The Flight 11 Passenger Manifests

This post builds on Julia Lazare's discovery that David and Lynn Angell cancelled their reservations on American Flight 11 two weeks prior to 9/11, at 7.30pm on the 27th August 2001. Julia's post on this subject can be found on the Lets Roll forum @ http://letsrollforums.com/fl-11-passengers-cancel-t23792.html.

The FBI Evidence

Below are screenshots of documents submitted to the FBI by American Airlines, documents which clearly indicate that David and Lynn Angell did indeed cancel their reservations on Flight 11. The original document can be downloaded in PDF format from http://www.scribd.com and the entries for David and Lynn appear on pages 44 and 41 respectively.

It's worth noting that these entries provide us with David and Lynn's AAdvantage numbers. The AAdvantage scheme is American Airlines' frequent flyer program, and the numbers in question are shown in the second column. David's number is KK01118 and Lynn's KJ66928. The third column provides us with their reservations' Record Locator number: CUFNSG. This number is colloquially but inaccurately referred to as the PNR.

On the very next page of this document, however, we find another entry for the couple, one which lists them as present on Flight 11.

One assumes that American would have made every effort to ensure that information passed to the FBI was accurate and reliable in every respect. Here, however, we find that Lynn Angell's record locator differs from that of her husband and is in an invalid format: David's number is BJ7MWS and Lynn's BJ?MWS. It could be that this is a typo and that the BJ7MWS number should be shared by both reservations. Although this is an easy assumption to make, we can't ignore the fact that this is not the only discrepancy: this second entry also fails to reference Lynn's AAdvantage frequent flyer number, although David's is clearly visible.

The Passenger Manifest

It's useful, not to mention interesting, to cross-reference and compare the information that appears in the FBI document with Flight 11's passenger manifest, part of which is reproduced below.

Reading from left to right, we see the couple's names followed by a string of manifest codes, which break down as follows:

AC2

Used to designate persons travelling together. The first two characters differentiate one group from another and the numeric value gives the number of people in the group.

U

Fare Class code, meaning unknown

LAX

Destination airport code

Seat

Seat numbers 8A and 8B

Bags

Number of bags checked: 1 bag for David Angell, no bags for Lynn Angell

SC

Indicates that a security check was performed before boarding passes were issued

LF

Indicates that tickets were scanned or 'lifted' upon boarding

ADM

Admiral's Club Member

CLUB

CLUB access

AG

AAdvantage Gold member

ET

Electronic Ticket

According to the manifest, David Angell supposedly checked in one bag, whereas the NB manifest code indicates that Lynn Angell did not check in any baggage. We know that the couple had already sold their home in California and were either resident in Cape Cod or Rhode Island, depending on who we choose to believe. In light of this, it seems highly unlikely that the couple would check-in just one item of baggage between them. One might argue that Lynn took her luggage on board, but why would she do so? Most people take luggage on board to avoid the inconvenience of having to collect it from baggage reclamation at the other end, which is something the couple would have had to do in any case because David had checked his luggage. Consequently, it has to be said that the appearance of the NB code against Lynn's name is odd to say the least, and at the risk of sounding sexist, represents what most men would view as atypical behaviour for a woman.

Discrepancies aside, the question here is why the couple would cancel one reservation two weeks prior to 9/11 only to make another reservation on exactly the same flight at some point in the meantime? In asking this rhetorical question I'm looking for an answer that might fit with what we know about the couple's circumstances immediately prior to 9/11 and explain why they cancelled.

The Family Wedding and the Stephen Rollins Connection

According to the official timeline, the reason why David and Lynn Angell were on Flight 11 was that they were returning from a family wedding hosted at their home on Cape Cod, in order to attend the 2001 Emmy Awards. The evening before the flight, i.e. the evening of September 10th 2001, writer/producer/director Stephen Rollins claims to have received a telephone call from the pair. Rollins claims that the couple had called to wish him Happy Birthday, but adds that the couple were calling from Boston, where they were visting David Angell's sick mother.

At this point, I must point out that I rubbished Rollins' claim in a previous post, on account of the fact that David Angell's parents died in the early 1970s and only Lynn Angell's mother was still alive at the time. But let's assume for a moment that Rollins' account is factual: if the Angell's had indeed been hosting a family wedding then it seems reasonable to assume that Lynn's mother was present. What if Rollins' confused the nature of the maternal relationship and presented David's mother-in-law as his mother? There are two possible scenarios here: either the couple cancelled their reservations in order to spend more time with family members after the wedding, or they did so because Lynn's mother had been taken ill and admitted to a Boston hospital.

I freely admit that this is all highly speculative and built on more What-If scenarios than are usually found in a data analyst's spreadsheet. However, this scenario does fit the timeline, although I'm well aware of the dangers of trying to construct a theory from the so-called 'facts'. None of this changes the fact that Rollins' story stinks to high heaven. Nor for that matter does it help to explain why the couple decided to make fresh reservations on Flight 11, under a dodgy record locator number and sans Lynn's AAdvantage number. Furthermore, if Lynn's mother was ill then why on earth would the couple fly to LA the very next day? Certainly not to make the Emmy Awards, which were due to take place five days later, on September 16th. In saying all this, however, I'm assuming that they did in fact make new reservations and that the evidence I'm relying on is valid and reliable. Unfortunately, these discrepancies, together with the many, many questions surrounding Flight 11, make it difficult to accept this evidence at face value.

The Lynn Angell Age Dilemma

Here's an interesting picture of Lynn Angell, purportedly from Argyll Academy and Campbell Hall school's 1981 yearbook. This dates back to the period when Lynn was working full-time in order to support David's screen-writing ambitions, as part of the couple's five-year plan to break into Hollywood.

And here's an enlarged version, minus the text:

Small as it is, I find the picture interesting for three main reasons:

1. The picture has suddenly materialised at this particular time
2. This younger Lynn Angell clearly resembles some of the older versions we've already seen (see below)
3. Lynn's apparent youthfulness raises interesting questions about her actual age and the official timeline

As regards my first point, this image appears on Flickr and the date is given as 26th January 2010. However, I have only recently (i.e. yesterday) stumbled across this image, despite conducting numerous image searches on numerous search engines over a five month period. Has Google taken a full year to index this particular image? Is this plausible?

Second, when we compare this image with some of the other pictures of Lynn Angell we can see a clear resemblance; even the hairstyle is the same, although the style has a suitably wavy 1980s feel to it. In fact, it seems to me that Lynn displays a level of satisfaction with her self-image that, in my view, is uncommon amongst members of the fairer sex, in the sense that she never once changes the basic style, colour or length of her hair. It would be interesting to get some feedback from a female reader on this particular issue. In addition to the below montage, it's also worth comparing this image with some of the images that appear in one of my previous posts.

Finally, how old does Lynn look in this picture? The official biography tells us that Lynn was born 11th August 1949, which would make her 31 going on 32 at the time this picture was taken. Yet my first thought on viewing this image was that it showed Lynn in her early 20s, perhaps even as a high school senior. This matters because the official biography tells us that Lynn was 52 at the time of her alleged death, whereas a sizeable number of third party memorial and tribute sites would have us believe that she was several years younger and state her age as 45. Searching Google using "Lynn Angell, 45" or "Lynn Angel" +45 as the search criteria returns a large number of results, although www.9-11heroes.us is probably the most high profile example.

Why does this matter? Well, according to the official biography Lynn met a 'recently graduated' David Angell on Cape Cod 'one summer', presumably the summer of 1969. The couple courted and married in August 1971. This is all well and good if Lynn was born in 1949, but more than a little problematic if she was born in 1956! Walking through the timeline, we're told that David served in the army from 1969 to 1972 and was stationed at the Pentagon, whereas Lynn was still living in Alabama and did not graduate from Auburn University until 1971, the year of their marriage. Even if Lynn was indeed born in 1949, how on earth did the couple manage to keep their relationship going under these circumstances? Did David fly back and forth between Virginia and Alabama every weekend? Is this plausible?

Interestingly, Lynn Angell does get a mention on Auburn University's website, and the article in question confirms that she graduated in 1971. However, it's important to note that this single reference to Lynn Angell is dated 12th September 2001, with the subject matter being her 'death' as a passenger on flight 11 the day before. So, while most people were still reeling from the events of the day before, a certain David M. Granger of Auburn University was morbidly scouring the newspapers and checking whether any Auburn alumni were among the dead? Again, we're obliged to ask whether this is remotely plausible given the time available to the author, and especially given the confusion and misinformation surrounding the flight 11 passenger manifests?

As per usual, we're left with more questions than answers. Lynn certainly looks a lot younger than David in all the photos in which they appear 'together', although the very evident anomalies in these images raise questions as to whether one or the other (or both) has been 'Photoshopped' into them. Consequently, it's anyone's guess as to whether this 1981 picture represents the real Lynn Angell.

David Angell: The Associated Press Image

This article was originally posted on Let's Roll and can be found @ http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=192055&postcount=123

Below is an enlarged version of an Associated Press image of David Angell, analysed together with the very similar image that can be found on David Angell's Wikipedia page. Aside from the very obvious fact that these images are almost identical, the following discrepancies can be observed:

1. The bridge of David's nose as it meets the forehead is very peculiar. The perspective here, and around the right eye (left eye as it appears in the image), is similarly odd.
2. David's left eye (right eye as it appears in the image) appears to be surrounded by superfluous, discoloured scar tissue or face putty.
3. The hairline running up the side of his face appears to be ruler-straight.
4. Look just underneath the short and long vertical lines to see clear join marks. The join is most noticeable where it cuts across David's moustache.
5. Notice the teeth and compare them with the Wikipedia image. There are obvious gaps between the teeth in the one image, but not in the other. Similarly, there's a slightly overlapping tooth in the Wikipedia image, but not in the AP image.
6. Someone has been at work with the blur tool in this section, and none too subtly for that matter: they managed to take a small nick out of David's beard (right on the jawline) while doing so. We can also see what appear to be cloning artifacts next to the collar and observe some odd discolouration in this area.

This same image is also being hawked on the NBCU Photobank website. The kind of alterations we see in these images are consistent with my theory that David Angell is in fact still alive, and that these were at one time real images of David Angell, which have been altered in order to minimise the chances of him being recognised in public.

David Angell's Cape Code Properties

Below are links to zip files containing screen captures of property, mortgage, estate tax and power of attorney documents related to David Angell's three properties on Cape Cod. This is not to say that Angell held title on three separate properties concurrently. Rather, they represent an ascending scale of size and value, bought and sold over a period of 16 years, in keeping with the growth in Angell's net worth, which amounted to $55 million at the time of his alleged death. These documents are available to the public through the Barnstable Country Registry of Deeds website.

---

55 Seapine Road, Chatham

Purchase Date	Purchase Price	Sale Date	Sale Price
10/1986*	$305,000*	23/06/1989	$395,000

Download documents as zip file.

*_{I'm unable to verify the purchase date and price because Barnstable's Registry of Deeds have removed all documents pertaining to this property from their website! See http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=194598&postcount=140 for further details on the current status of this site.}

View this property's entry in the Chatham, MA, Assessor's Online Database.

---

21 Shattuck Lane, Chatham

Purchase Date	Purchase Price	Sale Date	Sale Price
12/1988*	$890,000	28/03/2002**	$4,000,000

Download documents as zip file.

*_{The couple's mortgage on this property was approved 12/88 but I have yet to confirm the actual date of purchase.}

*_{As mentioned in an earlier post, the sale date of this property directly contradicts evidence given at a hijack lawsuit brought by 'the Angell estate'. Lawyers acting on behalf of the estate claimed that the couple had sold this property and were residents of Providence, Rhode Island at the time of their alleged deaths. The claims made by the estate's legal team also directly contradict most of the memorials and biographies to be found on the web, the vast majority of which place David and Lynn Angell at their home on Cape Code during the summer of 2001.}

View this property's entry in the Chatham, MA, Assessor's Online Database.

---

149 Hardings Lane

Purchase Date	Purchase Price	Sale Date	Sale Price
18/05/2000*	$3,625,000	20/02/2003	$5,650,000

Download documents as zip file.

*_{This property was bought by Perry Oretzky, acting as trustee of the 149 Hardings Lane Realty Trust.}

View this property's entry in the Chatham, MA, Assessor's Online Database.

---

149 Hardings Lane Realty Trust

149 Hardings Lane (the property that was under construction at the time of the couple's alleged deaths) was acquired by a trust, specifically the "149 Hardings Lane Realty Trust", of which Perry Oretzky was trustee. Below is a link to a zip file containing screen captures of the Trust's ten-page Declaration of Trust, which is interesting for what it doesn't tell us as much as what it does.

What's intriguing here is that although the document specifically refers to a Schedule of Beneficiaries appended to the Declaration itself, the Schedule can NOT be found on the Barnstable Register of Deeds website. The Declaration does not name the beneficiaries but refers to them as follows:

"The beneficiaries named in said initial Schedule of Beneficiaries are husband and wife..." --(page 4, section 3.6)

"The beneficiaries under the initial Schedule of Beneficiaries are residents of California at the date of this instrument..." --(page 6, section 3.7)

Needless to say, if we could lay our hands on a copy of this Schedule then we'd have absolutely no reason to indulge in wild speculation of the "Oretzky-is-also-a-married-resident-of-California" type...

Download documents as zip file.

---

Power of Attorney

David and Lynn Angell appear to have granted Perry Oretzky Power of Attorney in April 1992. David and Lynn Angell's signatures appear on all relevant documents prior to this date, whereas from this point onwards all their real estate deals were handled and signed by Perry Oretzky.

David and Lynn Angell: Their Final Domicile Pt3

This article was originally posted on Let's Roll and follows on from my earlier post on the same topic, which can be found @ http://firemansams.blogspot.com/2010/11/david-and-lynn-angell-their-final.html. The original version of this article can be found @ http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=191640&postcount=74

Following on from my last post about the hijack lawsuit brought by David Angell's relatives, here's more damning evidence against the arguments made in this case as regards the couple's domicile at the time of their deaths. To recap, the lawyers argued that the couple had sold their home in California AND their existing property on Cape Cod.

"The couple had sold their long-held summer home on Cape Cod, and their new Cape Cod vacation home was still under construction, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said."

However, property deeds available on the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds website indicate that the couple's property on Cape Cod, 21 Shattuck Lane, Chatham was not sold until after their alleged deaths. This property was sold in March 2002 by Perry Oretzky, acting in his capacity as executor of the couple's wills.

So, on the one hand we have David's brother, Kenneth Angell, telling us that David and Lynn had hosted a family wedding at their home on Cape Cod just prior to 9/11, and on the other we have the same Kenneth Angell involved in a lawsuit alleging that the couple had sold their Cape Cod home and were residing in a non-existent property on a non-existent street in Providence, Rhode Island!

Is there anything to this beyond the rather obvious money-grubbing, given that there was a strong financial incentive for 'proving' that the couple were residents of Rhode Island, rather than California or Massachusetts? The projo.com article has this to say:

"Under California and Massachusetts law, “recovery is largely limited to economic loss to dependants” and Angell had no children. Under Rhode Island law, damages would be calculated by projecting Angell’s lifetime earnings, minus lifetime expenses, defense lawyers said."

One can only wonder at the standard of 'evidence' accepted by the court in question, given that the below documents were not exactly difficult to come by and demonstrate that there is something very, very wrong here.

David and Lynn Angell: Their Final Domicile Pt1

This post actually precedes an earlier post on the subject of David and Lynn Angell's last place of residence. The follow-up post can be found @ http://firemansams.blogspot.com/2010/11/david-and-lynn-angell-their-final.html. The original version of this article was posted on Let's Roll and can be found @ http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=189989&postcount=34

The subject of the Angell's domicile proved central to the subsequent lawsuit brought by David's brother and sister, Kenneth Angell and Claire Miller. A fascinating article on the case can be found by following the below link.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/hi...9.3232eb9.html

Here's a few choice quotes from this article:

"In the Angell case, lawyers had debated whether his “domicile” was in California, Massachusetts or Rhode Island, which has more favorable laws for this type of litigation. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a domicile as “a person’s true, fixed, principal and permanent home."

"Under California and Massachusetts law, “recovery is largely limited to economic loss to dependants” and Angell had no children. Under Rhode Island law, damages would be calculated by projecting Angell’s lifetime earnings, minus lifetime expenses, defense lawyers said."

"The plaintiffs’ lawyers said there was no question that Angell’s domicile was the couple’s “dream house” on Wheaton Street in Providence."

"The couple had sold their long-held summer home on Cape Cod, and their new Cape Cod vacation home was still under construction, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said."

"In 1999, Angell concluded he no longer needed to live in Hollywood to write and produce shows, so he decided to “return home to Providence,” the lawyers wrote. “The Angells were living in the Wheaton Street house prior to September 2001; the closing and construction of the home was complete.” Nearly the entire contents of their California home had been moved to Providence..."

This is absolutely fascinating stuff! The article indicates that the couple owned no habitable property on Cape Cod at the time of their deaths. How, then, can The Angell Foundation claim that the couple hosted a wedding at their home on Cape Cod immediately prior to 9/11? Why do so many 'memorial' sites repeat the same story?

The article tells us that almost all of David and Lynn's possessions had been transferred from their home in California to their new home in Providence. One assumes that Lynn Angell must have left a sizeable collection of clothes behind in California, because Flight 11's passenger manifest tells us that she did NOT check in any baggage on this flight. David supposedly checked in one bag, whereas the NB manifest code appears against Lynn's name.

The Angell Foundation: Income Irregularities

This post is comprised of material originally posted on Let's Roll and is reproduced here for the purpose of keeping my blog up-to-date and active. The originals can be found @ http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=189785&postcount=20 and http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=189814&postcount=23.

On the subject of financing, here's some details on The Angell Foundation's assets and income for financial years 2007/8 and 2008/9:

2007/8
Assets $65,963,860
Income $12,225,299
Source: http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt/CA/Angell-Foundation.html

2008/9
Assets $82,434,193
Income $23,782,211
Source: http://www.implu.com/nonprofit/10789717

This is serious money indeed. The couple's entire estate was valued at $55 million in 2001, yet somehow the Foundation has managed to earn close to half that amount in just one financial year, and well over half in just two financial years!

For those interested, I provide below links to the Foundation's tax returns for the period June 2002 - June 2009.

• 2002/3
• 2003/4
• 2004/5
• 2005/6
• 2006/7
• 2007/8
• 2008/9

To put this in perspective, here's the Foundation's total grantmaking for the years in question:

2008: $2,814,200
2009: $3,560,800

A spreadsheet listing all the Foundation's grants made between 2002 and 2009 is available at http://www.mediafire.com/?h9b99v2v6po7a99 for those interested.

Could the bulk of this extraordinary large income represent Frasier royalties? Is this show bringing in similar amounts for Angell's partners, David Lee and Peter Casey, over six years after production ended and nine years after Angell's last input? Is this even remotely plausible?

The answer to this question appears to be Yes and No. On the one hand, the 'estate of David Angell' initiated (and ultimately lost) a lawsuit against Angell's partners, Peter Casey and David Lee. The suit alleged that Angell was entitled to receive producer fees for the last two seasons of Frasier. The full details are as follows:

Chathamscape, Inc. v. Mudville Productions, Inc. and Donut City Productions, Inc. (Edward A. Klein, Joseph R. Taylor – Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif). Mr. Neches testified as an expert in an A.A.A. arbitration on behalf of Respondents Mudville and Donut City in this breach of contract matter. Chathamscape was a loan-out corporation owned by David Angell, one of three executive producers of the successful television series Frasier. Based on its interpretation of a partnership agreement among the three parties, the estate of Mr. Angell (who was killed in the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack) claimed Chathamscape was entitled to a one-third share of executive producer fees earned by Respondents (loan-out corporations for two other executive producers of Frasier) for the last two seasons of the show (which aired in 2003 and 2004). Mr. Neches testified regarding his analysis of income tax returns and financial statements of the parties, which showed that Claimant's claim was inconsistent with the manner in which executive producer fees had been distributed among the parties throughout the life of the partnership. Result: the Arbitrator ruled in favor of Respondents."

Source:http://www.thomasneches.com/trial.htm#Grub

Here, Mudville and Donut City are the loan out companies of Peter Casey and David Lee respectively. This case suggests that the Angell estate did not receive any additional revenue over-and-above any royalty fees Angell may have been entitled to. In this context, we should note that that Angell's loan out company, Chathamscape, is listed as active, so I assume that royalty payments are still channeled through this company. You can view the company's details by visiting http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx and searching for Entity Number C1408982.

On the other hand, we know that Frasier was embroiled in a financial scandal, with NBC claiming that the most successful sit-com ever was $200 million in the red and never made a profit, despite the $1.5 billion in revenues it generated. This resulted in a 2005 lawsuit brought by representatives of David Lee, Peter Casey and David Angell. The outcome of this case is unknown. As the LA Times article on the subject reminds us, Hollywood doesn't like to air it's dirty laundry in public. Accordingly, the case probably ended in an unpublicised out-of-court settlement. This could, then, explain the Foundation's recent income, although in the absence of evidence this remains pure speculation.

Regardless, I for one am in dire need of Perry Oretzky's services as a financial advisor!

David Receives a Doctorate, Revisited

This article was originally posted on Let's Roll and is reproduced here for the purpose of keeping my blog up-to-date and active. The original can be found @ http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=189475&postcount=13.

I've reviewed the "David receives his honorary doctorate" image and identified other issues with it, consistent with it also being another genuine picture of David Angell that has been altered in order to change his appearance. Just as his Emmy Award picture matches the 1984 Emmy Award video, this image tallies with David's biography and his being awarded an honorary doctorate by his alma mater, Providence College, in 1994.

The fact that the Angell Foundation appears to be altering genuine pictures of David suggests that David Angell is still alive: by placing false pictures of David into the public domain the Foundation is obviously playing its part to ensure that David goes unrecognised under whatever name he now uses. Why else would the Foundation seek to mislead us, given that we know that David Angell was a real person rather than an outright 'vicsim'?

In my view, it seems reasonable to assume that the alterations being made to these images are relatively subtle. In saying this, I'm referring not to the quality of the alterations per se (some are truly awful) but to the new facial characteristics themselves. If these alterations were too drastic they might arouse suspicion among those who knew him in real life. As things stand, one assumes that former friends and colleagues have no reason to scour the internet for pictures of their supposedly deceased friend and colleague; no doubt they have plenty of their own. Still, erring on the side of caution, it would be better to produce images that resemble David - on a bad day - rather than images that look nothing at all like him.

The alternative is that these images have been manipulated to such an extent that they no longer bear any resemblance to the real David Angell. However, this would suggest that a multitude of friends, colleagues, and other Hollywood insiders are fully aware of, and playing along with, the deception. In this context, a cloud of suspicion hangs over Stephen Rollins, for the reasons stated in my previous post, and Ken Levine, who issues an annual tribute to David and Lynn that contains the below image.

Peter Casey and David Lee, who occasionally pop up on Levine's blog, would also have to be added to the list in my opinion. While we're about it, we might as well add the rest of the cast and crew of Cheers, Wings and Frasier to the list, too. Others, such as Colleen Dunn Bates, may be nothing more than hacks willing to invent a story or two in return for an envelope stuffed with cash. However, is this scenario plausible? Surely an operation of this nature would have been organised on a strict need-to-know basis?

Regardless of the scenario, The Angell Foundation's president, Perry Oretzky, would have to be fully aware: as Angell's friend and CPA it seems likely he would have had a role in making financial and other preparations. Even if he didn't, it's literally inconceivable to think that someone who had a personal and working relationship with David Angell could fail to notice the visual discrepancies that appear in his own organisation's brochures and website.

In the final analysis, who knows would depend on the reason for his disappearance, who arranged it and for what purpose. Was this an opportunist act on his part, a calculated decision to take advantage of the Flight 11 scenario and disappear for reasons entirely his own? If so, is this in any way linked to the financial irregularities surrounding Frasier? Or - and this has to be entertained given his active involvement with children's charities - to the child abuse scandal and cover up involving his brother, Kenneth Angell? Regardless, how could he have arranged his disappearance without foreknowledge of Flight 11's involvement in the 9/11 operation? I'm assuming, of course, that he actually had a choice in the matter, which may not be the case.

There's lots of speculation here I know, but all the evidence appears to be pointing in the same direction. The bottom line is that I can think of no other good reason why the Foundation has altered these pictures in this way. Why didn't he elect to undergo plastic surgery and leave the photographic record untouched? Was this deemed too drastic a step, given that his face was relatively unknown prior to 9/11? The irony here is that with the exception of his 1984 and 1999 video appearances, his face only really entered the public domain in the aftermath of 9/11, following the release of these altered pictures to media outlets.