Even the FBI Does Not Always Get It Right

I had distributed a storefront picture that showed that the storeowners had closed that day to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Ali. Under the picture, it stated the following: “Imam Ali flew one of the planes into the twin towers.”

A well-meaning friend emailed me the following information:

Here is the list of terrorists who were on the 9/11 aircrafts.  I do not think you will find the name “Imam Ali” in the mix of names here.

www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_alive.htm

Here is the biography of Imam Ali….

www.imamali.com/en/e-biog.html

Seems to me that the storeowners celebrate the day for Imam Ali as we would for Jesus and Martin Luther King.  Just thought you might want to know.

Here is my response:

Thanks for the links. Just because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had prepared and distributed something, it does not necessarily mean that it represents the truth. In the first link itself, there are a lot of holes and generated questions. To wit,

• ASHCROFT: [T]o our best estimate and our best knowledge given the information at this time, on the four planes that crashed was at least 18. Unless contradicted by evidence, which we wouldn’t anticipate, two planes had five hijackers and two other planes had four hijackers each. [...] American Airlines 77, Dulles to Los Angeles [had] four hijackers.
• On September 14 it was revealed by the FBI that there was another hijacker on Flight 77 – Hani Hanjour. [CNN, 9/14/01]
• A few days later, it was reported that Hanjour’s name was not on the passenger manifest of Flight 77 because he may not have had a ticket. [Washington Post, 9/16/01]
• How was Hanjour able to board the plane if he didn’t have his name on the manifest or a ticket?
• If Hanjour’s name wasn’t on the manifest and he didn’t have a ticket there can be no record whatsoever of Hanjour boarding Flight 77, so how did the FBI know he was on the plane?
• Was Hanjour’s name added to the hijackers when it was realized that none of the original list of Flight 77 hijackers were pilots?
• American Airlines Flight 77 Passengers
• There were no Arabs on Flight 77

Ashcroft’s comment is questionable. Notice that the statement says that it is “our best estimate and our best knowledge given the information at this time.” They are unable to state unequivocally that these are the truthful facts. He said 18 terrorists. I’ve always heard there were 19 terrorists. The FBI said that Hani Hanjour was on Flight 77. Look at all of the contradictions following that FBI statement. Hanjour’s name was not on the passenger manifest of Flight 77. The following three questions were unanswered. Then, it says that there were no Arabs on Flight 77.

Thus, as can be seen, the report is full of errors, conflicts, discontinuities, questions, and contradictions. I cannot put much faith in such a report because even if it was an FBI report, those who put together the data are people like you and I. They do not know what they are doing, and they make all kinds of errors. I have worked with FBI people. They are ordinary people like us. So, why should I have more faith in their data than I do my own data? The FBI, under the corrupt Department of Justice umbrella, apparently is a lapdog of the Obama administration. Hence, I question all of the information that they prepare and distribute.

I can go through the entire report point for point and find all kinds of problems with the data. Furthermore, I do not believe anything the lame-stream media (like CNN and Washington Post) publishes. They do not know what they are doing either. They publish hearsay as facts and make up the rest. Then, the FBI analyst takes the lame-stream media report and puts the data in his/her report. It is like the blind leading the blind!

I have seen a few of the terrorists with several aliases. So, could not “Imam Ali” be an alias also? Of course, it could be an alias, which nobody investigated to find out if that is true or not.

Additionally, I would never take a website named www.imamali.com/from which to gather information to prove a point. Their information is biased. It is like taking something from the MoveOn.org website to prove something against conservatives. If you want to prove something against conservatives, you go to conservative websites to prove your point. On the other hand, if you want to prove something for conservatives, you should not go to conservative websites to prove your point. The conservative websites would have a conservative bias to them. Do you get my point?

###