Support 911Blogger


Updated: ISI and The Wire Transfers of 9/11

Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
(Revised 5/22/07)

Many people don't understand or choose not to believe that evidence exists of multiple wire transfers in excess of $100,000 to alleged "lead hijacker" Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11, and that these wire transfers are linked to the then head of Pakistani intelligence (ISI). This has blatantly been covered up by the Bush regime, by the Congressrional Joint Inquiry, and by the 9/11 Commission, which this article will clearly show.

This is a complex area, and is clearly the subject of a vigorous disinformation campaign. Many aliases have appeared in US newspapers which don't correlate to the names given in previous reports regarding: just who IS this "Al Qaeda paymaster?" [1]

If you have some time, definitely read the Cooperative Research compendium of news accounts regarding Ahmed Omar Sayed Sheikh. [2] As you can imagine, his name can be spelled in numerous ways, as can any of his aliases. This has been a source of much confusion.

Let's clarify what this information about wire transfers proves.

1) At a minimum it proves cover up by high level US government officials, a cover up of the financial sponsors of the September 11th 2001 attacks on America.

a) FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted to the Congressional inquiry that many wire transfers were sent in 2000 and 2001 from several bank accounts in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to and from alleged 9/11 hijackers. Aliases linked to those bank accounts were provided as well as the specific money amounts.[3]

b) The 9/11 Commission Report stated bluntly:

"To date the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance." -THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, p 172.[4]

c) Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has said that "foreign governments," plural, assisted the purported 9/11 attackers.[5] Graham refuses to name these governments.

d) Orwellian transcript-- Condoleezza Rice was confronted by the press on May 16, 2002. The transcript of that encounter has been altered, doctored both on CNN and in the "FDCH Federal Department and Agency Documents REGULATORY INTELLIGENCE DATA." The words "ISI chief" disappeared from history, down the memory hole. This is black and white proof of cover up.[6]

e) Numerous press reports, which were confirmed by US officials, linked the Atta money transfers to "Saeed Sheikh", and then to Pakistani ISI.[7] Yet this has never, ever been addressed by the U.S. government, nor explained by any "investigation" into the 9/11 attacks. They have literally pretended that these news articles were never written.

2) The U.S. State Department confirmed that "Shaykh Sai'id (aka, Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad)" was linked to terrorist funding in Bush's Executive Order 13224,"a powerful tool to impede terrorist funding," in the attached "ANNEX."[8]

The 9/11 Commission Report has no reference to the Mustafa Ahmad alias at all, and it does not address the wire transfers at all. A "Sheikh Saeed" is mentioned on page 251, referenced to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's interrogations, whose testimony is suspect [9] (reported dead, reported not at location of his alleged capture, held incommunicado and potentially subject to torture for years in secret detention centers). The 9/11 Commission dutifully reports:

"Al Qaeda's chief financial manager, Sheikh Saeed, argued that Al Qaeda should defer to the Taliban's wishes."

"Another [unnamed] source says that Sheikh Saeed opposed the [9/11] operation both out of deference to [Mullah] Omar and because he feared the U.S. response to an attack." --(emphasis added) 9/11 Commission Report, p251.

While this is acknowledgement of Sheikh Saeed's existence as a "chief financial manager", there is no reference to any financial link between Sheikh Saeed and the 9/11 attacks themselves. None.

The only other mention of Shekh Saeed is the following passage referenced in footnote 59 of Chapter 2:

"He [Bin Laden] appointed a new financial manager, whom his followers saw as miserly."

Notice that this supposedly authoritative "investigation" doesn't bother to name this "new financial manager" here, or to explain what he did.

The footnote 59 of Chapter 2 says:

"CIA analytic report, "Shaykh Sa'id: Al Qa'ida's Loyal Senior Accountant," CTC 2003-30072H July 2, 2003."

Notice the name is spelled differently from the version on page 251 of the same report, leaving open the possibility for official denial that they are the same person?

Notice also that a "CTC" Counter Terrorism Center report was written on this man. Can someone file a FOIA request for this report?

The "CTC" is coincidentally where a memo was deliberately withheld from alerting the FBI about two other purported hijackers: Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi.

Searching for wire transfers in the 9/11 Commission Report turned up the following:

"For Atta and Shehhi's enrolling at Jones Aviation see FBI report, "Hijackers Timeline" Dec. 5 2003 (Sept. 23 2000 entry citing SunTrust Financial records)."

Well I can't "see FBI report" because it doesn't appear to be on the Internet. Another FOIA is needed.

If the 9/11 Commission saw this FBI report, then they are aware of the SunTrust Financial wire transfers, and yet chose not to include them in their "final" report -- at all. This is more evidence of cover up.

This was all right in the Washington Post,[10] just a couple of days before the Indian intelligence service and Indian press threw a monkey wrench into the official 9/11 story:

"U.S. Ties Hijackers' Money to Al Qaeda

Investigators See Cash Trail as Key
By Dan Eggen and Kathleen Day
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 7, 2001; Page A01

(...)

The ties to al Qaeda, the group led by Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden, include transfers of thousands of dollars from hijacking leader Mohamed Atta to al Qaeda's chief financial lieutenant in the Middle East days before the New York and Washington attacks.

(...)

The operation was kicked off with a $100,000 transfer into a U.S. bank account last year that has been traced to the United Arab Emirates. A source familiar with the investigation said the transfer may have been arranged by the financial lieutenant, Mustafa Muhammad Ahmed.

(...)

More than half of the criminal investigation team at FBI headquarters in Washington is dedicated to tracking the money, with many working from folding tables and chairs in the hallways.

(...)

The funding for the attack began at least a year ago with a single deposit of more than $100,000 to a U.S. account controlled by Atta. Dennis M. Lormel, chief of the FBI's financial crimes section, testified at a congressional hearing last week that the transfer has been traced back to an account in the United Arab Emirates.

In the following months, scores of cash infusions flowed into about a dozen accounts at SunTrust Bank in Florida and several other U.S. banks.

(...)

The FBI has told Congress that terrorists rely heavily on wire transfers...

(...)

Another key figure on the money trail is Ahmed, also known as Shaykh Saiid.

(...)

Ahmed is suspected of being the paymaster who oversaw the financial end, sources said. Ahmed was named by Bush as a suspected associate of terrorists, and is the subject of a global manhunt.

Ahmed got as much as $15,000 from Atta and two other hijackers, Al-Shehhi and Waleed M. Alshehri, in the three days before the attacks. Officials in the United Arab Emirates have said they believe Ahmed left there Sept. 11 for Pakistan." (emphasis added)

The FBI has said that the hijackers returned money back to the paymaster so they would not be seen as "thieves" before their martrydom. Seems plausible.

Going back to the Congressional Joint Inquiry report (p 141), we run into obfuscation about "Mustafa Ahmed Alhawsawi", which they present as a different Al Qaeda operative than "Mustafa Ahmad",[11] one who is also mysteriously later "captured" with Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, and never seen again. Witnesses reported that neither man was at the location of this alleged capture.

Another alleged "paymaster," Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, is tied to some wire transfers as well, further clouding the picture.

3) The Pakistani ISI chief, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was fired immediately when the Indian government and press went public with the ISI / Omar Saeed Sheikh / Mohammad Atta connection.[12]

Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of ISI on 9/11/01

U.S. pressure on Pakistan to remove the ISI chief was cited in the press reports. The ISI chief was never "Wanted by the FBI" however for ordering the funds that reportedly financed the 9/11 attacks. Until this matter is clearly resolved, there has simply been no credible public investigation into the attacks of September 11th 2001.

Indian intelligence exposed (to its own detriment) its surveillance of the ISI chief's cell phone and calls, [12, 13] in order to convince the Americans that Pakistan, and in particular the ISI, was a source of international terrorism (which of course, it is).

Implications: What does it mean?

Either--

a) ISI chief ordered operative Sheikh to wire money to Atta and co.

or

b) Sheikh wired money independently, or at some other intelligence service's direction (CIA or MI6).

or

c) Someone other than Sheikh wired the money, which means that the Pakistani ISI chief was fired right then in an unrelated coincidence.

I'm going to go with a or b. Several press reports confirm Sheikh's involvement, including CNN:

"Indian and U.S. authorities now see a link between that hijacking and the September 11 attacks in the United States.

Freed with Azhar was Ahmed Umar Syed Sheikh, whom authorities say used a pseudonym to wire $100,000 to suspected hijacker Mohammad Atta, who then distributed the money in the United States. (emphasis added)" -CNN, 10/8/2001 [14]

The "hijacking" mentioned was of Indian Airlines 814, in December 1999, by men with knives who "stabbed one hostage to death in the early hours of the hijacking" and gained access to the cockpit. [15]

This method of attack is of course the one reported to have happened on 9/11/01.

While the Indian Airlines incident doesn't prove this is what actually transpired on September 11th, it does provide a proof of concept.

Some people aren't convinced that actual hijackers carried out the 9/11 attacks, and instead the planes were remote controlled, the communications from them faked. I do not take a position on this question due to a lack of irrefutable proof either way. This article deals with evidence, not speculation.

The ISI Chief in DC and the Timeline of the FBI Investigation

ISI Chief Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in Washington DC on September 4 -- prior to the 9/11 attacks. He met with CIA Director George Tenet, the National Security Council, Pentagon officials, White House officials and specifically Marc Grossman the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs[16] and a prominent member of the Project for a New American Century.

This timeline is instructive:

"September 11, 2001:

The World Trade Center is destroyed. That morning, Pakistani ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad is sitting down for breakfast in Washington, D.C. with Sen. Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss - both of whom will later head the Congressional Committee to investigate the events surrounding September 11

September 18, 2001:

CBS News reports: "...agents have uncovered a money trail that they hope will lead to the hijackers' accomplices."

September 30, 2001:

ABC News "This Week" reports that the $100,000 money trail "can be traced directly to people linked to Osama bin Laden."

October 1, 2001:

Judith Miller of the New York Times reveals that the money was wired by someone using the alias "Mustafa Ahmad". The Guardian reports that Mustafa Ahmad is the alias for a "Sheikh Saeed."

That day, an attack is launched on the Kashmiri provincial legislature, increasing tensions between India and Pakistan.

October 3, 2001:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair releases his report detailing the "persuasive case" against bin Laden, yet no explicit mention is made of the "smoking gun" money trail.

New York Newsday reporters Riley and Brune reveal that Mustafa Ahmad is an alias for a "Shaykh Sai-id, who has been identified as a high-ranking bin Laden financial lieutenant." They also identify him as an Egyptian linked to the 1998 Tanzania Embassy bombing.

October 6-8, 2001:

Maria Ressa of CNN reports that 9/11 paymaster Mustafa Ahmad is an alias for a "Sheikh Syed", a 28-year old Pakistani former student at the London School of Economics who was released from an Indian prison in 1999 after being bartered for hostages taken in an airline hijacking that was "strikingly similar to the four hijackings carried out on September 11." Ressa also links "Syed" (hereafter known as Omar Saeed) to the October 1 attack on the Kashmiri legislature.

The invasion of Afghanistan begins.

Pakistani ISI General Mahmud Ahmad (not to be confused with the 9/11 paymaster alias "Mustafa Ahmad") is suddenly dismissed by Pakistani President Musharraf.

October 9, 2001:

The Times of India reports that General Ahmad was dismissed "because of the evidence India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Center. The U.S. authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by [Omar Saeed] at the instance of General Mahmud [Ahmad]."

From this date, an intensive cover-up effort is set in motion. Omar Saeed [Sheikh] mostly disappears from the Western mainstream media until his re-emergence in Britain's Telegraph, January 27, 2002." -TIMELINE: Daniel Pearl and The Paymaster of 9/11, by Chaim Kupferberg [17]

Just who is this Omar Saeed Sheikh / Mustafa Ahmad guy?

Well, he's in a Pakistani prison right now, convicted of murdering Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal.

They were supposed to execute Omar Saeed Sheikh, which would really prevent him from talking about these things, but Omar Saeed Sheikh has powerful allies in Pakistan who want him to remain alive, and even free.

"As the London Times has put it, Saeed Sheikh “is no ordinary terrorist but a man who has connections that reach high into Pakistan’s military and intelligence elite and into the innermost circles of Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organization.” [London Times, 4/21/02]

"In 1993 he emerged in Pakistan as a member of a militant group fighting for the liberation of Kashmir from India... it appears Saeed [Sheikh] was put on the ISI payroll around this time, to help the Pakistani cause in Kashmir. [ABC News, 2/7/02]

In 1994, Saeed [Sheikh] began training at a training camp in Afghanistan. He soon was teaching the classes. [Los Angeles Times, 2/9/02]

[Saeed Sheikh] developed close ties with al-Qaeda while training there. By the end of the year he was known as Osama bin Laden’s “favored son” or “my special son.” [London Times, 8/21/02, Vanity Fair, 8/02], --The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh, Paul Thompson [18]

Sheikh went on to prison in India. He was released after other terrorists hijacked an Indian Airlines passenger jet (814) and flew it to Afghanistan. Omar Saeed Sheikh and two other "militants" were traded for the Indian passengers.

An ISI Colonel escorted Saeed Sheikh to a safe house in Pakistan.

Saeed Sheikh then lived openly in Pakistan, attending parties of high level government officials there.

Sheikh then is allowed to return to Britain, twice, in 2000 and 2001, even though he was a known international terrorist who had kidnapped British citizens in 1994.

Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf told that Omar Saeed Sheikh worked for British MI6.

"Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf has disclosed that Omar Sheikh, who alledgedly kidnapped and murdered American journalist Daniel Pearl and is now facing the death penalty, was actually an agent for the British Secret Agency MI6. Musharraf claims that Omar Sheikh had executed certain missions on MI6's behest before coming to Pakistan and visiting Afghanistan to meet Osama and Mullah Om." --INN World Report, January 16, 2007[19]

Others in Pakistan claim that Omar Sheikh is CIA.

"There are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA." --Pittsburgh Tribune, Did Pearl die because Pakistan deceived CIA?, March 3, 2002 [20]

"There are those who might doubt the word of Musharraf, and who can blame them? But in fact I documented Omar Sheikh Saeed's simultaneous intelligence connections to the CIA, ISI and MI6 in The War on Truth and The London Bombings. Details have come forth from an intriguing combination of American, British and Pakistani government sources." --Nafeez M. Ahmed, Pakistan and the Terror Nexus [21]

Perhaps Omar Sheikh belongs to all three agencies? Four including Al Qaeda? Who knows?

Not the American people. That's for sure. The American people do not know much about Omar Saeed Sheikh / Mustafa Ahmad, although he apparently financed the September 11th attacks, trained some of the hijackers in Afghanistan, worked for Pakistani ISI, British MI6 and U.S. CIA.

And none of this can be talked about in the Congress. Nor in the presidential debates. Nor on mainstream television nor on corporate radio.

Quite a neat trick.

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
--Keyser Soze, The Usual Suspects

Notes.

1. Cooperative Research, Mustafa Ahmed Al Hisawi, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=mustafa_ahmed_al-hisawi

2. Cooperative Research, Sept. 11's Smoking Gun: The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh, .http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaysaeed

3.STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FBI DIRECTOR ROBERT S. MUELLER III JOINT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE INQUIRY, http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602mueller.html

4. 9/11 Commission Report, http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

5. PBS, Interview with Bob Graham, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec02/intelligence_12-11.html

6. Michel Chossudovsky, Center for Research on Globalisation, NEW REVELATIONS ON 9-11, http://www.prisonplanet.com/new_revelations_on_911.htm

7.Cooperative Research, Saeed Sheikh, .http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaysaeed

8. US State Department,Executive Order 13224, http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/16181.htm

9. Taking Aim, Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone, 070320 A Study in Disinformation: The Fake Confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim070320.mp3

10. Washington Post, U.S. Ties Hijackers' Money to Al Qaeda, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A17934-2001Oct6&notFound=true

11. Congressional Reports: Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, page 141, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

12. Times of India, India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links, 9 Oct, 2001 l 2308 hrs ISTlMANOJ JOSHI/TIMES NEWS NETWORK, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=1454238160

13. Who Killed Daniel Pearl? (Paperback), by Bernard-Henri Levy, pp. 320-24, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0974960942/centerforcoop-20

14.CNN, India wants terror spotlight on Kashmir, October 8, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/10/08/india.ressa/

15. BBC, Indian hijack drama over, 31 December, 1999, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/584729.stm

16. Cooperative Research, ISI Director Mahmood Ahmed, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_isi:_a_more_detailed_look=mahmoodAhmed

17. TIMELINE: Daniel Pearl and The Paymaster of 9/11, by Chaim Kupferberg, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP209C.html

18. Cooperative Research, Sept. 11's Smoking Gun: The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh, .http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaysaeed

19. INN World Report, January 16, 2007, http://www.innworldreport.net/archives/2007/01/2007-01-16.html

20. Pittsburgh Tribune, Did Pearl die because Pakistan deceived CIA?, March 3, 2002, http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_20141.html

21. Nafeez M. Ahmed, Pakistan and the Terror Nexus, http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/09/pakistan-and-terror-nexus.html

###

Ever...

See this John?

A similar name is mentioned in one of the staff statements.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_Monograph.pdf

pg. 144
"Senior al Qaeda detainee Abu Zubaydeh has commented on the source of the funding; he said that KSM received funds for the 9/11 operation directly from UBL, bypassing al Qaeda Finance Chief, Shayk Said, and suggested that some of the funds came from money that Zubaydeh had provided UBL for use in an operation against Israel. Zubaydeh, however, apparently did not participate in the 9/11 planning, and his statements lack any foundation."


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

The rabbit hole is deep and crowded

Notice how all of the allegedly significant foreign players in 9/11 are either in jail (KSM, Omar Sheikh) or missing (OBL)? Has a single allegedly key figure in 9/11 been question publicly, or stood trial in an open court, or had any access to the press?

No. They're all stashed away in secret prisons, and their alleged comments to us via the CIA, ISI, or whatever.

I think there was a story on 60 Minutes last week about terrorism trials in Malaysia. They said the trials have been successful _because_ they are made very public. Whereas here, the military releases a redacted transcript from an alleged hearing that did not allow lawyers or reporters, and we're supposed to believe every word came direct from KSM's mouth.

But, of course, we're the crazies for asking questions. The SLC guys are the sane ones for loving government opacity.

Also,

notice how all of the tell-alls coming out now have a similar flavor?

You mentioned Graham and Goss. Of course, Intelligence Matters accuses the White House of a "coverup" (even as we learn these two intelligence veterans, Goss in clandestine ops, were brunching with the ISI as the towers exploded). But this is after they enumerate the failings of the 911 Commission and point fingers at Saudi Arabia.

Without Precedent, of course, also calls the commission a failure (that became a success!). Kean and Hamilton point fingers at NORAD and the FAA.

Tenet just seems confused. But again he redirects blame and confuses the issues.

It must be difficult for some of them to keep their lies straight, with all the secrecy. I wonder if these tell-alls are ways of absolving themselves of blame with plausible deniability ("first, the investigation failed to do its job; and second, LOOK OVER THERE!").

Also confirmed by FBI

"J-e-M's accounts were frozen not long after Dennis M. Lormel, director of FBI's financial crimes unit, confirmed the $100,000 transaction, if not the source."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26249

Obviously unworthy of inclusion in the 9/11 Commission Report. /sarcasm

Chossudovsky is great on this topic;

"The "Islamic Brigades" are a creation of the CIA. In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an "intelligence asset". Support to terrorist organizations is an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. Al Qaeda continues to this date (2002) to participate in CIA covert operations in different parts of the World. These "CIA-Osama links" do not belong to a bygone era, as suggested by the mainstream media.

The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Kosovo. More recently in Macedonia, barely a few months before September 11, U.S. military advisers were mingling with Mujahideen mercenaries financed by Al Qaeda. Both groups were fighting under the auspices of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), within the same terrorist paramilitary formation.

The CIA keeps track of its "intelligence assets". Amply documented, Osama bin Laden's whereabouts were always known. Al Qaeda is infiltrated by the CIA. In other words, there were no "intelligence failures"! In the nature of a well-led intelligence operation, the "intelligence asset" operates (wittingly or unwittingly) with some degree of autonomy, in relation to its U.S. government sponsors, but ultimately it acts consistently, in the interests of Uncle Sam.

While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA's role, the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the top levels of the FBI. Members of the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress are fully cognizant of these links.

The foreknowledge issue focusing on "FBI lapses" is an obvious smokescreen. While the whistleblowers serve to underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of successive U.S. administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter) in support of the "Islamic Militant Base", is simply not mentioned."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

what is this money alleged to have been used for?

Explosives put in the towers? Thermate? Given the unlikelihood of Atta or his alleged accomplices having hijacked planes that day, how does this money he allegedly received tie at all into the events of 9/11? And please, the fact that someone was having breakfast with someone else are not in any way evidence of involvement in the attacks. Involvement (witting or unwitting) in the creation of a patsy cover story perhaps. But not in hijackings or in scheduling of war games or in demolition of three buildings. An aura of suspicion proves nothing if you can't tie it to the crimes in question. So where is the link? And please don't say "al Qaeda" is the link because there is no evidence of "al Qaeda" involvement in the attacks of 9/11.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

You're mostly right

I agree the purpose of the wire transfer remains clouded, especially if Atta really were going to kill himself a week later. Speculation doesn't really solve anything. We could guess, for example, that Atta never boarded a plane, and the $100,000 was vacation pay. Or we could guess that the transfer was a misdirection. I don't know.

The reason I think it's important is because Gen. Ahmed resigned almost immediately after the story broke. Some people here have argued that The Times of India is not a reliable source for a damaging story about Pakistan. But I don't believe the general would have resigned if the story were baseless (imagine the director of the CIA resigning because a North Korean newspaper wrote something nasty about him). No, I think there was some substance to the connection; but I don't know exactly what the substance was.

The timing of the meeting between Ahmed, and Porter and Goss also doesn't prove anything for certain. However, to dismiss the meeting as irrelevant seems to me to be wandering into Coincidentalist Theory land. I mean, what are the odds? You place so much emphasis on Silverstein's purchase of the WTC, but does that prove anything specific? No. We all assume it proves something, because what are the odds the WTC would become privately owned for the first time just six weeks before their destruction on 9/11? In fact, I'd be willing to accept that nothing criminal transpired there, if the towers had not collapsed. But all 3 buildings in one day?

So, I think we are all connecting some dots that aren't specifically connected. My beef with debunkers is that they seem so comfortable with government secrecy; they don't mind ending the investigation of 9/11 where all of its deep politics begin to come into view. That doesn't satisfy me, and it shouldn't satisfy them.

Sorry Real, but understanding ISI = understand FFTerrorism

It is extremely important to understand the ISI, CIA, and it's connections with the Muj/Al Quaeda/Taliban groups. These connections are essential in exposing the truth that these groups are patsies and blamed when necessary. Exposing these connections is not to say Al Queada did it. We know they did not. But if one cannot speak to the questions about the group (real or fabricated), one cannot show many average American's the truth about the 'War on Terror'. It is important also to expose that the commission report ignored the money connections to the very people they claimed to be researching. I'm tired of the people getting confused, and claiming that those who discuss Pakistan are trying to BLAIM Pakistan. The debate cannot be framed in this way. Learning the truth about Al-Quaeda is essential to take part in regular discourse on the subject of False Flag Terrorism. Let's stay focused here and not accuse others of missing a point they OBVIOUSLY get. We know they are patsies, the 'link' is the official myth of 9/11.

Peace
Kdub
http://www.thesonsofliberty.us

I think you just helped me prove my point

YOU may think everyone thinks it's obvious, and many DO in fact think it's obvious that the patsies are just that. But read the comment following yours and see if THAT person thinks it's so obvious. Remember KDub, some of us have been here for a long time and know what people who push this angle have been saying for a long time. Believe me when I tell you that some of the people who now insist this is only about pointing out an aspect of the cover up used to get VERY upset when people questioned the veracity of the hijacker story. It was (and still is in many cases) a point that some people seem very keen not to cede, despite no good evidence ever having been produced. Anyway, like I said, your comment is wishful thinking, as you can tell by the comments below!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

I don't think you're geniunely asking.

"what is this money alleged to have been used for?"

A network of people living in the United States, enrolled in expensive flight schools, renting cars, travelling, buying plane tickets etc.

"Given the unlikelihood of Atta or his alleged accomplices having hijacked planes that day, how does this money he allegedly received tie at all into the events of 9/11?"

You say it's unlikely. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. The government claims it is likely, and much of the world believes them.

You haven't exactly proven an alternate scenario. Bitching about a planted passport isn't the same as uncovering the real chain of events that day.

"And please, the fact that someone was having breakfast with someone else are not in any way evidence of involvement in the attacks. Involvement (witting or unwitting) in the creation of a patsy cover story perhaps."

It was also a way of implicating Graham, Goss and Kyl by association. This breakfast meeting looks bad for those involved, and can be used to pressure them. Since the "them" were the heads of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, I'd say it's very fucking relevant.

Ahmad was also, interestingly, meeting the National Secutiry Council and Bush operatives in the DOD. The assassination of the Northern Alliance leader (9-9-01) was no doubt part of the machinations as was the invasion of Afghanistan.

"An aura of suspicion proves nothing if you can't tie it to the crimes in question. So where is the link?"

Money transfers from Osama bin Laden's "favorite son" to Mohammad Atta in Florida ARE THE LINK (one of several).

"And please don't say "al Qaeda" is the link because there is no evidence of "al Qaeda" involvement in the attacks of 9/11."

WRONG.

There is plenty of evidence. It may not be convincing to you, but it exists. Bluntly stating the falsehood that there is "no evidence" is deceptive, and you know it.

The fact that they would try and cover up one of their strongest links that should make their case is the evidence of cover up and a criminal conspiracy.

When investigators find witnesses, collaborators, co-conspirators, they pressure them to see what more they can reveal. I'm sorry if this thread is boring you, but no one forced you to read it.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

And more.

This is relevant to 9/11 because the US government made it relevant to 9/11. It's their own admissions that bring this in.

Are you ragging on David Ray Griffin for challenging the 9/11 Commission Report point by point?

Let's get some perspective.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

BTW John...

If the allegations are true that he received $100,000 from the Pakistani ISI, then it really doesn't matter what the money was used for. If the money was used for hamburgers and hookers, and that saved him from starvation, and blue balls, then that helped him to allegedly pull off the 9/11 attacks. Which means part of the $100,000 WAS allegedly used for the 9/11 attacks.

FYI.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

...

Since the "them" were the heads of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, I'd say it's very fucking relevant.

Wait, you're saying that two individuals who were having breakfast on the morning of 9/11, in Washington D.C., with someone alleged to have ordered a $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammad Atta was put in charge of the Joint Congressional Inquiry?

I don't see how that's relevant. ;)

Not relevant at all.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

you seem oblivious

to the fact that since "al Qaeda" was going to be blamed, there will of course be suggestions and a manufactured legend to make that allegation seem credible in the absence of hard evidence (which you claim exists but can't cite apparently) of "al Qaeda's" involvement in the events.

you seem to be purposely regarding the legend as actually representing an aspect of reality, at the expense of studying the reality for which we have evidence and reason to suspect a number of individuals of having direct involvement in, among less important aspects of the crimes, the murderous demolition of three skyscrapers. Instead you want to focus on the crime of... having breakfast. What did they have? Red herring kippers? The cover up, contrary to folk "wisdom" is NOT always worse than the crime. Especially when the crime involves demolishing buildings on top of living people including heroic rescuers.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

RT: You seem obtuse.

I and others have provided mountains of incriminating evidence. This is most certainly relevant to 9/11. You can't argue that away. And I keep asking you about your hypothetical alternate scenario, which you refuse to tell.

Why don't you prove some other case, that doesn't involve any hijackers whatsoever, and apparently has no connection to "Al Qaeda" whatsoever, so I can surgically take it apart?

Your style so far is drive-by monkey dung flinger.

Going back to recent discussions on scientific method: you have to account for ALL the evidence. Pakistan is obviously part of the evidence.

If you think my challenge is unfair -- forcing you to prove remote controlled aircraft, which is probably not possible -- then your own monkey dung business is equally unfair. I present known facts as best as I can find them, and draw inferences from the available data.

Do you?

Step up to the plate.

PS

I'm currently reworking the above article to include some more info from the 9/11 Commission report and an FBI financial investigator.

I'm kind of tired of explaining why this is important to people who don't want to 'get it.'

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

begging your pardon

But where are these mountains of evidence incriminating "al Qaeda" in any of the events of 9/11?

What you seem determined to deny is that there is nothing--not one shred of evidence--linking the alleged wire transfer to Atta to any of the events of 9/11.

The only way the transfer would be relevant is if Atta had in fact had something to do with flying planes into the twin towers. Since there is no evidence that he did, your insistence on the importance of this transfer would seem to rest entirely on the say so of the very people whom we are accusing of lying about pretty much everything else.

Let's be clear--you, "johndoraemi", believe things that most truthers do not believe. You believe that al Qaeda, whatever its true nature, sent 19 young arab muslims to the US to hijack 4 planes successfully. You MUST believe this in order to consider an alleged transfer of money to Atta directly relevant to the crimes commited on 9/11.

The crimes commited on 9/11 as far as anyone knows involve the following:

1) causing two planes to fly into the twin towers
2) subsequent demolishing of the twin towers and building 7
3) effecting explosive damage of undetermined cause at the Pentagon

People like to posture sometimes and admonish those who claim to know more than they can possibly know about 9/11. I think the three things above are beyond dispute--you may disagree. I don't think that any evidence exists to elaborate much further, thus anything else is speculation, and of course we can speculate and do to try to make sense of things. Steven Jones speculates as to what may have been involved in the demolition process. Thierry Meyssan speculates as to what may have been the cause of the damage to the Pentagon. I and many others speculate as to what kind of planes were flown into the twin towers and how.

Elements of our government and media have gone beyond speculation and claimed with suspicious certainty several other circumstances that most of us have come to doubt very strongly. This includes accounts of hijackings by 19 named arab muslims and positive identification of specific flights that were hijacked and eventually flown into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and into the ground in Shanksville.

While we speculate based on available evidence, others speculate based on evidence cited but never properly authenticated and/or admitted as such in a court of law--results of DNA testing, debris fragments, audio tapes purporting to contain conversations with passengers on hijacked aircraft, and of course the video tape of bin Laden "confessing".

The alleged wire transfer is not as you claim a known fact--it is part of that set of unauthenticated "evidence". Not only do you only have the say so of a few people with inherent conflict of interests as evidence for the transfer even taking place, the relevance of such evidence, even if corroborated, hinges on the say so, again, of people who have already proven to have an agenda of deceit and covering up of the true events of 9/11 that Atta was indeed the "lead hijacker" in a series of hijackings that took place on 9/11. You seem quite willing to selectively take the official story at face value.

These are facts which, your indignance notwithstanding, you conveniently ignore, for reasons only you know with certainty.

Calling me obtuse and accusing me of something to do with "monkey-dung" as you call it is apparently all you have to support your position against my criticism.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

al Quaeda was a group of

al Quaeda was a group of mercenaries funded by Western intelligence and facilitated through the ISI. To ignore this fact is as ridiculous as saying that evidence of Mossad's involvement in the bombing of the Israeli embassy in London should be ignored because it may be construed as anti-Semitic. (My children are part secular Muslim, and I have plenty of reason to be concerned about anti-Muslim sentiments beyond the average moral or ethical reasons.)

The fact that they were patsies is no reason to resist investigation into how they came to be involved in any level of the operation, because that investigation will lead right into US intelligence. (For example, SOME of them may actually have been on the planes but believed they had been tasked to participate in a binary drill. Or, like McVeigh, just told to be in certain places at certain times without any reason to suspect what was happening.) If all the information about the backgrounds and intelligence handling & funding of Oswald, Sirhan, Ray, and McVeigh had been fully fleshed out in a timely manner, the official stories of the assassinations might have been disembowled much faster.

It's a lot easier to hang the PTB with real evidence than to continue to create overarching scenarios that lead to our own pet theories. You really need to spend some time studying covert operations and the overwhelming lessons learned from the assassinations to see why it is unbearably naive to swat this away as though it were a pesky detail. The cover story is always multi-layered, but involves real people doing real things in a compartmentalized fashion, just as happened with much of the US government's infrastructural involvement.

9/11 patsies = ISI = US.

...sigh...

"Pet theories"..."unbelievably naive"..."you really need"

*Someone* (from among the group of people who have their fingernails dug into the role of Pakistan as if it will keep them from falling off a cliff) should really make an effort to pin down what the money was used for, for starters.

As I explained above...

For the second time, there's no need to. You need to tell us what happened inside those planes if they weren't hijacked by evil men that just happened to be Muslim.

Edit: No response? It seems to me that if people are confident enough to say that there definitely were no Muslim hijackers on those planes, then they should be equally as confident to state who exactly was on those planes, if anyone. Otherwise, they shouldn't make such statements, and shouldn't blast other people's research that has to do with the alleged hijackers just because it doesn't coincide with certain "pet theories" that are completely unsubstantiated.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Straw man much?

I have never said what I think happened in the planes, because I (unlike Barry Greengrass and his scriptwriters) do not claim to know. You, on the other hand, seem quite sure that it was "evil men who just happened to be Muslim."

Actually...

No, I'm not quite sure that it was "evil men who just happened to be Muslim." However, I can't prove that they weren't because I wasn't there. So until a piece of information comes out that explains who or what was in control of those planes, I am going to continue to assume that "evil men who just happened to be Muslim" were in control, and instead of making arguments that they weren't, I'm going to point out how they may have been controlled by western intelligence (because evidence supports it), and how they may have been trained by the American Military (because evidence supports it), and how they may have been funded by a state (because evidence supports it). To my knowledge, none of that information supports the official story, other than hijackers were involved. In fact, that information is extremely damaging to the official story. I don't understand why you and others can't see that.

You have never said what you think happened on those planes, but you actively and aggressively defend those who do which leads me to believe that you support what they're saying. Don't you?


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Other than that hijackers, who were evil men who just

happened to be Muslim, were involved...

You acknowledge that that is an assumption. It is not an assumption I wish to make. The other parts of the backstory are supported by evidence (=well-fleshed out as backstory) but the lynchpin? Not so much. Never mind that it's the lynchpin...

I don't follow, Casseia: how

I don't follow, Casseia: how does acknowledging the possibility that some of the patsies were on the planes automatically identify them as intentional hijackers? How does it qualify them as evil Muslims -- in the fanatical "hate us for our freedoms" sense as imagined by the OCT supporters -- if indeed they were patsies? We're already talking about the conspiracy at a much deeper level than the unenlightened masses have the context to understand, but it is useful for people dipping in their toes to see that even at THIS level, the story points to facilitation by the U.S. We can't wish away the fact that the patsies were of Middle Eastern origin, but we can point out that whatever their involvement, it was not based on religious devotion. In fact, it would be helpful for stupid Americans to understand that a large percentage of "Muslims" are relatively secular.

Historically, patsies have often been rank-and-file thugs and petty criminals. Additionally, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that some of the named "hijackers" were trained by U.S. intelligence and were engaged in mercenary behavior and special ops. They were also tied to Jack Abramoff and Jeb Bush through Huffman Aviation. The feds haven't proven that the hijackers were on the planes to our satisfaction, but we aren't able to prove that they weren't. Nevertheless, it's pretty damning to the OCT that even their patsies can be identified with these entities and people.

Yup...

It...

Is not an assumption you "wish to make" "because it doesn't coincide with certain "pet theories" you may have, and as a result, you're bashing any and all information that doesn't conform to your "pet theory." Even though it is relevant/important.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Casseia, you just don't get it!

Come on, even the New York Times gets it! http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?_r=1&hp&ore...

See, Pakistan is HELPING the Taliban. And we are paying them a billion dollars a year to do this. Now bear in mind the New York Times is VERY trustworthy on anything TWAT related. Just look up Judith Miller, she was all over the Iraqi WMDs reporting it all in the NYT for us.

We should focus on Paksitan for this and other reasons. There is no need to get to the bottom of Larry Silverstein's arson, insurance fraud, etc. I mean, where's the evidence for THAT? Just because he OWNED the place and has crazy right wing Israeli friends doesn't mean you should investigate him. After all, there's no evidence that he knew what was going to happen. Now as you know Casseia there are MOUNTAIN RANGES of evidence showing that whoever wired the money to Mohammed Atta knew EXACTLY what it was for. As did Mohammed Atta--sure he may have only flown to Maine but HE KNEW that he was going to be blamed for 9/11!!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Right...so it's an

Right...so it's an either/or. Either we investigate Silverstein OR we investigate the ISI, because OF COURSE the insurance fraud at the WTC is the reason for the whole operation, rather than a benefit layered in...

And if early reports of a similar payment from Lucky Larry to Atta had been published and then deep-sixed (and ignored by the 9/11 Commission because it didn't come from OBL's personal checking account):

RT: "We don't know if Atta spent Larry's money on hookers, rent, or Big Gulps from the Quickie Mart, so move on. The fact that it was acknowledged by the FBI and a few quick media squirts makes it a blatant red-herring, so move on."

Riiiiight.

JFK's assassination involved the anti-Castro Cubans, US intelligence, US military, the FBI, the Mafia, the Secret Service, etc. MLK's assassination involved US intelligence, the FBI, the Mafia, the Memphis P.D., Army special forces out of Georgia, activist group infiltrators, local ne'er do wells, etc. But hey, lock down Larry and the Zionists, and we've got 9/11 covered.

I'm thinking...

Because I have "crazy right wing Neocon friends" at work, people that support Bush no matter what he does, that I must have had something to do with 9/11.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Silverstein is

Silverstein is self-evidently intimitately tied to what occured. There is simply no denying that in any credible way. Any investigation into arson naturally begins with the owner and insurance beneficiary as the prime suspect. Invariably. Look at the history of posts on this site and see how many are about Silverstein as opposed to about Pakistan. Go ahead and count! There are many more posts about Pakistan. You would think then that the Paksitani connection is more clear or more important than Silverstein's connection to the crimes. Let's examine that premise:

We have a list of 19 alleged hijackers provided by known liars. One of those alleged hijackers allegedly received a transfer of money allegedly linking him to Pakistani intelligence. Not only is none of this proven (for all your mountains of evidence you only have the say so of one person in the corrupt FBI and some Indian journalists that this transfer even took place) but given the fact that there is no evidence placing Atta on any hijacked flight, the relevance of this alleged transfer is questionable at best. Your excuse for why there is not more evidence is pretty lame--that of course this is being covered up. Except that it would support the OCT if they could show that Atta indeed spent this money, and what he spent it on (box-cutter, plane tickets... well that's all they used for the attacks, right?) So apparently the feds have no money trail showing Atta spending any money on anything 9/11 related, pretty weird given how much it would support their case.

What they DO reveal is their claim that Pakistan wired money to Atta. The FBI guy could have denied this very credibly given the fact that a pseudonym was used. But they didn't. And so while you claim that specifically the Pakistani connection is being covered up, that is one of the few things they HAVE revealed about Atta. Nothing about where and how he spent money "preparing the attacks". Just the fact that he got money from Pakistan. Some cover up! In fact, 9/11-truth hostile Wikipedia goes very much in depth into the whole Paksitan connection, which should be as clear a sign as any that the info does not challenge the OCT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks

So on the one hand we have an aspect of the OCT that has NOT been covered up in any sense, a story that SUPPORTS the outlandish claims of the OCT, and which could easily serve as a limited hangout in order to have SOMEthing to pin on Bush that has nothing to do with the much more relevant issue of the destruction of the WTC complex. This gets a ton of attention here, and of course a ton of criticism. My god, I think it's time for a site poll!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

The "know nothing" position.

"1) causing two planes to fly into the twin towers
2) subsequent demolishing of the twin towers and building 7
3) effecting explosive damage of undetermined cause at the Pentagon
(...)
I don't think that any evidence exists to elaborate much further, thus anything else is speculation, and of course we can speculate and do to try to make sense of things."

This explains your reluctance to "elaborate much further", which I understand. However there are large bodies of works, from many hundreds, if not thousands of sources, which are also relevant. Maybe not relevant to you, but to others who don't have such blinders on.

Are they all true and verifiable? No. Are many corroborated by multiple sources? Yes.

Were there people, who you call "patsies" in the USA? Yes.

So, right there you have a number 4.

Is there "hard evidence" that they were here? Yes.

Hopsicker has a wonderful body of work on Atta and his "cell."

Many have written about the San Diego cell. Moussaoui was in flight school learning to steer jumbo jets. These are all facts, corroborated, solid facts that must be explained somehow.

They may not be interesting to you, but they obviously are to others.

And yes, #'s 5, 6, 7 ... on up are related to the September 11th attacks, whether you agree or not. It's tiresome and childish to pretend that these facts are somehow irrelevant.

Even in your own "patsy" explanation, US officials were aiding and abetting these "patsies," making them party to terrorism. These are crimes that we should be seeking justice for.

With so much flagrant evidence of official misconduct, I'm amazed at how unthinkingly you dismiss these potentially explosive leads.

Anyway, I've made my point. It isn't all just "speculation." Pretending it is is disingenuous.

Now, I have more important things to do.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Ever...

Oh Damn! Another one!

"bypassing al Qaeda Finance Chief, Shayk Said,"

"Finance Chief" doesn't make the final cut of the coverup? Does it get more black and white than that?

I have located "Shaykh Sa'id: Al Qaeda's Loyal Senior Accountant" in footnote 59 of Chapter 2.

This references an UNNAMED individual in Chapter 2, in the following passage:

"He [Bin Laden] appointed a new financial manager, whom his followers saw as miserly."

That's it. That's all the 9/11 Commission Report saw fit to print about the man who financed September 11th.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

It...

Coincides with the idea that Omar Saeed Sheikh was "hired" to use one of his aliases to send wire transfers to Mohammad Atta to create the "link" to "Al-Qaeda" and Osama Bin Laden so the Military Industrial Complex could have it's war. Indian Intelligence caught what they did, and then they were forced to phase him out of history.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Lee Hamilton on the $100,000

"I don’t know anything about it."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8730

Wasn't he...

Confronted about it by Kyle Hence? And he doesn't know anything about it? Didn't these Commissioners read any of the questions presented to them by the families?


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Peter Dale Scott...

Hi Dr. Scott,

What are your feelings about the ISI's connection to 9/11?

Thanks,

Jon

His response...

Dear Jon,

The connection is obviously important and historically deep. Unlike some, I am not clear on the details except that Saeed Sheikh was almost certainly a double or triple agent working with both ISI and MI6. In my forthcoming book I devote six pages 132-37 to this issue.

Peter


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Evidence RT still doesn't get it.

I wrote (and rewrote) this article to try and clear up misonceptions.

RT:
"What they DO reveal is their claim that Pakistan wired money to Atta. The FBI guy could have denied this very credibly given the fact that a pseudonym was used. But they didn't. And so while you claim that specifically the Pakistani connection is being covered up, that is one of the few things they HAVE revealed about Atta."

You just don't understand the seauence of events. This relies on a timeline of revelations.

Error 1: "Pakistan wired money to Atta"

No. An "Al Qaeda paymaster" wired money to Atta, and then received money from Atta and TWO OTHER purported hijackers in the 3 days before 9/11. These wire transfers were from DUBAI to FLORIDA and vice versa. Not Pakistan.

The FBI promoted this lead for several weeks, as it would connect the "hijackers" to Al Qaeda and thus serve as a case linking the attacks to Bin Laden's organization.

As "half" of the FBI investigation into 9/11 was focused on the money trail, many many agents were aware of this connection, and the alias linked to the wire transfers.

When the alias was revealed to the public, the Indian intelligence service came forward to connect this alias to Saeed Sheikh, and they revealed how the head of ISI was in telephone correspondence with Sheikh repeatedly, and that this related to the wire transfers.

That is the twist to the story.

The money transfers were not linked just to an Al Qaeda paymaster anymore, but to Pakistani intelligence -- our big "ALLY" whom they were sending billions of dollars for their help on terrorism matters.

That was when the cover up went into action. The names of the aliases were changed. The Saeed Sheikh connection was no longer talked about and disappeared from the media until Sheikh reemerged as the murderer of Daniel Pearl, with no connection made in the media to these previous matters.

They have covered up that the Saeed Shekh arrested for the Pearl murder is the SAME MAN as the Shaykh Sa'id mentioned in Bush's executive order, and who was a "financial manager" for Osama bin laden.

If you don't -- by now -- see how important these developments are, you just don't want to know and there's not much help for you.

"Nothing about where and how he spent money "preparing the attacks". Just the fact that he got money from Pakistan. Some cover up!"

The cover up is in not going after Sheikh for his role in 9/11 and pretending that these things never happened.

" In fact, 9/11-truth hostile Wikipedia goes very much in depth into the whole Paksitan connection, which should be as clear a sign as any that the info does not challenge the OCT"

You base your world view on whatever Wikipedia doesn't mention? This is retarded thinking.

"So on the one hand we have an aspect of the OCT that has NOT been covered up in any sense,"

Read the above article. Black is not white.

" a story that SUPPORTS the outlandish claims of the OCT, and which could easily serve as a limited hangout in order to have SOMEthing to pin on Bush that has nothing to do with the much more relevant issue of the destruction of the WTC complex."

Again with the relevance non-argument. September 11th has a hell of a lot more to it than your thermate claim. For someone who claims so much experience in these matters, it's a pretty lame argument that you can't be bothered with other avenues of investigation because of the WTC.

"This gets a ton of attention here, and of course a ton of criticism."

It gets a lot of unfounded criticism based on a faulty understanding of its importance. It certainly does not get a "lot of attention" out in the world. These are facts that blow open the cover ups of 9/11 in black and white.

I'm thankful that Lorie Van Auken understands that. Others, whatever. Scream "pull it" a few more times, and that should make it mean what you want it to.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Excellent John...

1999: 9/11 Funder Offered Deal to Turn Informant
9/11 paymaster Saeed Sheikh, imprisoned in India from 1994 to December 1999 for kidnapping Britons and Americans, meets with a British official and a lawyer nine times while in prison. Supposedly, the visits are to check on his living conditions, since he is a British citizen. [Los Angeles Times, 2/8/2002] However, the London Times will later claim that British intelligence secretly offers amnesty and the ability to “live in London a free man” if he will reveal his links to al-Qaeda. The Times claims that he refuses the offer. [Daily Mail, 7/16/2002; London Times, 7/16/2002] Yet after he is rescued in a hostage swap deal in December, the press reports that he, in fact, is freely able to return to Britain. [Press Trust of India, 1/3/2000] He visits his parents there in 2000 and again in early 2001. [BBC, 7/16/2002; Daily Telegraph, 7/16/2002; Vanity Fair, 8/2002] He is not charged with kidnapping until well after 9/11. Saeed’s kidnap victims call the government’s decision not to try him a “disgrace” and “scandalous.” [Press Trust of India, 1/3/2000] The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review later suggests that not only is Saeed closely tied to both the ISI and al-Qaeda, but may also have been working for the CIA: “There are many in [Pakistani President] Musharraf’s government who believe that Saeed Sheikh’s power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA. The theory is that… Saeed Sheikh was bought and paid for.” [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 3/3/2002]


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up