Meet the Dead Hijackers

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
What you may find interesting is that Atta’s father denied his son was involved with 911 and even claimed to have spoken to him post 911. In 1995 said the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son.

So in 1995 he predicted 9/11 which would happen in 2001 and the 7/7 London Bombings in 2002?

reply to post by PplVSNWO

PplVS....

The pilot Waleed al-Shehri who came forward after 9/11 has a different name to the hijacker, for instance. The Salem al-Hazmi who appeared in the press post the attacks is 26, the hijacker was 21.

Back to Waleed:

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Alshehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September...

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world. Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The first clue comes in his name. The FBI named the alleged hijacker as Waleed M al-Shehri from the beginning, with documentation later showing the M stood for Mohammad.

Meanwhile the "still alive" pilot was referred to as Waleed A or Waleed Ahmed al-Shehri:

Embry-Riddle officials have learned that Waleed Al-Shehri talked to U.S. government officials in Morocco earlier this week. An individual with a similar name was identified by the FBI in its September 14 announcement as being aboard American Airlines flight 11, the first plane to strike the World Trade Center. Embry-Riddle records show that a student with the name Waleed A. Alshehri graduated with a bachelor of science degree in aeronautical science...

www.erau.edu...
www.billstclair.com...




Please watch the fathers of three of the 9/11 hijackers as they appear in this video that commemorates the attacks.(2006)

They include the father of Mohand al-Shehri, one of the hijackers of United Airlines flight 175, which was crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
www.neildoyle.com...

reply to post by MrWendal


Good call.....It's nice to know stuff you post is getting read.

Sorry for the typo it was July of 2005 that he stated this...

Atta's father praises London bombs

Wednesday, July 20, 2005; Posted: 8:57 a.m. EDT (12:57 GMT)CAIRO, Egypt (CNN) -- The father of one of the hijackers who commandeered the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, praised the recent terror attacks in London and said many more would follow.

El-Amir said the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son.

He declared that terror cells around the world were a "nuclear bomb that has now been activated and is ticking."

The man, who gave his age as "at least 70," said he had no sorrow for what happened in London, and said there was a double standard in the way the world viewed the victims in London and victims in the Islamic world.

Cursing in Arabic, el-Amir also denounced Arab leaders and Muslims who condemned the London attacks as being traitors and non-Muslims.

He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks.

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 27-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]

So the FBI lists Waleed and Wail as brothers, they are brothers in real life. Except they got the wrong middle name. Originally they put up the names as Waleed M. Alshehri and Wail Alshehri. Then they changed it to Wail M. Alshehri and left Waleed alone. What are the chances that brothers would have the same middle name? Seems more likely that the men they were describing are the ones still alive and the FBI screwed up the middle initial for Waleed. They got the photograph right and background info except for the hijacker part.
Now they have no proof that the hijacker was a pilot, the real pilot from the flight school is alive and there were no reports of similar named individuals at the flight school.
So why haven't they updated the list since finding out the men they showed photographs of are alive? If it's stolen identity, then you are left with the fact that at least some hijackers were not identified as claimed.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Throughout the thread I have show an abundance of evidence that shows conclusively that all 19 hijackers listed were in fact the perpetrators of 911 and are in fact dead.

OK, I haven't read but the opening post so forgive me if I failed to see the facts. Maybe I will read it some more if I can find the time, but I find this whole subject to be of little significance - New evidence will keep coming as the train goes on. I'd rather avoid to use words 'conclusively' and 'in fact' as you can only echo the 'truth' that has been produced, not saying true or false.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I am not looking for "my" truth. I have found "the" truth.

I'm happy for you Those who have the truth needs nothing more.

I am still waiting for any actuial evidnece that all the hijackers are dead.

I have not seen any DNA reports to support that the all the hijackers are dead.

I have not seen any coroner reports that all the hijackers are dead.

So unless anyone can come up with this infomration then its only an opinion whenb you state the hijackers are all dead.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No real evidnece to debate trackingthethreat.com.

Hi Ultima1,

I'll avoid repeating the relevant information here, but in another thread I've addressed your reliance upon the contents of the trackingthethreat.com website :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind Regards,

Isaac

[edit on 28-4-2008 by IsaacKoi]

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
I avoid repeating the relevant information here, but in another thread I've addressed your reliance upon the contents of the trackingthethreat.com website,

But i must repeat myself yet again.

People have stated that all the hijakers are dead, BUT CANNOT PRRODUCE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM.

Oh and as far as the so called e-mail you sent to trackingthe threat. You make reference to it but do not show the actual e-mail, why is that ?


[edit on 28-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Personally I belive them to be all dead.

I belive what Ultima1 wants is undeniable proof that they are All dead.

Truth is you can only really show that by showing DNA evidence for each Individual.

No matter how reliable the sources you provided Captian some want 100 percent proof. Unfourntley at this time there is no 100 percent proof.

Although it seems pretty likley that they are

Originally posted by SouthernClarity
Personally I belive them to be all dead.

I belive what Ultima1 wants is undeniable proof that they are All dead.

Truth is you can only really show that by showing DNA evidence for each Individual.

No matter how reliable the sources you provided Captian some want 100 percent proof. Unfourntley at this time there is no 100 percent proof.

Although it seems pretty likley that they are

Even if one were to reproduce the chain of evidence documentation, Cterz will deny its validity since in their minds, the govt is responsible, they wouldn't be allowed to handle evidence if they were on trial. Valid claims, ok.

But it ignores the fact that they couldn't come up with an alternate chain of evidence that would be likely to happen in any such event. So most reasonable folks would question the "handlers" and accept their testimony. Cterz don't. They want absolute proof, that ONLY falls in line with their standards of custody, and not within society's.

There's a logical fallacy in their argument. Unreasonable proof or some such?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

People have stated that all the hijakers are dead, BUT CANNOT PRRODUCE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM.

I would have to disagree with this statement. There is quite a bit of evidence presented within this thread alone. Saying there is not one shred in not accurate. I think for someone to need 100% undeniable proof is not appropriate. If this were any other tragic event (tsunami, tornado, etc) people wouldn't be in search for such definitive evidence.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I would have to disagree with this statement. There is quite a bit of evidence presented within this thread alone. .

Then show me actual, hard evidence that all the hijakcers are dead that has been posted.

I mean people ask me to show evindece when i post something so its only fair that people show evidence when i ask.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Sir,

It appears the OP has posted quite a bit of evidence. Is it all bunk? Holding on to a theory that the hijackers are still alive is counterproductive to any search you may be having for the truth. They are dead. Their families even agree.

It's a valid argument to ask if the guv got the id's right.

But if you accept that the planes were hijacked and flown into buildings..... then the hijackers, whoever they were, are living it up with the 72 virgins...

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
It appears the OP has posted quite a bit of evidence.

No, he mostly posted information not evidence.

I do not know if he understands the difference.



[edit on 29-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

I'm yet to see evidence that proves that all of the alleged terrorists are dead.

Information about them, their families, their beliefs, etc is not evidence of their death.

reply to post by tezzajw


I'll have to disagree with you. DNA is evidence. The videos that the hijackers made were evidence. The videos of them at the airports are evidence.

What you do is take the evidence presented with the additional information and the conclusion drawn is that they are all dead. To suggest otherwise, in my opinion is ignoring the information provided.

**TY**

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


You can disagree all you want. Fact is, videos and blurbs about their lives are not evidence or proof of their deaths, especially when the videos don't even show them boarding the planes that were supposed to have crashed.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I'll have to disagree with you. DNA is evidence.

If collected properly and presented for independent verification, DNA evidence shows evidence that that particular DNA sample belong to that particular person.

Against which family members was the alleged terrorists' DNA measured?

The videos that the hijackers made were evidence. The videos of them at the airports are evidence.

No, that's not evidence that they are dead. That's evidence that they could have been in a video.

Watching a person in a video does not prove that they are dead.

Originally posted by tezzajw
If collected properly and presented for independent verification, DNA evidence shows evidence that that particular DNA sample belong to that particular person.

It was collected properly. It was analyzed properly.

Therefore it's proof.