Talk:Mohamed Atta/Archive 1

Some mindless nonsense excised from the original article...' Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured him, and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement Israel had to agree to release so called "political prisoners". However, they would not release any with "blood on their hands". A well meaning American President, Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State Warren Christopher "insisted" that all be released. Thus Mr. Atta was freed and eventually "thanked the US" by flying an airplane into tower one of the World Trade Center.

This was reported by many of the networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the USA from all later reports.

End of mindless nonsense

The released terrorist you talk about above has a similar name but is not identical with Mohammad Atta, the subject of this article. For one thing, he would be way too old. Our Atta is 33. --AxelBoldt

Then in 1986 he would have been 16-17. Why is that too young to blow up a bus? Can you prove or refute this for me? -- Matti

90 seconds on google answers all... the original "Mahmoud Atta" was a 33 year old Jordanian when arrested in 1986 (they can check these things, you know). Apart from being Jordanian, (not Saudi), being 17 years older, and having a different first name, they're almost indistinguishable. [1] For what it is worth, this bus-blowing Atta was actually captured by the FBI (not Israelis) in 1991, three years after Reagan left office. - MMGB

And what exactly was Mr. Atta supposedly going to do with the suicide note? If he left the bag behind, forgetting it, then obviously he meant to take it with him, so someone please explain to me why it would make sense to take a suicide note with you on a plane you hope to explode against a building. Too convenient by half.

Google says "Mohammed Atta" is more popular than "Mohammad Atta"...but on "Mohammad Atta," Wikipedia gets the second result! --LMS

Since Atta hasn't been convicted in any court, perhaps "suspected terrorist" would be a more appropriate label? -- Zoe

Atta had jobs with the Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft. http://www.google.com/search?q=atta+duisberg ... and how come three bags with three terrorists? The whole thing smells of some secret-service job. The planes were flown by remote-control and special mission software, for me that is certain. The flight paths were too perfect, and the circumstances (lost bags, manuals, bad-cessna-pilots, portland-flight risking lost connection!) are too lousy. As if they were created-tracks for us all to believe the far more convenient thing, that religious-fanatic-lunatics did this. And not ice-cold calculating entrepreneurs in the pay of high-finance.

Moved this:

He may have been homosexual, see [2] and his will.

to here.

He may indeed have been homosexual (he may indeed have been heterosexual or anything in between), but neither referrence supports that fact: the first is a column decrying the urge to identify one's enemies as homosexual and the refusal to recognize victims of terrorism as such, and the second, his will, simply outlines more or less standard Islamic religious ritual which dictates that women not attend funerals of men. -- Someone else 02:52 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Allegations of Atta suffering from the Self-hating gay syndrome have also been made.

I think this and the reference to him apparently using a stripper are not needed in this article, if they're true then they have very little relevance to anything and given the historical precedent for portraying enemies of a particular country as homosexual or womanizers there's clearly a large question mark over them. The source for the stripper allegation is also highly questionable. - blankfrackis

I think there should be a bit more about the Portland jaunt...the supposed leader of this carefully-crafted plan left Boston ... very nearly missing his flight and connection and drawing a heap of attention to himself. And what for? If I were having the last fling of my life I wouldn't exactly choose Portland ME over Boston MA (no offense meant to ME - I love ME! - I'm just not crazy about Portland, probably from spending so much childhood in Marshall's buying clothes). It's my understanding this side trip has been especially hard to fit into the terrorist-leader model. Kwantus 18:37, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission has not been able to explain why Atta and Alomari drove from Boston to Portland on the eve of 9/11 in order simply to fly back in the morning of 9/11 to Boston Logan (9/11 Commission Chapter 1, Note 1). By doing so, these two alleged hijackers risked to jeopardize their whole operation. Had their flight from Portland been delayed by more than half an hour, they would have probably missed their hijack-flight. This would have meant that AA11 would not be hijacked, it would not crash on the North Tower of the WTC and no cameras would be standing waiting for the second crash. Much of the media effect of 9/11 would be lost on the world. Would any hijackers who plan their act for many months take such a risk? It is doubtful.

So an alternative explanation must be sought. As most of you know, Atta's bags "did not make it" between the flights and were not loaded on flight AA11. They were left at Logan Airport where the FBI found them within a short time. When packing his bags Atta ensured that they include all items necessary for the FBI to identify and locate the hijackers, their flight schools, discover that they were devout Muslims and learn about their aviation expertise: a hand-held electronic flight computer, a simulator procedures manual for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft, a slide-rule flight calculator, a copy of the Qur’an and a handwritten testament written in Arabic. According to later testimonies by former FBI agents, the luggage also contained the identities of all 19 suspects involved in the four hijackings, information on their plans, backgrounds, motives, al Qaeda connections and [a] folding knife and pepper spray.[3] The detour through Portland also ensured that a number of CCTV recordings could be made, including at Portland airport, a recording shown over the entire world. This recording has served to create the impression that there exists documentary evidence that he boarded the plane that he hijacked (most people do not recall where the recording took place). So Portland served a multiple purpose.--Sannleikur (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is not "mindless nonsense" to state that the identities of the alleged hijackers are completely unclear. To sort out ONE identity only proves the existence of several ones. But the one who is "meant" is not clarified by that. Hard facts - and only eamples in the case of Atta - are: “Filipinos Recall Hijack Suspects Leading a High Life” (Don Kirk International Herald Tribune Saturday, October 6, 2001) - when Atta ought to be in Hamburg working on his university studies. http://www.hamline.edu/apakabar/basisdata/2001/10/05/0079.html

The Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) May,20, 2002, S. 48 reports: atta got two visa in the same place on the same day. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/dojoig052002insrpt.pdf Different appearances of „Attas“ in the days before 9/11: http://www.madcowprod.com/mc6122004.html "The couple told the agent the man was about 5, 5 feet 10 inches, 160 pounds, had "dark, perfect" skin, and was clean cut and "very polite …"The first photo they showed us was the pilot who crashed into the first building," Vonnie LaConca said. "It was not Mohamed or his friend. But the last picture they showed us was very close, but I could not say 100 percent that it was him." ." http://www.sun-herald.com/NewsArchive2/091401/tp4ch14.htm?date=091401&...

“When we reviewed INS records, they appeared to reflect two entries by Atta into the United States on January 10, 2001, which initially raised a question as to whether Atta had entered twice on the same day or whether a second person posing as Atta also entered on January 10, 2001. The NIIS printout for the first entry reflects that Atta entered with an admission period of January 10, 2001, to September 8, 2001 (admission number 68653985708). The second record reflects a second entry on January 10, 2001, with an admission period from January 10, 2001, to July 9, 2001 (admission number 10847166009). However, this occurred because the inspector at the Miami District Office who changed Atta’s admission date failed to follow the proper procedure to ensure that the previous entry would be corrected, and a new entry was created in NIIS.”

Formerly linked: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/2002_05/fullreport.pdf

now linked here: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/dojoig052002insrpt.pdf

[From User:Analysis.]

You can add to the article whatever qualms about Atta or public perception of his identity that you may have, but please do it in an intelligible and encyclopedic manner, not in the form of a rant appended to the article. Mr. Billion 09:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I will try it a second time. English is not my mother tongue, so I would be glad to get a help if something is unclear. BTW: "whatever qualm" does not seem to me to be as neutral as a comment should be. And the "Rant" came out when I read expressions as "it is believed". I thought we are talking about encyclopedia. Am I or am I not allowed to bring the "it is believed " formula into an expression which hits the facts? (once "it was believed" Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Most of the world did not "believe" - and they were right) An INS report and normal serious media are NOT qualm. Okay ? [From User:Analysis.]

Look, it's not complicated. If Atta visited the Philippines, that does not mean he couldn't also have spent time studying in Hamburg. The article doesn't say he lived in the Philippines during that time, it said he was seen there on "visits from 1998 to 2000". He also spent time in Cairo, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have been anywhere else.

If you look at more than one source, you can get a better picture of what he was doing. He wasn't in Hamburg all the time, and he wasn't in the Philippines all the time. "...So in autumn 1992, Atta enrolled at the Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg, in a sleepy corner of northern Germany. He hoped to earn a degree in urban planning and then return to Egypt. In 1993, he befriended fellow student Volker Hauth, and the two often traveled and studied together in the next few years. ...In the mid-'90s, Atta began disappearing from school for extended periods. He would tell his thesis adviser that he was going to Aleppo, Syria, to work on his thesis. ...Atta was away from his job at a Hamburg consultancy for months in 1995; he reportedly said he had gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca. Co-workers recall him condemning terrorist attacks on tourists in Egypt. But he also bemoaned Western influence--specifically, the rise of skyscrapers--in Arab cities. From mid-1997 to October 1998, Atta seems to have disappeared from Hamburg entirely. He told his thesis adviser that he was gone for family reasons, but it's clear that he underwent profound changes during this time. He returned to school with the bushy beard favored by fundamentalists. He was more serious. Hauth, who left the university at the end of 1995 and lost contact with Atta, told the London Observer his friend could laugh at jokes about Arab dictators. But Chrilla Wendt, who knew Atta after he returned, said she couldn't remember him smiling." Time

And that is why I don't see how you can offer the fact that he was seen in the Philippines as evidence against his having spent time studying in Hamburg. It's not a logical argument.

The "two entries" statement doesn't hold water either because on the very source which you cite (pages 48-49, note 35) it is said, "The second record reflects a second entry on January 10, 2001... However, this occurred because the inspector at the Miami District Office who changed Atta's admission date failed to follow the proper procedure to ensure that the previous entry would be corrected, and a new entry was created in NIIS. The inspector sent the old I-94 and the corrected I-94 to the contractor which data enters I-94s for the INS. The May 2, 2001 transaction with Atta was data entered and then uploaded to NIIS as if it were a new entry by Atta. This happened because the inspector issued a new I-94 with a new admission number on it. To prevent two entries from occurring in NIIS, the inspector should have crossed out the admission number on the new I-94, made a reference to the previous admission number and noted that it was not a new entry."

The Sun-Herald article and Mad Cow conspiracy theory link aren't as obviously flawed, though. I'll stick them in External Links. I'm also including the Time article I linked, and re-adding your IHT link in that context.Mr. Billion 21:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After some month here I am back again. Mr. Billion, to say it short and simple. you do not deny the facts (because you cannot), you just look for different interpretations. For example the sun-herals article says WHEN Atta was in the Philippines ("visits from 1998 to 2000 "). So your lengthy explanation that Atta was not in Hamburg in 1995 and here and then is just irrelevant. We look at "visits from 1998 to 2000 ".

THIS WAS THE TIME OF SURVEILLANCE of the hamburg Marienstraße and telephone-observation. By CIA, by Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz and may be by other different secret services. Nobody told us that Atta was missing in that time.

It is not ebough to add a link. When the sun herals and the BJy in Florida and the Pentagons "Able Danger" group all together state that he was abroad - and the CIA, LFV and so on tell us he was in Hamburg well observed

then the conclusion is: miraculously he was in two places in the same time. You want to explain it - please feel free. As with the flaw explanation of the INS report.

Explain it, mr. Billion, but do not cut the facts out of the article. When the facts are contradictory it is not my fault and not yours. When you obviously accept that Atta was ween taking flight lessons on the Philippines it is an important part of the Atta article. Even if the Bush administration stomps with its feeet.~Analyse

There's a Tajik Warlord in Afghanistan also called Mohammed Atta. --(Anonymous)

Thanks. I'm glad you pointed that out. ~ Mr. Billion 18:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe the spelling used in most US government documents, as well as the media, is "Mohamed" with one "m". Google turns up a few thousand more hits for the two-m spelling, but a search on lexis-nexis turns up thousands more for the one-m spelling. I think that two m's are more common in American spellings of the name generally, thus blogs and such use the two-m spelling, whereas the more commonly recognized and accepted spelling is with one "m". (Of course, in Arabic the names are probably spelled the same, one "m" or two, but the more common English spelling in the mainstream media is more reasonable of a naming standard, I believe, than the more common spelling on google.) csloat 07:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Commodore Sloat raises a good point. I'll move this to Mohamed Atta al Sayed with one "m" unless a counterpoint is given in the next day or so. Mr. Billion 20:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All right, it's moved. Now an open task is to fix all those links to Mohammed Atta. Mr. Billion 07:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this sentence for the first time: "The elder Mr. Atta also claims to have received a telephone call from Mohamed on September 12th, after the air crashes of the 11th, and continued to hold in interviews with the German news magazine Bild am Sonntag in late 2002 that his son was alive, in hiding. [4]"

The link, however, is from 9/20/01, and of course does not speculate what the senior Mr. Atta would claim to German reporters in 2002. Nor does it mention any phone call Sept 12 but it does say he talked to his son on the 13th. Can anyone substantiate the 2002 claim? --csloat 09:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's from just a few hours ago, from 66.191.69.132. I guess I was far too trusting; I should have undone the entire edit, not just restored the replaced link. Mr. Billion 09:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked it up and it does check out, although it was sloppy editing. The anon did something similar but more flawed on the Osama bin Laden article. I've put in a Guardian link about Atta's father's 2002 claims. Mr. Billion 09:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it's this article using the term anti-american , or it's the anti-american article itself. But combined these two articles assume Mohamed Atta al Sayed's attitude towards the United States was not justified. Probably the anti-american page should be deleted or at least not linked to because an author of an article may use anti-american to merely mean against America (US), not all the special connotations described in the anti-american article.

Trying to track down the source of the statement that Al-Omari is beleived to have written the hijackers' instruction letter. Can't find it after running several Google searches.

Thanks. WFB

I've never heard that myself, don't remember reading it in the 9/11 commission, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. If you have a few minutes, download the pdf and search :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)}

Biggest need I see in this article, is to depracate the timeline, merging it into the actual information in the article. Agreed? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I concur. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

His pilot's vertificate need to be verified. He could not, as the article implies, have gotten his instrument certificate from the FAA and then gotten his license a month later. You must have a pilot's license before you can get an unstrument certificate. He either passed his writen test a month earlier or got his solo sign off, but could not have gotten his instrument license.

I can't help but feel there needs to be some kind of obvious distinction made between facts we know ("Atta used his credit card to buy a knife"), and facts reported by common citizens after the attacks ("6 librarians, 109 bar owners, 43 motorists and 7 strippers claim they saw a dark-skinned guy they claim was Atta..."). It get difficult because if you say "In November 2000, a motorist claimed Atta cut him off in traffic", it gives the impression that it was reported before there was a reason to report it...not in the week following 9/11 when thousands of people starting randomly 'remembering' meeting the hijackers...I know it makes a great story, but really, how many different strippers/prostitutes can honestly have slept with a terrorist ringleader the night before he died? 90% of them are lying or mistaken.

The problem is *how* can we differentiate between what is known, and what was reported by bystanders, former roommates, pedestrians and everyone else. I mean, we don't list that the media says a dozen witnesses say "It sounded like a missile" about the flight crashing into the White House, because that would fall under conspiracy theories...but we have no problem saying that a stripper says she remembers Atta's face from a crowd.

I could illustrate saying that we could use italics or something to differentiate (The two spent their last night pursuing ordinary activities: making an ATM withdrawal, a shared meal at Pizza Hut, and a 20-minute stop at Wal-Mart. In the morning of September 11, they drove to the Portland International Jetport...), but I can't help but think there must be a better way that doesn't disrupt WP policy on formatting. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 12:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think we'll have to have a lot of "According to. . ." phrasings in the article. Even the "italics" solution would run into a lot of gray area: The FBI has, in the past, stated things that turned out to be false, either because they were mistaken or because they wanted to give a false impression. In this sort of a controversial situation, anything that could reasonably contested will be, so it's best to qualify everything. Of course that may create some terrible prose.

Maybe the best solution is to use a ton of footnotes. On every potentially disputed statement, have a footnote with information on it about who claimed it. For items that almost certainly happened, the first footnote should say something like:

¹All information in this article that is not explicitly sourced comes from the 9/11 Commission Report, and is not contested by either the U.S. government or any major news source. The life of Mohammed Atta is so controversial, and many conspiracy theories exist; for this reason, nearly every statement about his life has been contested by various parties. See 9/11 conspiracy theories for more information.

Other items should be footnoted with information about who made the claim. Does this sound right to you? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have restored the date June 3, 2000 as the day Atta entered the US. I know the news on Able Danger may initially indicate otherwise, but the links of Atta to the New York cell does not necessarily indicate his physical presence in the US before that time. Atta was sending emails to the US before his arrival, this may have been the way Able Danger picked-up on him. His date of entry into the US is well supported and needs to stay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) .

The reason the additional timeline entry was removed, was because the information was already contained in the bulk of the article. We're trying to remove the timeline entries, replacing them with properly formatted sentences and paragraphs in the main article. :) But thank you for contributing, and please feel free to stick around and help! Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 13:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The timetable needs to be kept if not in this article then on a separate page. Atta's presence and travels in the past have been in dispute. A useful timetable would be helpful and should be restored. In the past there were erroneous reports he traveled to Germany and then to Prague after arriving in the US. By totally removing this resource you do a disservice to understanding Atta's movements while in America.

And we don't mean to do a disservice, but we are an encyclopaedia, not a timeline. (Most of the timetable is simply stolen from Bill St Clair, iirc). I don't see what the particular entry offers readers, that the Atta traveled to Prague, stayed overnight, and then entered the U.S. on June 3. that we already include in the article does not. But again, the intention is to depracate the timeline in this article. If you want to move it elsewhere however, be my guest. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your are wrong Sherurcij. I wrote the timeline and stole nothing. You can find my sources at the end of the timeline if you haven't already deleted it. I don't even know this person, Bill St Clair, is or anything he wrote. Atta's travel is important because there is still a controversy over his movements. Also there are conflicts that need to be resolved--not just the Able Danger controversy which will continue to develop.

I am wrong it appears, though I am also right. The timeline is hosted by Bill St. Clair, and written by Paul Thompson. You'll notice the "reference" at the bottom of Atta's timeline is The Terror Timeline, and if you read that article you'll see they say it is a reference to Paul Thompson's article on cooperativeresearch.org (Which is a great research site, though like Wikipedia, they have made their share of errors and misinterpretations, but is definitely appreciated). So yes, it is a timeline largely copied from another source, but no, Bill St Clair did not write it, he merely hosted it. But I'm glad to see you contribute, I would just appreciate if you could be steered into including the information in sentence-form, in the bulk of the article itself :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is much better when this information is incorporated into the article, instead of standing out as a separate timeline. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The lead image, Image:MAtta.JPG, which was released by the FBI and has been plastered all over the media for over four years now, is currently listed as having no source for its copyright information. If this is not corrected, it will be deleted on January 17. It looks like a passport or visa photo to me, and I'd assume such things would be public domain. Anyone have any more specific information on this? It seems kinda dumb to me that anyone at this point would be able to, let alone willing, to assert any proprietary rights over the image. Postdlf 23:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whoa, thanks for the heads-up. Because it was released by the FBI, I'm going to slap {{PD-USGov-FBI}} on it, which it what I've been doing with most of the images related to the topic.Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 00:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Because this is likely the hijacker article with the most eyes watching it, I'll ask here. Right now a handful of the 19 articles include External links - 9/11 Commission Report. I'd like to standardise them a bit more, either addign the same link to all pages, or removing it from the pages that do have it. Personally I'm in favour of removing it from the individual hijacker's pages, you? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 05:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone have any sources/explanation for the stripper-girlfriend narrative told on other less referenced sites. I recall the initial reports of Atta having a stripper gf and a coke habit. Has any news source followed up on this? Is there a reason why initial news reports are not used in this article?

There is a video interview with Amanda Keller[5], Atta's stripper girlfriend somewhere online.

It would be good to also include the evidence that Atta trained at US military bases\spy-schools. Anyone with the appropriate link citations, please provide them and lets update the narrative to include these aspects of Atta's life.

• She turned out to be a fraud.--81.83.221.158 21:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060910/NEWS/609100466/1007/BUSINESS

For what it's worth, Daniel Hopsicker doesn't believe Heather Allen's story, and he cites numerous sources for the claim that Atta and Keller lived together besides Keller herself. Hopsicker seems to think Keller was paid off or threatened to get her to change her story, and he notes ominously that the only source of info on the change is an FBI official who won't give his/her name. It's hard to sort out truth from fiction here; Keller was referred to in several reports after 9/11 (including in the herald trib) and Hopsicker's account is far more detailed than Allen's, but of course it is Allen's that has the backing of an actual newspaper. I've also watched the Keller interview and it is pretty detailed and elaborate (and apparently was cut from 3 or 4 hours of footage that Hopsicker has); it's hard to imagine why she would want to make all that stuff up.--csloat 22:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Personally, I think she was telling the truth about about the alleged hijacker Atta AKA whomever. I believe they got to her, finally.

I watched the video and got no indication that she was lying, no back-pedaling; proper flow and emotions convinced me.

The timeline needs to be cited. It's not exactly proven fact, but moreso speculation.

--Anon. 22:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, we're actually trying to gradually weed out the timeline altogether since it's not exactly encyclopedic, and instead just incorporate all its information into the paragraphs :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why this has been cited as a "good article." This would'nt pass muster in any real reference book. The excruciatingly long timeline is--well--excruciatingly long. He did this, he went here, he went there, ad nauseum, with little if any context about WHY and WHAT he was doing. There is no need for such an exhaustive attempt at detailing his every movement for months. A simple paragraph referencing the multiple, mysterious moves and meetings in enough, with a more detailed "timeline" starting only shortly before the attacks-- perhaps just August and early September.

Oh, and as for some of the "older comments" above about whether he should be referred to as a "suspected terrorist," about his weird suitcase contents, etc.-- give me a break! I thought most of the conspiracy theory types hung out at the main 9/11 page. The Truth Must Be Told, right?!!

This was listed as a "good article" before the timeline was added. By the way, you might want to consider creating an account and logging in. That way we can all have some sort of reference point in who we're talking to. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did Atta and bin Laden never meet face to face? Did they ever interact? Kingturtle 17:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's no evidence they ever did. However, if they did, there probably wouldn't be any evidence of it, so we'll never know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to this article, Atta made a martyrdom video in Afghanistan [6]. The tape also showed bin Laden, although Atta and bin Laden weren't in it together. I would assume, though, that if Atta was at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he would have met with bin Laden. just an assumption.

WP:MOS-AR does not say that all articles must be named in this manner. I believe the page should be called "Mohamed Atta" as that is the most commonly used transliteration of his name in English, which is what WP:NC(CN) seems to say we should do. Any thoughts on this?--csloat 10:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

WP:MOS-AR says "a name has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in English use the same transliteration" and "if there is no primary transliteration, a standard transliteration is used". The standard translation is "Muhammad `Ata as-Sayyid". The question is, is "Mohamed Atta" a primary translation?

Google is sometimes used as one way of determining how common a given transliteration is, as is the usage by various "authoritative" sources. Google gives the following number of hits for these transliterations:

• 679,000 for "Mohammed Atta" (WSJ, al-Jazeera, and Encarta use this spelling.)
• 448,000 for "Mohamed Atta" (FBI, NYTimes, CNN, & Washington Post use this spelling. He appears to have signed his name this way, and this spelling was on his passport and driver's license.)
• 196,000 for "Muhammad Atta" (CIA sometimes uses this spelling.)
• 94,600 for "Mohammad Atta" (CIA sometimes uses this spelling.)
• 30,400 for "Muhammed Atta"

Given this, I don't believe there is a primary transliteration, covering at least 75% of all references. WP:MOS-AR says we should use the standard transliteration for the article name in this case. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the 75% thing is a hard and fast rule. In this case there are two problems with the numbers: One is that there are several notable men named Muhammad Atta, and your google search does not account for who is who. Two is that google searches include duplicates and blogs; try a Lexis/Nexis search and include "hijacker" or something of the sort in your search to narrow it down. Three, most importantly, I think the fact that the FBI, the major news sources, and Atta himself used the spelling "Mohamed Atta" indicates that this should be the name of the article. Of course, the proper transliteration should be in the first sentence, but I think the name of the article should be the more commonly used spelling.--csloat 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

75% isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but it's our guideline. By the way, searching on both "Mohammed Atta" and "hijacker" gives 142,000 results, while "Mohamed Atta" and "hijacker" gives 154,000 -- slightly more, but still a very similar number. (When the word "terrorist" is prepended, the former has slightly more hits, but that may be because the sources most likely to spell his name as he spelled it are less likely to use the word "terrorist".)

I'm torn about this one, so I think I'll summarize the arguments for the two spellings below.

Just a comment, I think google numbers are not too helpful because there is so much repetition and blog info. Looking at lexis/nexis numbers is more difficult as anything over 1,000 hits gets an error. Narrowing the search to the past 2 years gives about twice as many hits for "Mohamed Atta" than "Mohammed Atta." (roughly 250 to 130).--csloat 23:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. This was the spelling Atta himself used when signing his name.
2. This is the spelling on all his official documents.
3. This spelling is used by the FBI, the NY Times, CNN, & the Washington Post.
4. It is the most common spelling on Google (when the word "hijacker" is searched along with the name.)
5. Although the name "Mohamed" is spelled in various ways, nearly every source spells his last name "Atta", and not "Ata" or "`Ata"
6. The name "Muhammad `Ata as-Sayyid" would not be as recognizable to most English speakers as "Mohamed Atta" would.
7. All of Atta's fame occurred in the U.S., where his name was spelled with Roman letters - therefore the Roman spelling of his name is more important than the Arabic spelling.
8. This spelling predominates when searching using Lexis/Nexus.

1. Since no single spelling for Muhammad `Ata is used 75% of the time, or even 50% of the time, the guideline recommends that we use the "standard transliteration".
2. "Muhammad `Ata as-Sayyid" is more phonetically accurate. In particular, "`Ata" begins with a consonant that sound somewhere between a gutteral G and an NG, represented by "`", and does not start with an "A" sound.
3. "Mohamed Atta" is not even the most common transliteration (when searched on Google for the name alone).
4. Neither the CIA, the Wall Street Journal, al-Jazeera, nor Encarta, commonly use "Mohamed Atta".

• Undecided. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Mohamed Atta, IMHO. -csloat 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Mohamed Atta, primarily because he self-identified with that spelling. Cuñado   - Talk 01:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Regarding `Ata point 4:
  • (question - what spelling do they use?)--csloat 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Answered near the top of the Name Change section. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Regarding `Ata point 3:
  • (comment - this search captures other men named Mohammed Atta, which we know there were a few; it captures repeated entries; and also captures blogs and other nonnotable sources. A Lexis/Nexis search finds about twice as many for "Mohamed Atta" than "Mohammed Atta").-csloat 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • All searches will count other people, and will count mirrors and duplicates. So far as I can tell, "Mohamed Atta" and "Mohammed Atta" are about as common on the web. The first get slightly more hits if you search on the names+"hijacker". The second get slightly more hits if you search on the name alone, the name+"terrorist", the name+"9/11", or the name+"World Trade Center". But the counts are close with any search. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I support using the spelling that the individual self-identified with. Does anyone support this idea as a clause for the MOS? I think the MOS has been most helpful with people who never used the roman alphabet, like early Muslims. Cuñado   - Talk 01:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't there be a reference in this article to the martydom video that was released not too long ago? How about a still photo from the video be put in the article. I'm new to wikipedia and am not sure how to download photos, but I'll try. Jbbrewer 23:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

ok, i went ahead and added it. Jbbrewer 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nice job! The paragraph you added is excellent. I only have one quibble: you used the word "uneditied" to describe the tape, and I'm not sure we know that. Is there a specific reason to think the tape is unedited? If not, I'd recommending removing that word. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Sunday Times article states "The high quality, unedited film shows Bin Laden addressing his followers at the mud-walled complex near Kandahar." So the bin Laden part of the tape is apparently unedited, but I'm not sure if this also means the Atta message is unedited as well. What do you think?Jbbrewer 13:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what that means in this context. The tape is obviously edited since it shows bin laden and atta at two different places and times. And how would the sunday times know if there was more to the tape that was cut out? Presumably they did not have a reporter on the scene.... I guess what they're saying is bin laden's entire speech appears to be on the tape, that there are no obvious cuts. I'm not sure what is gained with that word.--csloat 20:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm guessing it means "The U.S and U.K. governments did not edit the tape." It could also mean the tape did not appear to be professionally (or even intentionally) edited. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reliable witness out there that has identified the people shown on the video, the location of the video and the time the recording was made? What were the people on the video saying? Did anyone recognize their voice? --Sannleikur (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the statement "This 'stolen' passport, was found two blocks from the WTC towers after the 9/11 attacks." In the 'National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States' hearings of January 26th, the opening staff statement includes the statement,

Beginning with passports. Four of the hijackers passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston on to the connecting flight which was American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Abdul Aziz al Omari.

Atta is not mentioned here. - Crosbiesmith 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

why does loose change say that he is still alive

Because loose change is wrong.

can anyone give any of the sources for the claims of the supposed survival of nearly all the hijackers and 9-11 terrorists....I know loose change asserts that many that are said to be dead are in fact alive but do they cite any sources...I guess i should probably check out "screw loose change" as well just to be balanced.

Loose Change is not a primary source and should not be used. --Sannleikur (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Most 9/11 consipracists (the same people who believe that the Bush adminisration is behind 9/11 and that a missle hit the Pentagon), believe that all of the 19 hijackers (including Atta) never existed and are fabrications by the US government. Should we put the possiblity of that here in the article too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.176.176 (talk)

No. csloat 01:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is ample evidence that Atta existed: Interviews with his father, with his former friends in Germany, with people in Florida, etc. The two main quesstions which are not yet fully settled are the following: (1) Were they in fact two Atta's? This question may seem ludicrous, but according to various reports, Atta was seen at two locations at the same time. So, whoever orchestrated the crime of 9/11 may have used doubles. (2) Did Atta board Flight AA11? This is a simple forensic question that must be answered on the base of hard evidence. In other words: Is there any hard evidence that the person named as Mohammed Atta (and whose photograph appears on the FBI website) boarded Flight AA11 at Logan Airport on 9/11? I have not found any such evidence. Perhaps there is, but I have not seen it. I think that by today (2008), the US government should have produced this evidence, for example a stub of his boarding card or a testimony of one of the airline personnel who saw him board the plane, or the identification of his DNA from the crash site. Yet these have not been produced. --Sannleikur (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Halfway down the article, it is said his bags didn't make the transfer to flight 11 because the flight was delayed from Portland, yet in the timeline callout, it specifically states that he arrived on time from Portland. Which is it? And I second the callout about the instrument rating. The timeline laid out is impossible to achieve.

  In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of September 26, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Ruslik 08:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The reasons for delisting:

1) The article makes a lot of claims about various facts, but many of these claims are not supported by inline references;

2) The lead is unsatisfactory. Here I agree with an editor, who placed {{introrewrite}} tag there;

3) The format of references is not consistent. Some of them use <ref></ref>, while others are direct web links. I think that all web links must be converted into inline refs and put into the reflist;

4) The timeline should be moved into a separate article, because it violates Wikipedia:Embedded_list;

5) Many references and external sources are dead or no longer available. This should be fixed;

6) The external sources should be converted into inline refs and used where appropriate, as I said in p.3) above.

Ruslik 08:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Rusklik that the article makes many factual claims which are not supported by inline references. But in this case, the mere addition of references is not sufficient. Such references must be reliable and attributed to specific authors. References to unnamed officials and the like should be avoided. The issue deals with an unsolved mass murder and requires great circumspection in the use of sources. --Sannleikur (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't misunderstand. Atta killed people. He hijacked the plane.

However, some hijackers articles state that "...was named as a hijacker" or possibly mentions alleged hijacker. These legal distinctions are very important for the living. However, I think they apply to the dead, too.

I'm bringing this up only because WP may be becoming a reference source for millions of people. This requires a quality product, not just something anyone just slaps together in their garage.

This is a valid point or should we continue to state that he is the hijacker? Mrs.EasterBunny 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Terms such as TERRORIST or HIJACKER should be avoided altogether. As an example, a person is convicted for having committed murder, not for BEING a murderer. A person not convicted by a court is deemed innocent. Allegations have been made regarding Mohammed Atta by the US government. These have not been proved. His name does not appear on any authentic passenger list. No one has seen him board Flight AA11. His bodily remains have not been identified from the crash site. We must therefore stick to "alleged" or "accused". Elias 18:27, 17 January 2008

Can we at least say that Flight 11 hit the WTC, instead of allegedly hit the WTC? 69.134.222.156 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

While many people truly believe that Flight 11 hit the WTC, the US authorities have never provided hard evidence proving that the aircraft which hit the WTC was actully Flight 11. Such evidence could have been serial numbers of plane parts etc. but none has been unfortunately produced. It is not known either onto which aircraft the passengers and crew boarded because the US authorities have neither produced testimony from ground personnel nor CCTV recordings documenting the boarding process. Finally, it was reported in the press that Flight AA11 left from gate 26, contrary to tradition (it normally left from gate 32). No explanation was given for this change. The evenets of 9/11 were a mass murder. Details presented in an encyclopedia must be meticulous, sourced and verifiable. --Sannleikur (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Produce reliable sources supporting this interpretation if you wish to change the article. --Haemo (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

As someone who has frequently opposed slavish devotion to WP:TERRORIST in terrorism-related articles, and as someone who has no doubt that 9/11 was a terrorist act, I'm not comfortable with the wording of the lede sentence. Perhaps something along the lines of "Mohamed Atta, a known associate of al-Qaeda, was the leader of the nineteen hijackers who perpetrated the September 11, 2001 attacks. He personally participated in the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11..." This formulation makes no controversial statements (to any but the most die-hard truthers), and leaves the audience to determine for itself whether or not his actions constitute terrorism. Thoughts? Dchall1 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, there's a bit too much "TERRORIST!!" in the lead for me at the moment. I like your revision better. --Haemo (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I find it difficult to believe that you are bona fide contributors to Wikipedia because of your persistence to rely on government propaganda. Some of you have repeatedly reverted my changes without explaining the reasons why my changes could not stand. Does any of you claim that amendments are untruthful? I ask those who did so why do you insist in including controversial statements in the Article if we can agree on the basic facts? Is the proper method of working in Wikipedia to bully an editor and destroy what he has done? --Sannleikur (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

See the above. It explains it clearly enough — statements of fact need to be sourced to reliable sources. If you are going to insert the interpretation that he was not responsible, then you need to provide some sources which meet our guidelines. I don't appreciate being called "not a contributor" to Wikipedia, when my editorial record stands on its own — please assume good faith and be civil. --Haemo (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Seconds after first plane.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply