Atta's Visa, Passport and an E-mail

Atta's full name is Mohamed Mohamed el-Amir Awad el-Sayed Atta. That's what was on his passport and if you look carefully on his U.S.  visa issued in May of 2000.  The name he went by before that--the name he used for example  on  email--is Mohamed el-Amir.  Atta didn't go by "Mohamed Atta" until the late spring of 2000, after Able Danger supposedly ID'd him.

UPDATE: Here's the flight manifest from the trip Atta took to Pakitan in November 1999 and his return to Hamburg in February of 2000. On both legs of the flight, the records identify him simply as Mohamed al-Amir.

The documents come courtesy of Terry McDermott, the LAT reporter who wrote the 9/11 hijackers history Perfect Soldiers. McDermott wrote me earlier tonight that "Atta used Mohamed el-Amir in Germany and Egypt almost exclusively. Even his residence papers and school enrollment forms in Germany used ‘Amir.’ If someone id'd him as Atta in the US before march [2000] it seems to contradict all the documentation. Even his father didn't go by the name  'Atta.' In fact, the  first month I was in Cairo, I couldn't find anything about Atta because I was looking for 'Atta.' ”

P.S. Maybe the Able Danger crew was savvy to all this. Somehow, given the Pentagon's inability to find confirming documents, I doubt it.

By the way, forgetting about names for a moment, the email in particular is just fascinating.

Note: I've edited this post, adding Atta's full name and his passport.

Comments

[rabbitsnake]

good catch, but what's with the Word attachment? Not everyone uses Word out on the internets.

[Rafe]

They're just bad scans anyway -- may as well post them as images rather than embedding them in Word docs.

[Certaldo]

But the name Atta does appear on the scanned visa.

"Mohamed Mohamed Elamir" is indeed written under "Given Name." If you look at the line above, however, you'll see the word "Atta" (possibly under the heading "Surname"?).

Also, the name Atta shows up in the string of code at the bottom of the page.

[Certaldo]

Just want to make sure no one gets too far out on this evidence -- specifically, the visa.

Just look at this clear copy of a U.S. visa:

http://www.isso.cornell.edu/immigration/visas/visastamp.html

The second line -- where the name "Atta" appears on the scanned image -- is the "surname."

So I don't understand how this piece of evidence proves that Able Danger couldn't have ID'ed him as Atta before May 2000. He clearly identifies himself as "Mohammed Mohammed Elamir Atta" on the visa in question.

[Anodyne]

This may be a moot point based on Certaldo's comment but I'm not sure I understand what the origninal issue was. Even if he didn't refer to himself as Atta back in 2000, "Atta" appears to be the short hand name people use for him today. Isn't this analgous to Howard Cosell using the name Muhammad Ali in 1970 to refer to a boxer he once covered under the name Cassius Clay in 1965?

Is there something one of the AD guys is quoted as having said about the name that McDermott sees as a direct contradiction?

[Kathy Heckman]

I have been writing about secret thought reading technology in use by the FBI and military (based on Dr. Begich's book "Angels Don't Play this HAARP") since 1994. The military could launder info gained from this technology by attributing it's source to data mining such as was employed by the Able Danger unit. And I notice in your article 'Weldon's Able Danger Now Has a Voice' that Tony Shaffer refers to acquiring information via 'neural networking'. It could be this technology.

It would also explain why the military did not share their information with the F.B.I. I believe there has been alot of concern regarding the domestic use of this technology, the lack of disclosure in trials, and the victimization of people like myself. I think that the military has deliberately distanced themselves from their use of this technology having any impact domestically. In the end, when this technology is exposed, it could be outlawed domestically, but still have a viable use for military operations outside of the U.S.

Kathleen T. Heckman

echoes44442002@yahoo.com

[certaldo]

The underlying issue is that Weldon claims to have seen a chart produced by AD in January-February 2000 that included Mohammed Atta's name. By contrast, the Pentagon has now publicly stated that they possess no evidence that the unit identified the hijacker. As Kevin Drum recently wrote, somebody is lying.

If the visa posted above had identified him as simply Mohammed Mohammed Elamir, then it would support the argument that Weldon, et al, are full of it. Unfortunately, the visa appears to identify him as Mohammed Mohammed Elamir Atta. So I'm not quite sure why we're even talking about it.

The more compelling evidence, highlighted by Kaus (http://www.slate.com/id/2124863/),
is that, while AD might have identified a Mohammed Atta, it's possible that it wasn't the same Atta that took part in the 9/11 attacks.

As Kevin Drum recently wrote, somebody is lying.

If the visa posted above had identified him as simply Mohammed Mohammed Elamir, then it would support the argument that Weldon, et al, are full of it. Unfortunately, the visa appears to identify him as Mohammed Mohammed Elamir Atta. So I'm not quite sure why we're even talking about it.

It is not a question of lying it is a question of everyone in the blogsphere using this to prove a political point and screwing themselves up...Especially Drum and Rozen.

Your comment that it is "unfortuante" that the visa "supports Weldon" is telling.

Weldon may be a jackass, but he is perfectly correct so far on this despite the mass of disinformation on the blogsphere. don't jump the gun and sacrifice truth. understanding 9/11 and the profound failures of BOTH the Bush and Clinton administrations is the issue that needs to be look at thoughtfully and without bias.

[AJStrata]

Well, it is possible Mohamed Atta went by Mohamed el-Amir since that IS the name his father goes by. So all these marginal issues about his visa and passport (not one in the same) are interesting but do not mean it is not possible.

Eric, check out this weirdness

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/565

[Jeb Simons]

I'm not sure what the hold-up is... maybe they have re-thought their stance on how this is going to actually make the company any money. Or perhaps their lawyers pointed out the liability of providing agents a platform to stick their feet in their mouth. Whatever it is, it's hardly something I'd claim as being "Well done".
www.jebshouse.com

[Anal Squirting Movie]

hm... amazing :)

[FribialArie]

Wow - very cool issue. I'm going to write about it as well!