Pakistan weekly spills 9/11 beans-Telegraph India

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060313/asp/nation/story_5962372.asp

Pakistan weekly spills 9/11 beans
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

Monday, March 13, 2006

New Delhi, March 12: The Pakistan foreign office had paid tens of thousands of dollars to lobbyists in the US to get anti-Pakistan references dropped from the 9/11 inquiry commission report, The Friday Times has claimed.

The Pakistani weekly said its story is based on disclosures made by foreign service officials to the Public Accounts Committee at a secret meeting in Islamabad on Tuesday.

It claimed that some of the commission members were also bribed to prevent them from including damaging information about Pakistan.

The magazine said the PAC grilled officials in the presence of foreign secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan and special secretary Sher Afghan on the money paid to lobbyists.

“The disclosure sheds doubt on the integrity and honesty of the members of the 9/11 inquiry commission and, above all, the authenticity of the information in their final report,” it said.

The report quoted an officer as saying that dramatic changes were made in the final draft of the inquiry commission after the lobbyists got to work. The panel was formed to probe the September 11 terror attack and make suggestions to fight terrorism.

After the commission tipped the lobbyists about the damaging revelations on Pakistan’s role in 9/11, they contacted the panel members and asked them to go soft on the country. The Friday Times claimed that a lot of money was used to silence these members.

According to the report, the lobbyists also helped Pakistan win the sympathy of 75 US Congressmen as part of its strategy to guard Islamabad’s interests in Washington. “US softened towards Pakistan only because of the efforts of the foreign office,” an official was quoted as saying in the report.

The Pakistan foreign office defended the decision to hire the lobbyists, saying it was an established practice in the US.

An observer at the Islamabad meeting said money could play an important role in buying powerful people. The remark came in response to comments made by some US officials after 9/11 that “Pakistanis will sell their mothers for a dollar”.

Pakistan had emerged as front-runner in the fight against terrorism unleashed by the US after the terror strikes. Washington pumped in billions of dollars to win President Pervez Musharraf’s support in launching a crackdown on al Qaida network thriving on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

FYI...

Did Pakistan Influence The 9/11 Commission Report?
Members Of The 9/11 Commission Bribed?
Pakistan Bribed 9/11 Commission
Thousands Of Dollars Spent By Pakistan To Get 9/11 Findings Dropped
Pakistan Embassy Official's Claims Triggers U.S. Media Interest
"Pakistan Did Not Influence 9/11 Probe"

Also, ever seen this report?

Or this?

January 22-25, 2002: India Tells FBI Director About Saeed Sheikh Connection to 9/11
FBI Director Mueller visits India, and is told by Indian investigators that Saeed Sheikh sent ransom money to hijacker Mohamed Atta in the US. In the next few days, Saeed is publicly blamed for his role with gangster Aftab Ansari in financing Atta and organizing the Calcutta attack (see January 22, 2002). [Press Trust of India, 1/22/2002; Los Angeles Times, 1/23/2002; Independent, 1/24/2002; Agence France-Presse, 1/27/2002; Daily Telegraph, 1/27/2002] Meanwhile, on January 23, Saeed helps kidnap reporter Daniel Pearl and is later arrested. Also on January 23, Ansari is placed under surveillance after flying to Dubai, United Arab Emirates. On January 24, Mueller and US Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlin discuss Saeed at a previously scheduled meeting with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Apparently Saeed’s role in Pearl’s kidnapping is not yet known. [Associated Press, 2/24/2002] On Mueller’s way back to the US he flies to Dubai to pressure the government there to arrest Ansari and deport him to India. Ansari is arrested on February 5 and deported four days later. [Associated Press, 2/10/2002; Frontline (Chennai), 2/16/2002; India Today, 2/25/2002]

Or this?

July 31, 2003: FBI Claims 9/11 Money Came from Pakistan
John S. Pistole, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, testifies before a Congressional committee. He states the 9/11 investigation “has traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan, where high-ranking and well-known al-Qaeda operatives played a major role in moving the money forward, eventually into the hands of the hijackers located in the US.” [US Congress, 7/31/2003] Pistole does not reveal any further details, but in India it is noted that this is consistent with previous reports that Saeed Sheikh and ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed were behind the funding of 9/11. [Times of India, 8/1/2003; Pioneer, 8/7/2003] However, the FBI will tell the 9/11 Commission that when Pistole used the word “accounts”, he did not mean actual accounts with a bank, merely that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was based in Pakistan, handled the money. [9/11 Commission, 8/21/2004, pp. 144 pdf file]

Some people would like others to believe that there's less reason to believe the wire transfer story of Sheikh/Atta than there is to believe it. I wholeheartedly disagree.


Who Is? Archives

Misrepresentation, willful or otherwise

"Some people would like others to believe that there's less reason to believe the wire transfer story of Sheikh/Atta than there is to believe it. I wholeheartedly disagree."

That is a complete misrepresentation of the central objection to the wire transfer story. The fact of the transfer itself (money from point a to point b) is not the significant issue -- the issue is WHAT WAS THE MONEY SPENT ON (if the transfer took place).

wtcdemolition.com/blog

Actually...

You have it backwards.

Was Mohammad Atta one of the hijackers? If he was, which we have been told, then any and all information pertaining to Mohammad Atta becomes relevant to the investigation. Especially an alleged wire transfer for $100,000 from Omar Sheikh ordered by Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmed. What he spent the $100,000 on is irrelevant if whatever he spent it on enabled him to participate in the attacks. Remember, that could be food, hookers, room and board, etc... The allegation of the wire transfer, and the supporting evidence that it took place, is enough, by itself, to demand an inquiry into it.

We've gone over this time and time again. The bottom line is, casseia, there is information that exists that suggests Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmed ordered Omar Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta. Did the 9/11 Commission address it (even though it was one of the questions submitted by the family members)? No. Have members of the 9/11 Commission since the 9/11 Report was issued denied any knowledge of the wire transfer (even though it was one of the questions submitted by the family members)? Yes. Is there a cover-up being perpetrated regarding the wire transfer? Yes. Does that mean it's something the 9/11 Truth Movement should take an interest in? Yes. Does promoting information regarding Pakistan's involvement in 9/11 somehow cancel out information regarding Israel's alleged role? No, this is not a competition. Yet, that is how you, and your friends treat it. Even though it's a legitimate issue that has NOT been resolved. THAT is the "significant issue."

If you can prove to me beyond the shadow of doubt that the wire transfer did not take place, then I'll drop it. Until then, stop trying to act as though this isn't an important issue, because it is.


Who Is? Archives

No.

Talk about having it backwards. "Was Mohammad Atta one of the hijackers? If he was, which we have been told, then any and all information pertaining to Mohammad Atta becomes relevant to the investigation. Especially an alleged wire transfer for $100,000 from Omar Sheikh ordered by Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmed. What he spent the $100,000 on is irrelevant if whatever he spent it on enabled him to participate in the attacks."

Was Atta one of the hijackers? You're correct that evidence of how he might have spent money to facilitate any aspect of the attacks is relevant to proving that he was. Without that information, the idea that he received money means very little to people who don't accept that he was a hijacker ONLY because "that is what we have been told." It could be nothing more than an addition to the patsy backstory. Now, the patsy backstory is a useful source of information that might lead to the real perps, but if you do not carefully, explicitly treat it that way, then especially in this case, when it is being used to jack up the overarching myth of deadly Muslims.

wtcdemolition.com/blog

I don't see any beans in this article...

Be skeptical of anti-Pakistan news coming out of India.

This article is funny to me in a few ways...

1. no author (OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT is listed as the author)
2. it is apparently referencing an article from "the Pakistan weekly" or maybe another article by the "The Friday Times"? Either way, there are no links to fill in the blanks.
3. there are no source links to the 'reports' that the article is talking about.

Excerpts....

"The Pakistan foreign office had paid tens of thousands of dollars to lobbyists in the US to get anti-Pakistan references dropped from the 9/11 inquiry commission report, The Friday Times has claimed."

Then the next paragraph....

"The Pakistani weekly said its story is based on disclosures made by foreign service officials to the Public Accounts Committee at a secret meeting in Islamabad on Tuesday."

So is "the Pakistani Weekly" the same as "The Friday Times" ? And what is a 'foreign service official" ? And where are these reports from these other publications?

So we have The Telegraph of Calcutta reporting on the story that another publication in Pakistan reported on....which was based on the claims of a 'foreign service official' who was at a sekrit meeting in Islamabad.

The lobbying claim is not a bomb shell by any means. Lobbyist being paid to lobby for the people who paid them? What is serious are the accusations that Commission members were directly bribed with cash to NOT REPORT certain things.

Does anyone have any proof of this or is this article the proof?

The article is needlessly shady and vague when it comes to points that can be used to corroborate the claims made.

The Friday Times (Pakistan) -
http://www.thefridaytimes.com/

Maybe The Pakistan weekly and The Friday Times are two DIFFERENT news organizations?

The Pakistan Weekly
http://www.pakistanweekly.com/

Another thing is the article has no AUTHOR listed. The author is noted as...

"OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT"

And since when do news publications merely report on what other news publications report on? Why not do your own report on your own research? Like go ask some questions of people involved and write a story based on that? Instead we have them reporting on reports that apparently exist somewhere...which were based on sekrit meetings in Islamabad and then conveyed by a 'foreign service official' to one publication....then....another publication in Calcutta wrote an article based on the article written by the unknown Pakistani publication.

Hmm.....

This article reminds me of another Times Of India article that I read somewhere.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Shaykh Sa'id

JPass has been trying to spin away the ISI connection for years. As if these weren't real people we were talking about.

ISI and The Wire Transfers of 9/11

Let me list several reasons why this ISI connection is part of a cover up, which is blatant, and damning.

1. Saeed Sheikh (also spelled "Shaykh Sa'id") -- real Islamic militant. Really sponsored by ISI, and accused by Musharaf of being MI6, and by many others in the Pakistani government of being CIA.

2. Sheikh arrested by India for terrorism in the 90's. Busted out of prison by Islamic hijackers who used knives smuggled on board, as in the same M.O. that allegedly was used on 9/11.

3. The 9/11 Commission Report (here comes the cover up) tells us about Osama bin Laden's new "financial manager" but doesn't name him in the text (red flag!), nor tell anything about his connection to 9/11 (red flag!) or anything about what he did with Al Qaeda's money (red flag!). A footnote at the end provides the clue to his name however.

"He [Bin Laden] appointed a new financial manager, whom his followers saw as miserly." --9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 2

No connection at all is made from this financial manager to September 11th 2001.

Footnote 59 of chapter 2, however, says:

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

BAM!

They didn't expect people to give a damn about the title of this "CIA analytic report." It does however name "Shaykh Sa'id" as the "senior accountant" of Al Qaeda.

"Shaykh Sa'id" was of course named on CNN, Times of India and other media as the source of Mohammad Atta's funding. This was quite open and not a secret at the time of the writing of the 9/11 Commission Report. This needed to be explained, yet was not. Blatant cover up.

This CIA analytic report refers to the same name as the person who was reported to have financed Mohammad Atta and the 9/11 plot,. The 9/11 Commission Report not only doesn't make this connection, they outright give the greatest slap in the face to America that any investigation possibly could:

"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.

The overwhelming abundance of evidence to the contrary exposes this as a bald lie.

The reason this contortion exists is because of Sheikh's connection to ISI director Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, a very embarassing and messy exposure, to the Washington kakistocracy.

Spin all you want, but Pakistan has been the center of Jihadi activity and state sponsored terrorism for decades. This is not a secret.

I would think that thinking people would relish the exposure of this cover up. If they were looking for the truth, that is.

You are correct...

For a long time now, jpass has done everything within his power to, as you said, "spin away the ISI connection." You could literally spend hours with him supplying information to substantiate the claim, expose several of his inaccurate statements for what they are, and then... a few days later, go through the entire process one more time. As if your previous discussion never took place.

I would think that thinking people would relish the exposure of this cover up. If they were looking for the truth, that is.


Who Is? Archives

BAM! Your Facts Should Be Checked

JohnDoraemi,

I am not trying to spin away anything. If there is solid information then the information will speak for itself. Well, eitherway the informaiton speaks for itself.

When you post things and attribute them to entirely different people...I have to question your understanding of the issue at hand...

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

I thought I pointed this out and I'd expect you would know this before I did..since you are into the Pakistani/times of india stuff so much....

THE 911 COMMISSION Foot Note is NOT referring to the OMar that is in jail for killing Daniel Pearle.

As I've pointed out before, there was a well known Al Queada operative who was with Bin Laden in Sudan at the same time the Pakistani ISI spook was in London or even while he was in jail.

You have two DIFFERENT people with similar names...not to mention an effort to intermingle these two people!.

There is a presidential executive order that also mentions the Shaykh that the 911 Commission is referring to. These ARE NOT the same guy you are talking about named Omar Said Sheik. TWO different guys...how do you not know this by now?

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

My facts? You have no sources for ANYTHING you say.

You say that they are two different people.

Prove it.

You Have Not Studied Very Hard

So you really didn't know there was ANOTHER known Al Quieda 'financial manager' known to be running with the Bin Laden gang since the early to mid 1990s?

Ok I will prove it. But you will have to wait. Unless I can find the information online again....my hard drive is in a box in a storage garage for now.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

On The Trail Of The Patsies


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/specials/terror/yazid.html#pr...

-------------
Mustafa Abu al-Yazid
"Also known as Sheikh Saeed, he is an original member of al-Qaeda's Shura leadership council and has been a trusted adviser to bin Laden for more than a decade. When bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership were exiled from Pakistan to Sudan in the 1990s, Yazid served as financial manager for some of bin Laden's business enterprises there."
---------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,561001,00.html
Dated: October 1 2001

"US investigators believe they have found the "smoking gun" linking Osama bin Laden to the September 11 terrorist attacks, with the discovery of financial evidence showing money transfers between the hijackers and a Bin Laden aide in the United Arab Emirates.

The man at the centre of the financial web is believed to be Sheikh Saeed, also known as Mustafa Mohamed Ahmad, who worked as a financial manager for Bin Laden when the Saudi exile was based in Sudan, and is still a trusted paymaster in Bin Laden's al-Qaida organisation."
-----------------

I have many pages of articles I've saved that are on my hard-drive in storage. I'm sure you could use google and find most of them, if you care to. Or you could go on spouting inaccurate information, being a total fucking dick to anyone skeptical of the claims being made here.

How is it that you treat my skepticism on this issue with such hostility...when...in the end...you have not even studied the topic enough to treat someone in such a way?

You seriously have never heard of this OTHER evil terror Muslim guy who was known as a
al queada boogey man....and just happened to have the same name as your evil Muslim mastermind Omar Saiid....and just happened to have a known alias like the one used to wire money....and just happened to also be called the financial manager of al qieada?

My assumption has always been that the waters are intentionally being muddied and that these two men are being intermingled and YOUR Omar Saiid who is in jail in Pakistan is being assigned the history of the guy that worked for the evil in Sudan early 90s.

To this day...as JohnD mixes these two very different men up.....my assumption proves correct.

What I don't get is how is it possible that someone as divisive as yourself on this issue could have 'missed' this information? You present yourself as an authority on the facts and missed this?

How is it that Jon Gold is an expert on the GeneralMahmood/ISI/911.... but rarely if ever mentions anything about this other known al quieada boogey man that has far to many 'coincidental' similarities with your own Omar Saiid to basically omit it from the discussion.

I can understand not believing there is anything to my presentation on this topic. The Al Queada conspiracy theory is muddled like pea soup. The predictable outcome from studying the phony Al Queada patsy operation is confusion.

But to not even include it in your research and comments....even after I have myself pointed this out for over a year? What gives Gold? You omitting this for good?

I'm spending my personal time finding information you should already know of and providing Joe, the author of the blog, with an alternative view on the subject. There is no need to make things hostile or argumentative in a negative way.

And for the record, I never said these guys didn't exist. Quite the opposite.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

As has been posted by me several times...

In several different threads, arguing with you about the identity of Omar Saeed Sheikh (even though you act as though I haven't)...

September 24, 2001-December 26, 2002: Identity of 9/11 Financier Constantly Changes
In 2000, the 9/11 hijackers receive money from a man using “Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi” and other aliases. On September 8-11, 2001, the hijackers send money to a man in the United Arab Emirates who uses the aliases “Mustafa Ahmed,” “Mustafa Ahmad,” and “Ahamad Mustafa.” Soon the media begins reporting on who this 9/11 “paymaster” is, but his reported names and identities will continually change. The media has sometimes made the obvious connection that the paymaster is Saeed Sheikh—a British financial expert who studied at the London School of Economics, undisputedly sent hijacker Mohamed Atta money the month before the attacks, made frequent trips to Dubai (where the money is sent), and is known to have trained the hijackers. However, the FBI consistently deflects attention to other possible explanations, with a highly confusing series of names vaguely similar to Mustafa Ahmed or Saeed Sheikh:


  • September 24, 2001: Newsweek reports that the paymaster for the 9/11 attacks is someone named “Mustafa Ahmed.” [Newsweek, 10/1/2001] This refers to Mustafa Mahmoud Said Ahmed, an Egyptian al-Qaeda banker who was captured in Tanzania in 1998 then later released. [Sydney Morning Herald, 9/28/2001; Newsday, 10/3/2001]
  • October 1, 2001: The Guardian reports that the real name of “Mustafa Mohamed Ahmad” is “Sheikh Saeed.” [Guardian, 10/1/2001] A few days later, CNN confirms from a “senior-level US government source” that this “Sheik Syed” is the British man Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh rescued from an Indian prison in 1999. [CNN, 10/6/2001; CNN, 10/8/2001] However, starting on October 8, the story that ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed ordered Saeed to give Mohamed Atta $100,000 begins to break. References to the 9/11 paymaster being the British Saeed Sheikh (and the connections to the ISI Director) suddenly disappear from the Western media (with one exception [CNN, 10/28/2001] ).
  • October 2001: Other articles continue to use “Mustafa Mohammed Ahmad” or “Shaykh Saiid” with no details of his identity, except for suggestions that he is Egyptian. There are numerous spelling variations and conflicting accounts over which name is the alias. There is an Egyptian al-Qaeda financier leader named Mustafa Abu al-Yazid who uses some variant of Saeed Sheikh as an alias. [Evening Standard, 10/1/2001; BBC, 10/1/2001; Newsday, 10/3/2001; Associated Press, 10/6/2001; Washington Post, 10/7/2001; Sunday Times (London), 10/7/2001; Knight Ridder, 10/9/2001; New York Times, 10/15/2001; Los Angeles Times, 10/20/2001]
  • October 16, 2001: CNN reports that the 9/11 paymaster “Sheik Sayid” is mentioned in a May 2001 trial of al-Qaeda members. However, this turns out to be a Kenyan named Sheik Sayyid el Masry. [Day 7. United States of America v. Usama bin Laden, et al., 2/20/2001; Day 8. United States of America v. Usama bin Laden, et al., 2/21/2001; CNN, 10/16/2001]
  • November 11, 2001: The identity of 9/11 paymaster “Mustafa Ahmed” is suddenly no longer Egyptian, but is now a Saudi named Sa’d Al-Sharif, who is said to be bin Laden’s brother-in-law. [United Nations, 3/8/2001; Newsweek, 11/11/2001; Associated Press, 12/18/2001]
  • December 11, 2001: The federal indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui calls the 9/11 paymaster “Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi a/k/a ‘Mustafa Ahmed,’” and gives him Sa’d’s nationality and birth date. [MSNBC, 12/11/2001] Many articles begin adding “al-Hawsawi” to the Mustafa Ahmed name. [Washington Post, 12/13/2001; Washington Post, 1/7/2002; Los Angeles Times, 1/20/2002]
  • January 23, 2002: As new information is reported in India, the media returns to the British Saeed Sheikh as the 9/11 paymaster. [Los Angeles Times, 1/23/2002; Daily Telegraph, 1/24/2002; Independent, 1/24/2002; Daily Telegraph, 1/27/2002] While his role in the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl is revealed on February 6, many articles connect him to 9/11, but many more do not. Coverage of Saeed’s 9/11 connections generally dies out by the time of his trial in July 2002.
  • June 4, 2002: Without explanation, the name “Shaikh Saiid al-Sharif” begins to be used for the 9/11 paymaster, presumably a combination of Saeed Sheikh and S’ad al-Sharif. [Associated Press, 6/5/2002; Independent, 9/15/2002; Associated Press, 9/26/2002; San Francisco Chronicle, 11/15/2002] Many of the old names continue to be used, however. [New York Times, 7/10/2002; Time, 8/4/2002; Los Angeles Times, 9/1/2002; Chicago Tribune, 9/5/2002; Knight Ridder, 9/8/2002; Knight Ridder, 9/9/2002; Washington Post, 9/11/2002; Los Angeles Times, 12/24/2002]
  • June 18, 2002: FBI Director Mueller testifies that the money sent in 2000 is sent by someone named “Ali Abdul Aziz Ali” but the money in 2001 is sent by “Shaikh Saiid al-Sharif.” The 9/11 Commission will later identify Aziz Ali as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s nephew and agree with Mueller that he sent the money in 2000. [US Congress, 9/26/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 1]
  • September 4, 2002: Newsweek says “Mustafa Ahmad Adin al-Husawi,” presumably Saudi, is a deputy to the Egyptian “Sayyid Shaikh Al-Sharif.” However, it adds he “remains almost a total mystery,” and they are unsure of his name. [Newsweek, 9/4/2002]
  • December 26, 2002: US officials now say there is no such person as Shaikh Saiid al-Sharif. Instead, he is probably a composite of three different people: “[Mustafa Ahmed] Al-Hisawi, Shaikh Saiid al-Masri, al-Qaeda’s finance chief, and Saad al-Sharif, bin Laden’s brother-in-law and a midlevel al-Qaeda financier.” [Associated Press, 12/27/2002] Shaikh Saiid al-Masri is likely a reference the Kenyan Sheik Sayyid el Masry. Note that, now, al-Hisawi is the assistant to Shaikh Saiid, a flip from a few months before. Saiid and/or al-Hisawi still haven’t been added to the FBI’s official most wanted lists. [London Times, 12/1/2001; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2002; Wall Street Journal, 6/17/2002] Despite the confusion, the FBI isn’t even seeking information about them. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2/14/2002] Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi is said to be arrested with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Pakistan in 2003, but no photos of him are released, and witnesses of the supposed arrest did not see al-Hawsawi or Mohammed there (see March 1, 2003). [Reuters, 3/3/2003] A few weeks later, it will be reported that “the man US intelligence officials suspected of being al-Qaeda’s financial mastermind, Sheik Said al-Masri, remains at large.” [Business Week, 3/17/2003]

And this excerpt from Paul Thompson's piece, "Sept. 11's Smoking Gun: The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh"...

Distractions Away From Saeed
Not only did Mahmood suddenly become persona non grata, but so did Saeed Sheikh, now that he was implicated in Mahmood’s story. He was again mentioned as the 9/11 paymaster the day before the Mahmood story broke [CNN, 10/8/01], and then suddenly, all mention of him ceased (with one exception [CNN, 10/28/01]). Since then, the FBI has put forth a variety of alternates for the identity of the person in the 9/11 paymaster role. The story is too complicated to greatly detail here, but the FBI and media have variously filled Saeed Sheikh’s shoes with an Egyptian named Shaykh Saiid [Sydney Morning Herald, 9/28/01, New York Times, 10/15/01, Los Angeles Times, 10/20/01], a Saudi named Sa’d Al-Sharif, said to be bin Laden’s brother-in-law [Newsweek, 11/11/01, AP, 12/18/01], a Kenyan named Sheik Sayyid el Masry [CNN, 10/16/01, Trial Transcript, 2/20/01, Trial Transcript, 2/21/01], a Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi or al-Hisawi (suggesting no alias was used) [MSNBC, 12/11/01, Wall Street Journal, 6/17/02], a Shaikh Saiid al-Sharif [AP, 6/4/02], an Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (for some of the money transfers) [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/26/02], and so on. Most recently, the FBI said the most well-known candidate, Shaikh Saiid al-Sharif, doesn’t actually exist, but is probably a composite of Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hisawi, Shaikh Saiid al-Masri, and Saad al-Sharif. [AP, 12/26/02] Newsweek, in describing yet another name variation, Mustafa Ahmad Adin Al-Husawi, says the person “remains almost a total mystery,” and no one is sure of his name or even if he is one person. [Newsweek, 9/4/02] (Note that Saeed appears to be a master of disguise, as can be seen by the bewildering number of names he is referred to in the media: Sheik Syed, Ahmad Umar Sheikh, Umar Sheikh, Sheik Omar Saeed, Omar Saiid Sheikh, Sheikh Omar, etc… He opened bank accounts using many of his name variations, or even completely unrelated names. [The News, 2/13/02])

While the FBI and media have been putting forth a series of names sounding remarkably similar to Saeed Sheikh or the aliases he used, they have been ignoring or forgetting solid evidence that links Saeed Sheikh to the funding of 9/11. To do so would mean confronting Saeed’s ISI ties, and the possibility that he was acting on orders from Mahmood, or even President Musharraf.

This is the last time I am going to post this information just to please jpass. Of course, the next time a thread is posted regarding Pakistan, jpass will be there again, making the same claims as has been made in this thread. Jpass likes to pretend that I "rarely if ever mention anything about this other known al quieada boogey man", but the fact of the matter is, the idea that Omar Saeed Sheikh's identity was morphed into several different people is nothing new, and has been mentioned SEVERAL times, including in 9/11: Press For Truth. Jpass, however, disregards this. Jpass makes the claim that I don't "even include it in your research and comments (a complete fabrication)", yet, I never see jpass acknowledge that "starting on October 8, the story that ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed ordered Saeed to give Mohamed Atta $100,000 begins to break. References to the 9/11 paymaster being the British Saeed Sheikh (and the connections to the ISI Director) suddenly disappear from the Western media (with one exception [CNN, 10/28/2001] )." or how the FBI "has put forth a variety of alternates for the identity of the person in the 9/11 paymaster role. The story is too complicated to greatly detail here, but the FBI and media have variously filled Saeed Sheikh’s shoes with an Egyptian named Shaykh Saiid [Sydney Morning Herald, 9/28/01, New York Times, 10/15/01, Los Angeles Times, 10/20/01], a Saudi named Sa’d Al-Sharif, said to be bin Laden’s brother-in-law [Newsweek, 11/11/01, AP, 12/18/01], a Kenyan named Sheik Sayyid el Masry [CNN, 10/16/01, Trial Transcript, 2/20/01, Trial Transcript, 2/21/01], a Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi or al-Hisawi (suggesting no alias was used) [MSNBC, 12/11/01, Wall Street Journal, 6/17/02], a Shaikh Saiid al-Sharif [AP, 6/4/02], an Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (for some of the money transfers) [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/26/02], and so on." Instead, he acts as though we are purposefully misleading individuals with this information.

That is simply not the case. I am on moderated commenting (by choice because I don't want to waste my time anymore with arguments on 911Blogger.com), so don't expect me to take part in this conversation anymore.

Hi Jon

Hey man,
I'm not looking to argue with you. Never was. Just trying to get to the bottom of all this crap. But from experience, those who talk about this story of the ISI / Pakistani General connection neglect the information I've posted. The information that shows that the water is far to cloudy to be so sure of ourselves on this Pakistani / General Mahmood link.

How can you decided what is fact and what is fiction regarding this case? There are many different people being interchanged so how do you choose one and say "that's my guy!"? How can you say that the guy in Pakistan is the paymaster but the guy with the same name, same alias, and same Al Queada job description is not your man?

How do you choose the Omar from Pakistan over the other guys who have been labeled as the paymaster of 911?

We can argue about the patsies all day. The fact is that the demolition of the WTC complex goes far beyond the scope of the Al Queada conspiracy theory.

Omar Saiid Sheikh, whether from Pakistan or Egypt, could not have wired those buildings for demolition.

Jon, my intention was never to argue with you and create an environment which you describe in your last comment. I really don't think we are in disagreement on but one thing, the value of the Pakistani ISI General Mahmood link. I personally think it's a red herring backed by shady, shoddy, lacking evidence which is nothing more then strung together news articles all referencing the Times Of India article and coupling it with the FBI 100K money transfer allegations.

At the end of the day, 100k being wired for 911 means squat if you can't prove where the money went and how it was used to execute 9/11.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Why are you such a dick?

"I would think that thinking people would relish the exposure of this cover up. If they were looking for the truth, that is."
JohnDoraemi

What crap.

You are claiming that I am not looking for truth when I am in fact providing you with information you claim to know nothing about! You should be thanking me. Instead you have begun to concoct a fantasy where I am somehow pro-Pakistan and just don't want this stuff out into the open!

"Spin all you want, but Pakistan has been the center of Jihadi activity and state sponsored terrorism for decades. This is not a secret."

Ok, so what does this have to do with 911? The Al queda boogey man theory has been shot to shit for years now. The demolition of the towers is massively beyond the scope of the Al Queada theory.

You would think that after 6 years we would not still be here arguing over the patsies of 911.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

are you kidding me....

"The overwhelming abundance of evidence..."

:()

I just have to laugh when i see these words being used while discussing this topic.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

well, if we're down to "dicks" and cunts...

JPass,

Your spin is far from conclusive.

Basically, you have reiterated (again) that we should ignore that Pakistan angle and confine ourselves to demolition. How about "No?"

There are 2 (two) issues you are intentionally obfuscating here. One is Saeed Sheikh, and the other is the evidence connecting ISI chief Ahmad.

You fail to accept that the Indian intelligence, and the Pakistani' government's actions relate to ISI chief Ahmad, not to Saeed Sheikh. Further, it was Ahmad in Washington DC days before the attacks, while Bin Laden is admitted to the Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi (September 10, 2001).
It is the "ISI chief" that was mysteriously omitted from Condi Rice's press conference transcript. And it was ISI chief Ahmad that was forced to resign on October 9, 2001, coinciding witht he Indian intelligence linking him personally to the 9/11 attacks in the press.

It is also ISI chief Ahmad who receives no mention whatsoever in the 9/11 Commission cover up nor the Congressional Joint Inquiry cover up. This is quite odd, when he was linked to funding the 9/11 plot. They have not exonerated him. They made him disappear from history. This is quite unacceptable.

"So you really didn't know there was ANOTHER known Al Quieda 'financial manager' known to be running with the Bin Laden gang since the early to mid 1990s?"

Well, you got me there. No, I didn't. What are the odds of two Al Qaeda paymasters having exactly the same name?

However, this old timer doesn't seem to fit the description in the 9/11 Commission Report that I quoted, and that the CIA CTC report is footnoted to:

"He [Bin Laden] appointed a new financial manager, whom his followers saw as miserly." -Chapter 2

If this man was running with Bin Laden since the eartly 90's, he wouldn't qualify as "new."

In summary:

The important link is to Pakistani ISI, and not to Omar Saeed Sheikh. Casting doubt on the Omar Saeed Sheikh link does not erase the other evidence, and evidence of cover up, directly related to former ISI chief Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad.

No ad hominems required.