September 11th Conspiracies - What Do We Know? - Page 3

This is page three of the September 11th: What Do We Know? article. If you were linked here by mistake, please refer to page one in this section.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Part 1: World Trade Center Towers--Basic Facts
3. Part 2: Hijack and Collapse--Cause and Effect
4. Part 3: Responsibility
5. Part 4: Peripheral Issues--What's Not Covered Here And Why
6. Part 5: This Account of What Happened vs. Alternative Theories--Why You Can't Be Agnostic Anymore
7. Conclusion: What Can We Know?

Part 3: Responsibility

From the analysis in Parts 1 and 2 we know what happened and how it happened. Now we examine who did it and, to a lesser extent, why.

Conclusions 5 through 8, combined with Conclusion 11, tell us that whoever hijacked the planes is responsible for destroying the WTC towers. Therefore, the appropriate place to begin is to examine who hijacked AA11 and UAL175.

There is a great deal of information available on the hijackers. However, for purposes of this analysis, I'm going to focus on only one of them (this paper would be hundreds of pages if I did all 19, 20 if you count Moussaoui). If it turns out that even one of the hijackers can be linked to Al Qaeda, and it can be shown that he was acting for Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, then it automatically must be true that Al Qaeda is responsible. (In fact, all the hijackers can be linked to Al Qaeda--but you needn't accept that on faith in order to conclude that Al Qaida is responsible for 9/11 even if only one of them can be). I will focus on the lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta.

Document 14: Portion of Mohammed Atta's application for Huffman Aviation (flying school).

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00642-1.pdf

(a Moussaoui trial exhibit--this is on page 1):

Note that this application indicates he is from Egypt, he was born on Sept. 1, 1968, and that he told them he wanted to be a professional pilot.

Purpose: evidence of Atta's name, citizenship, date of birth, and the fact that he applied for flight training.

I am unaware of any evidence that purports to contradict that Atta applied to Huffman Aviation, that he was from Egypt, or that he was born on Sept. 1, 1968. Once again, we can trust Moussaoui trial exhibits because they were vetted in open court, their authenticity was subject to challenge by Moussaoui's lawyers, and no such challenge was made.

Document 15: Copy of Atta's Immigration Visa

(same link as above, this is on page 2)

This indicates Atta is an Egyptian citizen, was born on Sept. 1, 1968, and that he was allowed into the United States. Also note that this copy was found in Huffman Aviation's personnel file.

Purpose: corroborates Document #13 regarding Atta's name, date of birth, and entry into the United States; also that he had some contact with Huffman Aviation sufficient for them to put a copy of his visa in their files. Also evidence of what Atta looked like.

I am unaware of any evidence that purports to contradict the assertion that Atta was issued a visa to enter the United States or that he had some contact with Huffman Aviation.

Document No. 16: Instruction Authorization Form for Mohammed Atta

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00607.pdf

This document, signed by a flight instructor, certifies that Mohammed Atta was competent to pass a test regarding knowledge of flight instrumentation up to FAA standards. From Moussaoui trial exhibits.

Purpose: corroborates Documents 14 & 15 in showing that Atta received flight training in the United States.

I am unaware of any evidence that contradicts this document.

● Conclusion 12: Mohammed Atta received flight training in the United States.

Document 17: Full Passenger Manifest of American Airlines Flight 11, as published by the Boston Globe shortly after the attacks.

http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif

Note Mohammed Atta in seat 8-D.

Purpose: corroborates Document 3 in showing that Atta was in fact on AA Flight 11.

Document 18: Photo of Mohammed Atta in Portland, Maine airport on morning of September 11, 2001, from security cameras.

This certainly appears to be the same man pictured in Document 15.

Aside from the claim that Mohammed Atta is still alive (dealt with below), which is an indirect/circumstantial attack on this document, I'm not aware of any evidence that this image is not genuine.

Rebuttal document: Guardian (newspaper) article, interview with father of Mohammed Atta, claiming his son is still alive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/02/september11.usa

The senior Atta states:

"He is hiding in a secret place so as not to be murdered by the US secret services... My son called me the day after the attacks on September 12 at around midday. We spoke for two minutes about this and that. He didn't tell me where he was calling from. At that time neither of us knew anything about the attacks."

Analysis:

September 12 mid-day in Cairo, Egypt would have been after the attacks--so if this article is true, it means Atta could not have gotten on American Airlines Flight 11.

Consider:

• We know for a fact that AA11 crashed into WTC1 (that's Conclusion 6).
• We can assume that no one on board AA11 survived the crash. (I do not need to prove this; a circumstantial case exists based solely on the fact that not a single person known to be on AA11 has ever been seen alive anywhere in the world since 9/11/01).
• Logically, therefore, if Mohammed Atta boarded AA11, he died on September 11, 2001.
• Logically, therefore, if Mohammed Atta was alive after September 11, 2001, there is no way he could have gotten on AA11.

We can already regard this hypothesis with skepticism. Documents 3, 17 and 18 clearly indicate that he did board AA11. However, to be sure, let's see if there is other evidence that can help us.

Cross-Examination Document 3: Interview of Atta Sr. with Saudi Newspaper, 2001.

http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=9482&d=19&m=9&y=2001

This article states:

"Atta's father, a lawyer, said he had not heard from his son since the attack, but was confident he had nothing to do with the carnage."

Purpose: indicates that Atta sr. changed his story, which is evidence that his initial statement may not be trustworthy.

Cross-Examination Document 4: Interview of Atta Sr. with CNN, 2005.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/atta.father.terror/index.html

This article states:

"Displayed prominently in the apartment were pictures of el-Amir's son, Mohamed Atta, the man who is believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center as part of the attacks on the United States. El-Amir said the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son."

Purpose: strong indication that by 2005, Atta Sr. no longer believed that his son was alive (if he ever did). One can make the assumption that if he had seen or talked to his son after September 11, he would have said so. To the contrary, this story indicates that Atta Sr. accepted Mohammed's involvement, and was proud of it, by posting pictures of his son and boasting that other "fighters" like him were coming. It is also evidence indicating that others (meaning, others besides investigators) believed Atta hijacked AA11.

Hypothesis A: Atta was on board AA11.

Hypothesis B: Atta somehow missed AA11 and remained alive after the attacks, as a result of some chain of events that is totally unknown.

Hypothesis A is logical and consistent with all the conclusions we know to be true, as well as Documents 3, 17, and 18.

Hypothesis B is illogical. If Atta did not get on AA11, where is he? Why hasn't he gone on television to protest his innocence? Why does his own father think he was a hijacker? Furthermore, Hypothesis B is inconsistent. Accepting Hypothesis B means that each of Documents 3, 17 and 18 is either erroneous or fraudulent. There is no evidence to indicate this.

It is very clear that Hypothesis A is correct and Hypothesis B is incorrect.

● Conclusion 13: Mohammed Atta boarded AA11.

Logic: Atta's Likely Involvement

We now have enough evidence to form a hypothesis regarding Atta's involvement. We know he was on the plane that struck WTC1. We know that plane was hijacked. (Remember, Document 3 contains an audio recording of a person--possibly Atta himself--stating over the radio, "We have some planes." The voice is accented, so it could have been him). We know that Atta came to the United States and received flight training there (Conclusion 12).

Because we know that somebody hijacked AA11, whoever did it had to have come from the passengers on the plane (Documents 3 and 17). Who are the most likely suspects? Go back and review Documents 3 and 17 again.

Notice:

• Only five persons on board AA11 have Islamic names.
• All five of those persons sat near the front of the plane.
• Mohammed Atta was one of these five.

Therefore, we have a working hypothesis: that Mohammed Atta was one of five men who hijacked AA11.

Whoever did hijack AA11, they certainly had three things: means, opportunity and motive. (Note: not everyone who has a motive is guilty. It is remotely possible that someone else aboard the plane besides the five Islamic men could have had a motive, though there is no evidence of this). Let's break this down.

Means: because the attack involved flying an aircraft into WTC, the means in this case is the ability to fly a commercial aircraft.

Opportunity: physical access to the instrumentality (in a murder case, the murder weapon--here, the controls of the aircraft).

Motive: a reason to hijack the plane and fly it into the WTC.

• Note: in this case, the motive has to be very compelling for two reasons: (1) whoever planned the attack had to know that it would involve high loss of civilian life; and (2) whoever carried it out also had to know that it was unlikely they would survive. It was a suicide attack, so the motive needs to be extremely strong, so strong that a person would voluntarily give up his own life in order to achieve it.

Means

Setting aside the other five hijackers (some of whom did have flight training--that is documented, but pretend it isn't), only three human beings aboard AA11 on 9/11/01 had the means to commit the crime--meaning, we know for sure they were capable of flying an aircraft to some degree:

• Captain John Ogonowski, the AA pilot.
• Co-Pilot Thomas McGuinness.
• Mohammed Atta.

Opportunity

This doesn't help us very much. Clearly Captain Ogonowski and Co-Pilot McGuinness had the opportunity. They were behind the controls of AA11 when the plane left Boston.

Is there evidence that Mohammed Atta, the remaining suspect, somehow gained the opportunity to take control of the plane between the time it left Boston and the time it crashed into AA11?

Document 3 (Document Collection): collected materials pertaining to American Airlines Flight 11 [download] (continued).

Same link as provided above.

This collection contains an audio recording of a phone call from Betty Ong, a stewardess, who indicates that the plane is being hijacked. It also contains a recording of a voice that may well be Mohammed Atta's, announcing "we have some planes."

Clearly, Mohammed Atta did have the opportunity to control the plane.

Motive

This is where motive becomes crucial in zeroing in on our suspect. Is there any shred of evidence that the captain or co-pilot had any motive to crash AA11 into WTC1? I can't think of anyone who would seriously maintain that the captain or co-pilot had any motivation to destroy their own lives in an attempt to kill thousands of innocent people. Therefore, we can safely discard them as suspects. That leaves us with Mohammed Atta.

Document 19: Article from the Guardian (British newspaper) describing Atta's background and his conversion to radical Islamist ideas

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/23/september11.education

The article is lengthy and detailed, and does not lend itself easily to "sound bites," but a few relevant points are:

"What The Observer's investigation into his past has revealed is that Mohamed el-Amir Awad el-Sayed Atta, to give him the full name under which he registered in Germany, underwent a visible process of radicalisation. He may have led a double life, but he was no 'sleeper'. Indeed Mohamed el-Amir, the student, was much more overtly fundamentalist than the shadowy Mohamed Atta... Hauth, who travelled with him to Egypt, observed last week that Atta came from precisely that traditionally minded sector of the intelligentsia which was most outraged, and prejudiced, by the opening to the West that President Anwar Sadat initiated before his assassination in 1981... Atta made no secret of where his sympathies lay. He had graduated from a faculty that was a hotbed of fundamentalist agitation and gone on to join the Engineers Syndicate, one of three professional associations controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood."

Purpose: evidence that Mohammed Atta was involved in radical Islamist religious and political groups.

I am not aware of any evidence challenging any of the assertions listed in the Guardian article.

Document 20: Australian interview with Ralph Bodenstein, friend of Mohammed Atta.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/bodenstein.htm

This long interview deals with Bodenstein's friendship with Atta in Egypt. The interview is very in-depth, but a few things Bodenstein says are noteworthy:

"Yeah I mean we had several talks on that and it was not only on a political scale that he [Atta] was arguing against this approach of the US Government's political and financial influence in general in Egypt, it was also on a cultural level actually that he was objecting this... he was though in favour of extremist Islamic groups but he was pretty much against such a state action against people who are apparently working in favour of the interests of the people living in the streets so it was always a social conflict ... He was very religious as many others are in Cairo... the only thing that I believe would have made him do such a thing would have been political reasons and not religious, because from a religious stand he was a very humanist person but he got really upset and extreme in his judgments when it came to politics and so I think it must have been something political rather, and maybe I think Robert Fisk actually he wrote an article these days in which he linked up and he made a very good remark which was that after Mohamed apparently wrote this testament of his, his last will was apparently written in April '96, exactly the month of the massacre when the Israelis bombed the UN Refugee camp in Southern Lebanon and several hundred civilians had died and there was no big published negative response to it. I mean Israel was like ... don't do this again but nothing more happened. You can understand somebody being upset about this you know there might be a link..."

Purpose: corroborates Document 19 regarding Atta's religiosity and his passion toward extreme Islamist politics.

I am not aware of any evidence challenging any of the assertions Bodenstein makes.

Document 21: Mohammed Atta's will from April 1996

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/network/personal/attawill.html

This is the will Bodenstein was referring to.

"I wanted my family and everyone who reads this will to fear the Almighty God and don't get deceived by what is in life and to fear God and to follow God and his prophets if they are real believers. In my memory, I want them to do what Ibrahim (a prophet) told his son to do, to die as a good Muslim."

Purpose: corroborates Documents 19 and 20, unmistakable evidence in Atta's own words of his religiosity. Also indicates (last line) the possibility that he would die for his beliefs.

I am not aware of any evidence challenging the authenticity of Mohammed Atta's will.

Based on these pieces of evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that Mohammed Atta had a motive to hijack AA11 and crash it into the WTC: he wanted to kill Americans and strike a blow against what he viewed as American and anti-Islamic imperialism.

Again, setting aside the other four Arabic men, Mohammed Atta was the only human being on board AA11 who had all three: means, opportunity, and motive.

Since we know for a fact that (1) someone hijacked the plane; (2) whoever did it had to have been aboard AA11 when it took off; (3) Mohammed Atta was aboard AA11; and (4) Mohammed Atta was the only other person (besides other hijackers) who had the means, opportunity and motive, we can come to a conclusion.

● Conclusion 14: Mohammed Atta hijacked AA11.

Now we know what happened, how it happened, who did it, and at least part of the reason why. We could stop here and have more than enough evidence to indicate what happened on September 11 (and, conversely, what did not happen, such as "controlled demolition"). However, let's look at two more pieces of evidence to round out the picture.

Document 22: Videotape from Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, spokesman for Al Qaida, October 9, 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1590559.stm

In this tape, Abu Ghaith says:

"The Americans should know that the storm of plane attacks will not abate. There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live."

Purpose: evidence tending to show that Al Qaida claimed responsibility for the attacks (by itself it's not conclusive, but it is illogical that an organization that was not involved would threaten future attacks carried out in the same manner, i.e., with aircraft).

This tape has been verified as genuine.

Document 23: Videotaped interviews with Al-Qaida planners Ramzi Binalshibh and Khaled Shiekh Mohammed discussing planning for the attacks

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/12/alqaeda.911.claim/index.html

This CNN report details a documentary run on Al Jazeera, an Arab TV network, in 2002 in which Binalshibh and Mohammed discuss explicitly their planning of the attack. There's a lot of information here that's relevant. Below is reproduced only one significant excerpt out of many:

"Binalshibh gives an account of an early morning phone call from Mohammad Atta, who said he needed help solving a puzzle: 'He [Atta] said, 'Two sticks, a dash and a cake with a stick down. What is it?' I said, 'Did you wake me up to tell me this puzzle?' As it turns out, two sticks is the number 11, and a dash is a dash and a cake with a stick down is the number 9. And that was September 11."

Purpose: clear indication of Al Qaida responsibility (corroborating Document 22); also clearly indicates Mohammed Atta was working for Al Qaida. Also note that this documentary was recorded before Binalshibh and Mohammed were captured by the United States--meaning that the statements were made freely and clearly not under compulsion or torture (as has been alleged at least in Mohammed's case).

I am unaware of any evidence indicating that the documentary, or the statements made in it, are not authentic.

Witness 5: Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden disseminated a message on October 30, 2004.

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm

He stated:

"I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind...So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?"

Purpose: clear, absolute and unequivocal claim of personal responsibility for 9/11 (note bin Laden says "it came to my mind"--his alone). Corroborates Documents 22 and 23. Also, legally, a confession--Bin Laden could be found guilty on the basis of this statement alone.

This tape has been verified as genuine.

● Conclusion 15: Mohammed Atta was an agent of Al Qaida, the terrorist organization that was ultimately responsible for the attacks, and hijacked AA11 in that capacity.

● Conclusion 16: Osama bin Laden conceived the idea of the attacks and is personally responsible for them.

Summing Up

Here are the conclusions that have been proven by this document, utilizing evidence freely available on the Internet, and also without reference to the 9/11 Commission Report or the NIST Report:

● Conclusion 1: WTC1 was struck by an airplane.

● Conclusion 2: WTC2 was struck by an airplane.

● Conclusion 3: WTC2 collapsed.

● Conclusion 4: WTC1 collapsed.

● Conclusion 5: American Airlines Flight 11 was hijacked.

● Conclusion 6: American Airlines Flight 11 was the plane that struck WTC1.

● Conclusion 7: United Airlines Flight 175 was hijacked.

● Conclusion 8: United Airlines Flight 175 was the plane that struck WTC2.

● Conclusion 9: the plane strikes caused severe damage throughout both WTC towers, and the damage was not confined to the impact zone.

● Conclusion 10: the damage from the plane strikes was so severe in both towers that many people believed at the time that collapse of both towers was imminent.

● Conclusion 11: the damage from the plane strikes, and not controlled demolition, was the cause of the towers' collapse.

● Conclusion 12: Mohammed Atta received flight training in the United States.

● Conclusion 13: Mohammed Atta boarded AA11.

● Conclusion 14: Mohammed Atta hijacked AA11.

● Conclusion 15: Mohammed Atta was an agent of Al Qaida, the terrorist organization that was ultimately responsible for the attacks, and hijacked AA11 in that capacity.

● Conclusion 16: Osama bin Laden conceived the idea of the attacks and is personally responsible for them.

From the analysis in Parts 1, 2 and 3, we have proven what happened, how it happened, who was involved, why they did it, and who was ultimately responsible. This answers all of the substantive questions regarding 9/11.

Page Navigation: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 ]