John Doe II's amazing encyclopedia of the hijackers and their doubles

[Woody Box]

John Doe II has finished his work on the hijackers (all of them!) and their doppelgangers. Here's the strongest proof until now that the masterminds of 9/11 created a false track for most of the hijackers:

http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewforum.php?23

[Jose Diablo]

1. What I find that is striking

Is how Atta(?) seems to try to call attention to himself on many instances. Now why would he do this, call attention to himself.

It's like he is going out of his way to establish his whereabouts.

It's also impossible for one person to be in different places. There has to be 2 Attas. Are they both named Atta, or is one of them using a false identity. And if he is, then the question becomes, 'who really is he'?

Strange. I wonder if he had HIV?

[dchill]

42. There were either 2 Attas...

or NO Attas attal. Seriously, if this guy was trying to "lay low" or "keep a low profile", he failed miserably. Able Danger waas onto him - of course they weren't allowed to DO anything about him. I believe this guy Atta has been given "credit" for far more than anyone involved actually did... other than the Office of Special Plans, of course.

[JackRiddler]

2. wow wow wow

What a labor. I was just thinking we need something like this the other day, now here it is. I was very impressed in my initial browsing.

But now it's gone. Team 8 site seems to be down, oder?

[Kevin Fenton]

4. This and that

I had a look at his stuff on Waleed Alshehri and I was less than impressed, for example:

He doesn't mention:
(1) According to the CR, he and his brother stayed in Jeddah for a time (October 2000, when they got their visas). The phone number on the visa applications is seven-digit, indicating it was a local number.
(2) He met other hijackers in Jeddah and helped them get their visas.
(3) The visa analysis is superficial. This is his visa application:

For example, in box 28 he says he intends to arrive in the US "after two weeks".
(4) He got a new passport just before applying for his US visa (compare the serial number of his new passport to that of his brother's) and he had a relative in the passport office.
(5) When in Afghanistan, he worked at Kandahar airport. I wonder what he was doing there.
(6) The State Department screened international applicants for the aeronautics sciences programme at Embry-Riddle. Maybe this was because there was a big Al Qaeda cell on the Arizona campus.
(7) One of the Prescott cell members, Ghassan Al Sharbi, was recalled to Afghanistan before the attacks. Did he meet any of the hijackers? They were allegedly at the same camp (Al Farooq), although I don't know if it was at the same time.
(8) Two of his brothers gave interviews to the US media after 9/11 and his father was also quoted in the press.

Errors:
(1) "The official Waleed left a remote corner of Saudi Arabia only in summer 2001."
Actually, he left home several years previously to attend teacher training college. He left Saudi Arabia in the spring of 2000, returned in the autumn, left in the winter and arrived in the US in the spring of 2001.
He lived in Khamis Mushayt, which had a population of 35,000 and was 30 minutes from the regional capital of Abha, which has a population of over 200,000, a university and an international airport. Would you call that a "remote corner"? His dad practically owns the town (the mosque bears his name) and some of his brothers did really well for themselves.
(2) "On Sept. 16, Ahmed Alshehri, a Saudi diplomat based in Bombay, India, denied he was the father of Waleed Alshehri or had ever served in the United States, even though diplomatic lists showed his position at the Washington embassy."
(Palm Beach Post, 10/17/01)
"Comment: But why would the father of the innocent Waleed lie about his occupation?"
The Ahmed Alshehri in Bombay was not the father of Waleed Alshehri the pilot, therefore it is perfectly logical he denied it. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that this Ahmed Alshehri ever served in Washington. The Ahmed Alshehri who was the father of Waleed the pilot was in Riyadh at this time and acknowledged being his father and serving in Washington. There are two Saudi diplomats called Ahmed Alshehri, the Boston Globe simply called the wrong one.

Distortion:
"He is even a big fan of US baseball"
Actually, the quote is:
"Baines, a 48-year-old carpenter, talked about football and baseball with Alshehri, who appeared to be a Florida Marlins' fan."
Does this necessarily imply he was a big fan of US baseball?

[JackRiddler]

6. well, to backtrack...

As I said, I only took an initial look before, for some reason, Team 8 became inaccessible to me for a day. (Was it down?)

I was just thrilled to see someone do this all in one place.

But your own work on the Waleed entry is very thorough in showing it's incomplete, so now I must reassess.

Seeing as you've done this much, why not send it to JohnDoeII and see if he incorporates it?

Thanks.

[Kevin Fenton]

7. I sent it to PT

(he actually sent me most of the info in rough form - it's not like I collected it all myself).

Off-topic: what do you think about the Dubai ports thing? For example, Alshehhi was in the UAE army (I guess some sort of cadet training programme, I don't know if he ever graduated as an officer) and he was using the money the army sent him in the US. Also, Binalshibh, who had access to his account in Hamburg, was sending money to Moussaoui. AFAIK that was UAE army money too. So "UAE Army Funded 9/11 Hijacker Training". If you ask me, the UAE is a different place than it was before 9/11 and doesn't let radical Islam spread unchecked in its armed forces anymore, but the ports deal would be a good opportunity for it to make a full disclosure about 9/11. It should say how much it actually paid him, detail his movements, did it provide him with aviation training in the UAE? Same for the other Emirati hijacker Fayez Ahmed Banihammad. And they can throw in Al Hawsawi/Saeed Sheikh for good measure - addresses, movements, bank statements. What do you think?

[seatnineb]

9. Mess with one Team8+ brother.......and you mess with us all!

Tell me something Kev........

How can Al-"fuckin"-CIA-da include this photo of Waleed Alsheri(bottom right)in one of their bullshitin' "video wills":



......when a Saudi pilot who flies for Morrocan Airlines and who goes by the name of Waleed Alsheri has said that the photo in question:



...... is his own?!......

Waleed: I said before that I was astonished when I saw my picture on the CNN channel. I believe the photo was taken from the "Flight Safety" (= Flight CFT?) school when I was being trained there for two months. The photo looks like one taken at that time.

http://web.archive.org/web/20011006115132/http://www.ncmonline.com/content/ncm/2001/oct/1005identities.html
(Thanks to the great John Doe II)

[Kevin Fenton]

10. Prove it

You claim this photo:

was the one used by CNN. Prove it.

[seatnineb]

11. The BBC published this image on 9/23/01

Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

I think that the BBC could only have obtained this image of Waleed Alsheri from a TV broadcast......possibly from CNN(note the pixelization...as if the image comes from a TV capture).

The official FBI photo of the same Waleed Alsheri :



..... was probably released only on 9/27/01......5 days later.......courtesey of the same CNN:



FBI releases photos of 19 attack suspects
September 28, 2001 Posted: 6:22 p.m. EDT (2222 GMT)

U.S. investigators released photographs of the 19 men who they believe hijacked the four airplanes involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, calling on people who may have had contact with them in the past to pass on their information to the FBI

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/27/inv.investigation.terrorism/

Archived on CNN's web site are photos and expositions of Jarrah(9/19/01),Alshehhi(9/18/01) that predate 9/27/01(the date the FBI officially published the hijacker photos).

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/invest.video.09.html#20th

So why not Alsheri?

Wherelse could the BBC have obtained that photo from?

[Kevin Fenton]

13. Waleed says

that he found out about the photo on Sunday, 16 September, when a friend called him. He contacted both the Saudi and US embassies and was then interviewed by the FBI on Monday, 17 September. If the photo was taken from CNN, then they had plenty of time before Sunday 23, when the BBC ran the story, to swap the wrong photo for the correct one. Alternatively, the BBC may have got the photo from another source.

[seatnineb]

20. But you cannot prove that......can you?

Also.....

If the interviewer is to be believed....

The FBI was the source of the CNN photo:

ASAA: What are your thoughts about YOUR PHOTOGRAPH in the FBI list?

Waleed: I said before that I was astonished WHEN I SAW MY PICTURE on the CNN channel. I believe the photo was taken from the "Flight Safety" (= Flight CFT?) school when I was being trained there for two months. The photo looks like one taken at that time.

http://web.archive.org/web/20011006115132/http://www.nc...

The only thing I find strange if this is true......is why Waleed Alsheri(the Saudi Pilot) has not continued to protest his innocence seeing as his photo is still being used by both Al-Quida and the FBI as proof that he was involved in 9/11.

[Andre II]

22. medienanalyse and seatnineb

It's an amazing time.
The FBI
doesn't have to present a definite list of the culprits. (look in the January 2002 file. Only "probable", "perhaps", "maybe"....
doesn't have to present a proof of them being aboard (neither boarding cards nor flight manifests).
doesn't have to positively identify a single culprit.
doesn't have to explain how a culprit can be at two different places at the same time
doesn't have to explain if their list is finally correct after they pointed out that they have doubts themselves (September 27).
does't have to explain why about 15 culprits were in the country before they officially entered it.
I could go on for ages.

And it is us who have to prove something?
Us who don't have access to all the evidence being withheld?
Give me a break!

[seatnineb]

23. Exactly!.. the paradox of 9/11 being such a famouse event is that.......

....... the "official" perpetrators(the 19 hijackers) of this same 9/11 are really not that famouse at all!

Possibly with the exeption of Atta, the other 18 hijacker's faces are really not that well known to the general public.

As an example.......

If Leonardo walked in a downtown market in New York:



He would be recognized!

But if Waleed Alsheri walked in a downtown market in New York:



Let's be honest......not many if any would recognize him!

On Edit:

I wonder how famouse the 19 hijackers are in the Arab world?

[medienanalyse]

25. "Let's be honest......" Good idea. Do not change the issue.

Nobody cares if you or me recognizes a face. We were talking and it is all about THIS issue:

WHO DID IT ?

The FBI has all evidence - but does not provide it. A bit more than a face on a photo. Passport numbers, home addresses, dates of burth, fingerprints, even genetic material.

They have that. If they have it. It depends on THEIR allegations. In every trial the allegations must be proved. Period.

[Kevin Fenton]

24. That's not the way I read it

What FBI list of photographs on Sunday, 16 September? AFAIK there wasn't one, i.e. the interviewer doesn't know what he's talking about.

In any case, Al Shehri doesn't seem to be talking about the FBI list, but about a photo CNN showed.

"The only thing I find strange if this is true......is why Waleed Alsheri (the Saudi Pilot) has not continued to protest his innocence seeing as his photo is still being used by both Al-Quida and the FBI as proof that he was involved in 9/11."
The answer is it isn't his photo, so he's not bothered anymore.

How many interviews with his family members have you read?

I had a look at CNN's old reports and I found one that mentioned Waleed Al Shehri (Hijack terrorists may have used false passports, Sept. 21); it had an interview with Abdul Rahman Al Omari and he seemed fairly alive, but it didn't show Al Shehri's picture. This indicates that CNN was aware of the problem by September 21 and would have stopped using any incorrect photo by then. It was really worthwhile (see below), thank you for the tip.

Various:
Isn't the Wayback Machine great? Have a look here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010917030237/www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.terrorism/
Click on photo gallery (under extra information) and look at picture 4 - doesn't much look like the building is falling into it's own footprint to me.

This is a goody:
"Authorities also said another debris site had been cordoned off six to eight miles away from the original crash debris site. But Crowley said the debris was "very light material such as paper and thin nylon -- things that in the air with the wind would easily blow."
http://web.archive.org/web/20010918232233/www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.terrorism/

Jarrah and Nawaf Al Hazmi lived at the same address!

Here another piccy from 911myths:


And another one:


Or how about this one?

What do you say to these?

[seatnineb]

26. You chose the wrong photos to play with.............

If ever there was proof that Al-Quida did not have a clue about who there own hijackers were.........

It would have to be Hani Hanjour.

Here is Hani Hanjour as depicted by the bullshittin Al-Quida......





And here is the same Hani Hanjour captured by surveillance cameras at Dulles:



Only that the Hani Hanjour shown above resembles John Doe II(at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995):



So yeah......the Al-Quida "video wills" are a big sack of horse shit!

[Kevin Fenton]

27. You don't seem to have grasped my point

Why not have a look at the three photos I posted for Waleed Alshehri and Hamza Alghamdi. Notice anything about them?

[seatnineb]

28. Then enlighten me. n/t

[Kevin Fenton]

29. What about this one?

Do you have any comments on these photos of Hamza Al Ghamdi?

Here's a larger one of the picture on the left.

[seatnineb]

33. Tell me why Hanjour's family have not complained...

Clearly the individual who is alledged to be Hani Hanjour in the below capture:



........is not the same Hani Hanjour that both:

1)Al-Quida:



2)The FBI:



........show in their respective documents/videos.

So why has not the Hanjour family been vocal about this anomoly?

[Kevin Fenton]

35. Why don't you ask them?

It's not Hani. Have you seen the video?

Don't you have anything to say about the Hamza Al Ghamdi photos?

[Andre II]

39. Just for me

Why does al Qaeda use a photo of somebody who wasn't Hani according to you?

[seatnineb]

58. 3 days and still waiting for a response from Kev! Why am I not surprised!

[seatnineb]

43. Did not Khalid Sheik Mohammed say that one of the hijackers

.....did not do a "video will".

I wonder if that would be our Hani......

As for the Hamza Al Ghamdi photos......

Difficult to tell .....they could be different ....but they could be the same.

[Kevin Fenton]

44. I thought he said all of them did video wills,

which is crap in my opinion (but I'll check). In any case, I bet they lost most of them when they left Afganistan. Otherwise, it would have made sense to lead with Atta. Who have they shown until now? Saeed Alghamdi and Alhaznawi?

Have you seen the Dulles Gate video of Hani? I can only find a small clip of it.

The two Hamza Alghamdis look remarkably similar to me... What about the beard?

[seatnineb]

45. Only 18 of the 19.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was interviewed in the late spring/early summer of 2002 by Yosri Fouda.....

By which point the war with Afghanistan was as good as over....

But KSM was still boasting to Yosri Fouda that only 18 of the 19 hijackers had taped their "video wills".

At no point does he mention that any of the tapes were lost.

Fouda asked KSM if he could see Atta's "video will"....and KSM responded by saying:

"We will cherish it for a while"

I have seen clips from that surveillance video at Dulles but not the part where Hani walks through......

As for Hamza Al-Ghamdi....

Check this out:

One of the 9-11 hijackers particularly intrigues Yamani. He is Hamza Al Ghamdi.

Yamani asserts there are more than 6,000 Ghamdis in the Saudi security forces.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39490

BTW Kev........

The point is not lost on me that having a Saudi security forces member who had been to Afghanistan and then participated in 9/11 ........is much safer than having a Saudi prince(Atta/Arrajacki) who snorts coke, has a pilot's license,listens to the Beasty boys,has a 9 year old son to French woman ,who dates a stripper and who had never been to Afghanistan.......who then participated in 9/11.

Interesting how the emphasis pointed to Saudi Arabia pre -9/11 and how that same emphasis was re-modelled post 9/11 to point to Afghanistan.

[Kevin Fenton]

46. Hani

Here's the Hani link:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:xbMeFQHaoXUJ:www.terrorize.dk/911/hijackers/+Dulles+hijackers+video&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&client=firefox-a
He comes on after about 15 seconds. It's not complete, only a few seconds - I'm still looking.
"Hani" does a pretty good pimp roll, doesn't he? I guess he must have learned that in the states. Try comparing Big Hani's height to that of the security guy and then go back to the start of the video and compare Al Hazmi's height to the security guy. What does that make Big Hani - a pivot or a defensive end? No wonder American's computer system has no record of him checking in.

Could you give me the links to the other Dulles videos you've seen please?

What page is the Fouda thing on please?
If you ask me the other one should be Fayez Ahmed - he sticks out like a sore thumb.

The Ghamdis are a massive tribe, no wonder there's 6,000 of them in the security forces. Don't you think his beard is photoshopped?

[seatnineb]

52. The Saudi Mahabeth.

Sorry Kev......

But the link for the surveillance footage that I once used in late 2004 no longer works.......

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040722/D83VUFI00.htm ...

As for Fouda's interview with KSM

Masterminds Of Terror
page 141

As for Al-Ghamdi's beard......you may have a point.

But who gives a shit anyway.......we know that most(if not all) of the information that has been obtained about the Saudi hijackers has been courtsey of The Saudi Mahabeth(secret police) or the CIA "report" that are both cited in the 9/11 CR....or for that matter Al-Quida themselves!

Do you trust the above 3 sources Kev?

[Kevin Fenton]

53. Dulles, etc.

Concerning the Dulles footage: did you have a look at the footage on terrorize? What did you think of Hani? To me, he seems even larger than in the still - the still was taken by a camera above him and makes him look shorter than he actually is (i.e. he looks only a couple of inches taller than Hani was, but in reality he's about 6 foot). Taken together with the facts that there's no computer record of him checking in or being issued a boarding card, there's nobody who says they saw him at the airport and his DNA was not identified at the Pentagon, I'd say that was about as conclusive an argument as you can get.

I'm not so worried about what appear to be fake beards on Al Ghamdi and Waleed Al Shehri, because Al Qaeda have shown footage of them in Afghanistan (at least it looked like Afghanistan). So, even if, for some bizarre reason, they used the FBI's mugshots in their video, this does not indicate they were not in Afghanistan. However, what about this guy:


And here he is in "19 Martrys"

Initially I thought it was the same guy and the same photo, but, after playing around with the FBI photo, I can't get it to look like the Al Qaeda photo, so maybe the photos are different. But the "19 Martyrs" photo does look like it's had the brightness turned up, don't you think? Still, I haven't yet seen any footage of him in Afghanistan or an account by a detainee suggesting he was there, or an interview with his family, or a credible claim his family was ever interviewed (all the other muscle families were allegedly interviewed for the 9/11 CR, although it seems these interviews were just for general biographical information, not for any details about their movements - how much slacker could they get?).

As for whom to trust. Well, I wouldn't say "most (if not all) of the information that has been obtained about the Saudi hijackers has been courtesy of the Saudi Mahabeth (secret police) or the CIA "report" that are both cited in the 9/11 CR....or for that matter Al-Quida themselves!"
There are 5 sources about the Saudi hijackers:
(1) The US press, for details of their movements in the US;
(2) The Saudi press (mostly Al Watan);
(3) US intelligence;
(4) Detainee accounts;
(5) Saudi intelligence.
A big problem I'm having is that in the CR it's often not clear whether the intelligence they refer to is US or Saudi - I think I'd put more reliance on report implicating Saudi Hezbollah if it didn't come from Saudi intelligence, but when there's no way to check this, then what are we supposed to believe? I trust sources that can be cross-checked.
For example:
(1) Al Hamlan (probable source: Saudi intelligence) says he was in Jeddah with Waleed Al Shehri at the same time as Al Shehri and Al Nami made their visa applications there (dates taken from visa applications); the two accounts match, so they reinforce each other;
(2) Al Hamlan said he and Al Nami stayed in Tehran (on their way to Jeddah in October 2000) while onward travel was arranged for him; I don't have any confirmation for this, so I'm certainly more sceptical of it, especially because it probably comes from the Saudis (I really doubt they let the US question AL Hamlan themselves);
(3) The CR (p. 240) says that the Al Shehri brothers and Al Nami flew to Iran via Beirut in Mid-November on the same plane as a Hezbollah operative on the second leg; I checked this against the families' statements and they both claim all three guys were still at home in December (this claim was first made a few days after the attacks and repeated later), meaning that the Commission's account is a bag of crap - in any case, the Commission isn't sure, they only say that they "believe" it was in Mid-November. Couldn't they, like, have had a look at the manifest?

[seatnineb]

57. The Saudi Mahabeth are run by Prince Naif.............

......and Prince Naif has a nasty habit of saying that the "Zionists" did 9/11.

Even though his own Mahabeth have been responsible for interviewing the families of the Saudi 9/11 hijackers.

But the official story of 9/11 is in jeapordy when the first and second most powerful men in Saudi Arabia say the following:

Saudi Arabia, on Saudi television, Crown Prince Abdullah told a strikingly different story about who was to blame.

NBC News translated Abdullah's remarks from Arabic: “Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don’t say, I mean... It is not 100 percent, but 95 percent that the Zionist hands are behind what happened.”

Prince Nayef, the Saudi Interior Minister said, “Al-Qaida is backed by Israel and Zionism.”

As for the alleged Saudi doublespeak, a Saudi official in the United States defends the remarks, arguing that Zionists and others who argue for regime change in Saudi Arabia “share the same objective as Osama bin Laden.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5218227 /

I never knew that there were Saudi Zionists!.........did you?

[medienanalyse]

36. A good question. Please help me ...

"So why has not the Hanjour family been vocal about this anomoly"

I would like to know that too. Since Hanjour is identified - 100%, he is known by burthdate and place of birth. And where the family lives. I would like to write or phone them.

For instance I am very interested why they seem not to be happy to get the body of their beloved son. His body is on ice, as we know, it was clearly identified in the Pentagon rubble.

Muslim tradition says: bury him as soon as possible. But he is on ice in a vault of the FBI like at least 8 others.

Are there doubts ? The family might open the coffin and look für the teeth-structure or genetic material ...

[Kevin Fenton]

37. 00 966 2 734 2751

Is the number you should call, at least according to his visa applications - he gives the same number of all of three of them I could find.

This is the 1997 one:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document100902a.asp

This is the first one from 2000:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document100902b.asp

This is the second one from 2000:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document100902c.asp

I'm not sure it is the family home, but this seems a reasonable assumption and it might be worth a try.

Hani has also helpfully provided his address, if you would prefer to write. Actally, I would recommend writing - a call might frighten them.

As far as I can remember (and I haven't really looked at Hani in much detail), the family sort of appointed a spokesman after 9/11 (a brother? a cousin?), perhaps you should address it to him. They were even reportedly willing to talk to the western media at one point, but demanded money and the station didn't want to cough up, so the reporter went to see one of the Alshehri brothers' brothers instead.

However, the Saudis are really not keen on letting people talk to the media:

"Attempts by The Associated Press to interview Saudis who say they were named as suicide hijackers have failed, reportedly because they have been instructed by Saudi authorities not to talk to the press. But that prohibition apparently does not apply to the Saudi press, which is closely monitored by the government."
http://usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/20/saudi.htm

That old warhorse Bobby Fisk says:
"The Saudis are not handing out visas to journalists right now and why should they when their enquiries would reveal a kingdom that is ever more dangerously balanced between religious extremists and the royal family which first invited American troops to Saudi Arabia more than 11 years ago?"

"Fearful that the US will discover the deep-seated friction within Saudi society, the Saudis have effectively neutered American efforts to interview men arrested for suspected bombings."
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:6GlgTlFyyPkJ:www.ddh.nl/pipermail/wereldcrisis/2001-September/001204.html+Alnami+Asir&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&client=firefox-a

"More remarkable still was the determination of Saudi Information Ministry officials to block The Age's attempts to interview Sheik Al Hawashi or anyone else in the region about why its men volunteered in such numbers for Osama bin Laden's missions."
"Just to get permission to travel to the region required an undertaking not to approach the hijackers' families. Once in the area we were banned from approaching local academics or sheiks or taking photographs."
"At one point, this reporter was informed by a ministry minder that he was a "prisoner" and permission was denied even to take a taxi to the airport. When The Age insisted on departing by taxi, three minders followed in a black Ford sedan for the 30-kilometre drive."
"Saudi Arabia grants only limited numbers of press visas. A senior official at the Information Ministry said the government was protecting the families of the hijackers, after complaints of media harassment. He took great pride in the near total failure of the international media to get substantive interviews with any of the families linked to September 11 - including the bin Laden family."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/03/1033538723923.html

"And the province is sensitive about the implications of its role in the hijackings. Foreign journalists arriving here have been refused permission to conduct interviews and have been told to leave."
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:sl80FCNf9zYJ:www.sol-system.com/cgi-bin/censor/censor.cgi%3F1/wp-dyn/articles/A5321-2001Oct16.html+Alnami+Asir&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=59&client=firefox-a

[Andre II]

38. Which Hanjour are you talking about?

The one that is 170 cm (5-feet-5) tall.
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document100902a.asp

The one that is 6 feet tall.
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document100902b.asp

The one that is 5-feet-8 tall.
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document100902c.asp

The one that calls himself Hanjoor (name doesn't figure on the FBI list as an alias btw) or the one that calls himself Hanjour.

The one with a handwriting to the left or with a handwriting to the write.


Or do you think these visa applications are from one and the same person?

[Kevin Fenton]

40. You made that up

1st visa application: "170cm" = 5 foot 8 (not 5 foot 5).

2nd visa application: "68" = 68 inches which works out nicely to 5 foot 8.

3rd visa application: "5.8" = 5 foot 8.

[Andre II]

41. I don't think so

I admit I don't live in a country that uses feet as a measurement though the truth lies between our estimations:

170cm = 5.69f eet


If you read this as 68 inches ...well I've never ever seen somebody filling in three visa applications and one giving his height in cm, in one he uses inches and in the third he uses feet .... I don't recall anybody using inches instead of feet plus inches anyway.

Still 68 inches = 5 feet 8

and in the third he gives his height as 5-feet-8.

Rest as well the change of his name and his handwriting.

And what is your attitude, Kevin, see my post 21. I'd be happy if you find time to answer that one.

[medienanalyse]

47. everybody can see - folowing your own posts here: it is not "made up"

your own post show the different handwriting, even the different name: Hanjoor and Hanjour. The first visa application is completely different from the others.


I did a lot of research for my book and my homepage already. Now I do ask those who think there is a clear identity to provide the adress and the phone number of one of the most prominent hijackers in world history. Of the one who hit the military center of the most powerfull nation of the world.

I feel unable. The number I got from you does not work

[Kevin Fenton]

48. Handwriting, name, address

"Now I do ask those who think there is a clear identity to provide the adress and the phone number of one of the most prominent hijackers in world history."
This is not logical. You are arguing that if a person beleives someone else exists, then he should be able to find out his phone number and address. However, this is not always true. For example, I'm sure we both believe that, say, Anthony Hopkins exists (and is more famous than Hani Hanjour), but I don't know his number and address. Do you?

Yes, the name is spelled differently. The first application says "Hanjoor", whereas the other two say "Hanjour". However, what an applicant is supposed to write there is "SURNAMES OR FAMILY NAMES (Exactly as in passport)". As HH had a different passport, the difference may be explained by the fact that the transliteration of his name was different in the two passports - there is no standard way of transliterating Arabic names into English. Alternatively, by giving his name differently, he can "bypass" any records the State Department (and, he probably thinks, any US institution) has on him. Given that the consular officer said that, if he had known the information on Hanjour's previous stays in the US "he might have refused Hanjour the visa" (Terrorist Travel, p. 14), this was either a lucky break for Hani, or a smart move.

Yes, the handwriting is different. However, we don't actually know who filled the forms in. Also, I also once changed my handwriting, so I don't have a problem with him doing it too.

"The number I got from you does not work."
Well, maybe lots of people called them with abusive messages, so they changed it.

Address:
On the third visa application, he gives his home address as "Taif, Al-fesuleh PO Box 1717" and his work/school address as "Al-jaish St." On his second visa application he gives his home address as "Al-jaish st. PO Box 1717" (doesn't "jaish" mean "movement" - as in political movement, not moving about?). On his first visa it's just Taif. I can't get anything out of them from either google or google earth. Apparently the residence is an "imposing two-story marble house", but Taif is quite a large city and there may be more than one such house.
House link: http://www.lawrencewright.com/art-saudi.html

Alternatively, you could try contactng Lawrence Wright (who actually met Yasser Hanjour - see link above) at the New Yorker (although after a brief look it seems he doesn't write for them any more) or you could find out who is publisher is and write to them.

However, I would really recommend you view the Dulles video, not just the stills, before you do so.

[medienanalyse]

49. Who is "Anthony Hopkins " ?

Okay, let`s argue seriously.

Yawn. About transcription. It is very simple. Your visa must be identical with your passport. And btw - your name in the ticket shoul be identical with the one in your other documents (I just add that because the transcription bullshit tries to argue that every chines, thai, arab and so on can just change his identity in countries of latin letters day by day.)

New passport, new transcription? In my country the passports are not handed out like cakes. There is a form in the computer or your birth document as al qaeda (the base) of filling it in.

Everybody changes his handwriting day by ay. In the above document it is more than that. The direction is different. Try to argue it away - it just makes you "a not serious arguer" in my eyes.

"we don't actually know who filled the forms in" - I like that sentence. And I agree. It says what I state since years: we do not know who this Hani is or was.

You are still working on " do this, do that".
Again I tell you: i do not allege anybody to be the perpetrator of 911.
I will do NOTHING.
Those who say "Mr.X was it" have to prove it.
Try to identify anybody in a trial about murder by his P.P.box, old phone number, different handwriting, different name and so on.

Anybody in the court will LAUGH at you.

So: You do allegations here in the forum. If the person were alive he could sue the editors of the forum. The 19 persons, if they were alive or even existent, could sue the FBI, Bush, newspapers and so on. But noz existent perons cannot sue.
How lucky you are.

Anyway - in public discussion you should be able to prove you allegations. You, not me. Proof is more than the jokes you provide.

[Kevin Fenton]

50. Travel agent

Hani's 1997 visa was completed by a travel agent:
"The application does bear a signature that appears identical to the signature on Hanjour's two 2000 visa applications. DOS record, visa applications of Hanjour, Sept 10. and Sept. 25, 2000. However, the application form also indicated that it was prepared by "Siddiqi/Samara Travel". DOS record, visa application of Hanjour, Nov. 2, 1997. Thus, the false statements may have been made inadvertantly by a travel agent who filled out the form on Hanjour's behalf." (Terrorist Travel, p. 35).

[medienanalyse]

51. Yes. Travel agent. But ...

it were the other two visa applications. The one from 1997 is the real one.

[medienanalyse]

60. still waiting on the evidence

for who did which handwriting ...

Different photos,
different names
new passports
new visa

and now different handriting. Because of a travel agent. Maybe all of the visa applications were written by travel agents ? Who knows?

So I am still waiting on the correct data of the Hani I shall hunt for. I cannot phone all Saudi Arabia.

[Andre II]

64. Hanjoor and Hanjour

I still quite don't get this:
It doesn't matter who signed the 1997 application. Even if the agent filled out the form on Hanjour's behalf why does he use the name Hanjoor? Why doesn't this raise problems when checking with his passport when filling out the visa application? Why does it not pose problems when entering the US? Why does Hani have a pilot licence on the name of Hanjoor? How can a Hanjour use the pilot licence of a Hanjoor in the US? To me it is not really bright to try to have a visa on a slightly different name. It only produces problems.
Btw why does al Qaeda use the image of somebody who obviously didn't check in at Dulles?

[Kevin Fenton]

65. Hani

It does matter who signed the 1997 application - Hani should have done it. However, whilst I have the first pages of all three visa applications, I only have the second page of one of them, so I can't compare signatures. The travel agent is supposed to have completed the application and stamped it, but Hani should have signed it himself.

Possibly, what happened is that his name was transliterated differently (there are lots of different ways of transliterating it into the Roman alphabet) in the two passports. I don't see why this should cause particular problems. I have a different name on my passport and my residence permit and nobody cares. One year it was even spelled wrong on my residence permit and I was officially "Kevin Fanton" (or something, I don't remember) for 12 months. During that time only one person noticed the discrepancy (at the bank - I had to sign my name incorrectly). As for using the pilot licence, for example, maybe it had a photo (I don't know, I haven't seen it) and the photos matched, so nobody cared about one letter.

"Why does al Qaeda use the image of somebody who obviously didn't check in at Dulles?"
Because they think he checked in.

[seatnineb]

66. You are not THE Kevin Fenton......are you?!

BTW I could not disagree more with your last response to AndreII......

In the words of Kevin Fenton:

Wed Mar-15-06 11:18 AM

"Why does al Qaeda use the image of somebody who obviously didn't check in at Dulles?"
Because they think he checked in.

No fuckin shit!

Al-Quida are known to watch CNN,ABC,CBS Fox News and the rest.......

And Hani's photo at Dulles has been doing the rounds in the mainstream media since 2004.

So I can bet you your bottom dollar that Al-Quida are more than aware that there is a discrepancy.

But the fact that they have not even addressed the anomoly(so far) speaks volumes about both Al-Quida and the FBI/CIA/Saudi GID axis with regards to the legitamacy of the information that they divulge concerning the hijackers.

[Kevin Fenton]

67. The professor of music or the VD guy?

There's nobody left from the planes operation in Al Qaeda - KSM and Binalshibh are being waterboarded an an undisclosed location and Atef is dead. Who, specifically, should speak out and why? If they've figured he did a runner, why would they publicise this fact, especially after lionising him for a couple of years?

I doubt they know. If they do know, they have a very good reason to keep quiet.

[seatnineb]

68. O.K Kev.............let's put it another way..................

If the official story is to be believed............

These 4 individuals who would hijack flight 77:









..........were expecting this man(who they knew and trained with pre-911),and who went by the name of Hani Hanjour:



...... to turn up at Dulles, with them, and eventually board Flight 77 and hijack it.

So can you imagine the reaction of these 4 individuals when they see John Doe II:



...... show up instead of Hani Hanjour at Dulles:

[Kevin Fenton]

69. If Hani bailed out...

... then they would have known he was gone several hours before they got to Dulles (at least). I see no reason why they would have seen the big Mexican there. If, by some chance, they did see him, then they would think simply, "Gee, a big Mexican, hope he's not on our flight," and that would be the end of it.

[Andre II]

71. I'm getting a bit confused here

I take it you consider it a possiblity that Hani wasn't on the flight.
Stupid question: But what did happen to him? He can' turn into air and become invisble?
The FBI should know about his destiny.
Why would the FBI put Hani on the list of hijackers on September 14 if there was no sign he was on the plane?

[Kevin Fenton]

73. He ran off

"Why would the FBI put Hani on the list of hijackers on September 14 if there was no sign he was on the plane?"
Because he had a ticket and the FBI thought the others couldn't fly and needed a pilot.

If it's an inside job and the Dulles video is faked, then why did they get a six-foot Mexican to play Hani?

[Andre II]

77. Still confused

Because he had a ticket and the FBI thought the others couldn't fly and needed a pilot.

Sorry, what counts is simply if he had a boarding card or not.
If he had he was present. If he didn't how can the FBI put him on the list on September 14?
They need a pilot? Don't think Hani was much better than the lousy Nawaf.

Why does the Dulles video necessarily has to have been faked is it was an inside job?

[Andre II]

85. boarding card

If Hani had one he was there.
If he hadn't why would the FBI put him on the list?

[seatnineb]

75. You do talk bullshit Kev............

Gee .......I wonder why the FBI would bother to black out the already grainy faces on that dulles video!


Elaine Teague, who is suing over the death of her 31-year-old daughter, Sandra, said she had previously been shown the footage by the FBI. But the terrorists' faces had been digitally disguised
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-07-21-hijackers-tape_x.htm

[Kevin Fenton]

76. Was that just random abuse...

... or was it related to the topic of this thread?

[seatnineb]

79. Read again:

Proof that Al-Quida do not have a fuckin clue as to who their own hijackers were:

In the words of 9/11 mastermind,Ramzi Binalshib:


"All the brothers did a great job with the help of Allah, and there was constant contact among the 4 aeroplanes to reassure each other and coordinate their action as the pilots were on their way"
Masterminds Of Terror
Page 144

So I wonder what the topic of conversation was "among the 4 aeroplanes" with regards to the substitution of Hani Hanjour:



............with John Doe II:

[Kevin Fenton]

81. If Binalshibh told me day follows night...

... I'd check it on Wikipedia.

My guess is that this little piece of fiction was inspired by the meeting in Spain. Atta told him they were working on getting some sort of super walkie-talkie type phone system so they could communicate. AFAIK it fell through and they never bought them - PT had a thread about it a while back.

[seatnineb]

82. If Al-Quida/Mossad/CIA/FBI/ISI/ Saudi GID told me that night follows day

.........I would also check it with Wikepedia!

But the one thing that amazes me is neither this woman:

Elaine Teague, who is suing over the death of her 31-year-old daughter, Sandra, said she had previously been shown the footage by the FBI. But the terrorists' faces had been digitally disguised
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-07-21-hijacker...

.......or the relatives of this Hanjour:



....seem to be concerned about the discrepancy between this same Hanjour:



.......and the Hani Hanjour(alias John DoeII):



..........who walked through Dulles that morning to board and hijack Flight77 and fly it into the Pentagon:

[Kevin Fenton]

83. You are easily amazed

IMHO "no-Hani-on-77" is the best, most stone-cold argument the "9/11 truth movement" has. However, for some reason just about everybody concentrates on other stuff. I guess that's why they haven't heard of it. Plus there's the question of censorship in Saudi Arabia.

[seatnineb]

84. So why has Bush not "censored" or admonished his buddy Abdullah........

.......for this rather scintillating remark:


Saudi Arabia, on Saudi television, Crown Prince Abdullah told a strikingly different story about who was to blame.

NBC News translated Abdullah's remarks from Arabic: “Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don’t say, I mean... It is not 100 percent, but 95 percent that the Zionist hands are behind what happened.”


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5218227 /

I wonder if the House Of Saud/House Of Bush axis is accountable for that 5 percent that the Zionists are not responsible for.

That 5 percent may include this man:



........who was used to cover the tracks of this individual who belonged to that other 95 percent:

[Andre II]

72. Visa

Well, I've a srongly different experience than you but anyway.

According to you al Qaeda thought he checked in but below you state that the alleged hijackers of AA77 would have known he bailed out if indeed he did. To combine your two statements you must assume that the alleged hijackers didn't react on discovering the absence of Hani by phoning Atta or KSM etc. Do you believe that?

And btw why does the name of Hanjoor not appear on the FBI list?

[Kevin Fenton]

74. No

"To combine your two statements you must assume that the alleged hijackers didn't react on discovering the absence of Hani by phoning Atta or KSM etc."
No, I must not. Atta is dead. If they did call him, he can't tell us now.

If it's an inside job and there was no American 77, then how come the customer representative remembers checking people in for the flight?

[Andre II]

78. Still confused

Atta is dead. If they did call him, he can't tell us now.

Sorry, Kevin his cell phone bill can. The same way we do know that Atta was phoned on 911 from a phone in the airport which is assumed was Alshehhi.

If it's an inside job and there was no American 77,
Why does an inside job imply that there was no AA 77?

[Kevin Fenton]

80. Phone bill

Atta may have spoken with them using a phone other than his mobile phone. They may not have called him. What difference does it make?

So you're saying that American 77 was real and hit the Pentagon, but it was an inside job?

btw, what do you make of the supposed call from Alshehhi to Atta?

[Andre II]

86. Difference

Right so the alleged hijackers phoned Atta in alarm that Hani was gone and phoned Atta on a different phone?
Anyway.
I didn't say that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. I only said that inside job doesn't necessarily imply AA 77 didn't take off.

As far as I know the only thing that gives reason to assume a call happen is the fact that Atta's phone (whoever and wherever the phone was at that moment) was phoned from a phone box in Boston Airport. It's an assumption that Al-Shehhi called Atta. Nothing more.

[Kevin Fenton]

87. Either:

(a) Hani did a runner at the last minute (which is the logical thing for him to do) and they didn't call Atta - he would have been useless anyway; or
(b) They called Atta (but not Afghanistan), but he didn't pass the message back to Afghanistan, so they don't know Hani did a runner and are relying on the FBI's investigative skills; or
(c) Afghanistan found out, but figured he came back when the FBI said he was there; or
(d) Afghanistan found out, but figured publicising that one of their suicide operatives did a runner would be a bad PR move - just because they're terrorists, doesn't mean they're honest.

In your opinion did American 77 hit the Pentagon or not?

The Boston call is supposed to have been at 6:52.
(1) Can we confirm Shehhi had already checked in by this time?
(2) As far as you know, was the connecting flight on time? I have seen some dispute about this.
(3) If Atta had his phone with him, how did they recover stuff from it?

[Andre II]

88. Simple question

If Hani did a runner how come he figure on the FBI list (since September 14)? What's about his boarding card?

I don't see what my opinion about what hit the Pentagon has anything to do with the identity of the hijackers?

Good point about the Boston call.
I know only the check in time for Al-Shehhi given by the CR.
Portland flight data are confusing. Especially as this flight (surprise, surprise) isn't listed in the BTS.
But eyewitnesses state that the flight had a dealy which makes it questionable if Atta could indeed have received a call at 6:52 or if his phone call was in somebody else's hands.

(3) They recovered the stuff from the firm that is in charge of calculating his phone bill I guess.
(In case of Mark Bingham they also recovered his mother's phone call at 9:54 stating that UA 93 was shown as a hijack on TV (although at that time NO TV has mentioned this plane as a hijack))

[Kevin Fenton]

89. No problem

He doesn't have a boarding card - this is the reason he wasn't on the manifest and the reason they don't know what time he checked in (the Commission just presumes he checked in before 7:35, because that is the time "Hani" is seen on the video).
He's on the FBI list because they think the other guys can't fly, but he could (although not a 757) and he had a ticket, so they figured the tall Mexican was him, the lack of a check-in record was just a computer glitch and weren't bothered nobody saw him at the airport. Talk about sloppy.

I've heard the "delay" story too, which is why I'm asking. Would you have a link to the thing about the no BTS record story. The alternative explanation is that he was delayed at security, because he pretended not to speak English. But then why would his bags not make the plane?
Did he buy the tickets for the two flights separately? That would explain it.

[Andre II]

91. Sloppy that would have been indeed

But where the hell is Hani then? What happened to him after 911? We can agree he didn't disappear into air?
Was he murdered? By whom etc etc etc?
And who was piloting the plane theb?

The BTS:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=12490&mesg_id=13789

There is no flight around 6:00.

Btw there is also the witness account of the woman who checked in Atta in Boston.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24596

There are three different accounts when and where Atta purchased his ticket.

[Kevin Fenton]

93. Hani ran off

He is in hiding, the world is a big place and everybody thinks he is dead, so nobody is looking for him. One of the other hijackers must then have piloted the plane. I don't know which one.

Thanks for the link to Dulce's post. However, she seems to have assumed that they flew with American Eagle, an American Airlines subsidiary. This is a logical assumption, but Atta and Alomari are supposed to have flown with US Airways on the first leg, so showing that he couldn't have got to Boston on time with American Eagle is beside the point.

Thank you for the Atta Boston link.

[Andre II]

94. Hiding

Well, that should be pretty difficult to hide in the US...
Other hijacker:
The dumb and dumbers who even stopped their flight training...?
Moqed had no flight training in the US nor before.
Salem?

All accounts I've seen speak of American Eagle.
Do you have a link for US Airways?

[Kevin Fenton]

95. Hani's height

Don't know, but he looks about the same as Moqed in this one:


Why would it be difficult to hide in the US? How many people actually know what he looks like? The US's borders are headly sealed.
Nawaf Alhazmi, dumb? At English maybe. He could almost take off and land the plane the first time he allegedly (according to the FBI) got in it. And why do you think he stopped his flight training?
How do we know what the hijackers were doing at Kandahar airport?

US Airways:
Sometime after 6 a.m. on Sept. 11, Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, both believed to be trained pilots, boarded a US Airways flight at the Portland International Jetport in Maine and then made the American Flight 11 connection in Boston.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24596

But Atta was forced to check his two larger bags, described as soft-sided with roller boards, because the 19-seat commuter plane he flew to Boston allows passengers just one carry-on bag each, says a US Airways Express employee who works at the ticket counter where Atta checked in.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/worldnetdaily_attasuit.html

A former U.S. Airways ticket agent who issued boarding passes to the terrorists who later hijacked a plane out of Boston on Sept. 11, 2001, says he felt guilty afterward.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149635,00.html

The alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was angered when he learned he had to undergo security screening between flights on the morning of the suicide attacks, a former U.S. Airways ticket agent says.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7117783/

On Tuesday, shortly before 6 a.m., the camera captured an image of Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari clearing security in the quiet airport for a US Airways flight to Boston.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010924/wplot.html

If he'd flown with American or a subsidiary, he wouldn't have had to run from one end of the terminal to the other, because his connecting flight would have come to the same part of the terminal.

btw, Binalshibh said he didn't know why Atta went to Portland. He also said the hijackers were supposed to sit in an H formation with two muscle guys right by the cockpit to storm it, the pilot in the middle and two more muscle guys at the back to deal with the passengers. How many flights actually look like that? 1? He also said they were supposed to attack ASAP. If you ask me, this isn't his usual crap, he's just been told something and then somebody went and changed the plan without telling him.

[Andre II]

92. Have you found any witness

in the US that actually estimates Hani being around 5 foot 8?

[Andre II]

96. Strange

all the witnesses of Hani I have do estiamte him being only 5 feet 4 tall.
Not too clever to ask a visa for 5 feet 8.

[medienanalyse]

12. who must prove what

Excuse me -

are you saying somebody in this forum shall prove that somebody who is alive (so not a hijacker ) is identical with a foto somewhere?

We - the sceptics - shall prove the innocence of people who are obviously innocent?

No my dear.
Those Bushists who claim that 911 happened as it is told to the public shall prove that the perpetrators did what they did. I.e. the FBI shall find out who hijacked the planes.

The FBI claims that they know. They do not.

They - the FBI - is untill now unable to say who Mr. AlSheri is. There is no positive identification. See
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

If you know who somebody is you know when and where he is born. So you know his parents, his family. And then all journalists of the world can visit the family, schoolfriends and so on and provide dozens of fotos and a CV withg all information.

We can only show: there is no identity of a "hijacker".

Now it is your turn.

[RedSock]

14. video of "alive" hijackers

we all know about the seven (or so) people identified as hijackers who are actually alive.

however, it seems that all we have are newspaper stories (or perhaps more accurately, online stories).

i believe the stories of the identity theft, but are there any photos of these men in the actual paper newspapers?

does anyone know of TV/video footage of them saying "I'm not dead"?

[Kevin Fenton]

15. It's a donkey

The alive hijackers story is not a good one and we should definitely back away from it. I haven't looked at all of them, but, in the case of Al-Nami, Salem Al-Hazmi, Wail Al-Shehri and Saeed Al-Ghamdi it does not check out - i.e. these are just people with the same names, it's not who the FBI thought it was. In the case of Waleed Al-Shehri it does check out - there is no question the FBI originally thought the hijacker was the Waleed Al-Shehri who showed up in Morocco and there is no question it was actually him who did show up. However, another Waleed Al-Shehri was subsequently identified and he appears to be dead.

I don't know about Al-Omari, but look at the photos below.

It is very worrying that Scholars for 9/11 Truth are peddling this story - people will find out it's meaningless and it will rebound on us.

Here are the two Salem Al-Hazmis:

Alive on right, dead on left.

Here's a photo from US ID:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp%3Ftimeline%3Dcomplete_911_timeline%26al-qaeda_members%3DotherHijackers&h=214&w=378&sz=29&tbnid=068W4RnX2JkHAM:&tbnh=67&tbnw=119&hl=en&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSalem%2BAlhazmi%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN
It's clearly the dead one, not the alive one.

Here's the alive Al-Omari:


Here's the dead one:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/dayof911.html&h=551&w=719&sz=42&tbnid=vuVUGD20kuVGrM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=139&hl=en&start=6&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAlomari%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG

Here he is with Atta at the ATM:


Here he is in Afghanistan:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.arbeiterfotografie.com/galerie/kein-krieg/hintergrund/rezension-5.html&h=178&w=240&sz=23&tbnid=L_voeU70kCsaXM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=104&hl=en&start=51&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAlomari%26start%3D40%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

The one who's alive doesn't look much like the one who's dead to me.

[JackRiddler]

16. I've always maintained...

The right way of putting it is not "hijackers alive" unless you've got a genuinely alive person who is the same person as in one of the FBI pictures breathing and saying, "hello, it's me, I'm alive, obviously I wasn't on one of those planes." Otherwise, these are very common names so it's no surprise you've got guys saying, "hey, that's not me."

To say "hijackers identities never resolved" is a different matter, however.

The 9/11 Commission Report admits by way of a footnote that as many as 13 of the passports may have been doctored (Ch. 12 FN 32, p. 563) "in a manner that has subsequently been associated with al Qaeda." I love that "subsequently"! What they are saying is, after the attacks, we figured out these documents were faked. Period. (And this manner of faking we now associate with al Qaeda, since we are employing the circular argument that al Qaeda did the attacks, therefore the manner of ID faking is associated with al Qaeda, QED.)

Only two of these passports are actually in evidence (i.e. held by the government), the rest presumably lost or destroyed in the attacks. One is the magic passport of Satam al Suqami from AA11, supposedly found on Vesey St. in the minutes after the first crash (!), the other the burnt offering of Ziad Jarrah supposedly recovered at Shanksville.

[medienanalyse]

18. Keep it short and simple

a) "living hijackers" is a contradictio in adjecto: rubbish

b) "theft of identities" is implying a real identity of TWO persons including the one of the thief. Since a) says that the identity of a completely innocent person is completely OUT of discusssion: who is the thief ? When THIEF=HIJACKER but both are unknown we have to ask

c) who did it ? the allegations are invalid. FBI: prove your case !

Summary
It is not we, it is not us who have to prove ANYTHING. The burden of providing evidence is still on the officials. They made the allegations leading to wars and they never proved them. THIS is the scandal. No trial ever validated the "evidence" they published. But John Doe II already showed that the allegations must be wrong.

[Kevin Fenton]

19. Stone cold proof would be...

... (1) lots of photos of a hijacker growing up, (2) photos of the hijacker in the US, (3) interviews with people in the US who knew them, (4) a full timeline and (5) photos of them getting on the plane. We don't have that for anybody, although some of the hijackers satisfy some of the points.

Regarding the airport photos, the Portland stills don't prove anything one way or the other, i.e. it could be Atta and Al Omari or it might not be. Three of the guys (the Al Hazmis and Al Midhar) on the Dulles stills look reasonably like the people they are supposed to be, but Hani doesn't (and there's no record of his check-in time in the SABRE system either, although the Commission puts him in seat 1B, how can there be a record of him checking in if there's no record of the time he checked in?) and I can't see Moqed on the stills at all, even though he's supposed to be with Al Midhar. Have you seen the video? Is he on it?

My understanding is that the passports weren't faked, but that the "doctoring" was the addition of fake tourist stamps to indicate the hijackers hadn't spent that long in Pakistan (which would indicate they went to Afghanistan). For example, when Al Nami and candidate hijacker Al Hamlan left Afghanistan for the first time in October 2000, Al Hamlan (and presumably also Al Nami) got fake stamps for Singapore, Malaysia, Turkey and Egypt. Both KSM and Binalshibh had fake Saudi passports, but the hijackers are supposed to have had real ones. For part of the time the muscle was in Afghanistan (doing security at Kandahar airport) they were supposedly based right next to Al Qaeda's passport doctoring division near Kandahar.

The two passports that "were manipulated in a fraudulant manner" belonged to Al Suqami and Al Omari, not Jarrah, only a fragment of whose passport was found. I have no idea how they know this about Al Omari, they must have a photocopy of it or something. They also say that Almidhar and Salem Al Hazmi presented passports "with a suspicious indicator of Islamic extremism. There is reason to beleive that the passports of three other hijackers (Nawaf Al Hazmi, Ahmed Al Nami and Ahmad Al Haznawi) issued in the same Saudi passport office contained this same indicator; however, their passports have not been found, so we cannot be sure." (same endnote). I guess they must have photocopies of these as well, but why they don't have photocopies of all of them (Saeed Al Ghamdi, for example, was really grilled when he arrived) is beyond me. Maybe it's in Terrorism Travel, but I haven't read all that yet. I have no idea what the "suspicious indicator of Islamic extremism" is. It seems to be associated with the passport office - maybe it's some kind of (Koranic) quote they put in there. The Al Hazmis and Al Midhar on the one hand came from one part of the country and Al Nami and Al Haznawi on the other hand came from another part of the country, so I don't know why they applied for passports from the same office.

Of the three hijackers whose documentation survived the crashes:
(1) Al Suqami used his passport to check in - he was the only hijacker who didn't have any US identification, so I guess he had to use his passport;
(2) Moqed used his (fraudulent) Virginia ID (it was his Saudi student card that was found later) - it's not really surprising that he didn't use his student card (which should have been in Arabic), but it is surprising that "forensic examination indicated that it may have been fraudulent" - what would be the point of him forging a Saudi student ID and taking it with him to the US? There's also some dispute about which university he went to, but I don't know how important that is;
(3) I don't know what Jarrah checked in with, but he also had a Florida driving licence, a duplicate, a Virginia ID and an international student card.
This is from endnote 202 of Terrorism Travel, Ch. 2.

On edit: Terrorism Travel also says that the Al Hazmi brothers' identifications were found at the Pentagon and appeared genuine. p. 27. This is pushing it a bit.

[JackRiddler]

30. please source "Terrorism Travel"

Where are you getting this info on the manner of the doctoring?

Is this one of the 9/11 Commission's follow-up publications (where they stuck in the meat so that no one would notice it)?

At any rate, any doctoring opens up the possibility of total doctoring, does it not?

First I heard that Moqed's ID also remains.

Please give me the sources. Thanks.

[Kevin Fenton]

31. Links

Terrorist Travel is a "monograph". The other "monograph" is Terrorist Finance. They are available in book form (but I haven't bought them) and, along with the various staff statements, at a sub-site of the 9/11 Commission site:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/index.htm

The quotes above should be from Chapter Two. You can download it as a pdf.

"A digital image of Hazmi's passport was found on a hard drive in a safehouse in Pakistan." TT, p. 27
They have a digital image of Almidhar's passport - probably something to do with him applying through Visa Express the second time. TT, endnote 136, p. 41.
The suspicious indicator of Islamic extremism thing is from endnote 32 on pp. 563-4 of the main 9/11 CR.

The manner of doctoring is partly from the candidate hijackers endnote to the main 9/11 CR, no. 107 on pp. 525-6, section 9 about Alhamlan. There's also a bit in the Masterminds when Fouda and Fielding talk about this.

"Al Qaeda had a division of passports and host country issues under its security committee. The office was located at the Kandahar airport and was managed by Muhammad Atef, Al Qaeda's chief of military operations and the number two man in the organisation." TT, Ch. 3, p. 56. What happened to Zawahiri - I thought he was number two?

The muscle's "passports were then likely doctored by the Al Qaeda passport division in Kandahar, which would add or erase entry and exit stamps to create "false trails" in the passports." (9/11 CR, p. 235)

It also says Atta was a forger - maybe he just knocked up a false ID for Moqed (or perhaps "Moqed") to pass the time instead of playing marbles. (TT, p. 56)

The Joint Inquiry thought (but wasn't sure) that "Fayez Ahmed" got his visa through the visa express programme, but he's an Emirati, so how could he have? In TT he's firmly an Emirati, gets his visa (5 days after getting a new passport) there and even worked as an immigration official there (TT p. 25), maybe that's how Atta and Waleed Al Shehri got UAE passports?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/bn.01.html

[RedSock]

61. buying these books

Kevin:

Where can you order these books? I don't see any info at the Commission site.

I suppose I could just print them out at work.

[Kevin Fenton]

62. I had a look at Amazon

I don't actually have them in book form, although I have seen them in the shops - I prefer searching the .pdf anyway.

I looked at Amazon. I thought they were all in one volumne, but it appears not. This is the one for Terrorist Travel:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1577363418/ref=pd_sbs_b_2/104-6078884-8147932?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

This is the one for the Joint Inquiry and staff statements:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006LCLKU/ref=pd_sim_b_4/104-6078884-8147932?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

I'm not really familiar with Amazon.com. Do they deliver in Canada?
I didn't see Terrorist Finance, but it should be in there somewhere.

Unfortunately, although TT has a nice selection of the hijackers' documents, that pesky 9/11 Commission didn't see fit to include all of them (just a sample really). Do you know where the rest can be accessed? If they are still secret, can we get them through an FOIA request? I have no idea how this works in the States. What I would be really interested in is the passports, for example Al Suqami's would have visa stamps clearly showing his movements (or alleged movements, if they were fake) for several months before 9/11. Al Hazmi's, Al Midhar's and Al Omari's passports were also recovered, although at least one of them (Al Midhar's) was just a digital copy found in Pakistan. Moqed's "fake" student ID would be good too, as would the Al Hazmi brothers' ID cards recovered from the Pentagon.

[JackRiddler]

17. Your off-topic matter...

What I think about the UAE?

Can't help it, any time anyone says Dubai I remember this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

[medienanalyse]

8. uncertain whom you are talking to

dear Jack,

I wrote a lot about AlSheri in
www.medienanalyse-international.de/spiegelmethoden.html and I already told John that there is material.

But like you i am still stunned by the overwhelming mass of work John did for us. I am still unable to read it all and to compare it.

Most important is: he shows by evidence that there was a big organizing hand behind all the real persons and there doubles, behind the allegd persons and their papertrail. An organizing institution which is able to care for INS, Jeddah embassy, FBi, Faa and so on.

I have a tiny little bit of a suspicion that this institution might NOT be alQaeda.

[Andre II]

54. Kevin, this seems a good idea to me

"Seeing as you've done this much, why not send it to JohnDoeII and see if he incorporates it?"

yes, Kevin, why don't you do it?
If John Doe doesn't incorporate your corrections then you know he doesn't care for the truth.
If he does incorporate them you'ev helped to come a bit closer to the truth.
Sounds a much more constructive way to me then only to take out the red pen and mark down minor mistakes that don't changne anything about the conclusions and completely to ignore the conclusions.
What do you think of two Attas?

Yes, it sounds much more in the spirit much more in the spirit of cooperative research to join the effort.

[Kevin Fenton]

55. I tried to register at team8...

... but it didn't work for some reason.

Anyway, I would imagine he still comes on here to check out what we are saying now and again.

I don't really care about the two Attas. I'm sure it'll be explained somehow.

[Andre II]

56. Ok I understand

after you didn't answer three times my question I was a bit surprised. Now I understand.

I don't really care about the two Attas. I'm sure it'll be explained somehow.

Excuse me, with all respect, this answer is in stark contrast to your critical approach you show in all other issues.

Let's start with only one bit of the proof that there are two Attas.
Explain him being at least in two different places at the same time on September 7, 2001.

[Andre II]

59. Oswald

Would you care for a proof that there are TWO Oswalds....?

[Andre II]

63. Caring

Kevin, I've seen your in-deepth-analysis around here of basically every topic of 911.
Care to explain why the double Atta doesn't arise your slightest curiousity?
Why the double Atta only produces your answer that you're "sure it'll be explained somehow"?
Strange attitude for somebody known for his crtical approach.
What's so special about the double Atta that it is apparently the only topic of 911 that lets you completely indifferent?
Btw the double Atta is composed of a huge variety of proofs. The strongest: the sighting of Atta on September 7 is based entirely on
accounts from the MSM and official reports. Paul Thompson already agreed that this finding is very noteworthy and also stated in another post that he expects several new findings of hijackers being in two different places at the same time.

Why your complete indifference?
Why your complete lack of any curiousity of the center of the crime story: the identity of te culprit?[/b)

[Andre II]

21. Attitude

Kevin, I'm a bit astonished by your post to be honest.
Why is it that I think that your attitude of an elementary school teacher that only points out mistakes is exactly the reason why nobody ever dared to do such an excessive work. Such a huge body of work necessarily implies that the timelines are not complete and unfortunately mistakes happen (Have you never made any mistakes, Kevin?)
Its' really a comfortable position: to sit back and take out the red pen.
I've read many articles of John Doe II and he has done a vast body of work:
all phone calls from UA 93 analysed.
all eyewitnesses of the crash of UA 93
all eyewitnesses of the white plane
all eyewitnesses of the crash site etc etc etc
He always puts his cards on the table. You don't have to agree with him but it's good to have someone trying to put all the pieces of the puzzle on the table.
That's the reason I believe he seems to work a lot with quotes in the files and refrains from summarizing articles.
But he takes the risk of being wrong and be torn to pieces.
Why don't you come up with your timelines?


Hy Kevin, wake up this is the first time somebody did this huge work. You don't have to explode of enthusiasm but not a single word about the labor that certainly is behind this (with my copy and paste I have about 250 pages and I believe something between 1000 and 2000 sources), no word about his conclusions. Nothing. Nada.
Where are you when I've asked repeatedly how to explain the two Attas on September 7 and 8, 2001? It was John Doe II's finding.
And there are many more and not only in the Atta file.
Did you know that Atta was in Frankfurt in January 2001? I didn't know.
Did you know that Jarrah after being caupt speeding on September 9 with a rented car the speeding ticket was found in his original car at the airport?
Did you know the huge differences of Atta's physical appearance in Germany and in the States?
Did you know that it can't have been the Salem Alhazmi we know that was at Dulles Airport?
Did you know that Atta sometimes spoke English almost without and accent and sometimes with a heavy accent?

I could go on and on and on.
What's up Kevin?
On the one hand I admire your knowledge on Waleed Alshehri. That's really great but on the other hand, well see above...

You mention things John Doe II didn't include. Well, if you would have bothered to read his introduction then you would have realized he doesn't pretend to have finished the work and he asks for corrections.
You mention two mistakes. Great finding: Why don't you write John Doe?
But what you don't realize is that not a single conclusion is touched by your corrections. The point of the remote corner for example is the strange fact that Alshehri spoke not only English well but even German. If Alshehri lived in a village or a small city of 35,000 inhabitans doesn't change a bit his surprising language skills.
And sorry, I find your distortion laughable.
Anyway I remember a thread of Paul Thompson on DU about Waleed Alshehri that more or less contained also the German stuff, the remote corner and the baseball....


Kevin, with your knowlegde:
Why don't you share it? A big step forward has be done. Why don't you join the effort and give John your information; Then you'll see if he's in on your search for the truth or if he just pretends and withholds or distorts your stuff.
Put down the read pen and your comfortable position!

[Andre II]

32. Afraid you've missed my post

Please tell me what your attitude is.
And what do you think about the two Attas?
What do you think about Waleed Alshehri having been in Germany?
What do you think about Waleed Alshehri speaking German?
What do you think about the overweight Salem Alhazmi being described at Dulles Aiport as "skinny", "almost underfed"?

[seatnineb]

34. LOL!....Kevin will probably say they were Pakistani doubles! n/t

[medienanalyse]

5. Just "yes I agree. I admire his work" n.t.

[reprehensor]

3. At first glance, looks pretty good!

Will definitely be taking a closer look when I have time.

[JackRiddler]

70. kick

As genuine research work this deserves to be at the top over some of the currently dominant items (this year's pod is the bluescreen, concrete core, etc.)

Having looked it over some more I am floored by JD2's contribution. You can argue, but what a compilation.

[savemefromdumbya]

90. Patsies but no hijackers