• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Convince me Arab Terrorists were on planes

roundhead

Banned
R
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
824
I am open minded to the suggestion that they were. However, i have serious doubts that any were.

Any evidence that would show these 18/19 guys were aboard these flights on 9/11 is appreciated.

What does seem to be the case is that there is zero convincing video evidence any of these guys boarded any of the four planes on 9/11.

We do have, seemingly, video evidence of Atta in Portland, but not at Logan, and there appears to be very controversial evidence of highjackers boarding at Dulles, that is at best unconvincing, and factually wrong in several areas.

No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001, And some "terrorists" who were initially said to have been on the planes were later proven to not have been, and replaced later wiith other names.

In short, i am having a problem with the bare bones evidence on the side of terorists boarding the planes, and the body of evidence which is out there which sugests they never boarded the "planes" at all.


Help tip the scales to one side or the other for me, i have a very open mind about this.
 
Last edited:
No.

You've already started your conclusion based on fabricated claims that are untrue, and you expect anyone to believe that you actually want to be convinced? Please don't waste our time. There are 100s of threads that already cover the evidence you are claiming to look for. But you're not really looking for any.
 
Last edited:
Do you think we can, are you and learning on a first name basis?




Use the search function, this has been covered so many times in 7 years. 7 years and you can't find the terrorist names. Why?
 
Last edited:
Johnny, from reading your ramblings on here, i submit you are one person who couldnt convince me on way or the other.

So, in short, your "no" answer represents perhaps the highwater mark of your contributions to this board thus far, as far as is apparent to me.
 
What would you consider valid evidence that they were on the planes?
 
roundhead said:
No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001
Click to expand...
Here's what the Boston Globe published on September 14th 2001:

Flight_11_Manifest.gif



In addition they reported they'd obtained the manifest for Flight 175, which also contained the hijackers.
 
roundhead said:
Johnny, from reading your ramblings on here, i submit you are one person who couldnt convince me on way or the other.

So, in short, your "no" answer represents perhaps the highwater mark of your contributions to this board thus far, as far as is apparent to me.
Click to expand...

Again, who are you kidding here pretending you want to be convinced or that you are remotely open to being convinced. You're not, you know it, and the context of your thread is dishonest to even imply so. The fact that the information you are looking for is easily found in a simple search here and that you start with false information proves your intent.

You call this a contribution? Ignoring the information here and pretending it doesn't exist? That's called trolling.
 
roundhead said:
I am open minded to the suggestion that they were. However, i have serious doubts that any were.

No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001,

Help tip the scales to one side or the other for me, i have a very open mind about this.
Click to expand...

Good on ya mate! It is good to have an open mind, and I sense sincerity in your posts, so lets tuck in shall we?

Passenger manifests in 2001? Well, lets look at that, because it seems that you have confused manifests with lists of victims, so that is HUGE, would not you agree, good buddy?

But hell, don't listen to me, listen to a Truther!

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/9-11-misinformation-flight-passenger-lists-show-no-hijacker-names

Arabesque and I think you are a victim of disinfo from the Truther brigade, those rascals!
 
Why do we have to convince you? The majority of people worldwide accept there were Arab terrorists on the planes - who cares what you think?

Seriously, why? What are you going to do if we don't? Start a new investigation? Bring down the Government and start a revolution? Or are you just going to keep braying for attention on a (relatively) tiny internet forum?

I bet if you were being honest with yourself, you'd admit you don't want us to convince you.

If you want to be convinced - convince yourself. Do the research - start with links you can find on this site.
 
Why do you lie so much?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/14/national/main311268.shtml

The Boston Globe reported on its web site Thursday that it had obtained a copy of the complete manifest list of the planes hijacked from Boston.

The Globe said according to the manifest, Mohamed Atta, one of the suspected terrorists, was assigned seat 8D in business class on American Airlines Flight 11, directly across the aisle from Hollywood producer David Angell and his wife, Lynn, who were in seats 8A and 8B, respectively. Seated next to Atta in seat 8G was Abdul Alomari. FBI investigators have searched Alomari's home in Vero Beach.

The Globe reported the passenger list for United Air Lines Flight 175 shows that Marwan Alshehri got on the plane that left Boston and slammed into one of the Manhattan skyscrapers 15 minutes after Flight 11. An FAA pilot directory information spelled his name Marwan Alshehhi.
Click to expand...

ETA: Oops, Mike beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
This snip from Griffin is at the heart of my question. I am not hear to defend him. He has, IMO, made some mistakes along the way, so have others, including Nist among others.

Instead, i want to focus on his claims, and if they are in fact true. If they are not, point out why.

I quote Griffin, in part:


What about the passenger manifests, which list all the passengers on the flights? If the alleged hijackers purchased tickets and boarded the flights, their names would have been on the manifests for these flights. And we were told that they were. According to counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, the FBI told him at about 10:00 that morning that it recognized the names of some al-Qaeda operatives on passenger manifests it had received from the airlines.77 As to how the FBI itself acquired its list, Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, said to the 9/11 Commission in 2004:

On the morning of 9/11, through an evaluation of data related to the passenger manifest for the four terrorist hijacked aircraft, Customs Office of Intelligence was able to identify the likely terrorist hijackers. Within 45 minutes of the attacks, Customs forwarded the passenger lists with the names of the victims and 19 probable hijackers to the FBI and the intelligence community.78

Under questioning, Bonner added:

We were able to pull from the airlines the passenger manifest for each of the four flights. We ran the manifest through [our lookout] system. . . . y 11:00 AM, I'd seen a sheet that essentially identified the 19 probable hijackers. And in fact, they turned out to be, based upon further follow-up in detailed investigation, to be the 19.79

Bonner's statement, however, is doubly problematic. In the first place, the initial FBI list, as reported by CNN on September 13 and 14, contained only 18 names.80 Why would that be if 19 men had already been identified on 9/11?

Second, several of the names on the FBI's first list, having quickly become problematic, were replaced by other names. For example, the previously discussed men named Bukhari, thought to be brothers, were replaced on American 11's list of hijackers by brothers named Waleed and Wail al-Shehri. Two other replacements for this flight were Satam al-Suqami, whose passport was allegedly found at Ground Zero, and Abdul al-Omari, who allegedly went to Portland with Atta the day before 9/11. Also, the initial list for American 77 did not include the name of Hani Hanjour, who would later be called the pilot of this flight. Rather, it contained a name that, after being read aloud by a CNN correspondent, was transcribed "Mosear Caned."81 All in all, the final list of 19 hijackers contained six names that were not on the original list of 18---a fact that contradicts Bonner's claim that by 11:00 AM on 9/11 his agency had identified 19 probable hijackers who, in fact, "turned out to be. . . the 19."

These replacements to the initial list also undermine the claim that Amy Sweeney, by giving the seat numbers of three of the hijackers to Michael Woodward of American Airlines, allowed him to identify Atta and two others. This second claim is impossible because the two others were Abdul al-Omari and Satam al-Suqami,82 and they were replacements for two men on the original list---who, like Adnan Bukhari, turned up alive after 9/11.83 Woodward could not possibly have identified men who were not added to the list until several days later.84

For all these reasons, the claim that the names of the 19 alleged hijackers were on the airlines' passenger manifests must be considered false
 
roundhead said:
I am open minded to the suggestion that they were. However, i have serious doubts that any were.

Any evidence that would show these 18/19 guys were aboard these flights on 9/11 is appreciated.

What does seem to be the case is that there is zero convincing video evidence any of these guys boarded any of the four planes on 9/11.

We do have, seemingly, video evidence of Atta in Portland, but not at Logan, and there appears to be very controversial evidence of highjackers boarding at Dulles, that is at best unconvincing, and factually wrong in several areas.

No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001, And some "terrorists" who were initially said to have been on the planes were later proven to not have been, and replaced later wiith other names.

In short, i am having a problem with the bare bones evidence on the side of terorists boarding the planes, and the body of evidence which is out there which sugests they never boarded the "planes" at all.


Help tip the scales to one side or the other for me, i have a very open mind about this.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for the open mind. As we both know, there is little chance we could find the remains of Atta and Marwan A.S, but they did find the remains of the hijackers at the crashsight of United 93. They also found the business card of Ziad Jarrah's uncle, with Ramzibinalshibh's (Who lived with Atta and Marwan A.S and is now on trial for 9/11) Hamburg address written on the back. I also believe they found the remains of the hijackers on Flight 77. We also have men chanting in Arabic 'Allah hu-Akbhar', and an Egyptian voice on Flight 11 telling the passangers to stay in their seats. Their car was left at the airport with extremist material in it. All of this fits with now-known Islamic fundamentalists with links to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden buying tickets for these planes and yes, appearing on the manifests. Who were radicals on those flights with strong links to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a man who planned the 'planes operation'? It wasn't Mark Bingham.
 
roundhead said:
This snip from Griffin is at the heart of my question. I am not hear to defend him. He has, IMO, made some mistakes along the way, so have others, including Nist among others.
Click to expand...

Hey good buddy, lets slow down with the goal post moving!

Ha ha! I'm just kidding.

Say, maybe you can help us help you! It seems like Griffin is basing his books that he is selling on a preliminary report from CNN? Is that true?

That seems important, lets get right to the bottom of that!
 
roundhead said:
No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001, ...
Click to expand...
FALSE

It was a reading comprehension test by the news agencies to fool 9/11 truthers and those who do not read to understand.

They tricked those 9/11 truth groups by saying "victims list".

The passengers and crew were victims, the murdering terrorist, who 9/11 truth apologize for, are the bad guys, NOT victims.
 
Last edited:
roundhead said:
Second, several of the names on the FBI's first list, having quickly become problematic, were replaced by other names.
Click to expand...
Griffin is simply pretending that media reports constitute "the FBI's first list". And they don't. The FBI's actual first list is at http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm , and contains just the 19 hijackers that we know already.

Griffin is also pretending that, because people like the Bukharis were briefly suspects, that means they must have appeared on the manifest. That's equally false. How were the FBI to know initially that the "Mohamed Atta" on the manifest was his real name? In the first few days they considered several alternative possibilities, just as you'd expect. The idea that this shows "the claim that the names of the 19 alleged hijackers were on the airlines' passenger manifests must be considered false" is fantasy, even by Dr Griffin's dishonest standards.
 
DRG's statements about the lists do not undo or even address the foundations of the evidence:

  1. Martyrdom videos featuring the hijackers themselves.
  2. Security video of hijackers in the airports.
  3. DNA evidence retrieved from the crash sites matched to either family members or items left behind in cars, hotel rooms, etc.
That's all direct evidence. There's also supporting evidence in who they associated with, the fact that certain individuals engaged in flight training, etc.

No matter what DRG says about the lists, those pieces of evidence stand. Complaints about names changing on the initial lists establish nothing more than a lack of information and clarity in the early stages of the investigation; it does not disprove information gathered later.
 
MikeW said:
Griffin is simply pretending that media reports constitute "the FBI's first list". And they don't. The FBI's actual first list is at http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm , and contains just the 19 hijackers that we know already.

Griffin is also pretending that, because people like the Bukharis were briefly suspects, that means they must have appeared on the manifest. That's equally false. How were the FBI to know initially that the "Mohamed Atta" on the manifest was his real name? In the first few days they considered several alternative possibilities, just as you'd expect. The idea that this shows "the claim that the names of the 19 alleged hijackers were on the airlines' passenger manifests must be considered false" is fantasy, even by Dr Griffin's dishonest standards.
Click to expand...


As you claim the FBI is the "official" list provider, and the CNN story lists the FBI as its source, i fail to see any point you have raised.

I will cite the FBI quote again, it makes claer the "highjackers" were identified on 9/11 itself, the CNN story was several days LATER...


Under questioning, Bonner added:

We were able to pull from the airlines the passenger manifest for each of the four flights. We ran the manifest through [our lookout] system. . . . y 11:00 AM, I'd seen a sheet that essentially identified the 19 probable hijackers. And in fact, they turned out to be, based upon further follow-up in detailed investigation, to be the 19.79



80. "FBI: Early Probe Results Show 18 Hijackers Took Part," CNN, 13 September 2001 (click here "List of Names of 18 Suspected Hijackers," CNN, 14 September 2001 (click here
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom