It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Hijackers still alive?
This claim is based on a report by the BBC on September 23, 2001. The BBC has since reported about the 19 hijackers, and has issued corrections to this story.
Hijackers
During the initial confusion surrounding the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the BBC published the names and identities of what they believed to be some of the hijackers. Some of the people named were later discovered to be alive, a fact that was seized upon by 9/11 conspiracy theorists as proof that the hijackings were faked. The BBC explained that the initial confusion may have arisen because the names they reported back in 2001 were common Arabic and Islamic names.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Hijackers
During the initial confusion surrounding the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the BBC published the names and identities of what they believed to be some of the hijackers. Some of the people named were later discovered to be alive, a fact that was seized upon by 9/11 conspiracy theorists as proof that the hijackings were faked. The BBC explained that the initial confusion may have arisen because the names they reported back in 2001 were common Arabic and Islamic names.
Show me where the BBC retracted ANY part of that article.
Steve Herrmann | 11:33 UK time, Friday, 27 October 2006
A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.
The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.
We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.
We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.
We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.
-- What was causing each of the many explosions reported by scores of witnesses in Manhattan that day. This alone should have had its own in-depth and very serious investigation.
-- I too would like to see all the Pentagon tapes released, and the ones from the nearby hotels that were confiscated, with the entire camera assemblies being dismounted as if there were never a camera there to begin with.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bsbray11
-- What was causing each of the many explosions reported by scores of witnesses in Manhattan that day. This alone should have had its own in-depth and very serious investigation.
And...
-- I too would like to see all the Pentagon tapes released, and the ones from the nearby hotels that were confiscated, with the entire camera assemblies being dismounted as if there were never a camera there to begin with.
....kinda go together, wouldn't you think?
This just occurs to me: WHY have we not heard a hue and cry for all of the security camera tapes that must have existed in NYC as well??
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Hate to be repetitive, but even in actual controlled demolitions, same thing happens. Not EVERY connection is blasted away -- only the ones that are most critical, and load-bearing. Else, it's overkill, and waste of money/resources.
Unless you are addressing this to something someone else said that I missed, then I apologize and they can respond to you.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece
Show me where the BBC retracted ANY part of that article.
Okey dokey.
Steve Herrmann | 11:33 UK time, Friday, 27 October 2006
..In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.
He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.
Waleed Al-Shehri (Flight 11)
"A sixth person on the FBI's list, Saudi national Waleed Al-Shehri, is living in Casablanca, according to an official with the Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline. According to the unnamed official, Al-Shehri lived in Dayton Beach, Fla., where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Now he works for a Moroccan airline." On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Alshehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.
"His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack." - Daily Trust, 24th September 2001.
"He was reported to have been in Hollywood, Florida, for a month earlier this year but his father, Ahmed, said that Waleed was alive and well and living in Morocco." - Telegraph, 23 September 2001.
Abdulrahman al-Omari (Flight 11]
'Suicide hijacker' is an airline pilot alive and well in Jeddah
A man named by the US Department of Justice as a suicide hijacker of American Airlines flight 11, the first airliner to smash into the World Trade Centre, is very much alive and living in Jeddah. Abdulrahman al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines, was astonished to find himself accused of hijacking as well as being dead and has visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation. -- UK Independent, 9/17/01
Ahmed Al-Nami (Flight 93)
"I'm still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked." He had never lost his passport and found it "very worrying" that his identity appeared to have been "stolen" and published by the FBI without any checks. The FBI had said his "possible residence" was Delray Beach in Florida." - Telegraph, 23rd September 2001
Salem Al-Hazmi (Flight 77)
"Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon." - Telegraph, 23rd September 2001.
Khalid Al-Mihdhar (Flight 77)
"Saudi officials at the embassy were unable to verify the whereabouts of the fifth accused hijacker, Khalid Al-Mihdhar. However, Arab newspapers say Al-Mihdhar is still alive.
"..... there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar may also be alive." - BBC, 23rd September 2001
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Otherwise, THAT is what makes sense to me, and explains what we saw --- once the buildings had suffered extreme damage, (to various load-bearing supports and sections) and the remaining undamaged parts exceeded their design limits, they succumbed to gravity.
If this is in error, then it would be nice to see solid, verifiable and undeniable proof.
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing damage to the south face of the building. The bottom portion of the building's south face was damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.
...
After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, it was unclear in my post, because I didn't directly 'quote' the relevant portion---but it was included in your post about what you'd like to see, the one just above a few clicks....
It was about so-called "free-fall acceleration". And, the 'work' required to destroy, whilst falling...if you recall.
So, perhaps that will make my post seem a little more topical?
Again, I see no problem understanding how massive, massive forces can easily overwhelm the structure below
Originally posted by bsbray11
Other data I'd like to see:
-- The original full structural documentation to all 3 skyscrapers that collapsed that day, released into public domain, and verified and authenticated by the original structural engineers and an independent forensic expert team. So that non-government structural engineers can analyze them and compare them to the federal reports, something no one has yet been able to do.
-- What was causing each of the many explosions reported by scores of witnesses in Manhattan that day. This alone should have had its own in-depth and very serious investigation.
-- Kinetic/potential energy conservation/loss data for WTC7 as it free-fall accelerates while supposedly crushing all of its own massive steel columns and beams.... This is something else you'd think NIST would have already thought of and explained in great depth since it makes absolutely no sense, but no, instead they just ignore and down-play the issue and naturally a legion of numbskulls who don't understand this and probably have never had a physics course in their lives assume everything is okay and has been answered already. Welcome to America I guess.
-- I too would like to see all the Pentagon tapes released, and the ones from the nearby hotels that were confiscated, with the entire camera assemblies being dismounted as if there were never a camera there to begin with.
I could think of lots more but those are enough to fight for, if we are going to make any effort to get a legitimate answer to them at all.
Originally posted by bsbray11
No, not at all. Work is a technical term from physics and free-fall acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 so it has a technical definition as well. I'm talking physics, not how many explosives it would or wouldn't take, so it's still completely irrelevant and what I said about broad sides of barns still fits.
What are these "massive, massive forces"? The weight of the building? So the dead weight of the building, is the "massive, massive" force that accelerates itself to the ground at free-fall?
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
Go figure you would try to convince me that none of my questions deserve answers.
Originally posted by jthomas
"Deserve" is not very meaningful when you are trying to convince someone to get a new investigation that there are valid reasons for your questions.