Dean Hartwell’s Book: Was 9-11 a Movie?

american_airlines

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

Dean Hartwell is the author of books that ask questions about 9-11. He has asked me to post an excerpt from his latest book, Was 9-11 a Movie? (see below). In an earlier book, Planes without Passengers, he tried to account for the passengers that were on the four listed planes.

In the new book, Was 9-11 a Movie?, Hartwell hypothesizes that two of the four flights, both of American Airlines, never left the ground – namely, AA11, which was said to have left Boston and crashed into the World Trade Center, New York, and AA 77 which is said to have left Dulles and crashed into the Pentagon, which is near Washington DC. It is not Hartwell’s job here to say what actually did crash into the WTC or the Pentagon; he is trying to explain where the four flights went.

1280px-4.28.12Flight175PanelS-2ByLuigiNovi3

As for the two United flights, UA93 (the famous “Let’s Roll” flight) and UA175, he has collected some evidence about the locations of those two planes in a vicinity other than the reported one (Pennsylvania for UA93 and the South Tower of the WTC).  I am not capable of, or interested in, checking the records from which Hartwell drew his data. One of those sources is the 9-11 Consensus Panel, which I recognize as honest labor. This guy wants you to think. He will be happy if you up-end all his ideas and replace them with better ones. I told him I would introduce his new material on Gumshoe, and not attempt to verify it.

Note: on the back cover of the new book he says :

“My perspective is heavily influenced by my twenty plus years working for local government. I understand how agents of the government work, how they communicate with the press and with other agents. A law degree serves to help me focus on the difference between how it is and how it should be.”

Here, now, is the Q&A, as it appears in “Was 9-11 a Movie?”

Q: Where did the planes go?

A: American 11 and American 77 did not fly anywhere.  United 93 and United 175 flew west.

Q: Where did the United planes land?

A: United 93 was last tracked somewhere near Champaign, Illinois and United 175 was last tracked somewhere near Pittsburgh.  No one knows where they landed.

Q: How near?

A: The ACARS records last show them in the vicinity of these cities, but without further information, there is no way to confirm a more accurate location.  The main point is that they did not crash in Shanksville or New York City.

Q: What happened in Shanksville?

A: Agents of the government, acting upon reports of a crash, secured the area.

Q: Who were these agents?

A: People with authority.

Q: Such as?

A: The FBI.  Given the reports of prior “terrorist” activity, the FBI could claim that Shanksville was a crime scene rather than a crash scene.

Q: What difference did that make?

A: Jurisdiction in a crash scene goes to the National Transportation Safety Board.  Jurisdiction in a crime scene involving airplanes goes to the FBI.

Q: Was that unlawful of the FBI to do?

A: Not necessarily.  They could claim reasonable belief a crime was committed.  The main point is that people got to the scene and secured it quickly.

Q: OK.  So what about allegations of eyewitnesses that United 93 was shot down?

A: They were wrong.  United 93 flew west.

Q: How can we be sure that United 93 was really flying west?

A: We cannot be sure of anything.  We go with the best evidence.  The ACARS information was recorded contemporaneously and traced to the plane’s serial number.  This evidence places United 93 out west.  The evidence that United 93 was shot down or that it crashed in Shanksville is meager, at best, and not based on contemporaneous information or specificity.

Q: Were there two United 93s?

A: Possibly.  Flight numbers may duplicate.  But serial numbers do not.  Even the official theory says that United 93 had serial number N612UA.

Q: Could a second United 93 have crashed in Shanksville?

A: I suppose it is possible.  It is more likely a ruse was created to make Shanksville look like a crash scene plausibly enough to get the public to believe it was United 93.

Q: So what happened to United 175?

A: The last ACARS could tell, it was headed west of Pittsburgh long after the “crash” in New York City.  As with United 93, we need more information to be specific.

Q: Then what hit the second World Trade Center tower?

A: That’s a leading question.

Q: Do we know that anything hit the World Trade Center?

A: No.

Q: Lots of witnesses said they saw a plane hit WTC2.  Were they wrong?

A: Eyewitness evidence is often shaky.  The witnesses could have been mistaken or they could have been planted.

Q: Planted witnesses?  Wouldn’t someone have talked by now?

A: If someone did talk, they would not likely be believed.

Q: Why is that?

A: The public has already bought the idea that planes hit the towers.  The official narrative has long set in and cannot be undone by someone talking.

Q: Has this sort of thing happened before?

A: Yes.  Members of the Navy, including James Stockdale, admitted many years after the Gulf of Tonkin incident that we had instigated the conflict there.

Q: How is that significant?

A: If the public knew at the time that the story of a North Vietnamese attack was a ruse, it might not have favored escalating the war there.

Q: Will we get the truth about the Towers someday?

A: If we do, it will be too late to do any good.  The main point is that we need to be wary of government lies when they tell them to us.

Q: Ok.  How about the American flights?  What happened to the plane for American 11?

A: The evidence that it remained on the runway is stronger than the evidence that it took off.  The original Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows it was never scheduled and that it never flew.   None of the plane parts were found at the World Trade Center.  And the article by “loopDloop” quotes an airline agent admitting in an early report that the plane remained parked near the gate it would allegedly take off from.

Q: Is there any chance American 11 flew but was simply not recorded?

A: I suppose there is a chance, but not a good one.  For one thing, it would be quite a coincidence that one of four flights alleged to have been hijacked would just happen not to have statistics recorded for it.

Q: There is a report that someone spotted American 11 in the air.  Is there anything to that?

A: No.  The flight on which someone allegedly saw it was United 175!  That is hardly independent corroboration given the fraud we know about United 175!

Q: Wouldn’t someone have noticed that plane that was to be used for American 11 was still parked?

A: That is not likely.  By the time anyone would have thought about American 11, the public had already gotten the news that American 11 struck World Trade Center One.  And it is highly unlikely that anyone could have matched the flight with any identification number.  From the outside, it looked just like any other plane at the airport.  Also, because of the Secretary of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration orders for planes to land, there were probably a large number of planes around.

Q: What eventually happened to all the planes involved?

A: I don’t know.  It would make sense if someone eventually destroyed these planes or at least disguised them.

Q: Did anything strike the Pentagon?

A: All I can say about this is that United 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Q: What happened to the plane for United 77?

A: It most likely remained parked somewhere.  The plotters may have used the air phone from it, but the plane did not fly that day.

Opinion:

I have read Hartwell’s 2011 book, Planes without Passengers, and am fascinated by his hypothesis that the passengers were witting participants, and that they subsequently went on to live their lives, in disguise.

I have the following hesitation in recommending that you buy that book. It very annoyingly gives references to URLs. For instance, Hartwell says, on his page 101:

“Sammaratino goes on to say that the percentage [of crash passengers] whose families took the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund money is even lower. In fact, of all 266 of the alleged passengers, only ten appear on this list.” That is footnoted as number 64, which Hartwell then displays as: “htpp://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html.”

It is my understanding of the value of a book, in physical, paper form, that it provides a record for later generations. If the Sammaratino discovery disappears from cyberspace soon, the readers of Planes without Passengers (2011) are not going to know exactly what Sammaratino said. I think the author, Dean Hartwell, owes it to his readers to furnish a direct quote from, or a paraphrase of, Sammaratino’s quite startling claim.

I refer the reader back to my Gumshoe article “Who Helps Psychopaths Rule the World?” (My categories were: baddies, innocents, scaredy-cats, and mind-controlled members of the professions.) I indicated my belief that most people accept the government line and are not really participants. If Hartwell is right, that 266 passengers participated in a hoax – and then did not confess after they saw the damage done – we’re talking about quite a different level of “support for the psychopaths.”

— Mary W Maxwell is the author of Fraud Upon the Court (2015) which covers many of the topics of interest to readers GumshoeNew.com.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Ehen Mary Maxwell comments on the annoyance of giving references to URLs, there is what I find an even greater annoyance (in general) in having URL references pertaining to early 9/11/01 details removed from the internet. I can only conclude there must be an active effort to remove any such information from the internet. The work-around is to use websites such as the Wayback_machine.

  2. On the question of what actually hit the towers?
    I agree with Hartwell that those commercial flights did not, but let us not get distracted with “no” planes. Something smashed into the towers. Most likely a military drone (aka Northwoods) – possibly with reinforced wings.
    I have always been interested that both planes seem to coincidentally have the same tilt as they went in.

    But there are many “spontaneous” voices and reactions that seem credible as eyewitness accounts of something going into the building – and being identified as a type of military plane.
    And these people were not heard on mainstream.
    An example:

    Another interesting note is the “flash” that appears just as the nose hits the tower.
    As to the outer core being “sliced” so neatly is interesting. To go along with Hartwell’s movie theme – this is what they do in the movies. Eg: If you want a stuntman to crash through a wall – they “score” the back of the wall – weakening it perfectly for an easy break through. Don’t know whether this was possible at WTC.
    However, considering that the commercial flights did not hit the towers is enough.

    • Dee, the Comments logged to your second video include this one for “one week ago” which I think is worth reading:

      +Nathaniel Manzi. I agree with you that these Enlightenment Revolutionaries exist. I also agree with you that there are MANY wicked and evil people in the USA who have chosen to follow evil. But I would like to issue a caution to you as well. To dwell too much on the evil is to attracted towards it. To live in a state of hate and fear and darkness and revenge. This dark side and dark path is pure poison to your own soul.

  3. Unfortunately so much well poisoning and other disinformation has provided fortress cover around the real events of 911 to the point where facts and fiction at times merge seamlessly, causing many to shy away and just accept the official narrative. Even if you point out anomalies, you are then expected, usually, to solve the whole case right there and them otherwise you are just an Internet Conspiracy Theorist/nutjob.

    • ‘xcept us.

      • It is good to hear from Dean Hartwell. I am reminded of Matt Campbell’s article about the planes being “controlled”… Matt’s theory that All evidence shows the planes were hijacked by one team who remotely controlled each hijack in a SEQUENTIAL manner – including AA11 (the plane that hit WTC1, the building that his brother was in).
        https://gumshoenews.com/2014/11/01/the-myth-of-the-alleged-19-muslim-hijackers/

        • Jeepers, Dee. I just went to re-read Matt’s piece and see it’s almost a year ago. We are going too slow!
          And from the comments to it I hereby lift a few words from Christopher Brooks:

          “The bluff regarding humanity’s helpless position in the face of evil has successfully infected most human effort towards seeking solutions to war, injustice and all the effects of monopoly power. The spells must be broken….
          We need to think much more about the science of thinking and how brilliance, charm and self evident truth can be formulated and targeted for victory against lies.”

          • May I say something off-topic?
            NZ’s Trade Minister says “We hope to close the TPP deal this week,
            unless it gets scuppered by somebody dragging out the issues.”

            Somebody please scupper! Think of an issue, drag it out….

            Down on your heels, up on your toes!
            Scupper around, break somebody’s nose!
            Everybody, start doing the TPP drag!

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: