See other History Articles
Title: Let's Discuss the 9/11 "Hijackers"
Source:
LetsRoll911
URL Source: http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bull ... /viewtopic.php?t=11840&start=0
Published: Mar 9, 2006
Author: "Merc Mercy"
Post Date: 2006-03-09 09:04:36 by valis
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: "Hijackers", Discuss, Lets
Views: 179
Comments: 10
A poster from the LetsRoll forums has been keeping alive a very interesting thread analysing the blatant inconsistancies regarding information available on the alleged 9/11 hijackers. Check it out. Also see this related section of the Team8+ forums: And remember, it wasn't us researchers, but 'Able Danger' that found the Atta connection to a CIA network in Brooklyn...
Subscribe to *9-11*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#1. To: All, *ARG List* (#0)
...
Still reading the thread and found this .. THIS is why there were no hijackers on 9/11. THIS confirms there is no way they could have fingered any of the hijackers on those flights. While Logan officials acknowledged the ``deficiency'' yesterday, they have tried to blame the two Sept. 11 terrorist attacks launched from Boston on low-paid security screeners hired by the airlines, who are believed to have let the two bands of hijackers slip through checkpoints with boxcutters. Massport spokesman Jose Juves said yesterday that the agency's embattled boss, executive director Virginia Buckingham, was surprised to find there were no cameras in place when she took the helm two years ago. Copyright by the Boston Herald and Herald Interactive Advertising Systems, Inc. No portion of http://BostonHerald.com or its content may be reproduced without the owner's written permission.Privacy Commitment
I just sent 'merc' an e-mail asking him to consider doing a summary piece that we could perhaps publish here as a 4um exclusive. There's so much info here. Simply saying "many of the hijackers are still alive", does not a good rebuttal make.
Fantastic.. great research!! And it IS loaded with a TON of info!
Enough to fill a brand new website ;-)
Isnt that the truth?? Mind boggling really..I wonder how long it took to compile all that info?
There are no replies to Comment # 10. End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: valis (#1)
Think about it. You get on a flight. You have to present a valid ID to check in, which matches the name on your ticket, which matches the name on the manifest. In the first days of 9/11 all they had to go on was the names on the manifest. Right? That and the description given by security, ticket counter, baggage handling/check-in desk and other airline employees. So how did they get the identities of the hijackers confirmed if they had no way to connect a face with a name or a name with a face? How do they know which face goes with which seat. All you have is the ticket-takers looking at a ticket and a face. Aren't some ticket takers one the actual stewards/ess that get on the flight? My point is if they chased wrong identities. They obviously weren't entirely relying on eyewitness accounts. And we know they COULDN'T rely on surveillance footage, because there was none for two of the flights, 175 and 11. It makes no sense.
THIS explains it all
Quote: Logan lacks video cameras
Saturday, September 29, 2001
In perhaps the most stunning example of Massport's lax security safeguards, Logan International Airport is missing a basic tool found not only in virtually every other airport, but in most 7-Elevens.
Surveillance cameras.
But the lack of cameras has prevented the FBI from definitively identifying the men who boarded two jumbo jets and later used them to decimate the World Trade Center towers in New York, killing thousands.
``It's not rocket science,'' said Michael Taylor, president of the Boston-based American International Security Corp. ``Convenience stores employ them, why wouldn't Massport?''
The shortcoming is underscored by the fact that the much-smaller Portland International Jetport in Maine was able to capture images of suspected hijackers Mohammed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari on camera as they strolled through a checkpoint to fly to Boston the morning of the attacks.
``You have names (of hijackers), but the FBI has said it hasn't been able to match the faces of those who were on the flights,'' said Charles Slepian, a New York security consultant.
``Who boarded at Logan? You don't have pictures, and that's a problem. And are those suspects the ones who actually got on at Logan or are they still alive (somewhere)? Who knows? That's one of the big questions the cameras would have been able to answer.''
While Massport does employ cameras in parking garages, ramp areas and on Logan's roadways to monitor traffic, there are none to be found in the terminals, gate areas or concourses.
In July Massport's board of director's approved $2.2 million to be spent installing cameras throughout the airport.
``She recognized a deficiency and she took steps to address the issue,'' said Juves, adding that officials were waiting for the results of a consultant's review of Logan security before installing the cameras.
That ``deficiency'' seems to undermine Logan security chief Joe Lawless' claim two weeks ago that ``we consider ourselves as secure, if not more secure, than any other airport.''
While the Federal Aviation Administration does not require the use of cameras, they were put into widespread use at most airports 15 years ago.
``Are you sure they're not there?'' asked Slepian. ``I haven't been to all the airports in the nation, but for the most part they're (used everywhere).''
Told that Logan definitely doesn't have cameras in the terminals, Slepian said, ``Yeah, I'm surprised, but I've been surprised a lot about Logan lately.''
Juves acknowledged that surveillance cameras could have played a vital role, if not in preventing the tragedy then certainly in the massive criminal probe that has followed.
``I think that's probably a question for the FBI, not us, but (cameras) would appear to be useful in the investigation,'' he said.
Taylor, who has done consulting work for the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, said New York's three airports - Newark, the site of one of the hijackings; John F. Kennedy; and LaGuardia - all employ security cameras. Officials at Dulles International Airport in Washington D.C., the other starting point for the terrorists, didn't return a phone call from the Herald yesterday.
Since the attack, Massport officials have said what happened at Logan could have happened anywhere and have called for federal agents to man airport security checkpoints nationwide.
But there has been little mention of the ``Guaranteed Passenger Standards'' program, an initiative to improve service at Logan that was trumpeted by Buckingham and Massport board chairman Mark Robinson earlier this year. The brainchild of Robinson, part of the program required airlines to ensure that passengers not have to wait more than five minutes to be ushered through checkpoints.
The program, touted as the first of its kind in the nation, was scrapped days after the attacks.
In sweeping airline security reforms announced Thursday, President Bush stopped short of federalizing screening operations, but did call for the feds to assume oversight of the screening companies and maintain a presence at all checkpoints.
The reforms come nearly 1 years after the General Accounting Office identified Logan as one of the nation's worst airports for retaining checkpoint screeners.
With a typical screener staying on the job only six months, the GAO found the turnover rate at Logan to be 207 percent - the fourth highest among 19 major airports. Only St. Louis (416 percent), Atlanta (375) and Houston (237) rated worst.
Gerald L. Dillingham, the GAO's aviation issues director who testified before the Senate on April 6, 2000, said the typical six-month stint of a Logan screener means the screeners likely would never undergo spot checking by the FAA more than once.
``We're talking about testing once or twice a year,'' he said, adding that the FAA testers are typically people who are known by the screening companies.
``Once you check one screening point, word passes like wildfire that they're there. Yet even when they have the alert they don't do too well,'' said Dillingham.
Among companies providing screening services at Logan is Argenbright Security, which was fined $1.5 million a year ago for hiring persons with criminal backgrounds to do screenings at Philadelphia International Airport.
Another screening firm, International Total Services, filed for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 14.
Though the FAA responded to the GAO report saying that it had developed a ``Passenger Screening Checkpoint Integrated Plan,'' Dillingham said the agency failed to implement it.
His April report eerily predicted the result of that neglect.
``A single lapse in aviation security can result in hundreds of deaths, destroy equipment worth hundreds of millions of dollars and have immeasurable negative impacts on the economy and the public's confidence in air travel,'' he wrote.
http://www.bostonherald.com/attack/investigation/aussecu09292001.htm
(Page is scrubbed)
Thank you, http://www.sitbot.net/htm/10061.html
Newark Int'l(Flt 93) supposedly had cameras. But where is the video???
When you go to the airport...
There are cameras at the ticket counter
Cameras at checkpoints
Cameras at boarding gates
See, "Why won't the FBI show the 9/11 airport videos?":
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_members&Number=293116213
And...
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/airportvideo.html
#4. To: Zipporah (#3)
#8. To: valis (#4)
I just sent 'merc' an e-mail asking him to consider doing a summary piece that we could perhaps publish here as a 4um exclusive. There's so much info here. Simply saying "many of the hijackers are still alive", does not a good rebuttal make.
#9. To: Zipporah (#8)
And it IS loaded with a TON of info!
#10. To: valis (#9)
Enough to fill a brand new website ;-)
Replies to Comment # 10.