What I attack is procedure. Your research into the matter is lacking.

Your "new" data is over a year old, and was fresh to the scene, with no following. There are no other entries for al-Suqami’s supposedly-found passport since, but bags of harpers all over Atta's supposedly-found passport. The only logical conclusion I can see is that the two are likely one in the same, and were confused at the initial finding. The passport was not necessarily translated to English in a readily, accurate manner, but eventually was.

The other sites you lists were clearly crackpot sites. They list malleable data, with info that changes with the whim of the site owner, or worse at the whim of whoever surfs into the site. This information is worthy only of like-data I might glean from a wall covered in graffiti.

The sources I provided on Atta's stolen passport - including the Movement and What Really Happened? both include sources and footnotes to document the assertions made in the two articles about the passport in question.

Neither of which were complete, in that the sites remain fallible. And as I pointed out (did you read that far?), “presumably this is speculation” is the height of conspiracy crackpotism.

All I need are facts compiled via proper research from reputable (i.e., secure, bonded) sites. I will grant that merely because information is not readily available does not mean the information does not exist, but I will not accept absence of data = proof of no data. That is ridiculous, yet that is what is stated in your sites. Which by itself is odd, since the main thrust of the conspirators is the fact that they tout lacking data as proof that data exists and is therefore hidden.

I have better things to do with my time that chase myself around the internet.

The world is becoming entirely too lazy, myself included. Subjects as important as WMD, WTC, Pentagon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and Palestine should not be resigned to the 2D atmosphere of a freely accessible internet. True research is conducted by people in the field, people who are ethically unbiased regarding the research material, and who are willing to take on the challenge of the legwork required -- and are genuinely up to the task.

A good example of such a site would be many of the astronomy pages, such as Dr. Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy, and Dr. Bill Arnett’s The Nine Planets.

Bear in mind, the research page that holds the founder’s résumé would be nice -- provided said résumé does not claim “conspiracy theorist” as a noted achievement, whether the claim is found in plain English or not.

The armchair researcher (myself included, as I do hold a fulltime day job) who chooses to depend merely upon whatever pops up on the screen is not a researcher at all, but rather a conspiracy parrot. It is required that the sources be validated. Yours were not.

Cheers,
Dan