What Happened to the videotapes of the hijackers?

[Solomon]

We live in an age where it's almost impossible to do anything without being seen or caught on videotape. All airports are chock full of videotapes taping people as they come and go.

Not only were the names of the hijackers not on the plane manifests, which raises huge questions, but why haven't we seen footage of the hijackers at the airports? Is this another "coincidence" in which the recorders didn't work, or were out of tape, or ... what? Not one hijacker was caught on tape? Are we to believe they don't have cameras at the security check-ins? And if so, where are the pictures of the terrorists going through the metal detectors?

[arcane1]

1. early on, there was a vid of them going through the gate

at a security checkpoint. I think they stopped shopwing it because they couldn't get the story straight. First they all used aliases, which kind of makes it difficult for them to later come out and say they knew exactly who all 19 of them were. I never did find out how they got ended up identifying them...

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. They didn't. They made them up out of air

The FBI has said as much, before the Congress.

Americans paid no attention, so busy were they chanting "USA" and "evildoers who hate freedom."

You are with us or you are with the terrorists, decreed bush.

Details like the identities of the hijackers are just seized on by terrorist sympathizers to incite anti-American sentiment in this new era, this very different war.

[Solomon]

3. Really? Never saw or heard of any caught on videotape.

Been looking for it ever since 9-11. I saw pictures put up on tv screens within 48 hrs. after, but no videotapes from the airport. Don't you think this would be potent evidence if it existed?

[Old and In the Way]

4. That was Atta and his accomplice in Portland, ME.

There's been all kinds of videotape released of Atta in So. Portland the night before...ATMs, convenience stores, then the airport the next day.

Nothing I've seen from any of the airports....I wonder why? National security? hahahahaha


What I don't get about this plan is why Atta would stay in Portland anyway. Portland is approx. 2 hours drive from Logan, about 120 miles. Why would he risk missing the flight on a connector? Why would he even stay in Portland?

Another interestiing tidbit on Portland.com afew months back. They did an interview with the night manager of the Ramada Inn(?) where Atta stay the evening before. He apparently met some people in the lobby. Those tapes were confiscated, too and nnot released.

Yet another interesting factoid. Within hours of the 9/11 crash, the FBI were in Bangor, ME getting sales records on some cell phones of some of the hijackers. How'd they know that so fast?

[RH]

45. The only answer to the Portland question

that I have yet seen suggested is that a retail store there was used to feed the gang with illicit dollars. If you google around you'll eventually find a link to that story but I don't have it to hand.

Perhaps Atta had reason to believe that Boston
was not the safest place to be seen.

Perhaps they had to get an "all clear" signal.

Perhaps the route through Portland somehow helped to evade security when they changed at Boston. Maybe the security staff in Boston were bribed; who knows?

Maybe there's more about the cell phones that we've not been told.

It is perfectly normal for a police investigation not to reveal everything it knows; to do so would greatly asist those they pursue.

[demodewd]

71. Really?

How would photographs of the "alleged" highjackers at the airports deter investigations? If there's one bit of evidence that would ice the cake it would be the airport videos. Why show Atta at Portland but not at Boston? This has always made me suspicious.

[RH]

74. See reply #25

"the Boston Herald reported that Logan Airport had no cameras at any of its gates, terminals or concourses."

Poor quality security videos that serve only to prove their own inadequacy tend not to be released. Possibly for instance that was why the notorious Pentagon security camera shots were not officially distributed. How would it have helped? For that matter did it help when they did appear?

[demodewd]

80. hoho

And the other two departure points? No pictures anywhere? How about the nine that were reportedly detained? You're taking the Logan Airport situation and applying it across the board. As for the Pentagon...why the bright light initial flash? Oh I forgot...it's aluminum dust catching fire. hoho.

[RH]

84. across the board?

You, not I referred to Boston: "Why show Atta at Portland but not at Boston? This has always made me suspicious."

I therefore responded accordingly, with no reference nor any intended allusion any to anything across the board.

:spank:

[RedSock]

72. FBI also showed up at the precise flight schools

FBI also showed up at the precise flight schools in Florida at about 2pm on 9/11.

Kristen Breitweiser asked the FBI how that was possible so quickly, out of all the flight schools all over the USA.

The FBI agent said simply: "We got lucky."

[RH]

75. How long should it take

to trace back the purchase of a ticket to a credit card, then to notice some significant previous transactions?

Not really so lucky, if the companies concerned are keen to assist.

[RH]

5. The names were on the Manifests.

The paper trail went back from there to purchased tickets, credit cards, rented cars, rented appartments etc.

The story of the hijackers' previous movements has been widely told. A sworn affidavit by FBI Special Agent James K Lechner was released early on. It included the seat numbers of "Moham Atta" and "Abdul Alomari" and more seat numbers of the alleged hijackers have since been published.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit1.htm

A security video of Atta and Alomari at Portland Airport was widely distributed. They were also recorded on security videos in Portland the day before.

The subesequent DNA autospy matched two of the human remains from New York to two samples supplied from the FBI investigation.

[arcane1]

6. they found DNA samples at the WTC wreckage?

must've been near the magic passport


I'm still waiting for the flight data recorders, too. They get destroyed inthe fireball, but Atta's DNA survives???

One also wonders how the feds were able to get DNA samples to match them up with?

[FannySS]

10. YES they did, old story, look here

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/27/hijackers.remains/


How they get DNA samples to match them up with?

"The samples came from items recovered from locations such as the scene of the crashes, a hotel or other places where the hijackers stayed, said a law enforcement official"

They hade similar efforts in other cases.

Fanny

[arcane1]

11. hmmm

aside from the dubious assertion that the hijackers' DNA conveniently survives a crash, fireball, and collapse that destroyed all of the black boxes, one has to wonder how they knew which hotels to search for DNA to identify unidentified people? How did they know their hotel rooms, cars, etc?

seems they already "knew" who htey were looking for, no?

Must've been that magical passport. Did it have Atta's name on it, or his alias? How do they know the DNA isn't actually the alias, too?


snip-
"All samples are being dried and preserved so that if technology improves we can go back and try to identify those that we can't right now," Barakove said. "

I thought they had the names of ALL the hijackers?? WHo are these people they can't identify now?

[FannySS]

15. Yes, but they do not have samples of all hijackers n/t

[arcane1]

17. how did they get their names?

if they all used fake ones?

[FannySS]

19. The pubished names were on the Manifests

...doesn´t matter if they were faked.

[arcane1]

26. you've lost me..

if the names are fake, and traced to the hijackers, how did they know which names were fake and which weren't? How did they then get the names of the 19?

if I see Joe Blow on the manifest, and see a hotel room where Joe Blow stayed, that's fine. I then take a DNA sample and match it to WTC samples and confirm that Jow Blow was on the plane. But how do I know that Joe Blow was an alias for a specific hijacker, and not the real name of an actual passenger?

[Old and In the Way]

27. Good point.

Do we know if any of the DNA specimens positively ID'd hijackers still alive?

[RH]

32. See message #30 n/t

[FannySS]

28. No

With a little investigation you can get suspicion which of the persons of the manifests were hijackers and which not. E. G. looking for relatives, talking to them etc.

But let me come to the point: what do you think of the list I posted in Post 16? You have to say thats a fraud. You´ll say that in any case. If we had a passenger list with all the hijackers, you also could say thats a fraud, couldn´t you?

And another question: if we have MIHOP, than obviously the US-administration could fake a passenger list with all the hijackers. We didn´t they do that?

So there cannot be any proof that will convince you.....

Fanny

[Old and In the Way]

34. I couldn't locate the manifest on a net search, but I came accross this

From an article written by Nico Haupt who used to post here as ewing2001.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00218.htm

This is a detailed summary on all the hijackers, real and imagined.

Under his notes on Ziad Jarrah (3)

"However, what almost everyone ignores is the fact, that none of the 19 hijackers ever appeared on the original passenger manifest, and also 8-10 persons claiming ownership of the original identities, are still alive."

Nico was a virtual expert from the very beginning on this subject. I assume he has the documentation and site to back this up.

[FannySS]

37. How do you know anything about the original passenger manifest?

However, what almost everyone ignores is the fact, that none of the 19 hijackers ever appeared on the original passenger manifest

How does he know? Just another statement without evidence.

Neither Mr. Haupt nor you did ever see the original passenger manifest.

So neither Mr. Haupt nor you should claim that.

If I´m wrong you have to show me the ORIGINAL passenger manifest.

Fanny

[Old and In the Way]

40. Well, that's the problem, Fanny......I can't find it now.

Perhaps Nico does....I'll e-mail him thru globalfreepress

Now, the fact that we can't locate is interesting in itself.....a computerized list of all passengers on flights are always available after crashes....since we know they purchased tics in their own name (according to the FBI), it should be easy to validate that the names were on the list...minutes after take-off, actually.

[FannySS]

42. That´s YOUR problem

Neither Mr. Haupt nor you can present the original manifest without the hijackers.

If I´m wrong, please present it.

If you do not present it, please do not say what this manifest contains.

While Nico is searching, wouldn´t you like to answer my questions of my message 28? So once again:

What do you think of the list I posted in Post 16? You have to say that´s a fraud. You´ll say that in any case. If we had a passenger list with all the hijackers, you also could say thats a fraud, couldn´t you?

And another question: if we have MIHOP, than obviously the US-administration could fake a passenger list with all the hijackers. Why didn´t they do that?

Another statement of yours: a computerized list of all passengers on flights are always available after crashes

I don´t have any idea if you´re right, but if you would like to have a "computerized list of all passengers" of the 4 flights, including the hijackers, I can help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Plane_casualties

So what?

Fanny

[Old and In the Way]

59. Whoa, calm down

1st of all, I'm quite happy to have a discussion with you on this subject matter, but you seem to be a bit put out with our skepticism....sorry, but this is one of the few places where we can debate the evidence (or lack thereof) and discuss it. If this raises your blood pressure, you might want to consider avoiding these threads here. And as you are aware, the government has decided that we should know as little as possible about the events leading up and during the 9/11 terrorist attack, so the DU ask questions and plug the holes.

You've pointed me to an official 9/12 government document that gives a quick biographical sketch of the named hijackers. Okay, great. I'd have been surprised if they had supplied a list with other names. Of course, as you are well aware, the FBI site has these people listed with pictures...except more than a few are alive. So we have a far more complicated and confusing government storyline. If we assume the government's pics were taken from stolen passport files, then I'd wonder if there were any dossiers on these people at all. I thought we had been tracking these guys, so certainly we must have had pictures of people that looked different than the stolen passport pics.

Next you direct me to a website link on the list of UA11 passengers...OK, that's good too. That's not what I meant by computerized list, I was thinking more in line with what the airline would print out when they querry their flight operations mainframe database.

My point is, I want to see a manifest from UA or AA for the 4 flights that show all the names listed. Shouldn't really be a huge, insurmountable task...unless, of course, the government has classified that as national security information.

Now, you seem to be upset with Mr. Haupt's statement.....hey, I'm checking it out. I believe that CNN released the names from UA and AA shortly after the crash which I believe was posted here on the old board. This may be what Nico refers to BTW. Again, if it was missing from the CNN list, that would be odd because the government confirmed the names the next day. But Nico did extensive research and I assume he can back up his claims to this straightforward statement.

Of course, you are right that the government could fabricate a list, but if there was a list put out by UA or AA on 9/11, then I'd expect it to be clean. It is kind of strange that such a document seems to be unavailable on the internet...again, the government's narrative has been lacking in independent documentation that confirms the facts as they've presented.

[RH]

61. You want a print out?

Then assemble the names and print one!

Seriously. I see no logic in this.

Printed evidence is hardly worth a jot except that someboy would vouch for it. So why then is an airline operator any more or less to be trusted than anybody else? They obviously already concur as one to the effect that the suspects were aboard the planes.


In this day and age do airlines routinely print out a manifest on paper? For what particular purpose? To give to who? If a third party would thus be involved ask them.

This is just going round and around in circles.

:nuke:

[BeFree]

69. Thanks, Old and In The Way

You have stated just how I feel about this forum. It is one of the few places in which we can discuss this issue. I wish the folks who are attempting to close the discussion down would just cool it and let us go on about our discussion.

You wrote:
"1st of all, I'm quite happy to have a discussion with you on this subject matter, but you seem to be a bit put out with our skepticism....sorry, but this is one of the few places where we can debate the evidence (or lack thereof) and discuss it. If this raises your blood pressure, you might want to consider avoiding these threads here. And as you are aware, the government has decided that we should know as little as possible about the events leading up and during the 9/11 terrorist attack, so the DU ask questions and plug the holes."

[RH]

77. When a discussion

fails to serve a purpose apart from its own indulgence then as far as the rest of the World is concerned it has closed itself down.

What about this has progressed or evolved during the past year?

I tire of the repetitions.

Old news won't sell.

[BeFree]

81. Then I guess you'll be leaving us alone?

I mean, if you are tired of it, why do you hang around?

Speaking for myself, I have learned a good deal more over the last year, thanks to the discussions. And knowing that there be only a few who have the knowledge I have gained here, it behooves us to keep the information flowing so that others may also gain.

So, RH, why do you continue here?

[RH]

85. I waited in the hope

that something new or useful by way of information or analysis may appear.

On very rare occasions it does.

Most of what has appeared during the past year is regurgitated from articles a year or more before and already dealt with when it first appeared.

And yet worse than that, a great deal of the time spent was spent on mythical red herrings, idle speculation that led to nothing.

Where, seriously, do you expect all this to get to?

Maybe in a year or two "9/11" a long awaited sequel to Oliver Stone's "JFK" while in the mean time ....?

[RH]

43. If Nico can prove it

then Agent James K Lechner is guilty of purjury, so what then has this Nico done to have him charged?

More likely IMHO that your Nico is guilty of a recklessly malicious libel.

Either way, one of them should be charged. This is hardly a matter to fool around with.

[RH]

33. That's easy,

All you have to do is to look where "Joe Blow" had been before.

The suspects' names on each mainfest were the same names that they had previously used, the names on their official documents etc.

-------------------

What I have never yet seen is any sensible attempt to explain in innocent terms the previous movements of the suspects, especially with due regard to their lavish spending of US dollars and where the money had come from.

Whether or not they were guilty as officially alleged, they were most certainly up to something nefarious.

[Old and In the Way]

36. with due regard to their lavish spending of US dollars

I agree, these guys were spending like there was no tomorrow.

But I've actually seen precious little about any of these hijackers from people who must have interacted with these guys. The only story I am aware of is the "Atta at the bank who wanted to buy a cropduster" story. That one has always been a very odd story to me. That certainly painted Atta as a wild-eyed terrorist, but it is rather counter-intuitive to think he'd have blown his cover like that.

Other than that, I've seen zippo on anyone who can tell us anything about the hijackers on a personal level. It's almost like they didn't exist.

[RH]

41. Look at this

They suspects were notorious for keeping themsleves to themsleves but there were a few curious lapses. A lot of stories have come out from Florida from folk who remmeber them.

Somebody who had met one them started a Yahoo group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CloseEncountersofthePre911kind

The project obviously fell on fallow ground but this brief extract is intriguing:

"You are so wrong on this. You were not there, were you?
Ever met any of the 19? I did and I know several people who did also.
And most got real sick right after. Sept 11th was not the first day
of attack by those murderous 19, that started weeks before, as they
were happy go lucky hopping bar to bar. Like the last thing Al-Shehhi
told me as he got into the cab that night, " I'm a pilot. I'm going
to be famous".

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Thank you.

Every time I hear that the hijickers "weren't" on the passenger lists, the source always ends up being a CNN website list of the victims. Since the lists are described as the "passengers", the darkweaving mind believes this to be cold hard evidence that the hijickers weren't on the passenger list.

CNN didn't list the hijackers as victims because they were the perpetrators. Get a grip.

[Solomon]

8. Nope. I strongly disagree with you here.

If you count the number of people on each plane, there are serious discrepancies. None of the lists I've seen, have the hijackers names on them in any fashion whatsoever, howsoever labled. I've heard this excuse before that they didn't list them because they weren't passengers. Well hell the crew aren't passengers either but they sure as hell are listed. Show me a list for each plane that shows all the PEOPLE on the damn planes. When I see that with the hijackers names then I'll give it up, but the numbers just do not add up. Everything I want as serious evidence seems to always be discounted.

If you want me to believe that 19 hijackers from the middle east did it, then show me the goddam videotapes, the undoctored manifests, etc. There's always some reason why the shit is halfassed instead of clear. Confusion confusion confusion. Muddy the water enough and nobody can see in it. I don't need the government monkeying with the evidence for my benefit. Just show me the goddamn manifest without any alterations. Is that too much too ask?

[Bolo Boffin]

13. I'm telling you what I've experienced

Every plea for evidence that the names of the hijackers weren't on the passenger manifest always goes back to a victims list. EVERY TIME.

If you're saying you've got evidence to the contrary, bring it. Or shut it.

[Old and In the Way]

9. How would CNN know this?

They were released the same day as the crash. Wouldn't the names show up on at least one plane's list? Who would be making a decision on who was "guilty" by way of a name list?

And why would anyone possible care or take the time to delete the names of the perps from the list?

Unless, of course, the names were not on the list because they weren't on the plane. Even though we are told they bought the tickets electronicly, etc.

[arcane1]

12. did they ever release the aliases they used?

:shrug:

I never heard about that, either. Seems like it would've been a good idea. I may have spoken to some Joe Blow who was really a 9/11 hijacker, and would have valuable info to share, but alas, we are not supposed to know?

[RH]

35. Of course they did.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

[Solomon]

20. Thankyou Old and In The Way. I'm just too damn tired to look for all

the stuff on the manifests that I saved on this computer somewhere. Why can't we just get one fucking straight answer to anything. None of the lists I looked at, had any hijackers on the list. They SHOULD have been listed as passengers because until they "hijacked" the planes, that's exactly what they were. Who gave the news people the right to take the names off the list and how the hell did they know which ones to take off the damn list. The lists did contain the crew members and the supposed NUMBER of people on the planes. No matter how you cut it, the numbers just didn't add up. If they were left off the list, and you add them back in, the numbers don't match. Why all this monkeying around with a piece of evidence that should be crystal clear?

[FannySS]

21. AA and UA gave the list to the FBI, obviously, not to the press

Do you really think an airline would give such a manifest to the press after the attack? Oviously NO, they gave it only to the FBI, nobody could expect something else.

The FBI later gave VICTIM lists to the press, containing only the names with great evidence that they were victims. This is not too difficult.

Fanny

[Old and In the Way]

29. ah, no.

CNN published the lists that came from the airlines. I believe it was later in the day. I don't recall seeing the hijackers name on the lists at that time. I don't understand why names would be wiped off the list, anyway....and I don't understand how they could figured out the ID's before DNA was available to make that determination.

[RH]

30. DNA did not determine IDs.

DNA matched to samples supplied by the FBI would reasonably prove that somebody was in two given places but to positively identify from DNA you have to be sure of who the original sample belonged to. If it merely came from a car or a hotel room, that would not be possible to any degree of certainty.

[FannySS]

31. See post 28

The airliners did not release any lists without permission of the FBI, they would not even think about that. The FBI did not "wipe off", they "added", see post 28. It´s not too difficult to find out, which of the persons appearing on the manifest seems to be a "brave American" and which are the suspected hijackers.

And all this has NOTHING to do with the DNA.

Please try to answer my questions in post 28....


Fanny

[RH]

23. See message #22

The situation is really not so difficult to understand if you would only care to stop to think or to ask those responsible instead of jumping to conclusions.

[RH]

22. Nobody decided who was guilty.

Names on fatal accident passenger lists appear only after relatives have first been informed.

The early lists as released also excluded some innocent passengers because their next of kin were not yet available.

Some of the alleged hijackers bought tickets on the internet. Some paid cash in person.

[BeFree]

14. Show us the evidence boloboffin...

...that the hijackers names are on the passenger lists. Surely, someone as knowledgeable as you can give us a link to a US government website with an official list of the passengers, hijackers and all.

Somehow, however, I get the feeling that I'll never see any such evidence.

[FannySS]

16. Here is the list with hijackers, dated Sept. 12th

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/letter1.htm

See pages 2ff.

Fanny

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Thank you, Fanny.

BeFree, will you read what I posted before piping up. I said:

EVERY TIME I have personally seen a claim that the hijackers AREN'T on the manifest, the trail of supporting evidence ALWAYS leads back to a victims list.

Prove me wrong: show me an official passenger manifest W/O the hijackers on them. Don't give me a link to CNN, because this particular bit of conspiracy folklore has been called in. It's over.

[BeFree]

47. You can pat fanny all you want, bolo

But what she posted is mere litter.

And you.... well, let's just say I share your enthusiasm for incompetence being a factor in the takedown of the *'s.

But since you come around here telling so many folks that they are off base etc., it is up to YOU to show us the proof of where we may be misled. It is up to YOU to provide your evidence. We have enough evidence to know we are on the right track. Prove us wrong, with evidence. You haven't done it, it is as simple as that. You haven't, and litter like that that fanny posted is an affront and some of the stuff you have written here is also.

Makes me wonder... what's your gig? Only the weak-kneed amongst us is ever going to follow the bolos of this forum.

[Old and In the Way]

38. That's not an official manifest release from the airlines or did

I miss the document on the site? Your link goes to an FBI letter that ID's the perps, but nothing I could locate that shows an timestampped AA/UA manifest.

We know who the government told us who did it. What we want is independent proof that shows these hijacker's names appear on the airline list, preferable time stamped before the official US story is released.

[FannySS]

39. No, see message #37

I guess the original airliner manifests are somewhere at the FBI.

So what?

Fanny

[BeFree]

44. Not evidence.

That is nothing. NOTHING!!

It does NOTHING to answer my question and is an affront to me actually. Hell, I could produce a document like that!

I will continue to wait for EVIDENCE. Evidence of the official manifest from the airlines themselves. Nothing less will ever begin to convince me that they/you are attempting to hide from the American people the evidence of what happened that day.

You really should be ashamed, passing off that piece of litter as something supposed to be evidence.

Am waiting.....

[FannySS]

46. Please answer my question

We knew that you call it a fraud, see message 28 and message 42. You had to say that´s a fraud. You´ll say that in any case. If we had a passenger list with all the hijackers, you also could say thats a fraud, couldn´t you?

And another question: if we have MIHOP, than obviously the US-administration could fake a passenger list with all the hijackers. Why didn´t they do that?

You do not have any evidence that the hijackers did not appear on the original lists.

[BeFree]

51. Quit repeating yourself

I've read all your mis-information. ie 28 and 42. Nothing new here, just repeating yourself.

If we ever saw a passenger list that was put out by the airlines on Sept. 11, I would have to look it over and try to confirm it's veracity. As would you. As it stands, you, FannySS, are the one contesting the implication that the hijackers were NOT listed on the manifests. So, it is up to you to prove otherwise, as you have attempted (and failed) to do with your previous littering.

As far as why there is no fake manifest. Why fake one? Why fake one when they know there could easily be several copies of a real one stashed away. They are obviously too smart for that.

Frankly, fanny, your words here are not impressive. However, if it is your agenda to further the confusion about 9/11 then I would say that you may have impressed a few weak souls, but not the truth seekers.

[RH]

54. So how then would you confirm the veracity

of a passenger manifest?

Perhaps from the corroboration of separate companies involved with selling the tickets?

Perhaps from phone calls from people aboard the airliners?

Perhaps from people who saw the supects at the airports?

Perhaps from those who sat near to Atta and Alomari on the plane to Boston?

If they did not then get on to Flight 11, why not, and where did they go?

"implication that the hijackers were NOT listed on the manifests"?

What implication?

[BeFree]

55. Would work for me

"So how then would you confirm the veracity"
"Perhaps from the corroboration of separate companies involved with selling the tickets?"

That would do it. If the separate airline companies would post the manifests and stake the claim that the lists were complete, then that would pretty well confirm it all, wouldn't it?

So why haven't we seen such lists? Paul has attempted to give a reason for why not, how 'bout you? You are implying that the hijackers ARE, or would be included on those lists. Can you prove your implication?

[RH]

58. Separate companies were involved

with selling the tickets.

Do some research.

Did you even bother to read the fax document linked to in message #22?

It identifies an involved company.

[RH]

48. Evidence

Information in the document provided by the Berlin US Embassy has been coroborated by independent witnesses.

Indeed, if it were possible to show that any fact stated therein is not correct you'd be telling us all about it, would you not?

So what do you have against it then?

Anything intelligent?

:shrug:

[BeFree]

53. Nothng against it ....'cept that it's useless

And you guys act like it's some kinda proof, or evidence. It's not. It goes nowhere near answering my question of where the official manifests are of the flights that day. You know, I know it, fanny and bolo know it. It is no better than a piece of trash on the side of the road. And you know it.

So, then, one has to wonder, why are these people trying to pass this litter around? Just to confuse and obstruct? For what reason do they attempt to further cloud this most important issue? The only one I can come up with is that ya'll don't want the truth.

[RH]

56. Excuse me but

may we perhaps be allowed to reserve the right to express for ourselves what we know?

The document in question stands good as proof of evidence if only because of the routine legal maxim: silence denotes consent. We have not yet heard a murmur from anybody in a position to know better to the effect that the represented manifest was false. So to support your opinion then, how many people do need to think to be consciously involved in the cover up of a mass murder conspiracy?

I had previously understood that within the USA people are entitled to be thought of as innocent until proved guilty.

So in the mean time then, unless and until you may prove a case to another effect, rudely ignorant abuse shall be no good substitute for jurisprudence.

OK?

[FannySS]

18. The Boston Globe obtained a complete manifest

The Boston Globe reported on its web site Thursday that it had obtained a copy of the complete manifest list of the planes hijacked from Boston.

The Globe said according to the manifest, Mohamed Atta, one of the suspected terrorists, was assigned seat 8D in business class on American Airlines Flight 11, directly across the aisle from Hollywood producer David Angell and his wife, Lynn, who were in seats 8A and 8B, respectively. Seated next to Atta in seat 8G was Abdul Alomari. FBI investigators have searched Alomari's home in Vero Beach.

The Globe reported the passenger list for United Air Lines Flight 175 shows that Marwan Alshehri got on the plane that left Boston and slammed into one of the Manhattan skyscrapers 15 minutes after Flight 11. An FAA pilot directory information spelled his name Marwan Alshehhi.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/14/national/main311268.shtml

[RH]

25. Was Hanjour on it?

According to an early story in the Washington Post

"His name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html

That story, I think, sparked off the subsequent hysteria.

Was it ever explained?

According to later reports Hanjour paid cash, 11 days in advance, for a one-way ticket on American Airlines Flight 77, at ATS Travel in Totowa, New Jersey.

Maybe Totowa screwed up on the administration.

[RedSock]

49. NEWS reports about existence of videotapes

Within two days of the attacks, the FBI was examining "footage from dozens of cameras at the three airports," but two weeks later, the Boston Herald reported that Logan Airport had no cameras at any of its gates, terminals or concourses.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091301terror,0,2306641.story

http://www.bostonherald.com/attack/investigation/aussecu09292001.htm

Other questions:
http://joyofsox.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_joyofsox_archive.html#106329504941063583

[RH]

52. There was a security camera in the Logan Car Park.

It provided this insight:

"Videotape taken from the carpark's closed-circuit camera showed the Mitsubishi had been a suspicious and frequent visitor to the car park.
It had entered the lot up to five times between Wednesday of the previous week and last Tuesday, apparently on practice runs for the attack."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,552789,00.html


What exactly would a security camera at a passenger gate usually hope to achieve? More effective ways to identify passengers are easy enough to envisage.

[paulthompson]

50. Manifests?

Hi,
Old and in the Way asked me to reply here about the manifest question, so I will.

As far as I know, the Boston Globe was shown the manifests for two flights, but never published them. I looked hard for that via Lexus Nexis but couldn't find it.

There have been various manifests floating around the internet and published in newspapers, but none are complete. Some include hijacker names, some do not. There are certain victim's families who have tried to keep the names of their killed relatives secret, so that's one reason why no such complete list has ever been published publicly.

There are people we know whose names were on the manifests but have never been on any such list. Examples include Amer Kumfar and Adnan Bukhari, who were not actually on the planes but were on the manifests, according to individual articles about their weird cases.

So there's definitely some strange stuff going on with these manifests, and often the numbers of names don't add up too well.

But in my opinion, the more important question is, where is the video of the hijackers in the airports, and why hasn't that been shown? Even if it's true the Boston airport didn't have cameras near the terminal gates (though it is uncontested they had them in other parts of the airport), the other two airports used by the hijackers did.

[RH]

62. That's a fascinating point.

Misdirections to the effect that there were no arabs on the planes make a lot of sense in terms of the real meat being the other way: Arabs on the passenger lists but not on the planes.

Could that be why Atta went to Portland? Was somebody else there who should have gone to the party? I heard tell of some sort of connection between Bukhari and the rented car found in Portland. Was Kumfar or Bukhari perhaps a double agent, a spook infiltrator?

While others rot away in Guatanamo Bay Mr. Bukhari seems to have been given a free ride away. Very odd.

All sorts of possibilities have hardly been considered.

[paulthompson]

64. Bukhari et al

I've done some research on these guys, although I haven't put it in the timeline yet. They were not al-Qaeda. Rather, they were innocent Saudis studying flying in Florida, and generally due to go home around 9/11 (though one of the Bukharis was dead for a year already!).

I think the hijackers used these guys to throw the search off, maybe even stole their identities to get on the plane under a different name. Also on 9/11 the FBI raided a hotel because they found use of a credit card for a rental car used by one of the hijackers was the credit card of someone staying in that hotel. Turns out the guy was innocent and had his credit card number stolen by the hijackers. Another use of false identity.

Not everything was done by the hijackers using their known names, even though the FBI stubbornly maintains this fiction. I think this is the main reason why we don't see more from the manifests, because there are a lot of murky and complicated things having to do with stolen identities, and it's easier to just sweep them under the rug.

[RH]

66. Hang on a minute.

According to the FBI release the suspects on Flight 11 were:

Satam M. A. Al Suqami
Waleed M. Alshehri
Wail M. Alshehri
Mohamed Atta
Abdulaziz Alomari


But according to a loose rumor other names were on the list, i.e.

Mohamed Atta
Adnan Bukhari
Ameer Bukhari
Abdul Alomari
Amer Kamfar

Seeing then that the prior death of Ameer Bukari has not since been doubted the stolen identity hypothesis would make a lot of sense, especially if e.g. stolen credit card numbers were used.

If this does not mean that there were more hijackers lined up for the event than has since been reported, it may well mean that the names on the Airline manifest were not the same names that were later released by the FBI, who therefore had possibly surmised soon enough who had stolen the identities.

It would then make sense not to release an original manifest, so as not to affect the innocent and to avoid confusing the issue.

Either way it would be nice for the truth of the matter to be cleared up, except perhaps if Bukhari was paid by the spooks to watch the suspects.

Or is all this yet another red herring to confuse the issue?

At their own peril should anybody fish for sustenance in such a snake pit!

[paulthompson]

76. actually

It's more than a loose rumor that some of these names were on the manifest - it was mentioned in mainstream articles. The Bukharis and Kamfar were on Flight 175's manifest I believe, while the Abdul Alomari appears to be an attempt to confuse with the real hijacker with that name on Flight 11. This other Abdul Alomari was friends with most of the other people involved here and they all lived within blocks of each other (but had no apparent connections with the actual hijackers).

As for extra hijackers, the witnesses on these planes actually never claimed seeing any more than 4, even though there was supposed to be 5. On Flight 93, in all those calls, no one saw more than 3.

There are many possibilities, and its things like this that makes one want to scream, why don't you guys just release the videotape of who actually walked onto the airplanes, if there's nothing strange about it?

[RH]

78. You guys?

I am completely independent.

As to releasing video tapes I had understood that the usual practice for police departments is to present evidence to a trial. In the mean time, who exactly would you ask? There are ways and means if it is really thought to be so important. But beware then that if you go to court you'll find out more about your own standing than you will about theirs.

Maybe time will tell. In the mean time, sure, they've made of a mess of much of it in PR terms but should you then prefer to encourage the FBI to get into the PR business, spin doctors and all? During my lifetime I've seen a great change with regard to "transparency" in politics and what did it all add up to? An ever more impotent pantomime. People don't always work so well with others on their backs or looking over their shoulders. C'est la vie.

"lined up for the event" would not necessarily mean that they showed up for the event.

[paulthompson]

83. "you guys"

I didn't mean you. That's just a phrase, my meaning is whoever the heck is responsible for this.

[DulceDecorum]

57. Solomon, with all due respect

it really doesn't matter since several of the hijackers
ARE STILL ALIVE.
And the FBI is avoiding them like the plague.

ALL of the living "hijackers" claim that they were nowhere near Boston, New York, Newark, Shanksville, or Washington DC on September 11, 2001.
So it appears that if indeed these gentlemen are the guilty parties, then they are FAR more flameproof than their passports or tickets or any other crap that supposedly survived the conflagration that softened or melted steel and kept it molten for weeks on end.
They are also FAR more shockproof than any Black Box ever devised.
Damn, they are IMMORTAL.

Or else, we are being lied to.

As for the DNA supposed evidence, the FBI labs are notorious for adjusting evidence. Furthermore, there are many and several labs that can and will synthesize DNA to your specifications for a fee. The FBI is known to have contacted such a lab shortly after September 11.

There is a legal term known as "prima facie."
That is Latin for "at first sight."
If you enter a room and there is a dead body with bullet holes in it and there is a man standing over the body waving a gun, then it kinda looks "at first sight" that the man standing there is the murderer.
So a cop is justified in arresting said man and confiscating the gun for tests. However, when it is determined that the man has no explosive residue on his hands and that the gun is a different make from the murder weapon and the body had been transported to said room long after rigor mortis had set in, then the "prima facie" case against the man collapses.

The case against Osama bin Laden was always weak.
As was the case against Saddam Hussein.

The Taliban offered to give Osama bin Laden over to stand trial in an International Court but Bush refused saying "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty".
So much for Perry Mason.
So much for an investigation.
Jes set them both afore that thar hangin' judge, and doan fergit the short rope.

As for the case against ANY of the LIVING hijackers, --- there is NONE.

These are the same people who have access to Saddam Hussein's thumbprint but have REFUSED to use it to positively identify the actor they pulled out of a hole in the ground. Incidentally, there was a full camera crew at hand to record this histrionic moment and the "spider-hole" itself will probably be touring the US at some later date.

The FBI knows goddamn well where the "hijackers" are living TODAY and will NOT under ANY circumstances whatsoever, go anywhere near them.
THAT would be a stupid distraction from the war-on-terra.
In other words, the FBI is HAPPY to allow the men who allegedly hijacked four planes GET OFF SCOT-FREE.
So what use is ANY videotape in the face of such chutzpah?

[RH]

60. the FBI labs are notorious?

So what?

What part did the FBI labs play?

This document:
WORLD TRADE CENTER DNA IDENTIFICATIONS: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS

reviews the process in some detail:

http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp13proc/contents/hennesseyrev1.pdf


Please read it.

Then tell us please where and how exactly, in view of the process there described, would the FBI have any opportunity to fake evidence.

[DulceDecorum]

63. Notorious Beyond Comparison

You read THIS then:
Tainting Evidence : Inside The Scandals At The Fbi Crime Lab
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743236416/104-4072512-0747166?v=glance

But if scientific crime-fighting is fallible and flawed, those problems rarely come to light. One exception was in July 1994, when U.S. Today and the Gannett News Service published a survey. Believing that the claim that the bloody glove found on O. J. Simpson's estate had been planted was far-fetched, the newspaper trawled legal and media databases for comparative cases. They found 85 instances since 1974 in which prosecutors had knowingly or unknowingly used tainted evidence that had convicted the innocent or freed the guilty. In the same period, 48 people sentenced to death were freed after convictions were found to be based on fabricated evidence or because exonerating or exculpatory evidence was withheld.
These were just the known cases, cases that for one reason or another had come to light or made the news. "In the United States we take science as gospel," said Ray Taylor, a San Antonio-based lawyer and forensic pathology expert, commenting on the survey. "The public perception is that faking science is rare. The truth is it happens all the time."
<snip>
As the FBI’s research and training facility came to dominate forensic science research in this country during the 1980s, the laboratory division continued to employee and promote researchers and examiners who patently ignored the most basic scientific procedures and fixed results. As its own staff patently ignored ASCLD guidelines on documentation, record retention and report writing, the FBI lab would exhort others to follow the guidelines in the pages of its periodical, Crime Lab Digest. Thousands of personnel from other crime labs would be trained by an institution that failed to train or supervise its own staff. Hundreds of crime lab managers from around the country would be trained by an FBI laboratory division run by managers who failed to check examiners' work, ignored repeated complaints about sloppy or negligent work, and even promoted some of the worst offenders.

It was a scandal that kept on growing, affecting hundreds, maybe thousands of lives. A scandal of atrocious forensic science that not only threatened to punish the innocent but to free the guilty. A scandal that demonstrated that J. Edgar Hoover lived on, that the FBI lab was unaccountable even to the rest of the FBI, let alone to Congress, the scientific community or the general public. It was a scandal that when it finally broke would be all the more devastating as result of years of pretence, denial and face-saving, years of putting image before reality.
http://crimemagazine.com/tainting_evidence.htm

The FBI lab's woes came to light in the mid-1990s after FBI chemist Frederic Whitehurst went public with allegations of wrongdoing and shoddy work inside the lab.
The department's inspector general conducted an 18-month internal investigation that concluded that 13 lab technicians had performed flawed scientific analysis or provided inaccurate, pro-prosecution testimony in cases, including the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 World Trade Center terror attack.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/front2003/031703fbifallout_2003.shtml

Despite the FBI's changes at the lab, the AP reported recently that one technician has since mistested more than 100 DNA samples and another of its expert witnesses has been charged with knowingly giving false testimony.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/5954038.htm

[RH]

65. the FBI labs are notorious?

So what?

What part did the FBI labs play?

This document:
WORLD TRADE CENTER DNA IDENTIFICATIONS: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS

reviews the process in some detail:

http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp13proc/contents/hennesseyre...


Please read it.

Then tell us please where and how exactly, in view of the process there described, would the FBI have any opportunity to fake evidence.

[DulceDecorum]

67. So what?

Who gives a fig for that document?
What use is it to anyone?
:spank:

Why don't YOU
tell us its relevance and how it demeonstrates conclusively that everything done by the FBI was above board?
Are you up to that task, RH?
:hurts:
http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0401/28/a01-48394.htm

[RH]

68. May I ask your opinion?

Is it at all reasonable for somebody to post so many links as if to expect others to pursue every one of them while at the same time their comprehension of any link presented to them, or indeed their reluctance to bother to read a contribution at all is just as apparent?

Is that a sensible way to hope to progress?

Read the document. The point should then be clear enough.

:spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank:

[DulceDecorum]

70. Is that any way to treat

someone you keep referring to as a lady?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I read the pdf file.
It said NOTHING that was relevant to anything, including the price of eggs.

[RH]

73. Relevance.

Then what then, please, with due regard to the price of eggs etc. would be the relevance of your remark: "the FBI labs are notorious for adjusting evidence"?

The Division of Forensic Biology at the Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) in New York City was responsible for the DNA identifications of the victims of the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center (WTC).

So was the "FBI" implication therefore that the DNA analysis is not reliable?

If so, where and how exactly would the FBI have had the opportunity to fake that evidence?

Or was this intended to be yet another stupid distraction?

[DulceDecorum]

79. 96 paddlemasters

and me with only one bum.
RH, I once thought that the last two paragraphs of the second link in that post held the answer. But that was before you thrashed me to within an inch of my life.
Help me get to the ER, fellow DU members.

[Abe Linkman]

82. When I saw all those paddles...

I was afraid the end was in sight. But, thank the Lord, after reading your message, I'm happy to know that it wasn't your end, after all.

Taking a stand shouldn't subject you to having to worry about what happens at the end. That really was a bum deal.