The 9/11 No Passenger Theory
As one who has long doubted the official 9/11 theory, I have frequently heard the question, “So, what happened to the passengers?”
The question is fair. But it is also premature. It leads the listener away from plausible answers.
The best questions do not lead, but instead encourage the listener to engage with an open mind. With that said, this essay will ask and answer the question, “Were there passengers?”
In order to answer this question effectively, we must ascertain all of the available facts connected to the issue of passengers. A fact is “a truth known by actual experience or observation.” Here are five facts about the events of 9/11:
· The flights of American Airlines 11 and American Airlines 77 did not fly on September 11, 2001.
· The flights of United Airlines 175 and United Airlines 93 were in the air long after media reports of their “crashes.”
· None of the alleged crash sites yielded airplane parts positively connected to the planes that allegedly crashed there.
· Cell phone calls made at the heights passenger planes reach would be highly unlikely, if not impossible, to connect to recipients on the ground.
· United Airline 77 did not have air phones available at the time.
American Airlines 11 and 77
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Table shows: “on-time arrival and departure data for non-stop domestic flights by month and year, by marketing network, marketing carrier that reports and regional code-share group, by origin and destination airport. Includes scheduled and actual departure and arrival times, canceled and diverted flights, taxi-out and taxi-in times, causes of delay and cancellation, airtime, and non-stop distance.”
The BTS Table for September 11, 2001 originally did not show American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 as having been scheduled or having taken off that day. The late researcher Gerard Holmgren identified this fact and made it public on November 13, 2003.
By 2004, the BTS records showed something completely different about these flights. The new explanation said the following:
“On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.”
Why should we rely upon the BTS records?
BTS records were filed contemporaneously with the events of that day. This evidence is highly reliable because it (1) involves records routinely kept by a government agency that (2) were unaccountably altered in a way that appears to cover up a fact incongruent with the official story.
The reliability of this evidence makes it one of the first things a real investigation would have looked at in studying the case. This evidence also trumps so-called “passenger lists” or “manifests” which could much more easily be faked.
The alteration of evidence suggests the consciousness of guilt, and the availability of the original records to the public has been hampered by those with the duty to reveal them.
United Airlines 175 and 93
Airplane Communications and Reporting System (ACARS) messages were sent to Flight 175 that indicate that the plane was heading far away from its “crash” scene. ACARS is “In aviation, an acronym for aircraft communications addressing and reporting system) is a digital datalink system for transmission of short messages between aircraft and ground stations via air band radio or satellite.”
Pilots for 9/11 Truth discovered that ACARS had tracked Flight 175 in western Pennsylvania fifteen minutes after it allegedly struck the World Trade Center. The plane is identified clearly as N612UA. Pilots also found that ACARS had tracked United 93 over Champaign, Illinois, at the same time as its alleged crash in Shanksville. It is identified clearly by the ACARS as N591UA.
Why should we rely upon ACARS records?
The ACARS information was recorded contemporaneously and traced to the plane’s serial number, a more accurate way to identify a plane than by its flight number as flight numbers may vary among the plane’s flights.
Every part of each airplane has a serial number on the part that identifies several things about the part such as when it is time for that part to be replaced and which specific plane that part is on.
With crashes alleged at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Shanksville, there should have been several opportunities for investigators to identify such plane pieces. For example, Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) commented that had United 93 crashed in Shanksville, “there would have [been] literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft.”
However, no debris from any “crash” scene has ever been traced by serial number to the plane that allegedly flew on 9/11 as Flight 11, Flight 175, Flight 77 or Flight 93.
David Ray Griffin explains the utter lack of consistency in the official explanations of phone calls on the planes associated with 9/11. He does an excellent job of explaining how the FBI at first remained silent (in 2001) as to what phones were used on the planes. 
He then discusses the chronology of A.K. Dewdney’s report, which made it clear that cell phone calls were then only reasonably possible at altitudes of less than 2,000 feet. Griffin notes that the subsequent FBI report for the 2006 Zacarias Moussaoui trial changed identification of all but two calls from cell to air phone.
From Griffin’s analysis of the work of researchers like Dewdney, we can easily surmise that the official story on the number of cell phones changed drastically after it became known publicly the difficulty in getting cell phones to work at typical airplane altitudes.
Furthermore, at the Moussaoui trial, the prosecution and the defense both stipulated to the phone call findings. That is to say, they never debated the veracity of the calls or the phone records, meaning that we cannot use the court system to determine whether the calls really took place.
There is also serious doubt that any of the American Airlines Boeing 757 planes had air phones. Griffin cites several sources, including representatives from American Airlines, the airline flight maintenance manuals and pilots, that make it clear that Boeing 757s, of which American 77 was one, did not have functioning onboard phones in September 2001.
Cross-Examination of the “No Passenger” Theory:
These facts tell us that two of the flights did not take off and two others flew but did not crash. They also make clear that phone calls were not made from any flight, either. A hypothesis can be formed that there were no passengers involved in the events of 9/11.
This hypothesis should be cross-examined in order to test its validity. Here is the strongest evidence for passengers and my response to this evidence:
Surveillance camera footage of “hijackers”
A blog written in 2017 purports to “debunk” the claim that a closed-circuit television CCTV) recording of Dulles airport has no authenticity. It shows pictures from a video that depict two men who allegedly hijacked American Airlines 77 and a woman who allegedly boarded the plane.
The blog identifies the “hijackers” as Khalid al-Mihder and Majed Moqed and the “passenger” as Mari-Rae Sopper. The three are shown going through the screening process.
A picture, they say, tells a thousand words. But the full picture of proving there were passengers requires far more words than what we see here.
For the sake of argument, we could excuse the lack of a time stamp and agree that the videotape and the pictures taken from it are indeed from September 11, 2001. We could also assume that the place in question is Dulles Airport. We could even assume that the people in the picture are who the blogger says they are.
But the pictures cannot possibly prove that al-Mihder or Moqed hijacked the plane. This assertion relies upon assumptions about phone calls made from airplanes and lists of hijackers provided by the FBI. It also pales as evidence in comparison to official, contemporaneous records that American 77 did not fly. The same evidence also outweighs the assertion that Sopper actually boarded American 77.
There is a better explanation for the pictures: they were used to frame people for a crime that never happened. Even the blogger makes mention of how easily the authorities “found” these hijackers on the tape: “…others recalled how the feds came and seized the security video and were able to fast forward quickly enough and identify the hijackers.”
How did the federal officials get to the pictures of “hijackers” so quickly? They were incredibly prescient and lucky or they were told where to look.
I ran across an article printed in the Daily News exactly one year after 9/11. It contains the statement:
“DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have been linked to a single person. The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes…”
Is it really that simple? Members of a policy forum on the lessons of the attack said this about the DNA search:
“The condition of the remains ranged from a few nearly complete bodies to multitudes of tiny fragments of charred bone, often difficult to distinguish from inorganic material. The fires affected the remains with temperatures exceeding 1000°C that burned for more than 3 months.
The towers’ collapse fragmented and commingled victim remains and admixed building material. Many tissue fragments were retrieved months after the crashes, and bacterial and other processes further compromised the DNA. These factors made it difficult to isolate and genotype the DNA from the specimens.”
This compromise of the DNA causes problems with attempts to identify victims: “when DNA is damaged, as it often is through exposure to moisture or extreme temperatures, only some of these markers will be available, and forensics teams will generate a partial profile. Put simply, if a DNA profile is a complete description of a person’s appearance, a partial profile might describe only one of their traits—hair color, for instance.”
Furthermore, the sample material was limited. The New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME), responsible for the identification of victims at the World Trade Center, did not have enough preexisting (pre-9/11) sample collections to make much of a difference in identifying human remains. Often, the investigators had to use DNA profile of those claiming to be relatives of the victims, which is not as accurate.
According to Naomi Elster of the JSTOR Daily, “Partial profiles will match up with many more people than a full profile. And even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit. Further complicating matters, a single DNA profile might be mistakenly generated when samples from multiple people are accidentally combined. It’s a messy world.”
This discussion pre-supposes that DNA of any passengers were actually located at the alleged crash sites. And unlike the search for plane wreckage, DNA testing is done privately. If fraud is involved, or those collecting samples make mistakes, no one sees it. And it certainly helped those looking for DNA matches to have a ready list of “passengers” available and a public willing to accept its findings without much question.
An interesting thought: how did the investigators fail to find the plane pieces but manage to find DNA samples?
Stories of specific “passengers”
The public learns of names of people said to have crashed in the airplanes and hears of recordings attributed to the same people. Many conclude, “Voila! These people must have been passengers.” But a close check of the evidence of these people and the calls says otherwise.
Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney
A researcher, known as “loopDloop,” wrote an article called “Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls” that appears on the Let’s Roll Forums website. The article reveals the presence of two recordings of the same phone call from flight attendant Betty Ong.
One recording sounds as though it covers up discussion the public was not supposed to hear. The author identifies this and other actions as evidence destruction.
The recording, which can be heard on YouTube here, reveals Ong talking about someone using mace and how no one can breathe. And yet no screams or other signs of passenger panic can be heard nor is anyone heard choking from the mace!
Ong uses the term “Flight 12” and states “We’re on Flight 11 right now,” comments that suggest a conscious effort to use the wrong flight number.
Fellow flight attendant Amy Sweeney also made calls. Hers allegedly went to American Airlines Flight Service at Boston Logan Airport and transcripts apparently show that she identified where hijackers were located on the plane.
And what else? Sweeney also made a reference to “Flight 12”!
The most well-known person allegedly on any of the planes was Barbara Olson. Theories range as to her whereabouts. Some say she was killed off by the plotters, while others say she went away, perhaps to come back later with a new identity.
According to Ted Olson in an interview with Larry King days after the “crash,” Barbara had originally planned to fly from Virginia to Los Angeles on Monday, September 10th. She changed her mind and decided to take the flight on September 11th so that she could spend time with Ted as his birthday was that day.
In the same interview, Ted relates that Barbara stayed overnight with him and awoke with him Tuesday morning. He says that he went to work “very early in the morning, before 6” and that she “left shortly after that to go to the airport.” Again, in the same interview, Ted tells of a brief conversation the two of them had, in which he apparently thought she was boarding or about to board a plane.
Do we know for sure that Barbara stayed over the night of the 10th? Has anyone found the vehicle by which she got to the airport, or stated that they saw her on it?
And what about the alleged calls?
The story went that she, the pilot, and others on American Flight 77 were rounded up by three of four hijackers using box cutters and knives and sent to the back. Barbara Olson called Ted twice for advice on how to handle the situation.
I never could understand why the hijackers allowed her to make a call appealing for help. Nor could I determine why the pilot, Charles Burlingame (a weightlifter and boxer), while in the cockpit, could not have fought off the hijackers or why they did not kill him on the spot. But it got stranger.
Ted Olson changed his story at least twice as to what type of phone his wife used to make the calls. At first, he said she used her cell phone to call collect, but he changed his mind about that when he realized she did not have her credit cards.
Then he stated that she must have used an “air phone” found on the back of some of the seats, but that story did not work because the air phone could not likely have stretched to the back of the plane where Barbara supposedly made the call and because she would have had to use a credit card to initiate it. He then went back to saying it was a cell phone even though studies have shown the exceptional difficulty of making cell phone calls at high altitudes.
All of these facts still did not cause me to believe a story about Ted Olson faking the calls was not likely to be true. Perhaps in the shock of learning of his wife’s imminent demise, he forgot about some of the details. And I had trouble imagining a public official willing to lie about something during what should have been a mourning period.
But new facts emerged when Zacarias Moussaoui went on trial in 2006 and the government had to produce evidence or let the case against one of the alleged masterminds get away. At some point, the prosecutors needed proof that passengers were really on board the flight and the FBI turned over its phone records to them. The records indicated phone calls by other passengers, but the only call from Olson was “unconnected.”
If the FBI, part of the same Department of Justice in which Ted Olson once served as a leader, would not cover for him and protect the story, it sounded like a rare admission from our government that there was a crack in the official story. But there was one more piece of the puzzle.
Why would someone make up the phone calls? Could it be that Barbara Olson was the only person who allegedly said anything about the terrorists’ use of box cutters? The official story, as carried by politicians and the media at the time of the attacks, and the reports done later, speaks at length about the box cutters.
It thus appears more likely than not that Ted Olson, either on his own but more likely at the request of others, made up the calls and inserted “facts” to put a face on the grief and to advance the official story of how terrorists put down anyone who challenged them.
No alleged passenger achieved more fame than Todd Beamer. According to the legend spread through the media, Beamer, confronted by terrorists on United 93, shouted the battle cry “Let’s Roll!” He inspired other passengers to fight back and forced the terrorists to crash the plane in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
Beamer worked for Oracle Corporation selling systems applications and software. Shortly before September 11, 2001, Beamer took a trip to Italy with his wife, Lisa, as a reward from Oracle for his excellence in salesmanship.
Like Barbara Olson, Todd Beamer apparently had the choice of taking a Monday, September 10th flight to get to his destination (San Francisco) or taking the Tuesday flight. A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article in October 2001 noted that Beamer chose to stay at home on the 10th to be with his family.
Like Ted Olson, Lisa Beamer apparently did not see her spouse leave the house that day or at least does not say in what vehicle he may have left. She acknowledges she knew little about the details of his itineraries and in fact thought at first he took a flight on Continental Airlines.
These details may well be insignificant, but they also leave room open for legends to be written.
Beamer made his alleged shout “Let’s Roll” into a telephone that Verizon operator Lisa Jefferson would later say she heard. For several days after this event, Jefferson supposedly was the only person to know of Beamer’s call and the story of a passenger uprising against hijackers.
However, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison sent out a memo to his employees long before the call became public. His memo read:
“We know Todd Beamer is dead. We believe he died when he and other passengers aboard Flight 93 tried to recover the hijacked airplane from the terrorists.… Considering the devastation wrought by the other aircraft, it is unquestionable that Todd’s brave actions, and [those] of his fellow passengers, saved countless lives on the ground.”
Lisa Beamer would later write in her book about Todd, Let’s Roll!: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage:
“How did Larry know that? The FBI hadn’t made any announcement to that effect. Todd’s name had not shown up in any reports indicating that he might have been involved in some way.”
Could Ellison have known about Beamer’s story through Oracle’s connections to the CIA? Evidence shows that the company got its start as a CIA-run project involving some of the people who would later become its leaders.
Strangely, Jefferson said later in her own book, Called: Hello, My Name Is Mrs. Jefferson. I Understand Your Plane Is Being Hijacked. 9:45 Am, Flight 93, September 11, 2001, that she offered to put Beamer through to his wife. Todd inexplicably refused, instead spending the last few minutes of his life on the phone with a stranger!
The facts of Todd Beamer’s story do not add up to his legend.
Cee Cee Lyles
Flight 93 had another alleged call that became famous: the one made by Cee Cee Lyles, said to be a flight attendant. She made a call that wound up on her husband’s voice mail, telling him about the hijacking, how much she loves him, how she hopes to see him again, etc.
A comment at the end of the tape, which can be heard here on YouTube, has caught the attention of many 9/11 researchers: “It’s a frame” (according to some) or “You did great” (according to others).
It does not matter which version (or any other) is correct or who actually made the comment. The statement can be best interpreted by the context surrounding it.
If she really were a flight attendant somehow able to use a phone, she would have contacted the authorities to tell them all she could about the flight position in order to assist a rescuing plane. That is what flight attendants do in an emergency.
The comment at the end is authored by those who authored the whole official story of 9/11. Someone let her use the phone and directed the call. She was on the ground spreading misinformation.
Lyles was not a flight attendant or a passenger or a hero. She was a prop, used by others to direct us away from the truth.
I received an email from a man who claimed he knew a specific person said to be a passenger on Flight 11. He alluded to a source who claimed that he had overheard the passenger, whom I will call “11X,” calling a taxi on the morning of September 11, 2001 and then had seen board with luggage a taxi shortly thereafter. He claims neither he nor anyone else who knew him has seen 11X again.
I assume the good faith of the claims of the man who emailed me. He gave me his name and I looked him up on public sources. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that 11X was in fact a real person who indicated to others he would take a flight from Boston to Los Angeles on that morning and that 11X’s name ended up on a passenger list.
There is no telling where this man is. But we will never find him with the assumption of him flying on a plane that crashed into the World Trade Center.
Which of the following hypotheses about passengers best explains the facts?
The official hypothesis of passengers boarding all four planes, which then get hijacked and crashed, fails for several reasons. There is no credible proof of anyone boarding any of the four airplanes nor of any of the planes crashing.
The alternative hypothesis that passengers were swapped to other planes lacks evidentiary support. What other planes? Where were they flown?
The alternative hypothesis of no passengers agrees with the fact of American 11 and 77 not taking off. And it does not contradict the takeoffs of United 175 and 93 and their respective flights to the Midwest.
The no passengers hypothesis thus best explains the facts.
Furthermore, the ability of this hypothesis to withstand the strongest contradictory evidence offered should help it to gain acceptance by those who research the events of 9/11. It would thus become the no passenger theory.
We can begin to look at names of alleged passengers as names of people who could be alive or dead, fictitious or real. Only then could we start to see the faces of the people who put the passenger hoax together.
 Hendrie, Edward. 9/11: Enemies Foreign and Domestic; Great Mountain Publishing; Garrisonville VA; 2011; 9. See also http://thewebfairy.com/holmgren/1177.html
 Beamer, Lisa and Ken Abraham. Let’s Roll! Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage; Alive Communications; Colorado Springs; 2002; 2.
 Ibid, 5.
 Beamer and Abraham, 195.