Citizen Spook takes on 9/11 (Hopsicker)

[bmcatt]

Not sure if anyone here follows CS on the Plame/Treason-gate issue, but he's turned his sights (if temporarily) on 9/11. He's definitely got an interesting take on it and presents a plausible, I believe, scenario for how the "truth" about 9/11 might come out.

Daniel Hopsicker is the Government Mole Messiah of 911 Truth Damage Control.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Definitely worth a read

Good thing Fitz knows all. I hope.

[file83]

2. Great article!

[Grateful for Hope]

3. Very good article

Do you know anything about CS - background, etc.?

His other blogs are also excellent.

[peanutbrittle]

4. Well...the truth is yet to be seen and

it really disturbed me when I read him discrediting the 9/11 truth movement.

It's plausible but I find it hard to believe that people will buy the fact that the CIA, attempting to infiltrate, watching the hijackers every move would be oblivious to all of them boarding airplanes and carrying out the hijacking missions. He's gonna have to come up with a good one to splain that.

It could simply be that Hopsicker was tooting his own horn in his articles.

"At this very moment in time they are getting him ready for the major talk show circuit."
hmmm...interesting, if this starts to come to fruition IMO Alex Jones and the rest of the movement could blow him away, figuratively speaking of course.

Me thinks there is just as much evidence building on the other end of this story for him to do too much damage.

[libertypirate]

5. I watch word use fairly carefully and have felt the someone would

be trying to shot the 9-11 truth revolution in the foot the last couple of months.

It is unlikely that if what Citizen Spook says is true; Hopsicker is the only mole lurking. Any cumulative perception built by the corporate press requires someone to make claims that would be difficult to prove. Such claims that lack rock hard-on evidence can easily be interpreted in multiple ways. Anyone who attempts to assert evidence that is open to interpretation is not a friend to 9-11 truth, they are deluding the truth. We should identify them and expose their disingenuous methods, by calling them out publicly.

I don't care if they are even part right at this point with nearly half the population waking up, no one who really wants to get to the bottom of this hell should be trying to go beyond what the scientists have already been able to prove. A credible person would not want to delude their research.


This seems to be a pretty obvious a wild goose chase...


http://www.911blogger.com/2006/05/911-whistleblower-andrew-grove-comes.html

At this time in the 9-11 truth revolution this man stands up to inform us that the situation is much worse then we need to prove our case. Although his story is compelling he spends most of his statement informing us about himself and how his actions have affected his life. Credibility doesn’t start with playing the victim, it starts with self sacrifice, and you are not sacrificing if you have already lost everything as he says that he has.

If I had information that I wanted to share with the American public I would use the excellent work, the factual scientific work of others as a sounding board for my own evidence thus both enforcing my own credibility and that of a growing movement. Credibility is a valuable commodity when sharing information with the public. At this time for the 9-11 truth movement to have to step back to re-establish credibility would be the same as denying the credibility already attained; which only can harm an already strong community and effort.

P.S. Movements die revolutions, revolt, evolve and find solutions.

[quickesst]

8. I've often thought...

that the certainty of this thing eventually falling apart was taken into consideration. I am of the notion that there was a gamble taken in that they believed they would be in a position to control any dissent before it got out of hand. They may have mis-under-estimated the size and rapidity of growth in the 9/11 community also. For me, it comes down to justice. If we do not get it, we will no longer be free. Sounds like CS has done his homework. Thanks.
quickesst

[libertypirate]

17. The power of the free mind

When they put their PNAC plan together they did so based on the systems they controlled, TV and print. Not a free form who ever wants can share with the world Internet. Then something interesting happened people turned bored of the reruns on the news, because it is really just infotainment intended to entertain before inform; they are still schilling for the corporate advertisers. Instead of the same old frames red vs. blue we the people sought out new fresh thinking. Tired of being put into a box we found we can decide what is important.

Now we can even the sellouts of our democracy.

[mirandapriestly]

6. I've never seen this CS guy before, I like his blog

that makes sense what he says about Hopsicker. Hopsicker's research never seems to match his conclusions. That technique reminds me of a certain internet type who tries to shame posters out of talking about the "physical" evidence of 9-11 saying that only the hijacker evidence is worthwhile - as if the CIA is really going to leave an easy trail for a bunch of internet researchers to "uncover". seatnineb has a thread on here about "the other Atta" which fits in well with this theory although he was thinking more that Hopsicker was more of a patsy. Now that I see his backgound maybe he is a mole and not a patsy and he worked for a Wall street publication, as Michael Ruppert says CIA=Wall Street.

[bronco2121]

7. let it happen on accident

if madcow can bring 'let it happen on accident' into the mainstream, that will open the door to more serious investigation. IMO, it will legitimize the 911 truth movement, not kill it. if it's accepted that the CIA let it happen on accident - people will be more ready to accept and investigate that the govt let it happen on purpose... then made it happen on purpose.

i don't see madcow's investigation as a conspiracy against the truth movement. so many people are ready to think that this and that will bring down the movement.

the only thing that will bring down the movement is if the 911 truth community becomes more and more content to sit behind their computers while posting in forums waiting for someone else to do the research and investigation for them.

B.

[Spoonerian]

9. What I find compelling

about Hopsicker's stories is that there are tons of fascinating interviews with all sorts of eye-witnesses. I have no clue whether or not any of these interviews are true--mainly because it seems that NOBODY ELSE gives a shit about following up on ANY of it.

But looking at all of these characters--Amanda Keller, Makram Chams, the pharmacist, Chams' sister, Jerry (I think) the cab driver, the psychiatrist that used to stop into Satriales...I mean the Quicky Mart, and all of those people that live across from the airport--just to name a few--its hard to believe that these characters are somehow being maneuvered to provide a smokescreen the way that Citizen Spook or Fintan Dunne imply they are.

Now if the CIA would give Citizen Spook or Fintan Dunne a budget, drugs, or whatever the hell it is that they give Hopsicker to get him off of his ass and interviewing all of these planted witnesses in the greater Venice-Nokomis-Englewood metropolis--if they'd give that to CS and Dunne and get them to prove their case with some good National Enquirer gossipy mafia/spy stories, THEN maybe I'd believe that Hopsicker is smoke-screening!

Regardless, the smoke screens are purely for the very tiny fringe that still question anything at all. For the vast thoughtless majority who swallow everything that is shoved down their throats, everything is done blatantly in plain sight. Just look at the 1993 WTC bombing. CBS News showed the FBI's videotape of them making the bomb. They pretty much admit that the whole thing was designed by Chertoff. Nobody gives a shit, fringe or otherwise. Chertoff runs the latest new gestapo squad...big shit.

[reprehensor]

20. I'm with you on that one.

CitizenSpook's post is pretty interesting, however.

I agree with CS that Fitz knows way more than he publicly lets on.

[mirandapriestly]

22. Yep, What's worse than nobody knowing

is nobody even cares. Now that all the other FBI or CIA involvement with terrorism is coming out, people just shrug it off as yesterday news.

[KJF]

10. Great!

Let's all accuse each other of being CIA assets! That'll be a real help.

[rman]

11. Well, anything is possible.

Doesn't mean everything that Hopsicker says about Atta etc it false.

[HamdenRice]

12. I'm sorry -- I call bullshit. And this controlled demo orthodoxy is ...

And this controlled demo orthodoxy is really getting out of hand.

If you've read my posts, you know that I am agnostic about controlled demolition. The planes and fires could have caused the buildings to collapse; but there is some, but inconclusive evidence, that explosives were used.

But what is getting out of hand is that some proponents of controlled demolition are taking the position that if you don't believe in controlled demolition then you aren't part of the 9/11 truth movement, or worse, like this CS blogger bullshit, you are necessarily part of a disinformation campaign.

CS is saying basically that because Daniel Hopsicker is focusing on the utterly bizarre world of Florida circa pre 9/11 2001 -- the stripper loving, pork chop munching, cocaine fueled world of Mohammed Atta and company -- evidence that completely gives lie to the official explanation of the hijakcers and their identity, that he is not only wrong, but part of a planned disinformation campaign, but provides no evidence whatosever of that claim.

Some of the most respected bloggers who deal with 9/11 and the other intertwined scandals of the Bush administration have basically said, I think convincingly, that whether they believe in controlled demo or not, they will not longer deal with the subject. That's the position taken by the Rigorous Intuition blog, DU's own Minstrel Boy, the author of the seminal Coincidence Theorists Guide to 9/11, Cannonfire, who is one of the best sources on the intertwined Duke Cunnigham/Abramoff/911 syncronicities, and it's increasingly the position I am going to take.

Here's why: Controlled demo is becoming the "magic bullet" of the 9/11 truth movement. If you look at 9/11 broadly, in context -- the relationship between the Bush family and bin Laden family, their business ties, where Poppy was and with whom, the relationship between al Queda and the Pakistan and US intelligence agencies, the preparation of the NSA programs and Patriot Act before 9/11, the Saudi funding, the intelligence agency tracking of the hijackers, the geo-strategic position of Afghanistan and dealings between the Taliban and US oil interests, the murder of General Ahmed Shah Masoud days before 9/11, the CIA and foreign intelligence briefings of Bush at the pig farm all vacation summer of 2001, and on and on and on and on ... -- then the government's complicity in 9/11, whether LIHOP or MIHOP, becomes blazingly obvious.

But if you focus solely on controlled demolition -- an unproven and unproveable, if possible, component of that complicity -- to the exclusion of all else, then you are basically going to be arguing for the next decade about a problem of physical evidence that ultimately is inconclusive.

It's like the Kennedy assassination: It is blazingly obvious that Oswald did not pull the assassination off by himself given the context of Cuban counter-revolutionaries and the mob, and these days, even confessions by elderly mobsters about mafia involvement, but half of the Kennedy truth movement is mired in an unwinnable debate about the magic bullet, as though that one aspect of the crime alone is the rosetta stone.

Again, no one has put it better than Rigorous Intuition/Minstrel Boy:

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/05/guns-of-911.html
Friday, May 06, 2005

The guns of 9/11

It may seem strange for me to say this, since I've recently been writing about elves and abductions and hyperdimensional portals, but when it comes to parsing the mundane magick of 9/11, I think it's important that we not be led by our imagination. Or, perhaps more worrisomely, by someone else's.

I'm talking about "holograms." I'm talking about "pods." I'm talking, too, as I've talked before, about the Pentagon "missile." But I'm talking about other things, even some of which may be true.

There's a lot of wiggle room for informed speculation concerning 9/11, but it should be done on the back end. If it doesn't follow an argument based on tangibles, if it doesn't bring up the rear, there's not much likelihood of it being informed. There's no reason why the case against Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al should be led with hypothetical scenarios, when what we know is already enough to condemn them. Enough happened that is beyond reasonable dispute; we shouldn't let our conjecture about how it happened dominate the argument. Even if it's well-founded.

Here's a for instance: I suspect remote control was engaged at some point in the flights, surprising the patsy hijackers to ensure the operation reflected expectations. I think there is circumstantial evidence to support the claim (for example, the institutional deceit regarding the recovery of the flight recorders, the improbable trajectory of Flight 77, and the viability of remote technologies) as well as logic (if such a world-changing event were allowed to happen, its chance of success would not likely be left in the hands of the unskilled pilots), but still, there is no smoking gun. So it's a position I hold in an open hand, and I'm prepared to be persuaded that I'm wrong.

Then there's WTC 7. I suspect it was demolished. But I fear for those who consider its collapse the "key" to 9/11. Hanging the entire case upon it gives disproportionate weight to the physical evidence, and if there's an even slightly plausible explanation for its collapse short of demolition, then the whole case pays for the weakness of this single point of conjecture.

<snip>

The guns of 9/11 are still smoking, but they have little to do with the physical evidence. They have much more to do with the movement of wealth, with the coincident war games, with the Florida flight schools, with Pakistan, with the change to the standing orders for shoot downs - that kind of material. Those are the dots that connect for me. Generally, I believe the weakest arguments are those dedicated to the physical evidence of the crime. (And it's noteworthy that Popular Mechanics, in its recent "debunking" issue of 9/11 conspiracy theories, restricted itself to those very arguments.)

There are different orders of knowledge, even regarding things meant to be kept hidden from us. It's a tricky business, but I think it's important that we observe the rules for each order, and know what kind of knowledge we're talking about. Because there are degrees of darkness in which we're kept. UFOs and High Weirdness are pitch black compared to the twilight world of 9/11. And to the degree we have light, even a little at twilight, then we needn't imagine that we do.

[KJF]

15. Dunno. Maybe. Sort of.

I'm kind of leaning the same way, but I'm not entirely sure.

Regarding explosive demolition: most ordinary people think the towers were hit by jumbo jets whose fuel tanks were full and that the tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel caused the steel structure (a majority of which was severed by the impacts) to melt. If you expose them to the facts that the planes were 767s, the fuel tanks were mostly empty, thousands of gallons spilled outside and what was left burned up within 10 minutes, which means that the official theory is that the towers (85% of whose structures remained intact after the impacts) were destroyed by office fires (in a building that was combustibles-lite) lasting 56 and 102 minutes and the recovered steel samples indicated the fires weren't hot enough to sufficiently weaken the steel, then you might be in business.

Alternatively, you could say that the hijackers were in the centre of the FBI's counterterrorist coverage, the CIA conducted a major operation against them involving 8 field offices and 6 foreign intelligence services, the NSA was listening to their calls, they were identified as terrorists by the army over a year before 9/11 and, according to the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, they had been followed for more than a year prior to 9/11.

I dunno, which argument is the best one to start with? They both seem OK to me.

[dailykoff]

16. 85% remained intact? I get 91%

and on the crash floors only. For South Tower, according to FEMA, according to 9-11 research: (23 perimeter + 2 core columns) / 287 columns = 8.71% of columns damaged on the crash floors, let's generously say four, for a total of 100 columns. The other 31,470 above-ground columns per tower were not damaged by planes or fire.

link: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/columns.html

In other words, nobody needs to wonder whether the Trade Center towers "collapsed" or were demolished.

They were demolished.

[KJF]

19. I used NIST base case figures

And roughly adjusted them for the actual size of the columns (because some were bigger than others). I also included a percentage for the columns that weren't severed, but were damaged and lost some of their load-bearing capacity.

[dailykoff]

21. Using FEMA's numbers, 99.7% of WTC2 columns were intact

and 0.3% of its columns were severed.

[HamdenRice]

24. They both are OK -- that's not my point

My point was that there is a faction of the controlled demo advocates who say that if you don't focus on CD then you must be a disinformation agent, which is ridiculous given how ambiguous this area really is.

[dailykoff]

If you throw out the corpse you don't have a murder.

Backpedaling on the physical evidence isn't going to get us anywhere, and I can assure you that planes and/or fires did not and could not bring down WTC 1, 2, or 7.

[mirandapriestly]

23. Agreed sort of

but controlled demolition is fun to talk about and once you start noticing the similarities, hard to let go of. But you're right, 911 government complicity will never be proven on that alone.

[dailykoff]

27. Don't let anybody talk you out of what you know.

I strongly disagree that CD is simply a fun conversation topic. As far as I can tell it's all we know for certain, and it's certain.

Let the baloney peddlers pick your pocket and the "debunkers" win.

[HamdenRice]

29. CD is all we know for certain?

Don't we know the following?

That the Bush family and the bin Laden family have been in business together for 30 odd years, and that Poppy was meeting with Osama's brother as the planes flew into the trade center?

That when al Queda was founded, it was a CIA asset, with money and weapons funnelled through Pakistan's ISI and that there is plenty of evidence that the ISI continued to fund and support it and the Taliban even after US relations with bin Laden soured?

That the ISI chief Gen. Ahmad financially supported Mohammed Atta through ISI operative Saeed Sheikh, and that Gen. Ahmad was meeting with Porter Goss as the planes flew into the trade center?

That there was massive short selling through puts on airline stocks in the days before 9/11 virtually proving that someone knew that a disaster was about to befall the airlines?

That the president received a daily intelligence briefing that practically spelled out that bin Laden would attack, and that bush bizarrely did nothing?

That Bush sat for several minutes reading the Pet Goat while the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor was occurring?

That FEMA was in NYC on 9/10, that there were distracting war games, etc?

That several US and foreign intelligence agencies had identified and were tracking Mohammed Atta in the years before 9/11 and that investigations into his activities were stymied?

I could go on and on.

I don't object to CD theories. As I've said, I could go either way. What I object to is the idea that if you are agnostic about CD, (1) you must be a disinfo agent, or supporter of the official story, and (2) that there is no other better or more demonstrably true evidence than CD.

CD videos helped me get interested in the 9/11 truth movement, but frankly it is far from the strongest evidence of government complicity. To say that CD is all we know for certain is to become too focused on one issue to make a case to the unconvinced.

Moreover, my biggest fear is that the truth movement could actually lose that argument -- whether deservedly or not -- and all the voluminous, indisputable evidence of complicity would be discredited as a result. I realize that CD can be a galvanizing idea to get people involved, but frankly is is no where near the strongest evidence we have.

[Spoonerian]

30. Great Post.

My sentiments exactly.

[dailykoff]

33. Yes, the WTC demos are the only high crimes we can prove.

The rest are highly suspicious circumstances but none of them as far as I can see is a prosecutable crime.

Murder, on the other hand, is a crime. Give up on that and we've got nothing we didn't have before 9/11.

[dailykoff]

34. p.s. and there are many, MANY ways of discrediting it

including the ones you're citing. Fortunately however it is a transparently obvious fact that will remain so no matter how much it's spun.

[Grateful for Hope]

38. I think you have nailed it, HR

I wish I could express myself as eloquently as you do.

:thumbsup:

[petgoat]

25. We're split in 3 now, it seems. CD enthusiasts want to

marginalize Hopsicker and no-planes theorists, no-planers feud with the CD people
and regard any interest in the alleged hijackers as disinfo, and Hopsicker, tired of
being ignored, resorts to frustrated name-calling.

We won't get anywhere until we give up our dogmatic certainty.

[dailykoff]

26. Give up your certainty and you don't have a case.

I woudn't recommend it, unless you're ready to concede to the latest crop of patriotic debunkers.

:shrug:

[bmcatt]

28. It's ok ot let go of certainty

Provided you don't also let go of *uncertainty*. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

It's ok to say "I don't know what happened. But I definitely know what *didn't* happen."

[petgoat]

31. And we definitely know we need a new investigation. nt

[Grateful for Hope]

39. Absolutely! n/t

[JackRiddler]

32. That's kind of impossible

With those who now do not just speculate but who insist - to the point of attacking all others - that nothing was in the air over New York on September 11th. It's ludicrous - I've spoken to too many people who saw the first and the second planes hit. Pods could be written off as a poor visual analysis, holograms as an overactive tendency to science fiction scenarios, but this latest variant reveals sheer contempt for the living.

So be it. The dogma line will be drawn in different places, but everyone's going to have one.

[petgoat]

36. "everyone's going to have one"

That attitude is just caving in to an unpleasant aspect of human nature. We can
struggle against it.

Certainly I have found that the most unattractive attribute of the no-planes
theorists is not the (varying) quality of their work but their tendency to label
as government agents those who want to investigate the ties of the alleged
hijackers to drugs and intel, or those who want to argue that the proposition
that a 757 hit the Pentagon can be argued based on physical evidence.

We're so quick to take sides when there's really only one side--the need for
a new investigation. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression that the
anti-pod people were the first to hurl the "disinfo agent" charge, and OilEmpire
published that shit list some time ago. I note that Jim Hoffman's debunking of
the Popular Mechanics hatchet job failed to note that the photo PM ran with its
bit on the pods wasn't even the one the pod people were commenting on. I also
note that Hoffman's leaflet on United 93 used the prejudicial term "hoax" to
describe the Cleveland Airport theory instead of a more neutral term.

I thought the apparent conciliatory gesture of showing the cover of "In Plane
Site" in the "EGtLS" video was a nice one. Let's be dogmatic about not being
dogmatic and argue the facts in an adult manner instead of settling for the
notion that human nature dooms us to hunkering down behind a wall and heaving
stuff at our allies.

Maybe the Loose Change kids can be a focal point for resolving some of this stuff
in the course of deciding what they're going to cut out when they make Loose
Change 3.

[DrDebug]

13. Why Hopsicker is not about the OCT

Mohammed and Mahed Atta and their Grocery Store

Is this what happened to the $100,000??

Based on Hopsicker's investigation into 9/11 ( http://www.madcowprod.com/102204issue.htm ) and an example why this IS about LIHOP/MIHOP and is not a diversion for the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory)

The Official Conspiracy Theory

Mohammed Atta al Sayed (September 1, 1968 – September 11, 2001 (??) ) was named by the FBI as the suicide pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The government believes him to have been the leader of the attacks. (1)

Atta and the Pakistani money

The FBI confirmed in late September, in an interview with ABC News (which went virtually unnoticed) that the 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from unnamed sources in Pakistan:

"As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader, Mohammed Atta. As well . . . "Time Magazine" is reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden. It's all part of what has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijacker's high commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind."

The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly who was financing the terrorists. Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). According to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9/11 attacks had allegedly been "wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of ISI Chief General Mahmoud Ahmad." (2)

Mohamed and Majed Atta

Orlando Sentinel September 23, 2001: Mohamed Atta, 33, the suspected ringleader and a pilot in the first suicide attack on the World Trade Center, may have had relatives or associates living in Central and South Florida for years. Among the possible relatives sought by federal investigators is Majed Atta, a former Winter Garden and Miami-area grocer who abruptly left the Orlando area last month and whose whereabouts are unknown. Local law-enforcement authorities are also still on the lookout for Mohamed Atta's car, a red 1989 Pontiac Grand Prix two-door coupe reportedly spotted in downtown Orlando on Sept. 15. The Florida tag number is D79DDV… Federal agents are investigating the possibility that suspected hijacker Mohamed Atta also had family ties in Central Florida. A South Florida federal grand jury issued subpoenas to Broward County court officials seeking records involving several people named Atta. They include Majed Atta, the former Winter Garden grocer. (3)

Until the middle of this year (2001), Majed Atta ran the Rainbow Grocery on Plant Street in Winter Garden. (4) On Aug. 1, he and his family packed their belongings into a U-Haul and left their rental home near Lake Apopka. Majed Atta's former landlady said they moved just one week after Atta said he planned to buy the home from her and open a new grocery store in the Orlando area. (5)

Majed Atta is back again

Until the middle of 2001, Majed Atta ran the Rainbow Grocery on Plant Street in Winter Garden. On Aug. 1 2001, he and his family packed their belongings into a U-Haul and left their rental home near Lake Apopka. Majed Atta's former landlady said they moved just one week after Atta said he planned to buy the home from her and open a new grocery store in the Orlando area. (Orlando Sentinel Sep 23, 2001) (3)

However according to the news story below a Majed Atta is back again in 2004, running a grocery store on Congress Street in New Orleans (7) together with Shareef Quattom, but according to the FBI it was a different Majed Atta who happened to be in the grocery business and who also happened to leave Florida just before 9/11 and was busy buying a grocery store for $92,000. (3)

How much money did Mohamed Atta receive from Mahmoud Ahmad? $100,000?

But it was for a grocery store

Atta's Groceries

Atiya Saleh, Shareef Quattom and Majed Atta have given paperwork to Lincoln County, Miss., officials that indicates that the $27,000 in currency sheriff’s deputies confiscated from the trunk of Mr. Saleh’s Ford sedan March 10 was the down payment for a grocery store Mr. Atta was purchasing.

Still, sheriff’s officials are skeptical and say they want to make sure the three New Orleans men weren’t on a money-laundering trip that took them through Mississippi.

(...) Among Arab-Americans, Mississippi has a reputation for being a good place to steer clear of, said former Jackson merchant Atta, who is now selling groceries on Congress Street in New Orleans.

It wasn't like that before Sept. 11, 2001, said Atta, a native of Jordan who moved to the United States at 16 and attended college in Hattiesburg. His fond memories of the years he spent in Mississippi brought him back to the state in 2001, when he and his family decided to leave Florida, their home for 10 years. (8)

Later the money was returned to Majed Atta because it was considered to be totally unrelated to all of the above.

Sources:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Atta_al_Sayed
(2) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html
(3) http://www.madcowprod.com/102204issue.htm
(4) http://www.madcowprod.com/gg/winter_garden.htm
(5) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/620561/posts (I know, but it's the only place that copied that press clipping)
(7) http://www.neworleansataglance.com/profile_business.php?id=13421&sic_dscr=Grocers%20and%20Grocery%20Stores&city_id=88
(8) http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/8900481.htm (no longer online) (Times-Picayune (New Orleans) June 4, 2004 Friday)

Edit: spelling and (6) striken because it's not really relevant to the story which I'm trying to present

[seatnineb]

14. Hopsicker supports the "War On Terror"

Hopsicker definetly has an agenda........

In the words Of Dan Hopsicker:

For what it is worth,we feel that America's War On Terror is wholly justified.Lying to the American people in matters pertaining to the deaths of 3000 people,on the other hand is not.
Welcome To Terrorland
Page 302

Blaming the House of Bush/House Of Saud/CIA axis as Hopsicker does .....in a DNILIPOP(Did Not Intentionally Let It Happen On Purpose)
fashion hardly challenges the official story....it merely adds another layer of bullshit that has to be stripped away from the "story" when you want to discover what is really going on.

Notice how Hopshitter avoided the Bukhari/Kamfar/Rahmnan Alomari story like the plague:

[libertypirate]

18. How can something based totally on false pretense ever be

justified?

[bronco2121]

35. all investigations are DISINFO

i am so suspicious of any investigation that doesn't conform to exactly what i think.

hopsicker must be a mole messiah because he doesn't write about how a missile hit the pentagon. for me, that sums it up. anyone doing any type of investigation or research that doesn't propose everything as a possible scenario, is clearly an investigation sponsored by the true conspirators.

the true conspirators know that the 9/11 truth movement is such an incredible force of professional minds and do-ers, that they HAD to launch a counterforce. they know that it's only taken us about 5 years to look at the available evidence to get as far as we've come. it will only take us about another 5 years to get this far times two, and THAT has them worried -really sweating. because within the next 5 years we could have maybe a couple more FOIA requests, and new technology that can scan old jpegs for hidden pixels.

that is why they've brought out the hopsicker - to blow us out of the water. that's right we are so dangerous in the water we're just ready to pounce. i can't wait. but damn!!! hopsicker's gonna ruin our chance just when we're ready to pounce. more good reason just to hang out a while and see what happens.

b

[JackRiddler]

37. I'm telling!

You didn't add the "sarcasm" marker so now I'm going to take that at face value and hate you forever and ever!!!!

Everyone who doesn't go as far as me is an agent, and everyone who goes further is also an agent. I'm the only non-agent.