#911Truth WTFact #48: Did FBI Director Mueller Say There’s No Legal Proof To Identify the Hijackers?
Did you miss the introduction to this year’s campaign?
So far we’ve posted info on the 9/11 Commission report, the fake Bin Laden video(s) and the extensive propaganda tricks available to the CIA and others. Today it seems relevant to cover some info on the hijackers, one of the other major bases of the cover story. Below is #38 from last year.
During research for this campaign, one statement came up repeatedly and has been refuted as much. The question is whether then FBI Director Robert Mueller said that there was “no legal proof” that the hijackers were who they thought they were. It is unknown if Mueller actually said this direct quote, however, the smoke screen for the cameras had implied that the FBI could not confirm the identities of all the hijackers.
As for what was said in September 2001:
The rough transcripts are still available on CNN’s website:
We have several hijackers whose identities were those of the names on the manifest. We have several others that are still in question. So it’s — the investigation is ongoing and I am not certain as to several of the others.
Robert Mueller, FBI
QUESTION: How certain can you be that these are the correct names and photographs of the 19 hijackers? And can you give us some more guidance on how you actually arrived at those?
MUELLER: Surely. The photographs that will be passed out to you and you see behind us are photographs identified with the names on the manifest, and those names on the manifest we’ve identified as being the hijackers. These photographs are photographs that may come from passports, drivers license obtained in the United States or other identification documents. Consequently, these photographs we’ve identified with the individuals whose names appear on the manifest.
What we are currently doing is determining whether, when these individuals came to the United States, these were their real names or they changed their names for use with false identification in the United States. That false identification being utilized up to and on the day of September 11, and that false identification used to purchase the tickets and, thereby, being the name on the manifests of the planes that went down. Our investigation has reached out to a number of countries to determine whether or not these individuals definitively, in the photographs we have here and the names associated with these photographs, are the actual identities of the individuals prior to the time they came to the United States.
Justice Department Press Conference at FBI Headquarters
Reading the actual transcript of those conferences reveals that the vaunted quote is not explicitly said, and has been distorted over time. However the spirit of the distorted quote is crystallized by the October 8th article from the New Yorker shows quite a different picture of the intelligence agencies collaboration.
After more than two weeks of around-the-clock investigation into the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the American intelligence community remains confused, divided, and unsure about how the terrorists operated, how many there were, and what they might do next.
The same article documented the multiple views that began to emerge. Some, mainly in the FBI, felt the terrorists got “lucky” to get their plan right, and once you understand the full series of events, the scientific improbability of the 9/11 Commission’s version of events will be apparent. The prevailing view inside the CIA and Pentagon circles is outlined below. This contingent knew it was a large scale, very professional operation, the question being who planned it. A third view mentioned later noted that some in the FBI felt it was a continuation in some way of the 1993 attacks which has been widely shown to be a government-run, false flag operation.
Another view, centered in the Pentagon and the C.I.A., credits the hijackers with years of advance planning and practice, and a deliberate after-the-fact disinformation campaign. “These guys were below everybody’s radar—they’re professionals,” an official said. “There’s no more than five or six in a cell. Three men will know the plan; three won’t know. They’ve been ‘sleeping’ out there for years and years.” One military planner told me that many of his colleagues believe that the terrorists “went to ground and pulled phone lines” well before September 11th—that is, concealed traces of their activities. It is widely believed that the terrorists had a support team, and the fact that the F.B.I. has been unable to track down fellow-conspirators who were left behind in the United States is seen as further evidence of careful planning. “Look,” one person familiar with the investigation said. “If it were as simple and straightforward as a lucky one-off oddball operation, then the seeds of confusion would not have been sown as they were.”
Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.”
In interviews over the past two weeks, a number of intelligence officials have raised questions about Osama bin Laden’s capabilities. “This guy sits in a cave in Afghanistan and he’s running this operation?” one C.I.A. official asked. “It’s so huge. He couldn’t have done it alone.” A senior military officer told me that because of the visas and other documentation needed to infiltrate team members into the United States a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved. “To get somebody to fly an airplane—to kill himself,” the official added, further suggests that “somebody paid his family a hell of a lot of money.”
”These people are not necessarily all from bin Laden,” a Justice Department official told me. “We’re still running a lot of stuff out,” he said, adding that the F.B.I. has been inundated with leads. On September 23rd, Secretary of State Colin Powell told a television interviewer that “we will put before the world, the American people, a persuasive case” showing that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. But the widely anticipated white paper could not be published, the Justice Department official said, for lack of hard facts. “There was not enough to make a sale.”
The Administration justified the delay by telling the press that most of the information was classified and could not yet be released. Last week, however, a senior C.I.A. official confirmed that the intelligence community had not yet developed a significant amount of solid information about the terrorists’ operations, financing, and planning. “One day, we’ll know, but at the moment we don’t know,” the official said.
The article goes on to say some in the FBI said it felt like the plan was devised by the convicted conspirator Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, who is believed to have been the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing which lends more weight to the false flag theory. Carefully analyzing the 1993 bombing will reveal that the attack was a government controlled operation complete with patsies.
So what is this article about then? The bigger question remains as to why the FBI could not conclusively provide proof of their identities. The bureau could not build a case with enough evidence to meet the requirements of our justice system. The fact is that the alleged hijackers being “dead” was enough to get them off the proverbial hook. Think of the rules of evidence our system has and the certain standards that would need to be met and it should become clear. The “evidence” put forth would be shredded in motions by the average defense attorney fighting the average criminal charge.
To this day, the FBI page for the deceased Bin Laden still doesn’t even list the 9/11 attacks as the reason he was on the wanted list, naming the 1998 African embassy attacks instead. The lack of evidence also raises uncomfortable questions about the legality of the Afghanistan and Iraq incursions.
The official narrative gave the bureau and others wide latitude in attributing evidence which would not have otherwise stood up to legal standards. Beyond that, there have been many reports that some “hijackers” were alive, especially in the immediate aftermath. Up to 7 of the supposed hijackers that the FBI had identified were reported, in some capacity, to be alive. This claim of the hijackers still being alive is much maligned and fought over fiercely between conspiracy analysts and debunkers to this day. We will parse the alive or dead hijackers later in our countdown, but for now we can use simple logic to narrow the possible outcomes of the identity puzzle and whether there could have even been any conclusive proof of the origins of the attack.
If the passports were stolen identities as widely reported, did they change the picture to match their own? We’ll assume that to be the case along with the driver’s licenses being faked to attach the stolen identities to the operatives’ likeness? If that was the case, how did the real pictures of the stolen identity victims get reported to where those people stood up to say they were alive and innocent?
At least 7 of the 9/11 hijackers are said to still be alive. Can we really believe the government when they say that they had identified all the 9/11 hijackers in the midst of numerous stories of reporting some to be alive and well? Then the FBI later says “we know who they were“.
Somewhere in that time period, the bureau made a major leap and told no one about it? That doesn’t sound like the photo-op loving FBI that we know. The way the story was swept under the rug, it seems more like the issue wasn’t revisited much since Afghanistan and Iraq were the real targets of our response from the beginning.
Putting that aside, the fact that some of the passports were reported stolen casts doubt on the narrative that features supposedly proud jihadists. Wouldn’t they want their names and country on the flagship attack against the infidel? Otherwise that means, a group of people wanted the blame for this attack placed on either those specific countries, Muslim looking people, the Islamic faith, or all three.
These regime changes and side effects have been planned for decades.
Who are the real culprits?
There’s two groups (at least) that could and would want to make that happen, the neoconservatives aligned with the military-industrial complex and the Zionists (not to be confused with all Jews)
In short, these groups all want the Middle East to be destabilized, reformed and controlled while America and other western nations are making the transition to the police state so prevalent today.
Getting back to the main focus of this article, it’s basically irrefutable that the “hijackers” existed in some form in the sense that there were actual real people running around the locations reported, including in South Florida. This however really proves nothing. There are many unanswered questions about who these people actually were. Were they actually Muslims? Were they of Middle Eastern descent? Non-Israeli? Non-Persian? There is of course the poor stereotype that all of these people look alike. That feeds into the narrative of debunkers that all of the witnesses reported Middle Eastern looking men and not Jews. The fact is that Israelis are essentially Middle Eastern in that crude sense, and not the fairer-skinned Jewish types that look like Caucasians, as many Americans are more familiar with.
With that said, it is easy to see how a group of Mossad agents could easily pass themselves off as Arabs, Muslims or however you’d like to wrongly classify them. For evidence of this ability, look no further than the Dubai assassination which was accepted to be a Mossad hit after being observed to have many hallmarks. When Mossad plans something, it is usually elaborate and well planned to fit a certain pattern for third party perception.
In this case, to achieve the desired effect, it was necessary to create the perception of either the devoutly religious jihadists, or the slightly imperfect version of that stereotype. Why? This CBS News article notes the memorable nature of the anti-American vitriol they so publicly displayed before the attack. So it had to be Muslims right?
When you consider all the possible permutations of events based on what we do know to be fact, it stands to reason that the investigation was “frustrated” as Guardian puts it and the hijackers in the photos have basically been framed.
That may sound like too large of a conspiracy for you to appreciate, but understand that those groups aren’t all necessarily on the same team, nor do the groups move together as one. It’s like sharks swimming towards the blood in the water, going the same direction. After 1993, the treasonous criminals revealed themselves and since then, they’ve proven that they are who we thought they were, and we let them off the hook.