Identitäten der "Hijacker"
Questioning the identity of the alleged hijackers

John Doe II  Mon Sep 18 2006 

Let's not be daunted by the mysterious and partially hidden identity of our attackers. It will soon become obvious that there are only a few terrorist organizations capable of carrying out such a massive and coordinated strike. 

PNAC droht mit weiterem Terror : We Must Fight This War vonRobert Kagan "We have suffered the first, devastating strike. Certainly, it is not the last. The only question is whether we will now take this war seriously"

veröffentlicht wann ? genau: am Tage  9/1...


In the center of every criminal investigation is the question “Who did it?”. This question comes first then the question who ordered the criminal act.
For very strange reason many OCTlers and also many Ctlers aren’t interested at all in this question. Threads about the alleged hijackers are rarely answered. It’s a sideshow and people prefer to insult each other over photos that have already been posted a 1000 times. I’ll try to change that. So, please bare with me as I’ve a few questions to ask you. At the very end a poll is waiting for your opinion.

This was explained under oath during a hearing of the 9/11 commission. 
Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, said under oath : 
»We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs—two were hits on our watch list of August 2001 (...) And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn’t take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes. (...) I saw the sheet by 11 a.m. And that analysis did indeed correctly identify the terrorists.”
(New York Observer, 2/12/04) 
Pretty impressive. And pretty quick indeed.
Yet here comes the first question.

One day after 9/11 John Ashcroft said there were three to six hijackers on each plane.
(Los Angeles Times, 9/13/01)
Who were the alleged hijackers that at first weren’t suspected for sure?
Who were the five passengers that were possible suspects?

On a sworn in FBI affidavit from September 12 we read:
»A review of the public database for Al Omari has determined that his address is reported as 4032 57th terrace, Vero Beach, Florida.»
As it turned out this was Abdul Rahman Al Omari who had left the US one week prior to 9/11.
How come that this victim of a similarity of his name to Abdulaziz Al Omari had a not very innocent connection?
»Alomari had listed two vehicles as authorized to park in his parking space. One of this vehicles is registered to Atta.”
And given the fact that Al Omari’s passport was found in Atta’s bag in Logan Airport why didn’t this lead to the “correct” hijacker right from the start?

In the mid-day of September 12 six names had appeared in the media as possible hijackers. Besides Atta and Al Shehhi we find some less known names:
Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, Ameer Kamfar and their neighbour Abdul Rahman Al Omari.
(A detailed analysis based entirely on MSM articles is here:
If these four names were on the passenger manifest then which four alleged hijackers did use an alias boarding the plane according to the official explanation?
If these four names didn’t appear on the passenger manifest then how come they were suspects?
This is especially strange as Ameer Bukhari did indeed die in an airplane crash on September 11. But in the year 2000.
And is this a typical behaviour of people who are innocent:
“Two employees at Rooms To Go, a furniture store in Vero Beach, said Bukhari made a hasty purchase as news of the bombing was breaking on a television in the showroom. Bukhari bought a $1,795 living room set within five minutes and said the furniture needed to be exported to Saudi Arabia immediately.
Kamfar and his family also disappeared quickly from their Vero Beach home. According to a neighbor, ‘they took all their stuff and put it out by the trash: clothes, furniture, pots and pans.’”

On the first official FBI list published September 14 the name Jarrahi is used.
If he boarded the plane using Jarrah as his name then how come the FBI named him Jarrahi?
And if he boarded the plane using Jarrahi as his name then how can he have boarded the plane as he had no identification documents on the name of Jarrahi? 
And how come the passport found at the crash site was on the name of Jarrah?
The name Jarrah only appeared in the media on September 15.

On September 13 FBI Director Robert Mueller declared 
that “18 hijackers were on the four planes.”
Only on September 14 a 19th name was added.
The name was first announced by CNN:
“American Airlines flight number 77. Cammid Al-Madar, and Mosear Caned (ph), Majar Mokhed (ph), Nawar Al Hazni (ph) and Salem Al Hazni (ph).”
(Discussion here:

Even if the given names are transferred phonetically how can it be explained that instead of the name of Hani Hanjour a completely different sounding name, Mosear Caned, was presented?
Why has there never been any explanation for this? 

Only on September 14 Hani Hanjour was added to the list.
His late identification was explained by the possibility that he had no ticket.
But then how did he got aboard?
And why does FBI Mueller state that Hanjour bought a ticket paying cash? (p. 7f)
And if he bought a ticket then why does it take three days till his name appears as a hijacker?

Conclusion I:
First of all we can clearly conclude that – for whatever reason – Robert Bonner had lied under oath. 
And also this former FBI agent lies about how the alleged hijackers were identified:
“A former FBI agent and a former federal prosecutor who helped direct the New England investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks told Newsday that one bag found in Boston contained far more than what the commission report cited, including the names of the hijackers, their assignments and their al-Qaida connections. »It had all these Arab-language papers that amounted to the Rosetta stone of the investigation,» former FBI agent Warren Flagg said. The former federal prosecutor, who declined to be identified publicly, supported Flagg's account. 
“How do you think the government was able to identify all 19 hijackers almost immediately after the attacks?» Flagg asked. »They were identified through those papers in the luggage. And that's how it was known so soon that al-Qaida was behind the hijackings.”

Why does everybody lie about how the alleged hijackers were identified?
Based on the passenger manifests a quick identification should have been possible.
Why are the four passenger manifests so mysterious that they didn’t hinder so many apparent errors?
Why haven’t these magic passenger manifests not been published?
And why are there even more mysterious concerning these passenger manifests?
Why does a comparison of manifests published by several major newspaper for AA 11 amount a total of 100 people aboard (although officially there were only 92)?

How come that people like the Larsons who have never even bought tickets for this flight appeared on the list?

The way the identities of the alleged hijackers have been uncovered is unclear.


5 people having the very same name as the alleged hijackers and sharing the same identity have turned up alive after 9/11. Four of them have been interviewed by “The Telegraph”:
Saeed Al-Ghamdi

Abdulaziz Al Omari

Ahmed Al-Nami

Salem Al-Hamzi

Waleed Al Shehri
(London Times, 9/20/01

Furthermore there four cases of people having the same name as the alleged hijacker possibly still alive:
Khalid Almihdhar
Mohand Alshehri
Marwan Al Shehhi
Wail Alshehri
(For details check out the timelines on these alleged hijackers.

Please be aware that the phrase “Hijackers still alive” is pure nonsense!
People and identities are not the same. What’s a fact is that people having the very same identity as the ones of the alleged hijackers are still alive.
Does this imply that the official identities are wrong?

Journalists had their doubts about the officially presented identities of the alleged hijackers. Journals like “Observer” decided to put their names in quotation marks.
And the FBI had its doubts, too.
”The FBI acknowledged (…) that some of the terrorists involved in the attacks last week were using false identities”.,11209,601550,00.html
But even the FBI list published in January 2002 uses the words 
and “believed” 
for every single hijacker.

“In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is »no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.
After that admission a strange thing happened nothing. 
No follow-up stories. 
No follow-up questions.”
(Insight, 7/7/03)
Why until today has there been no official list of the hijackers that at least manages to give their definite date of birth or their definite residences?
Do you want a legal proof?

Conclusion II:
Based on the facts I agree with the FBI that there is until today no certainty at all about the real identity of the alleged hijackers.[/b]


It goes without saying that the positive identification is crucial for a criminal case. 
All passengers have been identified at the Pentagon and Shanksville but none of the nine alleged hijackers of AA 77 and UA 93 were positively identified.
Instead they have been “identified” by the “process of exclusion”.
The positive identification wasn’t possible for a very simple reason:
“The FBI has not given the institute any DNA to match up in those crashes, said the spokesman. ”
Given the fact that the FBI had collected many samples of DNA of the alleged hijackers I can only ask: Well, why not?
And why is one DNA sample of the alleged hijackers 50% more likely to be of Caucasian origin than Middle Eastern origin?
(p.84, table 6)
see discussion by stickdog :

Of the ten alleged hijackers in AA 11 and UA 175 two were positively identified in 2003.
“Examiners could not say 
which of the hijackers' remains had been discovered because the FBI 
did not identify which of the DNA samples belonged to which hijacker, she (said Ellen Barakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's office) said.”
Why is that ?

In 2005 it is stated that three alleged hijackers have been positively identified but still none can be identified by name.
Very strange observation by somebody who should know:
“In »Who They Were,» his new inside account of the identification effort, Shaler writes that he believes the terrorists identified were in the back of the planes - and not the monsters who plowed the jets into the towers”
This is very surprising given the fact that in AA 11 we have phone calls till the crash and in UA 175 till two minutes before the crash. No passenger mentioned any passengers coming back to the rear of the plane.
(Discussion here:
(For more details on the identification process check out:

Conclusion III:
The FBI is extremely reluctant in positively identifying the alleged hijackers.
Therefore it is unclear how the alleged hijackers were identified in the first place.
The identities of the alleged hijackers are very far from being clear.
One can hardly say that the alleged hijackers were positively identified.

There has been much discussion about the lack of piloting skills of Hani Hanjour and also of the often ignored difficulty of crashing a plane into the WTC.
Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt:
“I find it hard to believe that people who were learning to fly in Florida could, within a year and a half, fly large commercial airlines and hit with accuracy the towers of the World Trade Center which would appear, to the pilot from the air, 
the size of a pencil.”
Or in the words of German journalist Christian C. Walther:
“From an altitude of 29.000 ft and hundred miles to the north New York looks like an ordinary city map - 30 yards away from your eye.”
(Christian C. Walther: 119 Fragen, p. 24.)

More details on this issue here:
(For details please check: “Crime of the Century, p. 105ff

Given the discrepancies between the piloting kills of the alleged hijackers and the professionalism of the manoeuvres of the hijacked planes on 9/11 what proof do we have that really the alleged hijackers as they are officially presented were piloting the planes?

All the mentioned doubts and unanswered questions lead straight to this general question.
Until today the official passenger manifests haven’t been published.
Until today no boarding cards of the alleged hijackers have been published.
(And no comparison between finger prints on the boarding card and in the cars, hotel rooms of the alleged hijackers has been published).
Until 2004 no video footage of any security camera showing the alleged hijackers in the airport of their final flight. 
The video footage from Atta and Al Omari is from Portland not from Boston.
Officially the big airports Boston Logan and Newark Airport hadn’t any cameras.
The only video footage of the alleged hijackers in the airport of their last flight was presented in 2004. Strangely it lacks any time stamp. 
What happened at Dulles Airport was especially interesting as an American Airlines agent who checked the tickets recalled having seen the alleged hijacker brothers Al Hazmi. But his description clearly differs from their official photos.
(Discussion here:

Why was no proof presented to the public showing that the alleged hijackers actually boarded the plane although this proof must exists (e.g. the boarding cards)?

Contrary to the official story there are plenty of information that the alleged hijackers lived not a religious and certainly not a fundamentalist life in the US.
(For details please check: “Crime of the Century, p. 89ff

Why were they never seen at mosques, loved lap dances, drank alcohol if they were on a mission in the name of Allah?
Why didn’t they even show any religious signs on September 10?

Some of the alleged hijackers were under surveillance even before entering the US.
When Atta in November ’98 first moved into the apartment at 54 Marienstrasse, Hamburg the place was under surveillance by German intelligence, because of investigations into businessman Mamoun Darkazanli.
The very same person with contacts to Atta that the CIA had tried to recruit as informant since December ‘99.
(Chicago Tribune, 11/17/02
online: http://www.9/
Without success.
The German intelligence provided the CIA with Al Shehhi’s first name and phone number in March ‘99.
And in January 2000 Atta is also put under surveillance by the CIA while still living in Germany.
(AFP, 9/22/01; Focus, 9/24/01; Berliner Zeitung, 9/24/01)
The same month the CIA was also tracking Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi.
(Joint Inquiry, 13.)
Days before they entered the US.
In the months before September 11 “U.S. customs agents were investigating financial dealings between (alleged hijacker Ahmed) Alghamdi and former Boston cab drivers Nabil al-Marabh and Raed Hijazi, identified by the FBI as operatives of al-Quaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
The U.S. customs investigation (...) found that (alleged hijackers) Alghamdi and (...) Satam Suqami had engaged in financial transactions with al-Marabh”.
(Cox News Service, 10/16/01
The information are contradictory if Jarrah was also under surveillance by the CIA prior to 9/11.
(For further information:

How come that alleged hijackers had no problems getting a visa to enter the US?
How come that they could even buy the tickets for 9/11 using their real names?

“According to expert analyses of the visa-application forms of 15 of the 9/11 terrorists (the other four applications could not be obtained), all the applicants among the 15 reviewed should have been denied visas under then-existing law. Six separate experts who analyzed the simple, two-page forms came to the same conclusion: 
All of the visa applications they reviewed should have been denied on their face.
Even to the untrained eye, it is easy to see why many of the visas should have been denied. Consider, for example, the U.S. destinations most of them listed. Only one of the 15 provided an actual address — and that was only because his first application was refused — and the rest listed only general locations — including »California,» »New York,» »Hotel D.C.,» and »Hotel.» One terrorist amazingly listed his U.S. destination as simply »No.» Even more amazingly, he got a visa. (...) All six experts strongly agreed that even allowing for human error, no more than a handful of the visa applications should have managed to slip through the cracks. Making the visa lapses even more inexplicable, the State Department claims that at least 11 of the 15 were interviewed by consular officers. Nikolai Wenzel, one of the former consular officers who analyzed the forms, declares that State's issuance of the visas »amounts to criminal negligence.»

Why were the alleged hijackers so lucky?
And why did they test their luck instead of caring more to fill out the application form correctly?

Seven alleged hijackers were at one point illegally in the US.
Ziad Jarrah 
(violated his immigration status as a tourist by going right away to a full-time flight school when entering the US on June 27, 2000)
Hani Hanjour (since December 8, 2000.) 
Mohamed Atta (December 2, 2000 – January 10, 2001).
Atta even left the US without valid visa visa.
Marwan Al-Shehhi (Mid-December 2000 – January 18, 2001.) 
Al Shehhi even left the US without having a valid visa.
Satam Al Suqami (since May 21, 2001)
Nawaf Alhazmi (since August 2001)
Khalid Almihdhar (since August 27, 2001)
(For detailed information and sources check out the timeline of each alleged hijacker:
A discussion started by Andre II:

Why didn’t the alleged hijackers care about being legally in the US? 
Why did they even run the risk to leave the country without any visa that assured that they would be able to return to the US? 
Why did they always have the luck on their side?

The official story tells:
“They carried out their attacks with meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy, and extensive knowledge of how America works.”

But contrary to this statement the alleged hijackers showed many times a complete lack of any carefulness.
(For details please check: “Crime of the Century, p. 81ff

But they were always lucky.
Why didn’t the alleged hijackers behave more carefully?
Why don’t they try to avoid more carefully the contact with the local police?

Atta and Al-Shehhi have been identified by the Able Danger program in January 2000.
How is this possible given the fact that both lived in Germany at that time and according to the official story never had touched the ground of the US yet?
(A discussion started by Andre II here:

No less than 15 of 19 alleged hijackers entered the US prior to their official entrance date :
Saeed Alghamdi
Ahmed Alnami
Ziad Jarrah
Majed Moqed
Salem Alhazmi
Hani Hanjour
Khalid Almihdhar
Nawaf Alhazmi
Ahmed Alghamdi
Hamza Alghamdi
Marwan Al Shehhi
Satam Al Suqami
Fayez Ahmed Banihammad
Mohamed Atta (according to Able Danger)
Marwan Al Shehhi (according to Able Danger)

The case of alleged hijackers clearly being in the US before their official entrance date is by far more than only a proof of an inaccurate investigation. It is far more than that. 
The entrance date are documented by INS papers. 
If these documents have been faked by the INS then we need to wonder what could be so important to cover up? 
If the INS documents are authentic than we can conclude that one person with the name of an alleged hijacker did indeed enter the country while another person with the same name of an alleged hijacker was already in the US. So, it would be another proof of having two different people using the very same identity.
What’s your take?

For info on each alleged hijacker and presentation of evidence that he entered the country before the official entrance date see:

(A discussion started by Andre II:

A detailed analysis of the alleged hijackers reveal:
Strongly differing behaviour.
Strongly differing English speaking ability/accent.
Strongly differing signatures.
Strongly differing height.
For details please check the timelines on these alleged hijackers here:

How do you explain the innumerous amount of strong contradictions in the timelines of the alleged hijacker?

No less than seven alleged hijackers possessed identification documentation that officially they didn’t have?
Abdulaziz Alomari 
Fayez Banihammad 
Hani Hanjour 
Mohamed Atta 
Satam Al Suqami 
and Wail Al Shehri.

Is this another reason for considering that the alleged hijackers might have had some sort of doubles?
For details please check the timelines on these alleged hijackers here (with special thanks to the research of Kevin Fenton):

Right after 9/11 several press reports pointed out that Mohammed Atta had gone 
to the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama.
Al-Omari to the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas; and 
Al-Ghamdi to the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio in Monterey, Calif.”
(New York Times, 9/15/01
Saeed Al-Ghamdi, Ahmad Al-Nami and Ahmed Al-Ghamdi trained in Naval Air Station Pensacola.
Newsweek, 9/17/01
“Military records show that the three used as their address 10 Radford Boulevard, a base roadway on which residences for foreign-military flight trainees are located.”
Newsweek, 9/17/01

That an Air Force Statement stating that the alleged hijackers are 
not identical to the alumnis of U.S. military courses suffice to end the reports in the media only shows how important an official statement is.
Does this word “probably” suffice in view of the many questions surrounding the identity of the alleged hijackers?

A detailed analysis of the alleged hijackers reveal that several of them must have had some sort of double. 
Please note that the term “double” doesn’t necessarily imply that each alleged hijacker had his “own” double. Different explanations are possible. In the words of medienanalyse:
“Duplication is a way to produce leads. That is the behest, the goal. There are other ways too. Invent a person, give it a paper trail, and you only need ONE agent to do all the physical show ups. It is efficient and who cares for the contradictions.”

A very convincing case of this is Atta being drinking in Shuckums as witnessed by several eyewitnesses who were interviewed right after 9/11 by the FBI and whose story was all over the news and at the very same time according to official documents Atta is sitting in a plane from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore.

The summary of the timelines lists:

Proof of an alleged hijacker having a double:
Mohamed Atta

Very strong indications of an alleged hijacker having a double:
Ziad Jarrah
Hani Hanjour
Marwan Al Shehhi

Strong indications of an alleged hijacker having a double:
Khalid Almihdhar
Salem Alhazmi
Nawaf Alhazmi

Considerable indications of an alleged hijacker having a double:
Ahmed Alghamdi
Hamza Alghamdi
Waleed Al Shehri

Please check the timelines of these alleged hijackers for further information.

One simple question at the end:
How do you explain the many occasions when alleged hijackers are witnessed at two different locations at the same time?
(Please check the timelines of these alleged hijackers for further information.
and discussion started by Andre II:

(c) John Doe II @ Andreas Hauß, September 2006

Im Übrigen bewundere ich Frau Klarsfeld.