Reply #19: Answers [View All]

[John Doe II]

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 FBI used the phrase "possible resident" for every hijacker. And for every hijacker they listed all locations they knew of. Yet for Abdulaziz there is only the entry: Hollywood. But the Commission insists he lived at leat since beginning of August in New Jersey (keep in mind that he only stayed 2 1/2 month in the US).
But in general I agree of course. We look for evidences whereever he may have lived. Though we have to keep the fact in mind that the FBI and the Commission do contradict each other.

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?

First of all your attitude would result in simpley saying: Trust the FBI; Well, why should I trust the FBI?

The visa is issued for Abdulaziz but if there is no other trace for the name Abdulaziz how the hell can the FBI link the alleged hijacker to the visa?
And why is he the only alleged hijacker who only uses aliases?
And certainly using Abdulrahman as an alias wouldn't be a good idea as this person existed in reality and was apparentl a friend of Atta even if the FBI tries to cover this up (Why do they cover it up?)
And the FBI isn't able (neither the Commission) to show any activity of Abdulaziz (even purchasing tickets or renting a car was done by Atta. At which occasion would he have needed all the aliases? And if the FBI clearly mistakenly quotes internally Abdulrahman as an alias (keep in mind they also give Vero Beach as an adress) are the other aliases not to be doubted?
But in general if the FBI as you said put all activities for theses different aliases under the name Abdulaziz at least you have to find any activity of this guy. But there is none as far as I know. Even getting his Virginia ID card. There is no hint that he went there personally.

Hypothetically speaking, could not finding a trail just mean that the hijacker was really good at covering his tracks?

Good point but he would be the only alleged hijacker who didn't leave a trace. And he would be the only muscle in New Jersey not to work out in a gym.
But I think we shouldn't forget one thing: The FBI claims he is a hijacker. Then they have to prove it. If they find no trail for which reason can they claim him to be a hijacker???

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?

Your question is justified but doesn't change all the questions raised. Just to specualte: There exists the theoretical possibility if 911 was an inside job with 19 patsies that one got called feet just before and one would be forced to invent the missing hijacer. I don't say this happened but your consideration is not a proof in any way that the guy existed.

And I really like to know:
They had Abdulaziz' passport on 911 (found coincidence coincidence in Atta's bag) yet on the following list which is at least from September 15 (as Hani is mentioned and Jarrah is written without "i") there is no photo of Abdulaziz. Why? Are we really to believe that the passport didn't containi any photo???
http://www2.sptimes.com/pdfs/terroristtrail.pdf