It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

What we knew the morning of 911

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I've always found it strange how much we knew within the first hour of the WTC plane hits - I was surfing the 'tube and found this video that came up with some solid examples of how quickly we "knew" certain key elements to the 911 story before anyone actually knew anything at all

here's a link to the video (it won't embed) >> www.youtube.com...&rel=1

It's a 10 min video and the quality is kinda low, but it's what is being said that is most interesting, especially how the common man on the street "knew" the precise way the towers collapsed within minutes of it happening, as well as the detailed info on Osama and Al'Queda within the first hour on national news

If there's anything else suspicious or interesting that you'd like to add to this discussion, please post here. Also, does anyone know exactly when we "knew" it was the 19 specific Arab hijackers? I was always sure it was within the first few hours but I could be wrong - so if anyone can set me straight on that, it would be wonderful

[edit on 17-1-2008 by LinkTGF]

[edit on 17-1-2008 by LinkTGF]




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Maybe this will do it:



In any case I have seen the video before. It is reminiscent of some of the stuff the "911octopus" people did. This kind of thing has been discussed quite a bit on ATS. Bottom line, I think, in certain quarters, we knew everything on the morning of 9/11. Of course "we" are "uninvited" anymore, except as cannon fodder and victims.

[edit on 17-1-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
So, do you think Jerome Hauer knows something we don't?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   


I've always found it strange how much we knew within the first hour of the WTC plane hits


Like? I mean, I was at work with no access to TV/radio in my area, when I heard rumors of planes crashing into buildings, so on my next break I called my wife. She explained that hijacked planes had been flown into the WTC and the Pentagon. My first statement to her, was "Was it Osama Bin Laden?" For anyone who actually paid attention to terrorism in the 90s, the names Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden werent new.




as well as the detailed info on Osama and Al'Queda within the first hour on national news


Again, for anyone paying attention.....those names werent new.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheoOne
 


I'd say it's a certainty, but if you are trying to make a more elaborate point with your question, you should give us a little more to go on. (I just figured out why they discourage one line posts in these forums.)



[edit on 17-1-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


well you make a point, but I mean how could people be so certain about things like the names of hijackers so soon, or, like in the video, that guy who had just seen the towers collapse minutes beforehand and "knew" specifics that would later become part of the lexicon over the next few weeks/years regarding the cause of the collapse.

I'm not saying that it's out of the realm of possibility that for people that paid attention to assume that it was Osama, but since that thought was already ingrained into the national consciousness, then why not take advantage of that opportunity to just gather public support quickly by using a name that everyone would rally against.

As for the hijackers, my concern has always been how within such a short time after the plane crashes we knew all their names and their faces. (not certain how long after, but I could have sworn it was within the day - again, if anyone can straighten me out on that, I'll be in your debt)

Anyways, thanks for the response



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   


As for the hijackers, my concern has always been how within such a short time after the plane crashes we knew all their names and their faces. (not certain how long after, but I could have sworn it was within the day - again, if anyone can straighten me out on that, I'll be in your debt)


Easy...

We had flight attendants calling their airlines and reporting which seats the hijackers had been sitting in and what names were on their manifests. Airline computer records were searched to see which agents checked in said hijackers. Law enforcement officers interviewed the applicable airline personnel. Searches were run to see if tickets were purchased the same way (which they were). Immigration was asked to check their records using the names.......really doesnt take all that long to backtrack.....



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

what about the hijackers who were still alive (i think it was 7 or 9) after 911 - is that just a case of other people using their alias'?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by LinkTGF
 


No, thats more media screwing up their job and not getting the names right in the first place.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LinkTGF
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

what about the hijackers who were still alive (i think it was 7 or 9) after 911 - is that just a case of other people using their alias'?


No, actually it was mistaken identity (for the most part)

Names that sound like they are "one of a kind" to us are actually somewhat common in the middle east.. Like : Wahleed Alshehri and Abdulaziz Alomari

Sound pretty "unique" don't they? They aren't.

Here is a screen capture showing where CNN didn't do good fact checking in the days following 9/11:



In the above image only 50% is correct -- The correct part is Atta and Wahleed Alshehri -- BUT Wail Alshehri is incorrect, instead CNN ran with a photo of ANOTHER Waleed Alshehri (a bonofide Saudi Air Pilot) Walheed A. Alshehri - Here is his photo here ( NON-TERRORIST WALEED ALSHEHRI):



He is still alive-- but was NEVER a terrorist-- just a victim of mistaken identity- and CNN ran with an erronious conclusion.

Here is Wahleed M. Alshehri the flt 11 TERRORIST:



Here is the REAL Wail Alshehri the flt 11 TERRORIST:



The Alshehri terrorists were brothers-- see the resemblance?

On to Alomari... The other mistake in the original screencap above.

If I recall correctly the Abdulaziz Alomari shown in the CNN image was a student in Colorado. Never a hijacker, and still very much alive-- just a case of mistaken idenity-due to similar names.

Here is the Flt 11 TERRORIST Abdulaziz Alomari:



Obviously different than the CNN picture.

Here is the TERRORIST Abdulaziz Alomari captured on film with Mohammed Atta at a Maine ATM on Sptember 10th 2001:



Here is Abdulaziz Alomari seen in his martyrdom video he made before comming to the USA to die as a solider of Islam:



Here is a link to the full martyrdom video of Abdulaziz Alomari along with three other Hijackers on 9/11 -- and footage of the Alshehri brothers and other hijackers in Al Queda camps in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. This video also prety much waxes the whole "fake" bin laden claim as well.

vids.myspace.com...

CNN has since retracted this information and issued an apology. The BBC had similar mistakes on an early report of 9/11 Hijackers and has retracted as well. This old information still gets presented as "contemporanious" but any kind of research will show that it is OLD and INCORRECT -- and the news outlets admitt it.

I hope this helps you on your truthseeking journey. Remember, you can find these answers and more if you want to get the whole picture.


















[edit on 17-1-2008 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Thanks for the corrected info - no one seems to put this info out there for the most part, still the erroneous stuff, so it's nice that someone out there is helping to get the right info out there



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 




The BBC had similar mistakes on an early report of 9/11 Hijackers and has retracted as well.


This is not true. Five years after the fact, the BBC made an insignificant change, basically saying that they couldn't be sure of the guy's real name but that he was "called Walled Al Shehri." They did not change the photo, and further stated in this follow-up,"The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive..."

They never issued a retraction.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Ok, they made a correction, not a retraction-- The BBC article is still very old and was erronious to begin with.

Is there anything with my explaination of Waleed M. Alshehri that you find incorrect?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


This is only one of the "mistakenly" identified hijackers. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence of any of the reported terrorists actually being on the plane.

The media are ususally quite accurate about defaming someone, in the interests of not getting sued. Never was it more important to get the story right. Yet we are to believe that various news outlets all made the same exact mistakes on both sides of the Atlantic? Why were they in such a rush? Where did they get their information?

EDIT to add:

The story was not erronios. This cuts to the core of the truth about 9/11 and you label is erronious?


[edit on 1/18/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Just a side note, why do we always see OBL in a U.S. issue M-65 field jacket? A nice new one.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   
BBC interviewed the FBI after they discovered and confirmed 7 alleged hijackers were found alive after 9/11/01. The FBI spokesperson agreed a "mistake" had been made. When the insignificant error, of a name only, was recently corrected by BBC, all else was left standing as is. After that insignificant correction, BBC interviewed the FBI again. They never retracted they made a "mistake", and instead said they were "confident 19 people were involved". It started out as 18 fed to the media, and the next day the media reported 19 instead.

Translation - The FBI simply did not care if the alleged correct 19 were identified. Which also proves they never did have any DNA, or any other proof of their false allegations against 19 people's names and faces, and whose names and faces they did not care were correct. as long as they could feed the media 19 Arab looking names and faces within 48 hours of 9/11/01. And, thus, falsely attach them to bin Laden, whose name repeatedly appeared within a short few hours on 9/11/01, and were branded into people's brains though false.

I have no doubts they were running subliminals all day long on 9/11/01, before any events actually took place. People would never know they were seeing them though they were.

In essence, it began, in 9/2001, unraveling into tinsel strands, blowing in the wind, for the FBI's false reports included in the "offficial" report.

www.iraqtimeline.com...

"9/11 hijackers misidentified

September 23: Supposed 9/11 hijacker Waleed al-Shehri, named by the FBI as one of the 19 men aboard the four suicide flights, turns up alive and well in Casablanca, Morocco. Al-Shehri, who came forward after his name and photograph were published in the world media, says he had nothing to do with the attacks, and is a victim of misidentification. The identities of at least three other suspects named by the FBI as hijackers are now in doubt along with al-Shehri, who says he has been a pilot with a Saudi Arabian airline and is currently training in Morocco. Another suspect, Abdulaziz Al Omari, is also alive. Al Omari, an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, says he lost his passport in Denver while studying there, and says it is possible one of the hijackers used his passport to identify himself. A third named hijacker, Saeed Alghamdi, has been interviewed since the attacks; a fourth, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive. FBI Director Robert Mueller now acknowledges that the identities of several of the suicide hijackers is now in doubt. (BBC)"


Here is some real irony. Atta is alleged to be the pilot of alleged Flight 11, had no pilot license, and went disappearing. His father told BBC to check with MOSSAD for his whereabouts before and after 9/11/2001.

There is Waleed al-Shehri, someone with an actual pilot license issued in Saudia Arabia, and he is not listed as flying any planes, particularly alleged flight 11, on which he was alleged to have board that non-scheduled flight on 9/11/2001. Good thing, because if they think they have a lotta 'splainin' to do over Atta, they have a whole lot more 'splainin' to do over a falsely accused man still flying planes for an Saudi airline after 9/11/01.

www.welfarestate.com...

Trust me or not, those faces can just as easily be Iraeli as Arab. Only the names have been falsely changed to protect MOSSAD.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


This is only one of the "mistakenly" identified hijackers. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence of any of the reported terrorists actually being on the plane.


Actually it is three - the WRONG Wail Alshehri, by using a picure of the WRONG Waleed Alshehri, and the WRONG Abdulaziz Alomari.

What evidence are you looking for as to terrorists being on the plane? I can probably help.. have you looked at the flight manifests? How about the video survellance camera shots in the terminals (Mossaui Trial exhibits)


The media are ususally quite accurate about defaming someone, in the interests of not getting sued.


It was a mistake, not an intentional attempt to slander Mr. Alomari (Colorado) or Mr. Alshehri (Saudi Air Pilot) -- You don't think that the media makes mistakes? Heck, I think I read just the other day that Tim Tebow plays for the Florida State Seminoles.. And he is a well known American not some unknown Arabian with a difficult name.


Never was it more important to get the story right.


True, but there was ALOT going on at that time, wouldn't you agree? I am sure stories and reports were absolutelty flooding in all over the place, that is when stories can get run based on the best information avalible "AT THAT TIME." Doesn't make it right --just makes it reality.


Yet we are to believe that various news outlets all made the same exact mistakes on both sides of the Atlantic?


I wouldn't be surprized at all if the BBC went with the incorrect CNN information. It reminds me of the "Solomon Brothers bulding collapse" You can tell that BBC misinterpreted the information given to CNN (If you try at all) Just prior to the BBC WTC7 Blunder-- CNN was reporting "authorities ( FDNY Daniel Nigro) were reporting that 7 World Trade was either collapsing or in danger of collapse." Minutes later BBC reports "Solomon Brothers Building HAS CollapsED" Which was wrong-- obviously. because it was standing right behind her.

Simply an example of one media outlet parroting anothers information, but getting it wrong. Sometimes (like the preliminary reports of the hijackers)-- they both get it wrong.


Why were they in such a rush?
because it was newsworthy information


Where did they get their information?
Probably a "suspect list " from any number of investigative departments-- If I had to venture a guess, I would say Boston PD. (speculation) It seemed in the early days of the multiple investigations the Boston Globe had a lot of information on the terrorists, especially Flt 11. Which leads me to believe the Boston press had a good rapport with BPD. (again speculation-- but having previously been in law enforcement for 10 years I can see that being plausible)


The story was not erronios. This cuts to the core of the truth about 9/11 and you label is erronious?


Well look at the CNN screen capture again -- then look at the photgraphic explaination of my post above, and come to your own conclusions.

To me (and it may just be me?) It is pretty clear that the CNN report and "parroted" BBC report are erronious....and old, and hastily done to "break" a story.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
On Sept 11, 2001. I was stationed at Gulfport Mississippi. After morning quarters the whole battalion marched to the base auditorium for an un scheduled briefing on terrorism. Anybody who has served in the armed forces knows that terrorism briefing's are pretty common. Roughly every couple months it is standard procedure to have training on terrorists and othere things related.
What was odd about this time , was a few weeks prior we had already had our battalion briefing on terrorism and the like. But since the planes had not yet crashed into the towers that morning, nothing seemed unusual about the situation. After all we just go and do what our CO tells us to do.
The part that gets a little freaky is that on the morning of Sept 11, 01. Our Battalion training was on Osama Bin Laden and terrorist cells within the United States and abroad.

I remember specifically our XO, who was giving the briefing, via a slide show. Showing us pictures of different attacks that have happened throughout the world, and informing us that a terrorist cell called by the name of Al Qeada was being run by a man named Osama Bin Laden.

The part that I will remember for the rest of my life is when our CO interupted the training/briefing that morning to inform us what had happened. His exact words were " Attention every one . we have a real time situation that has just happened . Terrorists ( Yes he said terrorists) have just flown a commercial air liner into one of the World Trade Center buildings" and that the base has gone on High alert and everybody needs to report to there company HQ, to await further instructions. As our CO was reporting this information the projector was still running with a profile picture of Osama Bin Laden in the back ground. I've never really told anybody about this. But I always thought It was wierd that the day, the terrorist attacks took place was the day we had surprise training on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qeada. Coincidence? I'm not really sure anymore.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I live in the UK and would like to ask if anyone else remembers the photographs of Middle Easteners that were flashed up on our screens on 9/11.

There was never any mention about it and it only lasted a few seconds. My wife remembers it clearer than I do, she said it would have been sometime between 3 and 4 in the afternoon (GMT) because our son hadn't come home from school by then. We didn't have cable or satellite TV at the time so it must have been on one of the main channels, BBC or ITV.

At the time we thought that the TV station had been hijacked but maybe because it was over so quickly and with everything else that was going on we forgot about it for a while.

I hope someone else saw this or else maybe we are both going mad?



[edit on 18-1-2008 by cornixman]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Not sure of the peolpe's names, the Loose Change videographers etc, but isnt it convienient that these "documentary filmographers" just happened to be on the street outside the fire station to flim the first tower hit.

What exactly was their documentary about - up until the morning of 9/11?
-World Firefighting??

Aside from all information realted to that day, I bet if enough digging was done their would be some discrepancies regarding these camera toting cats!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join