Jim Fetzer: Top Ten Reasons the Hijackers are Fake

[spooked911]

this is good, and especially listen to the number one reason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fbP1lvmBY8

[petgoat]

1. kick nt

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Generarth]

4. Yes, how interesting

do you think they're taking the piss?

Nahhhhh, they wouldn't do that surely!

[mirandapriestly]

8. What does "taking the piss" mean?

and why does kjf also use the term. I'm confused. Everyone watch this video, don't let distractors make you not.

[KJF]

11. Take the piss means

... to ridicule or mock.

10) Hijackers' names not on manifests is not true.

9) 12 of them, or what was left of them, were autopsied (or their remains were examined), but no DNA samples were taken from their families, so no positive matches were made.

8) 5 to 7 alive - they aren't.

7) FBI has not revised the list. There's no reason to. The Waleed Al Shehri they originally thought did it is alive, but they found another Waleed Al Shehri who appears to be dead. Most of the others who came forward claiming to be hijackers still alive are just people with similar names and/or details, not the actual people the FBI thinks hijacked the planes themselves. Banihammed is the one that worries me most. I haven't seen anything putting him Afghanistan ever and I haven't seen an interview with his family or friends from before the plot.

6) The Flagg story. He gets it slightly wrong. I don't really beleive it anyway - there was maybe something in the other bag, but I doubt it was all Flagg claims.

5) Can't fly the planes. It's not preposterous, I dunno about Hani though.

4) Cell phones. The FBI claims most of them were from airphones. Dwedney's experiment is not conclusive anyway.

3) The shouting was heard outside the cockpit, which is why it was heard on the CVR. It's not supposed to be very clear. Obviously, I haven't heard it.

2) Who knows what they would say just before they died. I doubt it was really the end of the tape anyway. IMHO he should really be using this as evidence to claim it wasn't the end of the tape, not that the recording was faked.

1) Moussaoui is not entirely stable, which is one of the reasons his story has changed a bit.

OK, that was a bit short, if you want more, just ask, but we've been through half of this before.

To sum up, half of it is just plain wrong and the other half is too garbled for it to have much of an impact on me.

[BuddyYoung]

12. So, Osama DID do it, or Osama had nothing to do with it?

Osama is behind it. NO.

Wow. It's really easy to do that. Let's try it again. AA 77 flew as scheduled on 911. NO. Another one: AA 77 crashed into, in front of, at, near the Pentagon. NO.

To sum up, why are YOU screaming for Bush to demand Osama's head? Odd that you feel it's more important or as important to come here and try to suppress things you DON'T believe, rather than going on rightwing sites and using your powerful tools of persuasion to convince the fellow travelers there that Bush hates America (and the families of 911 victims) because he won't bring Osama to justice and instead said publicly he's not interested in Osama.

Rucy. You got some 'splainin to do.

[KJF]

14. Osama

Which bit of 9/11 are you asking me whether Osama did or not? Im my opinion, he did do some bits, he didn't do others.

"Odd that you feel it's more important or as important to come here and try to suppress things you DON'T believe, rather than going on rightwing sites and using your powerful tools of persuasion to convince the fellow travelers there that Bush hates America (and the families of 911 victims) because he won't bring Osama to justice and instead said publicly he's not interested in Osama."
(1) I'm not a rightwinger, so don't call me one.
(2) I believe it is slightly less important to counteract the things in which I don't believe than to promote the things in which I do believe. Nevertheless, it is important to counteract them, otherwise the 9/11 truth movement may lose credibility. The "hijackers still alive" story is one such example of a claim which is often repeated, but which is mostly untrue. We must review the arguments put forward by the various disparate elements of the movement and debate them, not blindly agree with everything everybody says. I really don't see anything odd about this at all. There are some very good articles in this vein at 911research, for example this one deals with Fetzer and Scholars for 9/11 Truth: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.html
When Fetzer was on Hannity and Combes I thought he did OK and said so on the relevant thread. I didn't like this video, so I said so. What's wrong with that?

[BuddyYoung]

15. Osama, the longtime CIA asset, was a Patsy, NOT a perp.

It's very odd that someone that says they aren't a right-winger and says that OBL
"did do some bits" - doesn't seem the least concerned that Osama is out there, roaming around in a cave - free, fat (in some videos) and happy.

How does one "counteract" the things they don't believe? What in the world does THAT mean? Beliefs are just that. BELIEFS.

Didn't anyone tell you that you first have to prove there WERE hijackers, before you use that word as though it is a FACT (not mere inference)?

What's wrong with expecting a higher standard than mere assumptions?

BTW - I acknowledge that there are no rightwingers here at DU, and I'm surprised that anyone here would think otherwise. I'm frankly very puzzled at why some people think that just because someone holds certain viewpoints and uses the same kinds of "presentation" tactics as rightwingers, that therefore, such a person is a rightwinger. How that happens is beyond me, but I do apologize if anyone mistakenly feels unfairly tainted by such a label.

[RedSock]

18. if there were no hijackers, then ..........

Didn't anyone tell you that you first have to prove there WERE hijackers, before you use that word as though it is a FACT (not mere inference)?

If there are no hijackers, then the huge paper trail and the hundreds and hundreds of newspaper stories (with witnesses that have seen the hijackers, talked with them, worked with them, lived next door to them) that have been written in the last five years are all a ruse. All made up. A huge fiction. ... There can be no other explanation, right?

And considering how few times the thousands of stories don't add up (relative to the construction of the entire plot) then the people who created that fiction and have made it stick (even with the media's help) are absolute geniuses.

...

Unless those men acted like the hijackers for years but then never got on the four planes and simply vanished. Is that what's being suggested?

[BuddyYoung]

19. Sorry, but your post is a little light in the logic department.

A "huge paper trail and newspaper stories" don't prove there were any hijackers on 911. You must have had a long day.

[mirandapriestly]

21. Obviously they are not geniuses

considering the number of people who disbelieve or would like it re-investigated. Big lies are not that hard. Think how many thought Saddam did 911 and the media didn't even SAY he did they just printed Bushes words and he and others put the "Saddam" and "911" in the same sentence which gave people the idea that he did it.
Think how many think that the Mexican election was "close" and the conservatives "won".
Think how many believed the Swift boat guys.


The "hijackers" trail was being followed that is all we know. It's just a trail, who knows what they were doing. there has been NO real media investigation and NO arrests. (Moussaoui was a patsy and they pulled a bait and switch with the WH "crash" he was planning, which was probably half baked and never would have happened)

The stories of heroism and patriotism and "them against us" have replaced any need for the truth.

[KJF]

23. You're just being silly

Do you always call everyone who doesn't agree with you names?

[Jazz2006]

25. Yes, he/she does. n/t

[DrDebug]

16. Osama was in charge of the drugs from Afghanistan

So he did play a major role, but nothing related to terrorism.

Edit: major of course...

[BuddyYoung]

17. Are you saying he played a major role in 911? If so, what was it? nt

nt

[mirandapriestly]

24. I just read that opium production

is at an all time high (no pun intended) in Afghanistan, The US is doing absolutely nothing to stop it, I'm sure they are profiting hugely from it (CIA, BFEE). It is also spreading into Iraq and people there are becoming addicts at alarming rates, which is I am sure part of the plan for demoralizing and breaking the Iraqi people. There were NO drugs in Iraq prior. I'm not sure what DeBug thinks bin laden's part exactly is, though, but if he was involved with 9-11 it would have been as a collaborator. It's talked about in the John O'Neill threads which are the best thing on here (and free of the u no who's)

[DrDebug]

28. He was only in charge of the drugs

That was his task in Afghanistan and he did that for the US/Saudi Arabia/Pakistan etc. So if they say hand over Osama bin Laden, they mean hand over the drug trade. It's a code word.

[mirandapriestly]

32. Oh, so that is what that meant.

I read "hand over bin laden" as a deal with the taliban, I did not realize it meant that. Nowwww, I get it.

[DrDebug]

35. I think that they are all code words

Osama bin Laden = Drug trade
Al-Qaeda = Drug dealers
Mvrky = Privatized CIA (+filter word)

The bin Laden family (1971). Where are the burqas?
Osama is circled

It's oldest trick to confuse the masses, you use code words with a double meaning.

Osama bin Laden's main objective could have been control of the Afghanistan drug trade, however they needed the bring the fundamentalists to Afghanistan to fight against the Russian (and get rid off them in Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc.) it would have been a nice double meaning. Not only did it make him the perfect patsy, he wouldn't care about it, because his operation was clandestine already, so it would only give Osama bin Laden a hero status.

The biggest problem with Osama bin Laden is that he was a very Western influenced man who was far from a radical. There are also plenty of rumors that the teams in the Osama footage were hired for the day. In the meantime he became an idol for radical Islam and all the thugs and radicals from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and other countries got drawn to Afghanistan to fight the jihad which was exactly what the US wanted as well.

[Old and In the Way]

37. An interesting pic.

seems that we go from 71 until the 90's without much of a picture history of OBL. I'd really like to see better of pics of him....hard to tell from that shot.

[greyl]

13. Not in this usage, it doesn't.

I'm confident Generarth means something along the lines of "being insincere".

[mirandapriestly]

20. I always respect your opinion

I do not think it is really conclusive either way, though.. I have seen passengers lists and they did not have the hijackers on them and when the autopsy results were sent because of the FOIA act these hijackers were not on it. Yes, they said it was because the bodies were not claimed, but why weren't they? And do we take their word for it?
Also, there were people claiming to be the same as those accused and they were quite upset about it. There really was never any follow up on these claims except to brush them aside as "identity mix ups", but it sounded like more than that to me. The people sounded frightened in at least one report.
I have read other opinions that Dewdney that the cell phones would not work and recently there was a big breakthrough in technology so that cell phones could now be used on flights. Why would they announce that if the phones already worked?
and the Beamer thing...Cheney said something to the effect of "I think we've got a hero" immediately upon hearing the passengers taking over scenario, so to me it sounds like a big myth. I think it would be good if people had that myth pulled out from underneath them they would be more likely to want to know what really happened.
I didn't agree with the bit about Americans would beat him up with suitcases if he just had a box-knive, I don't think they would if they thought they had bombs, or if they had real weapons (which is another possibility that might have been covered up for liability purposes), (that is if there were hijackers;)...)

[KJF]

22. This and that

"I have seen passengers lists and they did not have the hijackers on them."
Some lists have the hijackers on, some don't. Quite possibly, the hijackers' names have been removed from some of them because they didn't want them to taint the passengers.

"when the autopsy results were sent because of the FOIA act these hijackers were not on it."
The FOIA request specifically asked for dead people who had been identified, as no DNA samples were obtained from Saudi, the hijackers had not been identified. Articles have been found and posted here about these "mystery" DNA samples. I think they exist, but they definitely should be identified positively.

"Also, there were people claiming to be the same as those accused and they were quite upset about it. There really was never any follow up on these claims except to brush them aside as "identity mix ups", but it sounded like more than that to me."
Let's just do this one by one. Which one of the "alive hijackers" are you most concerned about?

"there was a big breakthrough in technology so that cell phones could now be used on flights. Why would they announce that if the phones already worked?"
Mobile phones may well have worked originally in planes, but as they developed the power output was reduced (most modern phones have less than 1 watt), which makes it harder for modern mobile phones to work in the air. Therefore, airlines are now experimenting with repeaters in planes. Also, as the planes were a long way away from the transmitters, they sent on full power and there was some concern this may interfere with the aircraft's systems.

I'm not at all sure about the hero passengers either, my feeling is the story is at least been spun someway, if not substantially altered somewhere.

[mirandapriestly]

26. Al Omari

is probably the one I'm thinking of. I know there was an instance of his passport being stolen, but I do not understand how "the other" al omari could use his passport.

[KJF]

27. Al Omari was confused with lots of different people

This is the guy who is supposed to be the hijacker:



One of the people he was confused with was previously a student in Colorado and reported having his passport stolen. Seymour Hersh had a look at this and says:

"A hijacker identified as Abdulaziz Alomari, who also was aboard Flight 11, was reported by the Rocky Mountain News to have the same name as a graduate of the University of Colorado, a man who did not resemble a photograph of the hijacker. That Alomari had been stopped by the Denver police several times for minor offenses while attending college and had given three different birth dates. One of the dates matches the birth date used by the hijacker. Investigators subsequently learned that in 1995 the Colorado student had reported a theft in his apartment; among the items stolen was his passport."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020603fa_FACT

The birth dates given by the FBI for Al Omari are:
"Date of birth used: December 24, 1972 and May 28, 1979"
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm

The May 28, 1979 was definitely used by the hijacker and can be seen on his visa application form:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document100902f.asp

I think what's happened here is that the FBI just searched records for the name "Abdulaziz Alomari" (and variants of it, which is why they were interested in the pilot Abrulrahman Alomari initially), then they just figured it must be the same guy because he had the same name and used both birth dates on their press release. In fact, they were two different people, both called Abdulaziz Al Omari and the FBI used the first date of birth incorrectly. The engineer then got jumpy because they were (wrongly) using his date of birth and his story was reported, but never really tied up properly.

I've never seen anything to indicate that the alleged hijacker Abdulaziz Al Omari actually used the birth date December 24, 1972 at any time and we know the FBI searched law enforcement records and would have found it there linked to the name of Abdulaziz Al Omari. Therefore, I think that's where the problem is here. If there were any proof that the alleged hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari had ever used the birth date December 24, 1972, then this would be a major event and we would have a completely different ballgame.

Is that OK or do you want more on something? What do you think?

Re Fetzer: I'm not really a doubles man, but plenty of people who have looked at the hijackers (like JDII and Paul) believe they had doubles, so perhaps he should have mentioned this. He could have gone for the lack of evidence indicating Banihammad was a real person, or the fictional story the 9/11 Commission tells about the hijackers' recruitment, or the problems with their visas, or evidence they were in the US when the 9/11 Commission says they were outside the States, or them being followed by the CIA and other intelligence services, or their calls being tapped by the NSA, or Cambone's note on 9/11 that indicated they were followed after the CIA claims it had stopped following them. Instead he chose to poke fun at one of the victims; I just don't think that is the way forward.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BuddyYoung]

7. Wowweezouzy: how did I miss such artistry. Thanks, PG.

I too, am truly sorry I ever doubted such gruel as we are here privileged to receive at all hours of day and night. Whenever s/he/it issues a clarion call to DEMAND that Osama be brought to justice for perpetrating 911 and plotting the deaths of all those people on 911, I'll be there with him or her. So, go ahead, greyl, pull the "trigger" on Osama. We're with you all the way. From just across the Bay.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KJF]

3. Almost completely without merit

The worst bit was when he was taking the piss out of Mark Bingham. That's wrong and will alienate people. We shouldn't do it.

[mirandapriestly]

6. 70 TIMES!!

"That has got to be a DIRECT POLICY". "They were keeping these guys in reserve so they could use them as their cover story.."
Sounds pretty convincing to me..

[Brainster]

29. Uh, Doesn't That #1 Reason Imply the Hijackers Were Real?

When he says that FBI agent tried to warn their superiors at the FBI 70 times? Warn them about what? There were no hijackers, right?

[mirandapriestly]

30. It looks to me

like the FBI at the top were told to "leave it alone" because it was part of an operation being conducted by other intelligence with a more political agenda. The rank and file FBI guys could not figure out why they were not being allowed to do their jobs.

[KJF]

31. Did it even get to the top of the FBI?

There's obviously a problem there, but I'm not sure it's with the deputy director of counterterrorism - it may well be at middle-management level at headquarters. I'm not really a fan of Mike Ruppert, but in Chapter 12 of Crossing the Rubicon he suggests that one of the people that was blocking the FBI's investigations was Dave Frasca, who was head of one of the counterterrorist units (Radical Fundamentalist or OBL) at FBI headquarters. I felt this was one of Ruppert's better points.

The thing that really bugs me is how George Tenet could have more information about an FBI investigation (into Moussaoui) than the FBI's head of counterterrorism.

[mirandapriestly]

33. I remember that , I read CtR, at least most of it,

then I dropped it in the bathtub and keep meaning to get a replacement. So Frasca was the guy who worked with Colleen Rowley wasn't he? Then didn't he get promoted? So that is the way my mind works;)...that he was rewarded for his "bad" performance, so the decision was above him, although I don't know the structure as well as you. Also I watched a John O'Neill- The Man Who Knew documentary (not the one in the other thread, a more sedate one) and the impression I got was that the suppression of information at least with the Cole bombing was a political decision related to, O'Neill thought, oil companies and Saudi Arabia, in my mind this put the decision making up at the top.

[KJF]

36. Frasca

If memory serves me right, the FBI in Minneapolis needed to go through Frasca, who was in charge of a unit at headquarters, to get a FISA warrant to search Moussaoui's computer. Ruppert claims Frasca may well have been a CIA mole in the FBI.

My understanding of the Cole bombing is that the investigators were unhappy about some of the "political" stuff. However, I think some of it was maybe legitimate, like the ambassador not wanting the FBI to carry machine guns everywhere they went - her staff weren't armed like that, so why should they be? and Clinton not ordering a reprisal after the election. Obviously, there could also have been illegitimate factors at work.

AFAIK knowledge of Moussaoui did not go up through the FBI to the top, but it did get to the top of the CIA. Here's the notification sent in August to DCI Tenet:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-0660.pdf
The notification says "We are working the case with the FBI."

Here's a later version:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-0672.pdf

Allegedly, neither the FBI's deputy director for counterterrorism, nor Richard Clark had heard of Moussaoui on 9/11.

[rman]

34. Those individials did/do exsist, but they were not the hijackers,

even though they were part of the plan.
That's what it means to be a patsy.