911review.com takes a look at the "big tent"

[KJF]

www.911review.com has a new(ish) section concerning the "big tent" strategy that has been used by the 9/11 truth movement.

Needless to say, I like the article a lot. It begins:

The Big Tent refers to strategy of inclusiveness to grow the 9/11 Truth Movement. Big Tent emphasizes tolerance of diverse ideas and theories over quality of evidence and reasoning. The strategy has long been reflected in websites and books that uncritically endorse the gamut of materials purporting to disprove the official story, as if the authors never met a theory of official complicity they didn't like.

and continues

This website demonstrates in a number of ways that the primary weapon of the cover-up in the information war is the showcasing of unfounded and absurd theories purporting to disprove the official story. Represented as typifying the work of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists", such theories serve to create a false dialectic with the effect of overshadowing challenges to the official story based on evidence and reason.

To the extent that all of the work of 9/11 skeptics can be successfully portrayed as belonging to the same ball of wax, it can be dismissed as the work of conspiracy theorists with deficient critical thinking skills, the quality of the better work notwithstanding. The Big Tent strategy thus plays into the primary tool of the cover-up.

And I like this bit too:

Rather than growing the 9/11 Truth Movement, the Big Tent strategy promises to limit it by facilitating straw man attacks such as Popular Mechanics', and by discouraging the peer-review that the work of 9/11 skeptics desperately needs. Any investigation, to be taken seriously, must have a means of distinguishing between baseless and substantial claims. The progress of science is a result of the application of the scientific method, which subjects theories to a repeated process of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and revision, enforced by peer review. Theories not supported by or invalidated by observation are discarded. The 9/11 Truth Movement's Big Tent has functioned in a way that is antithetical to the process of science, as it does not admit any process for invalidating theories.
http://www.911review.com/denial/bigtent.html

I suppose one could criticise the website and its sister site http://911research.wtc7.net for sometimes supporting arguments it really shouldn't - hijackers still alive springs to mind. I think there is quite a bit of argument inside the movement, but it mostly seems to focus on the endless debates between planers and no-planers, whereas some of the other stuff gets missed out.

A random list of stuff we should drop:
(1) Hijackers still alive;
(2) No Arabs on Flight 77;
(3) Osama had nothing to do with it and is a nice man really;
(4) "Hi mom, this is Mark Bingham";
(5) Mohamed Atta's passport was found on 9/11;
(6) Oil pipeline in Afghanistan, although this hasn't actually been mentioned for ages;
(7) I would also encourage all you no-planers out there to read Jim Hoffman's essay "The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows", which you can find here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

[Nozebro]

1. The "Big Tent of BS" for CT'ers is what you're promoting this time.

Please don't include "we" in your list of stuff (sic) "we" should drop -- unless and until you can substantiate your list of CT'er notions.

Your sign is coming into clearer view.

[DrDebug]

5. A like to second that

Please don't include me in that "we," because I happened to disagree on all seven points which ought to be "dropped." How about dropping the 9/11 "truth" movement being supported by Adnan Khasshogi, because he has his fingerprints all over 9/11.

[RedSock]

7. well, you HAVE to drop #5

Because his passport was not found. That was a reporting error.

[DrDebug]

9. Okay and #3 as well

I just read American Judas by Robert Paulsen again and it contained the following statement:

The drug trade helped unite the ISI and Osama bin Laden, who was said to have taken a 15% cut of the Afghan drug trade money in exchange for protecting smugglers and laundering their profits.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2665940

Osama is not a nice guy and the CIA/ISI probably informed him of 9/11 as well and that they planned to make him the patsy which he probably didn't mind either...

[seatnineb]

2. I like this quote: "and racist ideas like "the Jews did it."

But........

There is no such thing as a Jewish race.

There is no such thing as a Muslim,Christian,Hindu or Buddist race.....

And no planers have absolutely fuck all to do with podders.

The poison pills: These are extreme ideas that have no basis in evidence and serve to discredit evidence-based research about the core facts of the attack through guilt-by-association. Examples are the no-planes and pod-planes ideas popularized by propaganda such as In Plane Site, and racist ideas like "the Jews did it."
http://www.911review.com/infowars.html

[Nozebro]

3. KaBOOM! They must have gotten a new contract deal to continue on. EOM

nt

[mirandapriestly]

4. infuriating

Even on stations like NPR the hosts will
"confuse" attacking Iraq with 9-11, it's like "they're all the same anyway".

[DrDebug]

6. What happened to the team8plus website?

I do not know whether you or John Doe II is running that site, but the website gives no response anymore for a couple of weeks already.

[seatnineb]

21. Strange ...because it works for me.....we had some hacking problems....

...but they were resolved....

Try again:

http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?6

Let us know what you see...if anything...

[DrDebug]

22. No, but I just used an any open proxy and that does work

I guess your protection against hackers should be mildened a bit, because my regular connection just times out on the site and google removed you as well so their spider can't get in anymore either.

[seatnineb]

23. Thanks DD will tell Frank and Brad ...see what they can do n/t

[KJF]

10. Wait a minute...

... you're distancing yourself from the pod-people or not?

[seatnineb]

19. I was never part of the "pod people"!..that is Commander Pod's AKA

....as Phil Jayhan's little clique....

Want some proof that I am not a podder.........

I managed to decieve Jayhan by showing him this fake/manipulated foto of ua175 approaching the WTC:



As you can see...the above fake foto is missing "the pod".....

But that did not stop Phil "Commander Pod " Jayhan from not only still seeing his "pod"....but also failing to notice that the above foto was in fact a poor fake.

In the words of Commander Pod:
Jun 30 2006, 12:43 AM
For example, seatinjab posted a pic that he says shows no pod. Well, actually it does show one, but its not the best photo of it. I could be just as disingenuous and post a picture of the buildings falling down showing no squibs, and say; "SEE! No
Bombs!" DUH!!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6453&st=270

[KJF]

33. Your word would have been enough

But I don't understand why you're not a pod person.

[seatnineb]

35. Give me a reason why I or anyone-else should be a "pod" person.n/t

[canetoad]

8. 911 Review are starting to act like gatekeepers

If and when the real truth about 911 is uncovered, it will turn out that some people were right and some were wrong. 911 Review are acting as though they, and they alone have the gravitas and credibility to place the 'stamp of approval' on any 911 theory or research.

The way the concept of a '911 Truth Movement' has taken hold is also making me uncomfortable. Is 911 Review any truthier than WebFairy? Probably, but who gives a damn. A movement is not an easily definable thing. It's not a club or a political party. A movement, in my view, is a shifting stream of thought sometimes accompanied by action. It has no committees or secretaries, no presidents or police.

The phrase 'eat their own' has been seen about a lot since the election. IMHO that is exactly what 911 Review are attempting to do, and I hope they don't gag on the bones. I have been a constant defender of Dylan Avery and the various incarnations of Loose Change, not because I believe the content is accurate but because it was a mobilizer. You will never know exactly how many votes it turned in the Dem direction, therefore increasing the possibility of a proper investigation being carried out.

Edit:typo

[KJF]

11. The suggestion is that...

... some of our arguments are good (say, the CIA has been in bed with Islamic fundamentalism for decades), some of our arguments are bad (for example, the Star Wars beam weapon) and some of our arguments are average (hijackers trained at US bases). I am saying that there should be lesser acceptance of the bad ones, and that perhaps we might want to play down the average ones, leaving us with a core of explosive demolition, lots of warnings, the CIA and NSA are demonstrably lying about their knowledge of the plot, Saeed Sheikh, WTC cough, etc. I think that if we go in this direction, we will do better. Surely, there must be some arguments that have been advanced that you didn't like?

Re Avery: I understand what you mean, but if the LCers had been more careful, the film would have been much more accurate and therefore much better.

[Nozebro]

16. When you say "our" arguments, don't include me. I'm not a CT'er and I

resent any efforts to make it seem otherwise. Do you get paid for doing these things? If so, the taxpayers are getting ripped-off again -- even if your paymaster is R.M.Scaiffe (tax-free "foundation").

[DrDebug]

17. There is a difference between weak and bad

The star wars program is weakly linked to 9/11, however bear in mind that TrailBlazer was one of the first steps in the Star Wars program, however it's importance in the overall program is vital, because without a Trans Orbital Positioning System (1) you cannot even begin an outer space program because all positioning system upto now are earth based. Since 20 December 2002, at 8pm Moscow Time (2) we now have a Trans Orbital Positioning System.

The reason which ties it in with 9/11 is that Trailblazer program was developed under the order of the National Reconnaissance Office, with sub contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and took partly place in the wing of the Pentagon, which was later officially hit by Flight 77. (3) On September 11th, Booz Allen Hamilton lost 3 employees in the Pentagon: Gerald Fisher, Terence Lynch, and Ernest Willcher. They apparently worked for the government on Trailblazer 1

James R. Clapper, a Booz, Allen, & Hamilton employee, leads the project, and at the same time develops new satellite capabilities and launced a "national security payload" (without any description) into space on September 8, 2001 at 8:25 a.m. (PDT) (7). But that's not all, because he also worked on a terror drill for Sept 11th 9 AM (EST), crashing planes into the headquarters, as later confirmed by NRO Officer John Fulton. (4)

The reason for its importance is that the PNAC (5) proposes to control the new international commons of space and cyberspace and pave the way for the creation of a new military service — U.S. Space Forces — with the mission of space control (6) and TrailBlazer can play a vital role in both.

So the TrailBlazer link is a weak link and can be better described as a subproject which was hidden during 9/11, there is a link between 9/11 and TrailBlazer and TrailBlazer literally paved the way for the future project to militarize outer space.

And how is it possible that the CIA "plane crash in building simulation" was coordinated by the same people who also worked on TrailBlazer, and whose offices were hit by an alleged incoming Flight 77? Why aren't we allowed to ask those questions? After all it's a bit weird, ain't it?

Sources:
1. http://www.spacenewsfeed.co.uk/2000/3September2000.html
2. http://www.transorbital.net/TB_TA.html (Too lazy to convert it to GMT or EST)
3. http://911review.org/inn.globalfreepress/AbuGhraib-Titan-911.html (Guess what a copy of the story is at 911review)
4. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm#ap
5. http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/PNAC_101
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
7. http://www.nro.gov/PressReleases/prs_rel53.html (Three days before 9/11!)

[Nozebro]

18. You always deliver excellent analysis, research, clear thinking, and

a more sophisticated way of looking at what the 9/11 perps were up to. Thanks for all of your many contributions to this forum.

[RedSock]

29. good stuff

good stuff, but if i understand kjf correctly, he means that we shouldn't push something like what you wrote as a top point.

there are many aspects of 9/11 that could be told to the average american, but i think the more in-depth stuff is not good to open with.

not that it isn't important or relevant or anything like that, just that talking right off the bat about p-tech, for example, is going to put many people to sleep.

in school, you didn't start with trig, you started with addition and subtraction. same thing with telling new people about 9/11.

[seatnineb]

37. Wow!....another great piece of research n/t!

[medienanalyse]

12. "we" ? "should" drop ?

Kevin,

to drop means to have first picked up.
"Hijackers alive" i.e. never was meant literaly. If anybody was a hijacker inside the planes of 9/11 he could never be alive anymore. The whole issue always implied that persons named as hijackers were not at all in the planes of 9/11, that they were pilots and so on in Saudi Arabia, Maroc and wherever. And this is a fact, true and nothing to drop.

Do you mean: the hijackers were identified once and for all? That is still untrue. Take flight 77: everybody else was identified except 5 bodies who were said to be the remains of the five Arabs. This is no identification at all. You want to drop the issue? Why ?

You know about John Doe IIs research about the unclear identities. I have never read an argument dismissing it.


Then you recommend Jim Hoffman's essay "The Pentagon Attack".
Nice one. It contains a lot of stuff I always said since years like in my file http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/falschespuren5.html.

But it forgets to evaluate two facts:
1) the columns he refers to were only existing in the wedge which was hit. Shreddering a plane by steel beams is a way to kep other parts of the Pentagon-building safe. That is the opposite part where Rumsfeld has his office and Wolfowitz, where the NMCC is situated. What a coincidence that this wedge was not hit but left out in the long spiral the AAL77 took. Looks like planed in a planspiel :http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/planspiel.html.

2) to investigate the material of the plane (aluminium) is not bad. It is not bad to show how it can burn, dissolve and so on. But to leave out the counterpart, the wall in its structire, is not a scientific approach. What was the special material of and on the Pentagon wall in this wedge? Nobody talks about it although it gives an explanation of the hole diameter.
The CTers do not talk about it because it destroys the impression they like so much, the OCTers hate to spread the knowledge of the PENREN program which prepared THIS WEDGE and only this one for the impact.

[KJF]

13. Division of arguments

I would break it down like this:

(1) Arguments I definitely don't agree with: e.g. the Pentagon's walls were made of reinforced concrete, hijackers still alive. I am suggesting we should drop these arguments.

(2) Arguments I think will not check out, but I'm not completely sure yet: e.g. hijackers trained at US bases.

(3) Arguments I think are interesting but not yet proved to my satisfaction: e.g. thermite.

(4) Good arguments that I see as the core: NSA surveillance, all those warnings, Saeed Sheikh, war games, etc.

I would put your PENREN idea in (2). I am sceptical of it, but if you want to continue to make the argument, then please feel free, although I might express my scepticism at times. FWIW, my understanding is that Hoffman agrees with you that the plane was deliberately flown into Wedge 1 of the Pentagon.

By "drop hijackers still alive" I mean that some people cite reports carried by the BBC, the Telegraph, Al Sharq Al Aswat, etc. as evidence that the people named by the FBI and 9/11 Commission cannot have done the operation, because they are still alive. However, after checking out the reports, it appears that the people who the FBI now says did it are not the people who were interviewed for the reports - they merely have similar names and details (for example both the Saeed Al Ghamdis lived in Delray Beach).

By "drop no Arabs on flight 77" I mean stop referring to the partial autopsy results from American 77 as though they were the full results. The fact that all but one of the other passengers were (allegedly) identified is not evidence that no remains were recovered that might come from the (alleged) hijackers. I think the DNA would probably match the hijackers, but there's no way to resolve this to anybody's full satisfaction at the moment. JackRiddler has a thread about it. We should continue to push for more details about the hijackers, including positive DNA identification of the (alleged) 12 sets of remains, publication of interviews with their relatives, etc.

[medienanalyse]

15. You think and mean and have opinions a lot

"A random list of stuff we should drop:
(1) Hijackers still alive;
(2) No Arabs on Flight 77;"

This is what I read.

Now you clarify:
"However, after checking out the reports, it appears that the people who the FBI now says did it are not the people who were interviewed for the reports - they merely have similar names and details (for example both the Saeed Al Ghamdis lived in Delray Beach)."

We should drop the issue of the hijackers identities because "it appears" something.
What appears to you?

that those "the FBI now says did it are not the people who were interviewed"

or shorter: that the alleged hijackers are not those who are alive. Great finding. Those who are dead are not those who are alive.

Those who are alive and being interviewes are of no interest to anybody, we all agree in this, you, the FBI, Andre II, me.

But what about the dead bodie on ice (12 at the moment) ? They are
1. existent
2. allegedly the hijackers
3. and carry names which the FBI spread since years.

Problem: 1 and 2 and 3 are not linked together.

Your solution:
"think the DNA would probably match the hijackers".
The hijackers ? So you know who the hijackers were WITHOUT the DNA- match? How ?
Are you telling us that Mr. John Doe is Mr. John Doe because his DNA matches the DNA of the body of John Doe ?

Under the CTers I found a lot of idiots. Now I try to find out where to sort the above idea.

It is as simple as that: the family of the alleged hijacker Jarrah lives in the Bekaa valley in Lebanon. Attas family lives in Kairo. Send them the "identified" bodies. Or: ask the for blood samples, take samples from the bodie, compare them in a Chinese or UN or Russian or Saudi institute.

Okay, not you. But if the Bush administration wants to prove their case, they could do it.

Otherwise Mr. Jarrah, Mr. Atta and so on are INNOCENT like it is normal in any civilized society.
And we have a surplus of bodies and no massmurderers.

That means: NO HIJACKERS at all.

[KJF]

34. Alleged hijackers still alive

It is claimed that some of the people on the FBI's list (the "hijackers" or "alleged hijackers)", for example Waleed Al Shehri, Saeed Al Ghamdi and Abdulaziz Al Omari, are still alive. This report on the BBC, for example, is often cited:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

It is often claimed that because the people the FBI says did 9/11 are still alive, then they cannot have done 9/11 (because they would have died on impact); therefore, the FBI's list of hijackers must be incorrect.

However, these people (who are still alive, who thought the FBI thought they did 9/11) are not in fact the people the FBI thinks did 9/11 - they are merely people with similar names.

Here are the two Saeed Alghamdis:



The one on the left is the pilot (who is still alive, who thought the FBI thought he did 9/11), the one on the right is the Saeed Alghamdi who the FBI say did 9/11. They are clearly different people, right?

Conclusion: the argument based on these articles that the alleged hijackers are still alive and therefore cannot have done 9/11 is false. However, in the absense of compelling proof about the hijackers boarding the flights, I prefer to sit on the fence and say that the alleged hijackers may or may not have been on the flights.

[medienanalyse]

36. "They are clearly different people, right?"

History:
Step 1: 9/11 occurs
Step 2: FBI/CIA /Bush make allegations about who the perpetrators were, including names, professions AND some of the photos (not all) which were collectively shown 2 weeks later
Step 3: Some (not all) of these persons are recognized as being alive and well (including names, profesions, AND photo)
Step 4: FBI utters: "Sorrs we need somebody different"
Step 5: FBI utters a lot of "alias" names and theories about names which sound similar in Arab language
Step 6: Serious investigators like Andre II, me, John Doe II and some more make cristal clear that the passenger manifests were not cristal clear, neither the the identities of passengers nor of "hijackers"

And this has not been changed.

It is of no relevance if A does not look like B. If B is the alleged hijacker: provide name and date of birth, place of birth, parents, school, CV and so on like possible with every man in the world in the outgoing 20th century.
Except of the so called "pilots" and two or three more we notice no hint of real existences. Those who have real existences are not identified by DNA, teth and so on..


"Conclusion: the argument based on these articles that the alleged hijackers are still alive and therefore cannot have done 9/11 is false"
No. The above sentence is false in different ways because:
1) persons alive cannot have been in the planes
2) the alleged hijackers were changed, not by us. By the FBI
3) the FIRST allegations were met by the FIRST denials and you are referring to them. In the five years following arguments have changed according to the evermoving narrative of the FBI
4) Who utters the argument in the way you refer it NOWADAYS ? To drop means first to pick up. I repeat my sentence.


Again: most imprtant is not to fight battles fought five years ago but to force the FBI and the Bushists to prove TGHEIR claim about the identities of the hijackers.

[RedSock]

39. photo and bukahris

Let's not forget that for two days the FBI insisted that Ameer Bukhari and Adnan Bukhari were on the manifest of either Flight 11 or 175. (Though in the jpgs of the alleged manifests, neither name can be found.) It was also reported that it was the Bukharis who rented the car in Boston on 9/10 and drove to Portland, then took the commuter flight back to Logan the next morning.

Unfortunately for the FBI, Adnan was alive in Florida and Ameer had died in 2000. My question: If two other men used the Bukhari names, how did the FBI find out who they were?

Also, regarding Waleed Al-Shehri (11):

"His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack." - Daily Trust, September 24, 2001

This cannot be merely a case of someone else with the same name.

And since the FBI has not corrected anything about the IDs since they were first released on September 14, 2001, that means Mr. Al-Shehri's photo is in the Commission's Final Report.

[KJF]

41. Bukharis and Waleed

Bukharis
My understanding is that the Bukharis' identifications were stolen/faked and were found in the Blue Nissan in Portland. Also, the Blue Nissan was found late on 9/11 and Adnan Bukhari's house was raided early on 12 September. This is based on the following:

According to CNN:

Their names had been tied to a car found at an airport in Portland, Maine, but Adnan Bukhari's attorney said it appeared their identifications were stolen and said Bukhari had no role in the hijackings.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/flight.schools/

The alternative route to the Bukharis is that they just searched for "Abdul Alomari" and came up with this guy:

Then they tied Adnan Bukhari to him because they lived next door at one point and tied in Amer Bukhari to Adnan Bukhari because they had the same name (and all of them trained as pilots in Florida for about a year before 9/11). What we really need here is confirmation of the stolen ID story.

Waleed Al Shehri
Basically, I'm saying that initially the FBI got the wrong Al Shehri, Waleed Ahmed Al Shehri, a pilot who had attended Embry-Riddle between 1993 and 1997. He then moved to Virginia with his dad. By 9/11 he was in Morocco and his dad was in Saudi working for the foreign ministry after a stint in India. However, when the FBI found out he was alive, they learned of another guy with a similar name - Waleed Mohamed Seqley Al Shehri, a dropout from teacher training college who had a brother named Wail and had been missing for 10 months. His relatives have been interviewed three times by the western press (and probably by the local papers in Saudi lots of times, but unfortunately the supposedly best stories from Al Watan are not archived online) and he's really missing. What we need here is a photo of Waleed Ahmed Al Shehri. btw, Wail appears to have been known to Saudi intelligence - after their first trip to Afghanistan they went back to Jeddah and then Khamis Mushayt, and Wail boasted about his alleged fighting experience to his friends; it was a big military town (air base) and I guess somebody tipped the secret police off.

[RedSock]

43. buhkari / walid

But the first reason the FBI was interested in the Bukhari brothers was because their names were on one of the Logan manifests -- which the FBI had before noon on 9/11.

Their names were some of the first (maybe the first?) names tossed out to the media. They would have known about them from the manifest before knowing anything about a car in Portland. At first, the FBI would have no idea to look in Portland. ... Does that mean the Buhkaris names are on the commuter flight too?

...

I remember doing some research for Paul a few years ago and noticing that some news reports had Waleed's middle initial as A. and others had M.

But the FBI still has the same wrong guy they had initially, because they have not changed the photo since 9/14/01. Right?

[medienanalyse]

46. Redsock - never ever forget the Larsons

and the not completed passenger manifests in the beginning.

The FBI did not list Hanjour, but the Bukharis, not those who replaced the Bukharis , but the Larsons.

In short: they made the manifests up in the first hours because some half of the needed names and biographies were not yet existent. So some jokers were needed, some wildcards

[KJF]

47. Manifests

Bukharis
Could I have a link saying the Bukharis were on the Logan manifests please? I've seen this suggested, but I've never seen anything to back it up before.

The FBI must have had the manifest before stuff from the car in Portland. The manifests led to Portland and then they noticed the strange car parked outside the airport and searched it. This is the affidavit:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit1.htm

It seems to be saying they found Abdulrahman Alomari through a database search after learning a guy with the name "Abdul Alomari" was on the plane. Given that Adnan Bukhari lived next door to Abdulrahman Alomariand they were both worked for the same company and were taking the same course, it wouldn't be hard to connect them.

Waleed
I think the photo is from 27 September, not 14 September. Here are the FBI press releases:
14 September:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm

27 September:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

I don't see any photos on the 14 September press release.

Here's some Embry-Riddle links:
The original press release:
http://www.erau.edu/er/newsmedia/newsreleases/2001/link.html

Here's an excerpt from their recapitulation of the whole thing:

Tuesday, Sept. 18
Reporters from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times called separately to say they were beginning to question that the hijacker named Al-Shehri was our alumnus. News stories appeared speculating that some of the hijackers had been mistakenly identified, or worse, had used stolen identities.

Wednesday/Thursday, Sept. 19-20
Doubts about the FBI's list of 19 suspected hijackers were growing, and some news organizations reported that Embry-Riddle alumnus Al-Shehri was alive in the Middle East and had contacted authorities there.

Friday, Sept. 21
As encouraging as the rumors and news stories were, the overall news focus had shifted away from the suspects. The window of opportunity to clear Embry-Riddle's reputation was closing. Ledewitz concluded that a news release breaking the link between Al-Shehri and the terrorist attacks had to be sent by the end of the day. By Monday it would be old news.

She spent the day on the phone working the FBI chain-of-command, seeking confirmation that Al-Shehri was alive. At 3:45 p.m., she got the go-ahead from Washington and, with the tap of a computer key, released the news to PR Newswire for instant distribution to tens of thousands of media organizations. We also posted the news to our web site, e-mailed it to employees and alumni, and faxed it to trustees.

In the release, the university said it had learned its alumnus was alive and had talked to U.S. officials in Morocco that week. President Ebbs was quoted, saying, "We are very pleased that our Al-Shehri turned up alive and well, and that the link between Al-Shehri and this despicable act has been proven to be nonexistent."
http://www.embry-riddle.com/er/newsmedia/leader/winter2001/eleven.html

It is clear to me that the guy the FBI originally suspected, Waleed Ahmed Al Shehri, did not do it. However, they subsequently identified another Waleed Al Shehri (who had a brother called Wail) and it's his picture we see. The FBI has shown us lots of pictures of him and they're all of the same guy.

Here's an interview with one of the Al Shehri brothers' brothers:
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/driving_a_wedge/part1_side.shtml
He doesn't mention they're alive.

Here's an excerpt from another one I can't find on line any more (taken from MSNBC):

HOCKENBERRY: (Voiceover) He is Salah, a member of the Alshehri family. His two younger brothers Wail and Waleed were on American Flight 11, the first plane to hit the World Trade Center. Their moment of death--an indelible image broadcast around the world.

(Salah Alshehri; photos of hijackers; video of plane hitting World Trade Center)

HOCKENBERRY: Where are they?

Mr. ALSHEHRI: (Foreign language spoken)

Man: 'I don't know.'

HOCKENBERRY: (Voiceover) This is the first time Salah or any hijacker family member in Saudi Arabia has sat down on camera to answer questions about September 11th the loved ones they lost.

(Salah)

HOCKENBERRY: What if it is true, what would you say?

Mr. ALSHEHRI: (Foreign language spoken)

Man: 'If that is true, we have to be realistic and accept the tragedy.'

HOCKENBERRY: (Voiceover) The Alshehris are also a prominent, well-to-do family. Their father built this mosque as a gift to the town. It sits across the street from the family home where Wail and Waleed Alshehri grew up.

(Alshehri home; mosque; Alshehri home)

HOCKENBERRY: To people in America your two brothers are terrorists. You grew up in the same house with them. As human beings, who were they?

Mr. ALSHEHRI: (Foreign language spoken)

Man: 'They were youth who grew up in a house with the best upbringing. Their behavior was very normal. There is no need to think they had crazy, wild thoughts. There was nothing wrong with them. They were very normal, even during the period before the incident.'

Again, he doesn't mention they're alive.

Conclusion: the picture of Waleed Al Shehri the FBI uses is not of Waleed Ahmed Al Shehri the pilot.

[medienanalyse]

49. what you KJF do not see:

"I don't see any photos on the 14 September press release."
you say."

Al Sheri said:
"At first I thought there was some mix-up of names and that somebody else had the same name as mine. But in the morning of Sunday last my friend called me to say that CNN had shown a picture of me. I was dumbfounded."
NCM-online, 5.Oct.2001

As I already pointed out I know that the FBI published the photos only on end of September. But it is a fact that he recognized himself on a photo mid-September. The photos of Atta and several others were published before the official FBI list. The photos went around the world.

You are not telling us that CNN only got the names and then without any FBI involvement investigated themselves and just published any photo they could link to the names ?



"Conclusion: the picture of Waleed Al Shehri the FBI uses is not of Waleed Ahmed Al Shehri the pilot." you say.

That is not the conclusion, it is your aaumption. My assumption is:
a) at first they did
b) then they used other ones after Sept.28th.
c) but those new ones are not at all sure to show the brother of the Al Sheri being interviewed (by the LA times btw). There are lotss of AlSeris, Omaris, Attas and so on missing in the wars in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Bosnia and so on. It is no identificaation to use a name, use a photo, claim that somebody is missing and then miy it with 9/11.

Like in any normal criminal case: take the DNA of this brother, of the father and so on and compare it with the bodies ou of the rubble of 9/11. Then we could at least say they were on board - not what they did.

Tell me why this simple method is not done ....

[KJF]

54. More Waleed

You wrote:

As I already pointed out I know that the FBI published the photos only on end of September. But it is a fact that he recognized himself on a photo mid-September. The photos of Atta and several others were published before the official FBI list. The photos went around the world.

Yes, that's exactly right. You also wrote:

You are not telling us that CNN only got the names and then without any FBI involvement investigated themselves and just published any photo they could link to the names ?

I'm saying that CNN got the photo of Waleed that's used all the time (from his driving licence, btw) from the FBI at the end of September. I don't know where CNN got the photo of Waleed Ahmed Al Shehri the pilot. Maybe they got it from the FBI, maybe they got it from his university in Florida, from a flight school, from the FAA... CNN are not entirely reliant on the FBI, they clearly were investigating it themselves and they often use photos obtained from sources other than the FBI.

It's fairly clear that the photos we see of Wail and Waleed are the ones from Khamis Mushayt. For example:
(1) here's a photo of them when they were kids:

As far as I can tell, Waleed is on his dad's knee and Wail is on our right (his dad's left).
(2) The family has been interviewed several times, they've never said anything about the photos being wrong;
(3) They're brothers - how many sets of Al Shehri brothers called Wail And Waleed do you think are missing?
(4) Check out his driver's licence documentation:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM01015.pdf
This is where the photo is from.

Conclusion: Wail and Waleed Mohamed Seqeley Al Shehri are really missing and there is a trail that shows them going to Afghanistan, back to Saudi Arabia, back to Afghanistan, then to Dubai and finally to Florida and Boston. Would I like more evidence? Yes, I would. However, I don't see anything here we can use so I think we should drop it and concentrate on other stuff, like Hani's flying skills, the money transfers, etc.

[medienanalyse]

55. A classic: "Would I like more evidence? Yes, I would."

What if I ask you about the meaning of the English word "MORE" ?

Any idea ?

In fact you have NO evidence at all.

You come with "(2) The family has been interviewed several times, they've never said anything about the photos being wrong;"

which is ridiculous. Why should they deny any photos and what "evidence" does it make if or if not ?

Let us take the Jarrah damily in Bekaa, Lebanon, or Attas father in Kairo. They will agree to some photos and to some others not - my guess. So what ?

Let us take it the other way, but now I admit it is a theory. But this theory apploes to ALL cases, it is easy to handle and fits miraculously everywhere. The FBI took names of Arabs plus something: plus "Florida" or plus "pilots" or/and plus "dead" and fitted these names into the passenger manifests. When they had not enough they changed: Hani or the Larsons, Sheri or the Bukharis. The bulk of the first names was easy: those (Ata,Shehhi, Jarrah) were under surveillance and positioned where they should make "fingerprints", specially CIA-agent al Midhar. But then they lost control and even invented names and photos or took people "lost" in Chechnya, Afghanistan and so on.

That is a theory about the origin og names. But it does not explain or try to appear as evidence about what happened or if these people or if some of them were on board. There is NO evidence at all.

No NADA Nothing NIENTE Nix. Try to disrupt the theory, have fun. It does not at all clear up the events. even if you "Win" (what I doubt anyway).

[RedSock]

51. bukhari manifest links

Damn, now I wish this was spun off into its own thread. Anyway, this is what I have right now. In some of these, the link is (admittedly) implied more than stated outright.

CNN, September 13, 2001:

After an initial review of passenger manifests from the flights involved, investigators began looking at several people ...

Evidence found in a rental car left in Portland, Maine, led investigators to two houses in Vero Beach, Florida. One had been rented by two brothers from Saudi Arabia.

In Vero Beach, FBI agents searched four homes in three neighborhoods, according to witnesses.

A tenant in one of those houses, Adnan Bukhari, was cooperating with the federal agents, sources said.

Bukhari's brother, Ameer Bukhari, died in a small plane crash in Florida last year, according to a lawyer for the family.

Federal sources had initially identified the brothers as possible hijackers who had boarded one of the planes that originated in Boston. Their names had been tied to a car founded at an airport in Portland, Maine.

Washington Post, September 13:

Using airplane manifests, passport records and other sources, U.S. officials believe they have successfully identified most of the suicidal hijackers, who numbered at least 12 and possibly as many as 24 individuals ...

Officials said many of yesterday's searches and detentions were prompted by a review of the passenger manifests of the four hijacked planes.

In Vero Beach, FBI agents searched the home of a Saudi Arabian pilot (Adnan Bukari) ... FBI agents swarmed the neighborhood yesterday morning and spent several hours searching the homes, witnesses said.

People's Daily, September 13:

Police and law enforcement sources said the two brothers suspected in the Boston hijackings were Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Abbas Bukhari, who up until recent days had lived in Vero Beach, Florida. Both of their homes have been searched, the sources said.

The two rented a car, a silver-blue Nissan Altima, from an Alamo car rental at Boston's Logan Airport and drove to an airport in Portland, Maine, where they got on US Airways Flight 5930 at 6 a.m. Tuesday headed back to Boston, the sources said. ...

Portland Police Chief Mike Chitwood said, "I can tell you those two individuals did get on a plane and fly to Boston early yesterday morning ... I can tell you that they are the focus of a federal investigation."

John Doe II has a quote he attributes to CNN, September 12, 2001, 3:00 pm):

"Law enforcement sources say that two of the suspected hijackers, at least two of them, lived here in Vero Beach. Two of them are brothers that lived here. ... One of them is Adnan Bukhari. We have a photograph of him. He is said to be in his '40s. He is described as a commercial pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines. Also living in Vero Beach, Bukhari's brother, Ameer. Both lived here with their wives and children. ...

Law enforcement sources also tell CNN that the Bukhari brothers were believed to have been on of the two flights out of Boston, one of those two flights that wound up slamming into the World Trade Center."

There is a website out there that I'm not sure can be linked to (its name has 3 words and the first five letters are "What R") that posted this AP story:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/
2001-09-14/usw_nosuspect.asp

Saudi flight engineer no longer part of investigation

A Saudi neighbor of a Vero Beach man whose name is on a list of hijackers in the World Trade Center attack is no longer part of the investigation.

Sources close to the investigation say 41-year-old Adnan Bukhari (AHD'-nahn boo-KAHR'-ee) cooperated with the F-B-I Wednesday and Thursday.

The Saudi flight engineer and Flight Safety Academy student lived next to Abdul Alomari. His name reportedly appears on the American Airlines Flight Eleven manifest. Alomari has not been located since the attacks.

Bukhari's attorney says he voluntarily took an F-B-I polygraph as part of his interviews. He consented to a search of his house without a warrant, and his passport has been returned to him.

Updated: September 14, 2001 12:49 PM

Now, that third paragraph is confusing. "His name" could refer to either Bukhari or Alomari.

Finally, the Wikipedia entries for both men state that CNN reported they were passengers on AA11 (no link, though).

[KJF]

53. Database search

I don't see any way to resolve this conclusively. There are three options:
(1) The Bukharis' names were on the manifest;
(2) "Abdul Alomari" was on the manifest and a database search for this name led to Adnan Bukhari's nextdoor neighbour;
(3) Fake ID of Adnan and Amer Bukhari was found in the car at Portland.

I think (2) is the most likely. I used to think (3), but here's one of the quotes that was based on:

Their names had been tied to a car founded at an airport in Portland, Maine. But Bukhari's attorney said it appeared their identifications were stolen and said Bukhari had no role in the hijackings.

According to the lawyer it only "appears" they were stolen. I doubt the lawyer has seen the ID - it looks like he's getting things mixed up.

Looking at the quotes, I don't see anybody who actually said "I saw a manifest, his name was on it." Still less is there an actual manifest with his name there.

This is the way I see it: the FBI takes a look at the manifests and sees "Abdul Alomari".

A review of the passenger manifest for AA11 reveals that a passenger by the name of MOHAM (first name apparently abbreviated) ATTA ("Atta") was on AA11 and was assigned seat 8D. In addition, a passenger by the name of ABDUL ALOMARI ("Alomari") was on AA11 and was assigned seat 8G.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit10.htm

They then search the various databases and get a hit for the guy in Vero beach.

A review of public records databases for Alomari has determined that his address is reported as 4032 57th Terrace, Vero Beach, Florida. In addition, he is associated with SADA Lincs International (A Saudi Arabian airline) and Saudi FLight Ops..."
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit11.htm

At the start the FBI think the planes must have been flown by real pilots of large aircraft (or at least retrained flight engineers), not by people with only 5 hours of experience of large jets on simulators, so they think Abdulrahman could be their man and talk to his former property manager:

FBI agents have interviewed the property manager for the residence located at 4032 57th Terrace, Vero Beach, Florida. The property manager informed agents, in substance, that she had been intending to contract the FBI, that the occupant of 4032 57th Terrace was in fact Alomari, and that Alomari had a friend who has been taking flying lessons.
(same link)

The friend must be Adnan Bukhari, who lived next door. The FBI then figure that he must be in on it too and are pretty surprised when they raid his house and find him alive. This shows that there is another route by which the FBI could have got to Adnan Bukhari. Obviously, we can't rule out his name being on the manifests or the hijackers having stolen or faked his ID too, but I don't think the evidence for either of these is that good.

Warning: the affidavit goes on to say one of Atta's cars was registered as being allowed to use one of Abdulrahman's parking spaces. I figure this must be wrong - why would Atta register a car to be parked there? However, the paperwork for this is one of the things we should have on our list of things to ask for. If Atta's car was registered for it, then that would be a very big deal.

[seatnineb]

52. So it is just a coincidence that Bukhari tries to leave Florida b4 9/11?

Two employees at Rooms To Go, a furniture store in Vero Beach, said Bukhari made a hurried purchase as news of the bombing was breaking on a television set in the showroom. Bukhari bought a full living room set within five minutes, using his credit card to pay the $1,794.95 bill. He said he wanted the furniture readied to be exported to Saudi Arabia. ``I told you I need this stuff right away,'' he said. ``I want to get out of America. I don't like it here.''

http://web.archive.org/web/20021121125827/http://www.ct...

Is it also just a coincidence that Rahman Alomari,like his "buddy",Bukhari, also left Florida a few days before 9/11!

“Abdul Rahman Al Omari recently left with his family too”.
(Palm Beach Post, 9/21/01)

Alomari was last seen by his landlord and neighbors on Monday,September 3, 2001
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/14/01)

*
Thanks to Team8plus brother John Doe II

[medienanalyse]

44. So many words ...

but no clarity.

When - as the FBI proudly said - all names in question were taken out of the passnger manifests there is no place to additional Bukharis, whatever car obtain whatever hints.

About Al Sheri: the FBI got the wrong one ? How that ? If they first only had a name on the manifest the next step of investigation would be the origin of the ticket. How could that ever lead not to the credit crad, passport number or to the adress of the RIGHT one - but to a person living in Maroc ?

I do not like these bullshit talks at all.

[Nozebro]

45. I'm with you, but it isn't going to stop. Airtight contract maybe? EOM

nt

[KJF]

48. Waleed Al Shehri

The FBI got the wrong Al Shehri by checking databases and finding there was a guy with a similar name who graduated from Embry-Riddle in 1997. Checking databases is standard procedure. They wrongly figured it was him, but then corected their mistake when he showed up alive. The FBI now say that the hijacker was Waleed Mohamed Seqeley Al Shehri of Khamis Mushayt, not the guy who showed up in Morocco. There is no evidence Waleed Mohamed Seqeley Al Shehri is alive; in fact, his family have repeatedly confirmed that he and his brother Waleed are missing.

[medienanalyse]

50. Is this normal ? Just pick a similar name and point on it ?

This is what we could read in these times:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/flight.schools/

My understanding is: i would not point on somebody who graduated in daytona Beach 4 years ago. I would follow the trail of manifest to the ticket, ticket to the travel office and address, adress and circumstances incl. visa.

It is absolutely absurd to take a name of a man who graduated four years before.

But it follows the same method of using names as culprits like with the bukharis.

Or now with the men missing. There is a Al Sheri missing!!! Wow - so then he was hijacker on 9/11!!!!

It is a idiots identification.

[KJF]

40. I didn't agree with most of that

The first thing you need to do is to list the hijackers who, in your opinion, are "recognized as being alive and well (including names, profesions, AND photo)". Then we will have to take them one at a time.

[medienanalyse]

42. What I have to do ....

"The first thing you need to do is to list the hijackers who, in your opinion ..."

I have to do nothing.

Even if you ask me politely if I would do this or that I would deny your request.

Again: you try to talk about persons who are alive and well. This is not the issue of 9/11.

Everybody who is not insane talks about the alleged hijackers, about those who are allegedly dead, culprits and on ice.

There are no hijackers alive who were on board of the planes.
There were only alleged hijackers who turned out not to be the hijackers.

Thge FBI changed their story. They made up "hijackers" - and when the persons turned out to be alive the FBI said: Sorry, we mean somebody different. Whom do they mean - that is the question, and is THEIR opinion true or not. Not MY opinion and not MY persons are of interest. I do not say: It was Mr. X or Mr. Y.

The FBI does it and does not prove it. So stop to change the issue.

[dailykoff]

14. The "enforced by peer review" line makes me suspicious.

Peer review is a way of conferring guild approval and the idea of judging 9/11 truth by such a standard is ridiculous.

[hack89]

20. How do you judge the science

without peer review? Granted that for many theories peer review is not applicable but at the core of some theories are fundamental scientific principles. The physics of the collapse, the chemistry of the rubble pile, the engineering of the demolition - these are well within the realm of standard scientific knowledge so it is ridiculous to argue that such things relating to 9/11 can only be judged outside of fundamental scientific practices such as peer review.

How does your attitude about peer review differ from the Discovery Institute and intelligent design? I am sure that "Peer review is a way of conferring guild approval and the idea of judging intelligent design by such a standard is ridiculous." is a widely held view.

[dailykoff]

24. By the science mainly,

and by the credentials of the scientist secondarily. For example, some of Eagar's baloney was peer-reviewed and some wasn't, but it was all crap. As a materials engineer he also lacked the appropriate credentials.

Jones' theories are much more credible, though less slickly produced, and as a physicist he also has better credentials. So I suppose the answer is that in the absence of available peer review, scientists interested in truth have to take huge risks and publish their own work, as Jones did with his original demolition essay, at considerable professional cost to himself, until the theories become accepted by mainstream journals.

[hack89]

26. What about these guys:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

do they have sufficient credentials?

Or F.R. Greening?

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

And conversely, does Judy Woods background in dental materials eliminate her as a 9/11 truth scholar? Hoffman is not an engineer along with many of the 9/11 scholars - how do we judge their credentials on complex engineering issues?

[dailykoff]

27. As I said, evaluate the science.

If a paper is full of false assumptions leading to foregone conclusions, they probably aren't particularly valid. Credentials are a secondary consideration as I also said.

[hack89]

28. But without peer review ..

what constitutes "false assumptions leading to foregone conclusions"? The very purpose of peer review is find poor science like that. A layman's judgment on such matters is irrelevant - look no further than a typical freeper post on evolution, "false assumptions leading to foregone conclusions" is a common refrain as they attack evolution. Yet we can dismiss them because we have confidence that the science behind evolution has been thoroughly reviewed and that there is a widespread consensus that the science is valid. The same cannot be said of the science behind intelligent design. Nor for the science behind many 911 theories. You say "evaluate the science" - well, I think it has been and has been found lacking. The fact that the 911 scholars refuse to adhere to basic tenets of science(ie peer review) says a lot about them and their science.

[dailykoff]

30. Most of us can evaluate fairly basic

engineering claims. The concepts are not esoteric. Relying on shills from MIT to tell you what's what, on this issue at least, is about as faith-based as it gets.

[Nozebro]

31. Amen. But the MIT shills aren't going to change & neither are RWingers.

nt

[William Seger]

38. LMAO!

"Most of us can evaluate fairly basic engineering claims."
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[John Q. Citizen]

25. I have questions about #6. Are you saying that the US has no interest

in laying a pipeline from the Caspian Basin to the Ocean?

[KJF]

32. There already is a pipeline from the Caspian Basin to the Ocean

It goes from Baku to Ceyhan in Turkey via Tiblisi. Various US entities, including Unocal, have or had an interest in it. It was also partly financed with loans subsidised by the US taxpayer - and taxpayers of other western countries. It was built after the Afghan pipeline deal fell through in the late 1990s and makes a pipeline in Afghanistan substantially less likely, although they still might need one for gas. This is why I think we should abandon the argument that the US invaded Afghanistan for the oil pipeline - it is demonstrably not true.

[DoYouEverWonder]

56. BushCo needed to get the opium fields back on line

that's how they finance a lot of their covert ops.

[mogster]

57. But does a 'big tent' exist?

'The Big Tent refers to strategy of inclusiveness to grow the 9/11 Truth Movement'

A strategy by whom? The 911 Truth Movement does not have a chairman, like the Democrat party. It is not top-down representative democracy, but bottom-up direct democracy. It consists of thousands of unpaid contributors not organized in any way but loosely connected groups, and a few front figures of each group.

The correct assessment of the 911 Truth Movement would be a row of small tents, with a huge campfire in the middle.