Anonymous wrote:For every passport their is a record of that passport. Investigators would likely check the passport to see if its real by comparing its information to its respective numerical record.
By your own admission, then, there's a way to tell one passport from another. That means that investigators would quite easily be able to tell that the found passport was the one that had been stolen years earlier, not the one that he had been issued after that.
And don't give me the 'investigators were stopped from looking into it' line again: if the conspirators could prevent investigators from discovering that the passport had been declared stolen years before, it would have been just as easy to prevent investigators from realizing that its a fake passport.
No matter how you spin it, the theft of the passport years before would be completely 100% unneccessary and nothing but an additional security risk.
I can't be sure where he actually lived at any rate.
No matter where the real Atta lived, there's tons of things that he could do that would prove he wasn't in the flight schol and would be very difficult to cover up. Friends the real Atta made, his work or school schedule, his location, etc, etc.
Um, how can you explain how the FBI are so "ridiculously laxadasical about the details" if they are not covering something up?
Because they're mostly incompetent (especially those at the top, who have been promoted on the Peter Prinicle.) I would expect something better from a major international conspiracy, especially considering how well they've pulled off the rest of the alleged plot. Again, considering what an amazingly perfect job they've done holding up investigators, destroying evidence, silencing dissenters, keeping news organizations out the the way, etc, etc, that they would do such a sloppy job of picking who to blame it on simply doesn't fit their style.
Yeah, thats what they say about people who claim conspiracies. Thats also what someone would claim if they wanted to hold him incapable of representing himself.
Or perhaps he was slightly crazy from the start, and the stress and strain of acting undercover was simply too much for him and he eventually cracked. Which would be why the other hijackers left him behind - he was simply too unstable to take along.
The fact that he's around at all is hard to explain from the conspiracy theory point of view. If he's an actor set to impersonate an Arab to further incriminate the group, it seems like an unneccessary risk to do what could have so easily be done other ways (more fake evidence.) You'd have to make sure you picked a committed Zionist, since with years of trial ahead of him, he has ample opportunity to regret his choices and decide to spill the beans. If he's who he says he is, an 'innocent' person who had nothing to do with the antics at all, then the longer he's around the more likely it is that he'll convince people that he's actually innocent. Despite the government's best efforts to keep things under wraps, he's coming into contact with a lot of people.
They are alive (except in the US.)
You asked for a reason that a Saudi prince would falsely declare them to be the 'real' people and I gave you one. You simply come back with a blanket statement that ignore the arguments. And so, I'm guessing that this discussion is coming to a close, since we seem to have reached the point where you're unable to even present arguments to counter my own and are forced to switch over the to 'La-la-la-la-la can't hear you' method of debate...
