Dean Hartwell's April 30th appearance on Rollie Quaid's "Blackballed" podcast is available for listening here. You will hear what Hartwell has to say about planes without passengers on 9/11, the RFK assassination and his thoughts on religion!
Here is the official timeline for American 11 on September 11, 2001 with facts inserted:
7:40 AM—Boston, Logan Airport. Ninety-two people, including 11 crew members, board American 11, a Boeing 767-223ER with tail number N334AA. The flight destination is Los Angeles.
Fact: There is no proof of passengers boarding this flight.
Noted researcher Elias Davidsson names the evidence that the government should have revealed if it really had a case that could be proven as to the people that boarded the planes:
In order to prove that particular individuals actually boarded the aircrafts and died at the known crash sites, at least three types of evidence could and should have been produced: Authenticated passenger lists (or flight manifests) displaying their names, identification of any of the passengers as they boarded the aircraft, and identification of their bodily remains from the crash sites.
7:59 AM—American 11 takes off from runway 4-R.
Fact: Flight 11 never took off on September 11, 2001.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) originally did not show American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 as having been scheduled or having taken off on September 11, 2001. The late researcher Gerard Holmgren identified this fact and made it public on November 13, 2003.
The BTS, which records the actual departure time of all commercial flights contemporaneously, originally showed no entry for American 11 on that day (suspiciously, records of this flight and American 11 were later altered),
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.”
BTS records were filed contemporaneously with the events of that day. This evidence is highly significant 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.
Furthermore, the official story cannot be specific about where the take-off occurred. It cannot pinpoint the boarding gate as Gate 26 or Gate 32. Nor has any relative or friend of any of the “passengers” of any “flight” identified themselves as the one who drove the “passenger” to the airport or waited with them at the boarding gate.
8:13 AM—The pilots’ last radio communication is made from the pilots to ground control: "twenty right American eleven."
8:15 AM—Boston Air Traffic Control begins unsuccessful attempts to contact the pilots after the plane fails to respond to an order to climb.
8:20 AM—American 11 stops transmitting its transponder signal and veers northward and departs dramatically from the westward heading of its planned route. The controllers conclude that the plane has probably been hijacked.
8:21-8:46—Amy (Madeline) Sweeney, one of the flight attendants, calls Michael Woodward from airline’s field services. Sweeney allegedly tells Woodward that two airline attendants have been stabbed and that the flight took off from Gate 32. Betty Ong, another flight attendant, calls Vanessa Minter at the airline’s reservations. Ong and Sweeney both refer to a “Flight 12,” which never flew for American Airlines that day.
Fact: American Airline employee Elizabeth Williams later told the FBI that she had gone down to Gate 32 after hearing of Sweeney’s comments from Woodward. She found an “empty airplane” matching the description of Flight 11.
An empty airplane!
8:24 AM—The following transmission is reportedly received from Flight 11:
We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you'll be okay ... we are returning to the airport.
...Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.
Nobody move please we are going back to the airport ... don't try to make any stupid moves.
Fact: Neither of the pilots pressed the distress call button, which would have taken only a few seconds.
Ong, Sweeney and Barbara Olson (also alleged to have called from a flight that day) all made calls traced back to the same phone number! The use of a common phone to transmit false messages could easily explain the “voices from the cockpit.”
8:28 AM—controllers reportedly watch the plane make a 100-degree turn toward the south. This movement is allegedly conducted by hijackers, who had breached the cockpit.
Fact: Mainstream media sources have revealed that people with the same names and other identifying information of hijackers were alive after 9/11. Following is a list of the names of the alleged hijackers on Flight 11 and who allegedly lived past 9/11:
· Waleed al-Shehri—LIVED
· Wail al-Shehri—LIVED
· Abdulaziz al-Omari—LIVED
· Mohammed Atta
· Satam M.A. Al Suqami
8:46 AM—The plane crashes into the World Trade Center (north tower), killing everyone on board.
Aftermath—Firefighters and rescue workers find human remains at the World Trade Center and the immediate area and within a year medical examiners declare that the remains matched DNA samples given by the passengers' families. A copy of the manifest shows the names of passengers who took the flight.
Fact: No source independent of the government has identified remains of any of the flight’s passengers. As elements in the government were complicit in tampering with the flight records, how can elements of the government be trusted with the so-called DNA samples?
Davidsson points to a lack of a “chain of custody.” This is a legal principle which directs those who investigate a crime to document (1) how and where they find evidence and (2) how the evidence got to the point of a legal hearing.
He states that “there is no indication that a proper chain of custody between the crash sites and the final disposition of bodily remains had been established by the FBI, as required in criminal cases. The 9/11 Commission did not refer to any such documentation.”
With no solid chain of custody, a prosecutor (the state) can conceivably bring just about any piece of evidence to the attention of the jury. And when the public is the jury with no judge to referee, the state can use this opportunity to perpetuate a false story.
Fact: Information about the plane parts does not add up.
No debris from the scene at the World Trade Center has ever been traced by serial number to the plane that allegedly flew on 9/11 as Flight 11.
Put another way, 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.
 Various sources are used for this and the other flight timelines. These sources include media sources quoting authorities, transcripts of air traffic controllers and documents prepared by officials.
Jesus is Not Coming Back. He Was Not Here to begin with.
Here comes Easter again. And here comes the Christian story of a savior, Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus Christ, who was crucified and comes back to life.
The Apostle Paul stated, “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.” (1 Corinthians 15).
I have news for you, Paul: Faith is in vain. A few simple questions make this fact easy to discern.
For instance, where was Nazareth? According to Nazarethgate, scholars have been unable to find a place by this name in the part of the world that Jesus allegedly lived during that period of time. But scholars do agree that some people were then known as Nazarene.
And the editions of the Bible reflect this consensus on the issue of Nazareth. The King James edition of the Bible, published in 1611, mentions “Jesus of Nazareth,” whereas the New International Version of the Bible, published in 1978, speaks of “Jesus the Nazarene.”
All four Gospels, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, describe Jesus carrying or receiving help carrying his cross to its destination. But the Romans, who governed the area in question, did not have many trees from which to make crosses. According to Crucifixion’s a Doddle, “Trees were, clearly, a scarce and valuable commodity in Jerusalem at the time.”
As for the cross, the Christian religion did not widely use it as a symbol of the religion until the fourth century, according to Creating Christ. Prior to then, the church used the anchor and the dolphin.
There are no eyewitnesses to the resurrection mentioned in the Bible. And according to the Gospel of Mark, of which the other three gospels are based, no one could have reported the empty tomb or the resurrection. Mark 16 states that a young man dressed in a white robe who tells three women, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Salome, that Jesus had risen and that they should go to Galilee to see him.
But in the last verse in the original manuscript, verse 8, the women became scared and said nothing to anyone. One must wonder how this story was ever told.
Why should we believe that Jesus will return? Here are his words according the Gospel of Matthew: “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)
Two thousand years have gone by since Jesus supposedly uttered these words. The people who lived during that time are long gone. I hope that faith will some day be buried as well.
Dean Hartwell made an appearance on the live broadcast "I Protest" and talked to Donald Jeffries about his ideas on the subject of 9/11. Click the link below and listen to Hartwell discuss planes without passengers, Betty Ong, the "scripting" of the official narrative by actors and much more for ninety minutes.
“The Immaculate Reception”
Pittsburgh Steelers 13 Oakland Raiders 7
December 23, 1972
Three Rivers Stadium Pittsburgh, PA
I would never actually see this game but would read about it not too long afterwards. At the age of four, I was wandering around the local shopping mall helping my older brother and my mom get last minute Christmas gifts while my dad, suffering a case of the flu, tuned into the game. He would relate to me years later that he couldn’t figure out what happened, so I went to YouTube and reviewed the play myself hundreds of times to find the truth of who touched the ball.
One of the most famous games in the history of professional football has given football fans its biggest mystery. Just say the words “Immaculate Reception” to anyone who has followed the game and listen to them try to explain it. The Pittsburgh Steelers hosted the Oakland Raiders in the first round of the playoffs at Three Rivers Stadium. The two teams had met in the first game of the season, with the Steelers winning 34-28. The Steelers won the American Football Conference Central Division with an 11-3 record while the Raiders won 10, lost 3 and tied one.
As I would learn through reading NFL Prolog, an annual review of each year’s football season, this game marked the first appearance in the playoffs for Pittsburgh in twenty-five years. A crowd of 50,327 showed up to see them play the Raiders in person, but the game was “blacked out” locally
The teams played to a scoreless tie in the first half. Roy Gerela kicked two field goals in the second half to give the Steelers a 6-0 lead. But with 1:13 left in the game, Raider quarterback Ken Stabler avoided several Steeler defenders and ran with two bad knees down the left sideline for a very unlikely touchdown of thirty yards. George Blanda’s extra point gave the Raiders the lead.
Quarterback Terry Bradshaw moved his team from their 20-yard line to their 40-yard line with passes to his running backs, Franco Harris and John “Frenchy” Fuqua. But Bradshaw misfired on his next three passes, two of which were knocked down by Raider safety Jack Tatum. Tatum reached over the shoulder of a Steeler receiver to bat one of the balls to the turf.
On fourth down and with 22 seconds left in the game, Bradshaw went back to pass and eluded a fierce Raider rush. Realizing that his initial pass target Barry Pearson was not open, he threw the ball in the direction of Fuqua near the Raider 35-yard line. The ball, Tatum and Fuqua all appeared to arrive at the same time. Tatum came running toward the ball, while Fuqua arrived from the side.
Because of the collision, the ball rebounded about seven yards to the other Steeler running back, Franco Harris, who caught it and ran all the way into the end zone. Some have disputed that he caught the ball before it hit the ground, but no camera angle answers this question conclusively.
Where is the controversy?
Back then, NFL rules (the Official Rules for Professional Football 1971), stated that once an offensive player touches a pass, he is the only offensive player eligible to catch the pass. There was an exception: if a defensive player touches the pass "first, or simultaneously with or subsequent to its having been touched by only one [offensive] player, then all [offensive] players become and remain eligible" to catch the pass.[i]
The legality of the play comes down to who touched the ball. If Tatum touched the ball, the play was legal, and the referees would have done the right thing by upholding the touchdown. If Tatum did not touch the ball and Fuqua did touch it, the play would not have been legal. The referees should have ruled the pass incomplete and returned the ball to the Raiders to run out the clock. The two angles on the play available on film do not conclusively show the answer to the question of who touched the ball.
So, I will try a different tack to get the answer: First, I will identify the facts not in dispute:
Tatum and Fuqua collided right when the ball arrived.
The ball traveled backwards about seven yards to Harris, who caught it right at ground level.
Then, I will make several guesses as to what happened and choose the hypothesis that fits the facts best.
Hypothesis #1: Tatum alone touched the ball. It makes sense for Tatum to knock the ball down for an incomplete pass as the game would effectively be over and the Raiders would win. The problem with this hypothesis is that Fuqua was between Tatum and the ball. Fuqua has stated, “I knew he [Bradshaw] was going to throw to me. I could see Tatum was heading toward the middle of the field, and that the location of the pass would bring me on a collision course with him. I'm thinking that I just want to get my body between him and the ball.”[ii]
And how did Fuqua, who HAD to catch the ball for his team to have a chance to win, somehow miss it completely? How did Tatum hit the ball and not Fuqua if all three arrived at the same time?
Hypothesis #2: Tatum touched the ball first, and then Fuqua touched it. The same guess as above except that the ball also nicked Fuqua. The ball could have only made slight contact with Fuqua because had the ball bounced off Tatum and struck Fuqua with any kind of force, it would have slowed down and would not likely have flown seven yards back. While Tatum could have hit the ball right before hitting Fuqua, the other question from Hypothesis #1, how Fuqua could miss the ball completely, remains valid.
Hypothesis #3: Fuqua touched the ball first, and then Tatum touched it.
This hypothesis could explain the distance of the ball’s flight to Harris. Fuqua could have touched the ball on the ball’s path to Tatum. Tatum could then have knocked the ball to Harris. But how did Tatum contact Fuqua AND knock the ball seven yards AT THE SAME TIME?
Hypothesis #4: Fuqua alone touched the ball. Tatum was a hard-hitting safety who had a knack for hitting a player just as the ball arrived. He would have to hit Fuqua in such a manner that the hit would carry the ball hitting Fuqua back with enough force to propel it seven yards. But how did the hit Tatum applied to Fuqua cause the ball the project seven yards?
Selecting a Hypothesis
The hypothesis that appears to answer the facts best is number 4. Tatum’s ability to hit Fuqua with enough force to cause the ball to go seven yards can be answered sufficiently. Tatum hit players with intensity, paralyzing New England Patriot wide receiver Darryl Stingley with a (legal) hit. He hit Minnesota Viking wide receiver Sammy White so hard in Super Bowl XI that White’s helmet came off. (Interestingly, White held on to the ball!)
And he dislodged the football from Denver Bronco running back Rob Lytle in the 1977 AFC Championship game with a precise strike on the ball. If anyone could hit another player hard enough to make a football fly back seven yards, it would be Jack Tatum.
Another test to apply is to note the reactions of the players around him, some of whom likely had an idea as to who touched the ball. Three of the closest players to the action were Raider defense back Jimmy Warren, defensive tackle Art Thoms and linebacker Gerald Irons. Warren and Thoms, behind Tatum, can be seen starting to clap after Tatum made the hit. Irons ran in front of Tatum and slowed down after the hit. Tatum himself appears to come to almost a complete stop after the hit.
His reaction is not consistent with a player who could see the ball on its way to Harris UNLESS he was convinced that he (Tatum) had not touched the ball. All the Raiders gave chase to Harris. Some would say that this reaction is consistent with a belief that the play was legal. However, with no referees having given any indication that the play was illegal (i.e. a flag or a whistle), the Raiders had no choice but to play on and contest the call later.
Fuqua’s reaction is telling. After hitting the ground in response to the contact with Tatum, he appears to look into the ground. He only looks up after Harris has caught the ball and the crowd has responded. Tatum, who passed away in 2010, said that he did not touch the ball. He told author John Lombardo, “I’ve watched films and still have never seen a film that showed I actually touched the ball.”[iii]
But Fuqua will not publicly say what happened. If he knew he did not touch the ball or if he knew that Tatum did, it would make sense for him to come out and say it to lift the cloud that hangs over the integrity of this game. I learned the power of proximity. It helps to hold the big game on your home turf where the fans’ approval or disapproval of a call is certainly enough to make referees feel uncomfortable.
Though I did not see this game personally, I have seen replays of this play hundreds of times thanks to YouTube and replays sometimes shown on football games. I have also seen still pictures, read about this play and debated it with other football fans on the Internet. From all of this, I got a sense of what really happened.
After Harris ran in for the touchdown, fans started to pour onto the field. It took fifteen minutes for order to be restored so that Roy Gerela could kick the extra point. What would these fans have done had the call been made the other way?
A person’s first instincts are for self-preservation. With the thought of angry fans on their hands, the referees, no more aware of who touched the ball then than we are forty years later, took the safe option of calling a touchdown for the home team.
Look at the official story: The head official, Fred Swearingen, went to the baseball dugout and phoned the head of NFL referees, Art McNally. According to McNally, Swearingen "never asked me about the rule, and never asked what I saw. All he said was, 'Two of my men say that opposing players touched the ball.' And I said, 'everything's fine then, go ahead.'"[iv]
At face value, McNally’s recollection of Swearingen’s comment makes little sense. If Swearingen knew the rule on players touching the ball and he knew opposing players touched the ball, then he already knew what call needed to be made. If he already had the call in mind, then why bother getting on the phone with the head of referees? If he was not certain of the rule, there was no need for Swearingen to talk to McNally. Swearingen could simply have consulted the rule book to confirm he had the rule correctly. That would have taken away the appearance of impropriety that he made by contacting McNally.
If he was not certain of what happened on the play, then again Swearingen should have had no use for McNally. His fellow referees had already reported that “opposing players touched the ball.” The head of referees had no authority to rule as to the facts of the play. Reading about this game makes me read into statements that people make.
The facts are clear that Swearingen got on the phone with someone. Whether he talked to McNally or not, the conversation was not about the facts of the play or the applicable rule. Most likely, a serious question came over him as to what had really happened. He probably leaned toward the explanation that only Fuqua had touched the ball and did what many do when confronting an unpleasant truth: he looked for someone to talk him out of the truth or to at least give him a little encouragement.
The deepest truth of this game is that home field advantage covers a lot of ground.
[iii] Lombardo, John. Raiders Forever: Stars of the NFL’s Most Colorful Team Recall Their Glory Days; McGraw Hill, New York, 2001 (page 97)
What do I know after fifty years of life? I have gotten to know myself a little. I cannot act, I cannot dance and people pay me not to sing. But I am one of those rare people who enjoys giving a speech!
American Airlines Flight 11 attendant Amy Sweeney allegedly made a call to American Airlines Flight Service at Boston Logan Airport. She told a manager for American Airlines that “Flight 12 at Gate 32” had two flight attendants stabbed.
But Gate 32 was the gate that Flight 11 was supposed to have departed from.
American Airline employee Elizabeth Williams told the FBI that she had gone down to Gate 32 after hearing of Sweeney’s comment. And found an empty plane matching the description of Flight 11.
An empty plane. That was supposed to be full of passengers crashing into the World Trade Center.
This is a "smoking gun" that completely destroys the official story of 9/11!
How has the official story succeeded in spite of this fact? Simple. It is because facts do not matter when people get scared.
We became scared of Middle Easterners, Muslims and hijackings after watching the news repeatedly. The theory that nineteen hijackers, all Middle Eastern and all Muslim, would attack us rang a chord because our society prejudices against people from the Middle East and against Muslims.
This prejudice is hardly new. I recall the United States Embassy taken over in Tehran in 1979 by people referred to as Muslim “fundamentalists.” Everyone I knew blamed the Iranians and made fun of their leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Of course, I believed like everyone else. Years later, I can see the Iranian side to the story. Our Central Intelligence Agency participated in a successful plot to overthrow a democratically elected leader in Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh. This coup happened in 1954.
Think about this: For a quarter of a century, the Iranian people had to put up with a leader, the Shah Reza Pahlavi, whom they did not elect! How would we like it if another country imposed a president on us?
During the Shah’s regime, the United States traded weapons for cheap oil and provided intelligence to the Shah’s secret police, the SAVAK. The Shah was no friend to human rights and ordered the jailing and execution of countless people.
Little wonder, then, that when the Ayatollah had a chance to take over the nation that hundreds of thousands of loyal supporters helped him gain power. And when the Ayatollah pointed the finger at the United States for some of their nation’s difficulties that these supporters followed his lead and took over the Embassy.
I can now say that the United States was very much at fault for the hostage taking now. But then I could not. This truth was too much to take. Our whole nation was furious. People who appeared to be Middle Eastern were eyed with suspicion. It felt like war might even break out – not against Iran, for fear we would cause harm to our own people there – but rather against those who did not go along with the official line that Iran was at fault.
So here we are again. The seeds of prejudice, planted long ago, still grow. The target of our hatred has moved from the Ayatollah (who died in 1989) to Manuel Noriega of Panama to Saddam Hussein of Iraq to Osama bin Laden and to anyone else who appears to cause us any trouble or get in the way of something we want.
Other issues persist in our society: shootings in schools, cyberwarfare and weapons buildup. These issues will continue to persist because they go back to the same issue brought to our attention about 9/11: security.
But it is not so much our physical security at risk as it is our feelings of security in society.
We want to feel secure in our environment. It doesn’t matter whether we are at home or in front of the White House: as our need for security increases, our interest in speaking the truth decreases.
I Know a Lot about a Little
I believe my readers will read something I write if they perceive my knowledge on the topic. Fortunately, there are a few topics of which I have gained knowledge, through my own experiences and/or thousands of hours of reading.
For instance, I have studied the JFK assassination seriously since 1982. I had heard of the event before that time, but did not study it closely until I saw a movie called The Man Who Saw Tomorrow, a movie about the alleged prophet Nostradamus. The movie showed a clip of JFK getting shot and it made me want to understand the point of view of those who say his head moved backwards by a shot from behind.
That is thirty-six years of books, movies, speeches, symposiums and anything else I could find. I could write about this murder, and the murder of his brother, Robert, which I have studied for approximately the same amount of time. But having offered my thoughts in Dead Men Talking, my second book, I chose not to go beyond making it clear that the alleged assassins did not commit the respective crimes.
Then there is 9/11. After believing the official theory for four years, I picked up a copy of The New Pearl Harbor, a book by David Ray Griffin, I became intrigued that a respected professor of philosophy would suggest that the events of that day were not what the public had been told.
So I read and read and read. And watched videos. And heard what others had to say. Over the next five years I focused upon the planes allegedly used and the passengers who allegedly flew in the event. I started to formulate conclusions and eventually locked myself in an office for a weekend and wrote many of them out. They formed part of the basis for Dead Men Talking, which came out in 2009.
I started to receive invitations to speak on podcasts, namely from Jim Fetzer, and discussed my thoughts. I discovered new information about the flights and came up with the best phrase I have ever come up with, Planes without Passengers, which became my third book in 2011. The second edition of this book became my best selling book the following year.
In subsequent books on the topic, I have determined that some "evidence," like the Social Security Data Index, have little value in assessing whether specific people actually died that day; the helpfulness of asking and answering a series of questions to form the context of an opinion; and the interest in reading the ideas of what people who allege friendships with the so-called passengers. I have steered clear of what exactly brought the towers down as I do not have much of a scientific background.
I have also tried my hand at writing an auto-biography of my earlier years, A Fan's Folklore, using professional sports players and games as metaphors of what I learned growing up. My discontent with the Christian religion, backed by my deep reading of the Bible and pro- and anti-Christian works, led me to write a novel about Judgment Day called St. Peter's Choice.
I love to write because I work without supervision. My bosses, if any, are my audience. My aim now is to find a topic that satisfies me and those who read my works.
I need expertise on the subject - and I have it with the Kennedy assassinations, 9/11 and critique of Christianity. Does anyone see a winning book thesis here?
"I particularly liked the way Dean points out what story elements the plotters needed to control the public’s minds. How the Cass Sunstein and Phillip Zelikow types master- crafted this 9-11 Myth is made clear.". - Jeannon Krajl
"Dean has added yet another piece to the 9/11 puzzle." - David R. Wayne
"Mythology 911 attempts to answer all these questions and many more. He [Hartwell] names gatekeepers and asks some interesting questions along the way." - Chuck Ochelli
Mythology 9/11 comes in three versions:
Kindle (short version)
Kindle (long version)
September 11 will be here soon. i have spent the last thirteen years researching the event known as 9/11. I have read the Official 9/11 Report, just as I have read the Warren Report. These reports foster myths like “19 hijackers” and the “single bullet theory” to steer us from asking questions whose answers would change the way we view the institutions that keep our society together. The choice we face between accepting mythology by sweeping unpleasant truths under the rug and risking censure by speaking up isn’t an easy one. With that in mind, I bid you all peace Tuesday and every other day.
Dean Hartwell keeps pursuing the truth about those who govern us.