Monday, November 17, 2003

The Gaudy Cross

From Daniel Hopsicker's article dated April 8, regarding the statements of a waitress in a restaurant in Venice, Florida who saw an argument between Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi:

"Just six weeks before they are incinerated along with thousands of their victims after they apparently murderously wrenched control of their planes from their pilots and steered them into the World Trade Center Towers, Atta and his young sidekick Marwan were arguing so loudly in a Gulf-front restaurant that their waitress alerted the restaurant's manager.

'Right after (Sept 11th) we had newspapers come down, and immediately we knew what it was about, because I remembered the table, and so did Tom,' says Renee Adorna.

'And when they showed us their pictures, I immediately recognized them, because they’d caused a scene in our restaurant.'"


"What Atta and Marwan were arguing about offers clues to what was going through their heads, and strangely, although the terrorist pilots have been universally labeled 'Islamic fundamentalists,' what they were pounding the table over wasn't an argument about fine points in the Koran . . .

They were arguing about money.

'The big guy was pounding his fist on the table, saying 'We're talking $200,000! We've got to answer to the Family!'' recalls Renee Adorna, who with her husband Tom own and manage the restaurant.

'I thought they were Mafia, and tried to stay away from their table.'

'There were three of them, and they all looked of the Egyptian persuasion,' she continued. 'Dark skin, dark hair. They were dressed in Florida-type shirts, you know, the silk with the pattern. And they were all wearing lots of jewelry . . . Lots of jewelry.'

'And I could have sworn that the one guy was wearing a cross, you know, the big gaudy gold cross on the chest. But I’m not sure now. But I know he had a big watch on,' Renee says."

Compare this with the latest debunking article in Der Spiegel, referring to the July 2001 terrorist meeting in Tarragona, Spain:

"At the end of the conversation, Atta wanted to know whether Binalshibh had remembered the jewelry. Atta had asked his co-conspirator to bring him all kinds of flashy jewelry. It was a precautionary measure to prevent him from being detected shortly before reaching his objective. Atta believed that his reentry into the United States would be far less conspicuous if he were disguised as a wealthy Arab."

Of course, this is rather obvious nonsense. Atta had passed through American customs before, and wearing a bunch of gaudy jewelry, particularly if trying to pass as a student, wouldn't help. Atta didn't need to bother Binalshibh to get some flashy jewelry. He could pick up what he needed along the beach in Florida for a few dollars (or he could have got some in Spain before his trip back). So why does Der Spiegel publish this nonsense? Someone read Hopsicker's article and realized that the gaudy jewelry is a big problem for the conspiracy. If Atta and Al-Shehhi were wearing such jewelry, including a cross, they were obviously not Islamic fundamentalists. The jewelry is important. Therefore, the cover-up artistes had to concoct a story to explain the jewelry. Since we never get to see either Binalshibh or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, tales of what their reputed torture-testimony is supposed to say can be used for any purpose of the conspiracy. In this case, the Binalshibh-as-jeweller story is supposed to explain how Atta got flashy jewelry to wear on his return (but doesn't really explain why he continued to wear it). This is helpful to us, as it proves that they are very sensitive about the real identity of Atta and Al-Shehhi as betrayed by the jewelry. A cross is consistent with Catholic Bavaria rather than Protestant Hamburg.