The 911 hijackers who live

It was in the BBC, and that's far more credible that most US news outlets. By using the terms BBC, hijackers, and alive, Google spat back good links right away.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Your link was to a single BBC article 9/23/01. It merely says four of the hijacker's identities may be in doubt and quotes Arab papers and phone conversations with purported hijackers. I don't find that compelling.

This is 2006, why hasn't anyone done an in-depth story on this facet of 9/11?

As a believer in the fact that the 9/11 attacks were wholly an inside job, I have to agree with Brian that it would be a good idea to further investigate these claims. It would help strengthen our case.

Um... weak? "Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well." That's nothing at all like maybe. If you and bringeroftruth want to go and interview these folks, I sure encourage it. At the same time, understand that many stories are broken by just one paper, and then the rest of the papers chime in. But repeating an assertion doesn't make it any more true. So I say, hey, the BBC is very credible and it's not surprising that corporate news wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole. Weak? OK? That's your opinion.

How about the Saudi Embassy reporting to the Orlando Sentinel that four of the alleged hijackers are alive? How about FBI Director Robert Mueller admitting on CNN that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers"? I mean, come on. What would it take for you to change your "weak" verdict? When is there enough evidence to satisfy you of something?

If I wanted to prove that John Smith were alive, I would think someone could do a story about John Smith, complete with pictures and information about his life like where he works, what he does, etc. You would have friends, family and coworkers corraborate the information. "Yes, John Smith is alive. He comes to work here everyday and we couldn't believe when they showed the photo of him from the 9/11 attacks". Here is his FBI photo and here is his photo today. I just saw him and here he is reading the July '06 issue of News Speak.

"Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco."

"He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports."

Why on Earth would you interview family and friends when you've got the person himself right in front of you?

"But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco."

So the article does say what he's doing, where he is, etc... not that it's any of your business, or that he'd even want you to know, if he's working at the Burnside McDonald's.

I don't suppose anybody else is reading this post any longer, besides you & I, but I really have to question why you expect the journalist at BBC to do so much. That the guy has family and friends is really not newsworthy. Interviewing family and friends would make sense if the guy had gone into hiding and nobody could speak with him directly, but that's not the case here. It isn't needed, and wouldn't do more than make this into a human interest piece, which it isn't intended to be.

As far as photographs go, space is money. They can put in the US-supplied image or a current one. Makes no difference to me. The BBC is credible and they're not going to risk that by printing some bogus information that they have reason to doubt the veracity of, good sir.

So, call it weak if you want, but it flies in the face of journalistic standards to do so. And yes, I've taken journalism classes at the university level, if that means anything to you.

check these if you lack sources...

 http://www.unansweredquestions.org/background_61.php

 http://www.aeforge.com/aeforum/archive/index.php/t-1419.html

 link to www.telegraph.co.uk