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.

 

Alleged Pentagon attack witness Aziz ElHallan, I mean, Aziz ElHhallou

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
First off I'd like to kiss a little behind and thank ATS for letting me post this absolutely critical yet controversial information.

Thank God for the internet.

So anyway....

One of the hardest things for people to overcome in the psychological battle of coming to grips with the 9/11 conspiracy is the notion that real people who seem like your every day guy had to have been involved.

There is no way around it.

This conspiracy involved dozens of intellectuals/professionals/assets/operatives/mercenaries (as well as dupes and patsies) who were no doubt mostly convinced that what they were participating in was for the greater good while simultaneously profiting heavily AND compromising their lives.

CIT is committed to laying out the evidence regardless of who it implicates and letting you make your own decision about who was involved.

In one of the most egregious examples of dubious witness accounts we have Aziz ElHhallou.

On 9/11 he showed up at the Fox News Studios to present a piece of the jet that was allegedly flight 77 on live TV.

He claims it landed by his car and that he just picked it up and brought it to the news studio.

In essence he admits to a federal offense on live television since this would obviously be removing evidence from the scene of a crime. (an act of terrorism no less)

He has a smirk in his face the entire time he does it. Watch his interview here:


Google Video Link


Isn't that smirk unsettling? Particularly when the reporter says that "it's almost macabre to have this".

Now check this out....

He claims he was on route 27 for "a good 20 minutes" after the event which is when we are supposed to believe he simply snatched a piece of the aircraft that allegedly landed by his car.

But here he is up at the Navy Annex in the very first Jason Ingersoll image that was taken less than 5 minutes after the event. We know this because we have the original images with the time stamp AND because we confirmed it direct with Jason Ingersoll himself.



Here is the original:



And why does he say "most of the cars had their windshields broken because of the sound of the airplane"????

Yet NOBODY else reported such a ridiculous thing happening!

There is nothing to support this statement which strongly suggests Aziz was making up details on the fly during this interview on 9/11.

If you notice....during the interview they spell his name "ElHallan" but when they announce him it's pronounced "ElHhallou".

We have confirmed that his more known name is ElHhallou. Here is a charitable organization that he is a member of:

www.washingtonmoroccanclub.org...


Here he is at a a charitable event with the Washington Elite:
(scroll down to bottom)
www.washingtonlife.com...



So bottom line...there is very strong photographic evidence demonstrating how Aziz was not on the highway when he says he was.

Make up your own mind what to accept in regards to the implications of this evidence.







[edit on 11-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Thanks Craig, the media loves the macabre, and this no exception. It's interesting how we all just ate it up as the gospel in the beginning. The more you look into some of the more sensational witnesses, the more questions that pop up.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Thanks infinityoreilly.

The pseudokeptics won't touch this one.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Wont touch what? That kooks come out of the walls on days like that, just to get their 15 minutes of fame?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Wont touch what? That kooks come out of the walls on days like that, just to get their 15 minutes of fame?


Nice.

So he is just allowed to parade this unlawful removal of evidence on the news.

Plus since we know he wasn't on the highway it begs the question of where he got the "flight 77" piece anyway!

The roads were blocked so he would have had to run down there to go find one and grab it when the place was combing with feds and first responders and was already an official "crime scene".

Unless of course someone gave it to him and set him up with Fox News.

THIS is what the media pushed and is STILL being referenced today on 757 impact supporters sites as proof that 77 hit the building.

Yet it's not fishy to you at all.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Wow... just wow Craig.

You are borderline accusing this man of being in on it. At the minimum you are calling him a liar.

Just to let you know, he and the Washington Moroccan Club have been informed of your accusations.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
CaptainObvious, the OP never came out and actually said that he called him a liar or accused him of anything.

He simply said that he was presenting the evidence and that the reader/viewer was to make up their mind on this man.

Craig even says: "Make up your own mind what to accept in regards to the implications of this evidence."

And given the evidence it can lead one to believe that this man is not being totally truthful; however, he could be telling the truth 100%. I think the evidence is laid out in a way that a reader could decide either way on the issue; it is also presented very well. This does not look like an accusation by the OP, more simply just a stating of information that he had found and was presenting. It gives new info that I was not aware of and if the people here at ATS are going to deny ignorance, we have to look at all sides to get a full perspective on an issue.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by ChrisJr03]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ChrisJr03
 


Chris I stated "borderline" about being in on it. But his post IS implying that he is lying about his account.

Craig also states that this man is guilty of an "act of terrorism no less."



Isn't that smirk unsettling? Particularly when the reporter says that "it's almost macabre to have this".


What is Craig implying here? That the guy is happy about the death of all those people? I don't know.

His other post is also accusatory and quite frankly stinks.

Craig have you contacted this witness? I was able to obtain his e-mail VERY easily.

Perhaps you can get his story? Tell him he is guilty of removing evidence from a crime scene?

I'm surprised ATS allowed you to link to his charitable organization. Bad taste in my opinion.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Wow... just wow Craig.

You are borderline accusing this man of being in on it. At the minimum you are calling him a liar.

Just to let you know, he and the Washington Moroccan Club have been informed of your accusations.




So, as you cant argue against the evidences, you simply attack the person who brought it up ?

Its a normal (loser) move when someone is on the defensive.
This just prove that you have no explanation to the given facts.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Great find again Craig, man that smirk, it's just so obvious....

Yea let me just pull out this pristine piece of 77 out of my back pocket.

What a crock of crap.

Yea I'm calling him a liar and his STORY a fake right now. So?



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
"borderline" about being in on it. But his post IS implying that he is lying about his account.

Craig also states that this man is guilty of an "act of terrorism no less."


That is NOT what I said.

Here is what I said: "In essence he admits to a federal offense on live television since this would obviously be removing evidence from the scene of a crime. (an act of terrorism no less)"

The act of terrorism is the crime from which he illegally removed evidence from the scene of.

Are you denying that this is illegal?

Don't you find it the least bit strange that this was so casually paraded on live TV?




Isn't that smirk unsettling? Particularly when the reporter says that "it's almost macabre to have this".


What is Craig implying here? That the guy is happy about the death of all those people? I don't know.


There are lots of things that one can get off a smirk but it's typically not grief and there is absolutely no question that he repeatedly smirked throughout that interview. Do you deny this? The reporter is trying desperately to suggest that Aziz must be all emotionally broken up from his experience. He is likely doing this because this isn't the slightest bit what Aziz's body language conveyed and the reporter also sensed how awkward and unsettling it was.





Craig have you contacted this witness? I was able to obtain his e-mail VERY easily.

Perhaps you can get his story? Tell him he is guilty of removing evidence from a crime scene?


We tried to reach him by phone with no luck. Are you sure his email is current? PM me his email and I'll be happy to send him one.

Frankly I highly doubt he would talk to us particularly now since if his email is current YOU alerted him already.

Regardless, the evidence that he is lying, is the Jason Ingersoll image, not something we said.

If he hadn't seen the Ingersoll image it would have been a great interview if we found him and he agreed.





I'm surprised ATS allowed you to link to his charitable organization. Bad taste in my opinion.


It's called investigative reporting and it's entirely relevant.

I didn't say ANYTHING about the charity because that is not why I posted it.

Naturally you think it's immaterial that he used a completely different last name when he told his alleged Pentagon attack experience on live TV to the world.

We think it's entirely relevant to the notion that photographic evidence proves his account false and I simply posted that link as evidence showing how he goes by a different name.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Craig is absolutely correct in his analysis on this. The man was allowed to keep and show a piece of the debris which seems to incredible to believe. It was a crime scene and *IF* we are to believe the *OFFICIAL Tale* then no-one knew what was going on at that point.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


Let's wait and see what his reply is. After all he WAS there. I promise to disclose all correspondence that I have (if any) with him....

I stand by my post. It was in BAD taste to post a link to the organization where he is on the board of directors.

It stinks of a Killtown move.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


You can't really be this clueless.

If I DIDN'T post that you would suggest I was falsely accusing him of using a different name on 9/11!

I simply provided evidence proving it.

To suggest that providing evidence to back up my claims is in "bad taste" is one of the most absurd and illogical responses I have ever heard.

It's a clearly desperate attempt to deflect from the evidence and focus on me personally.

You are so transparent.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Ranke,

You and CIT are grasping at ANYTHING now. Your fly-over theory and NoC have all been proven false until you show a flight path that is possible.

You then rake a guy across the coals and divulge some of his personal information. You and CIT and PFFFT all like to get peoples personal info....not sure why... but you do.

You know the freaks that lurk on CT sites. They make life miserable for many good people.

So this guy may have taken a piece of flight 77. Did he realize it was against the law? I don't know. We can try to ask him that.

Was the 20 minutes he stated actually 20 minutes?

You were not there on 911 Craig. You do not know what was going through that mans mind.

The smirk... that you claim he has on his face. What are you implying?

You make your posts out to be informative and innocent, but EVERYONE knows what your attempting to do here.

What you have done here is taken the possible embellishment of a witness on 911 and attempted to smear in into something sinister.

Again... I will promise you that if he responds to me, I will forward you all the information.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 




You know the freaks that lurk on CT sites. They make life miserable for many good people.


That is a grand sweeping statement that is against the rules here. We might disagree with many people and even feel certain things but we should just stick as much as possible with the facts as we see them.

I think we should also keep this about what Craig has posted, and the eyewitness himself and see if the story matches up.


I also see hypocrisy on your part since William Rodriguez,who heard explosions from below the Towers, you have gone after him and his "inconsistent testimony"!


[edit on 13-4-2008 by talisman]

[edit on 13-4-2008 by talisman]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   




Is it NOT a fact that freaks lurk on CT site....? like most any other sites? I was not referring to anyone in particular. Nor was I attacking anyone personally. Ranke supplied contact information for a man that he is calling a liar and in his eyes a possible perp. Read his OP.

If this forum spoke ONLY of facts, the 911 truth movement would not exist here.


[edit on 13-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


"Freaks can be on any site lurking". Why the need to point out "CT SITES"???

What "FACT" can prove that freaks lurk here?? What "FACT" would you use?

[edit on 13-4-2008 by talisman]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


Well... see, now your baiting me to state a member here is a freak. Since we can both agree freaks lurk at all sites...that would include this one.

IT is also a fact that Val McClatchey's information was posted on a 911 forum and she was harassed at work and her home.

One of the persons that did that harassing was a member here, but has since been banned.


[edit on 13-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
A couple warnings have been issued due to the nature of the activity in responses within this thread.

And unfortunately, due to the inability for some to remain civil, I'm closing this thread.

If any participants feel this closure is hampering discussion of an important issue, feel free to begin a new thread, referencing the material brought up in this one. However, please be certain to remain focused on the issues and not each other.







 
8

log in

join