How do the debunkers and JREF types explain away the fact that the passinger lists supplied by the airline companies did not include any hijackers or Arabic-sounding names?

they probaly don't have to.

To my understanding they don't argue facts. They smere your name and person.

This is how it is done:




http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_..._manifests.html

I read through the whole site. There is no actual explanation. It's just conjecture.

A weak argument is makes is that it is a list of victims. If they died on the airplanes, they would also be listed with the victims.

Why aren't they listed in the autopsy report either?

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

Sorry,
I have to say that the question and also the debunking is nonsensical.
The reason is simple: The official flight manifests have never been published. That also explains why eg for AA 11 so many MSM published different passenger manifests.
So, the question is a different one: Why was the passenger manifest never published?

I think they were. They were released as part of evidence in the Moussaoui trial.
In the link already given in this thread
http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_..._manifests.html
It links to the Moussaoui exhibit here
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/...on/OG00010.html
and also links to this page
http://www.911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html
that has a link to a zip file with JPEG copies of the manifests.

this link may explain why they didn't show up on autopsy reports
http://www.911myths.com/html/autopsy_list.html

I'm not offering any opinion on this subject or anything else 911 but just showing that some of the questions asked here were at least tried to be answered on a link already provided in the thread.

Thanks frenat for the answer.

But no. The passenger manifests have NOT been published.
What I call a passenger manifest isn't a nice layed-out picture but the photocopy of the original computer printed passenger manifest that is done on every single flight and is done BEFORE plane takes off. And this isn't published anywhere. And this is the eplanation why many different MSM published completely different passenger list resulting that alone for AA 11 all names added of different versions one came to 100 passengers instead of 92 only.

Again, this page,
http://www.911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html
that has a link near the bottom to a zip file with JPEG copies of the manifests. It is right before the text versions. In this paragraph

Frenat,

again many thanks!
This again can't be the official and final flight manifest.
Mark Bingham doesn't figure on the list though he had a ticket and he boarded the plane. Even if he was late (which he was) he MUST be on the flight manifest which is the basis eg for the flight attendants counting passengers etc.

The question also is:
UA and AA must have had somebody worried families could have contacted in order to know if their beloved ones boarded the planes (you might know that for UA 93 there many passengers who took the flight in the last minute having booked Flight 91). So, there must have been somebody with the flight manifest in order to answer these people. And this is also the person newspapers would contact. so how come so many different and contradicting publications exist??

Last but not least let's assume for the sake of the argument that these actually are the flight manifest which you have linked to:
Several question suddenly arise:

How come Hani Hanjour wasn't considered to have been a hijacker until September 14 (on September 13 the talk was of 18 hijackers)?
How come neither Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney (AA 11) not all the passengers on UA 93 who specified the number of the alleged hijackers NEVER give the number of five (AA 11à or four (UA 93) hijackers. How come? If they had boarding cards and therefore figured on the flight manifest the explanation is impossible that they took the jumpseat in the cockpit.

You are arguing about the confusion days after the attacks. That's six years ago now.

Is this the best you can do?

illuminate,

I'm not sure whom you're talking to but I guess it's me.
In case I'm right I'd like to know which of the several issues I've raised about the so called flight manifest can be explained by "confusion"?
Were the flight attendants "confused" before the take off of UA 93 and forgot to add Mark Bingham on the fligjt manifest but still he magically has a boarding card?
Why would the FBI have been "confused" over Hanjour who spend his last months hanging around with other alleged hijackers?