A Tale of Two 9/11 Meetings - The Pakistani ISI and How The Hijacker's Plans Were Hijacked - Part 1

While this may offend some, it is very possible that the 19 hijackers did exist and were trained by CIA agent Osama Bin Laden thereby leaving a trail of breadcrumbs for investigators after the attacks. These hijackers could have essentially been "hijacked" by the real perpetrators.


Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 09:12 PM, - Posted by valis (21 Reads)

Two seperate, but equally important meetings that took place, regarding the preparations for 9/11, just might have more in common than we think. One is a "three-day secret terror conference" which was "monitored by the Malaysian secret police at the CIA's request". The other is a series of meetings in Pakistan between August 28-30, 2001, which were attended by Sen. Bob Graham (D), Rep. Porter Goss (Now CIA head) and Sen. John Kyl (R).

Graham, Kyl, and Goss (pictured above) were meeting with then-ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed in Washington at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

The FBI confirmed that Mahmood Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to wired $100,000 to 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta.

So what do these two meetings have in common?

It has been suggested that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the Malaysia terror meeting chair, has connections to Pakistani gangsters and ties to the ISI.

There are still plenty of questions remaining as to whether Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured, (as claimed by the US), killed, or still running around. There is reason to believe that he is holed up in Pakistan, protected by the ISI, maybe to resurface soon as the head of a subsidiary of a prominent business consortium like Mahmood Ahmed.

It would appear that Meeting One was where the initial plans were born, while Meeting Two was where a second set of plans were drawn up to piggy-back an operation on top of the plans from Meeting One.

More info to come...

great work on all this

great work on all this stuff, somebigguy

Thanks bb!!!

Thanks bb!!!

Thanx for the link. This is

Thanx for the link. This is really just an intro for Part 2.

The blog entry included,

The blog entry included, "These hijackers could have essentially been "hijacked" by the real perpetrators."

So, even when we know that "these hijackers" were not really "the hijackers", we still mislabel them as hijackers?

Good misdirection, that.

But since we already know that "airplanes" cannot be blamed for the collapses of the towers, why do some of us still insist upon shining the spotlight on Mohammed Atta et al?