Were U.S. and Allied Intelligence Agents Acting As the Hijackers' Handlers?


Israeli intelligence agents tracked the hijackers' every movement prior to the attacks, lived right next door to some of the hijackers, and apparently sent agents to film the attack on the World Trade Centers (see also this).

Likewise, Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the September 11, 2001, plotters "with precision" prior to the attacks.

According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers (and the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).

Were the U.S., Israeli and Saudi intelligence agents undertaking surveillance on the hijackers . . . or were they helping the hijackers and acting as their handlers?

This question should be considered given the following background:

Several of the hijackers may have trained at U.S. military bases

According to intelligence officials in India, Pakistan's military chief of intelligence wired $100,000 to the lead hijacker days before 9/11 (mentioned here in the Wall Street Journal). This is especially interesting because:

  • That particular chief of intelligence was appointed to that position with the approval of the U.S.; and
  • The intelligence chief had held "consultations" with his U.S. counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the week prior to September 11.

A CIA memo written on October 2, 2002, concluded there is “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government” (page 169).

The former president of Italy said that U.S. and Israeli intelligence services were behind the 9/11 attack, and that that fact is widely known by the intelligence services of all of the western nations.

11 of the hijackers received visas to the U.S. through a consular office where, according to the former head of that office, the CIA routinely insisted that visas be granted to terrorists, even when their visa applications should have been rejected under standard operating procedure.

And, perhaps most important of all, the FBI knew that terrorists were taking flying lessons before 9/11 but killed any efforts to question them and then -- on 9/11 -- the U.S. military let the hijackers fly all over the place (including right over several military bases) for hours without so much as lifting a finger to stop them.

Alexander Cockburn...

Everyone's favorite almost truther asked, "was the Mossad essentially being subcontracted by the CIA to work in the United States on spying, which would be illegal?"

Who Is? Archives

Questions for Jon and George

A better question might be, "were elements of the CIA and other US security agencies subcontracted by the MOSSAD to assist and carry out the 9/11 attacks?"

And here's a question for George Washington. Why do you continually refer to the Arabs as "the hijackers" when there is absolutely no good evidence that they were the ones who actually hijacked the planes?

Good stuff.

Expand it. Use more corroboration (if you want). There's much to include.

Some argue that we shouldn't talk about the "patsies" at all. I find that short sighted and silly. Much cover up and links to high level government officials exists when you start pulling at the strings.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Patsies That Were Told They Were Needed To Test System Security

I think the hijackers were brought into this country by people working under the control of well placed criminal elements within the military/industrial/political communities and that they were told that they were needed to test the commercial and civil avaition system against 'terrorist' threats. Thus they were sent to flight schools, sent on commercial flights in groups and ordered to behave suspiciously to test the awareness of industry personnel (James Woods recollection of 9/11 hijackers on pre-9/11 flights) and even ordered to seek the use of crop dusting aircraft from government offices (Atta) while making threatening references.

Then on 9/11, they were probably told that as part of a hijack training execise that they were to remove flight crews from the flight decks of the 9/11 planes, which were then placed under the control of pre-installed pilotless navigation systems and crashed into targets that day.

Quite possibly, the vice president and a small number of others ensured that military intercepts did not happen that would interefere.

Late April-Mid-May 2000: Atta Leaves Numerous Clues While Seeking Crop-Dusting Airplane Loan

Mohamed Atta reportedly has a very strange meeting with Johnelle Bryant of the US Department of Agriculture (incidentally, one month before the official story claims he arrived in the US for the first time). According to Bryant, in the meeting Atta does all of the following:

He initially refuses to speak with one who is “but a female.”

He asks her for a loan of $650,000 to buy and modify a crop-dusting plane.

He mentions that he wants to “build a chemical tank that would fit inside the aircraft and take up every available square inch of the aircraft except for where the pilot would be sitting.”

He uses his real name even as she takes notes, and makes sure she spells it correctly.

He says he has just arrived from Afghanistan.

He tells about his travel plans to Spain and Germany.

He expresses an interest in visiting New York.

He asks her about security at the WTC and other US landmarks.

He discusses al-Qaeda and its need for American membership.

He tells her bin Laden “would someday be known as the world’s greatest leader.”

He asks to buy the aerial photograph of Washington hanging on her Florida office wall, throwing increasingly large “wads of cash” at her when she refuses to sell it. [ABC News, 6/6/2002]

After Bryant points out one of the buildings in the Washington photograph as her former place of employment, he asks her, “How would you like it if somebody flew an airplane into your friends’ building?”

He asks her, “What would prevent [me] from going behind [your] desk and cutting [your] throat and making off with the millions of dollars” in the safe behind her.

He asks, “How would America like it if another country destroyed [Washington] and some of the monuments in it like the cities in [my] country had been destroyed?”

He gets “very agitated” when he isn’t given the money in cash on the spot.

Atta later tries to get the loan again from the same woman, this time “slightly disguised” by wearing glasses. Three other terrorists also attempt to get the same loan from Bryant, but all of them fail. Bryant turns them down because they do not meet the loan requirements, and fails to notify anyone about these strange encounters until after 9/11. Government officials not only confirm the account and say that Bryant passed a lie detector test, but also elaborate that the account is consistent with other information they have received from interrogating prisoners. Supposedly, failing to get the loan, the terrorists switched plans from using crop dusters to hijacking aircraft. Other department employees also remember the encounter, again said to take place in April 2000. The 9/11 Commission has failed to mention any aspect of Johnelle Bryant’s account. [Washington Post, 9/25/2001; ABC News, 6/6/2002; London Times, 6/8/2002] Compare Atta’s meeting with FBI Director Mueller’s later testimony about the hijackers: “There were no slip-ups. Discipline never broke down. They gave no hint to those around them what they were about.” [CNN, 9/28/2002]

Infiltrators / Handlers of Al Qaeda


pseudonym Omar Nasiri, Ali Mohammed, Melvin Lattimore, Mamdouh Zaki Zakhary, Emad Salem , Randy Glass, Abduss Attar Sheikh, Mohammed Naeem Noor, Gutsie Hadas.


Not long after the World Trade Center bombing in February 1993 (see February 26, 1993), investigators discover a connection between some of the plotters and El-Sayyid Nosair (see November 5, 1990). The Wall Street Journal reports that investigators “went back to look at [Nosair’s] personal possessions. There, they finally saw the link to Mr. Mohamed.” Top secret US military documents obviously supplied by Mohamed are found among Nosair’s possessions. Still no action is taken against Mohamed. [Wall Street Journal, 11/26/2001; Posner, 2003, pp. 186-94]


From day one was the US Al Qaeda cell a sting operation. Thatt's what I try to tell you for years now.

Yes, and how/why were Mohamed Atta & 3 other "hijackers"

allowed to travel freely throughout the U.S. & even take flying lessons after they had been ID'ed by the Able Danger program??? (How could they even have been allowed to purchase airline tickets for 9/11??? Weren't they under surveillance? Weren't their names on watch lists?)

It's even more sophisticated

everytime a part of the cell was discovered they had false ID cards with them. That's the case for the Ramzi Yousef Manila case, for Nosair guy and for the US embassies USS Cole guilty as well.


So which spy organization was it?

"According to intelligence officials in India, Pakistan's military chief of intelligence wired $100,000 to the lead hijacker days before 9/11 (mentioned here in the Wall Street Journal)."

GW - Follow the link. The article is not mentioned by The WallStreet Journal as you suggest.

The website link you have is actually:


The web only column "Best Of The Web" is where this item is mentioned. Your blog makes it seem as if the Wall Street Journal mentioned this. It's a an opinion web site that links to two stories and neither establishes with facts the theory that the Pakistani General of the ISI ordered money to be wired. I've included both links with the excerpts below. The reason I am pointing this out is because people end up repeating stuff they read because we all work full time jobs and have no time to check the veracity of claims like:

"Pakistani ISI General ordered $100,000 to be wired to 911 Hijackers"

From OPINIONJOURNAL.COM (not Wall Street Journal) -

"Our Friends the Pakistanis
Yesterday we noted a report from a Pakistani newspaper that Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad had been fired as head of Islamabad's Inter-Services Security agency after U.S. linked him to a militant allied with terrorists who hijacked an Indian Airlines plane in 1999. Now the Times of India says Ahmad is connected to the Sept. 11 attacks:

Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahumd.

Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh's mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.


The title: "Our Friends The Pakistanis" is a link to "the Times Of India" that says "page can't be found".

The OPINIONJOURNAL.COM (not The Wall Street Journal) uses some questionable wording here...

In the first paragraph it says:

Yesterday we noted a report from a Pakistani newspaper that Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad had been fired as head of Islamabad's Inter-Services Security agency after U.S. linked him to a militant allied with terrorists who hijacked an Indian Airlines plane in 1999. Now the Times of India says Ahmad is connected to the Sept. 11 attacks:

The word "noted" is a link to another "Best of The Web" opinion piece.

It says:

Our Friends the Pakistanis
The Pakistani newspaper Dawn reports that Islamabad has replaced the head of its Inter-Services Intelligence agency, Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, "after the FBI investigators established credible links between him and Umar Sheikh, one of the three militants released in exchange for passengers of the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in 1999."

The title "Our Friends the Pakistanis" is linked to this article from "Dawn". I've included the full text of the article from DAWN because it's very short.

"ISLAMABAD, Oct 8: Gen Mohammad Aziz Khan, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee; and Gen Mohammad Yousuf Khan, Vice Chief of Army Staff, visited the Chief Executive’s office on Monday morning where they called on President Gen Pervez Musharraf.

According to a press release issued by the CE’s Secretariat, the president congratulated them on their promotion and wished them success.

Lauding their leadership quality, the president expressed the hope that their appointment as chairman, Joint Chief of Staff Committee and Vice Chief of Army Staff, respectively, would further enhance the operational and professional capabilities of the armed frces. He prayed for their success.

Thanking the president, Gen Aziz and Gen Yousuf said that they would strive to live up to the trust reposed in them."

You see? The article subject matter has nothing to do with what the OpinionJournal.Com is claiming.

Secondly, the other "Source Article" that the OpinionJournal.com is referencing is the Times Of India article that, alone, is worth less then toilet paper. And alone it is because it's never been verified by anyone else, ever.

Actually, it no longer exists. The link goes to a "page not found".

These claims have never been confirmed. Why people keep reporting this story over and over as if it' is backed by some sort of 'facts' is beyond me.

This is, in my opinion, how disinformation is spread. Links don't work, sources can't be verified because it's either impossible or just hasn't been done by the people who like to report this Pakistani ISI link as something that has factual backing......it doesn't.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever



Thanks Sitting-Bull

Whoever voted me down I would like discussion on the matter if you are interested. You think GeorgeWashington was 'ok' to attribute the passage to the Wall Street Journal? Or even to mention it at all with the obvious lack of sourcing...or accurate sourcing...or sourcing that has been confirmed with other means?

The funny thing is that I've already pointed this 'missing source articles' and still people use the OpinionJournal.com links as sources.The links have been down for months if not years.

It shows me that people don't care much about sources.

And even if the source links were working for us to verify GeorgeWashington's claims about the Pakistani ISI General...the sources are WEAK and have not been verified or checked up on.

Imagine if I were to claim that "...I read in a Palestinian newspaper that Israel was responsible for 911 and that there were spies in NYC from the MOSSAD on 911 conducting the operation"

Would I not be a questionable source if my claim was not backed up by something a little more neutral? Further more if I were to link to the sources of these claims and the links didn't work or the information just was not even accurate or relative...would you not de-position my claims on your '911 Truth Topics Of Interest" list?

There is literally no reason to include this claim that the General of Pakistan's ISI Wired 100K stuff in serious 9/11 research. It's just NOT BACKED UP by serious, factual, verified information.

Literally, it's a few people saying "i read somewhere that Pakistan's ISI (cia counter part) General wired 100K to 911 Hijackers".

I am not singling out an issue (ISI) here. I'm sure there are tons of other issues pushed by 911 Truth and others that is based on shoddy, un-sourced, outdated, and just plain obvious disinformation....spread unknowingly or not. What I mean is that I'm not protecting the ISI here.

At some point 9/11 Truth will have to evolve by discarding the distractions that have become a literal paper-tiger propped up by broken links, opinion pieces, book reviews, and highly questionable sources. Some things just don't lead to 9/11 Truth. I don't think issues like this exist. I don't think anyone would argue we should hold on to beliefs backed by nothing much..

If there is some new information that has come to light that I've missed...I'm always up for re-evaluating my position. But as it stands, this issue should be voted off the table.

James Taranto is the writer behind "Best of The Web" In case anyone checks sources.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever