Alleged Pentagon attack alleged witness Aziz ElHallan, I mean, Aziz ElHhallou (let's try this again

An important topic was started, starred 11 times, flagged 8 times, and locked all within 24 hours of being created here because of unnecessary off topic personal attacks.

Since it has been ok'd by the moderator to restart the topic that's what I am doing here.

The information is extremely important and worthy of continued debate so I promise to make sure, on my end, that all efforts to derail the discussion are reported and not responded to.

One of the hardest things for people to overcome in the psychological battle of coming to grips with the 9/11 conspiracy is the notion that real people who seem like your every day guy had to have been involved.

There is no way around it.

This conspiracy involved dozens of intellectuals/professionals/assets/operatives/mercenaries (as well as dupes and patsies) who were no doubt mostly convinced that what they were participating in was for the greater good while simultaneously profiting heavily AND compromising their lives.

CIT is committed to laying out the evidence regardless of who it implicates and letting you make your own decision about who was involved.

In one of the most egregious examples of dubious witness accounts we have Aziz ElHhallou.

On 9/11 he showed up at the Fox News Studios to present a piece of the jet that was allegedly flight 77 on live TV.

He claims it landed by his car and that he just picked it up and brought it to the news studio.

In essence he admits to a federal offense on live television since this would obviously be removing evidence from the scene of a crime. (an act of terrorism no less)

He has a smirk in his face the entire time he does it. Watch his interview here:

Google Video Link

Here is the original:



And why does he say "most of the cars had their windshields broken because of the sound of the airplane." ????

Yet NOBODY else reported such a ridiculous thing happening!

There is nothing to support this statement which strongly suggests Aziz was making up details on the fly during this interview on 9/11.

If you notice....during the interview they spell his name "ElHallan" but when they announce him it's pronounced "ElHhallou".

We have confirmed that his more known name is ElHhallou. Here is a charitable organization that he is a member of using that name:

www.washingtonmoroccanclub.org...


Here he is at a a charitable event with the Washington Elite under the "Elhallou" moniker:
(scroll down to bottom)
www.washingtonlife.com...




So bottom line...there is very strong photographic evidence demonstrating how Aziz was not on the highway when he says he was.

Make up your own mind what to accept in regards to the implications of this evidence.

What's also notable that I haven't mentioned yet.....

The first Ingersoll image that implicates Aziz has been conveniently omitted from the DoD website where they host most all other shots from Ingersoll.

I made a thread a while back with links to the images they do host here.

But there are a couple of others omitted as well.

I know this because we obtained the entire collection from VDOT worker Christopher Landis (R.I.P.). Details regarding this experience available here.

I go into the missing images a bit here.

But as a special treat to ATS members.....I have made the ENTIRE Ingersoll collection available for download here.

It's almost half a gig of high resolution images so give it a good while to download.

I'm talking about ALL the full resolution images Ingersoll took on 9/11 along with many others that he took of the scene (and even Bush with Rummy & Condi) days after the event. They are in their original folders with original names and time stamps.

Research away fellow picture staring aficionados.





[edit on 13-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


It’s good to see this thread has been re-started — because it’s an informative one.

There are so many aspects about 9-11 showing that it was false flag, it’s ridiculous. But here is an example showing specifically a sleazebag involved in the 9-11 operation who probably typifies the caliber of people we should expect to have been “eyewitnesses”. Great find!!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This conspiracy involved dozens of intellectuals/professionals/assets/operatives/mercenaries (as well as dupes and patsies) who were no doubt mostly convinced that what they were participating in was for the greater good while simultaneously profiting heavily AND compromising their lives.

You say dozens, but you would be talking hundreds minimum, if not thousands...and NONE of them has since thought "oh my god I've participated in the greatest atrocity ever committed on american soil, I can't live with this, I must speak out".

So bottom line...there is very strong photographic evidence demonstrating how Aziz was not on the highway when he says he was.


Make up your own mind what to accept in regards to the implications of this evidence.

How does this evidence make any difference, one way or the other, to the official story?

Even if this guy's lying, he could easily be a fantasist or someone who was desperate for attention and to get on TV - it's a well known phenomenon around major disasters. It would explain his barely contained excitement about being interviewed on national television.

I really don't see how any of this adds support to a conspiracy.

Thanks for reposting Craig, although I'm sure you'll receive the same kind of resistance the original thread had.

Legitimate points fatherlukeduke, however the media certainly cannot be trusted anymore to investigate its stories and "witnesses". No follow ups anymore, just throw out disinformation and if no one files a lawsuit, it simply stands until someone debunks it. This usually happens on internet forums just like this one.

Kudos to SkepticOverlord for letting this discussion continue and handing out a few warns to those who seem to take things like this personal. Maybe these type of facts show that your faith in those in positions of power is misplaced, creating an unsettled feeling inside.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

You say dozens, but you would be talking hundreds minimum, if not thousands...and NONE of them has since thought "oh my god I've participated in the greatest atrocity ever committed on american soil, I can't live with this, I must speak out".

There are "100's" if not "1,000's" involved in questionable covert activity throughout the world at all times involving all kinds of atrocities.

It happens every war too. Do you think they all always talk?

Of course not. Most have been convinced that the crimes they commit are for the greater good.

It's because of this AND because of the fact that they are protecting their own behinds that they are committed to keeping these acts silent.

A "do as your told" culture of secrecy has been nurtured and fostered for generations. The notion that they can't keep a secret is a myth.

How does this evidence make any difference, one way or the other, to the official story?

Even if this guy's lying, he could easily be a fantasist or someone who was desperate for attention and to get on TV - it's a well known phenomenon around major disasters. It would explain his barely contained excitement about being interviewed on national television.

I really don't see how any of this adds support to a conspiracy.

I said make up your own mind and apparently you have but think about this......since he wasn't on that highway at the time of the the attack someone had to set him up with that aircraft piece and make sure he got on the news. It's not very logical to suggest he ran down there to steal it AFTER the place was an official crime scene crawling with feds and first responders.

And if he was sneaky enough to pull that off it's also not logical to suggest the first thing he would do after committing this crime is run to the TV news studios to broadcast it to the world.

There is nothing to justify why he was allowed to parade that part on the news like that under ANY circumstances.

It stinks to high heaven, Father.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

There are "100's" if not "1,000's" involved in questionable covert activity throughout the world at all times involving all kinds of atrocities.

None of these activities involve americans killing thousands of other americans on american soil - if this is a homegrown conspiracy then this would be unprecedented.

Were also not talking about 1000s of psychotic assassins here, but in your own words:

intellectuals/professionals/assets/operatives/mercenaries (as well as dupes and patsies)

...and not a SINGLE one has come forward. Even the "dupes and patsies" would now know exactly what happened and their part in it - these would actually be the first people to come forward.

Of course not. Most have been convinced that the crimes they commit are for the greater good.

But that clearly wouldn't be the case now would it? It's just led to a disastrous war that looks to have no end. Not sure how anyone but a psychopath or, errm, perhaps a religious fundamentalist could be convinced such an atrocity could be for the "greater good".

A "do as your told" culture of secrecy has been nurtured and fostered for generations. The notion that they can't keep a secret is a myth.

Tiny conspiracies involving 10s of people and not concerning the greatest crime ever committed in the US fall to pieces all the time because someone can't keep their mouth shut. Look at the Valery Plume case - they got nailed on that and it was nothing (compared to 9/11)

How does this evidence make any difference, one way or the other, to the official story?

Even if this guy's lying, he could easily be a fantasist or someone who was desperate for attention and to get on TV - it's a well known phenomenon around major disasters. It would explain his barely contained excitement about being interviewed on national television.

I really don't see how any of this adds support to a conspiracy.

......since he wasn't on that highway at the time of the the attack

I missed the bit were you proved this to be the case....

someone had to set him up with that aircraft piece and make sure he got on the news.

Evidence?

It's not very logical to suggest he ran down there to steal it AFTER the place was an official crime scene crawling with feds and first responders.

If he was desperate to get on the TV it would be - that's if he wasn't already there.

And if he was sneaky enough to pull that off it's also not logical to suggest the first thing he would do after committing this crime is run to the TV news studios to broadcast it to the world.

Well, as I say: if the entire purpose was to get on TV then it's perfectly. logical


[edit on 14/4/08 by FatherLukeDuke]

[edit on 14/4/08 by FatherLukeDuke]

To be hones during the interview the guy looked like he was going to crack up more then smirking. I still don't understand how he could just bring a piece of evidence like that in to a news station.

Also there is a definite inconsistency in his testimony.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

None of these activities involve americans killing thousands of other americans on american soil - if this is a homegrown conspiracy then this would be unprecedented.

Agreed that the scope of the crime is unprecedented. That doesn't mean that assassination, torture, exploitation, mass murder, and other atrocities haven't happened regularly throughout history and have quite often remained entirely secret. Extremely corrupt activity has been happening in 3rd world nations under the U.S. dime secretly for a long time. Look up the "School of the Americas" or read John Perkin's book Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man to get an idea for what I am talking about. To suggest for a second that you are aware of all conspiracies and atrocities is not a very logical assumption.

...and not a SINGLE one has come forward. Even the "dupes and patsies" would now know exactly what happened and their part in it - these would actually be the first people to come forward.

This is really nothing but an argument from personal incredulity which is faulty logic. This entire line of discussion is actually off topic as well since it has nothing to do with the evidence presented. However I'll respond anyway.

But that clearly wouldn't be the case now would it? It's just led to a disastrous war that looks to have no end. Not sure how anyone but a psychopath or, errm, perhaps a religious fundamentalist could be convinced such an atrocity could be for the "greater good".

Sorry but MANY people are still very glad that we occupied Iraq and think it was the right choice. Just the other week we heard our religious fundamentalist president tell us point blank once again how it was the right decision in all aspects. You don't think there are millions who believe him? Regardless the accomplices to 9/11 may have been lied to about some "top secret" information regarding the onslaught of peak oil or some other imminent doom for America. The War On Terror is marketed as permanent and global. It's not limited to Iraq. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many average people who are willing to admit that they are AGAINST the "war on terror".

But they should be because it's a fraud.

Tiny conspiracies involving 10s of people and not concerning the greatest crime ever committed in the US fall to pieces all the time because someone can't keep their mouth shut. Look at the Valery Plume case - they got nailed on that and it was nothing (compared to 9/11)

The fact that some conspiracies are uncovered is not evidence that countless more never are.

......since he wasn't on that highway at the time of the the attack

I missed the bit were you proved this to be the case....

That would be the photographic evidence that shows him at the Navy Annex
3 to 5 minutes after the attack.

someone had to set him up with that aircraft piece and make sure he got on the news.

Evidence?

That would be the photographic evidence that shows him at the Navy Annex
3 to 5 minutes after the attack.

It's not very logical to suggest he ran down there to steal it AFTER the place was an official crime scene crawling with feds and first responders.

If he was desperate to get on the TV it would be - that's if he wasn't already there.

Stealing that evidence was a federal offense. The fact that he was allowed to parade it on TV is fishy. Clearly you can choose to believe there is nothing nefarious here. Everyone must make up their own mind regarding this evidence.

But when it is put in context of all the other independent evidence we have obtained proving a military deception on 9/11 it becomes extremely difficult to write this off as innocent.

Of course what also must be noted that Aziz is still heavily referenced to this day as evidence that a 757 hit the building in light of the overwhelming evidence proving it could not have.

If nothing else this should at least convince you how important it is to investigate and confirm the information that has been presented to you regarding the 9/11 official story.

And if he was sneaky enough to pull that off it's also not logical to suggest the first thing he would do after committing this crime is run to the TV news studios to broadcast it to the world.

Well, as I say: if the entire purpose was to get on TV then it's perfectly. logical

It's not logical that he was ALLOWED to do it either way.

After spending a year evading the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon, Craig was forced to admit that he never bothered to determine what wreckage was recovered from the Pentagon nor has he ever bothered to interview any of the 1,000+ people who saw and/or recovered the wreckage:

z3.invisionfree.com...

No matter what Craig says, he will never deal with all of the evidence. One has to wonder what CIT's goal is if "the team" can't even do a proper investigation! Now that he has admitted it, it's time for him to start over from scratch.

reply to post by jthomas


What exactly are you complaining about? Isn’t Craig doing here precisely what you’re asking him to? He’s showing us one of the “1000+ people” you say saw and recovered AA77 wreckage from the Pentacon. Granted, he’s still got a lot of work left if he is to spot light the remaining 999+ witnesses — but it’s a start!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 4/14/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


There are not even close to 999 published witnesses.

He is talking about first responders and rescue workers who were at the Pentagon AFTER the attack and he has nothing to prove there were "1,000's" of them either. The people he is referring to are NOT "witnesses" to the attack.

For some reason he has a problem with the fact that we have focused our investigation primarily and specifically around eyewitness to the plane in order to determine the true flight path.


It is not the truth movement's responsibility to prove absolutely everything that happened on 9/11.

We only need to prove a critical part of the official story false.

That is what CIT has accomplished.

jthomas has nothing to refute the evidence we present so he has predictably started a campaign to focus on us personally to detract from the evidence.

But hopefully this thread can be kept on topic.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
reply to post by jthomas

 

What exactly are you complaining about? Isn’t Craig doing here precisely what you’re asking him to? He’s showing us one of the “1000+ people” you say saw and recovered AA77 wreckage from the Pentacon. Granted, he’s still got a lot of work left if he is to spot light the remaining 999+ witnesses — but it’s a start!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 4/14/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

You're new at this. Just watch Graig's evasions.

reply to post by jthomas


Where are all the broken windshields that this eyewitness talked about? Do you not find it odd that he was able to take a piece of evidence like that in a time of an attack of that magnitude and the news just went along with it? Is it not a crime to remove such evidence?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

 

There are not even close to 999 published witnesses.

Graig's first evasion. He knows full well that just because there are not accounts on the Internet that witnesses don't exist. Graig's tactic has always been to rely exclusively on a handful of accounts that appear on the Internet and to publish a few interviews with "witnesses" he can make fit his account. With those eyewitnesses who witnessed AA77's crash into the Pentagon and whose accounts are published on the Internet, he has tried to discredit (unsuccessfully) every single one of them.

Craig knows full well that if he can't find an account on the Internet, then no one else can either. In this manner he can evade - and does - having to interview witnesses whose accounts do not appear on the Internet. This is precisely why he has refused for over a year to interview any of the witnesses who saw and/or recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon and why Craig is wholly incapable of describing what the wreckage was.

Tell everyone here why you are so afraid to find out what the wreckage was recovered from inside the Pentagon? Why are you so afraid to interview eyewitnesses? Just what kind of investigation do you think you are doing?

He is talking about first responders and rescue workers who were at the Pentagon AFTER the attack and he has nothing to prove there were "1,000's" of them either.

Evidence of what happened at the Pentagon includes ALL evidence. Graig knows as well as anyone that the Pentagon had swarms of people starting with firefighters and rescue workers who arrived on scene within minutes of the "event." He also has the list of all the groups who were there in the minutes, hours, days, and weeks after the "event". He knows full well that the rescue effort began immediately and that when the fires were doused swarms of rescue workers, forensic investigators, and construction crews were inside amongst the bodies and wreckage 24/7, with construction crews immediately beginning to shore up the structure to prevent further collapse.

Why does Craig continue to avoid interviewing eyewitnesses? How bizarre is that?

The people he is referring to are NOT "witnesses" to the attack.

Another of Craig's evasions.

The attacked produced evidence. That evidence counts. The wreckage from inside the Pentagon counts. What caused the explosion counts. What eyewitnesses saw and recovered counts. You are not allowed to discard evidence you don't like, Craig.

For some reason he has a problem with the fact that we have focused our investigation primarily and specifically around eyewitness to the plane in order to determine the true flight path.

Another evasion. Craig Ranke does not get to limit evidence under any circumstances. He cannot pretend that he is allowed to. Craig knows full well that the eyewitnesses to the crash of AA77 into the Pentagon were widely separated, and not connect to each other in any way. These eyewitnesses are inconvenient to Craig's "official story", just as the witnesses to the wreckage. He and Also have gone to absurd lengths to try and discredit the eyewitnesses to the crash because they refute his Ranke's "story."

No matter what claim Ranke makes about flight paths, he is obligated to deal with ALL of the evidence at the Pentagon. He never has and, as we can see, is desperately trying to get out of HIS obligation.

It is not the truth movement's responsibility to prove absolutely everything that happened on 9/11.

Unfortunately, Craig, when YOU make claims, YOU have to support them by dealing with all of the evidence

We only need to prove a critical part of the official story false.

False. First, the evidence is not an "official story." The evidence is independent. You have to deal with all of it. You have not proved one think other than you have consistently evaded dealing with all of the evidence.

jthomas has nothing to refute the evidence we present so he has predictably started a campaign to focus on us personally to detract from the evidence.

Fortunately, people are far smarter than you give them credit for, Craig, They know full well that you have persistently avoided conducting a real investigation, that you have deliberately evaded your responsibility. You cannot continue to try to shift the burden of proof to me or anyone else to do YOUR homework. You need to deal with all of the evidence.

So, once again, Craig Ranke, when are you going to get down and start doing a real investigation? Why are you afraid to find the truth, Craig Ranke?

I don't know what more I can do to stop people from trying as hard as they possibly can to derail this discussion and make it about me.

This thread is not about Craig Ranke.

It is not about CIT.

It is not about anything other than the details surrounding alleged witness Aziz ElHallan/ElHhallou and the evidence proving his story false.

Any comments from people regarding this important evidence are greatly appreciated.

Looks like it's John Thomas' turn to attack the messenger, not the actual message this time around. Do you refute the idea that this eyewitness is unreliable jthomas?

Regardless of Craig Rankes' (not Graig) other opinions surrounding the Pentagon attack, his attention to details others might not have time to investigate is appreciated by some here on ATS.

Does this make his theories correct? No. Do I think some of the "witnesses" are BS? Yes.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I don't know what more I can do to stop people from trying as hard as they possibly can to derail this discussion and make it about me.

It's about your failure to do an investigation while you claim you did. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is not about anything other than the details surrounding alleged witness Aziz ElHallan/ElHhallou and the evidence proving his story false.

Threads are irrelevant. ALL of the evidence is relevant.

Here are some of the peoplke you admitted failing to interview:
/43vcpl
You cannot even tell us what wreckage they saw and/or recovered from the Pentagon.

Now, tell us Craig, just when are you FINALLY going to get around to do a proper investigation? Why do you refuse to do so?

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Looks like it's John Thomas' turn to attack the messenger, not the actual message this time around. Do you refute the idea that this eyewitness is unreliable jthomas?

Regardless of Craig Rankes' (not Graig) other opinions surrounding the Pentagon attack, his attention to details others might not have time to investigate is appreciated by some here on ATS.

Does this make his theories correct? No. Do I think some of the "witnesses" are BS? Yes.

Read a little more carefully. You should eventually catch on.

reply to post by jthomas


Why do people feel the need to add NOTHING WHATSOEVER to the thread or discussion at hand but merely attack the character of the poster? If what he's discussing is so WRONG then why not provide evidence to the contrary. Why does somebody's research bother you SO MUCH that you feel compelled to derail the thread and misdirect the flow?

I find the subject intriguing and try to follow as best as I can. With information like this still coming out (albeit in a trickle) you never know when one little thing will be discovered which will be the crack in the levee. Alot of people mention or question how so many involved could keep quiet but last I checked, I don't recall hearing about the A-bomb development before Hiro/Naga.

Keep up the search CIT. I appreciate what you're doing.