An Even Newer 9/11 Thread

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

[url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20723.htm]Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?[/url]

Were the Names of the "Hijackers" on the Passenger Manifests?

Quote:
What about the passenger manifests, which list all the passengers on the flights? If the alleged hijackers purchased tickets and boarded the flights, their names would have been on the manifests for these flights. And we were told that they were. According to counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, the FBI told him at about 10:00 that morning that it recognized the names of some al-Qaeda operatives on passenger manifests it had received from the airlines.77 As to how the FBI itself acquired its list, Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, said to the 9/11 Commission in 2004:

On the morning of 9/11, through an evaluation of data related to the passenger manifest for the four terrorist hijacked aircraft, Customs Office of Intelligence was able to identify the likely terrorist hijackers. Within 45 minutes of the attacks, Customs forwarded the passenger lists with the names of the victims and 19 probable hijackers to the FBI and the intelligence community.78

Under questioning, Bonner added:

We were able to pull from the airlines the passenger manifest for each of the four flights. We ran the manifest through [our lookout] system. . . . [B]y 11:00 AM, I'd seen a sheet that essentially identified the 19 probable hijackers. And in fact, they turned out to be, based upon further follow-up in detailed investigation, to be the 19.79

Bonner's statement, however, is doubly problematic. In the first place, the initial FBI list, as reported by CNN on September 13 and 14, contained only 18 names.80 Why would that be if 19 men had already been identified on 9/11?

Second, several of the names on the FBI's first list, having quickly become problematic, were replaced by other names. For example, the previously discussed men named Bukhari, thought to be brothers, were replaced on American 11's list of hijackers by brothers named Waleed and Wail al-Shehri. Two other replacements for this flight were Satam al-Suqami, whose passport was allegedly found at Ground Zero, and Abdul al-Omari, who allegedly went to Portland with Atta the day before 9/11. Also, the initial list for American 77 did not include the name of Hani Hanjour, who would later be called the pilot of this flight. Rather, it contained a name that, after being read aloud by a CNN correspondent, was transcribed "Mosear Caned."81 All in all, the final list of 19 hijackers contained six names that were not on the original list of 18---a fact that contradicts Bonner's claim that by 11:00 AM on 9/11 his agency had identified 19 probable hijackers who, in fact, "turned out to be. . . the 19."

These replacements to the initial list also undermine the claim that Amy Sweeney, by giving the seat numbers of three of the hijackers to Michael Woodward of American Airlines, allowed him to identify Atta and two others. This second claim is impossible because the two others were Abdul al-Omari and Satam al-Suqami,82 and they were replacements for two men on the original list---who, like Adnan Bukhari, turned up alive after 9/11.83 Woodward could not possibly have identified men who were not added to the list until several days later.84

For all these reasons, the claim that the names of the 19 alleged hijackers were on the airlines' passenger manifests must be considered false.

This conclusion is supported by the fact that the passenger manifests that were released to the public included no names of any of the 19 alleged hijackers and, in fact, no Middle Eastern names whatsoever.85 These manifests, therefore, support the suspicion that there were no al-Qaeda hijackers on the planes.

Even their circumstantial evidence is wonky. There is no such thing as "al-Qaeda"

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

jrootham wrote:

One of the problems that the USAF had on 9/11 is what they described as "the whole in the doughnut".  USAF radars are positioned along the periphery of the US and look outwards.  Internal airspace control is the air traffic control responsibility, which depend on transponders.  At least all this was the case at the time.  The upshot was they didn't know what was going on.  Which is why they shut down everything.

 

Sigh... into the 9-11 maelstrom again... LOL

That and the USAF was not set up to intercept internal fights... its "ready jets" (and there were only a few) were in the wrong places to do so. Modern jet fights and their pilots have to be prepped before they can take off on a mission. This isn't the RAF in the battle of Britain. It looks like Fidel here must think you can just hop into the cockpit of a F-15 fighter jet in you underwear and flip flops, turn a key and just fly off into the wild blue yonder... LOL

That is so synonymous of a person who doesn't know jack about the military (aside from its bad).

siamdave

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

That and the USAF was not set up to intercept internal fights... its "ready jets" (and there were only a few) were in the wrong places to do so. Modern jet fights and their pilots have to be prepped before they can take off on a mission. This isn't the RAF in the battle of Britain. It looks like Fidel here must think you can just hop into the cockpit of a F-15 fighter jet in you underwear and flip flops, turn a key and just fly off into the wild blue yonder... LOL

That is so synonymous of a person who doesn't know jack about the military (aside from its bad).

- a reference would be useful - you know, the page of the American Defence Manual (public release version) or whatever they call it that says something along the lines  of - My Fellow Americans - if our great country is the object of a surprise attack, I guess we're f***ed. It is simply impossible to get jet fighters into the air to protect y'all in less than 20-30 minutes. Our pilots and their commanders need some prep time, quick shower and coffee, time to get them bulky uniforms on, get the aircraft crews out of bed if it's a night and get their asses in gear - you  know, stuff like that. Nobody hops out of bed and gets to work first thing these days - pretty unamerican, that kind of thing. We know y'all have been under the illusion that Mer'ca was the best protected country in the world, and we could have fighters in the air in seconds, but that's just (ahem) conspiracy theory crap. You're all not a lot better off than if we had no planes at all, in the event of a surprise attack"

- and etc - I am sure you can point us to some approriate reference to confirm this (actually I think probably not, I think you are somewhat less knowledgeable of air defence procedures than you pretend. )

Oh - did you know that there is a place called Andrews Air Force base about 10 miles from the White House? I'd be quite interested in hearing why and how a known-to-be-hijaced plane was allowed to crash into the pentagon, which they surely to god have some protection for, as the defence H!Q of the most militaristic nation the world has ever seen, with the highest budget - the plane that (supposedly) hit the Pentagon was known to be hijacked for at least an hour prior to the crash, and was known to be on path for Washington for at least the same amount of time - and not a single fighter over Washington to protect the city? Talk about LOL.

- I've always thought that required some kind of explanation, but the OCT seems to have not much to say about this. I am sure you, with your apparently great knowledge, could enlighten me on that point.

- oh - there is a bit more on 911 fighter response etc  here, for those interested - http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/ .

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Modern jet fights and their pilots have to be prepped before they can take off on a mission. This isn't the RAF in the battle of Britain. It looks like Fidel here must think you can just hop into the cockpit of a F-15 fighter jet in you underwear and flip flops, turn a key and just fly off into the wild blue yonder... LOL

Quote:
[url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hea... NORAD conduct exercises or develop scenarios, prior to
September 11, 2001, to test a military reaction to an aircraft
hijacking which appeared destined to result in a suicide crash into a
high-value target?[/url]

Yes, there were five US Military exercises to anticipate possible hijacking-suicide missions carried out against high value targets.

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html]The White House had (at least ) 28 Advanced Intelligence Warnings Prior to 9/11[/url]

Robin">http://911blogger.com/node/8090]Robin Hordon, an air traffic controller from 1970 to 1981, who in fact was responsible for the air traffic sector where Flight 11 first became an emergency on 9/11: "It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing 'IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCIES' such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact, is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORADcontrollers. The entire 'national defense-first responder' intercept system has many highly trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations."

Apparently two F-16s over 100 miles away were in the air within 7 minutes on 9/11. They were sent to Long Island though and put in a holding pattern.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Modern jet fights and their pilots have to be prepped before they can take off on a mission. This isn't the RAF in the battle of Britain. It looks like Fidel here must think you can just hop into the cockpit of a F-15 fighter jet in you underwear and flip flops, turn a key and just fly off into the wild blue yonder... LOL

Actually British Spitfire and Hurricane pilots were often outnumbered by German Messerschmitts and Heinkels. Brits relied a lot on radar and coastal spotters and lookouts to warn them of the vaunted "surprise attack." They couldn't get up in the air all that quickly then, and sometimes they had to scramble so not to get caught on the ground or leave a town or city without air cover. The G forces were enough to wear them out in a matter of minutes during steep climbs to rise up to where the Adolfs would be. They came back soaking wet from sweating. It was a lot harder than they make it look in movies. 

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
That is so synonymous of a person who doesn't know jack about the military

Speak for yourself. I don't know flying or tactics. But my deceased relative was was an RAF pilot, Halifax bombers - all shot down over the Channel, over Germany, or on the way home. I have some RAF memorabilia.

siamdave

- and a recent article on the whole al Quaeda thing, origin and so on, from a POV not sanctioned by the OCT folk - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20907 .

- gosh, ol Winston and the Ministry of Truth would have had a rough time if they'd had the internet back then - all the BS spread through the MSM, all the truth floating around in cyberspace for anyone with the brains to go looking ...

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

....

Apparently two F-16s over 100 miles away were in the air within 7 minutes on 9/11. They were sent to Long Island though and put in a holding pattern.

....

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

From America's Air Force:

 

Quote:
The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall under NORAD command. The Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Homestead, alert birds also sit armed and ready at Tyndall; Langley AFB, Va.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.; Portland International Airport, Ore.; March ARB, Calif.; and Ellington Field, Texas.

  

You guys seem to forget that before 9-11 airline hijackings here and worldwide were viewed as hostage situations and not potential bombing attacks. That influenced the US fighter response posture as well.

On 9/11 NORAD attempted to protect Washington by scrambling fighters from Langley Air Force Base. This was ineffective, though, and questions were raised almost immediately about the decision. Why, it was asked, didn't they launch fighters from the much closer Andrews Air Force Base, instead? The answer is rather simple: Andrews is not a NORAD controlled base and was outside NORAD's command structure. They had to use the jets at Langley for a quick response (they did not get Andrews and other bases involved until after they realized the hijacked planes were being used as bombs).

Like I said before post 9-11 airline hijackings here and worldwide were viewed as hostage situations and not potential bombing attacks and I think that's a bigger factor in this whole 9-11 NORAD response thing than most realize. Before this crashing a jet into a building was just crazy...

And consider this for discussion here: Even if interceptors caught up with the hijacked planes what could they do? They probably would have ended up watching the planes fly into their targets; seriously. Given the situation before 9-11 I really doubt NORAD would have ordered fighters to shoot down huge airliners full of US passengers over the USA; especially after they got over the cities and other populated areas. Nobody knew what was coming till pretty much after it happened.

That' it for me... You guys enjoy filling up the rest of the thread.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20723.htm]Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?[/url]...

D.R. Griffin wrote:

We were able to pull from the airlines the passenger manifest for each of the four flights. We ran the manifest through [our lookout] system. . . . [B]y 11:00 AM, I'd seen a sheet that essentially identified the 19 probable hijackers. And in fact, they turned out to be, based upon further follow-up in detailed investigation, to be the 19.79

Bonner's statement, however, is doubly problematic. In the first place, the initial FBI list, as reported by CNN on September 13 and 14, contained only 18 names.80 Why would that be if 19 men had already been identified on 9/11?....

Please read Bonner's statement carefully. He says the sheet essentially identified the probable hijackers. I assume you are aware of what probable means. Between this time and the final official list, the number of suspected hijackers would have varied. After more investigation, the FBI became more certain and released a list of 19 hijackers on September 14th. CNN erred when it claimed that the FBI list only contained 18 names.

There is no contradiction.

 

Fidel wrote:

D.R. Griffin wrote:

Second, several of the names on the FBI's first list, having quickly become problematic, were replaced by other names. For example, the previously discussed men named Bukhari, thought to be brothers, were replaced on American 11's list of hijackers by brothers named Waleed and Wail al-Shehri.

The Bukhari brothers were removed from the list of suspects because they did not appear on the passenger lists. This makes sense, as not everyone suspected in a crime will actually be guilty, so investigators will stop investigating people once it becomes obvious the suspects are, in fact, innocent.

 

Fidel wrote:

D.R. Griffin wrote:

Two other replacements for this flight were Satam al-Suqami, whose passport was allegedly found at Ground Zero, and Abdul al-Omari, who allegedly went to Portland with Atta the day before 9/11. Also, the initial list for American 77 did not include the name of Hani Hanjour, who would later be called the pilot of this flight. Rather, it contained a name that, after being read aloud by a CNN correspondent, was transcribed "Mosear Caned."81 All in all, the final list of 19 hijackers contained six names that were not on the original list of 18---a fact that contradicts Bonner's claim that by 11:00 AM on 9/11 his agency had identified 19 probable hijackers who, in fact, "turned out to be. . . the 19."

Can you provide a link to the list of the original 18 hijackers that Mr. Griffin is talking about? Because al-Suqami and al-Omari appear on the Boston Globe manifest (which actually came from an official source) and on the FBI list, so I suspect that mr. Griffin is simply wrong about them.

Also, CNN flubbing up Hanjour's name is not evidence of a government conspiracy.

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Please read Bonner's statement carefully. He says the sheet essentially identified the probable hijackers. I assume you are aware of what probable means. Between this time and the final official list, the number of suspected hijackers would have varied. After more investigation, the FBI became more certain and released a list of 19 hijackers on September 14th. CNN erred when it claimed that the FBI list only contained 18 names. There is no contradiction.

And so Bonner originally stated that they knew who all 19 hijackers were by 11 am on 9/11. Apparently he lied. The fact that Bonner lied doesn't support the Government's case against the alleged hijackers, nor does the fact that the FBI withheld the original airline manifests from public scrutiny for years after 2001. US Government secrecy does not contribute to the alleged hijackers' guilt in any way. Who had access to those original manifests? In fact, the lack of transparency and accountability is suspicious and tends to detract from US Government's credibility on 9/11 more than anything else.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
The Bukhari brothers were removed from the list of suspects because they did not appear on the passenger lists. This makes sense, as not everyone suspected in a crime will actually be guilty, so investigators will stop investigating people once it becomes obvious the suspects are, in fact, innocent.

No. [url=http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/investigation.terrorism/]Bukhari brothers(CNN, 9/13/01) [/url] indentities were alleged to have been stolen. Ameer Bukhari died a year before 9/11.

The next day, CNN manages to obtain a list of 18 hijackers' names and adds the name [url=http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080902022700895#_edn19]'Mosear Caned.'[/url] Caned is later scratched from the fake CNN-FBI roster and replaced with the name 'Hani Hanjour', whose flight instructors described as clueless and likely never to make it as a pilot.

Again, this Abbot and Costello game of who's on first doesn't mean that any of the 19 alleged hijackers were responsible for 9/11 terror.  

[url=http://tinyurl.com/39r8n35]US Army Lt.-Colonel Anthony Shaffer[/url] said that Mohammed Atta was known to US intelligence by 2000, and that the DIA failed to act. Shaffer said that he recommended to the FBI that they arrest Atta, and that DoD lawyers prevented the arrest. 

In 2005, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Weldon#Conviction_of_former_aide]US politician Curt Weldon[/url] went public with Shaffer's revelations about Able Danger and Mohammed Atta.

None of this was mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. Why not?

But less importantly, for lack of wanting to embroil ourselves in the FBI-CNN game of 'Who's on First?', why would suicide pilots even need to cover their tracks with stolen identities? 

And, why steal Saudi or Saudi-American identities(the CIA ran a special visa program for Mujahideen-Qaeda anticommunist jihadis since the 1980s) if their goal was to deflect the CIA's attention away from Saudi and Arab country nationals in general? Why not steal the identities of Greek or even Indian nationals? Why make things hard for fellow Arabs after the sword operation is over and done with, and Allah forgives the "pious Muslim hijackers"(religious oxymoron alert) for leaving a Holy Koran back at the strip club the day before?

There is no such thing as "al-Qaeda", and there is no such thing as US Gov't credibility when it comes to 9/11.

siamdave

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

From America's Air Force:

 

Quote:
The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall under NORAD command. The Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Homestead, alert birds also sit armed and ready at Tyndall; Langley AFB, Va.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.; Portland International Airport, Ore.; March ARB, Calif.; and Ellington Field, Texas.

 

You guys seem to forget that before 9-11 airline hijackings here and worldwide were viewed as hostage situations and not potential bombing attacks. That influenced the US fighter response posture as well.

On 9/11 NORAD attempted to protect Washington by scrambling fighters from Langley Air Force Base. This was ineffective, though, and questions were raised almost immediately about the decision. Why, it was asked, didn't they launch fighters from the much closer Andrews Air Force Base, instead? The answer is rather simple: Andrews is not a NORAD controlled base and was outside NORAD's command structure. They had to use the jets at Langley for a quick response (they did not get Andrews and other bases involved until after they realized the hijacked planes were being used as bombs).

Like I said before post 9-11 airline hijackings here and worldwide were viewed as hostage situations and not potential bombing attacks and I think that's a bigger factor in this whole 9-11 NORAD response thing than most realize. Before this crashing a jet into a building was just crazy...

And consider this for discussion here: Even if interceptors caught up with the hijacked planes what could they do? They probably would have ended up watching the planes fly into their targets; seriously. Given the situation before 9-11 I really doubt NORAD would have ordered fighters to shoot down huge airliners full of US passengers over the USA; especially after they got over the cities and other populated areas. Nobody knew what was coming till pretty much after it happened.

That' it for me... You guys enjoy filling up the rest of the thread.

- toss around a few red herrings and run - a new tactic, variatiion on the old drive by smear, I guess but not especially effective - no OCT arguments are, when one digs a bit.

1. you say that hijackings were usually treated as hostage situations, so no big response on 911 is not surprising - BUT - after two hickacked aircraft were flown into the WTC buildings, and a third was heading for Washington and still an hour away from impact, I expect even the dimmer bulbs in the pentagon, whose numbers are probably considerable, could see the danger of that 3rd plane heading for Washington, and it is not hard to figure the immediate response in any 'real' situation would be get some aircraft in the air, at least - leading to

2 - you say they would not have shot down a passenger plane - maybe, maybe not, that is not the point, but a red herring - the defence planes SHOULD HAVE been in the air at least, and that they were not can be the result of only one thing - some kind of stand down until it was too late to do anything - leading to

3 - you say Andrews was not under NORAD command, therefore they did not respond - I just cannot imagine the people in the higher levels of US defence being that constrained - just imagine, following your proposal, people at Andrews watching the ongoing whatever that morning - well, folks, two planes have been flown into the WTC in New York, and a third at least is heading for Washington. NORAD says they have no planes available - we do, but it ain't our job to protect Washington, so we'll just sit here with our thumbs up our asses as usual - really, do you want to say that happened? Maybe - but I find it a bit hard to believe. High level US Defence people can't use telephones? Hey, Jack, this is Bob at Norad - we have a potential threat heading for Washington, and no planes near enough - do you have anything at Andrews? etc etc. Again, maybe they are that stupid and incompetent, but I kind of doubt it (it is kind of telling too that after that day, how many high level Defence people got reprimanded or even fired? Nobody, as far as I know - quite a few promotions, however - for a job well done, maybe?????

- and to finish - one could easily think of another reason there were no fighter planes in the air over Washington - in reality, there was no plane heading for the pentagon at all, thus no need for defence (and also quite an increased danger of fighter pilots flying around saying things getting recorded like 'What plane are you talking about, Mission Command?' etc). I don't know what happened that day, there are signs it may have just been some kind of f-up - but there are no signs of any serious aircraft wreckage around the Pentagon, and planes do not disintegrate like that - like the three tall buildings falling down in a way no tall buildings have ever fallen before (without controlled demolition), on 911 we have supposedly four major-size jetliners crashing, with not a single tail assembly or recognizable engine or wing or fuselage part or anything else - four huge airliners just disintegrating.

Sure dark down here, Alice, in the land of the MSM. And something smells reaeaeaeaealllly bad .... let's head back to internetland where there is at least some light and truth floating around and the mushroom food much easier to detect and avoid ...

Fidel

[url=http://www.911myths.com/html/mohammed_atta_alive.html]9/11Myths.com: No Proof that Mohammed Atta is alive[/url]

Quote:
"I do not believe my son did it; I am sure he is alive," the father said. "He was afraid of flying."

Yes, turn yourself over to the authorities, Mohammed Atta, wherever you are. I'd be angry too if my "pious Muslim" son and engineer making good money in Germany decided to ditch the good life to become a patsy for colder warriors. And then disappear without a trace.

Atta is either dead courtesy of Murder Inc., or he's had a totally fabulous identity makeover by US federal witness protection, like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohamed]US-Qaeda Army Sargent Ali Mohamed[/url]

 

 

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

And so Bonner originally stated that they knew who all 19 hijackers were by 11 am on 9/11. Apparently he lied. The fact that Bonner lied doesn't support the Government's case against the alleged hijackers, ....

No, Fidel, he did not lie. Bonner claimed that they had a list of probable suspects by 11am on 9/11.

He did have that list, and that list did contain the names of the hijackers. I have no idea how you twisted that in your head to make it seem like he was lying.

 

Fidel wrote:

...nor does the fact that the FBI withheld the original airline manifests from public scrutiny for years after 2001. US Government secrecy does not contribute to the alleged hijackers' guilt in any way. Who had access to those original manifests? In fact, the lack of transparency and accountability is suspicious and tends to detract from US Government's credibility on 9/11 more than anything else.

The FBI did not withhold that information. If it had, the Boston Globe would not have been able to publish the lists that it did.

 

Fidel wrote:

No. [url=http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/investigation.terrorism/]Bukhari brothers(CNN, 9/13/01) [/url] indentities were alleged to have been stolen. Ameer Bukhari died a year before 9/11.

That does not contradict anything I said. Besides that article comes from the days right after the attack, when the FBI were still conducting their investigation and any information released to the public could not be considered definitive.

 

Fidel wrote:

The next day, CNN manages to obtain a list of 18 hijackers' names and adds the name [url=http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080902022700895#_edn19]'Mosear Caned.'[/url] Caned is later scratched from the fake CNN-FBI roster and replaced with the name 'Hani Hanjour', whose flight instructors described as clueless and likely never to make it as a pilot.

Again, this Abbot and Costello game of who's on first doesn't mean that any of the 19 alleged hijackers were responsible for 9/11 terror.

Fidel, the CNN lists are not official, and do not come from the FBI.

Fidel, the CNN lists are not official, and do not come from the FBI.

Fidel, the CNN lists are not official, and do not come from the FBI.

CNN flubbing up Hanjour's name means nothing, nor does Hanjour's lack of piloting skills (all he had to do was crash the plane, after all).

 

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://tinyurl.com/39r8n35]US Army Lt.-Colonel Anthony Shaffer[/url] said that Mohammed Atta was known to US intelligence by 2000, and that the DIA failed to act. Shaffer said that he recommended to the FBI that they arrest Atta, and that DoD lawyers prevented the arrest. 

In 2005, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Weldon#Conviction_of_former_aide]US politician Curt Weldon[/url] went public with Shaffer's revelations about Able Danger and Mohammed Atta.

None of this was mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. Why not?

See below.

 

Fidel wrote:

But less importantly, for lack of wanting to embroil ourselves in the FBI-CNN game of 'Who's on First?', why would suicide pilots even need to cover their tracks with stolen identities? 

And, why steal Saudi or Saudi-American identities(the CIA ran a special visa program for Mujahideen-Qaeda anticommunist jihadis since the 1980s) if their goal was to deflect the CIA's attention away from Saudi and Arab country nationals in general? Why not steal the identities of Greek or even Indian nationals? Why make things hard for fellow Arabs after the sword operation is over and done with, and Allah forgives the "pious Muslim hijackers"(religious oxymoron alert) for leaving a Holy Koran back at the strip club the day before?

There is no such thing as "al-Qaeda", and there is no such thing as US Gov't credibility when it comes to 9/11.[/size]

They didn't use secret identities.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://www.911myths.com/html/mohammed_atta_alive.html]9/11Myths.com: No Proof that Mohammed Atta is alive[/url]

Quote:
"I do not believe my son did it; I am sure he is alive," the father said. "He was afraid of flying."

Yes, turn yourself over to the authorities, Mohammed Atta, wherever you are. I'd be angry too if my "pious Muslim" son and engineer making good money in Germany decided to ditch the good life to become a patsy for colder warriors. And then disappear without a trace.

Atta is either dead courtesy of Murder Inc., or he's had a totally fabulous identity makeover by US federal witness protection, like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohamed]US-Qaeda Army Sargent Ali Mohamed[/url]

So, here you are arguing that Mohammed Atta had nothing to do with the attacks.

 

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://tinyurl.com/39r8n35]US Army Lt.-Colonel Anthony Shaffer[/url] said that Mohammed Atta was known to US intelligence by 2000, and that the DIA failed to act. Shaffer said that he recommended to the FBI that they arrest Atta, and that DoD lawyers prevented the arrest. 

In 2005, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Weldon#Conviction_of_former_aide]US politician Curt Weldon[/url] went public with Shaffer's revelations about Able Danger and Mohammed Atta.

So, here you are arguing that the US knew that Mohammed Atta was organising the attacks.

 

This is a contradiction.

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
No, Fidel, he did not lie. Bonner claimed that they had a list of probable suspects by 11am on 9/11.

He did have that list, and that list did contain the names of the hijackers. I have no idea how you twisted that in your head to make it seem like he was lying.

Okay, but the list wasn't finalized until the Sept.14th, so technically, Bonner's list wasn't the finalized fake one on 9/11 either. I'm not saying Bonner was deliberately lying, just that he wasn't dealing truth to the public on 9/11.

BBC 9-20-01 wrote:
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1556096.stm]Flight Attendant[/url] Madeline Amy Sweeney's account of the hijacking provides unique evidence of what took place but it also appears to conflict with previous information. 

The FBI has named five hijackers on board Flight 11, whereas Ms Sweeney spotted only four. 

Also, the seat numbers she gave were different from those registered in the hijackers' names.

Sounds like more than a mix-up to me. 

[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html]FBI admits Hanjour[/url] may not have had a plane ticket, but Hanjour the clueless pilot's name shows up on the FBI faxes on 9/11 anyway? WTF?

Quote:
In September 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."
 

Not legal proof? Actually, it's no wonder. Actually, they did have the opportunity to check DNA samples against flight manifests at the Pentagon crash site. And you'll never guess what they did instead.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
The FBI did not withhold that information. If it had, the Boston Globe would not have been able to publish the lists that it did.

[url=http://911blogger.com/node/17418]Complete and original flight manifests[/url] were not released to the public by FOI requests prior to at least 2008.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Fidel, the CNN lists are not official, and do not come from the FBI.

Fidel, the CNN lists are not official, and do not come from the FBI.

Fidel, the CNN lists are not official, and do not come from the FBI.

Wrong again. FBI has dibs on relase of any information from a federal crime scene. So why were CNN's list, Boston Globe's list, and USA Today's list not all the same?  

Anyway, all of this is circumstantial evidence and proves nothing either way. The invisible enemy lead by Elvis bin Laden doesn't exist. "Al-Qaeda" is a marketing gimmick. And you don't have to buy it if you don't want to.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Okay, but the list wasn't finalized until the Sept.14th, so technically, Bonner's list wasn't the finalized fake one on 9/11 either. I'm not saying Bonner was deliberately lying, just that he wasn't dealing truth to the public on 9/11.

Bonner's list was a preliminary one at the beginning of the investigation. The final list on Sept. 14th was the results of the investigations that occurred in the intervening time. There was no deceit at all, as far as I can see.

 

Fidel wrote:

BBC 9-20-01 wrote:
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1556096.stm]Flight Attendant[/url] Madeline Amy Sweeney's account of the hijacking provides unique evidence of what took place but it also appears to conflict with previous information. 

The FBI has named five hijackers on board Flight 11, whereas Ms Sweeney spotted only four. 

Also, the seat numbers she gave were different from those registered in the hijackers' names.

Sounds like more than a mix-up to me.

I think it is entirely possible that Ms. Sweeney could have been mistaken in that time interval. She was, after all, in a highly fluid and chaotic crisis situation.

 

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html]FBI admits Hanjour[/url] may not have had a plane ticket, but Hanjour the clueless pilot's name shows up on the FBI faxes on 9/11 anyway? WTF?

You should include links that actually back up your claims. That link does not support your claim.

 

Fidel wrote:

Quote:
In September 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."
 

Not legal proof? Actually, it's no wonder. Actually, they did have the opportunity to check DNA samples against flight manifests at the Pentagon crash site. And you'll never guess what they did instead.

That is not what Mueller said.

He said the following:

Quote:

We have several hijackers whose identities were those of the names on the manifest. We have several others that are still in question. So it's -- the investigation is ongoing and I am not certain as to several of the others.

and

Quote:

QUESTION: How certain can you be that these are the correct names and photographs of the 19 hijackers? And can you give us some more guidance on how you actually arrived at those?

MUELLER: Surely. The photographs that will be passed out to you and you see behind us are photographs identified with the names on the manifest, and those names on the manifest we've identified as being the hijackers. These photographs are photographs that may come from passports, drivers license obtained in the United States or other identification documents. Consequently, these photographs we've identified with the individuals whose names appear on the manifest.

What we are currently doing is determining whether, when these individuals came to the United States, these were their real names or they changed their names for use with false identification in the United States. That false identification being utilized up to and on the day of September 11, and that false identification used to purchase the tickets and, thereby, being the name on the manifests of the planes that went down. Our investigation has reached out to a number of countries to determine whether or not these individuals definitively, in the photographs we have here and the names associated with these photographs, are the actual identities of the individuals prior to the time they came to the United States.
Justice Department Press Conference at FBI Headquarters

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/21/se.25.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/27/se.24.html

 

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://911blogger.com/node/17418]Complete and original flight manifests[/url] were not released to the public by FOI requests prior to at least 2008.

This is simply incorrect. All the official flight manifests were made available to the public by 2006 at the latest, during the Moussaoui trial.

 

Fidel wrote:

Wrong again. FBI has dibs on relase of any information from a federal crime scene. So why were CNN's list, Boston Globe's list, and USA Today's list not all the same?  

Anyway, all of this is circumstantial evidence and proves nothing either way. The invisible enemy lead by Elvis bin Laden doesn't exist. "Al-Qaeda" is a marketing gimmick. And you don't have to buy it if you don't want to.[/size]

CNN did not get their information "from a crime scene". They got it from a variety of sources that did not include the FBI. The Boston Globe got their information from American Airlines, if I recall correctly, and god knows where the USA Today info came from, but unless you can show that the FBI controlled the press and told them what to print, you have no real argument.

Fidel

Robert S. Mueller, III, FBI Director, April 2002 wrote:
[url=http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm]The hijackers also left no paper trail.[/url] In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot

No paper trail by spring of 2002? How could that be? I wonder how the FBI, CNN, Boston Globe or anyone could possibly know who the 18, or was it 19 alleged hijackers' were in 2001 then if no paper trail existed - "not a single scrap of paper"? And at least six of the alleged hijackers announced their excellent health at some point.

[url=http://afpakwar.com/blog/archives/2557]U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson Lied about 9/11: FBI Now Admits his Wife Couldn’t Have Called Him from Hijacked Plane[/url] CBC interview

[url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=O5DBxpfVBuUC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=%22Amer... Kinder of American Airlines"[/url]  "There were no Airfones on flight 77"

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm]Hijack 'suspects' alive and well[/url] BBC 9/23/01 

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20986]ObL was likely in hospital on 9/11 not orchestrating terror[/url] What we are dealing with is criminilization of the upper echelons of the state.  

Rest assured, there is no such thing as "al-Qaeda."

Fidel

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20975]9/11 ANALYSIS: 9/11 and America’s Secret Terror Campaign
The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda, Part III[/url] Andrew Gavin Marshall

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/_1538563_thecollapse...

Quote:
Able Danger: Tracking the 9/11 Terrorists

In September of 2000, more than a year before 9/11, Able Danger, “a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States,” and in the summer of 2000, Able Danger recommended that the information be shared with the FBI to go in and remove the terrorist cell. However, the information was not shared and the recommendation was rejected, apparently because “Mr. Atta, and the others were in the United States on valid entry visas.” Further:

A former spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission, Al Felzenberg, confirmed that members of its staff, including Philip Zelikow [a friend of Condi Rice who later joined the Bush administration], the executive director, were told about the program on an overseas trip in October 2003 that included stops in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[71]

A Pentagon spokesman said that the 9/11 Commission looked into the issue during the Commission hearings; however, they “chose not to include it in the final report. [...]

Further, Navy Captain Scott Philpott has also gone on record along with Schaffer, claiming that they were “discouraged from looking further into Atta” and their attempts to share information with the FBI were thwarted.[73] Congress then began an investigation into the “Able Danger” program. According to Congressional testimony:

   Pentagon lawyers during the Clinton administration ordered the destruction of intelligence reports that identified September 11      leader Mohamed Atta months before the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.

What we are dealing with is the criminalization of the upper echelons of the state. Canada's stoogeaucracy is fully compliant with ongoing atrocities and violations of international law since Nuremberg being perpetrated against nations of desperately poor people in Central Asia and elsewhere.

Fidel

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3198]The Truth behind 9/11: Who Is Osama Bin Laden?[/url] At 11am, on the morning of 9/11, the Bush administration had announced that Osama was behind the attacks.

by Michel Chossudovsky

globalresearch.ca wrote:
The myth of the "outside enemy" and the threat of "Islamic terrorists" was the cornerstone of the Bush adminstration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America.

Without an "outside enemy", there could be no "war on terrorism". The entire national security agenda would collapse "like a deck of cards". The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.

It was consequently crucial for the development of a coherent antiwar and civil rights movement, to reveal the nature of Al Qaeda and its evolving relationship to successive US adminstrations. Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet-Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: "he turned against us". 

After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive "outside enemy" had been fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".

"International affairs is very much run like the mafia." - Chomsky

mmphosis

Fidel wrote:

"International affairs is very much run like the mafia." - Chomsky

Thanks for the Chomsky quote Fidel:  It All Comes Down To Control.

siamdave

mmphosis wrote:

Fidel wrote:

"International affairs is very much run like the mafia." - Chomsky

Thanks for the Chomsky quote Fidel:  It All Comes Down To Control.

- with, of course, the logical extension that countries are run by families .... obvious enough when you look behind the fictions of the MSM ... Canada' leading families meet regularly at Bay St ....

NDPP

The 'Meaning' of 9/11: It's Not What You Think

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26334.htm

"The aim of all this giving is to create and sustain an obsessive hatred of Muslims, all Muslims and generous support for Israel...'

al-Qa'bong

You could have quoted some of that article, NDPP.

Quote:

 

"There's also big money behind the mosque opposition, as highlighted by the relationship between [David] Horowitz's Los Angeles-based nonprofit, Jihad Watch - the website run by Spencer "dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology play in the modern world" - and Joyce Chernick, the wife of a wealthy California tech company founder.

 

"Though it was not listed on the public tax reports filed by Horowitz's Freedom Center, Politico has confirmed that the lion's share of the $920,000 it provided over the past three years to Jihad Watch came from Chernick, whose husband, Aubrey Chernick, has a net worth of $750 million, as a result of his 2004 sale to IBM of a software company he created, and a security consulting firm he now owns. 

"A onetime trustee of the ...Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Aubrey Chernick led the effort to pull together $3.5 million in venture capital to start Pajamas Media, a conservative blog network ...

"The David Horowitz Freedom Center had a budget of $4.5 million last year, according to its tax filings, of which $290,000 came from the conservative Bradley Foundation, which also gave $75,000 to the Center for Security Policy last year. Horowitz has received an average of $461,000 a year in salary and benefits over the past three years, while Spencer has pulled in an average of $140,000, according to the center's IRS filings."

 

 

Laura Rozen follows up on her Politico blog, detailing the trail of donations from 2008 990 filings for Chernick's charitable foundation, the Fairbrook Foundation, listing all the familiar suspects - CAMERA, Horowitz, MEMRI, Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, the Israeli nationalist "Stand With Us" campus project - and a few less familiar, such as the American Friends of Ateret Cohanim, dedicated to thwarting our stated policy of no more settlements where it counts: in East Jerusalem.

 

Good ol' hatemeister Davey-boy Horowitz. Why am I not surprised?

 

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Robert S. Mueller, III, FBI Director, April 2002 wrote:
[url=http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm]The hijackers also left no paper trail.[/url] In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot

No paper trail by spring of 2002? How could that be? I wonder how the FBI, CNN, Boston Globe or anyone could possibly know who the 18, or was it 19 alleged hijackers' were in 2001 then if no paper trail existed - "not a single scrap of paper"? And at least six of the alleged hijackers announced their excellent health at some point.

From two paragraphs lower than your quoted text:

Quote:

... that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection. In short, the terrorists had managed to exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities in our systems, to stay out of sight, and to not let anyone know what they were up to beyond a very closed circle.

The investigation was enormously helpful in figuring out who and what to look for as we worked to prevent attacks. It allowed us to see where we as a nation needed to close gaps in our security. And it gave us clear and definitive proof that al Qaeda was behind the strikes.

At the same time, we were taking other steps to track down any potential associates who might still be out there....

 

Bolding mine for emphasis.

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://afpakwar.com/blog/archives/2557]U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson Lied about 9/11: FBI Now Admits his Wife Couldn’t Have Called Him from Hijacked Plane[/url] CBC interview

[url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=O5DBxpfVBuUC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=%22Amer... Kinder of American Airlines"[/url]  "There were no Airfones on flight 77"

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm]Hijack 'suspects' alive and well[/url] BBC 9/23/01 

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20986]ObL was likely in hospital on 9/11 not orchestrating terror[/url] What we are dealing with is criminilization of the upper echelons of the state.  

Rest assured, there is no such thing as "al-Qaeda."

I notice that you completely ignored my points, Fidel.

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Can you provide a link to the list of the original 18 hijackers that Mr. Griffin is talking about? Because al-Suqami and al-Omari appear on the Boston Globe manifest (which actually came from an official source) and on the FBI list, so I suspect that mr. Griffin is simply wrong about them.

 For instance, Saeed al-Ghamdi, an alleged Flight 93 hijacker who turned up alive later, says that CNN showed his photo on broadcast TV. al-Ghamdi said that CNN likely obtained his photo from a flight safety school he participated in Florida. Abdul al-Omari is actually an airline pilot in Saudi Arabia today. Same age, same name as one of the alleged hijackers on 9/11.

If that's true, then information which the FBI and CNN broadcast concerning the alleged hijackers in general was possibly not determined by real investigation into the events of 9/11. Six or seven of the alleged hijackers named by the FBI were found alive and well in various countries within the year. There is a possibility that the information about the alive and well hijackers was not due to any real observations made by the FBI stemming from the events of 9/11. It smells as though they may have falsified part of the list of 19 and perhaps even the entire list. I believe it's possible that some or all of the list of 19 alleged hijackers is fabricated evidence.

Snert Snert's picture

[url=http://www.theonion.com/articles/construction-complete-on-911-truther-me... Complete On 9/11 Truther Memorial[/url]

Quote:
"It was a long time coming, but at last it's here," said Don Gustaf, a blogger who drove from Cincinnati to see the site. "This will stand forever in tribute to those who lost their lives the day clandestine CIA operatives used advanced wireless technology to electronically hijack a pair of 767s and remotely fly them into the World Trade Center."

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Can you provide a link to the list of the original 18 hijackers that Mr. Griffin is talking about? Because al-Suqami and al-Omari appear on the Boston Globe manifest (which actually came from an official source) and on the FBI list, so I suspect that mr. Griffin is simply wrong about them.

 For instance, Saeed al-Ghamdi, an alleged Flight 93 hijacker who turned up alive later, says that CNN showed his photo on broadcast TV. al-Ghamdi said that CNN likely obtained his photo from a flight safety school he participated in Florida. Abdul al-Omari is actually an airline pilot in Saudi Arabia today. Same age, same name as one of the alleged hijackers on 9/11.

If that's true, then information which the FBI and CNN broadcast concerning the alleged hijackers in general was possibly not determined by real investigation into the events of 9/11. Six or seven of the alleged hijackers named by the FBI were found alive and well in various countries within the year. There is a possibility that the information about the alive and well hijackers was not due to any real observations made by the FBI stemming from the events of 9/11. It smells as though they may have falsified part of the list of 19 and perhaps even the entire list. I believe it's possible that some or all of the list of 19 alleged hijackers is fabricated evidence.

I guess you can not provide a link to the list I asked for. I am not really all that surprised, to be honest.

 

Fidel, CNN articles are not official, and do not come from the FBI.

Fidel, CNN articles are not official, and do not come from the FBI.

Fidel, CNN articles are not official, and do not come from the FBI.

Just because you conflate the CNN with the FBI in your head does not make them the same organisation.

Fidel

"al-Qaeda" is all in your head, Pants. You've been mind-fucked by an invisible enemy that doesn't exist.

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

"al-Qaeda" is all in your head, Pants. You've been mind-fucked by an invisible enemy that doesn't exist.

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

And once again, you ignore all my points and post something irrelevant instead.

Fidel

Where are your points? There are none. There's no real proof that 19 Arabs even boarded the planes. What you're showing us amounts to so much circumstantial evidence. It's not established fact. There is a difference. You believe because it's what you were led to believe. You want to believe. Buckle-up, Dorothy. Kansas is going bye-bye.

[url=http://www.standdown.net/USAFbases.htm]33 USAF Bases Were Within Range On 911[/url]

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Where are your points? There are none. There's no real proof that 19 Arabs even boarded the planes. What you're showing us amounts to so much circumstantial evidence. It's not established fact. There is a difference. You believe because it's what you were led to believe. You want to believe. Buckle-up, Dorothy. Kansas is going bye-bye.

[url=http://www.standdown.net/USAFbases.htm]33 USAF Bases Were Within Range On 911[/url]

Yes, Fidel, keep ignoring the evidence so that your precious beliefs do not go challenged.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0906...

Quote:
The company loaned the FBI digital editing equipment that allowed investigators to enhance and sharpen video images of two of the hijackers taken hours before the attacks.

One of the images showed lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and another one of the hijackers, Abdulaziz Alomari, passing through a security checkpoint at the Portland, Maine, airport at 5:45 a.m. on Sept. 11. Hours later, they were at Logan International Airport in Boston.

In the weeks after the attacks, the airport image of Atta was shown repeatedly on televisions around the world.

al-Qa'bong

Snert wrote:

[url=http://www.theonion.com/articles/construction-complete-on-911-truther-me... Complete On 9/11 Truther Memorial[/url]

 

Quote:

The reviewer goes on to state that even the convoluted landscaping suggests the way a labyrinthine network of federal agencies, defense contractors, and oil companies went to enormous lengths to make it look as though an Egyptian man leading a group of 15 Saudi Arabians had attacked the United States, then used this as a pretext for invading Iraq and Afghanistan to gain access to priceless Central Asian pipelines and begin devaluing the American dollar in preparation for an economic war with China that will plummet the global econ≠omy into a massive depression from which a single fascist corporate state will eventually emerge.

I trust The Onion is paying royalties to rabble.ca/babble

Fidel

What were they doing in Portland? Why was Atta's luggage not loaded on the plane and circumstantial evidence left behind for the feds to scoop up? Was Mohammed Atta going somewhere special that required luggage? What was wrong with toting his Koran in a carry-on bag?

Pants-of-dog wrote:
They didn't use secret identities.

[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20020203115437/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne... identities of hijack suspects confound FBI[/url]

Quote:
Some of the suspects apparently used the stolen identities of at least five Saudis who worked in the airline industry as pilots, mechanics and flight attendants — people who would have had increased access in airports, a Saudi government official told the Sun-Sentinel.

The stolen and phony IDs have created problems for investigators. “Obviously that’s been a concern,” said Judy Orihuela, spokeswoman for the FBI in Miami.

Colonel Shaffer stated that the Able Danger project revealed Mohammed Atta entered the US in January 2000. But the 9/11 Commission Cover-up stated that Atta wasn't in the US until June 2000.

 

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

What were they doing in Portland? Why was Atta's luggage not loaded on the plane and circumstantial evidence left behind for the feds to scoop up? Was Mohammed Atta going somewhere special that required luggage? What was wrong with toting his Koran in a carry-on bag?

Why do you ask so many irrelevant questions?

 

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20020203115437/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne... identities of hijack suspects confound FBI[/url]

....

Colonel Shaffer stated that the Able Danger project revealed Mohammed Atta entered the US in January 2000. But the 9/11 Commission Cover-up stated that Atta wasn't in the US until June 2000.

This is not evidence of a false flag operation.

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Fidel wrote:

What were they doing in Portland? Why was Atta's luggage not loaded on the plane and circumstantial evidence left behind for the feds to scoop up? Was Mohammed Atta going somewhere special that required luggage? What was wrong with toting his Koran in a carry-on bag?

Why do you ask so many irrelevant questions?

Because asking pertinent questions is [url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=owdD1m_IZK8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepa... police work?[/url]

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Fidel wrote:

[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20020203115437/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne... identities of hijack suspects confound FBI[/url]

....

Colonel Shaffer stated that the Able Danger project revealed Mohammed Atta entered the US in January 2000. But the 9/11 Commission Cover-up stated that Atta wasn't in the US until June 2000.

This is not evidence of a false flag operation.

I see you cut past your own quote where you state emphatically that the alleged hijackers used no "secret identities." That's not what the feds said about it. Are you a disinformation jockey?

 And they still have to be considered alleged hijackers as there was no actual criminal trial where anything was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What you're left with is the incredible 9/11 Commission Cover-up. The investigation wasn't even legit according to two 9/11 Commissioners/whistleblowers themselves. If we know one thing, it's that you have no proof of anyone's guilt in perpetrating 9/11. And neither does the FBI have any hard proof.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Because asking pertinent questions is [url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=owdD1m_IZK8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepa... police work?[/url]

I see you cut past your own quote where you state emphatically that the alleged hijackers used no "secret identities." That's not what the feds said about it. Are you a disinformation jockey?

 And they still have to be considered alleged hijackers as there was no actual criminal trial where anything was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What you're left with is the incredible 9/11 Commission Cover-up. The investigation wasn't even legit according to two 9/11 Commissioners/whistleblowers themselves. If we know one thing, it's that you have no proof of anyone's guilt in perpetrating 9/11. And neither does the FBI have any hard proof.

To be honest, it i snot even evidence they used flase identities. All that confusiona bout their names might be simply due to the fact that the investigation was in its early days when that article was written.

I did not bring that up because I decided it was not pertinent.

What is pertinent to our discussion is that you have yet to provide any evidence, or even rationally discuss the ponts I have brought up.

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
To be honest, it i snot even evidence they used flase identities. All that confusiona bout their names might be simply due to the fact that the investigation was in its early days when that article was written.

Okay, but why were you insisting that Boston Globe was a favoured FBI leak for the real passenger lists? Obviously even the Globe's lists were innaccurate and possibly for reasons other than the FBI being caught with their pants down. Who had access to those "official" passenger lists between 2001 and 2006? If six or seven people were wrongly accused, what about the rest of the accused hijackers? And what if...?

What if 19 Arabs and an Egyptian were murdered, their identities stolen, and the real 9/11 perps fitted them up for it? 

What if Able Danger itself was a lie in order to create additional circumstantial evidence tying Mohammed Atta et al to 9/11 terror? They have been long on accusations and short on proof.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
What is pertinent to our discussion is that you have yet to provide any evidence, or even rationally discuss the ponts I have brought up.

I'm trying to discuss this rationally, and I wish you'd meet me half way. But please, no more disinformation or half-baked theories as to why we should believe the US Government when it comes to 9/11 fairy tales and climate change denialism. In case you were wondering, no, there was no criminal investigation of what was the worst building collapses in history with mass murder for an appetizer and prelude to even more mass murder and immoral warfiteering in response. 

And it's obvious that a number of people falsely accused of hijacking planes on 9/11 were slandered by the US Government and never offered so much as an apology. Meanwhile, the FBI and CIA were entirely uninterested in questioning any of the bin Laden family traveling US skies in and around the date of 9/11/01.

I know what you're thinkin'. You're thinking, why didn't I just take the BLUE pill?

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Okay, but why were you insisting that Boston Globe was a favoured FBI leak for the real passenger lists?

I never said that.

 

Fidel wrote:

Obviously even the Globe's lists were innaccurate and possibly for reasons other than the FBI being caught with their pants down. Who had access to those "official" passenger lists between 2001 and 2006?

The airlines, for one.

 

Fidel wrote:

If six or seven people were wrongly accused, what about the rest of the accused hijackers? And what if...?

No one was wrongly accused. There was some errors during th eearly part of the investigation, and in the reporting. But none of the people who happened to share names with the hijackers were charged with anything, were they?

 

Fidel wrote:

What if 19 Arabs and an Egyptian were murdered, their identities stolen, and the real 9/11 perps fitted them up for it?

What if Able Danger itself was a lie in order to create additional circumstantial evidence tying Mohammed Atta et al to 9/11 terror? They have been long on accusations and short on proof.

What if it were actually aliens from the Planet Lizardo? What if it was unicorns?

Unless you have some evidence for these other claims of yours, they are useless speculations.

 

Fidel wrote:

I'm trying to discuss this rationally, and I wish you'd meet me half way. But please, no more disinformation or half-baked theories as to why we should believe the US Government when it comes to 9/11 fairy tales and climate change denialism.

Now I'm disseminating disinformation and deny climate change? Do you read my posts, or do you just make stuff up and pretend I wrote it?

 

Fidel wrote:

In case you were wondering, no, there was no criminal investigation of what was the worst building collapses in history with mass murder for an appetizer and prelude to even more mass murder and immoral warfiteering in response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM

Quote:

PENTTBOM is the codename for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's probe into the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City, New York, and Washington, D.C., the largest criminal inquiry in United States history. Its name stands for 'Pentagon/Twin Towers Bombing Investigation'. The investigation was launched on September 11, 2001 and involved 7,000 of the FBI's then 11,000 special agents.

To be honest, I was not wondering that, as I already knew that you were incorrect about there being no criminal investigation.

 

Fidel wrote:

And it's obvious that a number of people falsely accused of hijacking planes on 9/11 were slandered by the US Government and never offered so much as an apology. Meanwhile, the FBI and CIA were entirely uninterested in questioning any of the bin Laden family traveling US skies in and around the date of 9/11/01.

The US did not apologise for mistreating someone! OMG! That is unheard of!

Any other unimportant stuff you would like to add?

 

Fidel wrote:

I know what you're thinkin'. You're thinking, why didn't I just take the BLUE pill?

Actually, I am wondering why you always add size tags, and quote The Matrix.

Papal Bull

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Fidel wrote:

I know what you're thinkin'. You're thinking, why didn't I just take the BLUE pill?

Actually, I am wondering why you always add size tags, and quote The Matrix.

 

that movie is kinda awesome.

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Okay, but why were you insisting that Boston Globe was a favoured FBI leak for the real passenger lists?

I never said that.

How do manage to make it through the day? For the ninth time already, you said so [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/even-newer-911-thread#comment... here[/url] Or are you just naturally forgetful?

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Fidel wrote:

Obviously even the Globe's lists were innaccurate and possibly for reasons other than the FBI being caught with their pants down. Who had access to those "official" passenger lists between 2001 and 2006?

The airlines, for one.

So why is it that none of the 19's names appeared on the passenger lists released the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?

Why were eight people on the "original" FBI list found alive and living in different countries?

The truth is, you don't know. And the fact that you don't know doesn't prove a thing in favour of the gladio gang in Warshington.

Pants-of-dog wrote:

No one was wrongly accused. There was some errors during th eearly part of the investigation, and in the reporting. But none of the people who happened to share names with the hijackers were charged with anything, were they?

So, why did Saudi Airlines threaten to sue for defamation of its pilots?

The hidden history of 911 wrote:
[url=http://tinyurl.com/39u7qkf]Stolen Identities[/url]

Perhaps the biggest hole in the fairy tale of the 19 terrorists, who were “armed with nothing more than box cutters,” involves the not-insignificant fact that at least 10 of them are still walking the earth today.

“After at least ten named on the FBI’s final list of 19 have been verified to be alive,” writes Zarembka,“with proof that least one other, Ziad Jarrah, had his identity doubled and therefore fabricated, the FBI has nevertheless refused to make the necessary corrections to exonerate those falsely accused.”

Of the 11 individuals who had “stolen identities,” most of them are pilots or work in some capacity for the airlines.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Fidel wrote:

In case you were wondering, no, there was no criminal investigation of what was the worst building collapses in history with mass murder for an appetizer and prelude to even more mass murder and immoral warfiteering in response.

">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM

That's right, there is supposed to be an ongoing investigation WRT 9/11. They are stalling WRT finding themselves guilty of anything, and they have no intention of releasing "the evidence" for public scrutiny due to reasons of "national security", which means whatever in hell they want it to mean. This is essentially how the former USSR operated.

There has been no legitimate criminal trial though. The real perps are still out there, free as the wind and orchestrating murder in Afghanistan, Iraq and occupying several more countries militarily.

mmphosis

I like The Matrix quotes.  I don't expect anyone to be convinced about anything which is healthy.  Once I take that pill, I'm Crossing the Rubicon, and conversely...

Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?
[Takes a bite of steak]
Cypher: Ignorance is bliss.

 

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

How do manage to make it through the day?

Part of my strategy involves ignoring petty jibes.

 

Fidel wrote:

For the ninth time already, you said so [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/even-newer-911-thread#comment... here[/url] Or are you just naturally forgetful?

There is a difference between the idea that Globe and everyone else was not being restricted (which is what I was claiming) and the idea that the Globe served as a mouthpiece for the FBI (what you twisted my words to mean in your head).

So, I never said that.

Fidel wrote:

So why is it that none of the 19's names appeared on the passenger lists released the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?

Because those were victim lists, as I have already stated, and provided links to support, and even quoted text to support, but you still ignore.

 

Fidel wrote:

Why were eight people on the "original" FBI list found alive and living in different countries?

Which "original" list is this?

 

Fidel wrote:

The truth is, you don't know. And the fact that you don't know doesn't prove a thing in favour of the gladio gang in Warshington.

Petty jibes like this one, for example.

Fidel wrote:

So, why did Saudi Airlines threaten to sue for defamation of its pilots?

Whom did they threaten to sue?

 

Fidel wrote:

The hidden history of 911 wrote:
[url=http://tinyurl.com/39u7qkf]Stolen Identities[/url]

Perhaps the biggest hole in the fairy tale of the 19 terrorists, who were “armed with nothing more than box cutters,” involves the not-insignificant fact that at least 10 of them are still walking the earth today.

“After at least ten named on the FBI’s final list of 19 have been verified to be alive,” writes Zarembka,“with proof that least one other, Ziad Jarrah, had his identity doubled and therefore fabricated, the FBI has nevertheless refused to make the necessary corrections to exonerate those falsely accused.”

Of the 11 individuals who had “stolen identities,” most of them are pilots or work in some capacity for the airlines.

I have no idea what you are arguing here. I suspect you may be in the same boat.

 

Fidel wrote:

That's right, there is supposed to be an ongoing investigation WRT 9/11. They are stalling WRT finding themselves guilty of anything, and they have no intention of releasing "the evidence" for public scrutiny due to reasons of "national security", which means whatever in hell they want it to mean. This is essentially how the former USSR operated.

There has been no legitimate criminal trial though. The real perps are still out there, free as the wind and orchestrating murder in Afghanistan, Iraq and occupying several more countries militarily.

More ranty irrelevancies.

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Fidel wrote:

For the ninth time already, you said so [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/even-newer-911-thread#comment... here[/url] Or are you just naturally forgetful?

There is a difference between the idea that Globe and everyone else was not being restricted (which is what I was claiming) and the idea that the Globe served as a mouthpiece for the FBI (what you twisted my words to mean in your head).

So, I never said that.

Never said what? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
They didn't use secret identities.

You should probably never consider pursuing a life of crime. You'd prolly forget your Blackberry with all your confessions on it somewhere for the cops to recover.

Fidel

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21025]9/11 Truth and America's "Global War on Terrorism": The Pretext to Wage War is Totally Fabricated[/url]

Michel Chossudovsky wrote:
In the wake of 9/11, the (real) antiwar movement was completely isolated. Trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan on humanitarian grounds, an impoverished country of 30 million people.

Concurrently, a fake anti-war activism emerged in the wake of 9/11 which broadly consisted in stating: "I am against the war but I support the war on terrorism". Meanwhile, several NGOs became actively involved in humanitarian projects in Afghanistan, in close liaison with USAID and the Pentagon. (See Yves Engler, The Humanitarian Invastion of Afghanistan: Occupation by NGO, Global Research, September 5, 2010).

This acceptance of the "war on terrorism" was in large part based on the acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative, namely that the US was under attack, that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Muslims, that the Taliban were protecting Al Qaeda and providing refuge to its illusive leader Osama bin Laden. 

Ironically, many "Progressives" in America not only accepted the official 9/11 narrative, they were also involved in smearing the 9/11 Truth Movement. By slurring those who questioned the official 9/11 story (backed by carefully researched evidence and analysis), they (unwittingly) provided legitimacy to the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian occupied territories as well as the targeting of Iran, as part of the "Global War on Terror" GWOT).

The so-called "War on Terrorism" is a lie. Amply documented, the pretext to wage this war is totally fabricated.

 When will workers learn not to accept their terrible lies?

The 9/11 Commission Report is nothing but a pack of LLLLLIES! And our stooges in Ottawa have played along with those lies.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked