Waleed A Alshehri - new evidence

MikeW

Graduate Poster
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
1,910
It was 12 days after 9/11 when the BBC ran their story "Hijack 'suspects' alive and well", leading with an account of Saudi pilot Waleed Al Shehri saying he had nothing to do with the attacks. It included the line "His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world", and this photo...

9348460947299b20c.jpg


...which led people to believe that the FBI had got it wrong. And although the BBC didn't include key details (he said elsewhere that a friend saw his photo on CNN, not that he saw any photos at all), it initially looked like a strong case.

Of course, after that people began to notice differences.

The pilot was Waleed A (for Ahmed, I think) Alshehri, while the hijacker was Waleed M (Mohammed?) Alshehri.

The pilot said he didn't have a brother called Wail. The hijacker did.

The pilot was, well, a pilot. The hijacker was a "university dropout".

The pilot's father was a diplomat. The hijacker's father was a businessman who accepted his sons had disappeared and were somehow involved (though the family questioned whether they would have knowingly taken part).

But all that could be waved away as "lies", "faked evidence" or whatever, people still clung to the idea that as he said he saw his photo, that trumped everything else. He was still alive.

This ignored the fact that the FBI didn't release their official photo list until September 27th, though. We know that CNN released photos of the wrong people, so who could say which photo the pilot Alshehri actually saw?

Then just last week I had the chance to find out, finally uncovering the CNN clip. I expected to see a picture of someone else labelled as Waleed Alshehri, but I was wrong. This was it:

9348460947af90854.jpg


CNN used the same photo that the FBI would officially release later. So much for my theory. But I soon realised there was another one. Take a look at the guy labelled at Wail Alshehri above: that's not a photo I recognised, not the alleged hijacker at all. So could this be Waleed A Alshehri instead? Was this the image his friend saw? There was no way to tell without a photo. And I didn't imagine I'd be getting one any time soon.

But I was wrong about that, too.

So here he is, everyone. For the first time ever in a 9/11 forum thread, here's a picture of the pilotl Waleed A Alshehri:

9348460946db4d42b.jpg

Original Arabic source
Dodgy Google translation

Is he the same guy that CNN showed as "Wail Alshehri"? It's too low-res to be sure, but I think it's likely:

9348460946db46ab2.jpg


Certainly it's a closer resemblance than to the FBI photo of Waleed M Alshehri. And more solid evidence that these are two different people. Waleed A was caught up in this because people were looking for pilots with similar names to the hijackers, and for that, and other reasons (perhaps like training in Florida where they knew other suspects had been) he became a suspect himself. But the reality is he has a different name, a different profession, a different age, a different family, and as we can now see, a different face. Waleed A and Waleed M are two separate individuals, and the Saudi pilot story provides no evidence whatsoever that the hijacker is still alive.
 
Yep, seems likely. Why take the risk to post the picture of guy that is stilla live anyway?
 
So Waleed M Alshehri is a hijacker, and so is his brother Wail, but the picture originally released of Wail was of Waleed A Alshehri.

Right?
 
Certainly it's a closer resemblance than to the FBI photo of Waleed M Alshehri. And more solid evidence that these are two different people. Waleed A was caught up in this because people were looking for pilots with similar names to the hijackers, and for that, and other reasons (perhaps like training in Florida where they knew other suspects had been) he became a suspect himself. But the reality is he has a different name, a different profession, a different age, a different family, and as we can now see, a different face. Waleed A and Waleed M are two separate individuals, and the Saudi pilot story provides no evidence whatsoever that the hijacker is still alive.
The real Wail Alshehri doesn't look much like the CNN picture at all:

Waleed A Alshehri-->
9348460946db46ab2.jpg
<-- Wail Alshehri

Myth BUSTED!
 
So Waleed M Alshehri is a hijacker, and so is his brother Wail, but the picture originally released of Wail was of Waleed A Alshehri.

Right?
The picture CNN captioned as Wail Alshehri was actually Waleed A Alshehri, I think, yes. See the clip itself for more (1.5 MB XviD AVI) -- interestingly the newsreader says the name "Waleed Alshehri" instead of "Wail Alshehri" when introducing the pics.

When you say "released", though, I wouldn't make it sound quite so official. The only pic in that clip that says it's sourced from the FBI is Marwan Al-shehhi, so CNN may have found the others on their own.
 
Yes, good point.

So Waleed M Alshehri is a hijacker, and so is his brother Wail. But a photograph originally identified as Wail on CNN was more likely Waleed A Alshehri, and Waleed A.'s protest of this is the source of a major "hijacker alive" myth of the truthers.
 
So Waleed M Alshehri is a hijacker, and so is his brother Wail. But a photograph originally identified as Wail on CNN was more likely Waleed A Alshehri, and Waleed A.'s protest of this is the source of a major "hijacker alive" myth of the truthers.
Exactly right. Looks like my original post could have been a lot shorter. ;)
 
that must have been a real quick job done by cnn, they also got abdulaziz alomari wrong.
Here is the hijacker al Omari:
AbdulazizonAlJazeera.jpg

in his martyrdom video

180px-Atta_atm.jpg

with mohammed atta

he doesn't look anything like the man in the photo
this, if you will remember, is another "living hijacker" often cited by the loosers. Another abdulaziz alomari was alleged to be involved who was later found to be innocent:
Abdulaziz_al-omari_alive.jpg


is this the same guy as the abdulaziz alomari in the CNN clip?
 
obviously they got Abdulaziz Alomari wrong. the guy on the CNN show looks nothing like the hijacker guy.

TAM:)
 
that must have been a real quick job done by cnn, they also got abdulaziz alomari wrong.
And Saeed Alghamdi (see the clip).

Another abdulaziz alomari was alleged to be involved who was later found to be innocent... is this the same guy as the abdulaziz alomari in the CNN clip?
Hmm, I thought not originally but it's hard to tell. See the bottom third of http://www.911myths.com/html/abdulaziz_al_omari_still_alive.html for the pilot Alomari.
 
that must have been a real quick job done by cnn, they also got abdulaziz alomari wrong.
Here is the hijacker al Omari:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/AbdulazizonAlJazeera.jpg[/qimg]
in his martyrdom video

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d3/Atta_atm.jpg/180px-Atta_atm.jpg[/qimg]
with mohammed atta

he doesn't look anything like the man in the photo
this, if you will remember, is another "living hijacker" often cited by the loosers. Another abdulaziz alomari was alleged to be involved who was later found to be innocent:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/Abdulaziz_al-omari_alive.jpg[/qimg]

is this the same guy as the abdulaziz alomari in the CNN clip?


The guy at the bottom of your pics looks much more like the CNN photo, but still not a real close match by a stretch.

TAM:)
 
Exactly right. Looks like my original post could have been a lot shorter. ;)

I'm not saying that at all! I was just making sure I understood correctly.

And Karl with the further assist - that's a good possibility as well, to these eyes.
 
oh sorry i didnt realize that 9/11 myths had so much more info than i remember, it has been a while since i visited that site.
So with this new information about waleed do you think the living hijacker claim might be a little bit more diminished by the truthers? it seems like they are backing away from the fake bin ladens and the living hijackers as of late to focus on crazier insanities, but thats just my perception, this surely is one of the weakest points of thier hopelessly weak argument. Maybe i am overestimating their ability to be persuaded by evidence.
 
oh sorry i didnt realize that 9/11 myths had so much more info than i remember, it has been a while since i visited that site.
So with this new information about waleed do you think the living hijacker claim might be a little bit more diminished by the truthers? it seems like they are backing away from the fake bin ladens and the living hijackers as of late to focus on crazier insanities, but thats just my perception, this surely is one of the weakest points of thier hopelessly weak argument. Maybe i am overestimating their ability to be persuaded by evidence.

You are correct. Apart from of the more insane like Griffin, and Fetzer, the majority of the truth movement seems to avoid the "hijacker alive" and "fake Bin-Ladin" issues now. Their main focus now seems to be on the details of the impacts/collapses, and the foreknowledge/funding issues.

TAM:)
 
So with this new information about waleed do you think the living hijacker claim might be a little bit more diminished by the truthers?
Yes. Although it'll take a while. But eventually I think they'll move from saying "these 7/ 8/ 9/ are alive and well", accept the right 19 have been named, and start talking about other "anomalies" instead. Like "hijacker a is officially supposed to arrive in the US on this date, but this report says it was earlier", or "hijacker b is reported in two separate places at the same time here, so must have a double". So don't worry, there will still be just as many claims to investigate as before...
 
You are correct. Apart from of the more insane like Griffin, and Fetzer, the majority of the truth movement seems to avoid the "hijacker alive" and "fake Bin-Ladin" issues now. Their main focus now seems to be on the details of the impacts/collapses, and the foreknowledge/funding issues.

TAM:)
Because they focus on real issues, they are now getting closer to the truth than ever... :)
 

Back
Top Bottom