How the 9/11 Terrorists Got Here

  • oeb11
  • 08-25-2021, 08:08 AM
https://townhall.com/columnists/terr...-here-n2594688








Source: AP Photo/Daniel Hulshizer, File









Trending



The commercial aircraft that al-Qaida terrorists flew into the twin towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001 -- killing 2,977 people -- did not take off from some foreign land before flying toward targets here in the United States.
They were all domestic flights that took off from American cities and were headed toward American cities.
American Airlines Flight 11, which struck the north tower of the World Trade Center, took off from Boston and was heading to Los Angeles.
United Airlines Flight 175, which struck the south tower of the World Trade Center, also took off from Boston and was heading to Los Angeles.
American Airlines Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon, took off from Northern Virginia and was heading to Los Angeles.
United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, took off from Newark and was heading to San Francisco.
Almost three years after the 2001 attacks, the staff of the national commission that Congress created by statute to investigate the event published a report on "9/11 and Terrorist Travel."
This report began by making a fundamental point: "It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country."
We let the hijackers in. But did they come here legally? Did they follow our visa and immigration laws? Not according to this 9/11 Commission staff report.

CARTOONS | Chip Bok
View Cartoon


"The story begins with 'A Factual Overview of the September 11 Border Story,'" says the preface to the report. "In it, we endeavor to dispel the myth that their entry into the United States was 'clean and legal.' It was not."
"Three hijackers carried passports with indicators of Islamic extremism linked to al Qaeda; two others carried passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner," the report explained. "It is likely that several more hijackers carried passports with similar fraudulent manipulation. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications. Once in the United States, two hijackers violated the terms of their visas. One overstayed his visa. And all but one obtained some form of state identification. We know that six of the hijackers used these state issued identifications to check in for their flights on September 11. Three of them were fraudulently obtained."
More than two dozen al-Qaida terrorists whom the commission associated with the 9/11 conspiracy tried to enter the United States. Most of them succeeded.
"Twenty-six al Qaeda terrorist conspirators -- eighteen Saudis, two Emiratis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese, one Moroccan, one Pakistani, and two Yemenis -- sought to enter the United States and carry out a suicide mission," said the commission's staff report. "The first of them began to acquire the means to enter two years and five months before the 9/11 attack."



"The 19 hijackers applied for 23 visas and obtained 22," said the report. "Five other conspirators were denied U.S. visas. Two more obtained visas but did not participate in the attack for various reasons."
One thing these terrorists tended to have in common when they applied for visas to enter the United States was a newly minted passport.
"Most of the hijackers applied with new passports, possibly to hide travel to Afghanistan recorded in their old ones," said the report.
The terrorists who actually piloted the hijacked planes had another thing in common. This was a remarkable ability to enter, leave and re-enter the United States.
"The four pilots passed through immigration and customs inspections a total of 17 times from May 29, 2000 to August 5, 2001," said the report.
Ziad Jarrah, who flew United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, "was the most frequent border crosser, entering the United States seven times."
Had they only let this terrorist into the United States six times, he would not have been on that flight.

Recommended
Notice Anything Wrong about the Aircraft in the Defense Department's Tweet About Afghan Evacuations? Matt Vespa



Mohamed Atta, who flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower, and Marwan al Shehhi, who flew United Airlines Flight 175 into the south tower, "came in three times each, entering for the last time on May 2 and July 19, 2001, respectively."


Had they only let these terrorists in twice, they would not have flown into the twin towers.
Hani Hanjour, who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, had made repeated journeys to the United States in the 1990s before coming back as a student -- who never went to school -- in 2000.
"Hani Hanjour was the only hijacker to enter on an academic visa, arriving on December 8, 2000," said the report. "He had already attended both English and flight training schools in the United States during three stays in the 1990s. Hanjour was also the only pilot who already had a commercial pilot's license prior to entry, having acquired it in 1999 in Arizona."
"Hanjour did not attend school after entering on a student visa in December 2000, thereby violating his immigration status and making him deportable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B)," said the report.
He, of course, was not deported.
This staff report concluded that "all of the hijackers violated some aspect of U.S. immigration law."
The good news is that our government has succeeded for nearly two decades in preventing another terrorist attack like 9/11. The question now: Will it continue to do so?




fiden criminal crimes cabal cares naught about the terrorists it is importing into America

and teh Price we will pay -

if it destabilizes America for marxist revolution - they are fine
The fiden/harris cabal is a criminal sedition gang - and should be charged, tried and sent to prison in afghanistan permanently!




Che' is still dead!!!!

No more long, hard, hot cigars for che'!
rexdutchman's Avatar
Yup remember we the US vetted the terrorist , by Visas sooooo Hmmm
Grace Preston's Avatar
How do you determine which violations of immigration law are important and which aren't? I mean, technically... Melania violated immigration law at one point along the way.


I guess what I'm asking is this-- how would you propose immigration issues be handled? Particularly in a case where a person appears to have proper documentation-- as many of the hijackers had. There is literally not enough money nor manpower to keep close tabs on people here on Visa and whether or not they are following the terms of the Visa (going to school, not overstaying-- the most common "illegal" here did not illegally cross, they simply overstayed their Visa).



How would you propose we move forward? There are many Afghani refugees who should be given entry based on their service while we were over there. There are many who are merely moles and should not be given entry. The key is.... which is which?
rexdutchman's Avatar
Well after 9/11 overstaying visas you would think should be "tracked down" and removed
Grace Preston's Avatar
Well after 9/11 overstaying visas you would think should be "tracked down" and removed Originally Posted by rexdutchman

You'd think... but in general, its difficult in reality unless they come here.. go to one place and then stay in that one place. It generally requires someone being pulled over for a traffic violation-- or having some kind of interaction with local law enforcement for it to be enforced.
  • oeb11
  • 08-25-2021, 09:44 AM
How do you determine which violations of immigration law are important and which aren't? I mean, technically... Melania violated immigration law at one point along the way.


I guess what I'm asking is this-- how would you propose immigration issues be handled? Particularly in a case where a person appears to have proper documentation-- as many of the hijackers had. There is literally not enough money nor manpower to keep close tabs on people here on Visa and whether or not they are following the terms of the Visa (going to school, not overstaying-- the most common "illegal" here did not illegally cross, they simply overstayed their Visa).



How would you propose we move forward? There are many Afghani refugees who should be given entry based on their service while we were over there. There are many who are merely moles and should not be given entry. The key is.... which is which? Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Reasonable questions - and the brain dead fiden criminal cabal only has one answer - open pursestrings, hyperspending, moving assets from earners to the parasite illegals, and totally Open Borders forthose who will vote DPST for government handouts.



Where do we start: - throw out the marxist criminals in power.
HedonistForever's Avatar
Yep, you give a false address and false information on how to contact you and you don't get caught unless you have an encounter with law enforcement and even then, no guarantee they will "find you" in the system as being delinquent.


Only solution I can think of is the harshest of all penalties. Not only if caught will you get an automatic year jail sentence with no possibility of early release but you will forfeit all properties and monies you have accumulated while in the United States. Now, I'm no lawyer so maybe this wouldn't even pass legal muster but if this law is passed by Congress which of course will never be done with Democrats in power, I don't see why it couldn't be written into law.


Of course a hi-jacker knowing they are going to die wouldn't care about any of this but the average person that over stays their VISA because they know that the worst that can happen is that they get deported, just might care.


Then there is this notion that we can't "profile people". Of course we should. Any country, friend or foe, that has a problem with Islamic Fundamentalist in their country, sworn enemies of the United States, should go through a level of scrutiny far beyond what a British or French National for example would have to go through. These countries don't like it, too bad. Tell them to clean up their problem and they will go back on a list of "civilized" countries.


Having said all that, there is noting we could do to "guarantee" no bad guy gets in and does bad things but we don't have to make it easier for them. We are way to lacks on border security and as we can all see, that problem is getting worse not better and I do not see the will to "fix" our immigration system which is not to make it easier to get in but harder to get in
  • oeb11
  • 08-25-2021, 10:18 AM
Interesting thoughts

Legality - cops already confiscate property at highway stops on 'suspicion' of drug dealing

such cars, cash, and properties are almost never returned.

Precedent exists - against our own citizens.
Grace Preston's Avatar
Unfortunately-- being a Marxist is not a crime. Screaming about those in power being criminals now.. is as equally stupid as when people did so during the Trump administration. Not to mention-- it doesn't actually accomplish anything.


The best news about those at the helm now is the same best news in regards to the last guy. When you lean a bit too much into the fringe-- you aren't taken seriously and it makes it a lot harder to push the worst of your agenda.


We aren't going to have open borders. Nobody is coming for your guns. What we DO have is the potential for a humanitarian crisis on top of a very messy refugee situation where people are going to have to find a viable way to decide who is the "good guy" and who isn't.
Grace Preston's Avatar
Yep, you give a false address and false information on how to contact you and you don't get caught unless you have an encounter with law enforcement and even then, no guarantee they will "find you" in the system as being delinquent.


Only solution I can think of is the harshest of all penalties. Not only if caught will you get an automatic year jail sentence with no possibility of early release but you will forfeit all properties and monies you have accumulated while in the United States. Now, I'm no lawyer so maybe this wouldn't even pass legal muster but if this law is passed by Congress which of course will never be done with Democrats in power, I don't see why it couldn't be written into law.


Of course a hi-jacker knowing they are going to die wouldn't care about any of this but the average person that over stays their VISA because they know that the worst that can happen is that they get deported, just might care.


Then there is this notion that we can't "profile people". Of course we should. Any country, friend or foe, that has a problem with Islamic Fundamentalist in their country, sworn enemies of the United States, should go through a level of scrutiny far beyond what a British or French National for example would have to go through. These countries don't like it, too bad. Tell them to clean up their problem and they will go back on a list of "civilized" countries.


Having said all that, there is noting we could do to "guarantee" no bad guy gets in and does bad things but we don't have to make it easier for them. We are way to lacks on border security and as we can all see, that problem is getting worse not better and I do not see the will to "fix" our immigration system which is not to make it easier to get in but harder to get in Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Oh we can and we do profile people. This is why a good chunk of the original hijackers had new passports... they didn't want to show any entries to Afghanistan.. which was often an automatic decline in regards to getting a Visa at that time. We also decline Visa's to women who are visibly pregnant. There is a whole laundry list of requirements that have to be met to obtain a tourist Visa. But-- to a person hell bent on doing harm, most of these requirements can be worked around.
LexusLover's Avatar
You'd think... but in general, its difficult in reality unless they come here.. go to one place and then stay in that one place. It generally requires someone being pulled over for a traffic violation-- or having some kind of interaction with local law enforcement for it to be enforced. Originally Posted by Grace Preston
No...."it generally" has to do with employment and schooling.


There have been sweeps at "international" airports. Not lately, because of private enterprise and background checks. That's just one example. Our data base is more easily searched now and access is more readily available. More reliable employers complete their verification and paperwork.

We can't control the security of our control with what goes on in this administration with respect to border security. No other country does either.
HedonistForever's Avatar
Unfortunately-- being a Marxist is not a crime. Screaming about those in power being criminals now.. is as equally stupid as when people did so during the Trump administration. Not to mention-- it doesn't actually accomplish anything.


The best news about those at the helm now is the same best news in regards to the last guy. When you lean a bit too much into the fringe-- you aren't taken seriously and it makes it a lot harder to push the worst of your agenda.


We aren't going to have open borders. Nobody is coming for your guns. What we DO have is the potential for a humanitarian crisis on top of a very messy refugee situation where people are going to have to find a viable way to decide who is the "good guy" and who isn't. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

I would make the case that we already do. Sure, we are deporting some people, does that prove we don't have an open border where nobody is checked? You are probably right using that standard. But I would argue that any "objective" interpretation of what we see happening right now, constitutes an open border because millions of immigrants believe that to be the case and plenty of Americans believe it whether you can give them "empirical" proof or not.


Definition of empirical



1: originating in or based on observation or experienceempirical data

2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theoryan empirical basis for the theory

3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment