Jarrah's visa found in Shanksville?

[KJF]

Both the FBI and the 9/11 Commission claim that a document belonging to Lebanese “hijacker pilot” Ziad Jarrah was found at the alleged site of United 93's crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. For example, on page 173 of Terrorist Travel, the 9/11 Commission prints a copy and calls it a “Partly-burned copy of Ziad Jarrah's U.S. visa.”
Terrorist Travel link: http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf

It is assumed that this visa was in a Lebanese passport, for example, CNN says, “The FBI believes Jarrah, who held a Lebanese passport, was the hijacker-pilot of United Airlines Flight 93.”
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/us/0205/intelligence.timeline/content.3b.html

However, for some reason, neither the 9/11 Commission nor any other official body I can find makes this claim explicitly; Terrorist Travel merely refers to Jarrah as a “native of Lebanon” and having “Lebanese nationality” in the relevant passage (Terrorist Travel, p. 11). Although the 9/11 Commission does not specify on what sort of passports visas were issued to the hijackers, if they knew a visa had been issued to a hijacker on a passport not from his country of origin this would certainly have been worthy of note and we can assume it would have been mentioned. Therefore, I'm going to take the official account as saying it was in his Lebanese passport.

There are four problems with his:
(1) The photo in the Shanksville document is not of Jarrah;
(2) The Shanksville document is not Jarrah's US visa issued in Berlin on 25 May 2000;
(3) In fact, it's not any sort of US visa, it's a passport;
(4) But it's not a Lebanese passport, it's probably a German one.
In addition, (5) Atta may well have been travelling on a German passport too, possibly in addition to his other(s).

First, let's have a look at the documents. Here's the one from Shanksville:

A bigger version can be found in Terrorist Travel.

And here's a photocopy of his visa made by Jarrah's landlord, probably in late June 2001:

You can find a higher resolution version here (scroll down):
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

And here's Atta's visa:


(1) The photo in the Shanksville document is not of Jarrah
Here's a standard photo of Jarrah:


Here's the one from the Shanksville document:


Here's another standard one:


The first and third are indisputably Ziad Jarrah. Here he is with his mum:


It seems to me that the person in the burned photo looks different to Jarrah, for example he has a “rounder” head. Nevertheless, the Shanksville document was clearly issued to alleged hijacker pilot Ziad Jarrah; on the top line of the machine-readable zone we can see his first name (Jarrah), last name (Ziad) and the first two letters of his middle name (Samir). On the bottom line we can see his passport number (1619505), his nationality (LBN – Lebanon), his date of birth (750511 – 11 May 1975) and his sex (M).

I have no idea why the guy in the photo is not Jarrah and I have no idea what it means, but it must mean something.

(2) The Shanksville document is not Jarrah's US visa issued in Berlin on 25 May 2000
There are three main reasons I think the Shanksville document is not Jarrah's US visa:
(a) Photos don't match
Compare the colour photo from the Shanksville document, which the 9/11 Commission claims is from his visa, with the black-and-white one in the photocopy, which clearly is from his visa. Are they the same? I'd say it's the same person (but not Jarrah), but it's not the same photo; in the black-and-white visa photo Jarrah is looking to his left, whereas in the Shanksville photo he's looking straight ahead.

(b) Missing wavy line
If you look at the top border of the black-and-white visa photocopy, you can see a wavy line, which is also present on Atta's visa. However, no such wavy border directly over the photo is visible on the Shanksville document.

(c) Wrong colour
The background of the Shanksville document is light blue; compare this to Atta's visa, issued in the same place, Berlin, seven days before Jarrah's visa was issued. There is some similar blue colouring in Atta's visa. However, if it were a visa, the Shanksville document should really also contain some purple and some red too.

(3) In fact, it's not any sort of US visa, it's a passport
(4) But it's not a Lebanese passport, it's probably a German one.

Obviously, there is a possibility that the Shanksville document could be something other than a US visa or a passport – for example it could be a visa for another country – but I'm going to set that possibility aside for now, because I think I have a neater explanation.

The obvious way to differentiate between a passport and a visa with a machine-readable zone is to look at the first letter of the zone, but, unfortunately, the Shanksville document is crumpled in such a way that we can't see the first letter of the machine-readable zone – it would either be a “P” indicating it was a passport, or a V, indicating it was a visa – so we're going to have to take a different approach.

Generally, a machine-readable zone on a travel document – visa or passport – gives both the nationality of the holder and the country of issue. If you look at your passport, you should see the three letters designating your nationality, for example “USA”, in the middle of the second line and three letters designating the issuing country near the start of the first line. If you have a foreign visa, the code for the issuing country on the first line should be different to the code for your nationality on the second line. This means that it should be easy to tell who issued the document to Jarrah simply by looking at the alpha-3 code on the first line (the third, fourth and fifth characters). The alpha-3 code for nationality on both the black-and-white visa and the Shanksville document is “LBN”, indicating that the document holder is from Lebanon, but the alpha-3 code on the first line is “XGE” on the visa and on the Shanksville document (although it is hard to read there). So which country is “XGE” and how could it issue a US visa – aren't they usually issued by the US? You can find a list of alpha-3 codes here:
http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/numbers/mrp.html
As you can see from this list, the code “XGE” doesn't exist, the only codes beginning with X are:
XXA – stateless person
XXB – refugee under 1951 convention
XXC – refugee (non-convention)
XXX – unspecified / unknown

However, this may not mean that Jarrah's US visa was issued by a non-existent country, rather than the US. In the late 1990s and early 2000s it seems that, when issuing visas, on the first line of the machine-readable zone the US may have specified the alpha-3 code of the passport on which the visa was issued, rather than following the usual practice of specifying the issuing country, i.e. “USA”. For example, here's a sample visa issued to a Chinese in Shanghai, in December 1998:

The country code on the first line is “CHN”, not USA.

And here's a sample visa for a Japanese, issued in Tokyo in May 2001

The country code on the first line is “JPN”, not USA.

The US is finally doing it right now. Here's a visa with “USA” specified as the issuing country on the first line, it was issued to an Taiwanese in Taipei, in May 2003:


So, perhaps the problem is not that the visa was issued by an non-existent country, but that the passport in which it was stamped was issued by a non-existent country.

Don't worry, there's a better solution. Germany (like many other countries) issues aliens' passports, also known as foreigners' passports (Fremdenpass in German). Such passports are issued to non-nationals who have some connection with the issuing country, for example they have lived there for some time, as Jarrah and Atta lived in Germany. According to the State Department, to get a Fremdenpass in 2005 “The alien must hold an unlimited residence permit (umbefristete Aufenthaltsgenehmigung) or a so-called “Aufenthaltserlaubnis.” Possession of a limited residence permit is sufficient, if the alien is a family member of a German citizen, or if he/she is the spouse or minor child of an alien who holds an unlimited residence permit.” The rules were probably similar in 2000. Perhaps the rule about an alien with only a limited residence permit needing a family member better connected to Germany explains why Jarrah had the German work permit of his cousin, Assem Omar Jarrah, who lived in Germany for 19 years from 1982 to 2001; by the way, this permit was also found at Shanksville.
State Department link: http://travel.state.gov/visa/reciprocity/Country%20Folder/G/Germany.htm
Assem Jarrah link: http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/Newsdesk.nsf/Lebanon/06802B1FBB8A8F3442256AFC003F2848?OpenDocument
It seems to me that the alpha-3 designation “XGE” is quite logical for a foreigner's passport issued by Germany: “X” meaning the actual nationality is unspecified and “GE” meaning it was issued by Germany. Also, you might like to note the perforated number (1619505) on the page opposite Jarrah's visa – did the Lebanese consulate in Bonn really have a machine that did that in spring 2000? In addition, I found a Lebanese passport issued on 24 April 2001 with the number 1622263. If passports were numbered sequentially, this would indicate that only 2,758 passports were issued in the approximately 12-month period between Jarrah obtaining his and the date this passport was issued – not many for a country of four million. Further, some sites refer to Fremdenpasses as being “blue”, the same colour as the Shanksville document, although some sites only state that the cover was blue and don't mention the inner pages.
Other Lebanese passport link: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8570.doc.htm
Blue Fremdenpass link: http://usembassy.state.gov/germany/visa/vwp.html

And let's not forget that two people who actually saw the passport claimed it was German:
(a) One of his Florida landlords told the Palm Beach Post “He rented from April 23 to June 23, presenting a German passport and a student card from Hamburg as identification.” (no link because obtained through Lexis Nexis).
(b) Another Florida landlord, Charles Lisa, who made the black and white photocopy, said “Jarrahi and another hijacking suspect who shared the apartment, Ahmed Alhaznawi, both provided German passports as proof of identity.” http://web.archive.org/web/20011019090410/www.miami.com/herald/special/news/worldtrade/digdocs/046328.htm

If Jarrah was travelling on a German passport, then why hasn't this been mentioned by the INS, FBI or 9/11 Commission? I'll offer two complimentary explanations.
(a) Here's an I-94 form:

There are fields for “country of citizenship” and “country where you live”, but no field for the country which issued the passport. It appears that the INS merely assumed that the country of citizenship was identical to the passport issuing country. Although this was correct in 99.9% of cases, it failed to take into account the fact of aliens' passports and meant that they were invisible to the system.

(b) I have a nasty feeling that some of the hijackers were under closer surveillance by intelligence agencies than has been admitted and that them having aliens' passports might give this away somehow – but that's just speculation, take it or leave it.

In addition, (5) Atta's may well have been travelling on a German passport too, possibly in addition to his other(s).
He has the same issuing country designation “XGE” in his visa as Jarrah, which, as I argued above, may well mean that it was issued on a German alien's passport; Atta lived in Germany for 7 years, from 1993 to 2000. In addition, in the case of Atta this might explain how he could be present officially but not physically in one country (Spain) and present physically but not officially in another country (Germany), which seems to have happened towards the middle of July 2001.

Conclusion: I'm pretty convinced the photos in the visa and the Shanksville document are not of Jarrah and that the Shanksville document is not the visa. Whether it really is a Fremdenpass remains to be seen, but it seems the most likely explanation at present.

Hat tip: PT, JD2

[Andre II]

1. Nice work

Thank you!

Only thing is that I don't believe the Jarrah in any official photo resembles the Jarrah we know form his privat photos at all. But that's just a side issue here.

[mirandapriestly]

2. Amazing work

at first I thought that the OP photo was him, until I realized, like Andre said, that the personal photos look different that the official photos. (I still don't get exactly what's going on though).
I want to add that I think it is kind of fakey the way the ID in the OP is burned only partially so as to show the face. So I don't know if they really found this ID at the scene, I've think they've done this with other ID's - half burned so as to reveal only the important "evidence"JMO.
I wonder who the close quarters combat trainer Bert Rodriguez would recognize as Jarrah.

[Jazz2006]

3. Kevin, there are some problems with your analysis.

(1) You say: "The photo in the Shanksville document is not of Jarrah"

You simply cannot make that determination based on the documents you cite here. You say that photos 1, 3 and 4 prove that it's someone else in photo 2. Strangers viewing photographs of other strangers whom they have never met or known are not even remotely the best arbiters of whether a particular photo actually depicts the other stranger at all.

Common sense dictates that various photos of a person will look different. Common experience dictates that probably 95% of us has seen photos of ourselves that look vastly different than how most of our photos look. I'd bet that most people have ditched photos of themselves that have turned out badly, or turned out looking strange, or turned out not looking at all as we are used to seeing ourselves. There is nothing unusual about having a photo of yourself that looks "different" - but that doesn't mean it isn't you. The fourth photo ("Here he is with his Mom") is a good example of this. The man in that photo looks absolutely nothing like the other photos. (Of course, that is just my subjective opinion, which means no more than the subjective opinion of anyone else - including you - viewing photos of someone he or she doesn't know.)

It's just plain silly to assert "that is not X" when you have no idea what he may look like in a thousand other photos taken over the years of the guy. It's one thing to say, "to me, it looks like his head is rounder (even though you can't even see his head in that photo and even though the document is burnt and warped), but that does not remotely equate to "the photo is not of Jarrah".


(2) You say: The Shanksville document is not Jarrah's US visa issued in Berlin on 25 May 2000;

You base this conclusion on sub-points (2)(a) through (2)(c)

(a) "The photos don't match."

You cannot objectively say with any certainty whatsoever that the photos do not match, let alone state it as a matter of fact. See point #1 above.

(b) The "missing wavy line".

You say that the "wavy line" is missing on the Shanksville document but the photo you've posted shows that it is burnt and warped and does not extend to the point where the "missing wavy line" to which you refer would be visible. Moreover, you are aware, are you not, that the wavy lines only show up in photocopies, not in originals? And to state the obvious again, the document is burnt and warped.

(c) The "wrong colour"

You say that the background of the Shanksville document is light blue, as is Atta's. You say, though, that it "should also contain some purple and some red too" if it is "really" a visa.

Again, the document is burnt and warped. I wouldn't expect it to look exactly like a pristine document. I would not expect the colours to appear as sharp or as nuanced after a document is subjected to fire and heat. Aside from that, I don't think there is any question that different shading or lighting that can easily might make blues and purples look a little different from one document to the next. This is, again, a very very dubious basis upon which to draw the conclusion that you have.

As for the "red" - according to the photos you've posted, there is no red on the Atta visa in the area that corresponds to the unburnt portion of the Jarrah visa, so I don't know why you would expect to see red on the former.

(3) You say: "In fact, it's not any sort of US visa, it's a passport"

Despite the convoluted and tortuous route you seem to take to get to this conclusion, it makes little sense. Look at the black & white version of Jarrah's visa and compare it to Atta's. Then look at the photo of the burnt document and compare it to the black and white version.

All of your contortions notwithstanding, it appears as though the answer is staring us all straight in the face - the two visas have all of the same characteristics, they were issued in the same country, there is nothing mysterious about them, and the burnt document appears, in fact, to be a visa in Jarrah's passport.

The machine readable passport link is interesting, but it says nothing at all about when various countries adopted the standards set out in it, and when or if the obvious and necessary grandfathering clauses would have been effective in those countries, etc. so on the face of it, the link doesn't support your assertions or assumptions either.

I'll gladly reconsider this if you provide some kind of evidence to support your suppositions, assumptions, and arguments, but so far, I don't see anything compelling here at all.

(4) You say: "But it's not a Lebanese passport, it's probably a German one"

This is answered by #3 above if it is, as seems apparent, a visa and not a passport.

Even if it weren't, the problem here is with your assertion in paragraph 2 which begins with "it is assumed" as it appears that you are the one who is assuming and that your assumption is not supported by the link you provide at all. The fact that he may have had a Lebanese passport does not preclude him from having another passport, and the link does not say "it is assumed" that the passport in question was Lebanese or anything else. Lots of people have more than one passport from more than one country, quite legitimately. And lots of people have more than one passport from more than one country illegitimately.

The rest that you rely upon here is based on your initial "assumption" without any proper basis or foundation and then adds further suppositions that entirely ignore the fact that in all cases where anyone is quoted or cited, it is in reference to "a" passport, not "the" passport as you claim. And it all ignores the fact that many people have more than one passport from more than one country.

When you start from an assumption without any factual basis upon which to rest it, the conclusions that you draw are no stronger than the unsupported assumption from which you started.


(5) You say: "Atta may well have been travelling on a German passport too, possibly in addition to his other(s)."

Maybe. So what?

Bottom line: although I spent considerable time going through all of your links (for future reference, it would be courteous to pinpoint a link instead of just linking generically to documents hundreds of pages long purportedly in support of one-liners in your post - you can bet that almost nobody else here would actually take the time that I did to read them to try to find what on earth you were pretending to refer to), I am not at all convinced of your position.

A thousand word OP, hours of plodding through several links that do not support what you allege, hundreds and hundreds of pages to wade through, a myriad of assumptions and leaps of faith not supported by the links or evidence provided, several further add-on unsupported assumptions based upon your initial unsupported assumptions, a stunning lack of detail when it matters, all manner of irrelevant detail when it doesn't matter, and then simply manufacturing theories out of whole cloth.

Some might call that a total waste of several hours of my time. Perhaps it was but I prefer to call it research and to chalk up the wasted hours to experience. I'll not spend hours researching your unfounded, (and vaguely, lazily, poorly or non-cited) claims in future.

(edited for typos - the rest can stay as it is)

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Jazz2006]

5. Kevin.

I'm not going to spend hours on this since I already have and it has turned out your OP wasn't even remotely close to worthwhile or factual, but I'll respond briefly to your post.

You said: It IS generally assumed that the visa was in a Lebanese passport. I've
seen lots of stories about Jarrah and those that mention his passport all
state or imply (like Terrorist Travel) that it was a Lebanese passport.

See previous post. You can SAY that all you want. The link you provided does NOT support your assertion.

You said: Let's get this straight, you're saying that all these four images are of
the same person and that numbers 2 and 4 are the same image?

That's not what I said at all, and I don't know where you got that from.

The wavy line only shows up on photocopies?

Actually, I thought I'd removed that part from my post before I posted it (but as I said, I spent hours on researching and writing it and it appears that I inadvertently neglected to remove that sentence.) I think it may be accurate, since that seems to be the case with all kinds of documents, my own passport and visas included (as well as various other legal documents) but I do not have sufficient evidence to prove the point and thought I'd removed all references to it as a result. I guess I missed one.

All of the rest of my points about your "wavy line" assertion stand. Your assertions, the photos, and your links do NOT support your assertions about the "missing" wavy line. See my previous post for details.

You said: Bottom line: some of the hijackers, including Jarrah, had more than one
passport.

Er, yes. That's what I said in my post. You, on the other hand, were asserting otherwise ("the" passport, not "a" passport; "assuming X passport, therefore could not be Y passport" ~ again, like I said in my post and as you didn't say in yours, lots of people have passports from more than one country, legitimately and otherwise.) Glad you agree with me. Not that you said that in the OP, of course, and not that that lends any legitimacy to your assertion that the visa in the photo was really a passport. It doesn't.

Bottom line: I'm not going to waste any more time on your OP because it's full of holes; assumptions that are not supported by facts; generic links to multi-hundred page documents that require hours of research to find whatever elusive point you might have been trying to make (really, this is inexcusable - linking to page 1 of a 246 page document in "support" of your claim and requiring someone to read all the way to page 230 or so before your "point" is addressed, only to find that the document doesn't support it, after all - it would be bad enough to post that kind of link purportedly in "support" of your point even if it did actually support your point); a whole lot of conjecture; all manner of subjective and unsubstantiated opinion presented as fact; a whole lot of leaping to conclusions without a parachute; and several instances of logical fallacies.

I spent several hours sifting through all of your links and the evidence upon which it was purportedly based, only to find that in the end ~ see "bottom line" paragraph above.

I'll not be doing that again.

[KJF]

6. Eh?

You write:
"generic links to multi-hundred page documents that require hours of research to find whatever elusive point you might have been trying to make (really, this is inexcusable - linking to page 1 of a 246 page document in "support" of your claim and requiring someone to read all the way to page 230 or so before your "point" is addressed, only to find that the document doesn't support it, after all - it would be bad enough to post that kind of link purportedly in "support" of your point even if it did actually support your point)"

What 246 page document? Which of my points was on page 230 of it?

[Grateful for Hope]

9. I think you do very excellent research n/t

[Jazz2006]

10. Kevin,

I apologize for the cranky tone of my prior post. It was late and I was tired & I did not intend to disparage the extent and depth of your work but to illustrate that, in my view, it does not support the conclusions you've drawn/asserted. I realize that you put a lot of time and effort into it and I respect and appreciate that.

I just found it frustrating that the reading of the lengthy links in the OP did not, in my view, support the propositions set out in the OP. I don't mind the length of the documents themselves because the information presented therein is illuminating, even if for reasons other than those for which they were cited.

As for the page numbers, it wasn't 246 pages, it was 241. The reference you cited was not on page 230 but page 181.

[KJF]

11. Oh, I see. Nevermind. There's a list of illustrations at the front.

If you can't find something, just ask next time. Or you can search a .pdf by pushing Ctrl + Shift + F or Ctrl + F, depending on which version of Acrobat Reader you have.

Anyway, back to the pictures. I posted a lineup in post 4. I'm saying the burned photo (number 2) and the black-and-white photo (number 4) are of the same person, but are different photos. What are you saying?

[paulthompson]

18. comment

Kevin says: "In addition, I have already discussed the issue by e-mail with another person I regard as truthful and he informed me that he asked
a police facial recognition expert about the photos and she told him the roundhead wasn't Jarrah."

I'm the guy he's talking about who had contact with the expert, by the way. It was quite a long time ago, late 2002 (shortly after I wrote the essay The Two Ziad Jarrahs), so I've lost contact now. But I recall the expert saying the facial features were very similar. What screamed out to her as being proof of it being two different people was the shape of the head. She pointed out that facial features can be heavily changed through plastic surgery, but there's little to nothing you can do about the shape of your head. She was convinced that there's no way a different camera angle or some such thing could explain the different head shapes, especially since the pictures are all dead straight on.

I only had email contact with this person, so she could have been an imposter, but she seemed very knowledgeable and it would have been an extremely strange thing to fake since I told her up front that I told her up front I wasn't going to do any kind of official reporting about it.

[Chomp]

7. You put

a lot of work into your post KJF, which I respect.

I don't know enough about most of it to comment, but I'll say something about the 4 photos of Jarrah/"Jarrah".

It seems to me that this chap has 1 very distinctive feature: his mouth. It turns up at either end, and the top lip had a very pronouned and unusual "heart" shape.

To me, it looks like the same distinctive mouth in each of the 4 photos. (It is even possible to see the same features in the photo where is smiling, although it is a little harder to judge).

From that alone, I'd bank on all 4 photos being the same person.


(Ed. to correct JKF to KJF)

[KJF]

8. Dunno

We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether the photos are the same person. I'd prefer it if they were of the same person, because I am really not a fan of the doppleganger argument, but they look too different to me this time. Actually, I have a feeling it might be his cousin or something, but that's just a feeling - not based on anything specific.

What about the black and white photo and the burned one - are they the same photo?

[Andre II]

14. Two different persons

As you're no fan of the double theory:

What sense does it make for the very same person to have one ID with his own photo and one ID with the photo of somebody else?
It makes perfect sense to have faked documents with different identities but the photo, height, colour of hair and eyes should resemble me. Otherwise I can't use them.
So, how do you explain that documents of what is supposed to be the one and same Jarrah pictures of different people have been used?
And btw do you have any explanation for Able Danger identifying Atta and others in January 2000 as possibile terrorists although he had never entered the US at that time?

[KJF]

15. No idea

"What sense does it make for the very same person to have one ID with his own photo and one ID with the photo of somebody else?"
No idea. Lots of stuff the hijackers did makes no sense. Like mixing the teams (even on the last night, even on the way to the airport), like getting involved in one of the follow-up plots (with the cropdusters). The guy who said the hijackers weren't ten feet tall should win a prize for understatement of the year. Maybe if we knew who it was in the photo, when it was issued (and by whom) and where Jarrah was then, we might have a better idea.

"It makes perfect sense to have faked documents with different identities but the photo, height, colour of hair and eyes should resemble me. Otherwise I can't use them."
He sort of looks a bit like Jarrah. Jarrah did use it. (I can feel an objection coming).

"Do you have any explanation for Able Danger identifying Atta and others in January 2000 as possibile terrorists although he had never entered the US at that time?"
I haven't really looked at it in much detail, so I don't really know. Maybe some US based person went over to Germany or Holland. Maybe he came into the US on another passport (in addition to the Egyptian one and the German one I suggested, he was also reported to have UAE and Saudi passports - although I don't buy the Saudi one) using a different version of his name or something. Maybe he already knew Jafaar the Pilot, who knows?

[Andre II]

16. Objections coming

"He sort of looks a bit like Jarrah. Jarrah did use it."
Well, who knows. But my cousin looks a bit similar to me. Do you think it would be an idea to use his photo in my passport if I want to use it??

"Maybe some US based person went over to Germany or Holland."
This I would call a form of double.

"Maybe he came into the US on another passport"
Than consequently Able Danger would know the name he used and we would be told about it?
As the same problem is with Al Shehhi and almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi too, as all three of them are identified by Able Danger at a time when officially they aren't in the US I have my doubts your answer is covincing.

[KJF]

17. This and that

I don't think it's a good idea, for Jarrah to use a passport with a picture of somebody else, but I don't feel it's profitable to speculate on why he/they did it.

Germany/Holland
No, I mean somebody from the US, who Able Danger knew about, could have come to Europe to meet the Hamburg cell and Able Danger could have noticed this. I'm not saying it happened, I'm just saying it's a possibility.

Another passport: I mean another passport in the same name, but from a different country.

Off-topic:
"Atta drove the Mitsubishi west along the Massachusetts Expressway to Exit 13 where, in another reckless confrontation with authority, he loudly refused to pay the $3.10 toll. The booth operator wrote down his license number as he sped away. <57> Eight of the Boston group registered at hotels in groups of two, as Atta and Al-Omari got a change of car and then drove 110 miles north,"
http://www.nthposition.com/manualofaraid.php

You should see a map here:
http://www.massturnpike.com/travel/G3.html
He's clearly going out of Boston (sort of towards New York), but he doesn't get very far. Maybe he was going to pick up Al Omari and change cars (again - he had already changed from the Nissan to the Mitsubishi) - weren't some of the other hijackers staying in a suburb west of Boston - Newton? Maybe he missed his exit and that was why he was mad.

[JackRiddler]

Why don't you... ?

Kevin, sorry I was of no help with this after your request.

I wonder, why don't you gather all your dossiers on alleged perp identities and travels and put them up on a single site?

Is it a matter of hosting? Because I'm sure that's a solvable problem...

[JackRiddler]

12. Why don't you... ?

Kevin, sorry I was of no help with this after your request.

I wonder, why don't you gather all your dossiers on alleged perp identities and travels and put them up on a single site?

Is it a matter of hosting? Because I'm sure that's a solvable problem...

[KJF]

13. It's OK

I was going to do that (have my own website) at one point, but I'm working for PT now and most of this should appear at Co-operative Research at some point.