you carnt not appear on a flight list.

[marky 54]

posted this in critics corner but would like to know what everyone thinks as critics corner is a no go area for some i bet.

we were shown lists of the passengers on each flight with not enough names to account for the hijackers. we were told the hijackers were identified by a process of elimination from dna obtained at the various scenes. however how did the hijackers not appear on the list? and how did the passengers appear on the list? i assume you would have to buy a ticket to get on a flight unless let on in secret by the back door. i then assume you would before bording the craft take the ticket to check in onto the flight which will be scanned or something to make a list of whos on the flight and whos not. this is how they know if anyone who bought tickets is late or missed the flight. that way they know to hang on an extra 5 minutes or if there was a crash they would know who exactly was on the flight and who wasnt. either way the names of the hijackers should be on the list regardless of false identification. or they were let on and bypassed the whole process which would suggest conspiracy by someone inside the airport, or there was fore knowledge and the names of the hijackers were deliberatly missed of the list. now im not suggestion any of those to be true but just pointing out that no matter how you look at it the offical line dosnt fit as the cctv footage still clearly shows them going through the process of checking in ect.

[hampton]

the film flight 93 shows electronic ticket scanners in use.

as i understand it, in order to identify a dead person from dna you need a sample of their dna from before the incident or you could use a close family member.

[kc]

I'm pretty sure I saw a couple of reports that said the hijackers names had been removed to avoid hurting the feelings of next of kin. I'll have a dig.

[marky 54]

i expected the answer to be something simple, but my problem is how do we know the hijackers were on the mentioned planes unless a full copy of the manifest was relased to the public. it means we are just believing what we have been told with no proof unless there is a full manifest available. we were told a b and c with no proof of a making b and c questionable to. however if there is a manifest with all names on a is pretty much certain and i can move on to b, but as it stands we have been told to believe the whole story with no proof of hijackers checking onto the plane, cctv footage dosnt mean they got on the mentioned planes. and the security thing at the airport can be passed of as a lapse as pre 9/11 secruity was less strict even if we might not beileve it to be possible. when a crime has been commited the first thing you need to prove for it to be accepted is that the said person/persons where there, its really stupid if this evidance isnt availble to the public. a list of victims with names taken off only proves the victims checked in and suggests there were no hijackers on those planes.

[hampton]

i could easily be wrong, but as far as i remember we've never seen any cctv footage, only stills, of the hijackers.

surely a manifest must be in the commission report?

on the pre-911 security, supposedly it was like taking a bus.
someone supposedly used a disney passport to travel all over the place.

[telecasterisation]

[Skeptic]

[kc]

[prole art threat]

One of the best answers I have ever got from a loony official theorist when the subject of flight manifests not including hijackers or indeed arab sounding names was broached was, "Ah, well the reason for that is because that is not a passenger list, it's a victims's list and hijackers arent classed as 'victims'.

[telecasterisation]

[physicist]

[marky 54]

bushwacker kindly linked me to a previous thread about the manifest in critics corner. however they appear as though anyone could of typed them up with the correct equipment, and some of the pages have the date oct 02 not a clue why that date is there, but who ever handled the documents did so nearly a year after. some of the words seem to have been penned in which suggests the document has been photocopied numerous times making some words hard to read. i use to work in a print shop and know it is very easy to make things disapear or even be added, scissors and tipex are very easy to come by. however that dosnt mean they are faked but at the same time that dosnt mean they are not. there surely has to be more convincing copys of the manifest knocking around how can we trust a photocopy?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

marky 54

Will you take part in the 911 Truth March

[marky 54]

if i could i would. would be great to meet some of you however cannot guarentee it. pm me details and ill check if it is possible.

[hampton]

where & when is this truth march?