First of all thank you very much for taking the time answering all the questions!
1.The human mind is a terrible thing to waste… 3-6 means they were still investigating and didn’t want to make a mistake. The human mind automatically jumps to the high number. Be careful buying a car because the guy will say your trades worth between 1 and $4,000. You’ll think the higher, but be ready to be surprised.
First of all you leave completely aside without any comment that Robert Bonner is apparently lying under oath and that another FBI agent is lying to the press.http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/na...page-bigpix2005
Analysing an investigation isn't exactly the same thing as analysing the human behaviour in general. Either you simply take it for granted that Ashcroft is making up numbers or you've to assume there is a reason behind the numbers.
The reason could only have been that they weren't sure about all of the 19 alleged hijackers and even had doubts about passengers.
Who were the five passengers that were possible suspects?This is, by the way, the dumbest statement to date. None of the passengers were suspected. What they were doing is making sure none of the hijackers used English names as covers. Confirm all other passengers before making blanket statement.
Again you assume a lot of things. Especially that Ashcroft's numbers had no concrete reason. Before coming up with numbers and giving them to the press normally something is done that is called « investigation ». So maybe you should be more careful with using catchy phrases as « dumbest question ».
2. You don’t think a Saudi pilot with the same name could get confused into the mix?
Alomari says he and the suspected hijacker have different middle names. After meeting with the FBI in Saudi Arabia, he says the Bureau apologized. Alomari says, and the FBI now admits, the middle names, a common tribal distinction in Saudi Arabia, apparently caused the confusion.Why do you reduce the story to a simple confusion and don't bother to mention the very key of my question?
The fact that the FBI had the passport of the alleged hijackers in their possession?
Why did they nonetheless go for Vero Beach (and the very strange coincidence that the neighbours of the innocent Al Omari were also considered alleged hijackers? And that the innocent Al Omari gave parking rights to the not so very innocent Atta?)http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/foru...pic.php?19.posthttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...dress=125x25378
(Yeah, I know you don't like this kind of links but there you find a very detailed article on Bukhari, Al Omari and Kamfer based on an enormous amount of articles)
3.See Answer #1. A range is just that… an estimate, not the real number.If these four names didn’t appear on the passenger manifest then how come they were suspects?Because they only exist in your mind.
Now, sorry this is a stupid answer.
Either the four had been suspects cause they figured on the flight manifest then this implies that four other alleged hijackers must have used their names. Which one were these and how do we know that in fact they were aboard (keep in mind that the number of the passengers didn't change. And I believe you agree that it is rather unlikely that four passengers used the names of the wrongly suspected people....
Or the only other explaination is that they didn't figure on the flight manifest then based on what were these four besides Atta and Al Shehhi the very first suspects?
And is this a typical behavior of people who are innocent?Let’s see… Middle Eastern terrorist kill 3,000 people in the country you are in and you expect what a party for you and your family. How do you think an innocent Japanese citizen would feel in the United States after Pearl Harbor? Oh let’s ask one, they were easy to find because we had them held in concentration camps.
Care to give any example of innocents arabs behaving the very same way on September 11?
4.Not sure what the question is… his family and gf say he was on the plane, but not a hijacker, but, uh oh here he is with Atta in 2000 making a suicide statement
The question is very simple: The first name that appeared in the media was « Jarrahi ». So the base for this spelling must have been the flight manifest. But why would a wrong spelling have been on the flight manifest?
5.Does anyone look at these sources? It states very clearly that it is a rush transcript.. Why would CNN care?
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.You know that all transcripts of CNN live news broadcasts have this headline?
You know that the story hasn't been changed or updated and put on Lexis Nexis in exactly the very same form?
As the transcripts indicates the journalists reads names he had written down after having heard them. He didn't have the written form of the names. While all the other are very similar to the later released names Mosear Caned isn't at all.
This has never been explained.
Why CNN would care?
The question speaks for itself. Why would investigative journalism care about investigating?
Why would CNN care why the news they broadcasted yesterday contradict the ones from today?
It's like the London bombings where the media managed to write every day the exact opposite of what they had written the day before and never started asking questions.Do you wish to know what really happened or do martyr videos suffice to make you swallow the official line?
6.Uh… he had a ticket. Poor journalism is not evidence.
Maybe you've overlooked something:If he had a ticket then why wasn't he did FBI Mueller NOT consider him a hijacker on September 13 talking of « 18 hijackers »?
And why does FBI Mueller state that Hanjour bought a ticket paying cash? And if he bought a ticket then why does it take three days till his name appears as a hijacker?It’s called investigation. A travel agent says they sold him ticket for cash when his credit card was denied. There is a time stamped picture that shows him taking money from an ATM. See these types of things are evidence. A person makes a statement that is colloborated by other evidence. Seems to add up more than he boarded a plane with no ticket. Ever try to do this? Even pre-9/11 not easy.
Again you miss the crucial question:
Why wasn't Hanjour considered a hijacker on September 13? In fact what you call poor journalism was the attempt by Washington Post to explain exactly this phenomen.
Conclusion I:Here is where you make your biggest mistake. Since when does CNN qualify as an official source for a passenger list? It says right on the site, that the list was compiled from sources close to victims (family, obituaries, co-workers, etc)
Now the real question is why would a sicko say his son was dead when he wasn’t?
Read this article to answer the Larson question.
the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Sep/18/ln/ln15a.htmlWhere exactlty do I take CNN as an official source?
Do you wish finally after more than 5 years the official flight manifest published?
7.No its implies that people in Middle East can and do have the same names.You do realize that not only the names have been similar but their have been cases of same date of birth and same photos?
8.Do you want a legal proof?
Again, I’m not sure what the question is… “Journalist had their doubts” good. They should. If they had verified more of their sources and not printed their guesses, you’d have less fuel for your conspiracy fire.
A terrorist who had to keep their identity somewhat secret would be hard to identify? What is crazy about this statement?Again you completely leave aside the crucial argument that the FBI itself was still on September 27 not only far from certain that the list of the alleged hijackers was definite but they « acknowledged (…) that some of the terrorists involved in the attacks last week were using false identities”.[/i]http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/stor...,601550,00.html
But even the FBI list published in January 2002 uses the words
for every single hijacker.http://web.archive.org/web/20020201195431/....gov/fbiphotos/In a proper investigation the aim is to figure out the identity of the culprits.
Why is this not the case in the investigation in 9/11?
Conclusion II:Right. We will never really know who they are except that they are Middle Eastern terrorist
Do you have the impression that
there has been any effort to figure out the truth?
that the Commission Report points out that there are still doubts about the identities? (No, they do everything to give the impression that everything is definite)
Conclusion III:I thought these were questions? Yawn, is this all you have to say about the strange absence of any effort by the FBI to positvely identify the alleged hijackers? In the case of the Pentagon and Shanksville they didn't even wish to have the DNA matched to the DNA they had taken from the alleged hijackers at their apartment, cars etc?
Why do I have the impression that you don't care if the identities of the alleged hijackers are correct ? You don't see any need to have any proof that they have been aboard (come on martyr videos as a proof give me a break!)? You don't even see any need for matching the DNA that was found at the crash site. The fact that some phone calls (even if they contradict each other) mention Middle Eastern suffice for you to conclude that it was al Qaeda.
Seeing that you're an intelligent person I'm stunned at your total lack of critical thinking.
11.The phone calls from AIRPHONES that has people identify the hijackers as Middle Eastern.
How many phone calls identify the alleged hijackers as Middle Eastern (Glick for example only talks of three instead of four. Nobody on UA 93 mentions 4 alleged hijackers btw)Betty Ong says the hijackers sprayed something in the first-class cabin to keep people out of the front of the plane
Flight 11 attendant, Amy Sweeney, calls American Airlines ground manager and identifies four hijackers, gives the seat numbers.You do realize that the phone calls of Sweeney and Ong differ in all crucial details last but not least the seat numbers they give? So exactly what do you prove?
And btw does Middle Eastern for you equal Al Qaeda?
12.Is this really what you think investigators spend time doing? Trying to diffuse conspiracy theorist? No my friend, you are not that important. I can’t provide for you the Limburg baby, but I know one did exist. Security photos of the hijackers, pictures of them at ATMs, martyr videos, etc…
No dismiss all of this and take the opinion of Hosni Mubarak.
Security photos? Well from Portland yes, for AA 77 three years later but not for Boston nor for Newark.
And sorry, in every investigation this is exactly what investigators are doing and supposed to do:
Prove the guilt of the culprit. And can you point out to me any plane crash where there has been so much confusion about who actually had been aboard and where the official flight manifest wasn't published.
I really have no idea why you believe it's fun to insult me. I simply think it's sad that you really don't seem to give a shit about being presented a legal proof.
13.Visit any church or mosque and then follow the member’s home. You will find plenty of discrepancies. What does that prove? People are not so easily defined. He liked the ladies. Bravo for him. He also believed he was being Martyred.
Do you think those pedophile priests were acting like pedophiles in the pulpit? No they were holy men.
Your comparision to normal religious people doesn't work. People normally don' t die for religious reasons. Have you any example where people willing to die for their religious believe showed basically no religious behaviour at all? Even on the last day of their lifes they were behaving the very opposite of what they would have been supposed to do.
14.Good questions. These are the questions that need answers. Unfortunately, I fear we will see the ineptness of our security, not an evil plot.Thanks for the flowers.
But why don't you say a word about the fact that several alleged hijackers were under surveillance of the US even before entering the States and had no problem using their real name?
15.See #14. You’re asking the same question in a different way.
Not at all. Question 14 wonders about the fact that many alleged hijackers were under surveillance and never ever had any problem using their own name. This is dealing with the complete lack of the normal security procedures.
To quote a movie character, “I’m an educated man, but I can’t speak intelligently about the habits of crazed suicidal terrorists…”.
16.I don’t think they wanted to become citizens.
Yeah, you're really funny. Still maybe you agree that it makes some sort of sense (especially if it is so easy to obtain a visa) to have all your papers in order if you don't wish to f*** up the biggest coup of your life because you don't pass the security check.
Why did they always have the luck on their side?Should have gone to Vegas while they were here… but you can’t take it with you.
Seeing that so far you've presented nothing whatsoever that in fact proves the alleged hijackers did it I can only wonder how much facts have to be presented until you start asking questions.
17.See all of the above. You really expect someone to have an answer for another human’s motivation? Especially if said person is a suicidal terrorist.First of all the FBI is lying again. Second of all we are supposed to accept that the alleged hijackers were so bright to overcome the biggest military defense system and secret service and yet on the other hand we are not supposed to wonder why the hack the alleged hijackers apparently did everything to be uncovered?
18.James D. Smith, a contractor working with the ABLE DANGER unit, discovers Mohamed Atta’s link to al-Qaeda by obtaining his name and photograph through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East.And why did Smith come up with Atta? How was Atta connected to Brooklyn?
19.I again don’t see a question. Why would they enter prior to their official date of entry? They are terrorist. Do you expect a nice neat trail?Why does the Commission lie about 15 of 19 alleged hijackers?
It is easy to prove that 15 of 19 have been in the US prior to their official entrance date. So why the official lies?
To enter the US you have to do the INS paperwork. Everybody leave a trail who enters the US
20.Ask 10 people what they think of me and you’ll get ten different answers. Ask them my height, weight, and personality. You will say I’m a government loving, yes-man. My friends would say I have strong opinions and hate the fed government and don’t trust politicians. My wife would say I’m extremely well hu…. Ok we’ll forget that.
Point is this. Hearsay is just that hear say. In the need to fill content, media will talk to and listen to anybody.Wow, now that's a deep answer that certainly explains why e. g. Atta was seen on several occasions at two different places at the very same time. Let's start with September 7. Any explaination that has a bit more weight than the typical hear say argument.
21.Question? Or bad punctuation?
Now that’s a good question.As you appear to agree on this question you also agree that again the Commission is lying about it. And lies normally do have reasons.
Is this another reason for considering that the alleged hijackers might have had some sort of doubles?No. It’s a good reason to assume they were able to counterfeit documents.Counterfeited documents don't explain the presence of somebody at the same time at two different places, does it?
22.Some of your questions make my head hurt. Like this one.
I’ll take a shot at it though. Umm… no. Is that what you’re looking for?.
I'm very sure this is supposed to be funny.
Again I'm stunned to your complete absence of any interest in seeing proofs.
Several alleged hijackers had alumnis with the very same name at different military schools.
Never a proof was presented that it wasn't in fact the alleged hijackers themselves who attended the schools. Never any of the innocent alumnis accidentally having the very same name came forward (contrary to the people in Saudi Arabia who right away contacted embassies etc).
Nothing whatsoever was ever presented besides the vague « probably ». Of course the investigative journalism stopped asking questions right away after such convincing statements...
So, this question doesn't deserve any more detailed thought than yours?
23.Atta had a double then who was on the surveillance tape at the airport? Who was getting the money? Who is the guy in the Martyr tape?
Does the Atta in Portland proves in any case that Atta didn't have a double? Certainly not. So your question is without special interest. Moreover you're certainly aware of the fact that Atta being in Portland doesn't exactly prove he boarded AA11.
How do I know who got the money? The only thing I know is that the FBI is withholding surveillance photos of the alleged hijackers at several banks, e.g. Al Shehhi on September 7 while he was seen by several witnesses having drinks at Shuckums.
The guy in the martyr video? You know that videos aren't considered hard proofs? Especially if they are presented to the public years later. Whyv are there so few photos anyway of Atta? Especially given the facts that even his landlords didn't recoginze him on the photo?
24.Please do not post a link to another forum as some type of evidence. Do you expect everyone to dig down through for some point you are making. Do the work and then post it.
The thing on the end of your face is your nose. Even though you obviously can’t see it.You aware of the fact that your answer here is not only slightly insulting but downright stupid (which is in strange contrast to your often intelligent comments)!
You do realize that the link to Team8+ does link to the timelines on the alleged hijackers. Extremely detailed timelines, e. g. the one on Atta contains more than 1000 sources. And guess what it's me who did this work. So really you telling me Do the work and then post it is either insulting or stupid or both.
The link to democraticunderground is the link dealing with the consequences of my work so it's downright original and not a summary of any quotes.
So, now I can only tell youDo the work and then post it!