DRG 571 Page Lie - Lets take it point by point

[T.A.M.]

Well, there's lots of gaps where it's stuff I know nothing about.

But aside from that, I did it off the top of my head and I have no doubt there's plenty of errors in there.

Once I have satisfactory answers for every point I was intending to assemble it together into a single document with sources.

-Gumboot

That is exactly why I made the OP. I have tried to create such a document a couple of times, but as a single undertaking it was too time consuming, and often too boring, as so many of his claims are so well debunked, that I find it hard to go get the sources I know are behind the debunking. Having someone else who wants to give it a go is great.

I will provide what I have, but would hope others could perhaps take a few points each, and then with each provide links to sources to back up the refutations.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Here some early stuff I wrote...

Point #1:
The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers — including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC — are still alive (19-20).

Counter-argument:
First of all, I will ignore the fact that you don’t even list the six you feel are still alive. My research on your arguments, and of your peers in this regards, has provided me with a list of those you feel are still alive. Secondly, I will not ignore that you provide no evidence for this here (for brevity I am sure). However, once again, in researching the websites of your brothers-in-arms on this point, I have the articles from which the origins of this argument have come.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

(1) Waleed Al Shehri:
First, “Waleed” and “Al Shehri” are both extremely common Arab names.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html

The BBC article quotes a man who’s full name is Waleed A. Al-Shehri. The FBI file indicates the Hijacker was Waleed M. Al-Shehri.

Second, the FBI’s Waleed had an older brother, Wail Al-Shehri, who was also a Hijacker, where as the BBC (Morocco) Waleed denies having a brother at all.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040707....com/content/ncm/2001/oct/1005identities.html

Third, there are reports of a Waleed M. Al-Shehri who had and older brother Wail, reported missing by their families for some time. Ages, and motives compatable with FBI suspects.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031026101720/http://www.arabianews.org/english/article.cfm?qid=12&sid=6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A19549-2001Sep24&notFound=true

Fourth, the photo that the BBC (Morocco) Waleed refers to being him, was seen on CNN in the 2-3 days after 9-11, well before the final FBI list and Photos were ever published. CNN had published an incorrect photo of Saeed Al-Ghamdi earlier, so it is quite possible the photo he saw, was not the correct one.

Fifth, ASAA, a London based arab journal interviewed the same BBC (Morocco) Waleed, in Morocco, on September 22, 2001. In that interview he says his friend saw his photo on CNN the “Sunday last”. Now Sept 22 was a Saturday, so the Sunday last would have been the 16th of September, well before the FBI release. The ASAA interview, was in fact 5 days before the FBI photo list.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040707....com/content/ncm/2001/oct/1005identities.html

Sixth, in May 2001 A Photo Drivers Licence was obtained by Waleed Alshehri, a photo which matches the FBI Photo.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM01015.pdf

Now this photo could not be the one the friend of the BBC (Morocco) Waleed was shown, as this photo was taken IN THE USA, at a time when the Moroccan Waleed says he had left the USA, not to return.

In weighing the evidence, it becomes clear that in this case it is just a case of two people with the same name, who had both been to the USA in recent years.


(2) Abdulaziz Al Omari
First, there are actually two men with the same name who came forward after 9/11 to say they were not the terrorist in question. The one that is quoted most often is a man with the same name, and same birth date as one of those given by FBI. The birthdate is December 24th, 1972. The second is a man with the same name, who was a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines. No birthdate is given for him. The second Birth Date given for FBI Al Omari is May 28 1979, which matches exactly, a visa application made by an Abdulaziz Al Omari in June of 2001.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp

So now we have three potential men (the visa applicant, the Saudi airline pilot, and the engineer with stolen passport). All this tells me is there are multiple men with the same name and that some of them were in the USA. It is NOT PROOF that the Hijacker with this name is still alive.

Secondly, A videotape shows a man, at an ATM standing next to Mohamed Atta. The man is identical to the photo the FBI released of Al-Omari. The video tape was taken September 10, 2001, long after the “Lost Passport” Omari claims to have left the states. (he actually says he was in Riyadh when the 9/11 took place). Once again, only proof of men with the same name.


(3) Saeed Alghamdi
First, This name is a very common Arab name.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html

Secondly, The rumor of the hijacker still being alive came from a BBC news article, which has admitted they got there story from Arab News Agencies, who admit they got their story based on an interview done by Mohammed Samman of the Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat. Journalists from Der Spiegel interview Samman, who admitted it was all a mistaken identity issue. When he was presented with the FBI photo of Alghamdi, he said it was not the Alghamdi he interviewed.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html

Given all of the subsequent articles on this hijacker being alive were based on this original interview, and the person who interviewed him said it is not the same man as in the FBI photo, I think puts this one to rest.

(4) Khalid Al Midhar
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,601550,00.html

AND

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

Are the two articles quoted as proof that this hijacker is still alive, As well as an insurance paper which lists him as alive after 9/11, but also lists other hijackers, including one that have been suggested alive by Mr. Griffin, as dead. You can’t pick and chose your evidence.

The evidence above consists of (1) a suggestion he is alive (BBC article) and no evidence at all to back up the statement, and (2) a man living in the USA, who in addition to his real name, often went by the same name as Midhar. This is not even enough proof for me to have to find counter proof. Mistaken identity, nothing more.

(5) Wail (Wael) Al-Shehri
See evidence above for brother Waleed.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031026101720/http://www.arabianews.org/english/article.cfm?qid=12&sid=6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A19549-2001Sep24&notFound=true

(6) Ahmed Al-Nami
First, the telegraph article this alleged alive hijacker is based on, came out 4 days before the photo list of hijackers was released by the FBI. The Al-Nami they say is still alive, is 33 and works in administration for Saudi airlines. He says he was in Riyadh on 9/11. Ok, so this guy they have is obviously not the hijacker, as the hijacker was in the USA on 9/11.
However, an Arabian News article mentions Ahmed Al-nami, Age=23, with ties to Afghanistan.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031026101720/http://www.arabianews.org/english/article.cfm?qid=12&sid=6

And another article actually identifies the 23y Ahmed as the one in the FBi pics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A19549-2001Sep24&notFound=true

SO it seems once again, same name, not same guy. Hijacker dead.

(7) Salem Al-Hamzi
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

Is the article that mentions this Hijacker as alive.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Is an article that mentions the younger Al-Hamzi (not the 26y one claimed above to be alive) and that his father says it wasn’t them.

First, in this very article they mention that the supposed “alive” Al-Hamzi is 26, and has never been to the US. Meanwhile, the FBI list hijacker Al-Hamzi as age=21.

Secondly, there is no mention of the age 26 Al-Hamzi having a brother, Nawaf, also alleged to have been one of the hijackers (strange he wouldn’t proclaim his brothers innocence)

Third, there is an article.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031026101720/http://www.arabianews.org/english/article.cfm?qid=12&sid=6

which identifies a 21 year old Al-Hamzi, with a brother Nawaf, who have been missing since they went to Afghanistan in March 2000.

Fourth, the father says the photos are not those of his son, yet the interview takes place before the FBI released their photos (9/27/2001). There is no proof the photos he saw were the FBI photos, and given the number of incorrect photos that were out at that time, they likely were incorrect.

(8) Mohamed Atta
Claim based on article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,12361,784541,00.html

Where Atta’s Father says he got a call from him on September 12th.

First, in an article, dated September 18th, 2001

http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20Notes/Eqyptian%20man%20denies%20son's%20involvement%20in%20hijackings.html

he does not mention this call, he identifies the Photos of Atta used in the USA as those of his son, and says Atta was “Shy, gentle, tender”.
Then in an article much later, he admits his son, the same “gentle, shy, tender” son, was a fighter for al-qaeda.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/atta.father.terror/index.html


Point #2:
The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta — such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances — that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

Counter-argument:
There are articles that have stated that Mohamed Atta did engage in drinking, eating pork, watching strippers, etc…

First, if the articles are true, it might have been his attempts to “blend in”. Atta has been linked/associated with a sect of Islam known as Al Takfir wal Hijra, or Takfir for short. Takfir followers believe in a practice called “taqiyya”, also known as “subterfuge”. This practice involved blending in with the infidels, and those practicing subterfuge were allowed to ignore Islamic law in order to “blend in”. Look at list of alleged followers in the 4th link below.

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/al-takfir-wal-hijra/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir_wal-Hijra
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/takfir-wal-hijra

Second, one of the main witnesses used in the reports of alleged “infidel” activities, was a woman claiming to he Atta’s Girlfriend, Amanda Keller. Ms. Keller has since admitted to lying about her relationship with Atta.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060910/NEWS/609100466/1007/BUSINESS

At the very least, the above calls into question the validity of the claims, and even if true, they are explained through his possible practice of “Subterfuge”.


Point #3:
The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

Counter-argument:
Beyond the obvious bias in the argument presented on this fact, which is based on one article, from the Prince George’s Journal (stopped publishing 2005), the evidence presented (what little of it) is speculation and opinion, so I will try to counter it with more than that, but at least that, especially since the 9/11 commission conceded this evidence to a degree.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-537.html

However, despite that, he was able to obtain both a private and commercial pilots licence, as seen below. He also trained on a 737 flight sim, and eventually completed the training. In his training he too test flights near Washington DC.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-242.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-259.html

Oh, and the commission also made note of his skills, here:

170. FBI report, "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 52¬57.
Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an
instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small
airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training
from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie
Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004).

As well, the same instructor quoted to discredit hanjour’s skills, was also credited as saying that despite his (Hanjour’s) poor skills, he could have pointed the jet at the building and hit it, once the plane was going.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

Other pilots agree

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index_np.html

Here is a link to an 911myths article written by an airforce/airline pilot

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


Point #4:
The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).


Counter-argument:
Above point based on one thing only, that being the passenger (later changed to “Victims”) list COMPILED and presented by CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html

First, These are admitted, by CNN, to be COMPILED, PARTIAL (get that, partial) lists, based on info from other media sources, fire dept, etc…

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html
(note same source used by Dr. Griffin, just a different page.)

Second, nowhere else has any “official Passenger Manifest” been published for those flights.

Once again, though 911myths did some research. They contacted Terry McDermott, Author of “Perfect Soldiers”, when they noticed in that books photo section, an item that looked like a passenger list. Mr. McDermott confirmed that they were passenger lists, and were given to him by the FBI, along with other documents, for his books research.
911myths were able to get these lists for ALL 4 HIJACKED 9/11 Flights.

http://www.911myths.com/911_Manifests.zip

While they do not appear to be Official airline passenger manifests, they do appear to be official documents, and all 4 list the hijackers within them. Some might question their authenticity, to which I would say, perhaps, but if you were gonna fake a document for that purpose, wouldn’t you fake the official manifests, with the full names on them?

Third, the Boston Globe published an article, with an illustrated image of the seating arrangement of AA Flight#11. In it, you will see that all the Hijackers are found.

http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif

Note that the globe put this visual together themselves, but it was based on the seating arrangement that they OBTAINED (not created).

Finally, and most importantly, in the prosecution exhibits for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, there are lists of all passengers from all flights, and these lists include all of the hijackers. This exhibit is a legal document, approved by prosecution, defense, and the courts themselves.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

Look at exhibits P200018 which lists all passengers and crew for all 4 flights.


Point #5:
The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

Counter-argument:
First, this argument is pointless. Only very early on, in the initial FEMA report and preliminary analysis, was there any reference to the fires being the sole cause of the collapse. Since then more thorough analysis by NIST and other Engineering groups have concluded the following:

The collapses of the WTCs on 9/11, were caused by multiple factors, including (a) Intense fires covering 8-10 floors in each building, ignited and spread by jet fuel, then maintained by the burning of vast amounts of furniture, carpets, walls, and other contents of the buildings themselves, (b) removal, via plane impact, of the fireproofing from the walls and columns, (c) severing of many of the exterior and interior steeel columns by the impact of the airliners.

The severing of the steel columns placed additional load on the intact columns, removing the “redundancy” that was built into the WTCs. The huge multi-storey fires caused temperatures at times in excess of 1000 C, and this caused significant weakening of the strength of the now unprotected (fireproofing gone) support columns. This caused a sagging of the floors and the trusses, with subsequent inward bending of the columns and vertical support. This eventually caused the collapse of the floors of impact. Once the collapse had intitiated, the enourmous load of the floors above, which were now accelerating down to earch, caused the progressive collapse of the remainder of the building. (source NIST)

Also see,
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
(Thanks 911myths)

As well, the lead structural engineer of the WTC, Leslie Robertson says that the building’s design was calculated to be able to withstand a boeing 707 (smaller) at a speed of about 180 mph (much slower), and that the fire caused by a fuel laden jet such as this was not calculated for.

http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The Height of Ambition Part Four.pdf

Finally, the whole “Black Smoke” means oxygen deprived smoke, is not exactly true, by a long shot. Lots of particular compounds/products burn with a black smoke.

http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf (911myths, thanks)


Point #6:
The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

Counter-argument:
First, where is your reference proving that the WTC fires were not very big, hot, or long, compared to other fires that did not cause collapse in other buildings.

Second. The fires you refer to (in other buildings) were (a) more easily accessible to control, (b) did not involve jetliner impacts. Likewise, where are your references comparing the size and heat of the WTC fires (with measurements of each) so that we can compare them to the same data in the other fires you mention.

Third, I am not sure how your point relates to the goals or mission of the commission.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.htm

This article indicates that tests on floor systems similar to those in the WTCs were likely to have only lasted 45min to 2h under “standard” fire conditions. Hmmmm, so what about conditions with enormous structural damage from jetliner impact??

Fourth, NIST, in charge of investigating the effect of the attacks on the structures, did not say the collapse was caused by fires alone, but rather,
read this little report from them,

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm

To add to those findings, also read what Deputy Fire Chief Vincent Dunn has to say:

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

No sign of controlled demolition anywhere.
Or what about Physics professor Frank Moscatelli, what does he say;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/09/010919074314.htm

I could go on, but that is enough for this particular point.


Point #7:
The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

Counter-argument:
If you look to my arguments above, I have already explained that it wasn’t fire alone, but the fire, and the impact, and the subsequent fires. (see links above)

First, the South Tower was struck near a corner, which from a stability point of view, is much more critical, than in the middle, which is where the North Tower was struck. As well, the second tower hit, was hit at a much lower level.


Point #8:
The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed — an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

Counter-argument:
You are right, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. You are likely wrong about it only having a few small fires. Photos of the south facing of the building (the face rarely seen in photos) shows smoke eminating from almost every floor of the building.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7MoreSmoke.jpg
(from 911myths site)

If your point is that they should have mentioned it, my question is that if it was not a target of the attacks, then why should they have mentioned it.
WTC was heavily damaged by falling Debris from WTC1, as mentioned in a follow up NIST report, and as mentioned by many Firefighter eyewitnesses, having a 15-20 storey high “hole” or “Gouge” taken out of it on the south side

(once again rarely seen in photos).
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-634
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7damage.jpg

So to think that WTC 7 Collapsing was anything but the result of severe damage done to it on the south side, from falling WTC1 Debris, is just without merit or evidence.

Sorry if some of this is dated, but I did this quite a while ago. If any of it is useful, please feel free.

TAM

 

[gumboot]

I've started working on a comprehensive analysis of DRG's allegations.

I expect it to take some time. I'm up to 6 pages and so far I've only addressed one of 9 hijackers alleged to still be alive.

Only 114.8 claims to go...

-Gumboot

 

[T.A.M.]

Okie then...Well if you want some help, I can certainly offer, but to avoid overlap, perhaps we can spread out the research. Given the level of detail you wish to provide, perhaps we could enlist some other debunkers to take a few more in the list...

TAM

 

[gumboot]

It's proving quite fascinating... I've just been going over six separate interviews with Mohamed Atta's father. It's incredible what the CTers will ignore in order to support their claims. This guy is a dyed-in-the-wool western/american hating nutjob. His story changes with EVERY SINGLE interview.

(He even demanded $5000 from CNN for another interview and openly declared he'd spend the money to fund another terrorist attack).

-Gumboot

 

[Slayhamlet]

It's proving quite fascinating... I've just been going over six separate interviews with Mohamed Atta's father. It's incredible what the CTers will ignore in order to support their claims. This guy is a dyed-in-the-wool western/american hating nutjob. His story changes with EVERY SINGLE interview.

(He even demanded $5000 from CNN for another interview and openly declared he'd spend the money to fund another terrorist attack).

-Gumboot

The apple didn't fall far from the tree, obviously.

 

[gumboot]

Okay here's the format so far:

DISTORTION OF FACT

A Comprehensive Analysis of The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie by Dr David Ray Griffin.​

Throughout this document the phrases “The 9/11 Commission Report” and “The Report” refer to the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (ISBN 0-393-32671-3). “The 9/11 Commission” and “The Commission” refers to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The Unites States – the Government-appointed body which produced The Report.


INTRODUCTION

At this site, Dr David Ray Griffin – a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology – summarises part of his book; The 9/11 Commission Report: Omission And Distortions – by listing 115 points of contention which he asserts are omission and distortions in the report, amounting to lies (herein “The Essay”).

The Essay begins:

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.)
In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.
Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.
It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning.
But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11."

This analysis will attempt to determine the validity of Dr Griffin’s allegations by either affirming or rejecting each of his claims.


METHODOLOGY

The most common definition of “lie” is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive. However for the benefit of this paper, rather than determine whether each lie alleged by Dr Griffin is indeed a lie (that is a deliberate effort to deceive on the part of the Commission) I will investigate the validity of the alternative claim raised by each of the allegations.

As example, the following statements:

1. The lie of distortion that the car belonged to my father.
2. The lie of omission that the car had six wheels.

From the perspective of determining whether each point is indeed a lie, it is essential to determine whether the Report was aware of the distortions or omission inherent in their claims, and to demonstrate that the Commission knowingly presented this false information (or failed to present this true information) with the intention of deceiving the reader.

Such a procedure is inherently difficult as I am not privy to the minds of the Commission members (as Dr Griffin, also, is not).

Instead, I intend to examine the alternative claim of fact which is inherent in each point of contention.

In example 1) above, “the lie of distortion that the car belonged to my father” contains the inherent claim of fact that the car did not belong to my father.

Likewise in example 2) “the lie of omission that the car had six wheels” contains the inherent claim of fact that the car did have six wheels.

To extend the metaphor, rather than determine whether the writer of the Report knew the inherent truths mentioned above, and intentionally deceived, I instead intend to consider the inherent claims themselves and determine their validity.

The methodology shall be displayed thus:

ALLEGATION OF FALSEHOOD (“THE ALLEGATION”)
The lie of distortion that the car belonged to my father.

CONFIRMATION OF THE CLAIM
On page 36 of the report it is claimed that the car belonged to my father.
OR ALTERNATIVELY
At no point in the report is it claimed that the car belonged to my father.

Although determination that the claim was never made automatically constitutes rejection of the allegation as false, I shall nonetheless proceed and investigate the validity of the inherent claim.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INHERENT CLAIM:
The inherent claim of this allegation is that the car did not belong to my father.

INVESTIGATION OF THE INHERENT CLAIM:
A detailed analysis of the inherent claim, determining as far as possible its validity. Sources for this section will be comprehensive. This section will constitute the major part of the work.

AFFIRMATION OR REJECTION OF THE INHERENT CLAIM:
The claim is correct; my father did not own the car – it was registered under my mother’s name.
OR ALTERNATIVELY
The claim is false; my father purchased the car on date X, registered it in his name, and renewed said registration in his name for a further 14 years to the present.

Although the 115 omissions and distortions listed by Dr Griffin in the essay are presented as distinct allegations, in fact some of them relate to the same claims. In these instances I have grouped the allegations together and responded to them collectively.

Numbers in parentheses at the end of each allegation refer to the pages of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions in which the allegation is discussed.

 

[gumboot]

Claim One

115 ALLEGATIONS OF OMISSION AND DISTORTION​

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers — including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC — are still alive (19-20).

The Report claims that all of the nineteen alleged hijackers are dead, and died during the attacks. The first chapter of the Report We Have Some Planes (pg.1-46) identifies the hijackers and allocates them amongst the four hijacked flights as follows:

American Airlines Flight 11
Mohamed Atta
Abdul Aziz al Omari
Satam al Suqami
Wail al Shehri
Waleed al Shehri

United Airlines Flight 175
Marwan al Shehhi
Fayez Banihammad
Mohand al Shehri
Ahmed al Ghamdi
Hamza al Ghamdi

American Airlines Flight 77
Khalid al Mihdhar
Majed Moqed
Hani Hanjour
Nawaf al Hazmi
Salem al Hazmi

United Airlines Flight 93
Saeed al Ghamdi
Ahmed al Nami
Ahmad al Haznawi
Ziad Jarrah

The Report further claims:

At 8:46:40, American 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly. (pg.7)

At 9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center. All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly. (pg.8)

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, travelling at approximately 530 miles per hour. All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed. (pg.10)

With the sounds of the passengers counterattack continuing, the aircraft [United 93] plowed into an empty field in Shankesville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes’ flying time from Washington, D.C.(pg.14)

For the purposes of this paper I have made the assumption that the Commission do not believe anyone on board United 93 survived the impact described above.

The claim inherent in the allegations is that at least six of the alleged hijackers are still alive.

These claims originate in the days immediately after September 11, 2001 as the FBI began what would become the largest criminal investigation in the agency’s history.

On September 14th the FBI released a list with the names of nineteen middle-eastern men they believed were the hijackers.

Source:

The Telegraph

FBI Press Release

These were:

American Airlines Flight 11
Mohamed Atta
Abdulaziz Alomari
Waleed M Al Shehri
Satam Al Suqami
Wail Al Shehri

United Airlines Flight 175
Marwan Al Shehhi
Fayez Ahmed
Mohald Al Shehri
Hamza Alghamdi
Ahmed Al Ghamdi

American Airlines Flight 77
Khalid Al-Midhar
Majed Moqed
Nawaq Alhamzi
Salem Alhamzi
Hani Hanjour

United Airlines Flight 93
Ahmed Alhaznawi
Ahmed Alnami
Ziad Jarrahi
Saeed Alghamdi

Of the nineteen listed, five have slightly different names or spelling than those listed in the Report.

The first media reports of alleged hijackers being alive appeared on 23rd September.

The BBC reported:

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.
The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

The BBC identifies the following:

Waleed Al Shehri – A pilot from Saudi Arabia
Abdulaziz Al Omari – An engineer from Saudi Arabia
Abdulaziz Al Omari – A pilot from Saudi Arabia
Saeed Alghamdi – Interviewed by London-based Arabic newspaper
Khalid Al Midhar – May also be alive

On 27th October 2006 the BBC issued a statement in their Editors blog, stating that the initial allegations in their 2001 article were a result of mistaken identity.


A Telegraph article, also of 23rd September 2001, cites four individuals who claim the hijackers stole their identities.

This article cites the Saudi engineer from the BBC article; Abdulaziz Al-Omari. It also cites Saeed Al-Ghamdi and indicates he is also a pilot from Saudi Arabia. The article further cites two other hijackers; Salem Al-Hamzi (worker at Yanbu Industrial City, Saudi Arabia) and Ahmed Al-Nami (administrator for Saudi Arabian Airlines, Saudi Arabia).

Momentarily ignoring variations of spelling, this gives a total of seven individuals claiming identity as six of the alleged hijackers.

It is important to note that these articles were written based on a preliminary name-only list of hijackers. An official list of the hijackers – with photographs – was released on 27th September.

On the 6th of February 2002 Saudi Arabia officially acknowledged that 15 of the 19 hijackers were their citizens, as reported by USA Today:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, but said Wednesday that the oil-rich kingdom bears no responsibility for their actions.

Eight of the nineteen hijackers have, at various times, been identified as being alive by the media. A detailed investigation of each individual claim follows.


Abdulaziz Al Omari
This allegation arose from the BBC articled quoted previously. In this article the Al Omari cited is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms. He claimed his passport was lost whilst studying in Denver, USA. A second man with the same name is cited in the same BBC article. He claimed to be a pilot with Saudi Arabian Airlines.

Obviously, if two individuals are claiming to be the same hijacker, there has been confusion. Either one, or both of them are in error.

Once photos were released of the hijackers it became obvious that Al Omari the engineer was an entirely different person to Al Omari the hijacker.

However that still left Al Omari the Saudi Airlines pilot. On 16th September 2001 CNN broadcast Al Omari the pilot’s photo, identifying him as the pilot of AA11. However, the FBI quickly determined that Mohamed Atta was the pilot of AA11, not Al Omari the hijacker.

The CNN have since apologised to Al Omari for this confusion, and conducted an interview with him. In the interview and from his September 16 photograph it is clear he is not the Al Omari presented in photographs issued by the FBI on 27th September.

So what about Al Omari the hijacker? According to Saudi Information Agency, Al Omari the hijacker was 23; much younger than either of the other Al Omaris. He studied religion at university, where he befriended a number of clerics. In December 2000 he left for Afghanistan where he trained in Kandahar and fought alongside the Taliban.


Ahmed Al-Nami
This allegation arose from the Telegraph article, and identifies a 33yr old administrative supervisor with Saudi Arabian Airlines based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

However the profile for Al-Nami the hijacker is very different. Like Al Omari, he was young and also trained at a religious university. According to his friends and family, in 1999 he started to become highly religious, so much so that his family feared he had bipolar disorder. In December 2000 he left on a trip to Mecca. His family never saw him again, although they received a phone call from him in June 2001. It is believed that we went to Afghanistan to train in Kandahar, just like Al Omari.


Khalid Al Mihdhar
This allegation arises in the BBC article, where it is speculated he “might be alive”.

A Saudi computer programmer called Khalid Al-Mihammadi claimed in September 2001 that the photo initially released by the FBI was him. However the article that released this information also revealed that the FBI initially released two alternative names - Khalid Al Mihdhar and Khalid Al-Mihammadi – with different photographs for each. Which means Al-Mihammadi the computer programmer is not Al Mihdhar the hijacker.

Indeed, Khalid Al Mihdhar the hijacker was an Al Qaeda veteran. In 1995 he travelled to Bosnia with fellow 9/11 Hijacker Nawaf al Hazmi to join the Bosnian Muslims in their war against the Bosnian Serbs. After this he travelled to Afghanistan where he joined Al Qaeda and fought against the Afghan Northern Alliance. According to his family, in 1998 he fought in Chechnya.


Mohammed Atta
The allegation that Atta is still alive originates from his father. His father’s story has changed dramatically over time, making his assertions unreliable. Here’s some highlights:

Mohamed al-Amir Atta first talked to the media in an interview for the New York Times on the 19th of September, 2001.

In this interview Atta Senior denies his son was involved in the attacks.

"Mohamed. Oh God! He is so decent, so shy and tender," said the father, a 65-year-old retired lawyer. "He was so gentle. I used to tell him, 'Toughen up, boy!'"
Mr. Atta stood on the barren concrete doorstep of his 11th-floor Cairo apartment today, alternating between rage at the picture being painted of his son as one of the attack's ringleaders and pride that his boy had done well abroad after graduating with average marks in architecture from Cairo University's Faculty of Engineering.

Atta’s father also makes a number of other claims throughout the interview:

-He called the USA a “Tyrant Nation”, criticising it for supporting Israel, and for moral contagions such as adultery and same-sex marriage.
-He said he believed his son had gone to the USA for further education.
-He said that his son may have been murdered, and his documents stolen.
-He said his son had last been in Egypt a year ago (late 2000).
-He said someone like Mossad had the capacity to plan the attacks, but not his son.
-He said he was sure his son was still alive, and that his son was afraid of flying.

Atta Senior next appears in a 24th September interview for Newsweek.

-Upon opening the door for the journalist he immediately declared that Mossad killed his son.
-He then lectured on Mossad and its “ugly history”, concluding that they kidnapped his son and stole his identity.
-In this interview he claims that his son called him during the day of 12 September (night of 11/12th in New York) and that at the time he knew nothing of the attacks. He asserts that Mossad forced his son to make the phone call “to cause controversy”. It is worth noting that he makes no mention of this phone call in his earlier interview with the New York Times.
-Atta Senior claims in this interview that he last saw his son in October 1999 – a full year removed from what he claimed in the previous interview. He states that his son then returned to his studies in Germany, calling once a month.
-In this interview he claims he always assumed Atta was calling from Germany, and that he had no knowledge his son had ever been to the USA. This also is a direct contradiction of his earlier claims.

The next interview would come from the Guardian on September 2nd 2002, reporting an interview with the German Bild am Sonntag newspaper.

In this interview his story changes again. He claims that Atta is still alive, and in hiding from US Intelligence Agents so that they don’t kill him.
Rather than blame 9/11 on Mossad, this time Atta Senior blames it on “American Christians”.

He also expressed a fear that the US would try to poison him. He reiterated his previous claim that his son had called him on the 12th, stating that it had been around midday (0500 EDT). He also recounted his return home on the night of the 12th (midday EDT). His daughter called him, arrived at the house, and told him to turn on his television. At this point he first sees news footage of the aircraft hitting the towers and his son’s photo.

Two years later, in an Associated Press interview on the 3rd anniversary of the attacks, Atta Senior first blames Mossad for the attacks, and then God (as punishment for the USA’s evil). He proposes that a Palestinian who rams an aircraft into the White House killing President George Bush and his family will go to heaven.

Perhaps the article that is most damning of Atta Senior is an interview from October 2004 with the Egyptian Magazine “EgyptToday”.

This time around he declares that “without stopping to think about it” he knew 9/11 was carried out by Mossad and “American right-wing extremists the neoconservatives”.
After declaring that no one has presented any facts to demonstrate that his son and Osama Bin Laden carried out the attacks, Atta Senior then proceeds to offer some “facts” of his own:
-4,000 Jewish workers at the WTC did not turn up on 9/11
-101 businessmen were supposed to be on AA11 on 9/11 but did not board and did not cancel their tickets.
-On 10 September the FBI recorded two US Congressmen calling two separate newspapers with the message “It’s zero-hour. The game starts tomorrow.”
-On the morning of 9/11 the pilot of AA11 (John Ogonowski) handed two workers at Boston Airport a video tape explaining the plan for the attacks.
-Japanese Intelligence published a report with details of the four pilots of the hijacked flights, all of whom were American, had served in the Vietnam War, and belonged to secret Christian societies.
-Jewish owners of stocks of the Airlines and Insurance companies involved in 9/11 sold their stock for high prices on 1st September in Europe, repurchasing them on 17th September once prices crashed.
Atta Senior points out that initially Islamic Terrorists were blamed for the Oklahoma City Bombing. He claims that Timothy McVeigh’s last words were “Revenge will come in September”.
He further claims that “four or six Israelis” videotaped the crashes in Manhattan, standing in the middle of the street, singing in Hebrew, and dancing in a circle at the moment of the attack. He alleges they were videoing the aircraft when it was a mere speck in the sky, thus indicating they knew where it would be coming from.

A final interview was conducted with a CNN producer in July, 2005.

This interview was two weeks after the July 7 bombings in London, and Atta senior expresses his desire to see more of such attacks. He predicts that 9/11 and the July Bombings are the beginning of what will be a 50 year religious war in which there will be more fighters like his son.

This is a significant divergence from earlier claims. Previously he had asserted that his son was not political and not especially religious. Now he asserts that his son was a fighter in a 50 year religious war.

He cursed Arab and Muslim leaders who condemned the London Bombings as traitors and non-Muslims, and expressed his desire to encourage more attacks. When CNN asked permission to conduct another interview he demanded $5,000 which he said he would use to fund another attack like the London Bombings.

CNN declined.


As we can see, Mohammed Atta’s father cannot be considered a reliable source. His story continuously changes, is self-contradicting, and he is clearly heavily biased in the subject matters at hand. He is also clearly poorly informed regarding 9/11 – every single one of the claims he makes in the EgyptToday interview is totally false.

Other records of Atta’s life paint a very different picture. His fellow students in Germany recall him abruptly changing after a long trip away (which video evidence indicates was a trip to Afghanistan). He came back very religious, political, and wearing a beard. As the leader of the 19 hijackers, Atta spent much longer in the USA than most of the conspirators, and records of his movements – including a traffic violation, financial transactions, and purchases with a credit card in his name, leave a very solid evidence trail that supports the official version of events.


Saeed al-Ghamdi
Again it is the BBC article of 23 September that identifies al-Ghamdi as alive. According to their report a London-based Arabic newspaper called Asharq Al Awsat interviewed him after the attacks. The Telegraph article of the same day expanded on this reference.

According to their story, as with Al Omari, al-Ghamdi was a Saudi pilot. As with Al Omari, his picture was broadcast on CNN to the world. Saeed claims he was in Tunis at the time with 20 other students learning to fly the Airbus A320.

Like Al Omari, al-Ghamdi had previously studied at the same Florida flight school that some of the hijackers used. A clear pattern arises. Just as with Al Omari, the photograph released by the FBI on 27th September was not al-Ghamdi the pilot.

The Germany newspaper Der Spiegel investigated some of the hijacker-alive claims, and interviewed Mohammed Samman – the reporter who talked to al-Ghamdi the Saudi pilot. Samman was happy to confirm that the al-Ghamdi in the FBI’s suspect photographs issued on 27 September was not the pilot he had talked to.

But what of al-Ghamdi the hijacker?

According to a Boston Globe article of March 2002, al-Ghamdi and three other 9/11 Hijackers from the same area of Saudi Arabia (Wael and Walid Alshehri and Ahmed Alnami) met at the Al Farouq training camp in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The same Al Qaeda camp where other 9/11 hijackers trained. In 2000 these four hijackers, including al-Ghamdi, dedicated themselves to Jihad in a Saudi mosque, according to local clerics and friends.

In March 2001 al-Ghamdi appeared in an Al Qaeda “farewell” video broadcast on Al Jazeera. In the video he is seen studying flight maps and training manuals, and declares the USA “the enemy”. He appears in the video with other 9/11 hijackers.


Salem Al-Hamzi
Al-Hamzi is one of two sets of brothers amongst the 9/11 Hijackers. The doubt over his identity arises from the Telegraph article, where it cites a petrochemical worker from the Yanbu Industrial City in Saudi Arabia. However Al-Hamzi the worker is a different age to Al-Hamzi the alleged hijacker, has never been to the USA (the FBI cited Al-Hamzi the hijacker’s residence as in New Jersey), and perhaps most odd of all, makes no mention of the accusations laid against his presumably also innocent brother Nawaf. Could it be this particular Al-Hamzi doesn’t have a brother called Nawaf, and is, indeed, an entirely different person?

The Saudi Information Agency seems to be talking about an entirely different Al-Hamzi. According to them, the two Al-Hamzi brothers were from Makkah, and left Saudi Arabia in March 2000 to train at the same Kandahar camp where the other alleged hijackers trained. Sound familiar?


Wail and Waleed Al-Shehri
There’s no less than three claims to the identity of the second pair of brothers to take part in the 9/11 hijacking. The first , Waleed Al-Shehri, appeared in the BBC article previously mentioned, and was a pilot in Casablanca. He denied having a brother called Wail, or knowing anyone in his family called Wail. His claim is that a friend saw his photo, however this story appeared before the FBI released the photographs. We can trace this photograph back to the same CNN news broadcast in which many other hijackers were displayed with photographs of entirely innocent men.

Al-Shehri the pilot also trained at the school in Florida where others such as Al-Omari trained. Further confirmation came from the investigation conducted by Der Spiegel. In their article they claim the pilot from Morocco was not called Waleed Al-Shehri at all, but Walid Al-Shri; the mistake appears to be a result of the transliteration of his Arabic name.

Another claim was that the two brothers were sons of a Saudi diplomat based in Bombay. The diplomat in question was identified as Ahmed Al-Shehri, and these claims arose in Saudi media shortly after the attacks.

The Boston Globe contacted Ahmed Al-Shehri on 15 September and asked him about the two brothers. His response was less than compelling.

''I have no idea. Maybe,'' said al-Shehri, who worked as an attache at the Saudi embassy in Washington until 1996. ''How do I know? We have a half-million Shehris in Saudi Arabia.''

A day later, in a 16 September article, the Washington Post reports that Ahmed Al-Shehri denied the two alleged hijackers were his sons.

The FBI identified Waleed as Waleed M Al-Shehri, and this single often-excluded middle initial may hold the answer. In Saudi Arabian naming tradition, the last name refers to the tribal name, sometimes including hundreds of thousands of members, as demonstrated by Al-Shehri the diplomat. The middle name for men is usually taken from the father. In the case of Ahmen Al-Shehri, a son called Waleed would have the middle initial A – for Ahmed.

As it happened another man called Muhammad Ali Al-Shehri claimed to be the father of the two hijackers. He hadn’t seen his sons since December 2000.

In a further NBC interview a living brother of the hijackers – Saleh – stated that he felt his brothers were dead and had been brainwashed.

In a Telegraph article a cousin of the brothers claimed that after a trip to Medina in 1999 they changed, growing beards, becoming very religious, and shunning their former friends.

The Saudi Information Agency profile on the brothers indicates that they were religious, and left Saudi Arabia to train at Al Qaeda’s Kandahar camp in Afghanistan.


This certainly accounts for the claims from living people that they were the suspects named. However this doesn’t of course mean the hijackers are indeed dead.

In the wake of the attacks an extensive FBI investigation was conducted. Given the suicidal nature of the attacks, the hijackers were not especially concerned about hiding their tracks, and as such the investigation uncovered a substantial amount of evidence implicating the nineteen hijackers. The tickets for the flights were registered in their names, and video surveillance captured the hijackers of AA11, UA175, and AA77 as they passed through airport security. There was no video surveillance at the security gate for UA93.

Calls from passengers and crew on each of the four flights identified the hijackers as middle-eastern, and on some flights their seat numbers were identified. The nineteen hijackers are the only people on any of the four flights with Arabic names.

Some of this evidence was presented in the case of United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui at the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia.

A further trail of evidence puts all of the 9/11 hijackers through Al Qaeda’s training camp in Kandahar, Afghanistan, as previously discussed.

Lastly, martyr videos for many of the hijackers exist which depict their targets behind them.

These have been assembled into a comprehensive series of videos which present compelling evidence that Al Qaeda and the nineteen hijackers did indeed carry out the attacks.

The series is titled “The Usual Suspects”

Part One:
Part Two:
Part Three:
Part Four:

There is substantial evidence to support the contention that the nineteen named hijackers were indeed responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and died that day. The evidence supporting the contention that they are still alive is weak, and close investigation reveals that those who came forward as the hijackers were simple cases of mistaken identity.

The inherent claim that at least six of the hijackers are still alive is rejected.

 

[gumboot]

Bumped for Arus.

-Gumboot

 

[Rahne Everson]

Go Gumboot go!!!

 

[Arus808]

Nicely done gumboot. Jeez. that much proved his first claim wrong? How could DRG ignore all of that proof?

 

[The Doc]

Very nice gumboot

The amount of presentations left to debunk dwindles by the day, and I currently find myself with nothing worthy of witting a paper on, or debunking. It seems like it's all been done lol.

If anyone has any ideas on a presentation to debunk, PM me.

 

[gumboot]

I'm up to claim three at the moment - Hani Hanjour can't fly.

Thus far I owe most of my info to MikeW and 911Myths.

I decided intentionally to go overboard with the detail to demonstrate just how much evidence there is to refute the claims DRG and other CTers make.

-Gumboot

 

[T.A.M.]

I think we should keep this thread to a minimum of comments, and allow gumboot to post his claim debunkings in succession. I then think I will, with his permission, copy them and create a PDF, unless he wishes to do this himself.

TAM

 

[Arus808]

I think we should keep this thread to a minimum of comments, and allow gumboot to post his claim debunkings in succession. I then think I will, with his permission, copy them and create a PDF, unless he wishes to do this himself.

TAM

good idea. i think that PDF idea is also great, if anyone decides to quote DRG and his "571 page Lie" claims.