Passenger manifests are not evidence of the persons having been on board

Claim

Passenger manifests are not evidence of the persons having been on board⁰.

Background

Jeppe Severin, representative and spokesperson for the Danish Truth Movement, claims that there is no evidence that Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Hani Hanjour, who the forensic investigation named as three of the suicide pilots, were on the three planes Flight 11, Flight 175, and Flight 77⁰. Since those three terrorists from al Qaeda appeared on the passenger manifests for the three planes, it must mean that passenger manifests are not evidence that the persons have been on board.

Facts

Passenger manifests are used to identify who boarded a plane. The airline company has to make sure that those who board the plane are also those who are supposed to be on the plane. One reason is to enable passengers in transit to board connecting flights¹. The manifests are also used to prevent intruders from unauthorized boarding. It is mandatory for the airline companies to make sure that the information is correct, since these data are used, among others, by the immigration authorities in the country of destination to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country². The manifests are also used to identify casualties in the event of a crash or other forms of disaster³. Concerning Flight 77’s impact with the Pentagon, all on board, including the five terrorists from al Qaeda, were subsequently identified based on the passenger manifests, DNA, and body parts. The only exception was a three-year old child who was on the passenger manifest but could not be found among the debris. The passenger manifests of the remaining three planes were also used to identify those on board the planes⁴. The passenger manifests were invaluable for the FBI who relatively quickly could identify the hijackers by means of elimination⁵. In the courts of law, passenger manifests are considered sufficient evidence that the person in question has been on board, e.g. when inquests are held, and when compensation from insurance companies are to be paid⁶.

Logic

If passenger manifests are not evidence that the persons have been on board the planes, it raises several fundamental problems:

1. There is likewise no evidence that any of the four captains of the four planes were really on board, or any of the crew members. All four planes must therefore have taken off completely empty without captains, crews, or passengers.
   • But: This means that if all persons listed on the passenger manifests were not on board, they are possibly still alive. It follows that the relatives are part of the conspiracy.

• If the passengers are kept prisoners some unknown place or have been bribed to keep quiet, we are talking about no less than 257 persons. None have shown up or have been reported as kept imprisoned.
• The last possibility is that all have been murdered and the bodies been disposed of. This implicates directly all forensic personnel, who identified the victims based on body parts and DNA, in a cover-up. No forensic personnel have come forward and spilled the beans.
• Since all four planes have taken off quite empty, they must have been remotely controlled.
  • But: This means that if the planes were remotely controlled, why steer Flight 11 into World Trade Center 1 at a banked angle, Flight 175 into World Trade Center 2 with pronounced bank angle and crashing into the building close to the southeast corner, and Flight 77 into the Pentagon after a downwards spiral maneuvre, when it would be easier to just let the planes take the most direct and leveled route right into the buildings?
  • The mechanics, the airline companies, and the airports must have been part of the conspiracy, keeping quiet. If the planes have been taken out of circulation, it must have been written down somewhere. Otherwise, the planes would have been missing at that early stage.
  • Furthermore, had the planes been remotely controlled, why not let Flight 11 and Flight 175 hit the Twin Towers as low and with as slow speed as possible? The damage would be greater, since less fuel would burn outside the Twin Towers. There would also be more weight above the impacts, making the buildings collapse earlier, killing more people.
  If the claim is true, and the planes were empty, the claim is in conflict with these other claims:
  • There were fewer passengers than usual on the planes.⁷
  • One of the passengers saw a gun.⁸
  • Edward Felt told of smoke and explosion on Flight 93.⁹
  Finally, if the claim is true with those consequences, the alleged conspiracy is all-powerful and pure genius and at the same time mind-numbingly incompetent and sloppy.

  Conclusion

  The claim is therefore:
  • False
  • Undocumented
  • Self-contradicting
  • In conflict with other claims

  Sources

  0. “Desuden ER der ikke nogle beviser for, Mohammad Attar, Marwan al-Shehhi og Hani Hanjour overhovedet er gået ombord i de tre fly.”, Jeppe Severin, Facebook
  1. Passenger name record, Wikipedia
  2. UK passes 10,000 border arrests due to screening system, BBC News
  3. Concorde crash: Continental Airlines killings verdict quashed, BBC News
  4. Passagerfortegnelse
  5. Identifikation af flykaprerne
  6. Air France Flight 447, Wikipedia Kun 50 omkomne, af de ombordværende 228 personer, blev fundet.
  7. Fewer passengers onboard the planes than usual
  8. One of the passengers saw a gun
  9. Flight 93 was shot down

  Q & A