Reply #17: Thanks for your research

[John Doe II]

I mean this without any irony.
You know we basically differ every time but I appreciate it very much that you take the time to do research and to answer the questions I raised.

You say:
My first inclination was to stop right there. You are asking for proof of someone's physical existence, but you leave aside the question of what his real name might be, if he used a stolen identity, and if was even him that left the trail of evidence that it seems that you are requesting.

You want to know about the Abdulaziz AlOmari from Hollywood. Or do you want to know about the alleged hijacker named Abdulaziz AlOmari, who may or may not have lived in Hollywood? There seems to be some doubt as to whether he had lived there. I'll make the assumption you want proof that the alleged hijacker existed before 9/11. If you're only looking for the one from Hollywood, you might as well stop reading.... (and I might as well stop writing....)

Frankly, I don't understand why you say that.
I pose the most basic question: If the alleged hijacker ever existed. If there is any proof for his physical existence.
I consciously wanted to avoid a discussion about stolen identities. The question who this guy really was. Simply because how can we know. But let me stress that it is very telling that the official investigation couldn't care less to know who the guy really was.
I just analyse an official claim:
The alleged hijacker Abdulaziz lived in Hollywood (says the FBI).
The alleged hijacker Abdulaziz lived mostly in New Jersey (says the Commission admitting that it has no evidence for this claim).

So, what's wrong with not asking the questions if he did or didn't use a stolen identity (which of course is an interesting subject) but to ask much simpler if he (whoever he was) ever existed? It should be so easy to refute!


You write:
Say there is no proof that the alleged hijacker Abdul Aziz Alomari existed before 9/11/01. How does that one missing piece cause the whole official story to fall apart?

May I first of all ask you back:
What kind of investigation would that be that says he was a hijacker although this guy didn't exist? How can this happen? Wouldn't this imply a simple cover up? And could you give me any reason for this kind of cover up, to invent a hijacker if 911 was indeed an attack by al Qaeda?


All your quotes are good one but in my eyes not good enough.

El-Atriss is from 2003.
The Villabos story from September 2001.
But nowhere the witnesses are quoted to have seen Al Omari. So did they see him (the one from the FBI photo)? Did he maybe see Abdul Rahman?
There are several witnesses out there that on the first glance say that they saw Abdulaziz Al Omari. But they are all from Vero Beach. It is therefore due to the confusion of the journalist that eg Abdul Rahman Al Omari's neighbour talks about him but is quoted as talking about her neighbour Abdulaziz.
Sure your storys are from New Jersey but nonetheless my examples for confused journalism and for any missing direct quote explain why I don't think this is any kind of evidence of Abdulaziz' physical existence.