It was all a coincidence? Using Occam's Razor to prove 9/11 truth

It was all a coincidence – Using occam’s razor to prove 9/11 truth.

There are really only two theories regarding the events on 9/11. That there was no complicity outside of al queda or there was complicity outside of al queda. Members of the 9/11 truth community ascribe that there was complicity outside of al queda. There was intelligence agency involvement. How much of that involvement belonged to Pakistani ISI, the CIA, Mossad, Saudi intelligence, British intelligence, the FBI, we can go round and round about (and we do). But the bottom line is that there was some intelligence agency involvement. The second area of complicity is U.S. government officials being involved in some fashion. Whether that was in blocking other officials from stopping the attacks, helping to coordinate the attacks, aiding in setting up the conditions which allowed the attack to be successful (i.e. war games and drills) or other scenarios is something that can’t be concretely determined at this time without further investigation.

I believe that most people intuitively understood there must have been some state intelligence agency involved, which is why the administration was so successful, (and still successful with over a quarter of the people in the U.S.) in tying Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. The American people understood that an operation of this scope took some kind of intelligence agency involvement. Although facts point to the agencies mentioned above, when all the administration offered was Iraqi intelligence (something Dick Cheney endlessly proclaimed) many Americans swallowed it hook line and sinker because they knew someone else was involved besides the ragtag group we attacked in the mountains of Afghanistan.

If you ascribe to the theory there was no complicity in the 9/11 attacks outside of al queda that led to their success, you are left with a mountain of coincidences.

It was a coincidence that Norman Mineta testified to the 9/11 commission of VP Dick Cheney’s conversation with a staffer in the East Wing bunker that morning describing an order that ‘still stands’ as the plane approached the pentagon, yet VP Dick Cheney who spoke behind closed doors to members of the 9/11 commission contends he wasn’t even there.

It was a coincidence that policy makers such as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) were calling in 2000 for foreign policy changes that would never be undertaken without a new ‘Pearl Harbor’ event, and then once they were in power in 2001 that event occurs.

It was a coincidence that members of the FBI, CIA, and Israeli intelligence were set up near several of the 9/11 hijackers.

It was a coincidence that $100,000 was ordered to be sent to the lead hijacker, Atta, by the head of Pakistani’s intelligence service, ISI, in the weeks leading up to the attack. (and this same individual was meeting with top ranking U.S. officials during the week of the attack).
It was a coincidence that World Trade Center 7, a steel-framed skyscraper, fell due to only fire and damage from the debris of the towers, in the exact same manner of global collapse, near free fall time, and symmetrical as it would have been destroyed in a controlled demolition.

It was a coincidence that Al Queda selected to attack the same day that there were numerous drills involving the USAF, drills that even involved hijacking, thus giving al queda the exact conditions necessary for the method of attack. Some drills caused fighters to be deployed that day to Canada, some off the eastern seaboard, and then other drills involved hijacking which helped lead to confusion between operators at NORAD and NEADS and FAA.

It was a coincidence that just the day before Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced $2.3 trillion that couldn’t be accounted for from the Defense Department over a number of years.

It was a coincidence that the administration didn’t press to capture Osama bin Laden in winter of 2001, and allowed al queda leadership to escape from Tora Bora by a caravan of aircraft.

It was a coincidence that the secret service failed to move Bush that morning immediately as it because clear that the U.S. was under attack, even though they would have no idea if al queda had targeted the president, whose announced location had been known.

It was a coincidence that in the months prior to 9/11, the U.S. government had already warned other nations that it may take on the Taliban in 2001 because of disputes over a proposed oil/gas pipeline.

It was a coincidence that people seen ‘dancing’ and recording the event were part of an admitted Israeli spy ring.

It was a coincidence that stock options were put on American and United Airlines in the days before the attack which benefited the still unknown individuals financially.

It was a coincidence that several of the supposed planners of the attacks were intelligence assets in the past, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ali Mohammed.

It was a coincidence that Hani Hanjour, who had trouble piloting a Cessna 172, was able to pull off and incredible maneuver in making a direct hit on the face of the 5 story high Pentagon in an airliner.

It was a coincidence that Atta’s passport survived the 9/11 attacks in pristine condition, floating down to the ground on 9/11.

It was a coincidence that Atta left information in a rental car at the airport, allowing the case to be ‘solved’ on the morning of 9/11.
It was a coincidence that although most major terrorist acts involved an admission of responsibility by the responsible group, there was only a denial sent out by Osama bin Laden.

It was a coincidence that in the following weeks there were anthrax attacks aimed at members of the U.S. government, which are still unsolved to this day but are believed to come from weaponized anthrax stores within the U.S.

I understand that many people hold to the contention that the suspicious nature of Bush administration and other government officials following 9/11 was just due to trying to cover up incompetence and ideologues abusing the situation granted to them after the events of 9/11. But if it were true that there was no complicity, all of these instances would have to be coincidences. Or you must conclude that the other theory is correct, that there was complicity outside of ‘al queda’. In that hypothesis none of these instances have to be unaccounted for coincidences. Using occam’s razor, you should be able to come to the correct conclusion.

Please Research

"It was a coincidence that $100,000 was ordered to be sent to the lead hijacker, Atta, by the head of Pakistani’s intelligence service, ISI, in the weeks leading up to the attack"

Please research this. My fear is that people are repeating things they've heard "head honchos" in the 9/11 Truth movement say and blog about.

This Omar Said Shiek / General Mahmood / Atta / $100,000 connection is based on flimsy evidence and un-verifiable sources.

I also find it interesting that when people talk about this connection they either are ignorant or just don't mention the fact that an KNOWN AND CONFIRMED al qeada operative by the name of Sheikh Said also used an alias similar to that of the one used to wire the 100K. This operative is very different from Omar Said who was from Britian and was apparently a jihadist. Also noteworthy is the fact that the KNOWN al qeada Said was the 'finance minister' for al qeada.

I'm not saying it's not true I'm just saying that if you looked at the facts of the ISI/Atta/Mahmood connection they are flimsy and hardly present a case to say for certain that this connection is real.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Google Chaim Kupferberg

The original report was in the Times of India.

The Wall-Street-Journal journalist Pearl was murdered on this case.

The hundreds of aliases were just "fog of war", muddying the waters.

Can you explain to me why Mahmood was taken away from the public view one day after this message?

Only weak hints that this based on flimsy evidence...


Provide your sources and I will show you they are shoddy. Times of India? Come on man. Do you have any knowledge of the relationship between Pakistan and India?

I'm not saying we should totally discount it but I am saying that if your most solid source is from the Times of India then you need a shaker of salt to take with that. Those countries are not friendly.

Times of India says that "Indian Intelligence" with helped from the "FBI" confirmed it. The FBI has never confirmed this.

The 'sources' are un-verifiable and it's beyond me how this stuff is reported as TRUTH time in and time out. Just look up all the sources and put them side by side on a piece of paper.


"Can you explain to me why Mahmood was taken away from the public view one day after this message?"

What message? And how could we possibly know the exact reason he left? You are trying to tie things together that just haven't been corroborated.

The FBI, Times of India, AFP, Indian intelligence

"As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader, Mohammed Atta. As well� "Time Magazine" is reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden.

It's all part of what has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijacker's high commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind."

Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to him by the FBI, ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001.

"Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). According to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9-11 attacks had allegedly been "wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad]."

10.The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001.

11.AFP, 10 October 2001.

How many more sources do you need? Of course, there is also the circumstantial evidence provided by the dismissal of General Ahmad.

This is misleading

1. The FBI is not a source for the British Omar Saiid Shekh. Your comments are misleading in that they try to use the FBI as a source to support the Pakistani/ISI/Atta connection. The FBI is confirming that they traced $100,000 from Pakistan to Florida.

2. You are using two publications that used the same source, Indian Intel. Report. For me, that is one source because they are quoting the same "Indian intelligence report". I will re-iterate my stance on "Indian Intel" regarding Pakistan. These countries are not friends. Take it with a bucket of salt.

3. The last paragraph employs the same misleading technique that Michael Meecher's article (,,1566916,00.html) employs.

Let's look at both quotes below and you will see clearly what I mean:

A. Brian Ross -
"Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). According to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9-11 attacks had allegedly been "wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad]."

Notice how it might lead some to believe that the FBI had reported on Omar Said. Not the case. What was confirmed was that 100K had left Pakistan and ended in Florida.

B. Michael Meecher -

"This is all the more remarkable when this is the same Omar Sheikh who, at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, before the New York attacks, as confirmed by Dennis Lormel, director of FBI's financial crimes unit"

Dennis Lormel did not confirm anything about Omar Sheikh. What is confirmed is that $100,000 has been wired to Florida/Atta!

Crafty wording but you can't deny my point. I have not seen this Brian Ross quote but as soon as I read it I saw what was going on. The words make it seem like the FBI had reported on the British Omar Sheikh. Not true as far as I know.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Your barometer for information

exceeds reasonable limits. Your basic argument is that nothing said by Times of India about Pakistan can be trusted. By that logic, we shouldn't trust anything American media says about the US government. And while there is much propaganda in US media, there are also nuggets of truth.

I would suggest three reasons to believe the Times of India report, despite the reasonable doubt produced by the India/Pakistan relationship:

(1) It has not been discredited by other media outlets.

(2) The fact that Gen. Ahmed was in Washington meeting with the congressional heads of US intelligence on 9/11 (and for the week prior) is a coincidence far too remarkable to be a coincidence, especially when you consider...

(3) ...the good general was removed from his position as soon as the Times story surfaced. Otherwise, why remove him? Do you think the head of the CIA would step down if a newspaper from a country antagonistic to the US made some wild accusation about him? Not a chance.

We could go on about ISI involvement, but I think generally speaking there is enough circumstantial evidence to support our suspicions based on the Times of India and AFP stories.

That's Rediculous...

"Your barometer for information exceeds reasonable limits"

The over-statement of the decade. Look, I've said more then twice on this discussion that I am not saying the Times Of India article is not true. I'm saying, consiering the history, we should take it with a grain of salt.

Given that it is the ONLY SOURCE for this story then we have hardly any information. Someone has strung together a chain of events in a manner that defies logic.

It is speculative and misleadding at worst. AFP is not a source. The source is the Times Of India. Again, the FBI is not a source, the source is the Times of India.

I'd be happy to accept the Pakistani/Mahmood/ISI story as fact but the sources are simply NOT there. Any reasonable thinking individual can see that.

The instances of word carving are fishy at the very least, intentionally misleading at the worst.

Some might call me crazy for saying that but...consider the situation we are dealing with and I hardly think it's crazy to speculate on fabricated news stories surounding 9/11.

Again, we will review.

1. THose pushing his theory claim there is an abundance of sources and confirmations of this ISI/Atta/Mahmood connection.

2. This is simply not true. The Times of Inida is the first and only source as far as I know. All others are just reporting what they read from the Times of Inida.

3. Isn't it fishy to you that people are trying to tie the FBI to this when, in fact, the FBI has not confirmed this, as far as I know.

4. THe rest is just speculation. The stuff about him quitting and then saying "it must be do to the Times of India" article is speculation. I'm not saying this situation is not true I'm saying we need more then the "Times of India"

To say that my Barometer for information is not reasonable is pretty lame considering the source of this story.

Also if you consider the fact that the story is presented in a way that the writers make it read like there are many sources for the story. There are not other sources.

I'm not being unreasonable.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

You have not addressed

points 1 and 2. You just keep repeating that you don't trust the Times of India, without considering the circumstantial evidence.

If the Times story is just another case of an antagonistic paper smearing the good reputation of the ISI, then why would Ahmed resign immediately? Why the coincidental meeting in Washington on 9/11?

You have nothing to say about such damning evidence.

On the face of it I can see

On the face of it I can see why the Times of India would look doubtful.

But then, the fact it was the ONLY paper with this story could just mean the bastards reasserted their control quickly.

This reminds me of the San Jose-Mercury News breaking the story of the CIA dealing crack in LA. For a time it was the ONLY paper, and people doubted the story because of it. Only because the stranglehold on the media was not what it is today do we know otherwise.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Times Of India

Ahmed's meeting wasn't coincidental. He was scheduled to meet with many high power officials. It's only coincidental if the TOI article is true and that has yet to be validated.

I would offer up the idea that the TOI is not as 'reputable' as you might think. From my investigations, it seems the TOI is known for sensationalizing and tabloid style reporting.

But I can't say for sure. All I can say is that the only source we have is the TOI article. If that is true then we have something. It hasn't been confirmed.

But the thing is that you look at the actions of everyone spouting this stuff.

1. They never mention the OTHER Saiid who is a known al qeada finance minister dood.

2. We have TWO sources provided that use confusing and maybe misleading wording to make it seem like the FBI confirmed this stuff. They have not.

3. There is only one source of the information and that has not been confirmed by the FBI, CIA, US Gov., or any other party accept the TOI.

My concern heats up when people yammer on about this stuff and it just doesn't hold water. The Times Of India is the only maybe it's true but I wouldn't put my money down yet.

But that hasn't stopped countless people talking on about it like it's 100% true, movies being made...and they all leave out the facts like the OTHER KNOWN Al qeada guy. It's all fishy to me.

Maybe Pakistan is being set up for post iraq excursion???

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

"From my investigations, it

"From my investigations, it seems the TOI is known for sensationalizing and tabloid style reporting."

At this point, I think we can all agree the MSM has sucumbed to this across the board, one way or another. ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

From Global (lack of) Research...

As I stated before...people pushing this connection fail to mention that there is a KNOWN al qeada operative who uses the same name and alias.

They are willingly or ignorantly mix-mashing two different people. Look....

FROM: Chaim Kupferberg :

"Omar Saeed made his public post-9/11 debut on September 23, 2001, on the very same day that his pseudonym, Mustafa Ahmad, made its own post-9/11 debut through President Bush's Global Terrorist Executive Order, in which a "Shaykh Sai'id (aka Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad)" was mentioned as a financial operative in al-Qaida, among a list of 27 individuals and entities slated to have their assets frozen. On September 23, Nick Fielding of The Sunday Times reported: "British officials have now asked India for legal assistance in seeking the whereabouts of Omar [Saeed] Sheikh. British security services confirmed this weekend that they wanted him for questioning."

This passage is merging two different people. The executive order is referring to a very different operative that is a CONFIRMED al qeada associate.

If you think that Shaykh Sai'id is the same as Omar Said Sheikh then you are misinformed as is the author of the above linked article.

I can't imagine why the author has left out the fact that these are two separate people. Someone has something in store for Omar Said Shekh (British) I believe.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Another this disinformation?

"Depending on where or when you have read his name, he is known as Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh, or Umar Sheikh, or Syed Sheikh(if you write for CNN). For simplicity's sake, we will refer to him as Omar Saeed, a Pakistani-born former student of the London School of Economics who grew up in the suburbs of Great Britain. Under the alias of Mustafa Mohammed Ahmad, he was reported to have wired $100,000 to a bank account in Florida belonging to 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta"

This is another example and this one is disturbing because they tell you about the various spellings and then say "for simplicity" we will merge them all into Omar Saeed!!!!

Simplicity? They are talking about two very different people!!! Again, it is beyond me how someone can profess to be knowledgable about this topic but fails to EVER mention that there are two different people being mix-mashed here.

Mahmood was taken out BEFORE the article

According to this story on,,

Mamood was taken out BEFORE the story. So that makes the case even more fishy and more like someone is making up a narrative. I'm atleast open to that possibility.

"In the days following General Ahmad's dismissal, a report published in the Times of India, revealed the links between Pakistan's Chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad and the presumed "ring leader" of the WTC attacks Mohamed Atta."

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Will the real Al Qeada pay master please stand up!

Notice that THIS Shaikh Saiid is born from Egypt not Britain. Notice his KNOWN alias.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Ok I will apologize

Accusations of disinformation might be a bit rash...

I am not going to say that quite yet. What I will say is that the ISI/100K/Atta/Omar Saiid connection has not been established by Paul Thompson or Chaim Kupferberg . The Times of India is hardly a good source for anything that damns pakistani ISI as a terrorist 9/11 mastermind helper.

Not saying the connection does not exist. I'm saying that these countries hate each other and, as with the United States media, have a vested interest in portraying each other as evil enemies of peaceful people.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

I'll look into it more,

I'll look into it more, thanks.

News editor at The Watchman Report,, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community

What I don't get...

Is why people are pushing this ISI link so hard when it's obvious that the source of the information is only coming from one alleged "Indian Intelligence Report".

Time and again you guys try to pretend the FBI confirmed your ISI/Omar/Atta connection when in fact there is no confirmation that I can find of this. The sources you provide are not clear...and possibly misleading.

Also, those who are purport to be knowledgeable on this topic NEVER mention the known Al Qeada operative who is mentioned in the executive order and also in the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission's report.

In fact, highly vocal 9/11 Truthers use the Executive Order and the 9/11 Commission excerpts as sources that back up what they say. This is a very different person and I still see it used to describe the British Omar Saiid when in fact it is referring to the known and 'at large' Saiid Shaik who was born in Egypt and used an alias similar to the one used to wire the money.

I mean look, I'm not working for the ISI trying to clear up their name here. I'm just pointing out the obvious and I feel lonely and that disturbs me.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

I have found your posts on this topic very interesting.

Could you remind me when it was that the wire transfer took place? Wasn't it immediately prior to 9/11? I remember reading a discussion of the transfer that implied that Atta et al wouldn't have had time to spend it or things to spend it on (given that suicide hijackers probably don't take paying their Amex bills too seriously.) If that is the case, then the money transfer might be even more transparent as a way to pin some blame on Pakistan in order to facilitate its eventual patsification.

Edit: Whipped out my trusty copy of the Terror Timeline and I see that the transfer was at least several weeks prior. In that case, it must have been for coke and strippers.

I think that...

You not mistaken about a transfer that took place just prior to the attacks. But I do believe the transfers were in reverse . There was money left over and the penny pinching al qeada wanted all monies not spent to be sent back to them. It may have been the Germany transfer though.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever