Talk:Waleed al-Shehri

One Waleed or two?

This 2 Waleed conspiracy theory is false. BBC reported Waleed Al-Shehri was alive on Sept. 23, 2001. The BBC article includes a picture of Waleed see link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

On Sept. 27, 2001 (4 days later) the FBI released the same picture of Waleed Al-Shehri and said he was one of the 911 hijackers. Exact same picture see link: http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa11/11.htm

This 2 Waleed conspiracy theory was invented after the fact.

---

Hey rmhermen, it's Quadell. Thanks for the changes again; you've added a lot of good info. But there's an inaccuracy, I think, in one change you made, and it's a big one. You took out all caveats about Waleed possibly being alive. In particular, about the LA Times link, you said:

He was not the same individual as the hijacker who came from an impoverished border region of Saudi Arabia and had never finished college or attended flight school.

The trouble is, here's what the BBC says about the living Waleed al-Shehri:

His photograph was released. . . He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

The man whose picture is on this article, the man named Waleed al-Shehri, who lived in the U.S. and trained to fly planes in Daytona, who has a brother named Wail M. al-Shehri -- that man is alive. (Obviously, that man wasn't on Flight 11.) The picture, and some of the details (e.g. flight school, possibly the name), do not refer to the hijacker.

So it's very confusing. If we had the airport security photos it would help clear things up. Anyway, certainly the article needs to be accurate about all this. I'd like to work with you to iron it out.

Quadell (talk) 23:02, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I did spot a problem where some of the life history of the second Waleed was claimed as the hijackers. I think I have correct it. Such initial confusion about details of the hijackers and even misidentification of some of them was common. We just didn't notice and update these facts.

I don't beleive any of the next three paragraphs is currently beleived to be true or at least not in reference to the hijacker.

Al-Shehri was living in Florida since 1995 at the latest. He trained at Daytona Beach flight school, in Daytona Beach, and received his pilot's license in 1997. Some sources claim he lived with fellow-hijacker Ahmed al-Ghamdi during this time.

[1] - (couldn't tell what this refered to unless it is the Washington Post article commented on below) [2] -(very early source which claims Waleed was using the alias Wail which is actually his brother's name) [3]

In 1999, al-Shehri and al-Ghamdi rented a house in Vienna, Virginia, just three blocks from a local CIA headquarters. Many of their neighbors called the CIA several times that year to report suspicious activity, but this was never acted on. The CIA is required to notify the FBI of this sort of domestic information, but this also was apparently not done.

[4] [5] [6] [7]

Some sources report that al-Shehri "at times" stayed at lead hijacker Mohammed Atta's apartment in Hamburg, Germany at some period 1998 and 2001.[8] (this source confuses three different people's detail as Waleed and has mistakes on other hijackers details as well.)

In many countries it is common for families to reuse names. I am would not be surprised to find dozens of men named Waleed al-Shehri. That doesn't mean that the hijacker wasn't also named that. From the third link in the section on the other Waleed

Washington Post (September 25, 2001)[9] - "Among the alleged hijackers whose origins seem to be clear are:...Wael and Waleed M. Alshehri, brothers who were aboard American Airlines Flight 11, the plane that hit the World Trade Center's North Tower...The brothers' pictures matched those released by the FBI, the Arab News reported. Their father, Mohammed Ali Asgley Al Shehri, a businessman, told Al Watan that his son Wael, 25, had psychological problems and had gone to Medina in December with his brother Waleed, 21, to seek help from religious officials for this problem. He said that they did not return from the trip and that he had not heard from them since...The paper cited sources close to the family as saying that both men had become very religious before disappearing and had spoken of joining Muslim fighters in Chechnya. The sources said the brothers spoke limited English. Previous reports that Waleed Alshehri was the son of a Saudi diplomat have been denied."

What is the source of the second picture you added? Are you claiming that it is a second photo of the hijacker or a photo of a second Waleed? I have not seen any picture of this non-hijacker Waleed. Is there any reason to beleive that his is the picture released by the FBI? If the FBI picture really was the living Waleed I would expect some media to have shown the two pictures together so we all could see the mistake. Is there such an article? Didn't the FBI pictures come from passports and so it would have been difficult to get into the country using someone else's picture. I haven't seen any claim that the living Waleed has brother Wail, could you point me in the direction of one? Just because someone cliam that they are the one the FBI is refering to, doesn't mean they are correct. If someone with my name committed a crime and received publicity, I might find initially beleive that it refered to me but that doesn't mean that there isn't a different person with my name and a different life history out there. Rmhermen 19:41, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

My source for the second picture is here, at the Center for Cooperative Research. Unfortunately, they don't credit the pic. They simply say the pic is of Waleed al-Shehri. (It looks like the same person to me.) It seems to have been taken before the attack.

I haven't seen a picture of the non-hijacker Waleed since the attacks, and I really wish I had one. That would clear this up.

I don't know if the famous pic, the one we have, is of the living or the dead Waleed. (The FBI released the pics early on, when much of the info they gave about "Waleed" was about the non-hijacker. So it's plausible that they got the photo wrong too.) I don't think the FBI said where the pictures came from, but they look like ID photos, which would strongly indicate the pic is of the hijacker.

But the BBC article seems say that the living Waleed was the guy in the pic. But they could be mistaken about that. Read the article and see what you think.

(I think that this administration's over-reliance on secrecy is just fanning the conspiracy flames. But that's just my opinion.) Quadell (talk) 14:33, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

That last is certainly not your oponion alone. I wish that they would address these issues more clearly. I think the FBI-released photos are supposed to have come from visa applications. Could that be correct? Ready other material it appears that at least two different families initially claimed that the photo was of their son. Rmhermen 16:28, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Many conspiracy sites claim that some hijackers are still alive. Please note these articles

This has been refuted by many sources. For example the ABC story states that there is another Ahmed Alnami who is ten years younger, and appears to be dead, according to his father. [ABC News, 3/15/02] There is a second pair of Saudi brothers named Wail and Waleed M. Their father says they've been missing since December 2000. [ABC News, 3/15/02, Arab News, 9/17/01]

During the Dateline NBC Aug 25 article: They had an exclusive interview with brother of two hijackers Wail al Shahiri, and Waleed al Shahiri. NBC went to Saudi Arabia.

Also see this article regarding the BBC's incorrect information http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html

The BBC (amd other reports) were based on articles in Arab newspapers, such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper. Managing Editor John Bradley stated that the "reporters did not speak directly with the "survivors," and that the photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving terrorists. Another reporter where these stories originated (Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reporter named Mohammed Samman), confirms this. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Organizers_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks"

The Der Spiegel article attempts to discredit the BBC report but fails to do so. Read it carefully. The Editor John Bradley has no association with BBC. He works for Arab News an English language Saudi paper. In the Der Spiegel article they admit Arab News "did not speak directly with the so-called "survivors," ". This Der Spiegel report is HIGHLY SUSPECT to say the least. Der Spiegel tries to imply BBC simply relied on Arab papers for their information without ever verifying the claims. This is refuted by the Telegraph article, when they reported the same thing as the BBC as well as saying they interviewed the accused hijackers.

"The Telegraph obtained the first interviews with the men since they learnt that they were on the FBI's list of hijackers who died in the crashes" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

The Telegraph confirms the BBC report as well as exposing Der Spiegel.

Omomastic absurdity

I'm a contributor to the Italian version of Wikipedia. I read in this lemma: «Furthermore another article explains that the pilot who lives in Casablanca was named Walid al-Shri (not Waleed M. al-Shehri)...». The problem is that in the Arab onomatology it's highly improbable (if not impossible) the existence of the name "al-Shri". The font was Spiegel Online. Probably our German friends too ignore the Arab rules about the names. Thanks. --Cloj (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Waleed al-Shehri

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Waleed al-Shehri's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "timeline":

• From Mohamed Atta: Federal Bureau of Investigation (February 4, 2008). "Hijackers' Timeline" (PDF). 9/11 Myths. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
• From Wail al-Shehri: Federal Bureau of Investigation (2008-02-04). "Hijackers' Timeline" (PDF). 9/11 Myths. Retrieved 2008-08-01.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty?

' Alleged militants in the War on Terror who have lived in the United States '

If al-Shehri is merely alleged, then surely he shouldn't be described as '...one of five hijackers...' ? Beingsshepherd (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

No, this is a quibble often attempted to water down statements about deceased perpetrators who will never face trail on account of being deceased: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article sections on Adam Lanza, for example, are consistent targets for conspiracy theorists who insist that the Sandy Hook massacre was a put-up job. When investigations conclude that someone was guilty, but will not be charged because they died during or after the perpetration of their crime, there is no requirements for "alleged." Additionally, reliable sources don't make such a distinction (you don't see "alleged" used in the New York Times in such circumstances when discussing the 9/11 participants). Acroterion (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

But we do see 'alleged' feature, in this very (inconsistent) article.

Ignorance is Strength Beingsshepherd (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Waleed al-Shehri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/driving_a_wedge/part1_side.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.miami.com/herald/special/news/worldtrade/digdocs/046328.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012013300/http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/FBI911Timeline.pdf to http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/FBI911Timeline.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-worldtrade-suspectprofiles.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_092701_njconnection.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=9424&ArY=2001&ArM=9&ArD=17
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100807204647/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Waleed al-Shehri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707175116/http://space.crono911.net/EBook/086_ArabNews_20092001.pdf to http://space.crono911.net/EBook/086_ArabNews_20092001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Waleed al-Shehri.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)