What Are Your Feelings About Niaz Khan?
We speculate about the identities of the hijackers, whether or not there were any, whether or not they were affiliated with any alphabet agencies, and whether or not they were somehow duped into boarding those planes.
What about Niaz Khan? He was supposedly trained in Pakistan, using a "mock cockpit" of a 767 (something you wouldn't expect to find in a cave, or a "terrorist hideout"), to fly, and hijack planes.
April 2000: Would-Be Hijacker Tells FBI About Plot to Fly Plane into US Building
Niaz Khan. [Source: NBC via Banded Artists Productions]
Niaz Khan, a British citizen originally from Pakistan, is recruited into an al-Qaeda plot. In early 2000 he is flown to Lahore, Pakistan, and then trains in a compound there for a week with others on how to hijack passenger airplanes. He trains on a mock cockpit of a 767 aircraft (an airplane type used on 9/11). He is taught hijacking techniques, including how to smuggle guns and other weapons through airport security and how to get into a cockpit. In April 2000 he flies to the US and told to meet with a contact. He says, “They said I would live there for a while and meet some other people and we would hijack a plane from JFK and fly it into a building.” [London Times, 5/9/2004] He has “no doubt” this is the 9/11 plot. However, Khan slips away and gambles away the money given to him by al-Qaeda. Afraid he would be killed for betraying al-Qaeda, he turns himself in to the FBI. For three weeks, FBI counterterrorism agents in Newark, New Jersey interview him. [MSNBC, 6/3/2004; Observer, 6/6/2004] One FBI agent recalls, “We were incredulous. Flying a plane into a building sounded crazy but we polygraphed him and he passed.” [London Times, 5/9/2004] A former FBI official says the FBI agents believed Khan and aggressively tried to follow every lead in the case, but word came from FBI headquarters saying, “Return him to London and forget about it.” He is returned to Britain and handed over to British authorities. However, the British only interview him for about two hours, and then release him. He is surprised that authorities never ask for his help in identifying where he was trained in Pakistan, even after 9/11. [MSNBC, 6/3/2004] His case will be mentioned in the 2002 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report, but the plot apparently will be mistakenly described as an attempt to hijack a plane and fly it to Afghanistan. [US Congress, 9/18/2002]
- Jon Gold's blog
- Login to post comments
Any evidence placing him at the scene of the crime?
If not, I find it more likely that all the training and letting him go free, etc. as with all the other "hijackers" is more evidence of the creation of a plausible scenario, not evidence of actual hijackings. Those would be videotapes from airport security, flight manifests and check-in information, etc. Does such evidence exist?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Just...
So you know, multiple hijackings have taken place in the past. In other words, it is possible.
Whether or not the hijackings that took place on 9/11 happened as we were told, remains to be seen.
I posted this to show the obvious, which is that again, there is evidence to suggest that the Government was WELL AWARE that someone was planning on taking a plane, and slamming it into a building.
Also, that somewhere in Pakistan, presumably not in a cave, or a terrorist camp, a flight simulator exists that trains people to fly a 767. One would think such a complex piece of hardware might be provided by an organization like the ISI, etc...
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
many things are possible
Pakistan may also have had a flight simulator in order to train pilots for thier national airline. To speculate on these issues is fine, but it should be made clear that there is no hard evidence supporting the need to pursue this angle. What a corrupt FBI told a corrupt COndi Rice or not doesn't fly very far on credibility. Were they well aware that someone was planning this? Or were they being led to believe that it was the case? Big difference there.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
I doubt...
A flight simulator used to "train pilots for their national airline" would be used by someone with the intentions of slamming a plane into a building.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
i also doubt many things
Including reports from NBC, which is owned by General Electric. Including mainstream newspapers that quote anonymous FBI agents. It all boils down to asking why we should believe these accounts among all the other fake accounts about where and how so-called terrorists operate. I'm not sure why any of these accounts are supposed to be any more credible than anything else coming out of the mainstream media and the complicit government agencies.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
The footage...
From NBC is now restricted.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Dude, you gone done it again
Dude, you gone done it again with those italics LOL!
Maybe
He sounds reasonably genuine. However, there's no connection between him and the other hijackers that can easily be made. The muscle hijackers are supposed to have trained in Afghanistan in early 2001 after returning from Saudi.
The process of patsy creation
was elaborate, well-funded, and planned well in advance. That's what it makes me think. I think there's a good chance that ISI or even Pakistan as a nation were set up as a sort of mega-patsy, as a Plan B, in case the al Qaeda thing didn't work out.
This would suggest that a lot of people actually believe or believed that they were part of preparation for a major terrorist attack, even if they were not.
How could...
Pakistan be set up as a patsy for the entire event of 9/11? Pakistan had nothing to do with the military's response on that morning.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
They very fact...
That the United States Government has covered-up their obvious involvement is suspect, and criminal in and of itself. If they suddenly say, "Hey guess what? Pakistan was the real culprit behind 9/11", then they have to answer for the fact that they have protected them, given money to them, called them our friends, and partners in the "War On Terror."
Doesn't seem like a good move to "set-up" Pakistan. At least not to me.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
And all...
Anyone would have to do is read some of the first writings from the 9/11 Truth Movement to know that Pakistan's involvement has been known about for a very long time, and ALWAYS covered-up. They can't act as if "Hey, we just found out..."
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
"Pakistan had nothing to do with the military's response"
"on that morning."
Well, no duh, dude. And Oswald couldn't shoot a rifle that well either. It's not about facts, it's about perception, and setting up a fall guy who will be persuasive to most people, or so you think.
I'm not sure why you think we disagree, here. I'm saying entities in Pakistan, up to and including the ISI, may have believed they were participating in a terrorist act.