Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Summary of medienanalyse's book

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 03:21 PM
Original message
Summary of medienanalyse's book
Edited on Sun Apr-17-05 03:21 PM by John Doe II
Often mentioned on DU but unfortunately only available in German: the book of DU-member medienanalyse.
I just found this summary I did in 2003 just after the book of Mathias Brckers and medienanalyse was published.
Let mes stress:
Before you perhaps find something you disagree with it might be also due to my misinterpretation. I'd be happy to check out the book for any specific question.
And medienanalyse: Please feel free to correct anything you find I mispresented.



The authors start their documentary by casting doubt on the
identity of the 19 hijackers:
At least six of the Arab people allegedly identified as hijackers made clear: the "identification" identified them wrongly. So who are or are there hijackers at all?
The following people have the same name as the alleged hijackers are alive: Salem Al-Hazmi (Flight 77), Ahmed Al-Nami (Flight 93), Abdulaziz Al-Omari (Flight 11), Said Al-Ghamdi (Flight 93), Walid Al-Sheri (Flight 11) and Wail Al-Sheri (Flight 11). As we all know the official list of the FBI wasnt changed. The official list of the passengers was never published. No video footage of the hijackers save the one at Portland Airport (maybe) showing Atta. And then three years later the one from Dulles.
The authors are wondering how the press managed to have the photos of the 19 hijackers within two days if not with the help of the FBI. But then how did the FBI have the photos already at hand?

Khalid Al-Midhar:
Although Al-Midhar was known to the CIA due to the Malaysie meeting in January 2000. Al-Midhar personally went to the Washington Internatiol Airport on August, 26 to get his tickets (at that moment he was already on the Terrorist Watch List). Before he had aquired a new identity as a habitant of Falls Church (three miles away from the CIA headquarter). There he even managed to get five other new papers for his fellow terrorists. (But in all reports about the Fake-Ids it is never mentioned which names figured on the new papers).
But the authors wonder why did the terrorists need new papers just few weeks before the attacks (so far everything worked perfect with their real identity and they never appeared to behave carefully. And why did Atta open a Frequent-Flyer-account on August, 25? Did they have future planes after 911)?
The authors continue their investigation about the identitys of the terrorists (explicitly based on the work of Paul Thompson) by discussing the two Attas (although he was under surveillance of the CIA in Hamburg he had no problems to fly to the US, get a visa, fly to Madrid, return to the US etc), quoting the landlords of Atta Vonnie and Tony LaConca who dont recognize Mohammed Atta on the official photos. The authors give examples of the very un-islamist life of Atta (partys and alcohol, girlfriend before marriage etc) and his strange behaviour in the night before the attacks as if he wanted to make sure he would be remembered (Im a pilot of American Airlines).

The two Jarrahs:
With Jarrah as well there are clear contradictions in his biography as he appears several times at different places at the same time. The authors more over mention the bizarre coincidence that the FBI found Jarrahs letter to his girlfriend because Jarrah didnt manage to writ her (and his!) adress correctly.

The two Hanjours.
At the very beginning the talk was of 18 hijackers because Hanjours name (so the official explanation) didnt figure on the passenger list (although the Palm Beach Post gives the story of him buying his ticket on August, 31 with Moqed). With Hanjour as well there is the problem that hes at the same time at different places. Moreover the authors give two examples of his handwriting. In 1996 his writing turns to the rights side. Four years later his writing is completely different: smaller and turned to the left side.

The proofs:
The authors remark that although according to CNN (8/16/02) nine hijackers (of Flight 77 and Flight 93) have been found the death certificates will note: John Doe and suicide. But the question remains why isnt each one of them identified and who are they? And at the end what proof do we have that the hijackers shown on the official photos have been on board?
Afterwards the authors wonder about the lists of the passengers. As they have never been officially published the only lists known are by CNN. But there again are mistakes. Jude and Natalie Larson figure on this list but on September, 18 (five days after CNN published the lists) the airline companies acknowlidge that this had been a mistake. The two of them werent on the flight and they are perfectly alive. The next problem: Adnan and Ameer Bukhari had been named as two hijackers. But on September, 14 the FBI had to acknowldige that Adnan is still alive and his brother died in a plane crash in September 2000.

The phonecalls via mobile phone:
According to the authors this calls mainly were made to unknown people and not to family members (eg Todd Beamer). And this calls to officials contain the keyphrases: arabs, hijacking and boxcutters.
Then they analyze in detail the phone call by Barbara Olson (the only call from Flight 77) that was the proof for the boxcutter story. They document the huge contradictions in the different summaries of the different calls (see also Paul Thompsons Timeline) and quote Ted Olson who gave his decisive vote for Bushs presidency: that they are a lot of different situations possible where it is legitimate for the gouvernement to lie.
The authors question the authenticity of Edward Felt (Flight 93). Why did he clsoe himself into the toilet room? Why did he call the emergency operator? Why is Glenn Cramer (the one who received the phone call) not allowed to talk about it?
The authors wonder also about the call of the stewardesses Sweeney and Betty Ong (Flight 11). Sweeney gives the seats of the terrorists but they differ from the places where the terrorists were actually seated. She phones flight manager Michael Woodward (Boston) an official, somebody who didnt know her and therfore couldnt identify her voice. Strangely she says that two stewardess and a passenger had been murdered, the hijackers had reached the cockpit, while Sweeney gave their seat numbers, the flight took a shrap turn directly into the heart of Manhattan. But then the phone call had to last at least 30 minutes as the sharp turn happened at 8.28.
Betty Ong phoned Vanessa Minter from the flight reservation of American Airlines. She says the hijacker had sprayed something in the first class to prevent others from entering the cockpit. The calls last 25 minutes (from 8.21 till the crash). But the FBI says that only the first four minutes had been recorded and that the recording wont made public.
Why didnt Sweeney mention any spray?

The missing air defence:
According to the authors in the NATO the Quick reaction alert teams 15 minutes is a standard, 12 minutes better and ten minutes normal.
Washingtons air space below 18.000 feet is a no-fly zone and strictly forbidden.
The authors describe the changes of the starting times of the F-15 from Otis: On September, 13 Channel 4 claims at 8.39 two F-15 or F-16 started from Otis. But then the time changed from 8.39 starting time to 8.38 being informed and finally 8.52 take off. Then they quote Willaim Wibel from Otis saying (already on September, 11) that it was 9.00 maybe even 9.30 when the airfighters were prepared for take off. And a neighor of Otis Bill Thompson remarked that only around 10.00 maybe 10.30 there was an increased activity at Otis.
But the authors wonder as well why nobody saw or heard the F-15 approaching New York around 9.05?

Remote Control:
The authors remark the difficulty of the Flights: Flight 11 was still at a height of 30.000 feet just seven minutes before the crash, Flight 175 managed to crash into the WTC in a very difficult turn and especially Flight 77 made an almost impossible manoeuvre. Not only agyptian president Mubarak wondered how pilots who didnt even manage to fly a Cessna could have done that, Danielle OBrien (a flight controller from Washington Dulles airport) even believed Flight 77 was a military airplane as it was very difficult to fly a Boeing 757 this way.
Therefore the authors start wondering if the four airplanes werent flown by remote control. They describe the possibilty of this technique and that already in 1984 a Boeing 720-027 was flown by remote control in order to do a crash test.
This technique is developped by Raytheon, Litton and also Boeing.
According to the authors this theory would also explain why the contact to the tower stopped and the transponder was turned off.

The C-130:

The authors point out the odds that eyewitnesses saw a C-130 next to Flight 77 and Flight 93 when they crashed. For the Flight 77 they name the eyewitnesses John OKeefe and Bruce Warner. Besides that they remark that the firm Raytheon has equipped the C-130 with a lot of electronic warfare stuff. They are so called Command & Control units.
The authors figure out that Middletown (Pennsylvania) is placed on the route of all four airplanes and only there in the Air Force Base of the Harrisburg International Airport only there are airplanes of the type EC-130. (In contrast to the C-130 they have an extra 90-Kva generator for each engine).
During the hearings for the Joint Committee Col. Alan Scott mentions another C-130. Around 9:10 the tower asked several airplanes if they had seen Flight 77 (they also asked a C-130 on the way to Ohio). (The authors wonder if this airplanes is identical with the EC-130 seen in New York).
Last but not least they point out that the slowness of the C-130 (only 450 mph) might explain why all four airplanes flew slower after they had been hijacked and deviated from their original route.
Then the authors come up with an interesting story. The Cleveland Center which is in charge of controlling the air traffic was also on 911 in charge of Flight 93. But when all the workers concentrate on the hijacked plan the center had to be evacuated due to a threat (expressed via telephone). All the workers but one left. Only one saw on the screen what happened in the end to Flight 93. The recordings of the radar are stored by the FBI the workers have been told not to talk.

Hijacked hijackers?
The authors wonder how it can be explained that F-16 and F-15 are always too late and a slow C-130 is always in time. Moreover they are wondering how also the decline of Flight 11 (29.000 feet in eight minutes. And how could the hijackers have foreseen it would be excellent flying weather on 911?). They build the hypothesis that either the known hijackers were not on board or they were simple passengers or they would even have been hijacked hijackers.

Raytheon:
Raytheon, the fourth biggest producer of arms in the US is also specialist of remote control technique. Especially the C-130 are equipped with their technique. The EC-130F is able to hijack a frequency with their own message. In three of four airplanes of 911 are senior members of Raytheon. The authors wonder if the members of Raytheon might not have been told that after a fake hijacking the airplanes would safely land with the help of their remote control technique but then the hijackers really get hijacked.
Two further members of Rathyon died on May, 8 2002 under bizarre circumstances. During a test flight of a T-39 Sabreliner two airplanes are suddenly lost to the radar and collide. There was no emergency call. And very bizarre the pilot of one airplane was Ambarak S. Al-Ghamdi. He had worked on a basis where according to Newsweek Said Al-Ghamdi and Ahmed Al-Ghamdi had lived in 1997.

The strange behaviour of people in positions with high responsibility on 911:
The authors describe that not a single politician was willing to take decisions on 911. Instead they tried to disappear or to do nothing or business as usual.
The attitude of the President in Sarasota is widely known.
But also the head of defence, Donald Rumsfeld; who was notified at 8.40 about the hijacking decided not to act. At 9.00 he then had a meeting with several Senators and Wolfowitz discussing how to achieve a majority for the budget for defence. At 9.25 Rumsfeld is still in the middle of this discussion explaining that the real threat of 21th century is terrorism and he foresees that there will be another attack. When the Pentagon was struck nobody could find Rumsfeld for half an hour. Only at 10.30 Rumsfeld appeared in the National Military Command Center.
Dick Cheney and Norman Mineta are carried into the bunker of the White House. It is not known what they had been doing before.
General Richard Myers only appeared at 9:45 back to life. For one and a half hours he discussed the formalities of his promotion with Senator Max Cleland. He acknowledges that he realized that the WTC was attacked but he thought it had been a small airplane. Even when the Pentagon was hit he wasnt informed.

After 911: The democrats wanted to discuss on a meeting in Florida what could be done about the election manipulation of 2000.
On 911: In Washington the Carlyle Group has a dinner with the special guest Shafiq Bin Laden, the brother of Osama.
And General Tommy Franks was in Pakistan on 911 participating on conversations about terrorism and security.

Foreknowledge and other questions:
The authors mention the Pentagon drill in October 2000, the exercises of the medicines in May 2001 (assuming the attack of a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon) and the exercises of the NSA and CIA on 911 just a few miles away from Dulles Airport.
The authors wonder why the hijacker took the highly difficult to turn in order to struck the Pentagon at the very angle where the building was just protected against attacks and where due to the ongoing works mainly manual workers were killed. The authors wonder why the pilots didnt went to crash straight into the Pentagon (which would have been a much easier manoeuvre and would have created a much higher degree of devastation) or didnt crash into the side of the Pentagon where Rumsfeld has his room (and again this would have been much easier than the actual turn they made).
The authors mention that the enterprise that was responsible for building the protected side was AMEC. Interestingly they were also in charge of cleaning up at the Pentagon and on Ground Zero after 911. One part of the business of AMEC is also scanning of radio frequency and the planning of frequencies (something that could be useful in the C-130).
The authors remark as well that the News Service of the Army stated that within one hour of the first attacks temporary workers of the department for Defence were on the streets of New York and in the air to help. In view of the absence of Rumsfeld at that time and in view of the absence of air defence and any other action this is noteworthy. Besides the department of Transport pointed out that due to simulation and precise preparation they had been able to react within minutes. Its a very good thing that the help was provided so quickly but due to the declared unprecedence of the attacks it is noteworthy as well.

The meeting:
Warren Buffet (second richest person in the world) had an interesting meeting on 911 in Nebraska. Several directors of the biggest American companies are there. Several of these firms have rooms in the WTC. Evidently a lot of them were saved from being victim of the attacks. At 2.00 p.m. the President arrived there. Why did he make this detour from Barksdale?
The enterprise NetJet to which belonged the Falcon Fairchild that was seen near Flight 93 although there was a flight ban is owned by Warren Buffet.

Mohammed Atta and the Vencie Flying Circus:
In the next chapter the authors analyze the film of Daniel Hopsicker (which is sold with the book).

The Hamburg terror cell:
Attas appartement in the Marienstrae was under surveillance of the BND (German secret service) from February 1999. But then the German police realized that Darkazanli and Zammar had been interviewed by American agents without the knowledge of their German counterparts. Moreover in 1999 the CIA tried to recruit Darkazanli as an agent.
The judge and two prosecutors of the Motassadeq-trial in Germany were asked to give testimony in the US. When they arrived at the American airport their three bags containing files on the trial were missing and they were obliged to go into court without these material. Two days later two of the bags were found.
The authors remark that it could be very possible that not only Binalshibh but also Atta and other hijackers were CIA-agents.

The proofs:
The authors analyse the quality of the official proofs of the guilt of the 19 hijackers:
The passport of Satam Al-Suqami that was found a block away from the WTC (how is it possible that it survived?), Attas bag containing a pilots uniform (why did he need it as he already had a ticket) the Koran, his last will (but why did he put his last will in his bag and didnt keep it with himself? Robert Frisk moreover showed that Attas last will is everything but not an expression of an Islam believer.
The authors have the impression that all this proofs create more the impression of being made up than to explain or to prove something.

The authors ask to be shown proofs that really could prove something:
Fingerprints of the hijackers left on their boarding cards.
The complete documentation of the conversations between the tower and the four flights.
The complete recording of the cockpit voice recorders of Flight 77 and Flight 93.
The complete recordings of the Data recorder of Flight 77 and Flight 93.
The identification of the hijackers based on their DNA.
A documentation where which corps was found (inside or outside the cockpit).
Signature of the hijackers (the traces they left buying their tickets).
The complete documentation of the radar recording (proving if there had been airplanes nearby etc).
The complete documentation of Air Force Bases Andrews, Otis and Langley (who did take off with which plane and when).
In contrast to the proofs the authors demand they describe the destruction of possible proofs especially the rubbles of the WTC.

The blocked investigations:
Besides the Phoenix memo, the memo of Robert Wright and the testimony of Coleen Rowley the authors mention the case of James Hopkins. Again nobody seemed to be interested. Hopkins worked for the FAA and figured out that Adnan Bukhari (who was considered the first days to have been one of the hijackers) had attended in 1991 and 1998 the FAA academy in Oklahoma. He told his superiors. The day he told the FBI he was fired by the FAA. Later the Merit Systems Protection Board gave Hopkins right.
The authors end their analyses showing the problem of the Independent Commission and the Joint Inquiry and the secrecy of the ruling government (the change of the Presidential Records Act).

PostScript:
The authors reconstitute the history of the Djihad and the CIA involvement, the inability of the US army to capture leading Taliban (and some newspapers calling it all a charade). And indicate the importance of the PNAC and the need for a new Pearl Habour.

They give three different explanations of what might really have happened on 911:
1. The creation of the Taliban the Frankenstein of the US is responsible.
2. Let one happen stop the rest.
3. The creation of a new Pearl Habour

The authors tend to 2 and 3. And they describe also the possibility how 911 could have been a long planned Pearl Habour with just 20, maybe 30 people really knowing what would happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frederik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sounds like a good overview
I would have focused on much of the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. 'hey frederik" great icons
send bushco to gitmo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Excerpts
> "Last but not least they point out that the slowness of the C-130 (only 450 mph) might explain why all four airplanes flew slower after they had been hijacked and deviated from their original route."

This is interesting. Is this really so? You would think they would be in a hurry, not? ( If they were worried about being intercepted that is...)

Then they accellerated a lot during the final approach?

> "In three of four airplanes of 911 are senior members of Raytheon."

In three of the planes? (!!)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-06-05 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. Never saw this thread before-- interesting overview!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
4. Pretty good
But I have to comment on the following:
"The authors are wondering how the press managed to have the photos of the 19 hijackers within two days if not with the help of the FBI. But then how did the FBI have the photos already at hand?"
I think the press got the photos from the FBI. The FBI, for example, could have got the photos from various government departments (like immigration).

"Al-Midhar personally went to the Washington Internatiol Airport on August, 26 to get his tickets (at that moment he was already on the Terrorist Watch List)."
He was on the watch list for external flights, but no internal ones.

Two Hanjours
I've seen speculation that some of the identities were stolen from fighters who died in Chechnya (or elsewhere). Perhaps that would explain this.

The "calls mainly were made to unknown people and not to family members"
I reckon there were just under 40 calls. I think the flight attendants might have been calling people they didn't know because they didn't have to pay for calls to the mechanics centre (not sure of this). At any rate, there were still lots of people who called family and friends.
"The authors question the authenticity of Edward Felt (Flight 93). Why did he clsoe himself into the toilet room? Why did he call the emergency operator? Why is Glenn Cramer (the one who received the phone call) not allowed to talk about it?"
He hid there, a hijcaking was in progress. It was an emergency. I guess because he described the missile impact.

"The authors wonder also about the call of the stewardesses Sweeney and Betty Ong (Flight 11). Sweeney gives the seats of the terrorists but they differ from the places where the terrorists were actually seated."
So, she got it wrong, they weren't sitting in their seats at the time.
"She phones flight manager Michael Woodward (Boston) an official, somebody who didnt know her and therfore couldnt identify her voice."
Crap, she phoned somebody else, who didn't know her, and he passed her on to Woodward, who'd known her for years.
"Strangely she says that two stewardess and a passenger had been murdered, the hijackers had reached the cockpit, while Sweeney gave their seat numbers, the flight took a shrap turn directly into the heart of Manhattan. But then the phone call had to last at least 30 minutes as the sharp turn happened at 8.28."
Eh?

"Betty Ong phoned Vanessa Minter from the flight reservation of American Airlines. She says the hijacker had sprayed something in the first class to prevent others from entering the cockpit. The calls last 25 minutes (from 8.21 till the crash). But the FBI says that only the first four minutes had been recorded and that the recording wont made public."
My understanding is that only the first four minutes were played. I think the rest should exist somewhere.

Also, the 2 flight attendants were called using airphones, not mobile phones.

"Washingtons air space below 18.000 feet is a no-fly zone and strictly forbidden."
There's an airport near the Pentagon, I'm sure that's not a no-fly zone.

"Flight 11 was still at a height of 30.000 feet just seven minutes before the crash,"
I haven't heard this before, how can anyone know if the transponder was off?
"Flight 175 managed to crash into the WTC in a very difficult turn"
Easy for an experienced pilot.
"especially Flight 77 made an almost impossible manoeuvre."
A 270 degree turn in 2.5 minutes might be impossible for a WWII aircraft carrier, but not for a modern jetliner.
"Not only agyptian president Mubarak wondered how pilots who didnt even manage to fly a Cessna could have done that,"
They could not. Either (a) somebody else was flying the plane or (b) the pilots were much better than the FBI is letting on.
"Danielle OBrien (a flight controller from Washington Dulles airport) even believed Flight 77 was a military airplane as it was very difficult to fly a Boeing 757 this way."
No, it was unusual to fly a Boeing 757 in this way. It was being flown in the manner of a fighter.

I really don't go a bundle of remote control, although I can see that the technology does exist.

Sorry, I'll try and get round to the rest later. It's pretty good but I think there are one or two inaccuracies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. But the hijacker photos were not standard immigration photos
I've had a lot of experience with US immigrant VISAs and the photo of the head has to be at a specific angle and showing the ear.

The hijacker photos were more like drivers license photos-- but how would the FBI get those so quickly? And did all the hijackers even HAVR drivers licenses?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Thanks
I didn't know that.

I think some of them must have had drivers' licences, but I don't know if all of them did. Surely, it shouldn't take long for the FBI to get some photos off the organisation that issues drivers licences. I would have thought that, once they found the names on the manifest, they should really have done some sort of standard trawl for all available info. The pilots' photos might have coming from the flying schools.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I still haven't seen evidence they were on the planes? have you?
Much less that they were flying the planes, which I don't think is likely.

I can believe that the alleged hijackers were on some of the planes, but:
Why weren't the alleged hijackers on any of the flight lists, boarding lists?

Are there any real security photos or etc. showing they boarded?
Everything I've seen has indications of tampering.

And which of the 2 flight 11 planes at Boston Logan did they board, the one at Gate 26 which seems to have had the passengers, or the one at Gate 32 which the FAA tracked towards New York?
Why do the official boarding times stamped by computer show some passengers loaded after the flight supposedly left? Which is consistent with 2 of the passengers at Gate 26 calling relatives and saying that their flight was delayed, as did flight attendent Amy Sweeney. the "official" flight from Gate 32 was officially on time but there's no evidence it had any passengers.
http://www.flcv.com/offcom11.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. INS has strong photo requirements/regs
if slightest mark or smear or irregular size ansd ahpe is the photo ..it is usually rejected

drivers license photo is way more relaxed.".NEXT'! is the familiar sound in most registrys of cars in the US

INS ..looks for excuses to deny applicants and photos are often retaken at INS office

drivers licesne photos will soon be administered through DHS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. photos -photos -photos. it is so boring ....
Since we all could witness in "terminatoe 2" what is possible we should have learned: photos AND videos are no good evidence anymore.

Please note:
Our book is NOT based on photo "evidence" at all. Despite any idiot in this forum tries to build up theories on photo evidence.

We notice the LACH of evidence including photos. I.e. compare how many photos you have seen of Hitler or Roosevelt, of Bush or of Zsa Zsa Gabor and so on. And how many have you seen of Atta ? How many different and clear ones ? 60 years AFTER Hitler ? The most prominent evildoer in these years and only the one clear photo.
Others were destroyed, I repeat destroyed by the FBI.

Look at the other photos: some - most - of them look like manipulated by a simple photo-software. There was not so much time ....

And: there is no match between these photos and real persons: Where are the niographies? Where are the parents showing their beloved hijacker-son as a child ? as a youngster. class-room photos and so on.

Nothing like that - neither as heroes of jihad nor as "life of an evildoer". Just nada.

They have no evidence. That is all.

And they had no fighter jets. But a lot of interests in a PNAC and so in a new Pearl Harbour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. yo I agree!
photos.. photos..who gots da photos?

where is waldo beenin london?

momo atta is r.i.p. or h.i.p. ,hiding in peace,
like many of the other 19 cia ..oops I mean terrsists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. could you perhaps show us an example of a photo of Atta that looks
manipulated?

I've seen a couple of photos of him with his family/at a party, he is smiling. Are these manipulated ones?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. can you read?
Edited on Sat Jul-09-05 03:18 AM by medienanalyse
you just ask: "could you perhaps show us an example of a photo of Atta that looks manipulated?"

That is your question. When I just stated that even videos could be manipulated since two decades. The sense of manipulation is falsofivation without being detected. That is why we do not rely on photos and do not discuss photo evidence.
With some exemptions, that is the different views of Ziad Jarrah that were promoted by Paul Thompson and with the exemption of stories of people who did not recognize Atta or Hanjour on the photos which they were asked to determine.

Your nect remark:
"I've seen a couple of photos of him with his family/at a party, he is smiling. Are these manipulated ones?"
Fine. The laughing Atta was on my websites entrance for about one year. It was not his family but Hamburg friends around. And there are some photos of Ziad Jarrah too. What I said: are these photos clear ones ? Are these photos explaining anything, proving anything ? Where is the connection to 9/11 ? Compare the amount to the amount of photos of Hitler. Where are the photos made in Florida.
And: where are the photos of all the others? We have 19 "hijackers" - but most of them only exist in form of one - bad - photo.

I am NOT, and again I say NOT going to tell you which photo is, was or will be mainipulated and why and why not. Because it is a senseless discussion.

Sense - less. No sense. Stop to ask for pixels and begin to ask why the FBI did not copy but destroy the photos of Atta in his Florida gym. Why we have only so little amounts of information of the "hijackers", about their families. Did they not have a home ? Comrades ? Schoolfriends? (I am not talking about the so-called pilots but about the others.)

Ask the Hopsicker questions: why was there no FBI to investigate Attas life in Florida, no FBI to talk with his girlfriend Amanda Keller? What kind of "investigation" is this ?

I just must add rereading my text that some veryvery intelligent reader might see a difference between my statements: "there was no FBI to investigate" and "the FBI destroyed the photo in Attas hym" (so they were there.) To explain it: it is a difference between rushing in, asking some questions, taking photos and belongings and rushing out and an investigation.
For example: it was Hopsicker who found out about Attas German friends. If the FBI were interested to get backrground and co-conspirators they should have got them ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-05 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Not very thorough investigation
I agree that the investigation in Florida was hardly very thorough, especially given the magnitude of the crime and, like you, I think it might be indicitative of something. Lots of people (most notably Hopsicker) have suggested that some of the hijackers were involved in drug smuggling in somw eay and lots have also suggested that there was an underground railroad through which the hijackers (and also probably dozens of other Al Qaeda operatives) got into the US. Sibel Edmonds also mentions the railroad and says that it operated using influence-peddling and bribery. I think these two factors, in addition to the FBI's traditional incompetence, are sufficient to explain why the investigation went the way it did.

"For example: it was Hopsicker who found out about Attas German friends. If the FBI were interested to get backrground and co-conspirators they should have got them ...."
I agree completely. Al Qaeda had a substantial network in the US. I can't believe the hijackers were deeply plugged into it. A proper investigation should have blown this network wide open.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-05 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Real people
"And: there is no match between these photos and real persons: Where are the niographies? Where are the parents showing their beloved hijacker-son as a child ? as a youngster. class-room photos and so on."
There are good biographies for some of the hijackers, in particular Atta and Jarrah, Hopsicker's stuff on Atta is really very detailed and Thompson got a lot of stuff on Jarrah. There are stacks of witnesses who knew the hijackers and met them and can independently confirm they were more or less where the FBI said, more or less when the FBI said they were there in the US. Obviously, not all the hijackers were using their real names (the 6 who later came forward + some who may have taken identities from others who died fighting, for example in Chechnya). I agree that a lot of background detail we would expect to have for some of the hijackers is missing and I attribute this to the failure of the FBI investigation in Saudi. PT posted somewhere here that he thought the investigation was intentionally bungled and I tend to agree with him on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-05 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Discussion with you is finished
Did I write
"(I am not talking about the so-called pilots but about the others.)
"
Did I or not. And do you mention it ? No.
You obviously qoute incorrectly, knowingly..

That is all about you.

for the others:
The "pilots" had doppelgangers as we could prove. And they were real persons. Plus Binaslgib and Al-Midhar, both CIA assets.

I was talking about the mass of the rest of "hijackers". Dont you notice there is no book, no documentary no nothing about theoir lives?

Only this poor photo an name and aliases. Which they funnily did not use to book the tickets.

Again: why are their corpses not identified ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-05 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. OK, I see what you mean now
Let's just take an average hijacker, say Majed Moqed, and see what we can find about him.

All this is taken from Thompson's timeline:
"Majed Moqed is last seen by a friend in 2000 in Saudi Arabia, after communicating a plan to visit the United States to learn English.""

March 2001
"Hijackers Ahmed Alghamdi, Majed Moqed, Hani Hanjour, and Nawaf Alhazmi stay for four days in the Fairfield Motor Inn, Fairfield, Connecticut. They meet with Eyad M. Alrababah, a Jordanian living in Bridgeport, who has been charged with providing false identification to at least 50 illegal aliens. This meeting takes place about six weeks before the FBI says Moqed and Alghamdi enter the US."

"May 2: Majed Moqed and Ahmed Alghamdi arrive in Washington. Both actually arrived by mid-March 2001."

May - September 2001
"For instance, Hani Hanjour, Majed Moqed, Khalid Almihdhar, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Salem Alhazmi work out for only four days in early September."

"three hijackers, including Hani Hanjour, Abdulaziz Alomari, and Khalid Almihdhar, open foreign bank and credit card accounts in the UAE and in Saudi Arabia. Majed Moqed, Saeed Alghamdi, Hamza Alghamdi, Ahmed Alnami, Ahmed Alhaznawi, Wail Alshehri, and possibly others purchase travelers checks in the UAE, presumably with funds given to them when they pass through Dubai. It is believed that al-Hawsawi is in Dubai every time the hijackers pass through."

August 1-2
"Given new state identity cards, the cards are used the next day to get Virginia identity cards for several (five to seven) additional hijackers, including Abdulaziz Alomari, Ahmed Alghamdi, Majed Moqed, and Salem Alhazmi."

August 2001
"At least six 9/11 hijackers, including all of those who boarded Flight 77, live in Laurel, Maryland, from about this time. They reportedly include Hani Hanjour, Majed Moqed, Khalid Almihdhar, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Salem Alhazmi."

Before September 11
"Majed Moqed visits a porn shop and rents a porn video."

September 11
"According to a security video apparently viewed by the 9/11 Commission, Flight 77 hijackers Majed Moqed and Khalid Almihdhar pass through a security checkpoint at Washington's Dulles International Airport. They are selected by the CAPPS program for closer inspection. While their carry-on bags fail to set off any alarms, both set off alarms when passing through the magnetometer. They are directed to a second magnetometer. Almihdhar passes, but Moqed fails again. He is subjected to a personal screening with a metal detection hand wand. This time he is cleared and he is permitted to pass through the checkpoint."

It seems to me that there is a reasonable amount of information available about MM after and just before he came to the States, although there's really not much info about his early life. I think he (or someone who had stolen his identity, perhaps after he died in Chechnya) came to the US and boarded the flight, carrying out the attacks. I think the same applies to the other hijackers. I think the lack of info about his early life (including whether the hijacker really was MM or somebody else) is attributable to the (intentionally?) botched investigation in Saudi.

The idea that the pilots had doppelgangers is an interesting one and I've heard it before, but I remain to be convinced and I don't think Hanjour was flying the plane anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 30th 2017, 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC