What ever happened to this story?

www.nydailynews.com...

A 20-year Trade Center employee who swept stairwells, he swears he saw United Airlines Flight 175 hijacker Mohand Alshehri in June 2001 and told an FBI agent in the family center at Ground Zero about it a month after the attacks. He never heard back from the bureau.

Rodriguez said he was working overtime one weekend cleaning rest rooms on the concourse and mezzanine levels when Alshehri approached him.

"I had just finished cleaning the bathroom and this guy asks me, 'Excuse me, how many public bathrooms are in this area?'" Rodriguez told the Daily News.

"Coming from the school of the 1993 [Trade Center] bombing, I found it very strange," Rodriguez said. "I didn't forget about it."

After Al Qaeda's attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Rodriguez recognized Alshehri's mug in newspapers.

"I'm very certain, I'll give it 90%" that Alshehri was casing the towers before the attacks, the WTC ex-porter said.

It is believed that American Airlines Flight 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta cased New York City targets, including the Diamond District, but Rodriguez may have given the 9/11 panel the first eyewitness testimony about a hijacker inside one of the towers before the terror strike.

Since that story is at odds with the position of the "The U.S. Gov. did it" group he now gets his free meals from, it is no wonder he is no longer talking about this.

I've never read it to be honest, but it sounds really strange, why would the Saudi-born Alshehri go into the World Trade Centers? Take photographs? Know enemy territory?
I mean, they couldn't have planted bombs, it makes no sense ... why waste that plan by taking two aircraft then? What, not enough bombs? Guess they really wanted it down.

We don't really know this guy Rodriguez, but if what he says is true, then it would mean that these terrorists had every bit of info on their targets. Where to attack, why, and how many people they could affect ...

Man, I wonder what other ATS members have to say about this?

Farewell

Don't know too much about this story, but Mohand Alshehri was one of the hi-jackers supposedly still alive...

Saeed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Abdul aziz Alomari and Salem Alhazmi "are not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington." The Saudi Arabian embassy told The Orlando Sentinel.

www.apfn.net...

So could the janitor have been mistaken?

Am I missing the point?

Why would the hi-jackers want to know how many bathrooms there were on a floor anyway? What did that have to do with the towers, and building 7, collapsing?

[edit on 10/5/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK


So could the janitor have been mistaken?

Am I missing the point?

Could the janitor have been mistaken in his claim that he heard an explosion first, then the plane impact when he was in the basement?

Yeah so what? It makes no difference, there are plenty of other evidence, you know.
In fact an overwhelming amount of evidence...

Why you waste so much time with pointless arguments?

I think time for pointless debating is over, you lost, we know the truth.

Just for the record, You are admitting that it is possible that the Rodriguez story is less than reliable, it that right?

Again so what? I've never personally argued for it myself. I prefer to concentrate on other more reliable evidence, my own eyes for one.

His evidence isn't the crutch of the argument, so what's your point?

the towers totaled 50,000 people on the average lets say another 10,000 people around on the out side how is it that so many more people did not die.

Seeing how many of the supposed hijackers were alive and well after the attacks, I am not seeing exactly what point you are trying to make here, Howard.

Lets just pretend that the 19 hijackers currently accepted as being the culprits were all correctly identitfied.

It in no way detracts from any 9/11 conspiracy. Some could say he was a CIA agent who was at the towers planting the bombs. Or that he was part of a real terrorist cell scoping the place out, and the government knew and allowed it.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Seeing how many of the supposed hijackers were alive and well after the attacks, I am not seeing exactly what point you are trying to make here, Howard.

Well I see a couple of distinct possibilities here.

1) William Rodriguez didn't see anyone, or he was mistaken about who he saw. Under this possibility, one has to consider that the logical conclusion to his claims is that he is a self aggrandizing glory seeker.

2) William Rodriguez actually did see Alshehri in the tower before the attack. How was this possible, if Alshehri had nothing to do with 911?

Lets just pretend that the 19 hijackers currently accepted as being the culprits were all correctly identitfied.

It in no way detracts from any 9/11 conspiracy. Some could say he was a CIA agent who was at the towers planting the bombs. Or that he was part of a real terrorist cell scoping the place out, and the government knew and allowed it.

Your conspiracy gets more and more convoluted to try to fit all of these inconsistancies in. Doesn't it bother you that instead of getting simpler, your theory has to get more and more complex?

Originally posted by HowardRoark



Well I see a couple of distinct possibilities here.

1) William Rodriguez didn't see anyone, or he was mistaken about who he saw. Under this possibility, one has to consider that the logical conclusion to his claims is that he is a self aggrandizing glory seeker.

2) William Rodriguez actually did see Alshehri in the tower before the attack. How was this possible, if Alshehri had nothing to do with 911?

Possibility 1 is highly likely. There are plenty of people who do such things, even people who fake being 9/11 victims for sympathy.

Possibility two is unlikely. For some reason, I have difficultly believing that a janitor in one of the busiest places in the world, a building that recieves tens of thousands of visitors every single day, from every corner of the globe, is going to remember one single Arab guy who asked him hiw many public bathrooms were around.

Such a question would be hardly odd for an American to ask, and perfectly normal for a foreigner to ask. As a janitor, Im willing to bet money that he gets asked all sorts of questions about the bathrooms from just about every type of person hundreds of times a day. So either Mr. Rodriguez is deliberately trying to puff up his own claim to fame, or he is genuinely mistaken in idenyity. Im sure many thousands of Middle Easterns visited the World Trade center over the years, and I really doubt he is going to remember one single individual who asked an ordinary question about the public bathrooms.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

[Your conspiracy gets more and more convoluted to try to fit all of these inconsistancies in. Doesn't it bother you that instead of getting simpler, your theory has to get more and more complex?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Doesnt it bother you that you are making assumptions about "my conspiracy" when in fact I have not claimed it was my conspiracy viewpoint?

I was simply pointing out the flaws in your logic that somehow, Mr Rodriguizes claims would put some sort of dent in the various conspiracy theories out there held by different people. It does not. I was simply showing you the error in your logic.

You do not seem to understand much about my own personal theories on 9/11.

??? Check your quote tags.


So if it is possible that he is making up, or exagerating his sighting of the hijacker before 9/11, is is alos possible that he is making up or exagerating what he claims he saw, heard and felt on 911?

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Seeing how many of the supposed hijackers were alive and well after the attacks, I am not seeing exactly what point you are trying to make here, Howard.

How come everyone only goes by the early reports where their identity was in question yet completely ignore later reports which rectify matters?
It was made pretty clear that the 'mistaken identity' was down to similar names, misspellings, etc...
How come the seemingly supportive report is good evidence, but the later reports which explain everything are not?
Why is the initial report by the Saudi's that there was a mistake good and reliable evidence, but a later report that they were mistaken and accepted the IDs ignored?

Official: 15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi

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.

Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

"The names that we got confirmed that," Nayef said in an interview. "Their families have been notified."
www.usatoday.com...

Why is it not obvious that there was a mistake due to similarities in names, when like in this case, for instance, the mistakingly accused looks nothing like actual hijacker in question?

Hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari for instance:



Looks nothing like the one that was reported to still be alive:



And Hijacker Abdulaziz got to star in a suicide video that was later shown on Al-Jazeera

In the spring of 2001, al-Omari made a farewell suicide video that was later shown on al Jazeera. In it, he reads "I am writing this with my full conscience and I am writing this in expectation of the end, which is near. . . God praise everybody who trained and helped me, namely the leader Sheik Osama bin Laden."
en.wikipedia.org...

And he seemed to be friends with Atta, unless Atta was just trying to steal his PIN number?



But the key point is, is that after further investigation and clarification Saudi Arabia was 'happy' with the identities, the evidence is all there for how and why there were doubts early on, so why are they consistantly ignored?

Howard... I think there is yet another possibility. Let's assume for the moment that the government did execute this event. Do you think that the 19 people they identified as hijackers were chosen at random? Of course not. There was a method to their madness. Keep in mind that a number of these 'hijackers' later turned-up alive with no connection whatsoever with 9/11. So perhaps the people behind 9/11 chose 'hijackers' that they knew were casing possible terror targets. People aligned with known terror groups. That tactic only makes sense if you want a believable story afterwards. Besides, the theory says that the whole 9/11 event was staged as a pretext to go to war with Afghanistan (for the Caspian pipeline project) and Iraq (for the oil). They would have to pin the event on people with ties to groups in those countries or we wouldn't get the pretext (which was the ultimate goal). So the possibility exists that this person was 'casing' WTC and that this information was known. If 9/11 was staged by the gov't it had to be pinned on someone. Who better than individuals that could be tied to terrorist groups and possible terrorist activities?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Well I see a couple of distinct possibilities here.

1) William Rodriguez didn't see anyone, or he was mistaken about who he saw. Under this possibility, one has to consider that the logical conclusion to his claims is that he is a self aggrandizing glory seeker.

Well, that one is just a big fanciful speculation, right? We could do this exercise with any other eye witness on either side of the argument. Just declare them wrong about one thing (based on nothing what so ever than us trying to discredit them) and then extrapolate it out to where we erase their entire account.

So what the heck is the point here?

2) William Rodriguez actually did see Alshehri in the tower before the attack. How was this possible, if Alshehri had nothing to do with 911?

With me being of the opinion the guys listed WERE involved, I think it is VERY interesting. Because the minute I read this account it dawned on me that the most ACCESSIBLE AREAS TO PLACE EXPLOSIVES PRIOR TO THE ATTACK WERE THE PUBLIC RESTROOMS.

See - I'm just trying to gather ALL information - not prove one thing or another. So this right here is extremely interesting, and to me possibly extremely VALUABLE in the question as to whether there could have been explosives placed that detonated and caused the entire buildings to fall! And they could have been placed prior to the attack by the hijackers!

Very interesting stuff for me.

[edit on 5-12-2006 by Valhall]

Emm, I see that people are still flogging the 'still alive' horse. As I said in the post above, the reports of some being still alive later turned out to be false? Why is it that the honourable truthseekers are only interested in the early, inaccurate reports and refuse to listen to the more accurate reports later when further investigation had been conducted?
Going by that way of thinking the Earth must actually be flat, as early indications seemed to imply it to be the case, so any evidence later that suggested it is in fact round must obviously be lies and false.

Why is the statement by the Saudi Arabian Government early on saying that there were cases of mistaken identity the only version that some people are interested in promoting, completely ignoring the statement later when they finally accepted who the men were, after further research?
Were they only telling the truth or correct when the story backed up certain people's desires?
Seems to be the case to me....

Why is it that people ignore 'minor' discrepancies like I highlighted above, the 'still alive' hijacker being completely different to the actual hijacker who even starred in his own suicide video.

All of the so called 'still alive' hijackers can be accounted for, it was only in the very early days after the event that there was even a doubt. I find the persistant refusal to accept the facts by the so called 'truthseekers' amongst us incredibly disturbing...
Please feel free to explain this way of thinking to me as I completely fail to understand or comprehend it?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
??? Check your quote tags.

So if it is possible that he is making up, or exagerating his sighting of the hijacker before 9/11, is is alos possible that he is making up or exagerating what he claims he saw, heard and felt on 911?

Could very well be he was lying on both accounts.

However, it still does not weaken the accounts of the many other thousands of people who heard and felt possible bombs on the day. His is but one single account, unverifiable. But when you have thousands of eyewitnesses of different walks of life at different vantage points saying they heard explosions, ect, then you have a more solid foundation of inquiry.

I am not saying Mr. Rodriguez is a liar. He could have very well been reporting the truth as he knew it. Im simply saying his is one account. There are no others like it that have come out to back it up. Thus, it remains, well, in the grey area.