Strong doubts that alleged hijacker Abdulaziz Al Omari (Hollywood) existed

[John Doe II]

To make it clear right from the start:
This thread is not about any Saudi-Arabian who has the same name as an alleged hijacker etc.
This thread leaves aside the question if and who of the alleged hijackers used stolen identities, who they really were and if it was them or even somebody else who left all the trail of evidences.
This thread is about the question if Abdulaziz Al Omari from Hollywood ever physically existed. If there is any proof to his existence prior to 911.
It is the logical conclusion of the articles:
“Meet the four unknown ‘hijackers’”
“Vero Beach maybe a center of the 911 story”
“What was going on in Portland”

The first reason for douting Abdulaziz’ existence:
First of all right after 911 not Abdulaziz but Abdul Rahman Al Omari from Vero Beach was in the spotlight as he was named hijacker of AA 11:

A FBI affidavit from September 12, 2001 states officially that the public database search let to him.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit11.htm

One of two vehicles that had the right to use Abdul Rahman’s parking place belonged to Atta.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit11.htm
and
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit12.htm

His appartement in Vero Beach was searched in the night to Wednesday.

His name appeared already on September 13 in the news.

He was seen in Portland. As witnesses appear in the media prior to September 14 (when Abdulaziz for the first time appeared) that claim to have seen Al Omari in Portland and there is even a woman telling that he was her boyfriend this certainly doesn’t prove the presence of Abdulaziz from Hollywood but only the strange coincidence that the acclaimed innocent Abdul Rahman was in Portland.
(See “What was going on in Portland”)

Abdul Rahman was on CNN on September 21 stating that his photo was around the world although he was innocent. Even with the kind help of Paul Thompson I wasn’t able to find any photo of Abdul Rahman. Therefore the logical question is if it is not him on the photo that officially shows Abdulaziz.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/21/tpt.00.html

His neighbour recalled strange late night meetings in his house in Vero Beach.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A38026-2001Sep15¬Found=true

His ID showed a St Paul address but the landlord said to have never seen him there.
(AP, 9/14/01)
http://www.brainerddispatch.com/stories/091501/nne_0915010034.shtml

Vero Beach was completely omitted by the FBI (why if there is nothing and Bukhari and Al Omari was just a sad coincidence)?

Three other official hijackers had addresses at Flight Safety Academy in Vero Beach.
http://cryptome.org/Finnlist.pdf

His neighbour Bukhari shows suspicious patterns as well:
His rush to flee on September 11.
The fact that Hopkins got fired from FAA as he figured out that Bukhari had attended FAA Academy in Oklahoma.
http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2001/pr01_25.htm

So: Proof enough that he wasn't and neither Bukhari just an innocent guy. Proof enough that the FBI turns a blind eye on him.


A strangely absent person: Abdulaziz Al Omari
Contrary to Abdul Rahman Abdulaziz is strangely absent and never witnessed.
He appeared only on September 14 when FBI presented its first list.
In accounts from Portland he's strangely absent, too: It's Atta who rented the car, took the hotel room (on September 12, 2001 media accounts only speak of “Atta and another man”).
(See: “What’s going on in Portland”)
The ATM photo from Portland is highly questionable as shown above by the doubts if this photo doesn’t show Abdul Rahman.
He’s never on any video footage (I don't count the flue Jetport video). The Wal Mart footages show only Atta. Other video footages that have been made in Portland never were made public.
The video surveillance at the check inn in Portland Jetport didn't work.
Strange: Finding his passport right away on September 11 didn't help preventing the confusion about his identity. And btw why did the FBI need to search public database if they had the passport of Abdulaziz?

So, while there are many details and suspicion about Abdul Rahman Abdulaziz seems incredibly absent.
In fact if we question his photo the only proof of his existence I found is his visa. Which is certainly not a lot.

On September 21, 2001 CNN reported:
Tonight, law enforcement sources tell me that the suspected hijacker, Abdul Aziz Alomari, is now considered to have played a key role , a significant role in helping to carry out the attack. Now, quoting sources, they call it "a significant role." They say, among other things -- that is because they are continuing to gather evidence -- that he in particular was making more phone calls, more e-mails, made more contacts with other people, purchased airline tickets, for example. And that is one of the reasons they believe that he was a key coordinator of the attacks.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/21/tpt.00.html

But nowhere is shown which people he met. No witness quoted who saw Abdulaziz. And that he bought the tickets is highly questionable as it was supposed to Atta who purchased it for him via the web.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4258191,00.html

And also the famous “key role” Abdulaziz was supposed to have played dropped to the simple role of a muscle (according to the Commission Report). A muscle that had the honour to spend his last night with Atta.
Strange. What happened to the estimation by officials that he had a “key role”?

And while there is nowhere any proof that Al Omari ever lived in Hollywood (the only given location for him).
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

The Commission Report states that he was living already at least since beginning of August in New Jersey. And taking into consideration that he arrived at June 29, 2001 in the US that simply means that he spend at least half of his time in the US in New Jersey. Yet, the FBI only locates him in Hollywood. Him, strange again.
And what about proofs that Abdulaziz was in New Jersey. Well, look for yourself what amazing evidence the Commission has to present:

79.For the apartment rental in New Jersey, see FBI report of investigation, interview of Eyad al Rababah, June 10,2002; FBI report, "Hijackers Timeline,"Dec.5,2003 (May 21,2001,entry citing 265A-NY-280350-302,seri-als 25453,25445).For the landlord finding six people, see FBI report of investigation, interview of Jimi Nouri, Sept.19,2001. Although no specific evidence places Omari in the apartment , the muscle hijackers based in New Jersey likely lived together, as they apparently conducted other activities jointly, such as obtaining identification cards. See,e.g.,FBI report,"Hijackers Timeline,"Dec.5,2003 (July 1, 2001, entries citing 265A-NY-280350-FD-302,serials 4718,11815,20900,21529).
(CR, 523)

That’s really amazing. The Commission contradicts the FBI in their assertion that Abdulaziz lived in Hollywood (no proofs for this at all anyway) and places him in New Jersey. Yet, once again no proof for his presence there.
Hey, what’s up official investigation? Not even able to figure out where an alleged hijacker lived?

But maybe Abdulaziz is just one of many cases where there are no proofs of hijackers presence and whereabouts. Maybe it was part of their tactics.
But this is unfortunately not the case:
It is easy for most of the alleged hijackers to prove their existence. (Remark this doesn’t imply that the alleged hijackers were aboard on 911 and who they really were. We only talk about physical presence of somebody)

Other went to flight school. Many witnesses.
Others were seen by neighbours. Many witnesses.
Others bought flight tickets and paid cash. But Atta bought for Al Omari.
Others went to gyms. Many witnesses.
Apparently all alleged hijackers living in New Jerset went to the gym:
After he returned to New Jersey, Hazmi's behavior began to closely parallel that of the other hijackers. He and Hanjour, for instance, soon established new bank accounts, acquired a mailbox, rented cars, and started visiting a gym. So did the four other hijackers who evidently were staying with them in New Jersey.
(CR, 243)

But not only from the fact that the Commission concedes to have no evidence of Abdulaziz being in New Jersey (and a membership in a gym would certainly be a proof) also newspaper accounts speak of all the other alleged hijackers working out or better said standing around.
But no one mentioned Abdulaziz.

I checked all hijackers if I could find at least one witness for their existence:
And I found proofs for all of them save Abdulaziz.


Therefore the suspicion seems to be well founded and the question urgent:
Does anybody have a proof that Abdulaziz Al Omari from Hollywood existed?

[spooked911]

1. I always thought there was just confusion over his name

are you sure Abdulaziz Al Omari and Abdul Rahman Al Omari are different people?

[John Doe II]

2. Yes

Abdul Rahman was from Vero Beach (neighbour of Bukhari and Kamfar). He is 38 years old. Married and has three children. He is supposed to have left the US on September 3, 2001. He is a Saudi Airlines pilot and attende Flight Safety Academy in Vero Beach. He appeard on CNN on September 21, 2001. So he was pretty alive after 911.
Abdulaziz officially lived in Hollywood. Although the CR only mentiones him being in New Jersey although they fail to give any evidence for this claim. He was either 28 or 22 years old and non married and no pilot at all. Didn't attend any flight school neither.
Yes, they are clearly different people. This is exactly why I very much doubt that the Abdulaziz from Hollywood ever existed. And I would love to see any proof of his existence. Shouldn't be too difficult. But so far there is none.

[John Doe II]

3. Addendum

Here from CNN:

CANDIOTTI: Alomari says he and the suspected hijacker have different middle names. After meeting with the FBI in Saudi Arabia, he says the Bureau apologized. Alomari says, and the FBI now admits, the middle names, a common tribal distinction in Saudi Arabia, apparently caused the confusion.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/21/tpt.00.html

[spooked911]

4. Was Abdulaziz the guy with Atta in some of the Portland pictures?

If so, at least we have a face for him.

See this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=30484

Frankly-- I have no idea how you keep track of these guys! Any tips for us on how to do it-- or have you just spent a lot of time reading up on these fellows?

[John Doe II]

5. Maybe maybe

Even if it would show Abdulaziz it is only a photo of a surveillance camera. Therefore hardy any proof. No human being really saw Abdulaziz at the bank. A photo could have been fabricated till October 10, 2001 etc.
But especially strange: Abdul Rahman was on CNN and declared that his photo was all over the world. Why should he lie? And if he lied why didn't the interview partner asked him: Which photo? And if his photo was all over the world why don't I find it (if it is a different one than the official of Abdulaziz). I'm not saying this is a proof that the photo shows in reality Abdul Rahman but it highly questions the authenticity of it showing Abdulaziz.

I know the topic has the danger of being confusing. But it's just a short article (not even a tenth of my Portland article;-) )

It all started with the article "Meet the four unknown hijackers" where I focused on Bukhari. Slowly I started to realize that neither him nor Abdul Rahman seemed to be that innocent.
Then came the "What was going on in Portland". And it stroke me that Al Omari saw strangely absent in the observation of witnesses and in him being mentioned in the press. Most writing: "Atta and another man".
Then came the sworn FBI affidavit from September 12 that a public database lead to Abdul Rahman from Vero Beach and that he had given the right to park a vehicle to Atta.
Then came lots of damning evidence that Vero Beach was a center of 911 (although officially it was all just an accident and nobody from Vero Beach had anything to do with 911).
And at one point seeing that Abdul Rahman is very suspicious and would be a "perfect" hijacker on 911 only that he is still alive (him and not somebody with the same name in Saudi Arabia) I started wondering if there is any proof that Abdulaziz really existed. And no there is not.

So, I really think this topic is important and can only advice everybody to slowly read the original post....

[Make7]

6. Is this who you are talking about?

NAME: Al-Omari Abdulaziz

AKA: Alomori, Ahdulrahman
     Alomon, Abdulrahman
     Alomoni, Abdulrahman
     Al-Omor, Ahdulrahman
     Al Omari, Abdul Aziz
     Alomari, Aabdul
     Alomari, Abdul
     Alomari Abdul Aziz
     Alomari, Abdulaziz
     Alomari, Abdulrahman
     Alomon, Ahdulrahman
     Alomor Ahdulrahman
     Al-Omari, Abdulrahman
     Alomari, Amdulaziz
     Alomari, Abdulrahman Saeed

ADDRESS: 12501 NE 13 Avenue Apt. 423
         Miami, FL

         1743 Berkeley Ave
         Saint Paul, MN 55105

         3389 Sheridan Street, #256
         Hollywood, FL 33021

         4032 57th Terrace
         Vero Beach, FL 32966

         1861 N. Federal Highway #281
         Hollywood, FL

         PO Box 6584 Jedah,
         Saudi Arabia, SA 21452

PHONE: [phone]

:shrug:Make7

[John Doe II]

7. Yes and no

This is from the finnlist I guess.
Let me stress it once again:
Abdul Rahman and Abdulaziz are two clearly differnt persons and Abdul Rahman who lived in Vero Beach is clearly alive after 911 as he appeared on CNN and was in contact with the FBI.
So it is simply highly bizzare that the FBI internally presents theses two guys as being the same if they are clearly not.
So once again the question: I have tonnes of proof of the exitence of Abdul Rahman can please anybody present me a proof of the existence of the official alleged hijacker Abdulaziz from Hollywood?

[spooked911]

8. Could this be all a scam of some sorts?

Maybe the Abdul Rahman guy in Saudi Arabia was a "hijacker" and this indicates that the hijackers never were on the planes?!!?

Perhaps the Abdul Rahman fellow was calling the FBI's bluff here and then they backtracked and said, okay, there really was another guy-- Abdulaziz.

I think the key to this is to find the picture that Abdul Rahman said was him and then see if it matches the Al-Omari photos from Portland.

[John Doe II]

9. Yes and no

Yes, the photo would be important to have. No question about this.
But even in the case that the photo of Abdul Rahman dosn't match the one from Portland remember that it was only released on October 10 and shouldn't been too hard to doctor. Therefore a single photo of a surveillance camera would still not be sufficient proof of the real existence of this guy.
But I very much count on our OTC-community on DU to come up with just one just one proof of his existence. I can come up with at least one proof of the existence of 18 alleged hijackers ....

[spooked911]

10. So where exactly do you want to go with this?

What are you trying to prove? That the guy is fictional or not? What would this mean either way?

[John Doe II]

11. Simple

I can prove that the it is very questionable if Abdulaziz Al Omari ever existed. Of course nobody can prove the non-existence of something or someone.
As you questioned correctly in another thread who is supposed to show proofs?
Normally we would expect the government to present proofs for their believe that the 19 alleged hijackers were aboard. But not a single proof has been shown today although it was offically promised by Powell. But most people give about the normal standard procedure of a trial simplpe not a F*** if it comes to 911.
With this thread I want to make clear for everybody that at least in one case there is an absolute necessity to present a proof for the existence of Abdulaziz Al Omari. And I'm really curious if the OTC crowd manages to come up with just a single. I think this is really not too much asked for. I can even sor Al Suqami come up with at least two proofs that the guy (whoever he really was) physically exist(ed).
And if nobody can come up with anything we should face the fact that Abdulaziz never existed and that he was made up. Which of course is a clear blow to the official story.
So, I presented plenty of evidences why it is questionable if this guy ever existed.
I'm very eager to see just a single proof of his existence.

[spooked911]

12. I see! Well I doubt LARED, Boloboffin and Make7 and whoever else defends

the official story on thios board will try to prove anything.

I agree that AaAO's existence is iffy and that it is a blow to the official story. But frankly at this point there are so many holes and falsities in the official story it gets tiring since only a few of us seem to care.

Actually-- your one hope, if you really want to clear this up, is to contact the newspapers where he was reported and tell them what you have and say you are a 9/11 researcher trying to figure out everything about who the hijackers were and you want more info. If you want, I could contact them if you tell me what media outlets to write to. They might be able to help.

btw, what is OTC? "Official Theory Conspiracist"?

[John Doe II]

13. Yes that is the OTC crowd but where are they

It's funny.
You cannot prove that aliens don't exist one can only produce evidence that show the unlikelyhood that aliens exist. The unlikelyhood of Abdulaziz is existence has been show in this thread (and even a cover up of the FBI concerning Vero Beach, the Commission that said indirectly the FBI was wrong stating that Abdulaziz lived in New Jersey and not in Hollywood yet failing to produce just a single evidence).
People who believe in aliens will have a hard time to convince people that aliens exist if they just present one witness who saw them: and yet the only thing that I ask for in order to prove to me that Abdulaziz existed is exactly just a single witness, noting more.
But nobody will come up with a witness.
Well, is this too much of a conspiracy theory to take if I then conclude that Abdulaziz didn't existed and therefore the whole official theory consequently falls apart.
So, where is the OTC crowd: It should be fun to destroy all this thread with just a single quote?!

[Make7]

14. Circles

From John Doe II's original post:
To make it clear right from the start:
This thread is not about any Saudi-Arabian who has the same name as an alleged hijacker etc.
This thread leaves aside the question if and who of the alleged hijackers used stolen identities, who they really were and if it was them or even somebody else who left all the trail of evidences.
This thread is about the question if Abdulaziz Al Omari from Hollywood ever physically existed. If there is any proof to his existence prior to 911.

My first inclination was to stop right there. You are asking for proof of someone's physical existence, but you leave aside the question of what his real name might be, if he used a stolen identity, and if was even him that left the trail of evidence that it seems that you are requesting.

You want to know about the Abdulaziz AlOmari from Hollywood. Or do you want to know about the alleged hijacker named Abdulaziz AlOmari, who may or may not have lived in Hollywood? There seems to be some doubt as to whether he had lived there. I'll make the assumption you want proof that the alleged hijacker existed before 9/11. If you're only looking for the one from Hollywood, you might as well stop reading.... (and I might as well stop writing....)

John Doe II wrote:
Well, is this too much of a conspiracy theory to take if I then conclude that Abdulaziz didn't exist and therefore the whole official theory consequently falls apart.

Yes, that is too much to take. I guess I just don't understand the logic of the conclusion. How exactly does the whole official theory fall apart? I don't get it. If the government was able to diabolically perpetrate the attacks on their own country with such amazing ability, why couldn't they just invent a detailed trail of documents, pictures, and witnesses to verify whatever story they are trying to sell. They can mastermind an unspeakable evil like the attacks on September 11th, but they can't forge a few ID's, fake some pictures, and pay off, threaten, or blackmail some people to be witnesses? Are you suggested they wouldn't have already planned to have a well documented, verifiable trail in place before the attacks so that it could be traced by people investigating afterwards? Are they evil geniuses or incompetent fools?

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? If they can't figure out what his real name was and are unable track his activities before the attacks, what would that prove to you?

-Make7                    I feel circles coming my way.

Oh, yeah. It's not a DNA sample, if that's what you're looking for but here goes nothing:

El-Atriss admitted selling fake documents to Khalid Almihdhar, who was on the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11,2001, and Abdulaziz Alomari, who was aboard one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=1333447

According to The Associated Press, el-Atriss was given five years probation and fined $15,000 for selling false documents. He admitted to selling such documents to Khalid Almihdhar and Abdulaziz Alomari, who were, respectively, on the planes that crashed into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

http://www.rcfp.org/news/2003/0630sealed.html

The suspected hijacker is known to have used false IDs, including a Virginia driver's license he fraudulently obtained just over a month before the attack

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/wtc_globaldragnet/investigation_alomari.htm

The affidavit said that Villalobos, using the alias Oscar Diaz, signed papers certifying that Alomari lived in Virginia. Alomari has been identified as a hijacker of a Boston flight that crashed into the World Trade Center.

http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/26/05_1_m.html

Villalobos was charged with helping one of the suspected hijackers, Abdulaziz Alomari, obtain a fraudulent Virginia ID card.

http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0926_virginia_ap.html

[John Doe II]

17. Thanks for your research

I mean this without any irony.
You know we basically differ every time but I appreciate it very much that you take the time to do research and to answer the questions I raised.

You say:
My first inclination was to stop right there. You are asking for proof of someone's physical existence, but you leave aside the question of what his real name might be, if he used a stolen identity, and if was even him that left the trail of evidence that it seems that you are requesting.

You want to know about the Abdulaziz AlOmari from Hollywood. Or do you want to know about the alleged hijacker named Abdulaziz AlOmari, who may or may not have lived in Hollywood? There seems to be some doubt as to whether he had lived there. I'll make the assumption you want proof that the alleged hijacker existed before 9/11. If you're only looking for the one from Hollywood, you might as well stop reading.... (and I might as well stop writing....)

Frankly, I don't understand why you say that.
I pose the most basic question: If the alleged hijacker ever existed. If there is any proof for his physical existence.
I consciously wanted to avoid a discussion about stolen identities. The question who this guy really was. Simply because how can we know. But let me stress that it is very telling that the official investigation couldn't care less to know who the guy really was.
I just analyse an official claim:
The alleged hijacker Abdulaziz lived in Hollywood (says the FBI).
The alleged hijacker Abdulaziz lived mostly in New Jersey (says the Commission admitting that it has no evidence for this claim).

So, what's wrong with not asking the questions if he did or didn't use a stolen identity (which of course is an interesting subject) but to ask much simpler if he (whoever he was) ever existed? It should be so easy to refute!


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?


All your quotes are good one but in my eyes not good enough.

El-Atriss is from 2003.
The Villabos story from September 2001.
But nowhere the witnesses are quoted to have seen Al Omari. So did they see him (the one from the FBI photo)? Did he maybe see Abdul Rahman?
There are several witnesses out there that on the first glance say that they saw Abdulaziz Al Omari. But they are all from Vero Beach. It is therefore due to the confusion of the journalist that eg Abdul Rahman Al Omari's neighbour talks about him but is quoted as talking about her neighbour Abdulaziz.
Sure your storys are from New Jersey but nonetheless my examples for confused journalism and for any missing direct quote explain why I don't think this is any kind of evidence of Abdulaziz' physical existence.

[Make7]

18. You're welcome.

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

[John Doe II]

19. Answers

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

[spooked911]

15. Found a picture of the "other" Abdelaziz Al Omari who is alive

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

(I can't paste pictures on this computer)

Anyway, he's a different guy.

So who the hell is in the FBI picture?

There's a good rundown of Al-Omari here:

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_alive.htm

[John Doe II]

16. Many, too many Abdulaziz ...

What we officially have:

Abdul Rahman from Vero Beach ALIVE
Abdulaziz from Hollywood DEAD
Abdulaziz the one in your photo who lost his passprt 1995 in Denver ALIVE
Abdulaziz Saudi Airlines Pilot who went to Embassy in Jeddah after 911 ALIVE (see second Omari in your article. Possible that this is a mix up with Abdul Rahman who was pilot of Saudi Airlines)
Abdulaziz who studied at Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas. Officially this is not the alleged hijacker. His whereabouts and if he's alive is unknown.
Abdulatif who was suspected after 911 from local FBI. If he's alive after 911 is not known (to me).

The FBI photo should of course show the allged hijacker Abdulaziz from Hollywood. But where is any photo of Abdul Rahman then that he claimed was all over the world?

[John Doe II]

20. And

:kick:

[John Doe II]

21. Atta had appartement in Vero Beach

I had a whole thread on Vero Beach. Unfortunately DU has now only eleven pages open and the rest goes straight into the archive that I can't open. Nor a web search helped me out.
As this thread is Vero Beach related (A city that was apparently one maybe the very center of 911) I add an info here.

Abdul Rahman lived in Vero Beach and Atta was one of two persons who had the right to park at Abdul Rahman's place.

But what's more apparently Atta even had an appartement in Vero Beach:
Sunday, Sept. 9: Atta leaves his Vero Beach, Fla., apartment. At least a week earlier, Alomari, a Saudi pilot who was getting advanced flight training at FlightSafety International flight school, moves his family out of their apartment in Vero Beach.
(Providence Journal-Bulletin, 9/23/01)

So, we have the very very strange case of the four unknown hijackers living in Vero Beach and a direct link to Atta. Yet, the FBI completely omitted Vero Beach from its investigation as the media as the Commission.