Reply #18: You're welcome. [View All]

[Make7]

Yes, we do seem to have different perspectives on most issues, but that's part of what makes this place interesting - different people with different ideas.
____________________

From what I have seen the FBI said Alomari possibly lived in Hollywood, so I think it is fair to just say we are looking for evidence of the alleged hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari, wherever he may have lived.

The problem that I see with the main question you pose is this: we do not even know what this person's real name is. I think the issue of aliases, stolen identities, and fake identities are central to the issue, because we don't know what names he may have been using, where he might have used them, and when he might have used them. How can you trace someone using the name Abdulaziz Alomari if it's possible that the only time he ever used that name was on his visa to get into the country?

Every scrap of information about him may in fact be referring to one of his aliases, but the FBI could be using his visa as a reference point and putting all the information under that name. That would certainly explain some of the anomalies in the case. I'm not saying that's what happened - only that it is a possibility. It is possible that in your search for Abdulaziz Alomari, you won't find anything because he was using the name Abdulrahman Alomon. Or Abdulrahman Al-Omari. Or Abdul Henderson. How would we know?

John Doe II wrote:

You write:

Say there is no proof that the alleged hijacker Abdul Aziz Alomari existed before 9/11/01. How does that one missing piece cause the whole official story to fall apart?

May I first of all ask you back:
What kind of investigation would that be that says he was a hijacker although this guy didn't exist? How can this happen? Wouldn't this imply a simple cover up? And could you give me any reason for this kind of cover up, to invent a hijacker if 911 was indeed an attack by al Qaeda?

I guess I should have phrased that more carefully. No proof in the sense of what you are looking for in this thread. They already have his visa, the ATM photo, the airport security photos, the people who admit to selling him or helping him get phony ID's, etc. They haven't said that he didn't exist, you are the one claiming that. But even if they could find no trace of him before 9/11/01 that doesn't necessarily mean that he never existed. It means that they cannot confirm his existence. They may not be able to figure out what his real name is, or where he came from. If he used one of his fake ID's only to purchase his plane ticket and board the plane, would they be able to trace his steps to find anything out about him? Maybe, maybe not. Hypothetically speaking, could not finding a trail just mean that the hijacker was really good at covering his tracks?

Don't you think they would do a better job if they had to invent a hijacker because 911 wasn't an attack by Al Qaeda? I think they would have plenty of evidence on every single hijacker pointing to Al Qaeda, all put in place before 9/11, if they were trying to cover up their own involvement. They've been doing shit like that for years all over the world, why wouldn't they do it for 9/11?
____________________

If nothing else, those quotes I posted might point to a couple of paths for further investigation. There might be something in the transcripts of the secret hearing for El-Atriss that were unsealed. Or in the affidavit about Villalobos. If someone could get ahold of either one, it might tell if their dealings with Alomari were face to face meetings or not. It's difficult to know how close their contact actually was from what was in the news reports.

-Make7