ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags waleed a alshehri

Reply
Old 27th March 2007, 10:14 AM   #1
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Waleed A Alshehri - new evidence

It was 12 days after 9/11 when the BBC ran their story "Hijack 'suspects' alive and well", leading with an account of Saudi pilot Waleed Al Shehri saying he had nothing to do with the attacks. It included the line "His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world", and this photo...



...which led people to believe that the FBI had got it wrong. And although the BBC didn't include key details (he said elsewhere that a friend saw his photo on CNN, not that he saw any photos at all), it initially looked like a strong case.

Of course, after that people began to notice differences.

The pilot was Waleed A (for Ahmed, I think) Alshehri, while the hijacker was Waleed M (Mohammed?) Alshehri.

The pilot said he didn't have a brother called Wail. The hijacker did.

The pilot was, well, a pilot. The hijacker was a "university dropout".

The pilot's father was a diplomat. The hijacker's father was a businessman who accepted his sons had disappeared and were somehow involved (though the family questioned whether they would have knowingly taken part).

But all that could be waved away as "lies", "faked evidence" or whatever, people still clung to the idea that as he said he saw his photo, that trumped everything else. He was still alive.

This ignored the fact that the FBI didn't release their official photo list until September 27th, though. We know that CNN released photos of the wrong people, so who could say which photo the pilot Alshehri actually saw?

Then just last week I had the chance to find out, finally uncovering the CNN clip. I expected to see a picture of someone else labelled as Waleed Alshehri, but I was wrong. This was it:



CNN used the same photo that the FBI would officially release later. So much for my theory. But I soon realised there was another one. Take a look at the guy labelled at Wail Alshehri above: that's not a photo I recognised, not the alleged hijacker at all. So could this be Waleed A Alshehri instead? Was this the image his friend saw? There was no way to tell without a photo. And I didn't imagine I'd be getting one any time soon.

But I was wrong about that, too.

So here he is, everyone. For the first time ever in a 9/11 forum thread, here's a picture of the pilotl Waleed A Alshehri:


Original Arabic source
Dodgy Google translation

Is he the same guy that CNN showed as "Wail Alshehri"? It's too low-res to be sure, but I think it's likely:



Certainly it's a closer resemblance than to the FBI photo of Waleed M Alshehri. And more solid evidence that these are two different people. Waleed A was caught up in this because people were looking for pilots with similar names to the hijackers, and for that, and other reasons (perhaps like training in Florida where they knew other suspects had been) he became a suspect himself. But the reality is he has a different name, a different profession, a different age, a different family, and as we can now see, a different face. Waleed A and Waleed M are two separate individuals, and the Saudi pilot story provides no evidence whatsoever that the hijacker is still alive.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:04 AM   #2
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,845
Good work, Mike! I would definitely say that's the same man.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:22 AM   #3
busherie
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 247
Yep, seems likely. Why take the risk to post the picture of guy that is stilla live anyway?
busherie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:27 AM   #4
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
So Waleed M Alshehri is a hijacker, and so is his brother Wail, but the picture originally released of Wail was of Waleed A Alshehri.

Right?
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:33 AM   #5
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
Certainly it's a closer resemblance than to the FBI photo of Waleed M Alshehri. And more solid evidence that these are two different people. Waleed A was caught up in this because people were looking for pilots with similar names to the hijackers, and for that, and other reasons (perhaps like training in Florida where they knew other suspects had been) he became a suspect himself. But the reality is he has a different name, a different profession, a different age, a different family, and as we can now see, a different face. Waleed A and Waleed M are two separate individuals, and the Saudi pilot story provides no evidence whatsoever that the hijacker is still alive.
The real Wail Alshehri doesn't look much like the CNN picture at all:

Waleed A Alshehri--> <-- Wail Alshehri

Myth BUSTED!
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:34 AM   #6
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
Fat ******.

Carry on.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:40 AM   #7
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
So Waleed M Alshehri is a hijacker, and so is his brother Wail, but the picture originally released of Wail was of Waleed A Alshehri.

Right?
The picture CNN captioned as Wail Alshehri was actually Waleed A Alshehri, I think, yes. See the clip itself for more (1.5 MB XviD AVI) -- interestingly the newsreader says the name "Waleed Alshehri" instead of "Wail Alshehri" when introducing the pics.

When you say "released", though, I wouldn't make it sound quite so official. The only pic in that clip that says it's sourced from the FBI is Marwan Al-shehhi, so CNN may have found the others on their own.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:44 AM   #8
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Yes, good point.

So Waleed M Alshehri is a hijacker, and so is his brother Wail. But a photograph originally identified as Wail on CNN was more likely Waleed A Alshehri, and Waleed A.'s protest of this is the source of a major "hijacker alive" myth of the truthers.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:48 AM   #9
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
So Waleed M Alshehri is a hijacker, and so is his brother Wail. But a photograph originally identified as Wail on CNN was more likely Waleed A Alshehri, and Waleed A.'s protest of this is the source of a major "hijacker alive" myth of the truthers.
Exactly right. Looks like my original post could have been a lot shorter.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:48 AM   #10
Karl Johannes
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 49
that must have been a real quick job done by cnn, they also got abdulaziz alomari wrong.
Here is the hijacker al Omari:

in his martyrdom video


with mohammed atta

he doesn't look anything like the man in the photo
this, if you will remember, is another "living hijacker" often cited by the loosers. Another abdulaziz alomari was alleged to be involved who was later found to be innocent:


is this the same guy as the abdulaziz alomari in the CNN clip?
Karl Johannes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:51 AM   #11
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
obviously they got Abdulaziz Alomari wrong. the guy on the CNN show looks nothing like the hijacker guy.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:51 AM   #12
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by Karl Johannes View Post
that must have been a real quick job done by cnn, they also got abdulaziz alomari wrong.
And Saeed Alghamdi (see the clip).

Quote:
Another abdulaziz alomari was alleged to be involved who was later found to be innocent... is this the same guy as the abdulaziz alomari in the CNN clip?
Hmm, I thought not originally but it's hard to tell. See the bottom third of http://www.911myths.com/html/abdulaz...ill_alive.html for the pilot Alomari.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:52 AM   #13
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Karl Johannes View Post
that must have been a real quick job done by cnn, they also got abdulaziz alomari wrong.
Here is the hijacker al Omari:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nAlJazeera.jpg
in his martyrdom video

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...x-Atta_atm.jpg
with mohammed atta

he doesn't look anything like the man in the photo
this, if you will remember, is another "living hijacker" often cited by the loosers. Another abdulaziz alomari was alleged to be involved who was later found to be innocent:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mari_alive.jpg

is this the same guy as the abdulaziz alomari in the CNN clip?

The guy at the bottom of your pics looks much more like the CNN photo, but still not a real close match by a stretch.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:52 AM   #14
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
Exactly right. Looks like my original post could have been a lot shorter.
I'm not saying that at all! I was just making sure I understood correctly.

And Karl with the further assist - that's a good possibility as well, to these eyes.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:55 AM   #15
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
I'm not saying that at all!
No, I know! I was saying that to myself.

Quote:
I was just making sure I understood correctly.
And you do. A little more handy debating ammunition for the next time the BBC report or "hijackers still alive" story comes up, hopefully.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 11:56 AM   #16
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Karl Johannes View Post
Skinny ******.

Carry on.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 12:04 PM   #17
Karl Johannes
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 49
oh sorry i didnt realize that 9/11 myths had so much more info than i remember, it has been a while since i visited that site.
So with this new information about waleed do you think the living hijacker claim might be a little bit more diminished by the truthers? it seems like they are backing away from the fake bin ladens and the living hijackers as of late to focus on crazier insanities, but thats just my perception, this surely is one of the weakest points of thier hopelessly weak argument. Maybe i am overestimating their ability to be persuaded by evidence.
Karl Johannes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 12:10 PM   #18
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Karl Johannes View Post
oh sorry i didnt realize that 9/11 myths had so much more info than i remember, it has been a while since i visited that site.
So with this new information about waleed do you think the living hijacker claim might be a little bit more diminished by the truthers? it seems like they are backing away from the fake bin ladens and the living hijackers as of late to focus on crazier insanities, but thats just my perception, this surely is one of the weakest points of thier hopelessly weak argument. Maybe i am overestimating their ability to be persuaded by evidence.
You are correct. Apart from of the more insane like Griffin, and Fetzer, the majority of the truth movement seems to avoid the "hijacker alive" and "fake Bin-Ladin" issues now. Their main focus now seems to be on the details of the impacts/collapses, and the foreknowledge/funding issues.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 12:16 PM   #19
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by Karl Johannes View Post
So with this new information about waleed do you think the living hijacker claim might be a little bit more diminished by the truthers?
Yes. Although it'll take a while. But eventually I think they'll move from saying "these 7/ 8/ 9/ are alive and well", accept the right 19 have been named, and start talking about other "anomalies" instead. Like "hijacker a is officially supposed to arrive in the US on this date, but this report says it was earlier", or "hijacker b is reported in two separate places at the same time here, so must have a double". So don't worry, there will still be just as many claims to investigate as before...
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 01:46 PM   #20
busherie
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
You are correct. Apart from of the more insane like Griffin, and Fetzer, the majority of the truth movement seems to avoid the "hijacker alive" and "fake Bin-Ladin" issues now. Their main focus now seems to be on the details of the impacts/collapses, and the foreknowledge/funding issues.

TAM
Because they focus on real issues, they are now getting closer to the truth than ever...
busherie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 01:53 PM   #21
busherie
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 247
I also read on your site Mike:

Mr. CANNISTRARO: The investigation, at the end of the day, after all of the polygraphs, all of the field work, all of the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advanced knowledge of 9/11.

If he says they did not have foreknowledge, then the claim they had some is blown up. They were spies but no foreknowledge. I choose to believe Cannistraro.

Nice work mike, as usual!

Good night.

B
busherie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 02:03 PM   #22
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by busherie View Post
Because they focus on real issues, they are now getting closer to the truth than ever...
Yeah, and strangely enough, the closer they get to the truth, the more it resembles the official version.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 02:13 PM   #23
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Great work, Mike
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 04:47 PM   #24
Larry Lovage
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 220
Quote:
Another abdulaziz alomari was alleged to be involved who was later found to be innocent:
As I've said many times, these people don't have to prove that they're innocent ... they're alive, that's why they're not the hijackers!! In the BBC story the guy was talking like he'd been accused of being a terrorist, and it's like, even if they got the terrorist's name wrong, the terrorist was vapourised, obviously this guy isn't a terrorist.

(Sorry, this whole alive hijackers thing really gets my goat. Jesus, as if in a conspiracy theory you'd pin a suicide attack on someone who wasn't dead!
Larry Lovage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 05:05 PM   #25
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,769
Excellent work, indeed, Mike.

Bravo, sir.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 06:21 PM   #26
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
Waleed A and Waleed M are two separate individuals, and the Saudi pilot story provides no evidence whatsoever that the hijacker is still alive.
And neither the FBI nor anything you have posted provides any evidence whatsoever that the planes were hijacked by who you say they were. Remember, it is your obligation to prove not only that these men were on the planes, but that they carried out the hijackings as well. You haven't done that-- not by a long shot, and you never will.

Sorry, but just disproving the "still-alive hijacker" evidence isn't enough.
A-Train is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 06:23 PM   #27
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Actually it isnt up to us, it is up to the FBI, and the procecuters in any legal matters concerning the criminal case.

To me the FBI have proven their case. To a judge, the procecuters did it as well.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 08:15 PM   #28
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Good job once again, Mike!

So A-Train, you think that these guys who trained for the hijacking, trained on large jet flight simulators, became licensed pilots, had 757 piloting aids at their last places of residence, boarded the planes, and in some cases were named by seat row and number as hijackers by flight crew,

weren't the hijackers?

But others on board were? People described as Middle Eastern? People who had Arabic accents? Pull up the passenger and crew lists, A-Train. Let us know who your suspects are, and the evidence you have against them. Fair enough?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 08:29 PM   #29
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
It never, ever fails to amaze me...

... just how many Troothers hang around here after being debunked into oblivion, reading everything, keeping silent, waiting for someone to tread upon on their own, special, pet delusion. And then when it happens, they immediately launch a defense, consisting of "nuh-uh!" and shifting the burden of proof, goalposts, or both simultaneously.

Quite a fascinating social phenomenon, really.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 01:07 AM   #30
busherie
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
Yeah, and strangely enough, the closer they get to the truth, the more it resembles the official version.
There is a huge but subtle difference between the official version (incompetence, bad organization) and LIHOP theories. In the first case, it's not your faul. In the second one, you comit a crime.

I'm not afraid to get closer to the truth, if I can find evidence they deliberately let the attacks unfold.

Busherie
busherie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 01:10 AM   #31
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
And neither the FBI nor anything you have posted provides any evidence whatsoever that the planes were hijacked by who you say they were. Remember, it is your obligation to prove not only that these men were on the planes, but that they carried out the hijackings as well. You haven't done that-- not by a long shot, and you never will.

Sorry, but just disproving the "still-alive hijacker" evidence isn't enough.
I never said it was, A-Train. This is a thread primarily about Waleed A Alshehri, and how he is not Waleed M Alshehri, so I think you're expecting too much. Or setting up a neat straw man.

Either way, I'm sorry you find this evidence insufficient. But don't give up. I've not finished yet.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 04:58 AM   #32
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by busherie View Post
There is a huge but subtle difference between the official version (incompetence, bad organization) and LIHOP theories. In the first case, it's not your faul. In the second one, you comit a crime.

I'm not afraid to get closer to the truth, if I can find evidence they deliberately let the attacks unfold.

Busherie
Are you afraid to get closer to the truth if you can't?
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:23 AM   #33
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Nice work Mike.

The guys across at LC are disusing this but as yet have offered no counter argument but prefer to simply slag off the Jref forum. I'm sure once somebody tells them what to say they will come back with a substantial counter argument but at the moment it is better to simply pretend it is all one bring conspiracy designed to suppress their voices.

Posted by Citizen Merc

Quote:
Apparently, Jref won't allow myself or Craig to post on their forums.

Mike Williams of 911myths.com posted some very dubious info, I'd like to respond to. Or debunk rather.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77984

Could you perhaps speak with your admins there and lift the unwarranted suspension on Craig. Or allow me to post there?

What are they so scared of?
and again he asks

Quote:
And Craig was suspended because Calcus and Bobert are clinically insane and stalked him.

No I want to respond there.

Tell them get up their nerves and let us back in.

I tried signing up using my real name. yet they knew and put a stop to it.

Why are they so scared?
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=6296

stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:43 AM   #34
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
Nice work Mike.

The guys across at LC are disusing this but as yet have offered no counter argument but prefer to simply slag off the Jref forum. I'm sure once somebody tells them what to say they will come back with a substantial counter argument but at the moment it is better to simply pretend it is all one bring conspiracy designed to suppress their voices.

Posted by Citizen Merc



and again he asks



http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=6296

EEEK! It's Citizen Merc!
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:22 PM   #35
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
So A-Train, you think that these guys who trained for the hijacking, trained on large jet flight simulators, became licensed pilots, had 757 piloting aids at their last places of residence, boarded the planes, and in some cases were named by seat row and number as hijackers by flight crew,

weren't the hijackers?

But others on board were? People described as Middle Eastern? People who had Arabic accents? Pull up the passenger and crew lists, A-Train. Let us know who your suspects are, and the evidence you have against them. Fair enough?
The key phrase in your post, Gravy, is these guys. Your problem is you have not shown that the these guys enrolling in Arizona flight schools or showing up on Jack Abramoff's casino cruise ship are the same these guys who actually hijacked the planes-- or if any of the these guys you are referring to were really who they passed themselves off as.

Identity theft is obviously a very common occurrence. Here in America, however, we assume someone will steal our credit card, load up on some goodies at the mall, and that will be the end of it. That identities can be stolen by a professional intelligence agency to "sheep dip" numerous innocent men as part of an elaborate frame-up operation is for the most part beyond our comprehension. It's not part of our history, or our character. It seems too diabolical for any human to contemplate. Even the most depraved of American criminals will rarely attempt to frame an enemy for their own crime; and when they do, they usually do a poor job of it.

Others around the world, however, are more familiar with the technique. They've tried to tell us it was used on 9/11, but we didn't listen. Here's how it worked: you steal the identities of several men from the group you want to frame. You then assign those identities to your own agents, who bear a physical resemblance to the identity theft victims. (You are aware, Gravy, that there are people of the Middle East who are of course "Middle Eastern looking"-- but who neither Arab nor Muslim.) These agents are then sent to the US to engage in activities which, after the fact, will make it look like the "Arabs" were plotting the crime of the century.

Meanwhile, another group is also being sheep-dipped in a different way. American looking and acting agents are inserted into friendly American companies, to play the role of bright eyed, bushy tailed young corporate executives. These men also play a role in the hijackings, but any suspicion is diverted because of their clean cut appearance.

And finally, a third group present on the planes is the genuine Arab patsies. Satam Suqami is an example. That explains why he arrived in the US in April 2001, depite the fact that "he" was already here. These have been manipulated onto the flights, but their only role in the hijackings-- as apparently is the case with Suqami-- is to have their brains blown out by the real hijackers at the onset of the hijacking.

You want to see the passenger lists? You want to know who my suspects are? Let's look at the manifest for AAL11:

http://www.1918redsox.com/aa11.htm

Now let's look at the best evidence we have from an eyewitness on the plane who relayed the seat numbers of the hijackers:

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/...nstruction.htm

Betty Ong relays that the hijackers came from seats 9A, 9B, 1A, and 2A. She also reports an injured passenger in seat 10B. Here we have all three elements I described above:

Danny Lewin in seat 9B: a former Sayerat Metkal commando who magically tranformed himself overnight into a Boston internet billionaire.

Edmund Glazer
in seat 9A: CFO of MRV Communications.

"Wail and Waleed Alshehri" in seats 1A and 2A. Both men are reported to be still alive after 9/11. Can it be proven that the men in these seats were really the Alshehri brothers?

Satam Suqami in seat 10B: Reported to have volunteered for a suicide mission while attending a Bin Laden camp. His tragic life comes to a pathetic end when he is apparently executed by the hijackers when the plane is commandeered.
A-Train is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:54 PM   #36
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
You want to see the passenger lists? You want to know who my suspects are? Let's look at the manifest for AAL11:

http://www.1918redsox.com/aa11.htm

Wait a minute, for years Jim Fetzer, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin et al have been saying the hijackers were not on any passenger lists. Now you are saying they were. Have you informed them of this?
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 10:03 PM   #37
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
it is your obligation to prove not only that these men were on the planes, but that they carried out the hijackings as well. You haven't done that-- not by a long shot, and you never will.
Still don't understand who must show evidence? Well anyway, in honor of your return...



Shave your back
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2007, 03:29 PM   #38
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
Wait a minute, for years Jim Fetzer, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin et al have been saying the hijackers were not on any passenger lists. Now you are saying they were. Have you informed them of this?
Have Jones and Griffin really been saying this? I didn't think Jones ever talked about anything but the tower collapses. I read two of Griffin's books and I don't remember him saying anything about passenger lists.

As for Fetzer, he's a clown and a disinformationalist, in my book.

Anyway, I don't care what any of these people said or are saying. I do my own research and have my own ideas. Why don't you address the points I made in my posts instead of dragging these guys into it?
A-Train is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2007, 03:38 PM   #39
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
From Griffin's 115 points, also known as:

571 page lie

Quote:
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2007, 06:40 AM   #40
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Good job once again, Mike!

So A-Train, you think that these guys who trained for the hijacking, trained on large jet flight simulators, became licensed pilots, had 757 piloting aids at their last places of residence, boarded the planes, and in some cases were named by seat row and number as hijackers by flight crew,

weren't the hijackers?

But others on board were? People described as Middle Eastern? People who had Arabic accents? Pull up the passenger and crew lists, A-Train. Let us know who your suspects are, and the evidence you have against them. Fair enough?

I must say, Gravy, I'm disappointed with you. Such a vigorous challenge to me to lay out my evidence and name my suspects. I have done so, only to see you have fled the scene of the debate.

But while I have your attention-- or not-- let me address the fact that numerous callers from the planes described the hijackers as "Middle Eastern looking." Without doubt they were Middle Eastern men, but do you really consider that compelling evidence that this description constitutes compelling evidence that these men were the al-Qaeda Arabs you say they were?

Certainly you are aware that there are countries and peoples in the Middle East that are not Arab, and not Muslim, but who share the dark skin and features of their Arab-Muslim neighbors. Think how easy it is for us to mistakenly assume that such a person is an Arab terrorist, especially if he is intentionally trying to portray himself as such.

For example, look at the image in this link:

http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~msa/issues/Palestine/MultiMedia/pictures/crimes/crazy_israeli_soldier_look_into_eyes.jpg

If the man in the photo were on a plane playing the role of an Arab hijacker, would you be able to tell that he might not be an Arab or Muslim at all?

We Americans immediately assume that an "Middle Eastern looking" man involved in a terrorism-related act must be a Muslim. This tendency on our part can be exploited by the real terrorists to frame their Arab enemies. For example, immediately after the attacks the media reported that several "Middle Eastern looking" men were seen celebrating the burning towers. I remember that quite vividly. I remember clenching my fists in anger and wishing the worst to happen to everyone in the Muslim world-- who had obviously perpetrated the attacks and done the celebrating.

Like most Americans, I had fallen for the bait. I had assumed that the celebrating men were Arab-Muslims. As it turned out, the media had not really lied. The men were indeed "Middle Eastern." They were Israeli military veterans and several happened to have the dark skin and features associated with Arabs. The media, however, didn't clue us in on that fact until much later, and even then the mainstream media ignored the story.

Meanwhile, the Arab-Muslim world was successfully "framed" for the celebrations, thanks to the general ignorance of ordinary Americans like me, and the mainstream media's complicity in telling their half-truth.

Can we at least consider the possibility that the same technique was used regarding the "Middle Eastern looking" men who, we both agree, hijacked the planes?

Here is a link to the Israeli men on TV telling their story. Note how genuinely Arab-looking the middle one is.

DancingIsraelis on Israeli TV

If nothing else, Gravy, I hope the above argument will dissuade you from using the "Middle Eastern looking" argument your attempts to show the hijackers were who you say they were.

Gravy? Are you listening? Are you still here?
A-Train is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.