|
Six Alleged Hijackers Still Alive
In this section Griffin reviews the early press stories, suggesting that six of the alleged hijackers were still alive. He reviews the case of Waleed al-Shehri, for instance, a pilot based in Morocco, and Saeed Al Ghamdi, who was in Tunis at the time.
What's immediately noticeable are some significant omissions, however. Griffin doesn't point out that many articles talking about the Morocco pilot refer to him as "Waleed A al-Shehri", while the hijacker was named by the FBI as "Waleed M al-Shehri". He also fails to mention a Washington Post article reporting on an Arab News story, with comments from the family saying Waleed and his brother (another accused hijacker) had disappeared and they didn't know where he was. And a later suggestion that the family appeared on US TV accepting they were involved, and now dead.
Griffin leaves out relevant information about Al Ghamdi, too. The story about him being alive was due to CNN running a photo they'd found, of the wrong man -- nothing more. Der Spiegel explained this long ago, but it appears Griffin didn't bother to look beyond the conspiracy sites.
Griffin also quotes an early story from the Saudi embassy in Washington suggesting three more alleged hijackers were alive and living in Saudi Arabia. However, he chooses to ignore a later story where "Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens.".
Sources for these at
http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
The first problem with all this, then, is an "appeal to authority". There is no actual proof in any of these stories that those who appear are the same people named by the FBI, but Griffin seems to be saying that because they are "mainstream news sources" that we should believe them 100%. (Although we suspect there may be an inconsistency here. Do you think we’ll be invited to accept a stories from a “mainstream news source” if they support the official 9/11 story, for instance?)
The second problem is a shift to false certainty. Griffin begins the section by admitting the hijackers are only "reportedly" alive, but by the end claims the FBI identifications have been "shown to be incorrect". This is simply false: there are allegations here, nothing more.
And the third, and largest problem are the omissions. Griffin collects together the information he believes supports his case, and ignores everything else. Or perhaps he doesn't know any contrary evidence exists, but then we'd have to ask: why not?
Omissions about Mohammed Atta
Griffins main argument here is that Atta and other alleged hijackers were reported to
drink, use cocaine, eat pork, gamble and so on. The point being, of course, that this
is inconsistent with their being devout Muslims.
Griffin fails to mention "a sect called Al Takfir wal Hijra, run by al Quaeda second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri", though. We've seen it suggested that "Takfir Wal Hijra members are permitted to disregard the injunctions of Islamic law in order to blend into infidel societies. In other words, Takfirs can have sex with loose women, drink alcohol, eat pork and do whatever else they feel is appropriate to advance their
mission...". And Atta has apparently been associated with this sect (http://www.911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html)
It appears Griffin hasn't been keeping up-to-date with developments related to the Madrid bombings, either, where similar patterns have emerged. For example, here's what was reported about one of the suicide bombers there:
Despite his reputation for fanaticism at the Madrid mosque he attended, Ahmidan also frequented discotheques and bars. He struck his Spanish neighbors as friendly and flashy. They remember him zooming by on a motorcycle with his long-haired girlfriend, a Spanish woman with a taste for revealing outfits
http://www.cannabis.net/articles/assass.html
And others, like Al Jazeeras Yosri Fouda, believed they had a plausible explanation for this as long ago as 2002.
I think their sense of dispensation was derived directly from the idea that they were engaged in jihad ("holy struggle"). Now you know, in jihad there are certain liberties
allowed...
http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall02/Fouda.html
Put these all together, and Griffins logic of a particular type of behaviour meaning they couldn't be devout Muslims isn't necessarily true.
The second part of this section reports that Atta's will was found, amongst other possessions, on a bag that failed to be checked in to Flight 11. Why, Griffin asks, would Atta place his will on a plane he expected to be entirely destroyed? Again, this sounds plausible, but that's because key information is left out.
You won't find out from Griffin's brief account, for instance, when the will was made. As Atta knew he was about to die, for instance, that leaves it possible that some readers will think he'd just made it, and therefore taking it on the plane would be suspicious. If only Griffin had told us the document was written in 1996 then you might have been better informed, realised that actually this might not have been something he thought relevant any more, but unfortunately this handy piece of information is left out.
You won't find the text of Atta's will, either. And that's a shame, because you'd see most of the points refer to the preparation of his body, and conduct at his funeral (there are lines about "the people who will prepare my body", "the people who will sit
by my body", "the people who will clean my body", and more: see http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/will1.htm ). Again, as there would be no body, no funeral, is it possible that Atta thought the document no longer relevant, that it was only with him at all as part of his personal papers?
Now, we can't say with certainty that our interpretation of the will is correct. Those who disagree may point to the fact that the original document hasn't been released, for instance, and all we have is an English version translated by the FBI. (Although if the will were actually written by someone in on a Government plot, then presumably they'd write the same thing in Arabic anyway). Still, we think our idea offers at least a
plausible alternative explanation as to why Atta may not have cared if his will was destroyed.
The first problem with this section is Griffins reliance on assumptions. He assumes that devout Muslims are most unlikely to behave in particular ways, that someone who writes a will won't want it destroyed; most people will agree with these points, if given no other information, and so find his arguments more convincing.
The second problem is that he once more omits any information that might cast doubt on those assumptions. Or did he just not know about any of this, or think to try and find out?
Hani Hanjour: The Best Pilot or the Worst?
In this section Griffin refers to an article saying that the Pentagon plane was flown with "extraordinary skill". He then contrasts this with reports that Hanjour had been repeatedly described as a "horrible pilot", and mentions what he sees as a number of problems with the Commissions account.
In the first of these, Griffin suggests:
...when the aircraft was 5 miles from the Pentagon, it "began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet". The report does underplay the difficulty of the maneuver somewhat by saying that the pilot "then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove towards the Pentagon". In reality, the aircraft, rather than hitting the Pentagon from above, as it would had it "dove", came in almost horizontally, having approach the West Wing from a tree-top level...
The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Chapter 1)
Does the use of "dove" here really qualify as "underplaying" the difficulty of the maneuver? Not really, as it's the tight turn that Griffin earlier refers to as being the more difficult part. And suggesting that had it "dove" then it would have hit the Pentagon from the roof, is pedantic in the extreme, not least because the planes approach took it down a hill: it had to dive at the end, to hit the building.
Consider this quote from another source, for instance:
Some VDOTers were sure the plane had shifted its direction slightly to avoid a 100-foot-tall cellular tower adjacent to the STC building. As the plane went over the STC, the hijacker banked the plane, lifting the right wing up, in order to swoop down the hill into the target.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt
Is "swoop down the hill" really so different from "dove"?
Fortunately Griffin finds something more substantial to tackle later.
"On the one hand, [the Commission] reports that Hanjour's application to become a pilot was repeatedly rejected, that he was considered a "terrible pilot", and that as late as July 2001 he still had such poor piloting skills that an instructor refused to go up with him a second time. But then the report tells us -- in explaining why Hanjour was reportedly chosen to to pilot the airplane assigned to hit the Pentagon -- that he was "the operation's most experienced pilot".
The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Chapter 1)
Here's a more serious charge. But are things quite as Griffin claims? Let's take a look at his first point, that Hanjour's application to become a pilot was "repeatedly rejected". This is what the 9/11 Report says.
In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training,after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends, went back to Arizona and began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot's license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999. He then returned to Saudi Arabia.
Hanjour reportedly applied to the civil aviation school in Jeddah after returning home, but was rejected...
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html
Griffin claiming that "Hanjour's application to become a pilot was repeatedly rejected" then saying "that he was considered a "terrible pilot" immediately afterwards might lead you to think that these two things were connected, however there's nothing about that in the report at all. We don't know why he was rejected in Saudi Arabia -- it doesn't say.
Griffin then follows this by saying "as late as July 2001 he still had such poor piloting skills that an instructor refused to go up with him a second time", which might give the impression that nothing had happened since his "repeated" rejections. And yet, as we can see, he's spent months of training, obtained a private pilots licence, then a commercial pilots license. Seems relevant, to us, but apparently Griffin didn't think his readers needed to know. Or he's not actually read the report he's criticising.
Of course there is still the report of an instructor refusing to go up with Hanjour for a second time.
Hanjour flew the Hudson Corridor, but his instructor declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour's poor piloting skills. Shortly thereafter, Hanjour switched to Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey, where he rented small aircraft on several occasions during June and July. In one such instance on July 20, Hanjour--likely accompanied by Hazmi--rented a plane from Caldwell and took a practice flight from Fairfield to Gaithersburg, Maryland, a route that would have allowed them to fly near Washington, D.C. Other evidence suggests that Hanjour may even have returned to Arizona for flight simulator training earlier in June.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-259.html
True enough, then, but we don't have any details as to why the instructor was concerned. It's also plain that Hanjour was able to continue training elsewhere, although Griffin forgets to mention this, too.
And then there’s this comment about Hanjour, in a 9/11 Commission footnote to Chapter 7.
170. FBI report, "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 5257. 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).
A positive review for Hanjour? Clearly a problem to the story Griffin wants to tell, of course. Could that be why he left it out?
What we have in this section, then, are some important omissions of relevant information. Hanjour getting a private then commercial pilots license years before 9/11, for instance, justifies the Commission saying he was the operation's "most experienced pilot". And yet, although Griffin questions this comment, he doesn't reveal the reasoning behind it, even though this gives a very distorted impression to the reader.
So what's left? There's still the question of whether Hanjour could have flown the plane into the Pentagon. Some people say no, the Commission plainly concluded that he could, but it’s hard to see any major omissions that led them to this conclusion. Unless you’re saying that they should have spelled out more clearly the difficulty involved, for instance, but even if we count this as an omission, they’re still running behind Griffins score.
Evidence for any of the Alleged Hijackers?
Here Griffin suggests there's no evidence that the alleged hijackers were even on the 9/11 planes, as their names don't appear on the flight manifests, and the airlines have refused to release them to individuals who've asked about this. He suggests the Commission could used its subpoena powers to obtain the manifests, but their report "reveals no sign that this issue was even discussed".
And that's about it, really. To investigate this further you'll need to turn to the footnotes, where Griffin tells us which flight manifests he's talking about. And it turns out to be a page at CNN, the example he gives being http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
Now maybe it's just us, but surely you don't have to be an expert investigative journalist to notice that the URL includes the term "victims". It's a list of victims, and as such you really wouldn't expect the alleged hijackers to be included.
Don't want to take our word for it? Then read what CNN says. Visit the Memorial page at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/indexold.html , then click About This Site, and you'll find some text that's interesting for a couple of reasons.
The list includes those listed as "confirmed dead" and "reported dead" by the Associated Press... (Those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included).
So, the lists come from press reports, not the airline; they're not official passenger manifests after all (see more support for this at http://www.911myths.com/html/cnn_passenger_lists.html ). Also CNN specifically say that the alleged hijackers are not listed. None of this was at all difficult to find, so why didn't Griffin think to mention it?
It's also worth noting that the Boston Globe did obtain the manifests of the planes hijacked from Boston, and guess what? They did include the hijackers, after all ( http://www.911myths.com/html/passenger_manifests.html ).
And what about the airlines refusing to issue this information? Griffin reproduces a letter apparently sent to a reader of his, where an American Airlines representative says essentially "we've released our information to the authorities, and we're not in a position to do any more".
Suspicious? Only if you somehow believe the airlines were in on a plot that cost them hundreds of millions of dollars (at a minimum), and would now willingly comply with a coverup. Perhaps a simpler explanation could be that airlines don't habitually release passenger lists to members of the public, nor do they want to deal with these and related queries from individuals for many years to come, and so they want to draw a line under the whole thing? Makes more sense to us.
The first problem here is a distortion, then, where Griffin claims that the CNN is an official flight manifest. CNN never say this, and in fact say the list is based on other press reports.
The second problem here is one of omission, where Griffin ignores CNN clearly stating that the alleged hijackers don't appear on the lists, and that another report did refer to hijackers appearing on the two manifests they'd obtained.
Conclusion? Griffin has failed to show there's any issue here at all, so it's hardly surprising if the 9/11 Commission didn't discuss it. And as that completes the arguments for Chapter 1, he’s really not off to the best of starts.
|
