FBI Documents contradict 911 report

Some people have stated that the hijackers had help already here in the US but was refuted by many. The story tells that they did. Once again the OS is ppulled into question. Surprising? Not really.

“In the official version of the story now, the hijackers drift around L.A. listlessly for two weeks before chancing to come across Bayoumi in a restaurant [according to Bayoumi’s account],” Thompson added. “Whereupon he's an incredible good Samaritan and takes them down to San Diego, pays their rent, etc.” ”But from the FBI's timeline, we now know the hijackers started staying at Bayoumi's place on Jan. 15 – the very same day they arrived,” Thompson says. “So obviously they must have been met at the airport and taken care of from their very first hours in the US. That's huge because the FBI maintains to this day that the hijackers never had any accomplices in the US.”

I found the following interesting:

The FBI timeline reveals that Al-Ghamdi, the alleged United hijacker, was booked onto several flights scheduled for after the 9/11 attacks, a piece of information not documented in the Commission’s final report.

Full story here

The General Council to the 9/11 commission has already stated that 90% of the report comes from false statements given them.
The FBI used to be good at covering things up and misdirection. Maybe we need new people at the top.

True indeed. I was focused on the timeline and how they had help already here. But we knew that!?

You might find this interesting.

www.trackingthethreat.com...

Listed as a passenger in seat 12A.

One of five hijackers who worked out at a Gold's Gym in Greenbelt, Md., for a few days earlier this month. The FBI has obtained the phone records from his mobile phone.

He was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment against Zacarias Moussaoui.

reply to post by REMISNE


That is interesting! Thanks

reply to post by mikelee


If anything this info backs up the OS:

Point one reaffirms that the main reason AQ successfully pulled off 9/11 was because agencies didn't (and still don't) communicate.

Point two shows that AQ were smart enough to not book one-way tickets...

So, good job REINFORCING the OS.

Originally posted by seethelight
. . . agencies didn't (and still don't) communicate.

Well that's a relief. At least the US is not giving into terrorism on that front.

Communication is for commies, third world countries with problems to solve and lame ass socialist countries like all those arctic circle countries full of frostbacks trying to smuggle their butts into Florida.

America is a "can do", every man woman and child for himself, screw socialism kind of country. We don't need all that communication guff.

Vote Satan in 2012.

(The preceding has been a paid political announcement from the "Satan in 2012 Committee". Vote early, vote often.)

[edit on 25-1-2010 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 25-1-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by seethelight


While I understand your enthusiasm claiming it backs up the OS there are still many issues that are faulty with the OS and those two references you cited are minor. Your claiming a victory after the OS has been proven a lie.
Nice try though.

But unlike yourself, I try to see the entire picture instead of coming to ATS with a one agenda mindset that is based on defending one's beliefs over providing facts & documents instead of half assed theories based in one's attitude & stubbornness.

One point is to always be open to ideas & concepts beyond what you believe otherwise you fall into a void that will keep you in the dark.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by mikelee]

And...

If you guys who swear by the OS fairy tale were doing any research at all instead of coming to ATS 911 forum and basically just being a roadblock to the truth, then YOU would have found that instead of me.

Kinda puts you OSer's in the proper context now don't it?

Originally posted by mikelee
And...

If you guys who swear by the OS fairy tale were doing any research at all instead of coming to ATS 911 forum and basically just being a roadblock to the truth, then YOU would have found that instead of me.

Kinda puts you OSer's in the proper context now don't it?

Do you really consider pulling articles off of "Rawstory" doing research? Wow. You don't believe dedicated American law enforcement agents because they won't personally send you copies of their working reports but you'll take crap from any website and treat like gospel because it reinforces you obvious bias.

Once again this is just proof that there isn't a single Official Story.

When I've asked for a definition of it TM people usually say - well, the story given out by officials. And the media. And any alphabet agency.

But some of the time they disagree. So answer me this: if the FBI aren't singing from the same hymn sheet as everyone else, doesn't that suggest that they haven't been given the same lines? And that therefore the notion of a cross-agency cover up is flawed?

Indeed, isn't it more likely that in the scramble to cover their own asses each agency gave out a story that made it sound like it was least at fault?

(Finally, I fully endorse Satan as a candidate for 2012)

reply to post by mikelee


It just is another found Lie , 1 of many , to add fuel to the public's

distrust of the OS.

Nice Find,

reply to post by mikelee


riiiight

reply to post by hooper


If I had posted a document or story from the DoD it wouldn't have mattered. All you types like to do is gripe, fuss & bitch about what is presented because you OS'ers do not do ANY research much less post anything of value.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Once again this is just proof that there isn't a single Official Story.

Maybe the Truth Movement should have called it a "Cacaphony of Official Voices".

When I've asked for a definition of it TM people usually say - well, the story given out by officials. And the media. And any alphabet agency.

The term is something of a catch-all phrase.

But some of the time they disagree. So answer me this: if the FBI aren't singing from the same hymn sheet as everyone else, doesn't that suggest that they haven't been given the same lines? And that therefore the notion of a cross-agency cover up is flawed?

I think among truthers it is assumed that there is some echelon of oversight and probably a degree of compartmentalized reporting that would enable coordination of a cover up at a level above that of any given agency.

Indeed, isn't it more likely that in the scramble to cover their own asses each agency gave out a story that made it sound like it was least at fault?

That's a credible fall back. It's like when a "pride" of lions gets attacked by a herd of antelopes and the lions start running in every direction so no one antelope can decide which lion to pounce on.

(Finally, I fully endorse Satan as a candidate for 2012)

No financial contribution is necessary. We already have what we want.

There is a great quote from the British historian, A.J.P. Taylor in his book The Origins of the Second World War that relates to the lack of an official story from the Bush administration.

On page 38 of the Penguin edition, as part of a discussion of what documents and archives were published by the various Great Powers after the war concerning their conduct of it, he writes:

The reasons for Soviet silence are, like everything else in Soviet policy, a matter of conjecture. Have the Soviet government something peculiarly disgraceful to hide? Do they shrink from submitting their conduct, however remote, to general scrutiny? Are there perhaps no records - the commissariat of foreign affairs having been too incompetent to make any? Or have the Soviet government learned the lessson of many past disputes over historical topics - that the only watertight way of sustaining a case is never to submit evidence in it's support?

I think he got it on the last attempt. This is definitely the mindset of the Bush administration. Presenting a case would lead to debate and some of those "outrageous conspiracy theories" would rear their ugly heads.

But George Bush has already said that is forbidden. He said "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories, concerning the attacks of September 11th.", but what he really meant is "Let us tolerate only one outrageous conspiracy theory, concerning the attacks of September 11th."

[edit on 25-1-2010 by ipsedixit]

Thanks for a reasoned and thought-provoking response.

I like your description of the "OS" as a "catch-all" term. Unfortunately less discerning TM people sometimes latch onto inconsistencies in different reports and use this to suggest "flaws" in the "OS". I'm just pointing out that such a tactic proves nothing, because just such a situation could occur without any conspiracy at all in the fragmented world of US governmental agencies.

I also agree that Taylor's quote is apposite. However, I think the reason that the administration has been unwilling to fully examine its role in 9/11 is not because it was implicated, but because it failed to protect US citizens.