It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Let's get back to asking questions

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:44 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
CCTV coverage of the high-jackers doesn't mean anything when they weren't even on the passenger lists...

I'm sure I've seen mainstreamers argue that they were on the lists but I don't recall how they accounted for the fact that they weren't on the first few versions released publicly.

Beyond that, I have never seen a satisfactory answer as to how their identity was confirmed forensically. Has anyone else?

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:30 PM
reply to post by TrueOrFalse

DUDE! Apart from the two time stamps, note that in the second photo, the top left time-stamp advances 2 seconds, whilst the lower left time-stamp advances 3 seconds.

Originally posted by coughymachine
Beyond that, I have never seen a satisfactory answer as to how their identity was confirmed forensically. Has anyone else?

I haven't, only heard it was "forensically" (DNA or dental records), but how that then translates into 9 hijackers found alive and well, I'll never know - obviously DNA and/or dental records aren't that accurate?

[edit on 24-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:54 PM
The one photo looks to be someone (alleged hijacker?) being searched. If people were being searched on 9/11, how is it no weapons were found on them at the time of search? Where did 19 alleged people stash utility knives aka box cutters, and no security personnel found any of them? They are rather difficult to miss when doing a search. The carry-on bags are run through x-ray machines. Then there are the metal detectors everyone has to pass through.

When did they start doing searches prior to 9/11? I do not recall having to encounter any for domestic flights prior to 9/11. That includes my visitors I picked up from the airport. I would wait for and meet them at the arrival gate. My last domestic flight, pre-9/11, was in the late 1990s.

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 03:26 AM

Originally posted by coughymachine
I think TrueorFalse was making the point that the photographic evidence we have of the 19 hijackers is weak. He certainly wasn't suggesting those picture proved anything. In fact, he's even suggesting that, since they have either two timestamps or no timestamps, their legitimacy is questionable.

Such evidence would not hold in court.

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:05 AM

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul

"then why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq".

Wizard In the Woods - The generally infantile and ignorant attitude you possess really shines brightly in this absurd question, it shows you have absolutely no knowledge of the Middle-East in any shape or form and you should refrain from any further input to this conversation. Thanks for your time.


If my question is so “childish” -- Mister Kissinger -- then why don’t you answer it?

C’mon, give it a whirl. If your explanation is so good, then it will make me really look bad. So it ought to be ‘worth your time’ to reveal your insights.

Why DIDN’T we invade Saudi Arabia, home of 14 of the 19 hijackers?

The Wizard In The Woods

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:58 PM
I'll have a guess - anything to do with Iran?

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 10:21 PM
reply to post by Pilgrum

One of most questionable things to me is the discovery of Mr Atta's bag complete with incriminating evidence inside it left behind at the airport. That was just too convenient don't you think? I mean by any laws of reasonable probability.....

The 10 largest U.S. carriers posted a mishandled baggage rate of 4.52 reports per 1,000 passengers in March, not as good as February's mark of 3.85 but better than March 2001's 5.03 for the same 10 carriers. For the first three months this year, the 10 carriers recorded a mishandled baggage rate of 4.37, much better than the 5.28 mark for the first quarter of 2001. Source

The odds of it being Atta's luggage is 1/189.
The odds of it being one of the four hijacker pilots is 1/47.
The odds of a being one of the 19 hijackers is 1/10.

Roughly. You may want to check my math.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Boone 870

The 10 largest U.S. carriers posted a mishandled baggage rate of 4.52 reports per 1,000 passengers in March, not as good as February's mark of 3.85 but better than March 2001's 5.03 for the same 10 carriers. For the first three months this year, the 10 carriers recorded a mishandled baggage rate of 4.37, much better than the 5.28 mark for the first quarter of 2001. Source

The odds of it being Atta's luggage is 1/189.

Thi depends upon the definition of the term 'mishandled baggage', which doesn't necessarily mean baggage that failed to make it aboard a flight.

For example, according the information provided by SITA for 2005, 'failure to load' accounted for just 15% of all mishandled baggage.

In 2005, the single largest cause of baggage delay was in transfer baggage mishandling, 61%. This was followed by failure to load, 15%; ticketing error/ passenger bag switch/ security/ other, 9%; loading/offloading error, 4%; space-weight restriction, 5%; arrival station mishandling, 3%, and tagging errors, 3%.

Applying these figures to 9/11 increases the odds of Atta's bag not being loaded to around 1/1250.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:02 AM
Hi Coughy,
I never responded to your initial response to join the thread because, IMHO, you do want to frame the debate within the guidelines you feel comfortable with.

It also happens to be a framework that minimizes all the accumulated evidence (I understand you don't think the evidence is "real" evidence) and seeks to put Truthers and Official Storiers (is that an actual word?!) on the same footing.

My belief is that most Truth people use the a reversal of the Burden of Proof theory. That is, instead of proving the moon is made out of cheese, you insist that I prove that it's not. When we can't even agree on the basis of what makes evidence...well......evidence, no discussion can be had.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

Hi SlightlyAbovePar

I didn't mean to discourage you - far from it. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

All I really want is for people to accept that they're bound by the same evidentiary standards, regardless of which side of the debate they're on.

So, if I, as a challenger to the mainstream account, make a claim, I fully expect to be asked to substantiate it. Similarly, if you or anyone else who supports the mainstream account makes a claim, I want you to be prepared to substantiate it and to the same degree.

It is not enough to say "the 9/11 Commission Report says so" or, "NIST's findings show...", when we know the 9/11 Commission was lied to and NIST was selective in what it did and didn't test for, among other things.

By way of example, think of all the questions you'd ask me if I suggested Jones' latest report proved the existence of Thermite at the scene. I want people to accept that I'm entitled to ask the same sorts of questions about NIST's work.

Yes, that makes your job a little harder than you're used to, but that's the point. You (meaning those who support the mainstream account) do have a burden of proof to meet. I believe we let you off the hook by offering unsubstantiated alternatives instead of demanding you meet it.

And if you have any doubts about whether I apply these standards equally to both sides, check out my post history, which includes a balanced approach to the arguments posited by Craig Ranke and my unpopular dismissal of the claims that NIST faked the southwest corner damage.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:51 PM
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

That is because 7 of the people falsely accused were found alive by BBC reporters. FBI spokesperson Mueller admitted, when confronted by BBC reporters then, they fouled up, when originally giving the photos and names to the media within 72 hours of 9/11, without positive forensic ID through DNA or any other forensic testing.

Recently, BBC made a very minor correction on one of the seven with a couple or three insignificant words. Something to the effect of changing the word is to the words may have been. Something to that same effect. That was the only correction BBC made regarding the 7 live falsely named alleged hijackers.

When BBC recently interviewed the FBI, regarding what the FBI had stated about admitted significant FBI foul up, the spokesperson did not say they did not make a major blunder. What the FBI spokesperson said was they were confident 19 hijackers were dead. Apparently, the FBI was not concerned with whether the 19 originally named, with 7 of them still alive, were correctly positively forensically identified by media name and photo (fed to them by the FBI) or not. The FBI originally said 19 people, and 19 people, correctly identified or not, is how the FBI left it hanging.

Originally, within 48 hours of 9/11, the number was 18. Then the next day, it was 19, complete with names and photos never having been forensically positively identified. One of those name and same face photo, found alive, is a commercial jet pilot for a Saudi airline. If I recall correctly, he was the 19th name and same face added.

We had discussed this in one of the discussions, and all supporting source was supplied at that time from BBC's website. I am not certain I saved the link because someone else had provided the link.

Wrong name and right picture, or wrong name and wrong picture, of one should start to send up a red flag of inaccuracy. But 7? The flag should then be waving across the face for a wake up call, that something was definitely wrong with the "official" version picture in that specific case.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Saudi Arabia was not an option. Because that would have mean the Bush and bin Laden families would have had to part ways personally and for business. That also would have meant the bin Laden family would no longer be adding their wealth to the Carlyle Group, as so many other Saudi families were doing as well.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by coughymachine

Absolutely, can do!

What you are asking for is completely fair and IMO comes from a place of honesty.

Thanks and I look forward to "chewing the fat" with you in this thread, and others too.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by Boone 870

Not only did Mr. Atta leave a rental car in Portland,Maine, but another rental car full of "incriminating evidence" at Logan as well. I quite frankly do not know why someone would leave a deliberate trail of evidence, even if they did have intentions of dying while committing a criminal act.

I know of no other guerilla army where members deliberately leave evidence they were personally involved with any activity. What if someone had been able to see in the auto at Logan and note all that "incriminating evidence", before any planes had a chance to take off, and then immediately notified the authorities? If there was security to encounter, they would have to arrive at least one hour before check-in and take-off time.

If nothing was in the alleged rental auto in Portland, Maine, how did anyone know that someone named Mohammed Atta was even on board any flight and so swiftly too.

I definitely see something wrong with the "official" version considering this accounting:

"Early accounts stated it was Adnan and Ameer Bukhari who rented the car from Logan Airport Alamo and abandoned it at Portland, not Mohamed Atta. The Bukharis "did get on a plane and fly to Boston", Adnan Bukhari's name reportedly appeared on Flight 11's manifest, and a trail of evidence led investigators to Adnan Bukhari's house.

Within hours of the attacks it was nearly "case closed" that the Bukharis were hijackers of Flight 11, but a couple of simple facts proved their innocence - Ameer Bukhari died in a plane crash in 2000 and Adnan Bukhari is alive.

9/13/2001 CNN retraction concerning the Bukharis - 1MB asf video download

How did so much evidence initially point to the Bukharis, and how did Adnan Bukhari's name reportedly appear on Flight 11's manifest?

The words "fabricated evidence" spring to mind.

The Bukharis innocence caused a major rethink of Flight 11's hijackers, and this rethink resulted in the implausible scenario of Atta abandoning two rental cars in two airports."

I looked at what the US bureaucrats purported was written by Muslims from different areas of dialects and language. I knew something was wrong with the style, and I am not an expert in Islam. Then Arab Americans were interviewed by reporters in my local area, and they confirmed that as well. Compared to how a true Muslim writes and speaks of Islam, the style could only have been written and/or translated by someone not completely familiar with Islam or Central Asian and Middle East language dialects.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by OrionStars]

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:40 PM
reply to post by OrionStars

You may not agree with this but I think he left evidence behind because what does he care? He's dead.

Also, terrorists aren't about covering up crimes. They want you to know who did it and why. What they don't want, is to get caught.

He left the evidence behind because they weren't trying to cover up anything, only prevent getting caught. Once on the plane, why would he, the other 18 or anyone else involved in the plot care about evidence?

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

The story of Mohamed Atta is riddled with problems, in my view.

If you have the time and patience, please read these two blog items:

AA Flight 11 - Mohamed Atta and the 'Rosetta Stone'

Mohamed Atta's Final Days

The second is dense and a little difficult to engage with, but it is constructed entirely out of the official record and yet includes some major inconsistencies.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by coughymachine]

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by coughymachine

Hi Coughy,
I read through them both and don't really see any inconsistencies that lend any credence to a conspiracy, concerning the official story.

I do notice things like who rented which car at what time in dispute or why would Atta leave a will behind, and also bring one with him? Sure, I see those inconsistencies. If I am being intellectually honest I have to admit these things.

These are interesting questions, but don't provide evidence of anything sinister or a plot to cover anything up.

Conversely, if such mistakes were made here, could there by other, larger mistakes? Absolutely, I concede that point; no argument. But it also plays into my general belief that our government is far to incompetent to pull something like a 9-11 attack off.

I guess what I am trying to say is this: I am sure there are errors galore of the kinds this report points out (of course, I have no way of checking anything presented here, so my assumption is it's truthful).

However, I think the basic premise that four airliners were hijacked and crashed into WTC1, WTC2 the Pentagon and into a field in Pennsylvania, full of passengers, is what actually happened. In addition, I think the towers fell because of hijacked airliners crashing into them and the subsequent damage they caused on impact.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by coughymachine

Hi Coughy,
I read through them both and don't really see any inconsistencies that lend any credence to a conspiracy, concerning the official story.

We certainly see things differently here.

I accept that it proves nothing, by the way, however, there are some details that show the mainstream story has inaccuracies and others that simply make no sense.

Why was Atta carrying a bag around with him that:
  • had the names of all hijackers in;
  • had his will in; and
  • had his boxcutters in;

...but which was nonetheless checked in (i.e would have been inaccessible once aboard his flight, had it made it onto FL11)?

And these questions, which are lifted from the blog entry, arise from discrepancies in the official account. Not minor discrepancies either. Important ones, material to its case.

If Mohamed Atta boarded US Air FL2719 from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore on September 7th; and if US Air FL2719 departed at 15:15; then who was at Shuckums Sports Bar in Hollywood, Florida on September 7th between 15:00 and 18:00?

If Mohamed Atta flew from Baltimore to Boston on September 9th; and if Marwan al-Shehhi flew from Fort Lauderdale to Boston at 12:00 on September 9th; and if none of the remaining alleged hijackers are known to have been in Florida on September 9th; then who returned the rented Ford Escort to Warrick’s Rent-a-Car in Pompano Beach, Florida at 17:00 on September 9th?

If Mohamed Atta is in or around Boston, MA on September 10th; and if none of the alleged hijackers are known to have been in New York on September 10th; then who used Atta’s credit card in New York on September 10th?

In order for Atta's movements to be adequately accounted for, these issues need addressing. He simply cannot be allowed to be in two places at once by overlooking this as the inconvenient by-product of a complex investigation. Apart from anything else, it shows there may well have been more than one 'Atta'.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:39 PM

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
The problem with the 911 conspiracists is that they will all say what didn't happen - i.e: not the official story, but nobody ever seems to be willing to actually say what they think happened. I can tell you what I did see, a load of Saudi Arabians boarding a plane in order to hijack it.

Are you saying that these images from a CCTV camera have been falsified then? If they have been falsified then by whom and for what cause?

Was it George Bush? Osama Bin Laden? Tony Blair? Goldfinger? John Smith?

Who is responsible and why?

Atta was Egyptian

Ziad Jarrah was forn in Lebanon

all 17 other were Saudi, including Marwan Al-shehhi

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by coughymachine

Hi Coughy,
Give me some more time so I can read a little more carefully and give your stuff the time it deserves. (I had a child in my lap at the time so, it's entirely possible I missed something). I promised you I would be honest and I want to go back and re-read and make sure I wasn't....distracted =)

I appreciate your view and the manor in which you articulate it. Give me the evening and then I will check back in. After everything settles down and I get some quiet time, I will devote 110% of my brains abilities (that's not saying much, consider yourself warned).


<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in