Just found this on DU again.
It is a very convincing argument to show that poving alleged hijackers had doubles is proving 911 was an inside job.
Maybe this helps people realizing the need to have a closer look to a topic that that might seem too dry on this first glance.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...dress=125x89718

This is a new one John Doe ll. It never ceases to amuse me and I can do with a daily dose of humor, hence my visits here. Check this out John...

Father insists alleged leader is still alive
Kate Connolly in Berlin
Monday September 2, 2002
The Guardian

The father of Mohammed Atta, the alleged ringleader of the September 11 attacks, said in an interview published yesterday that his son was still alive.
"He is hiding in a secret place so as not to be murdered by the US secret services," Mohammed el-Amir Atta, 66, told the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag. He also vehemently denied that his son - believed to have flown the first plane into the World Trade Centre - had taken part in the atrocities, blaming them instead on "American Christians".

The interview painted a picture of a tortured man who has not come to terms with his 33-year-old son's death or with the huge crime laid at his door. He said he feared the US would try to poison him.

Speaking from his Cairo home, Mr Atta described hearing about the attacks after returning from a holiday on the Red Sea on the evening of September 12. "My daughter called and said she was going to drop in. She stood at the door and said 'turn on the TV'," he said. Amid images of the jets crashing into the Twin Towers, he saw his son's passport photograph.

"As I saw the picture of my son," he said, "I knew that he hadn't done it. My son called me the day after the attacks on September 12 at around midday. We spoke for two minutes about this and that.

"He didn't tell me where he was calling from. At that time neither of us knew anything about the attacks."

Mr Atta said he did not condone the attacks, but could understand the hijackers' motivation. "Every day our Palestinian brothers are being murdered, their houses destroyed. If their relatives were to fly a plane into the Empire State Building I couldn't hold it against them," he added.

Mr Atta called his son a "gentle and tender boy", who enjoyed reading history and geography books and was nicknamed "Bolbol", or nightingale, by his parents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...rticle_continue


What next? Elvis hijacked the planes and lost control of it while stuffing his face with peanut butter and banana burgers!

Hi gersang,

sorry, I don't get the intention of your post.
Of course I know the position of Atta's father. But to be honest he can say what he wants and this doesn't prove anything.
What can be proven is that his son had some sort of double.
And this can be proven without a shadow of a doubt (see other thread).
And Atta is not the only alleged hijacker having somebody in his shadow.
So, what's your take on that??

John Doe II,
sorry, I don't get the intention of your post.
Simple. There are literally close to a million websites with 'stories' about Atta. I just posted one which makes as much sense as what you seem to prove.

Of course I know the position of Atta's father. But to be honest he can say what he wants and this doesn't prove anything.
Naturally, it doesn't prove a thing. But I tend to place your findings in the same category.

What can be proven is that his son had some sort of double.
'Some sort of double'?

And this can be proven without a shadow of a doubt (see other thread).
'proven without a shadow of a doubt' but he is only 'Some sort of double'? Come John, if you have proven something 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', I think it should be more than 'Some sort of double'. It's like saying we have proven him guilty of murder 'beyond a shadow of doubt' and we THINK he is guilty. Doesn't make much sense does it?

And Atta is not the only alleged hijacker having somebody in his shadow.
I'm sure, and this 'some sort of shadow' can be 'proven without a shadow of a doubt' too.

So, what's your take on that??
Common sense as in understanding any conspiracy theory. The photo of Mohd Atta flashed for the whole world to see soon after 911 claimed to be the ring leader is based on the details as recorded in his passport from the flight he took, just as the other hijackers, unless we are to believe the airlines is 'in on it' as well. If there is 'some sort of a double', what is the purpose of this double?

The tons of information on the sites claiming to prove beyond a 'shadow of a doubt' that there exists doubles of the hijackers is fruitless unless there is a clear connection as to the purpose and its proof.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of people with names and features that can be claimed as another. As for 'one person being in two places at one time' and that makes something impossible is conjecture. A bartender claims he has served so and so a drink, or a bank withdrawal made by another at a time and date etc are all hypothesis that cannot be taken as definate proof, surely not 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'.

Gersang,

Based on what exactly?

Did you actually read my work before judging it?
I mean just wondering?
If you did maybe yo could be only a bit less vague??
If you didn't I'm afraid your post is sliiiightly arrogant.

Yes, exactly "some sort of double". Cause the presence of a double can be proven but not what kind of double.
The presence of Atta at the same time at two different places can be shown in MANY cases.
But there are many different form of doubles possible:
Somebody being the classical double of Atta.
Somebody planting evidence (papertrail in the name of Atta but never appearing in any encounter as Atta)
Somebody doing both but even for more than one alleged hijacker.
What exactly happened I can't prove (and I prefer to refrain from any hypothesis)
but that there were many things in Atta's life that can't be explained with one human being called Mohamed Atta is proven beyound a shadow of a doubt.

Nonsense. Total nonsense. Here it is evident you haven't read anything of my articles actually.
Of course one can prove the presence of some sort of double but not be able to prove if the double only left the evidence etc.
Why don't you read a bit and come back to o me then?

Just wondering: How come Adnan and Ameer Bukhari were considered hijackers, too?
Based on what do we consider Atta as the ringleader?
Btw where are the passenger manifests?

Do I have to speculate?
If you want speculation then eg to plant evidence. To frame the patsy.

Strange, maybe you have a different understanding of a criminal investigation than I do. Proving that an assassin had a double normally raises eyebrows and one would wonder why. And would exactly do what: Right, investigate.

You are aware of the fact that it is the official story that states Atta was in Baltimore at the bank. We even have the number of transaction.
You are aware of the fact that it wasn't only the bartender recoginzing Atta.
The FBI was there on 9/12 already and Atta was recoginzed on a photo (though his photo hasn't been in the news yet)
You are aware of the fact that this is just one of many different instances where Atta appears (or leave trails) at two different places at the same time.

Btw, why do 15 alleged hijackers enter the US before their official entrance date?

My answer: the phony patsies arrived first, to complete the task of "sheep-dipping" the real patsies. These were agents of a foreign intelligence agency chosen for their ability to "pass as an Arab." They were the ones running around Florida and the southwest signing up for flight school and engaging in other activities while using the stolen identities of the Arab patsies. The reason they engaged in such un-Islamic activities as drinking and whoring was because they were not Arabs.

The real patsies arrived at the later date. They may have been recruited by the same foreign intelligence agency to be terrorists, and some of them may have been manipulated onto the four flights, though they did not participate in the actual hijackings.

Take for example Satam al-Suqami. The real Suqami arrives in the US in April, 2001; the fake one is already here.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchR...ch=on&search=Go

The real one is somehow manipulated onto AAL11 on September 11, where he is assigned seat 10B. When Betty Ong makes her phone call from the flight, she reports an injured passenger in seat 10B.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/undera...onstruction.htm

So on each of the flights we may have had a few of the following:

A. Dark-skinned agents playing the role of Arabs while assisting with the hijacking. The passengers are fooled into thinking they are Arabs so they pass that mistaken assumption on to the rest of America in their phone calls. America responds by supporting wars against Muslim countries in the Middle East.

B. American-looking agents who also assist in the hijacking but who are not meant to be seen by the passengers. These hijackers board the planes under their real names; their clean-cut appearance may allow them to gain the trust of the pilots, who allow them into the cockpit thinking they are pilots. These may have been the men sitting in the seats 9A and 9B on AAL11-- reported by Ong as the seats from which the hijackers came.

C. Real Arab patsies. Like Suqami, sitting on the plane with no clue what is going to go down. The tragic lives come to a pathetic end when they are executed by the real hijackers at the outset of the hijackings.

There are literally close to a million websites with 'stories' about Atta. I just posted one which makes as much sense as what you seem to prove.
Based on what exactly?
Based on reports, findings, investigations, comments etc. The one I qouted was published by a reporter who conducted the interview. Was it nothing more than bullshit or did the father lie about talking to his son Atta after 911? Like another poster said, "A black box can be planted and both the data and voices within them can be falsified with existing computing and voice synthesis technology. That is a fact." Anything is possible today. To me, the mere fact that neither the 'original' Atta or your 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' double Atta have since not emerged for more than 5 years seem to suggest that it's all conjecture.

Did you actually read my work before judging it? I mean just wondering?
Yes I did, but even you should know that it would have been impossible for me to response so soon if I've read ALL your work and believe me I've tried considering the sites that take you to forums and more sites adds... see below for my take on this 'trail'.

If you did maybe yo could be only a bit less vague?? If you didn't I'm afraid your post is sliiiightly arrogant.
Maybe I'm being sliiiightly vague and arrogant given what you want me to believe and the way these so-called facts are presented.


Yes, exactly "some sort of double". Cause the presence of a double can be proven but not what kind of double.
The presence of Atta at the same time at two different places can be shown in MANY cases.
But there are many different form of doubles possible:
Somebody being the classical double of Atta.
Somebody planting evidence (papertrail in the name of Atta but never appearing in any encounter as Atta)
Somebody doing both but even for more than one alleged hijacker.
What exactly happened I can't prove (and I prefer to refrain from any hypothesis)
but that there were many things in Atta's life that can't be explained with one human being called Mohamed Atta is proven beyound a shadow of a doubt.
I'll agree that ALL of the above findings are possible and I'm sure if one were to 'investigate' most of the criminal cases right down from Kennedy to Dahmer, one can come up with most, if not all of the above senarios and can cast a doubt without exactly proving anything.

It's like saying we have proven him guilty of murder 'beyond a shadow of doubt' and we THINK he is guilty. Doesn't make much sense does it?
Nonsense. Total nonsense. Here it is evident you haven't read anything of my articles actually.
If you believe what I'm saying is total nonsense, you have to conclude I haven't seen any evidence in your articles.

Why don't you read a bit and come back to o me then?
No need to as I've spent enough time and all I get are what 'so and so' said. I get the gist of your findings.

Just wondering: How come Adnan and Ameer Bukhari were considered hijackers, too?
Doesn't take a genius to figure that Arab sounding names would have been the prime suspects. FBI believed there were only 18 hijackers, and the original list contained some erroneous Arab-sounding names on the flight manifests, such as Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari [CNN, 9/13/2001]. Bukhari's attorney said it appeared their identifications were stolen and said Bukhari had no role in the hijackings.

Based on what do we consider Atta as the ringleader?
Common sense. Mohd Atta seemed to be more involved in the overall oprerations of the attacts than let's say, Abdulaziz al-Omari.

Btw where are the passenger manifests?
I'm sure one who has done such extensive research on 'doubles' of the 911 hijackers would find it a breeze to get a hold of the passenger manifests. I googled and this site - http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.cen...11.victims.html - provided a list fpr flight11. Or maybe you want the actual list from the airlines? Surely, ou must have your resourses.

If there is 'some sort of a double', what is the purpose of this double?
Do I have to speculate?
I would, in fact I'd state it out loud and clear! Why waste so much of time doing such extensive research just to prove something? Are you doing a thesis on 'doubles' by any chance?

If you want speculation then eg to plant evidence. To frame the patsy.
So the perpetrators manage to get a Muslim look-alike (or maybe more than one?) of say, Mohd Atta to go along with this attack. Now the double(s) is alive while (one) Atta was fried. And these doubles that look like Atta, have Muslim names and probably are Muslims just chilling somewhere while the whole world blames the Muslims for 911? Just throwing some wild possibilities around.

Strange, maybe you have a different understanding of a criminal investigation than I do. Proving that an assassin had a double normally raises eyebrows and one would wonder why. And would exactly do what: Right, investigate.
Right, investigate. Any investigations in progress so far or is that none of your concern but just getting the ball rolling? Someone once asked why the NTSB didn't investigate the plane crashes of 911. I think the NTSB didn't bother with an investigation, the same reason there is no investigation of doubles of hijackers be it 'to plant evidence or to frame the patsy'.

You are aware of the fact that it is the official story that states Atta was in Baltimore at the bank. We even have the number of transaction.
You are aware of the fact that it wasn't only the bartender recoginzing Atta.
The FBI was there on 9/12 already and Atta was recoginzed on a photo (though his photo hasn't been in the news yet)
You are aware of the fact that this is just one of many different instances where Atta appears (or leave trails) at two different places at the same time.
Nope. Because, other than internet forums, I've not heard any from any media reports. I've tried following your DU site postings and the results are below.

Btw, why do 15 alleged hijackers enter the US before their official entrance date?
Even if that was a fact, were are dealing with people who have no reason to live. The reason why 15 alleged hijackers 'allegedly entered the US before their official entrance date becomes anyone's guess. I'm sure they had 'lots to do' even before they were 'officially' in the country. Given their 'resources', I wouldn't put anything pass them.

My attempt at getting evidence of '14 of 19 alleged hijackers entered the US before official entrance date.
Democratic Underground.Com (site provided on your 1st message)
leads to...
Andre II - 14 of 19 alleged hijackers entered the US before official entrance date.
clicking this...
For info on each alleged hijacker and presenatation of evidence that he entered the country before the official entrance date see:
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewforum.php?23
leads to
Summary
Summary of findings :
Here a list of the results of the research on the 19 alleged hijackers.
leads to...
Introduction
Tracking the alleged hijackers and their doubles
For the official data on the alleged hijackers (at the beginning of all files) it was used:
(don't need 'official data', just evidence of '14 of 19 alleged hijackers entered the US before official entrance date'.
clicking this...
Mohamed Atta (AA 11) >
Mohamed Atta, the ring leader, had 12 addresses, two places he lived and 10 safe houses, under the names Mohamed Atta, Mohammed J. Atta, J. Atta, and his middle initial spelled out. ?
http://www.dlc.org/print.cfm?contentid=251085
leads to Clinton speech....
I ended my 'research' here with squat on evidence of '14 of 19 alleged hijackers entered the US before official entrance date.

A-Train,
Nice screenplay for a movie. Maybe you should consider producing one. Let's face it, as far as doubles are concerned, it is common for anyone to think they have seen this person or that person somewhere especially during an investigation. It happens everyday in almost all criminal investigations be it a missing person, a murder, a serial killer, a robbery etc. Imagine these Arab looking guys and their names. How many Suqami's and look-alikes do you think there are? I won't be surprised if an Eskimo claims seeing one in the Antartic!

Seriously.....
A. Dark-skinned agents playing the role of Arabs while assisting with the hijacking.
Assisting in what way? Making coffee for them?

The passengers are fooled into thinking they are Arabs so they pass that mistaken assumption on to the rest of America in their phone calls.
So we have the real Arabs sitting around fiddling their balls while the 'real hijackers' who are white Americans of dark Arab looking skin making fools of the passengers thinking they are Muslims. And these 'real hijackers who are white Americans of dark Arab looking skin' got fried in the crash or are they somewhere in Timbuktu sipping margaritas?

America responds by supporting wars against Muslim countries in the Middle East.
Oh those innocent Muslims again.

B. American-looking agents who also assist in the hijacking but who are not meant to be seen by the passengers.
Wonder who they are? Do you have any names from the passenger manifest or are they also 'doubles of doubles'. The plot thickens!

These hijackers board the planes under their real names; their clean-cut appearance may allow them to gain the trust of the pilots, who allow them into the cockpit thinking they are pilots.
Ah yes... they were probably discussing the last woman they shagged in the cock-pit maybe? And do airline pilots normally allow men with 'clean-cut appearance' into the cock-pit if they think they are pilots too? I suppose the do and we'll accept that as a fact.

These may have been the men sitting in the seats 9A and 9B on AAL11-- reported by Ong as the seats from which the hijackers came.
These are 'white Americans of dark Arab looking skin' and 'clean-cut appearance', I presume? Now why would Ong report such 'upstanding' passengers? Were they scratching their balls with box-cutters not bothering anyone? Is it against airline regulations to scratch your balls with box-cutters? I don't know A-Train, help me out here.

C. Real Arab patsies. Like Suqami, sitting on the plane with no clue what is going to go down.
Yeah...yeah.. he was looking forward to landing on a resort with a bevy of caucasian women around him.

The tragic lives come to a pathetic end when they are executed by the real hijackers at the outset of the hijackings.
And what was Betty Ong doing while these 'Real Arab patsies with no clue what is going to go down' are being executed by the 'real hijackers'? Oh, I know... she was reporting information of the 'Real Arab patsies' seat numbers to ground control. I suppose seeing an Arab executed by 'white Americans of dark Arab looking skin' and 'clean-cut appearance' is common on airlines and not worth reporting, especially when she believes the plane is being hijacked.

You should get in touch with Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker, makers of 'Airplane'.

Gersang,

it's amazing how long a post can be without any source and any fact but still 100% convinced to be right!
No challenge of Atta being severa times at the same places. Nothing. But still treating the person who presented tonnes of fact with the same arrogance.

Maybe I'm being sliiiightly vague and arrogant given what you want me to believe and the way these so-called facts are presented.

Why don't you simply come up and challenge stuff instaed of remaing vague?

I'll agree that ALL of the above findings are possible and I'm sure if one were to 'investigate' most of the criminal cases right down from Kennedy to Dahmer, one can come up with most, if not all of the above senarios and can cast a doubt without exactly proving anything.

Again, this means nothing. Proves nothing. Remains vague and refuses to challenge anything that proves Atta had a double.

If you believe what I'm saying is total nonsense, you have to conclude I haven't seen any evidence in your articles.

Again, refusing to adress anything. Just babbling around.

Bukhari's attorney said it appeared their identifications were stolen and said Bukhari had no role in the hijackings.

Yes, I know that. But how were they stolen?
And how does the FBI know then who was instead of these two on board?

Mohd Atta seemed to be more involved in the overall oprerations of the attacts than let's say, Abdulaziz al-Omari.

And Al Shehhi? He did many more phone calls than Atta. And almost always with him. So, why is Atta and not him the ringleader?

I'm sure one who has done such extensive research on 'doubles' of the 911 hijackers would find it a breeze to get a hold of the passenger manifests. I googled and this site - http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.cen...11.victims.html - provided a list fpr flight11. Or maybe you want the actual list from the airlines? Surely, ou must have your resourses.

Unfortunately you didn't google any further. First of all CNN is NOT OFFICIAL. Second how come if you add the names of passengers being listed for AA 11 from eight big US newspapers you come up with 100 names? A bit too much for 92 wouldn't you think? How do the Larsons get on the CNN list? Even if they never booked a ticket.


I would, in fact I'd state it out loud and clear! Why waste so much of time doing such extensive research just to prove something? Are you doing a thesis on 'doubles' by any chance?

O yeah, the same old bullshit!
If you can prove somebody didn't kill soembody else but was put into prison do you have to prove who was the real killer or doesn't it suffice in the US to prove that the person wasn't guilty?

I think the NTSB didn't bother with an investigation

Since when it is crucial if an organization bothers to investigate? They have to. They are obliged by law. Or would you accept a judge putting somebody in prison and not bothering to have a proper investigation??

Nope. Because, other than internet forums, I've not heard any from any media reports. I've tried following your DU site postings and the results are below.

There are several instances quoted in my timeline where Atta appears at two different places at the very same time. This is already indicated in the summary at the beginning of the article.

Even if that was a fact, were are dealing with people who have no reason to live. The reason why 15 alleged hijackers 'allegedly entered the US before their official entrance date becomes anyone's guess. I'm sure they had 'lots to do' even before they were 'officially' in the country. Given their 'resources', I wouldn't put anything pass them.

Nonsense. I don't care if they have resources or not. The question is why does the CR give no less than 15 times the wrong entrance date for the alleged hijackers? Why do we have proof in 15 cases of them being in the US before?
If you prefer to joke about my timeline go ahead. Maybe you wish to check out Paul Thompson's you'll find the same info.

Maybe next time you manage to challenge the topic of this thread with some facts or challenge facts presented by me instead of going around in circles??

Right on, JohnDoeII..

John Doe II has vast credibility on the hijacker topic.
Ignore Gersang post (or better yet, read it and learn how NOT to debunk...)

then go visit team8plus.org

thanks for bringing always original and thoughtful research JDII.