after they have been pointed would be an example of disinformation.
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. 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.”
 Enver Masud, 9/11 Commission Report: Why No Arab Names on Passenger List? July 26, 2004
 Jim Hoffman, Passenger Lists: Victims Lists, Passenger Manifests, and the Alleged Hijackers, http://911research.wtc7.net/, page last modified: August 27, 2008
 Doug Hanchett and Robin Washington, “Logan Lacks Video Cameras.” Boston Herald September 29 2001
 Denise Lavoie, Company helps 9/11 probe after losing one of its own, Associated Press. September 11, 2002.
Paul Thompson’s 9/11 timelines 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.” Paul Thompson, Context of 'February 2008: Considerable Video Footage of 9/11 Hijackers Remains Unreleased', Complete 9/11 Timeline
 Michael C. Ruppert, MICHAEL RUPPERT RESPONDS TO VICTOR THORN'S TEN QUESTIONS, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/, October 7, 2004