The more evidence that we get from the media, the more I'm convinced
that all of the hijackers were engaged in identity theft prior to the
crimes.
(Identity theft is of course the stealing of someone else's
identification papers (driver's licenses, passports, credit cards, etc)
and using them as one's own in order to disguise one's own identity.)
If my supposition is accurate, the conspiracy went further than the
hijackers. They weren't just 18 guys who banded together. The identity
of co-conspirators had to be concealed. One instrument of that
concealment was a new identity for the real hijackers. Western
intelligence wouldn't be able to trace the hijackers back to their real
group.
The media portrayal of the "hijackers" is that they were ordinary
middle-class people who had lived in America for a while. Whoever
hijacked those planes, however, had to have been highly trained
operatives. Their methods (killing people with x-acto knives) and their
apparent coolness under pressure (for example, coming over the intercom
to announce in English that the plane had been hijacked) indicate that
the real hijackers were professionals.
The well-known theory that Iraq and not Bin Laden was behind the 1993
WTC bombing relies on an alleged instance of identity theft. That
theory has been disparaged here on pen-l.
Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:57:07 -0500, Ken Hanly wrote:
>At least six Saudis identified as hijackers are alive and well. Only last
>week the FBI claimed they were confident they had identified the suspects.
>The Saudis named are horrified to find themselves identified as the
>hijackers. On the other hand, they are no doubt glad to be alive. All this
>makes one wonder about the skills of US intelligence services. Surely it
>should occur to them that the hijackers might want to leave false trails.
>Full story at:
>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092101probe.story. Now
>that assassination is to adopted as a tactic, I wonder how many innocent
>suspects will be killed. We will never know.
>
>Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
>
