Video surveillance photos of the 5 hijackers who took over AA 77

[SDuderstadt]

http://www.dailypress.com/nyc-hijackers-gallery,0,4229834.photogallery

Wait...don't tell me...DailyPress is "in on it" too.

[noise]

1. That is the definitive proof that the named 19 board the planes?

Why haven't we heard from the gate agents? We heard from ticket agent Michael Touhey at Portland Jetport but oddly enough we haven't heard from any of the 9/11 flight gate agents. Is there any camera footage of the departure gates? As I recall we were told Logan had no cameras but the other two airports may have had departure gate cameras. The next best thing would be visual confirmation from the gate agents. Why would they remember? One, not many passengers. Two, early in the day. Three, they only checked in one or two planes of passengers due to the grounding of planes.

Note: I am not stating they didn't board the planes. Rather that there has been a ton of secrecy surrounding all aspects of 9/11 and I am admittedly suspicious.

[SDuderstadt]

2. Maybe it's not a "ton of secrecy"...

maybe it's that large-scale, catastrophic events involve unanswered questions, conflicting accounts and anomalies. Maybe it's that the "9/11 truth movement" stops looking for evidence when they feel they have enough to support their goofy claims, so they don't look for disconfirming evidence.

More importantly, what level of proof will convince "truthers" that they could just be wrong about things? It seems that, no matter what evidence is presented, "truthers" just come back with demands for even more detailed proof. For example, if we can establish by birth certificate that suspect A was born in Beech Grove, Indiana on 10/11/51, do we REALLY need the testimony of the janitor from that day and a picture of the clock in the delivery room? Why do "truthers" demand an impossibly high standard of proof for the "official story", then not provide similar proof for their own outlandish claims?

[BeFree]

3. You need proof?

That Bushco is a bunch of liars and will do just about anything to get people to do their bidding?

[SDuderstadt]

5. Dude...

your "Bushco" meme has run out of gas. I guess you can't hide behind it any more.

[BeFree]

9. Oh?

Nah, the 'Bushco are liars' and 'not to be believed' truths will never run out of gas.

And I don't cover anything for Bushco. Its expose, expose, expose. They deserve it and they're gonna get it.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Yeah, but you think you can refute serious questions about the gaps...

in your goofy claims by "associating" your opponent with "Bushco". That's what doesn't work, dude.

[noise]

4. Hearing from the gate agents isn't asking too much

After all, they were the last people to see the hijackers before they boarded the planes. These MRF's could easily be released on the NARA website with the names blacked out to protect the privacy of the airline employees. Instead we are supposed to take the word of people like Philip Zelikow and Lee Hamilton.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Well, why don't you submit an FOIA?

BTW, how do you know this ISN'T already available?

P.S. I also resent your tarring an honorable Democrat like Lee Hamilton.

[noise]

7. I've looked through the MFR's

I also asked NARA about the files on site and this was the reply:

The Team 7 files do include FBI interviews with security personnel at the airports. We can send you photocopies of those folders (Team 7, Box 17: folders “Screeners 9/11 and Check-in” and “FBI 302s of interest: Checkpoint Screeners”) for a fee of 75 cents per page. The first folder is 149 pages, the second is 123 pages (total 272 pages, $204).

No mention of the actual gate agents.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Which means what?

If there are pictures of the hijackers going through security and passenger accounts of them on the plane, do you really need proof that they actually got on the plane? Are you saying that the airlines would not have noted 5 individuals that checked in for the flight but never boarded the flight?

[noise]

10. Can the gate agents confirm the ID's of the named 19?

I know we are told al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar used their real names to reserve and purchase tickets. The only problem with this is that it doesn't make any sense.

[SDuderstadt]

12. With all due respect....

none of this will ever make sense to you or other "truthers". It's like Tom Cruise's character in "Rainman" trying to convince Dustin Hoffman's character that "Who's on first?" isn't a riddle.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Before I address your point....

Don't you EVER accuse me of using GOP talking points or of sounding like Glenn Beck. I have never ever watched Glenn Beck and it sounds to me like you are trying to smear me.

Noise, Bolo has addressed the issue of at least one gate agent who positively IDed one of the hijackers, but I am confused by your insistence here. Are you seriously suggesting that the airlines, who suffered the loss of their crews and their aircraft cannot be trusted in this matter? What would be in it for them to be a part of some plot?

[mhatrw]

22. honorable and Lee Hamilton have never net.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. We have heard from the gate agent who checked Atta in at Maine

He positively IDs the pictures of Atta as the man he checked in.

The only word I've heard from the gate agent who let Atta aboard 11 in Boston is that she committed suicide.

[noise]

15. That is my point

He wasn't working an actual 9/11 gate. One would think the media would want to hear from the actual 9/11 gate agents. AFAIK the suicide story was a rumor. It doesn't make any sense either. Why on earth would a gate agent feel guilty? After all it was the CIA and FBI who didn't apprehend the al Qaeda operatives.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. He would have been at a "9/11 gate" if he hadn't declined to give Atta and Alomari boarding passes

Atta was expecting to get his Boston boarding pass in Portland. Your "9/11 gate" criteria is specious. Atta and Alomari wouldn't have looked at a gate check-in at Boston if Tuoheny had given them the boarding passes.

Suicide is rarely a rational act.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. I've done some more looking around - yes, the story of the suicide is not true

So I will stop using it. American Airlines confirmed that the ticket agent in Boston is still alive. The Portland agent either made up the story himself (why, I don't know) or he heard the story himself and believed it and repeated it.

[jakeXT]

18. So we have video of them in Portland, but nothing from Boston.

And the guy working in Portland is spreading the rumor that someone committed suicide in Boston?
http://wonkette.com/200888/911-ticket-agent-suicide-can-we-ever-trust-oprah-again

[noise]

21. There also seems to be confusion between ticket agents and gate agents

AFAIK:

Ticket agents confirm that one has a valid ticket for the flight. These days computer kiosks seem to provide this function.

Gate agents check in passengers for boarding. For example, passengers who don't check in at the gate on time sometimes will have their seat given to standby passengers.

The gate agents would be the best source to confirm the ID of the hijackers. With all the confusion in the immediate aftermath of the attacks it's very difficult to believe the FBI didn't interview the gate agents. Yet I don't think I've ever read anything that suggests they were a source of ID'ing the hijackers.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. ah ha!

fishy

[RainaldGoetz]

65. But didn't the agent

Hi!
But didn't the agent also wonder how Atta and Al Omari don't were their coats and ties?
10 alleged hijackers had to pass security in Boston. Does anybody have any witness accounts?

[Kalun D]

23. Let's See

None of these photos are clear enough to identify anyone in them.

Where's the time/date stamp? Doesn't ALL security video have a time/date stamp? Whut up wit dat?

These video / photos were released in 2004? Why wait 3 years to release them?

These video/ photos were released by the 911 Whitewash Commission?

Ask yourself, has the government ever lied to you? LOLZ!

[defendandprotect]

24. First of all, American Airlines says there was no flight 77 scheduled for 9/11 . . .

Secondly, you're saying the Pentagon has a fake photo a "no plane" but

this mightn't be faked?

I would imagine that friends in the press will simply print anything they're

given by the CIA or government?

Of course, the MSM wasn't quite "in on it" when they failed to challenge or

investigate the truth of the coup on JFK, either! Just doing the bidding of

CIA/government. Same for LIFE Magazine. Etc.

[Realityhack]

25. American Airlines might be interested to hear that they have said that.

Source or you are full of shit.

[defendandprotect]

26. Took you off "ignore" to read the thread . . .

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Timeline

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=50132865

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm

Now I remember why -- !!

Seems you can never take the highroad, eh?

[KDLarsen]

38. The BTS is not a timetable

Have you bothered to check with SABRE?

[NoSheep]

27. How do you know the individuals in those photos are who some want you

to believe they are?

[spooked911]

28. where are the time/date stamps???

why should I trust this when they clearly have been doctored?

[spooked911]

30. no answer? doesn't this make people a little bit suspicious?

[spooked911]

31. really-- what is the explanation for the missing time/date stamps?

hmm?

[spooked911]

32. again-- what is the explanation for the missing time/date stamps?

I'm going to keep this up until someone gives an answer

[Marksbrother]

33. "Medical malpractice"

You'd think that after MIS-dating the Pentagon images they would learned a lesson and surgically inserted a plausible time and date stamp on these images. Especially, considering how important they are in selling the Official Conspiracy Theory.

[spooked911]

35. Good point. I wonder if they let these out before or after the Pentagon images...

Interesting the OCTists have no explanation for this and seem not to even bother trying.

[SDuderstadt]

36. It's part of a conspiracy to make you crazy, Spooked...

I'll probably be killed just for divulging even this much...you just don't know what these people are truly capable of...

[spooked911]

37. your lack of a substantive answer pretty much says it all

thanks for the confirmation.

[SDuderstadt]

39. How do you know THAT'S not part of the plot, too?

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

[spooked911]

41. two questions for you

1) do you trust these security camera stills that lack a time/date stamp as legitimate evidence of the hijackers getting on flight 77?

2) do you think these security camera stills that lack a time/date stamp would hold up as evidence in a court of law?

[SDuderstadt]

42. Yes and...

yes. There's plenty of other corroborating evidence.

[spooked911]

43. I'm talking about THIS evidence.

Why do you think security camera stills without a time/date stamp would work as legitimate evidence in an honest court of law?

[SDuderstadt]

44. Because they are documentary evidence of something happening irrespective of time and date...

n/t

[Marksbrother]

45. Which makes them worthless and unlikely to be admitted

into the record as evidence.

[spooked911]

46. documentary evidence missing the standard time/date stamps

you are too funny

[SDuderstadt]

48. Since the hijackers are all dead...

I'm pretty sure they're not going to be tried, dude. Why don't you ask the airports why there is no time/date stamp? If you're claiming that the surveillance tapes are faked, do you really think the "perps" are so stupid, they would leave time and date stamps out?

[Marksbrother]

50. Well, they DID, didn't they?

"do you really think the "perps" are so stupid, they would leave time and date stamps out?"

There is no proof that there were ANY hijackers. Why do you continue making that goofy claim?

[SDuderstadt]

51. "There is no proof that there were ANY hijackers"

This has to win an award for the most inintentionally ironic post ever.

[Marksbrother]

52. Intentionally ironic is correct. No proof of ANY hijackers.

[William Seger]

54. So the passengers who reported the hijackings were lying...

... or the calls were faked? And the ATC tapes and UA93 cockpit voice recorder of the hijackers talking are fake?

So, there's no evidence if you declare the evidence fake?

[Marksbrother]

55. Lots of claims in there, but no proof of any hijackers

You've got those talking points down pretty good. Just no credible evidence of any hijackers.

[William Seger]

56. Not credible to whom?

If you choose to disbelieve the evidence just because it screws up your favorite conspiracy theory, you're entitled to your opinion. I couldn't care less what you don't believe, since you can't give a rational reason for disbelieving it. But to say there isn't any evidence is just a lie. Which reminds me why I always put "truther" in quotes.

[Marksbrother]

57. To people who don't believe goofy claims

Credible evidence is required and there is none. That's why it's called the Fake 9/11 Conspiracy.

"Not credible to whom?"

[achtung_circus]

58. "Not credible to whom?"

The non-credulous.

[William Seger]

63. Uh-huh, plane hijacking is a "goofy claim"

... and "TV fakery" and "mini-nukes" make sense. :eyes:

[William Seger]

53. Do you know how timestamps are recorded on video, Spooky? (n/t)

[Marksbrother]

40. Good question. It's nothing new. Images in the Zapruder film

were switched to make it appear that the limo didn't slow down in the "kill zone". There's also good reason to believe
that it (Z film), like the 9/11 videos, was a composite. "Life" magazine admitted that they "accidentally" switched
the images and permanently damaged some others.

True Believers/Lone Nutters will tell you that none of the above is true. They'll also include a choice insult or two
whenever they tell you. Flaunting DU rules seems to be a habit with them. Maybe you have to take an oath obligating you
to insult people who are interested in finding the truth, if you want to be part of their brigade.

[spooked911]

47. yes, thanks

[SDuderstadt]

49. If you think we're flaunting the rules...

you should take it up with the moderators, dude.

[spoony]

34. Maybe the EMP wiped them out.

[spooked911]

29. they didn't need to be in on it to publish, btw

though all major media is controlled and "in on it" to some extent.

[Why Syzygy]

59. Where is the plane wreckage? nt

[Marksbrother]

60. Video images of 5 Arab men

Doesn't prove they are hijackers. In fact, it isn't evidence of anything.

[SDuderstadt]

61. It's hysterical watching you...

flounder trying to defend your goofy claims.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RainaldGoetz]

64. I don't

Hi!
I don't understand the idea of this thread.
First of all this is very old news as I far as I remember.
Second the time stamp is missing (well, yes, te Portland images had one too many ....)
Third the image of Hanjour isn't Hanjour.
Forth there is no image of Moqued.
Fifth the brothers certainly don't look so very skinny as they have been described by the check in agent.
So I don't get the idea of this thread.
What do you wish to prove?