The Death of Osama, 9/11 and the War on Terror

pumpitoutRadio - The Death of Osama, 9/11 and the War on Terror

With guest "jimd3100"... we talk about the death of Osama, the resulting exposure of Pakistan and the relation to the intelligence "failure" concerning the events of September 11, 2001.

Mp3 audio download link (75.6mb 64kb mp3 2hrs45min14sec) -


Intelligence Agencies -Guilty as charged

Intelligence Agencies -Guilty as charged
Submitted by jimd3100 on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 4:30pm

Bin Laden was protected by Pakistani ISI, we give billions every year to Pakistan and they use the money to kill our troops and keep Bin Laden Comfortable. That's my tax dollars at work. We tax payers probably paid for Bin Laden's mansion and security. That tends to piss me off. When Pakistan officials are notified of an upcoming operation suddenly the "bad guys" take off before the operation concludes-gee-like they were tipped off. Obama didn't notify Pakistan of this operation, because it's obvious now that the ISI were harboring Bin Laden.

"Osama bin Laden was killed Sunday in an mansion in an affluent part of a city north of Islamabad, Pakistan's capital city."

"The man behind the Sept. 11 attacks, thought by some to be living in a cave, who had eluded capture for more than a decade, was killed after U.S. forces raided his compound, which was located in a part of Abbottabad that is home to many "retired military," an administration official told reporters Sunday."

"Administration officials called it “an extraordinarily secured compound,” adding U.S. intelligence officials' first assessment is it likely was built specifically to hide bin Laden."

"The White House did not share the intelligence with any other nation, including Pakistan. Islamabad was not notified of the raid before it occurred."

"Home ministry officials pointed out that Osama bin Laden was living in the mid-size town of Abbottabad, barely 50 km from Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad and not somewhere in the mountains of Tora Bora on the Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier. This clearly indicated that Pakistani intelligence agencies, the ISI, was not only in full knowledge of Osama’s activities in Pakistan but that it was playing a double game with the Americans by pretending not to know otherwise."

"America's massive military aid package to Pakistan has come under scrutiny after allegations that as much as 70% of $5.4bn in assistance has been misspent."

"Since 2002, the US has paid the operating costs of Pakistan's military operations in the tribal belt along the Afghan border, where Taliban and al-Qaida fighters are sheltering."

"The news he was killed in an army town in Pakistan will raise more pointed questions of how he managed to evade capture and whether Pakistan's military and intelligence leadership knew of his whereabouts and sheltered him. Critics have long accused elements of Pakistan's security establishment of protecting bin Laden, though Islamabad has always denied this."

From Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer's book "Operation Dark Heart":

"Sir," he said, "what Major Shaffer is telling you is absolutely true. There is clear and compelling evidence-solid intelligence-that the Pakistani Intelligence Service is at best compromised and, at worst, a co conspirator with the Taliban. Operation Dark Heart would probably give us a better picture of what is actually going on between the ISI and the Taliban." page 187

"the intel indicates that most of the leadership is probably now in Pakistan" page 193

9-11 plot - there is lots of evidence suggesting elements of American and Israeli Intelligence foreknowledge, lots of evidence of Saudi intelligence involvement and what just happened with Bin Laden's death makes it impossible to dismiss ISI intelligence protecting him. This isn't news to some of us.

Maybe sending 3 billion dollars a year to Pakistan to help kill our own soldiers and harbor Bin Laden will end now. I wont be shedding any tears for Bin Laden-good riddance.

No Accountability

No Accountability
Submitted by jimd3100 on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:54pm

The person in this video clip claiming he is not going to hold anyone accountable for "failures" that resulted in the attacks of 9-11 was awarded the Presidential medal of freedom award and a million dollar book deal.

"President Bush awarded the nation's highest civilian honor Tuesday to three men central to his Iraq policy, saying they had played "pivotal roles in great events."

"Tenet left the CIA in July after seven years as director. He has been criticized for intelligence failures before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the never-proven prewar allegations that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

"Mr. Bush credited him as "one of the first to recognize and address the threat to America from radical networks." He said that after Sept. 11, Tenet was "ready with a plan to strike back at al Qaeda and to topple the Taliban."

"This honor goes to three men who have played pivotal roles in great events and whose efforts have made our country more secure and advanced the cause of human liberty," Mr. Bush said."

"WASHINGTON, May 16, 2002 — President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News."

"In many respects, the directive, as described to NBC News, outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf,” Miklaszewski said."

"Such directives are top-secret documents that are formally drafted only after they have been approved at the highest levels of the White House, and represent decisions that are to be implemented imminently."

"He scored a $5 million book deal, making his retirement a bit more comfortable."

David J. Katz

from "jimd3100"...


David J. Katz

Principal Officer
U.S. Consulate, Peshawar, NWFP, Pakistan

International Affairs industry

September 1999 – June 2002 (2 years 10 months)

Headed post responsible for U.S. interests in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province and Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Also monitored developments and situation in Afghanistan.

Headed post responsible for U.S. interests in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province and Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

Why this is interesting........

Question: What Are Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier and Federally Administered Tribal Areas?

Peshawar and the Bin Laden Connection

The capital of the province is Peshawar, where lawlessness, violence, drug- and gun-running laced in Sunni fundamentalism prevail. It was in Peshawar that the CIA and Saudi-backed covert war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-1989) was headquartered. It’s through Peshawar that much of Afghanistan’s heroin trade flows.

It was also in Peshawar that al-Qaeda first organized through the offices of the World Muslim league and the Muslim Brotherhood in the city. Those offices were run by Abdullah Azam, a Jordanian Palestinian who had attended university in Saudi Arabia, with Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden first traveled to Peshawar in 1980, when he began networking with local Mujahideen leaders. He settled there in 1982, bringing with him heavy construction equipment from his father’s Saudi construction firm and helping to build, in 1986, the Khost tunnel complex, a CIA arms depot that the Pentagon in 2001 would bomb heavily in attempts to flush out bin Laden. Saudi donations financed bin Laden’s and Azam’s operations in Peshawar, from where, in the 1990s, terrorist attacks—including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998—were planned, according to Pakistani journalist and Daily Telegraph correspondent Ahmed Rashid.

Remember during 2000-2001 Katz's job.....

Also monitored developments and situation in Afghanistan.

Why this is interesting........

Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil.

The warnings were delivered by an aide of Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban Foreign Minister at the time, who was known to be deeply unhappy with the foreign militants in Afghanistan, including Arabs.

Mr Muttawakil, now in American custody, believed the Taliban's protection of Mr bin Laden and the other al-Qa'ida militants would lead to nothing less than the destruction of Afghanistan by the US military. He told his aide: "The guests are going to destroy the guesthouse."

The minister then ordered him to alert the US and the UN about what was going to happen. But in a massive failure of intelligence, the message was disregarded because of what sources describe as "warning fatigue". At the same time, the FBI and the CIA failed to take seriously warnings that Islamic fundamentalist students had enrolled in flight schools across the US.

Mr Muttawakil's aide, who has stayed on in Kabul and who has to remain anonymous for his security, described in detail to The Independent how he alerted first the Americans and then the United Nations of the coming calamity of 11 September.

The minister learnt in July last year that Mr bin Laden was planning a "huge attack" on targets inside America, the aide said. The attacks were imminent and would be so deadly the United States would react with destructive rage.

Mr bin Laden had been in Afghanistan since May 1996, bringing his three wives, 13 children and Arab fighters. Over time he became a close ally of the obscurantist Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.

Mr Muttawakil learnt of the coming attacks on America not from other members of the Taliban leadership, but from the leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Tahir Yildash. The organization was one of the fundamentalist groups that had found refuge on Afghan soil, lending fighters for the Taliban's war on the Northern Alliance and benefiting from good relations with al-Qa'ida in its fight against the Uzbek government.

According to the emissary, Mr Muttawakil emerged from a one-to-one meeting with Mr Yildash looking shocked and troubled. Until then, the Foreign Minister, who had disapproved of the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Bamian earlier in the year, had no inkling from others in the Taliban leadership of what Mr bin Laden was planning.

"At first Muttawakil wouldn't say why he was so upset," said the aide. "Then it all came out. Yildash had revealed that Osama bin Laden was going to launch an attack on the United States. It would take place on American soil and it was imminent. Yildash said Osama hoped to kill thousands of Americans."

At the time, 19 members of al-Qa'ida were inside in the US waiting to launch what would be the deadliest foreign attack on the American mainland.

The emissary went first to the Americans, traveling across the border to meet the consul general, David Katz, in the Pakistani border town of Peshawar, in the third week of July 2001. They met in a safehouse belonging to an old mujahedin leader who has confirmed to The Independent that the meeting took place.

Another US official was also present possibly from the intelligence services. Mr Katz, who now works at the American embassy in Eritrea, declined to talk about the meeting. But other US sources said the warning was not passed on.

A diplomatic source said: "We were hearing a lot of that kind of stuff. When people keep saying the sky's going to fall in and it doesn't, a kind of warning fatigue sets in. I actually thought it was all an attempt to rattle us in an attempt to please their funders in the Gulf, to try to get more donations for the cause."

The Afghan aide did not reveal that the warning was from Mr Muttawakil, a factor that might have led the Americans to down-grade it. "As I recall, I thought he was speaking from his own personal perspective," one source said. "It was interesting that he was from the Foreign Affairs Ministry, but he gave no indication this was a message he was carrying."

Interviewed by The Independent in Kabul, the Afghan emissary said: "I told Mr Katz they should launch a new Desert Storm like the campaign to drive Iraq out of Kuwait but this time they should call it Mountain Storm and they should drive the foreigners out of Afghanistan. They also had to stop the Pakistanis supporting the Taliban."

The Taliban emissary said Mr Katz replied that neither action was possible. Nor did Mr Katz pass the warning on to the State Department, according to senior US diplomatic sources.

When Mr Muttawakil's emissary returned to Kabul, the Foreign Minister told him to see UN officials. He took the warning to the Kabul offices of UNSMA, the political wing of the UN. These officials heard him out, but again did not report the secret Taliban warning to UN headquarters. A UN official familiar with the warnings said: "He appeared to be speaking in total desperation, asking for a Mountain Storm, he wanted a sort of deus ex machina to solve his country's problems. But before 9/11, there was just not much hope that Washington would become that engaged in Afghanistan."

Officials in the State Department and in UN headquarters in New York said they knew nothing about a Taliban warning. But they said they would now be looking into the matter.

Mr Muttawakil is now unavailable for comment he handed himself in to the Afghan authorities in the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan last February. He is reported to be in American custody there, one of the few senior members of the Taliban regime the US has managed to arrest.

As America steadily broke the Taliban's military machine last autumn, there were no Taliban defections. Apart from Mr Mutawakil's one vain attempt to warn the world, the Taliban remained absolutely loyal to their leader's vision.

What the Government told us about warnings.......

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 11, 2001

Press Briefing to the Pool By Ari Fleischer
Aboard Air Force One

Q Does the President now know anything more about who is responsible, the coordinated attack, and whether this is it or --

MR. FLEISCHER: That information is still being gathered and analyzed. And I anticipate that will be an ongoing process for a little while. Often, at a time like this, information comes in, it turns out not to be true. The proper procedure is to carefully, thoroughly evaluate all information and do so in a ?

Q Had there been any warnings that the President knew of?

MR. FLEISCHER: No warnings.

No warnings?

A diplomatic source said: "We were hearing a lot of that kind of stuff. When people keep saying the sky's going to fall in and it doesn't, a kind of warning fatigue sets in."

"a kind of warning fatigue sets in."

MR. FLEISCHER: No warnings.

So what we are told is although we received no warnings we received so many warnings we had warnings fatigue.

Ex-Saudi ambassador

Ex-Saudi ambassador: Kingdom could have helped U.S. prevent 9/11
updated 1:52 a.m. EDT, Fri November 2, 2007

(video) -

(CNN) -- Saudi Arabia could have helped the United States prevent al Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington if American officials had consulted Saudi authorities in a "credible" way, the kingdom's former ambassador said in a documentary aired Thursday.

The comments by Prince Bandar bin Sultan are similar to the remarks this week by Saudi King Abdullah that suggested Britain could have prevented the July 2005 train bombings in London if it had heeded warnings from Riyadh.

Speaking to the Arabic satellite network Al-Arabiya on Thursday, Bandar -- now Abdullah's national security adviser -- said Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the September 11, 2001, plotters "with precision."

"If U.S. security authorities had engaged their Saudi counterparts in a serious and credible manner, in my opinion, we would have avoided what happened," he said. Watch Bandar's comments »

Bandar was the Saudi ambassador to Washington for nearly 22 years before he was replaced in 2005. A knowledgeable U.S. official told CNN that Bandar's comments should be taken "with a grain of salt."

On Monday, Abdullah told the BBC that Saudi Arabia had sent warnings to British authorities before the London subway bombings that killed 52 people -- the city's bloodiest day since World War II.

"We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain," Abdullah said. "But unfortunately, no action was taken, and it may have been able to avert the tragedy."

The September 11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. All but four of the suicide hijackers who carried out the plot were Saudi nationals, and after the attacks, the kingdom was widely criticized for having tolerated Islamic militancy.

The Saudis have called the criticism unfair, pointing out that al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden's original grievance was against the country's ruling family, which invited U.S. troops into the kingdom after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

A string of attacks on Western compounds, oil installations and Saudi institutions between 2003 and 2006 were blamed on al Qaeda's followers.

And Saudi officials say that since 9/11, they have taken steps to ensure charitable donations do not fall into the hands of al Qaeda.

28 Redacted Pages

Eleanor Hill

Coleen Rowley

Why Top Secret America Misfires - A Conversation with Coleen Rowley -

Kristen Breitweiser

Bob Graham

Death of Bin Laden

Death of Bin Laden May Distract from a More Disturbing Story
By Hossein Turner - May 15, 2011
Source: Weekly Zaman

On the evening of May 1st, US president Barack Obama publically announced that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in a “firefight” as a result of a successful US military operation in Pakistan. Several discrepancies in the public story surrounding his death have since been pounced on by internet conspiracy theorists, some claiming that the US raid was fake as well as arguing that Bin Laden apparently died years ago. Such theories are not possible to prove and really serve as petty distractions from more important issues concerning Al Qaeda. One can clearly argue, however, that Bin Laden was never indicted for the crime of 9/11 by US authorities, even though he was always regarded as a suspect. The media has lately referred to him as the “mastermind” of the attacks, when in actuality it is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who has been officially named the mastermind, despite controversies regarding the reliability of his testimony and the nature of his role. More importantly, however, the role of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency (the ISI) may well be even more significant than those of Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

US counter-terrorism official John Brennan recently told the media that Bin Laden had apparently been living in his prominent Abbottabad home for five to six years and that “he was in contact with some senior al Qaeda officials”. US Senator Carl Levin said that the Pakistani army and intelligence agencies have serious questions to answer about how Bin Laden managed to live so close to the central location of the Pakistani army for apparently so long. The Pakistani authorities have hit back, claiming that they warned the US about the Bin Laden compound two years ago. This has created considerable tensions between the US and Pakistan – tensions which really hide a darker and more troubling history that connects certain former employees of the Pakistani ISI with members of Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers. These former employees have not been officially regarded as 9/11 suspects by the US authorities.

On the 22nd of July 2004, United Press International reported that “On the eve of the publication of its report, the 9/11 Commission was given a stunning document from Pakistan, claiming that Pakistani intelligence officers knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks”. The report also alleged that the Pakistani ISI provided direct financial support to the 9/11 hijackers and was thus fully involved in the plot. Worryingly, the final report of the 9/11 Commission failed to mention this allegation, and barely refers to the ISI agency at all. Since 9/11, Pakistan has become an ally in the “war on terror”, an ongoing war that has also been continued by President Obama. Pakistan has received a lot of financial aid in the years since 9/11, amounting to approximately $20 billion dollars . This aid comes despite reports that elements of the Pakistani government, including the shadowy ISI, have been supporting and aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan. The counter-productive nature of this policy seems clear – yet it continues, despite the protestations of certain US officials. The issue of financing the Taliban may be bad enough; worse than this, however, are compelling allegations that point to the ISI directly providing money to the September 11th hijackers even as the CIA continued close ties with the agency.

In September 2006, former Pakistani president General Pervez Musharraf stated that the US official Richard Armitage threatened to bomb Pakistan “back to the Stone Age” during a conversation with Pakistan’s intelligence director. The alleged threat was made in the days following the 9/11 attacks and were apparently made as a consequence of Pakistan’s not choosing to participate in the “war on terror”. Ties to the Taliban were apparently severed – albeit only temporarily- by the Pakistani regime as a response to these alleged US threats, and this was met with approval by the Bush regime, who welcomed them as their new partner.

But serious questions remain about the involvement of the Pakistani authorities in the support and financing of Al Qaeda. The Family Steering Committee (FSC) of the 9/11 Commission was a group of 9/11 family members who spear-headed the campaign for the creation of the Commission to investigate the attacks, and who assisted the commission staffers with their work as well as monitoring them. On their website there remains a list of questions which the final report of the Commission failed to address or answer. In the case of the Pakistani ISI, some of the questions refer to the former Director of the agency, General Mahmood Ahmed. According to several media reports, the General was meeting with US officials in Washington between the 4th and 13th of September 2001. The FSC asked the 9/11 Commission to inquire about the details of the meeting with General Ahmed conducted by the House and Senate Intelligence Committee chairmen on September 11th. More importantly, they also asked the Commission if they could find out why the General ordered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to the 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. This may seem like a serious allegation, even speculative – but it is no conspiracy theory. In June 2004, the New York Times reported that Lorie Van Auken, a member of the Family Steering Committee, “was irate” that the final report of the 9/11 Commission did not even mention General Mahmoud Ahmed’s alleged role in the $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammed Atta. Disturbingly, in 2006 the Pakistani newspaper The Friday Times published a report claiming that lobbyists from Pakistan gave thousands of dollars to members of the 9/11 Commission in order to try and get them to omit any information from the final report that might be damaging to the Pakistani authorities. This could perhaps explain why the 9/11 report does not address allegations against former members of the Pakistani ISI, especially that of General Mahmoud Ahmed and Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh.

The story of Saeed Sheikh is also highly compelling. He is currently being held in prison in Pakistan for the murder of US journalist Daniel Pearl. He was originally sentenced to death for this crime back in July 2002, but he has since been kept alive and was even accused of plotting the death of General Musharraf from his jail cell in 2008. He has been linked not only to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban but also to the Pakistani ISI. In 2002, according to the online archive History Commons, the New York Times, India Today, the National Post and The Guardian newspapers all reported that Saeed Sheikh was working for the ISI and was well known to senior officers there. Several media reports have also detailed Saeed Sheikh’s close ties to Al-Qaeda, particularly from late 1999 to 2001. For example, Vanity Fair reported in August 2002 that Osama Bin Laden referred to Saeed Sheikh as “my special son”. On the 30th of September 2001, the Daily Telegraph reported that Sheikh had even apparently trained some of the 9/11 hijackers. In his 2003 book Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, author Rohan Gunaratna wrote about how Sheikh was able to establish an Al-Qaeda network in Dubai. Interestingly, several 9/11 hijackers arrived in Dubai between the 11th of April and the 28th of June 2001 – according to US officials – and purchased several travelers’ checks. It was from this location in August 2001that Saeed Sheikh was alleged to have sent Mohammed Atta $100,000, which ended up in two of Atta’s accounts in Florida. If Saeed Sheikh had an Al-Qaeda base in Dubai at the time, it is also possible that he could have been in contact with the hijackers when they passed through. Regarding the money transfers to Mohammed Atta, an unnamed senior US official told CNN in October 2001 that “U.S. investigators now believe Sheik Syed, using the alias Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, sent more than $100,000 from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta”. In January 2002, the Press Trust Of India reported that the Indian authorities had informed the FBI that ransom money obtained by the Dubai mobster Aftab Ansari (in order to release a captured Calcutta businessman) was used to finance Mohammed Atta. Indian authorities named Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh as the paymaster who provided Atta with $100,000 via wire transfer. A wide range of world news media reported on the link between Atta and Omar Saeed Sheikh. Unfortunately, the story of the wire transfer has been largely buried and obfuscated by the Western media since the end of 2001.

On October 7th 2001, General Mahmoud Ahmed was demoted from his position at the head of the Pakistani ISI. The official reason was because he was apparently too close to the Taliban. However, the official reason is not credible especially given the fact that the remaining ISI officials continued to maintain their ties with the Taliban. On June 20th 2004, a member of the 9/11 Commission told the Los Angeles Times that before 9/11, Pakistani officials were “up to their eyeballs” in collaboration with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Yet, General Mahmoud Ahmed and other members of the Pakistani authorities were apparently only threatened by the US authorities if they refused to become partners in the “war on terror”. Was General Ahmed sacked because of his decision to order Saeed Sheikh to wire money to Mohammed Atta? If so, it is a great injustice to have the General remain free in Pakistan with no charges on his head. Saeed Sheikh remains in a Pakistani jail, but like the General he too has not been formally charged with suspicion of involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps the US authorities should seek to question these two men, rather than just kill them and ask questions later, as they did with Bin Laden. More importantly, there should be hard questions directed at the US authorities and the 9/11 Commission with regard to the way they have dealt with the ISI before and after 9/11. For the US authorities to simply threaten or scapegoat Pakistan now would be a grossly irresponsible act, since certain agencies of both governments have a lot of explaining to do.

more audio...

Lorie Van Auken

Lorie Van Auken Explains About The Importance Of The (JICI) In Regards To Possible Foreign Involvement In The 9/11 Attacks
posted by Jon Gold:

Recently, I took it upon myself to send 9/11 Family Member, Lorie Van Auken, an email:

Dear Mrs. Van Auken…

Quite honestly, I can’t think of anyone better to ask this question to than you. What can you tell me about Pakistan’s involvement in 9/11? Since I’m talking to you, a family member, someone that was a member of the Steering Committee, I don’t think I mean that question as it sounds. Can you tell me about any experiences you had with Commissioner’s about it? Or anyone for that matter. Robert Mueller for instance. I know all of the written word, but I never had the opportunities someone like you did if that makes any sense.

Also, with your permission, I would like to post your response.

Thank you very much.

Sincerest Regards,

Jon Gold

Most of us in the 9/11 Truth Movement know the “facts”, but people like Mrs. Van Auken “experienced” them. She was one of the “Jersey Girls”, a member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee. She attended every 9/11 Commission Hearing, and was instrumental in supplying them the questions they were SUPPOSED to answer.

According to 9/11 Commission Chairman, Thomas Kean, “They monitor us, they follow our progress, they’ve supplied us with some of the best questions we’ve asked. I doubt very much if we would be in existence without them.”

One of the reasons I couldn’t think of anyone “better to ask this question to” than Mrs. Van Auken was because of this paragraph from a Washington Times article (sorry, the source link is dead):

“On May 15, 2003, a group of 9/11 victims’ relatives met with the commission co-chairman Thomas Kean and other senior staff and submitted a list of questions, which included a mention of Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed. A June 17, 2004, the New York Times reported that Lorie Van Auken, whose husband died in the World Trade Center, was “irate” that the June 16 commission narrative of the 9/11 attacks did not even mention the allegation about Ahmed’s role in the $100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta. Clearly, the ISI link is no mere conspiracy theory.“

I am extremely grateful to Mrs. Van Auken, for being able to post the following reply from her:

Hi Jon,

Your question regarding Pakistan is quite complicated, and so my answer will be somewhat long and complex. I really couldn’t answer this quickly and without thinking about what needed to be included to make it a thorough response.

Before I begin to answer, I want to make sure that it is understood that the JICI (the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001) was the first investigation that was conducted by Congress into the “intelligence failures” of 9/11. The 9/11 Commission was mandated to pick up where the JICI investigation left off.

1. The question of Pakistan’s possible involvement in the attacks of 9/11 has come up many times over the course of the past five and a half years. The petition that Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle and I have posted online includes the line that “we again call for the declassification and release of the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (JICI)… ”

One key reason that we have asked for those 28 pages to be declassified is that on page 395 of the JICI report is the finding: [through its investigation, the Joint Inquiry developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. The Joint Inquiry's review confirmed that the Intelligence Community also has information, much of which has yet to be independently verified, concerning these potential sources of support... ]

What do they mean by “support”? Are they referring to “financial support”? And what countries participated that alleged “supporting”?

December 11, 2003, on PBS’s NewsHour Senator Graham (who chaired the Joint Intelligence Committee) said “I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing — although that was part of it — by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.”

Is Pakistan mentioned in those pages? Is Saudi Arabia mentioned? Are there any other foreign governments mentioned? If so, what was their involvement?

Did Pakistan financially support any of what occurred on 9/11, and is that information included within the 28 redacted pages?

Since those pages are blank in the JICI report we still do not know what information has been hidden from us for all of this time.

We do know that soon after the 9/11 report was published, Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal flew to Washington and challenged President Bush to release the redacted portion.

“After the report was released last Thursday, Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan issued a statement saying that “28 blanked-out pages are being used by some to malign our country and our people.”

“Saudi Arabia has nothing to hide. We can deal with questions in public, but we cannot respond to blank pages,” he said.

Citing those comments, Senator Graham said Bandar “has joined in asking that the pages be declassified.”

2. On the FSC’s questioning of the 9/11 Commissioners and Pakistan’s possible role:

The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission (of which I was a member), includes the following questions which pertain to Pakistan, in our section of questions for the 9/11 Commissioners to answer regarding Al Qaeda and State Sponsored Terrorism dated July 2003, we wrote the following:

22) On the issue of state sponsored terrorism:

Why did Mahmood Ahmed, Director of Pakistan’s secret service, the (ISI) order Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to hijacker Mohamed Atta?

What was Mahmood Ahmed’s relationship with Al Qaeda?

Where did the money come from?

Did officials in Pakistan know in advance about the terrorist attack?

On September 11th , Mahmood Ahmed had a breakfast meeting in Washington,
D.C., with House and Senate Intelligence Committee chairmen, Rep. Porter
Goss and Senator Bob Graham. What were they discussing?

(Much of this information is included in the “Press for Truth” video)

It is commonly known that if you “follow the money” oftentimes a case can be solved. The 9/11 Commission did not follow this money trail which led from Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed to Saeed Sheikh and finally to lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. Why not?

Also, in our section of questions for the CIA, the FSC asked the following questions:

15. Please explain the role of the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence agency, in aiding bin Laden and/or the al Qaeda from 1998 through the present.

“Between 1980 and the end of the Afghan/Soviet war in 1989, the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI [Inter Services Intelligence] recruited some 35,000 Muslim radicals join Afghanistan’s fight. The US and Saudi Arabia gave up to $40 billion total to support the mujaheddin guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians. Most of the money is managed by the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence agency. At the same time, Osama bin Laden begins providing financial, organizational, and engineering aid for the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, with the advice and support of the Saudi royal family. The CIA, the ISI and Osama continued to work together against the Soviets until the end of the war.”

16. Has the CIA uncovered any evidence that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a Pakistani, is linked to the Pakistani ISI?

17. Please describe the historical and current relationship between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s ISI, including the significance of Musharraf’s visit to Saudi Arabia 20 days after the coup and the Saudi pledge of “massive ” financial aid.

18. Please comment on Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the 1999 coup in Pakistan which installed Musharraf as leader, and coincidentally occurred on the eve of a planned US effort to capture bin Laden. Musharraf scuttled U.S. plans to capture bin Laden.

Below you will find a Statement that the FSC wrote on 9/13/04.

Statement of The Family Steering Committee

September 13, 2004

In December of 2002, The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 [JICI] issued a report on the 9/11 intelligence failures. Twenty-eight pages allegedly dealing with Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments were redacted.

Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time, has just released a book entitled Intelligence Matters . He notes that to this day, the 28 pages in the report are still redacted.

What might these pages contain that would justify such secrecy? Protecting sources and methods is crucial but that information can only be a small percentage of what has been redacted. The rest of the information should be revealed, so that there can be an assessment by ordinary citizens as to whether Senator Graham is correct when he states that Omar al-Bayoumi, who had a relationship with two of the 9/11 hijackers, is a Saudi government spy.

Graham’s assessment of al-Bayoumi differs from the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission report. The Commission’s director, Philip Zelikow has characterized Senator Graham’s view of the details as “frozen in amber.”

The subcommittee of the House Government Reform, Chaired by Representative Chris Shays, recently concluded that government secrecy is impeding anti-terrorism efforts. The subcommittee also noted that the number of restricted information categories has grown considerably since the 9/11 attacks, only making the problem worse .

The 9/11 Commission cited over classification of information by intelligence agencies as a significant factor in the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks. The FSC recognizes that there is a need for classification when protecting sources and methods and when protecting legitimate national security. However, there is wide agreement that currently this system is being misused.

Addressing the same issue, Senators Lott and Wyden, members of the Select Committee on Intelligence, have indicated plans to introduce bi-partisan legislation intended to curb over classification abuses.

All 9/11 victims’ families, indeed, all Americans, should be calling for the “amber to be unfrozen”, allowing access to those 28 redacted pages so we can assess for ourselves whether there are terrorist links with the Saudis and/or other nations.

Americans should also be pressing for reforms suggested by the House and Senate regarding classification overall so that we, the people, can exercise our own oversight of our government – which is our obligation, and our right in a free society.

So you can see that we have been trying to get these redacted pages unclassified for a very long time.

I hope this answers your question.

Lorie Van Auken

That response was followed by this one:

One more point - I want to be clear here that Senator Graham spoke in the plural - “foreign governments” (from PBS NewsHour).

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, going back to your question about what was the greatest surprise. I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.

I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots.

To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action.

GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing — although that was part of it — by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.

GWEN IFILL: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you’re talking about?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: It will become public at some point when it’s turned over to the archives, but that’s 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it’s relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.

Thank you Mrs. Van Auken for this informative, and time consuming response.

Justice & Accountability



Why I support the "Official Story" -

9/11---Public record proves inside job! -

"Do the orders still stand?" Who was he? -


pumpitoutRadio - 9/11 FACTS not fiction -

"conspiracy theorists"

"Several discrepancies in the public story surrounding his death have since been pounced on by internet conspiracy theorists"

I always flinch when I hear that phrase.

Death of Bin laden

What could have been!


After the death of Bin Laden, Moody’s calculated that the “War on Terror” will cost the US 2.5 trillion dollars. The sad fact is the “War on Terror” could have been prevented in the first place with just a single email.


The following email if sent to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt from FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi would have prevented the attacks on 9/11 and saved the US 2.5 trillion dollars.

Email from FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi to FBI Agent Steven Bongardt, Cole bombing investigator.

Date: Wed, Aug 29, 2001 10:27 AM
Subject: re: Steve,

Steve, after thinking over what we at FBI HQ have done, I have come to the concussion that we should undo the damage we have done and allow you start an investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi immediately.

Sorry for telling you, that you were forbidden to have the NSA information in my EC. The approval from the NSA general counsel, had been granted the day before I told you that you could not have the NSA information. This approval was to allow me to give you and the other Cole booming investigators the NSA information that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had attended the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur on January 6-8, 2000.

Also sorry I told you that the FBI NSLU attorney Sherry Sabol had ruled you could not take part in the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. Sabol had actually ruled that you could take part in any investigation for Midhar and Hazmi since the NSA information was never connected to any FISA warrant. Sorry I misspoke when I said Sabol had ruled you could not take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.


These al Qaeda terrorists pose a massive and imminent danger to the US, and you need to find them as soon as possible before they carry out yet another horrific al Qaeda attack that may kill thousands of Americans. You can start by asking Saudi Arabian Airlines for Mihdhar’s credit card number. We at FBI HQ now know that Mihdhar had flown into the US on July 4, 2001 on this airline using his own credit card.

Also I should mention that on August 22, 2001, I found out that the CIA had the photo of Khallad taken at Kuala Lumpur, and had been keeping this secret from you and your team of investigators. This photo directly connects both Mihdhar and Hazmi who has also been photographed at that meeting, to the planning of the Cole bombing which we now know had taken place at that meeting, meaning you should have had the investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi all along. Apparently the CIA had been keeping this photo secret from you and your team to hide their culpability in allowing the Cole bombing to take place. Sorry about that. THEIR BAD!


If the incremental cost of this email is 10 cents, this makes the return on investment 25 trillion to one, plus the almost 3000 people killed on 9/11 would be alive today

The big question is why did Corsi not write and send this email to Bongardt?

The most important things about Osama's execution

If Osama was complicit in what they say he was, executing him would have been absurd. That is because he would have been a real cornucopia of important information regarding the specifics of the attacks as well as potentially many other, perhaps also future, attacks.

In addition, if they had any evidence that he was complicit in what they say he was, it would have been very useful to make him appear in court and convict him, thus satisfying skeptical minds.

As the unarmed and fragile Osama was executed without interrogation and trial, he obviously did not have any essential role in 9/11, but was a patsy in the same way in which Oswald was in the assassination of Kennedy.

And no, I have not seen hard evidence that Osama was involved in 9/11. (One "confession" or endorsement video is not hard evidence; besides, he first denied involvement.) If there is such evidence, I'll be gladly directed to it.


didn't need to be innocent to be framed as the sole perpetrator.


And Osama doesn't need to have been innocent either. But one of my points was that I haven't seen hard evidence of Osama's involvement in 9/11.

Well how about this, there IS

Well how about this, there IS evidence of some terrorist network or other at least being involved in 911, that's why a lot of whistleblowers have tried to say that info about the hijackers whereabouts was available before the attacks. And the planes were definitely hijacked so I think we can establish that the hijackers were members of a terror group with funding flowing in from Pakistan. Given all of this I find it likely that a terrorist plot was hatched and then allowed to succeed as well as having been assisted by the placement of explosives in the towers and WTC7. It seems reasonable to me that Osama was at least a part of this plot, otherwise I don't see how information leading to him could have been obtained on the basis of interviews with other people known to have ben involved in the planning of 911 (KSM etc). If nothing else some terrorist organization is at least a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for 911 to have occurred.

The best patsies are unable

The best patsies are unable to deny involvement, because they have genuine ill intentions, it's just that they get caught in a double game and their plans end up getting swamped by the larger agenda.


and that has always been my working hypothesis.

The pre-9/11 narrative was carefully crafted for well over a decade before the event to make it as plausible as possible. One only needs to study the activities of one Ali Abdelsuad Mohammed to understand this.

We then have to look at who was manipulating the patsies for all this time and determine whether OBL himself was duped or a willing patsy, and I am still gathering data on that.

Btw, it may be more than a "double game", but it was at least that.

The truth shall set us free, but it can be hidden under layers of lies.

Love is the only way forward, and love means keeping your mind open.


Yes, Vulich, absolutely! Jackpot, $1000 bucks! Right on!


To refer again to that other case, I'm not convinced that Oswald--the real person and not the caricature drawn in the Warren report--had genuine intent to harm Kennedy. The Warren report portrayed him as a 'lone nut' who was desperate for attention and looking for a way to go down in history. But if he wanted fame for doing the deed, why did he deny it to reporters and say 'I'm just a patsy'? Why would he explain that he had no motive to get rid of the head of the executive branch, since such an act was unlikely to have much impact on the overall US political structure?

I'm inclined to the view that he was some kind of agent, working undercover, and his cover involved pretending to be a Castro sympathizer. So there's another kind of candidate for patsies; people who--without necessarily having genuine ill intentions--have so effectively (themselves and/or their handlers) concocted their cover story, or 'legend,' that when the time comes that they realize they're being set up, it's too late, and it's hard for them to get people to believe them because they've been living a lie for so long.

Of course, one might argue that however effective a pastsy Oswald proved to be for that crime, he still wasn't the 'best' patsy--otherwise, they might not have had to bump him off in less than 48 hours.

So having plans that end up 'getting swamped by the larger agenda' is something patsies might all have in common. But what those plans really are might still vary from one case to another.

and now for a little fun

Doo-wop is back!

Randy -

That´s just great work !! Laugh out loud riot. You make that ?? If so congratulations - best response yet to this bullshit.

I can't take credit

Not sure of the maker, but it was posted to YouTube May 13 by TheSOTTReport. WACLA sent it around and I sent it to my contacts. Figured it should be posted here at 911Blogger for the record. I think it's brilliant and a real hoot.

Conflation Of Global Warming With Known Propaganda

This video contains a poisonous conflation of scientifically proven global warming with known or suspected propaganda examples.

The poster may want to reconsider if this is really useful content.

global warming in the video

I noticed that too. Had I made it, I would have substituted other known propaganda, as you say. Personally, I do believe there is global warming (my dead orchids will attest to it). Not to start a discussion about it here, but is it man-made (us driving our cars) or is something else going on, on a larger scale ... weakening of the earth's magnetosphere, increased solar flares ... and I don't think tons of depleted uranium used in the wars are helping matters much either.

Consider the source

TheSOTTReport. SOTT stands for "Sign Of The Times" and is a loony cult.


Frankly I think this one is a little more thought provoking...



ISI involved in 9-11? And where does that lead to?

An Interesting Account Of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh

Former Military Intelligence officer and JFK researcher, John Newman, talks about Daniel Pearl's killer, Omar Saeed Sheikh. Still apparently in custody in Pakistan, an ISI agent and MI6 asset.
Part 1

Part 2

On the $100,000 transfer-

The 9-11 commission doesn't say a word about this in their report, but it is impossible to believe they wouldn't look into it. So checking their footnotes on this issue we find this.....

Footnote 131 from chapter 5....

"On domestic U.S. and foreign government funding, see e.g., Adam Drucker interviews (Jan 12, 2004:May 19, 2004); Dennis Lormel interview (Jan. 16, 2004):

Here are Drucker's interviews.....

And on the last page we find this...
"There is absolutely no evidence Atta received a wire a transfer from the Pakistani lSI."
"There is no unexplained wire transfer or unexplained funds at all" (last page)

But no one has ever made that allegation. The allegation was Sheik Syed sent it by request of the Pakistani ISI chief. But if you look at the document you will see it is redacted in several parts. Like substantial redactions just before and after this is said. Which one would reasonably assume would contain the information which would back up the claim that "There is absolutely no evidence Atta received a wire a transfer from the Pakistani lSI." So they did look into this alleged heavily reported wire transfer and wont tell us what they found.

The Dennis Lormel interview is the one to really see for several reasons, he was the director of FBI's financial crimes unit, and he also is referenced as a source for this info as you will see......

"This source said U.S. investigators now believe Sheik Syed, using the alias Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad,sent more than $100,000 from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta, the suspected hijacking ringleader who piloted one of the jetliners into the World Trade Center."

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

"Sources: Suspected terrorist leader was wired funds through Pakistan
"October 01, 2001
As much as $100,000 was wired in the past year from Pakistan to Mohamed Atta, the suspected leader of the terrorist hijackings, CNN has been told by law enforcement sources."

"The Times says Ahmad lost his job only after India shared with the FBI evidence showing a link between the general and Sheikh's wiring of funds to Atta.
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.
"They wired over $100,000 into Mr. [Mohamed] Atta a year ago," he testified in October, not identifying who "they" were.
The Bush administration has said the money trail is a crucial link in uncovering the support network for the 19 hijackers, and then destroying that network."

"Did ally Pakistan play role in 9-11?
Posted: January 30, 2002
It's become increasingly clear that Pakistan is the epicenter of terrorism, and is most likely sheltering bin Laden."

"This source said U.S. investigators now believe Sheik Syed, using the alias Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, sent more than $100,000 from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta, the suspected hijacking ringleader who piloted one of the jetliners into the World Trade Center."

Here are Drucker's interviews with the 9-11 commission.....

And on the last page we find this...
"There is absolutely no evidence Atta received a wire a transfer from the Pakistani lSI."
"There is no unexplained wire transfer or unexplained funds at all" (last page)

But if you look at it there is an entire paragraph redacted right after that statement, and just before it -I assume it has to do with that statement. But like I said obviously Lormel's interview is the one to see....and where is Dennis Lormel's interview? I can't find it.

"On domestic U.S. and foreign government funding, see e.g., Adam Drucker interviews (Jan 12, 2004:May 19, 2004); Dennis Lormel interview (Jan. 16, 2004):

All speculation aside the facts as I see them are this:
It was well reported that Omar Sheik transferred $100,000 to Atta at the request of the Pakistani ISI. The 9-11 commission looked into this. What they discovered is not being shown and is classified except for this line...

Adam Drucker interviews with 9-11 commission:
"There is absolutely no evidence Atta received a wire a transfer from the Pakistani lSI." page 18/18 (heavily redacted before and after this is said)

"On domestic U.S. and foreign government funding, see e.g., Adam Drucker interviews (Jan 12, 2004:May 19, 2004); Dennis Lormel interview (Jan. 16, 2004):

So? Where is The interview with Dennis Lormel?


The 9-11 commission doesn't say a word about this $100,000 transfer in their report, but it is impossible to believe they wouldn't look into it. So checking their footnotes on this issue we find this.....

Footnote 131 from chapter 5....

"On domestic U.S. and foreign government funding, see e.g., Adam Drucker interviews (Jan 12, 2004:May 19, 2004); Dennis Lormel interview (Jan. 16, 2004):

Here are Drucker's interviews.....

And on the last page we find this...
"There is absolutely no evidence Atta received a wire a transfer from the Pakistani lSI."
"There is no unexplained wire transfer or unexplained funds at all" (last page)

But the released report says.....

"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." page 172 The 9/11 Commission Report

the nature of this article

To me, this reads like so much war mongering and propaganda.

It has already been well established that bin Laden died in 2001. What is the mystery here? Yet we are still to be bombarded by these "pieces" discussing the meaning and ramifications of bin Laden's "recent" death.


Tell us, how did bin laden

Tell us, how did bin laden die in 2001? Was it kidney failure or what? And what sources are you relying on for this information?

Sources revealed:

Chinese whispers.

Plenty of sources out there. . .

if you do your own homework. Not hard. Yes, it was lung complications due to kidney failure. Lots of sources including mainstream ones, like CNN and FOX.


Would that be like.... parroting DRG's mediocre books and quotemining apocryphal MSM reports?

DRG wrote many books, quantity over quality as they say.

Since OBL's death this month, I've decided I'm finished with DRG. We don't need him. Besides, his research assistant, Tod Fletcher, attacked 911blogger as 'infiltrators'. How stupid does it get? Is everybody who refuses to lie about 9/11 to sustain a pet theory an infiltrator?

Did DRG rescind his CIT endorsement yet?

The tapes Osama put out (and the video which was found) were real. Hence: not dead.

(Yes, I'm linking to Mike Williams, the evil debunker, because he nailed this one, and I for one, am embarrassed about that.)


Does this mean no inside job (I don't like the term, but ok) ?

No it does not.

In the video where UBL

In the video where UBL watches himself on television President Obama appears on the screen a couple of times. This proves that UBL was alive during the time of Obama's presidency (not dead in 2001). You may say that the video isn't obviously authentic, but there are several moments where UBL turns and the profile is definitely him. Maybe if you got the freeze frame you could see it better, but I've checked it a few times and I see no evidence of fraud.

Easy SnowCrash...

please critique the man's work in a civil manner and leave the man in peace.

[Please don't be 911blogger's Nigel de Jong :) ]

I agree that there now appear to be multiple problems with some of the information and conclusions in DRG's work on 9/11. Time will tell exactly how many, what they are and what the impact was.

The truth will out.

9/11 was clearly a multinational false flag operation.

The truth shall set us free, let's be civil truth seekers/tellers and make it easier on everyone.

Love is the only way forward, and truth telling is an act of love (when done with kindness).


NYCGuy said...."It has already been well established that bin Laden died in 2001"

Yup-and a missile hit the pentagon too!

Why are you telling us this? Shouldn't you be telling his followers?

"May 6, 2011 (AP)
Al-Qaida confirmed the killing of Osama bin Laden Friday and vowed revenge, saying Americans' "happiness will turn to sadness" in the first statement by the terror network since its leader was slain in a U.S. commando raid against his Pakistani hideout.

A terrorism researcher from the University of Helsinki...

... implied in a recent TV interview that "Al-Qaida" as an organizational entity (as portrayed by news services like ABC) does not exist. Now I'm confused.


Perhaps Lt Col Shaffer should be made aware of this since his job with the able danger project was to map out this non existent organization. Some consider him a "terrorism researcher". Others of course claim he's "in on it".


Of the "everything is fake" crowd. The everything is fake crowd believe in fake information. This culture of baseless fakery promotion is the Truth Movement's Achilles Heel.

And there are

dozens of other terrorism researchers who disagree. Who to believe? Do your own research. There are thousands and thousands of sources which confirm, directly or indirectly, the existence of Al Qaeda. Which is why reports of Western intelligence agencies and their proxies intermingling and facilitating Al Qaeda are so troubling.

Or would you have us believe the majority of History Commons is fraudulent information? Have you ever read a serious book on Al Qaeda?

Not so straightforward

"Have you ever read a serious book on Al Qaeda?"

This book, which I have (Valtiot ja terrorismi = States and Terrorism), discusses Al-Qaida at some length:

What about the book that says:

"The major shortcoming with any tiered model of al-Qaida, however, is that it overly preferences al-Qaida's high command[...] It is critical, therefore, to think of al-Qaida and similarly minded groups as parts of a very complicated puzzle rather than as a specific organizational entity."

The BBC documentary "Power of Nightmares" says that "Al-Qaida" was *made* an organization by the US authorities who needed to be able to go after specific individuals relying on laws that had been created for protection against criminal organizations like the Mafia. Jamal al Fadl was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al-qaeda as a *group* or *organization*.

"Jamal al-Fadl was taken on as a key prosecution witness, who along with a number of other sources claimed that Osama bin Laden was the leader of a large international terrorist organization which was called 'al-Qaeda'."

Let's not unquestioningly accept the US authorities' rather "convenient" and "non-complicated" view of Al-Qaida.



Apparently the first book admits Al Qaeda exists, but its organizational structure doesn't jive with what most people would expect. This is correct.

I knew you would mention the "Power of Nightmares", because that documentary is the source of all this misinformation. In it, they interview Jason Burke and completely misrepresent his position, and his book "Al Qaeda". You should read the book, the al-Fadl case is thoroughly examined.

Nothing al-Fadl did or said implies Al Qaeda doesn't/didn't exist. This is a completely dishonest misrepresentation of facts.


BIN LADEN: This has nothing to do with this poor servant of God, nor with the al Qaeda organization. We are the children of an Islamic nation whose leader is Mohammed.

We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers. The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. We speak about the conscience of the nation; we are the sons of the nation. We brothers in Islam from the Middle East, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and as far as Mauritania.

Those men who sacrificed themselves in New York and Washington, they are the spokesmen of the nation's conscience. They are the nation's conscience that saw they have to avenge against the oppression.

Transcript of Bin Laden's October 2001 interview, 2002-02-05.

I'd say "complex"

Thanks for the reading suggestion.

The book's readers seem to have gleaned from it the view that Al-Qaida is not an organization (and one commentator does not indicate that the PON misrepresents Burke):

" challenges the myth of Al-Qaida as a monolith orchestrating terrorist activity worldwide" Peter Marsden, author of 'The Taliban: War and Religion in Afghanistan'.
- - -
"I came across Jason Burke on the BBC program The Power of Nightmares, and a lot of what this program covered is expanded on in this book."
- - -
"It does not say there is not an Al-Qaeda but shows the way this 'organisation' is portrayed in the West is wrong, and shows how our "War on Terror" will not tackle the real events going on in our world today."
- - -
"He is very good on disproving the idea that 'Al-Qaeda' is a single organisation with a clear command structure, and that shows that bin Laden is not "the CEO of 'error, Inc.'"
- - -
"...he eloquently and eruditely dismantles the idea that al-Qaeda is an organisation with a clearly demarcated hierarchy with Don bin Laden as the head of the five families."
- - -
"Its main insight is that Al Qaeda is a diffuse grouping of like minded individuals lacking any real organisational shape or structure"
- -
"Burke's thesis is that it is al-Qaeda-ism, or the narrative that justifies al-Qaeda-like terrorism, rather than any group of individuals that threatens lives and ways of life. "
- - -
"In this work Jason Burke has stripped away the James Bond Supervillain image of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden"
- - -
"Burke is convincing in his arguments that Al-Qaeda *the actual organisation* was never more than a hard-core of twenty or thirty militants, was not more than indirectly associated with many of the terrorist acts attributed to them, and was dispersed, incapacitated and in large part eliminated after the war in Afghanistan."

You wrote: "Nothing al-Fadl did or said implies Al Qaeda doesn't/didn't exist."

Of course not. As my Wikipedia quotation shows, he testified that Al-Qaida WAS an organization and that Bin Laden was its leader.

In that case

I'd say this statement:

"A terrorism researcher from the University of Helsinki...... implied in a recent TV interview that "Al-Qaida" as an organizational entity (as portrayed by news services like ABC) does not exist. Now I'm confused." inaccurate.

The organizational entity does exist but the organizational structure is unusual. Skimming reviews is no substitute for actually reading the book, mind you. Bin Laden's role was to act as the "venture capitalist" or the "investor" in both training camps and terrorist attacks. Militants came to him with proposals and plans, not necessarily the other way around. Bin Laden also had a spiritual and strategic leadership role, accrued from the respect and stature gained in his various jihadist adventures in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. The importance of him as a symbol becomes all the more clear when we see the (sometimes) violent outrage now reverberating throughout the (fundamentalist) Islamic world.

Bin Laden, in the eyes of many infuriated Muslims, was like their Robin Hood. His wanton execution is bound to cause a considerable backlash. Time will tell if this assassination was worth the price. Many 9/11 Truthers may want to believe Al Qaeda doesn't exist at all, or Bin Laden was just an innocent activist. This position is naive and untenable. Rather, we should ask what the United States did to ensure his group's unlikely success on 9/11, because all things considered, mere coincidence or incompetence is unlikely. This story, with all its tentacles and outliers, has been buried by outlandish and absolutist 'Bin Laden completely innocent'/Full MIHOP claims for far too long.

Maybe now researchers like Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson and John Judge will finally get their due credit. There is so much out there, unstudied and neglected.


... for sharing your view.

Whatever the precise degree and form of organization, I think it is important not to overly focus on the Pakistani (ISI) role in 9/11. It needs to be addressed, but not at the expense of, say, who demolished the three skyscrapers (to put it a bit bluntly, but you know what I mean). I see a possible "limited hangout" and a cause for a new war at the end of the Pakistani connection.


6 months before 9-11

7 March 2001
“CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban”

"LONDON: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.
"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."

"Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster."

"The old associations between the intelligence agencies continue, Harrison said. "The CIA still has close links with the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence)."