Khalid Al Mihdhar's fakey ID (again) – it was faked

[KJF]

Alleged American 77 hijacker Khalid Al Mihdhar had this piece of identification:


As previously discussed, there are two theories about this:
The first is put forward by the FBI:
“In July 2001, Mohamed Atta, Abdul Aziz al Omari, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Ahmed Alghamdi, and Majed Moqed purchased personal identification cards at Apollo Travel in Paterson, New Jersey. Atta purchased a Florida identification card, while the others purchased New Jersey identification cards. “
Robert S. Meuller, statement to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602mueller.html

And the 9/11 Commission:
“July 10. ... Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi and Omari acquired USA identification cards.”
(Terrorist Travel, p. 28)

The second theory, put forward by Time magazine, Kyle Hence, Paul Thompson and myself, is that it was obtained on December 30, a time Al Mihdhar was officially out of the country. See here for details:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/KJF/1

However, there is a third theory, of which I was previously unaware: it appears that the document was forged by a document forger who was subsequently convicted of forging documents and even admitted forging said document of Khalid Al Mihdhar.
A naturalised Egyptian called Mohammed El Atriss, who lived and operated in the same part of New Jersey where most of the hijackers lived, forged one of Al Mihdhar's documents:
“He admitted to selling such document(.) to Khalid Almihdhar.”
http://www.rcfp.org/news/2003/0613inrere.html

The actual document of Khalid Al Mihdhar that was forged can be determined by a process of elimination. Al Mihdhar held three US documents (Terrorist Travel, p. 31): (1) a California driving license (issued on 5 April 2000) – this cannot be the forged document, which was not a driving licence, (2) a Virginia identification card, which was fraudulently obtained, but not through El Atriss (see, for example, Terrorist Travel, p. 29) and (3) a USA ID card (image above), which must be the one obtained through El Atriss. This explains why the expiry date is wrong (it indicates he was in the country on 30 December 2000, when he was supposedly in the Middle East).
Link for Terrorist Travel: http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf

It gets better (or worse, depending on your point of view). FBI Director Mueller made his statement about Al Mihdhar getting his ID from Apollo in September 2002, although El Atriss told the FBI Al Mihdhar got the ID from him on 13 September 2001. Link: http://www.nj.com/specialprojects/index.ssf?/specialprojects/court/court2.html
This means that the technical term for what Mueller did is “lying to Congress”. Although there was an FBI investigation and one might argue that it is OK for the FBI director to lie to Congress to protect an ongoing investigation – indeed, one might even express mild surprise if any statement made by an FBI director subsequently proves to be true – there can be no argument that he was telling porkies. In addition, there can be no argument that the information contained in the 9/11 Commission's Terrorist Travel monograph is incorrect as a result of a lie by the FBI Director. Given that we know the FBI was lying about the hijackers in one case, how much reliance should we place on their other statements, especially where there may be ongoing investigations?

It gets even better (or worse, depending on your point of view). Al Mihdhar's ID card shares certain characteristics with Salem Al Hazmi's ID card (for example same expiry date, the serial numbers are next to each other), indicating that Salem Al Hazmi's USA ID was also faked. However, it appears that this document was found at the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission claims it “appeared genuine on examination”. (Terrorist Travel, p. 27). Given this, how much confidence can we have in the other four alleged USA ID documents – supposedly obtained by Nawaf Al Hazmi, Moqed, Ahmed Al Ghamdi and Al Omari, especially seeing as the owner and employees of Apollo travel never mention them in interviews (at least not in any I've read), although they do admit to selling the hijackers plane tickets, and ...

... Abdulaziz Al Omari's international driving license was also faked and El Atriss admitted faking it (see previous links). Intelligence Summit also claims it was issued in a fakey name: Abdulaziz Almoari Howran (Howran is the small town/village in Al Baha province, SW Saudi Arabia that Al Omari came from, although the 9/11 Commission claims it isn't):
http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/BillWarner/BW13.php
However, the 9/11 Commission mentions this licence (Terrorist Travel, p. 44; btw, it appears to have been found in Atta's bag at Logan), without noting it was a fake, even though this was known to the FBI for three years before the 9/11 CR was published.

It gets worse, Atta allegedly had an international drivers licence when he was stopped by the police on 26 April 2001:
According to the 9/11 Commission, Atta presented the licence “during a traffic stop on April 26.” (p. 231) However, the license wasn't enough to stop an arrest warrant being issued for Atta for driving without a licence (on 4 June, after he failed to show up in court). In addition, according to Atta's father, his real international driver's licence was in Cairo at this time. As soon as it arrived in Florida (on 2 May 2001, Al Shehhi brought it, he went to Cairo for it), Atta went straight to the nearest driver's licence issue point and got a Florida licence. If the license he presented during the traffic stop was a real license, how come he was given a citation for driving without a licence? Surely, the citation for driving without a licence indicates that the licence he produced was crap (apparently there is widespread fraud concerning international driver licences in the US), which is why Al Shehhi (who was in the Middle East at that time) went to get his real licence and why Atta got a Florida licence within hours of Al Shehhi returning with his proper international driver licence (please note that the relevant authorities had previously refused to issue Atta with a Florida driver licence based on the international licence he had before Al Shehhi returned).

What this shows (if you've followed the rather convoluted reasoning the the previous paragraph) is that the lie by the FBI director led to further inaccuracies in the 9/11 Commission Report. Given that there is at least one inaccuracy by the 9/11 Commission and this leads to further inaccuracies, how much faith should we actually place in it?

There is lots more, which may or may not be important, for example:
(1) El Atriss had also founded a company, Sphinx Trading, which rented mail boxes to some of the the hijackers in New Jersey, although he claimed he was not an owner of the company when this happened – Sphinx was allegedly owned by fellow former New Jersey cab driver Waleed Abouel Nour, who US authorities believe was a terrorist. Imagine that - 9/11 hijackers connected to terrorist shock! (New Jersey cab driver? Terrorist? Why do the words Nabil Al Marabh spring to mind?);
For those of you who don't know who Nabil Al Marabh is, but want to learn, you can check out the Terror Timeline here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&other_al-qaeda_operatives=al-Marabh
(2) El Atriss felt the need to deny knowing the blind sheikh. Hey, I don't know the blind sheikh, but I don't need to deny it either.
(3) A fax about airplane navigational systems was found in El Atriss' possession, although he claimed it was for Egypt Air (does anyone remember another person linked both to the hijackers and Egypt Air – for example one of their fathers, a middle-ranking Cairo attorney?).
(4) The judge at El Atriss' bail hearing noted he had access to “very, very large amounts of cash”, through Sphinx trading.
(5) El Atriss is also rumoured to be involved in some sort of operation with Stinger missiles, although I don't know how true that is;
Link for the above: http://www.nj.com/specialprojects/index.ssf?/specialprojects/court/court2.html
(6) El Atriss got 5 years probation and a USD 15,000 fine for forging the documents, the other stuff was dropped.
(7) According to a police affidavit, El Atriss transferred USD 29,000 to the Arab National Bank in Mecca at the start of 2002. I have no idea of which account it was transferred to, but if it's not the IIRO or a similar jidahi charity I'll fall off my chair.
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:dehCEE3E0pUJ:cbn.org/CBNNews/wire/020801f.asp+El+Atriss+Bank&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
(8) This is quite amusing, the FBI protested the arrest, saying it was a “media grab” or something, spoiling an important federal operation. The editor of police talk responded:
“Ed Note: Good police work by Sheriff Speziale's department. The FBI is still trying to figure out how to make arrests when the United States is under attack.”
“Note also, the Attorney General of New Jersey, acting on behalf of the Federal Prosecutor, has ordered that local police departments can apply for search warrants in terrorist cases only with his approval. Can't have the police making terrorist arrests while the FBI makes up its mind whether a terrorist is a terrorist. Sheriff Speziale is looking better all the time.”
http://www.policetalk.com/passaic-sheriff2.html

[paulthompson]

1. Nice work

I think that El Atriss hints at some strange things happening in New Jersey that need more looking into.

[KJF]

2. Follow up

This is the connection to the blind sheikh:
Detective Sgt. Fred Ernst of the Passaic County Sheriff's Office said that a company owned by a friend and former partner of El Atriss, Sphinx Trading, was located at 2828 Kennedy Blvd. in Jersey City and this "raised a red flag because "several of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 event also had mailboxes at that location." He said it also had been "flagged by the FBI as a known location that was involved in the first bombing of the World Trade Center with the blind sheik."

Also, huge sums were being taken out of Sphinx Trading - later tallied at $1.85 million in checks and $1.75 million in cash.
http://www.nj.com/specialprojects/index.ssf?/specialprojects/court/court2.html

Apparently Hani called El Atriss seven times using a prepaid cell phone card. However, El Atriss' lawyer explained this by saying "the calls from Hanjour involved him asking when documents for two men would be ready".
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/934890/posts
How likely is that?

Amusingly, at a hearing the judge "wondered aloud whether Mr. Atriss was an F.B.I. informer and asked an assistant Passaic County prosecutor, Steven J. Brizek, whether he had any evidence supporting that notion."
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:oJMPqf3HefwJ:www.911readingroom.org/bibliography/bibliography.php%3Fstart%3D0%26searchstring%3D%26search_column%3D%26num_pages%3D3%26topic_id%3D%26num_results%3D22%26sort%3D2%26macro%3D7+Atriss+informer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a

The sting operation with the stinger missiles involves an FBI informer helping out to get time off a document fraud conviction, but there's nothing specific to tie it to El Atriss.

[Andre II]

3. Yes and no

I think you've written a very convincing piece that proves that in fact something is certainly wrong with the official explanation.
But your argument that shows which official statements are necessarily wrong are based on this:

The actual document of Khalid Al Mihdhar that was forged can be determined by a process of elimination.

What you do here is that you take one official statement for granted as it is in fact used as the starting point of your argumentation and then very cnovincingly you prove that therefore other official statements must be wrong.

But one possibility is also that your first assumption is based on an official statement that is already invalid.

Therefore your proof is a proof of SOMETHING wrong in the official story surrounding Almihdhar's ID but not necessarily what.

That his ID was forged is therefore only one theory.
That indeed his ID was the one of his double (as Almihdhar wasn't in the US on December 30, 2000) is also a valid theory (also supported by other strong indications of him having a double). And Salem Alhazmi having had officialy no forged ID had the his ID the very same date: December 30, 2000. But he wasn't in the US at that time as well.

[KJF]

4. It's nice to know...

... that's someone (i.e. you) reads my stuff with his brain switched on. The "process of elimination" is definitely the weakest point of my argument and there are alternatives:
(1) It was obtained by another person using the same identity;
(2) He was actually in the US when he was out of the country according to the 9/11 Commission.

However, we know he had a forged document and we have before us a fakey-looking document; at this point I'm willing to put two and two together and use the conclusion that the fakey-looking document is the forged one as a working assumption. I specifically admit that further evidence may show that this conclusion is incorrect, but I believe it is the most likely interpretation based on present evidence.

As you know, I'm not big on doubles - we'll just have to agree to disagree for the moment.

If you ask me, all the USAID cards are faked (and will probably all have the same date - does anybody have an FOIA machine?) and so are the international driver's licences, except Atta's second one - but that's just a hunch.

[Andre II]

5. Thanks for the flowers!

:smile:

Why does is the ID fakey-looking to you?

[KJF]

6. The number and the expiry date

Is that enough to make an ID card look fakey, or are you going to tell me off for hyperbole and indulging myself in a poor parody of Hunter S. Thompson's style, and slap my wrist?

[Andre II]

7. Hunter S. Thompson

I'm not sure I get this:
You say the ID looks faked because of its number and the expiry date?
But if Almihdhar and Salem Alhazmi were indeed in the US and they asked IDs the very same day (December 30, 2000) there is no explanation left for indicating the ID is faked.
You prove the fakery by assuming someting you can't prove (that they weren't in the US at that time).