Studies debunk 9/11 myths

[T_i_B]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1863725,00.html

In the face of disturbingly widespread beliefs in conspiracy theories about the 9/11 atrocity two official reports published last week disputed claims that the tragedy was caused by the US government.

The theories usually suggest the World Trade Centre was demolished by explosives, triggered after the planes hit, to give the US an excuse to invade Middle Eastern countries and steal their oil.

One report, by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, concludes such a demolition would have been impossible.

The second study, by the State Department, debunks eight conspiracy theories, ranging from the explosives idea to a notion that thousands of Jewish people did not show up for work at the centre on 9/11.

[Junkdrawer]

1. So, what does NIST and the State Department say about WTC7?

I need a good laugh.

[T_i_B]

2. Well here is the National Institute of Standards and Technology website

I hate to say this, but I find them just a wee bit more crdible then the tin foil hat crackpots.

http://www.nist.gov/

And the state department while I'm at it.

http://www.state.gov/

[Junkdrawer]

4. I can find neither report....

Funny that the Guardian doesn't supply either link.

I guess it's just a faith-based thing...

[heliarc]

39. Uh... look harder

Take a look at the following PDF... interesting photos of the structural damage that the debris caused which is news to me. I find the WTC collapse implausible at best, but this is the best explanation I've seen from the "Gobment" people.

wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[heliarc]

42. And here...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Published on August 30, 2006 though I must say that the website is badly organized and things are a little behind in their "news" section.


"In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."


and...

"14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

*

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

*

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

*

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements. "

[Sinti]

19. You still trust the State Department after the whole Colin Powell U.N.

3D model of "mobile labs" they absolutely have WMD, we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud fiasco? The State Dept. also had this little "Visa Express" program for Saudis only, where visitors merely had to fill out a 2-page form and submit a photo at a Saudi travel agency, and they'd receive their visa in the mail. The State Dept. did check the forms for fraud, but not much more. Heck, in the month after 9/11 they rejected none of the 104 applications received, and only interviewed two prospective visitors from SA. You don't find this stuff suspect? You can't smell the stinking pile of BS? OTOH maybe my head is up my @$$. :shrug:


http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray061402.asp

[pooja]

3. I think it is odd that there has never been an independant investigation.

I find it odd that all myths could have been dispelled had this occurred. I don't understand the need for secrecy. I do not understand why dumb-wit sat reading My Pet Goat while our nation was under attack. I don't understand why credible scientists and engineers are questioning the colapse of the buildings. And there are at least a 1/3 of Americans that believe the BushCo had something to do with the attacks. So, there is always going to be a conspiracy and the truth will come out 50yrs from now when info becomes declassified and then most of us will be dead.

We need to move past the event and realize what has happened to our nation. The Patriot Act, wire tapping, spying on Americans, detention centers (gitmo), an illegal war on Iraq. This is where we have gone... now its time to take it back... which is why, even though many people question, we try to move away from "tin foil hat" and move progressively to the goal of leaving Iraq, Impeaching Bush Co for their illegal actions against the Constitution. Let's not bicker now. Let's move forward with the momentum.

[TAM]

6. Patriot Act

Just a question.

If the Democrats get in power, either via the house in 2006 and/or presidentially in 2008, will they "axe" the Patriot Act??

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Depends on which DEM wins the White House. Feingold would probably

scrap most of it.

The house Dems might scrap parts of it. Then again maybe not. Many are afraid of appearing soft on national security.

[TAM]

9. Not too good then...

so short of a 2nd American Revolution, and an overthrow of the govt, Democratic or Republican, the US will likely be stuck with some version of the Patriot Act.

I would say the bes approach would be public pressure to modify the act so that it accomplishes public safety, while protecting public freedoms.

[Kingshakabobo]

11. Oversight, oversight, oversight! Build in lots of oversight.

That's what is missing now. The repukes that are in charge now hate government and hate public service. They are in it for their own personal gain(see:CBC club in Alaska)They are too lazy to do the job properly. I had to laugh - listening to Gonzales talking about how difficult it is to get warrants. Give me a f**king break! Oh poor us, we have to take ALL these steps to do our job. If I walked in to my boss' office and started whining about my job like he does my boss would fire my ass on the spot. Three tours of Iraq is hard - obtaining a warrant isn't. Can't handle the job? Get the fuck out and let someone else do it. After all, there is a "war" on.

[HamdenRice]

5. Putting aside CD theories, what about the money trail?

Whenever "skeptics" or "myth debunkers" get on their soapbox to say why any theory of government conspiracy is "tin foil hattery," someone usually asks them about the very credible mainstream media reports about the money trail of the 9/11 attacks and the response is always complete silence.

So, since you've stepped up to the podium, let me ask you what your explanation is for these very suspicious financial ties.

By mainstream media reports, one of the main people who helped finance the 9/11 attacks was a general in Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad. He ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohammed Atta, which Atta used for the expenses of the plot, including by some reports, flight school training.

Ahmad had been the main actor in the ISI to exercise Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan, including Pakistan's funding for the Taliban and al Queda.

Ahmad flew to Washington DC around Sept. 6, 2001 and met with the top officials of the Pentagon, National Security Council, Central Intelligence Agency and House and Senate Intelligence Committees. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, as the planes were crashing into the towers, Ahmad was meeting with Rep. Porter Goss (R. Florida), a former CIA agent (that's the platform he ran on) and after 9/11 was elevated to head the CIA.

Don't you think that is the least bit suspicious -- that the paymaster of Mohammed Atta was meeting with the leadership of the defense and intelligence establishment in DC in the days before 9/11?

[TAM]

8. Money Trail to Pakistan yes...USG...prove it.

My opinion, is it says more about the "two-faces" of Pakistan, and corruption within their govt, more so than an "inside job" by the USG. Certainly if he was visiting US officals at the time of 9/11 it would make him look like the least likely to be responsible for helping orchestrate the attacks.

Perhaps this guy was secretly supporting Al-Qaeda, but at the same time, also supposedly working for the Pakistan govt. Where is the proof in this that the USG was in on the money trail.

A couple of links to your "mainstream media reports" that confirm this, would be nice.

[Sinti]

10. Hey, TAM, if you go to the bottom of this post you will find lots

of links to the money question from the mainstream media regarding the Paki, Saudi Royal family, and bin Laden family money trail.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=91841&mesg_id=91841

While not well known, it's also not really a secret. It's just there's more interest in the question of bombs in the buildings, and the behavior of the planes. I don't think the facts of the money trail are in dispute, AFAIK. We seem to only disagree on whether or not to call them allies. If you have some additional or better information on this subject, please do share.

Actually the USG did fund the Taliban, $43 million in May of 2001. This, however, is a far cry from directly supporting al Qaeda.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst110501.htm


As far as the General Mahmoud Ahmad goes, (the head of Paki Intelligence), is Asia Times good enough for you? Does it have to be an American paper? He did step down in disgrace over it.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html

[TAM]

12. Thanks, the links are fine...

These links are more than adequate. Like you said, I think even amongst hard core Official Story Enthusiasts, there is little debate over the money trail.

Pakistan is a hard nut to crack. It is critical to USA relations in that part of the world, yet within the country is a huge hatred of America...

No doubt in my mind that OBL is currently there.

My view, as I said earlier, is that the money trail is Pakistan--->Al-Qaeda, not USA--->Pakistan--->Al-qaeda.

TAM

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Check out the Guardian piece I posted. It alledges the USG is actively

covering up.

And from that article:

"Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?"

[Sinti]

17. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. More money came from Saudis than anyone

else, the royal fam, the bin Ladens, etc, the wealthiest Saudis. I think they use this hatred of America to keep the "Arab street" from attempting a revolution at home. They are basically saying, hey, look over there, the Americans and Israelis (the great Satan) are the ones keeping you poor... go get them. It's a very ugly form of social control, our folks practice it as well - blame the black, Hispanics, Japanese, insert person of other race/culture here, ad infinitum. When that doesn't work, they have our guns to protect them. Why the hell we allow this is so far beyond me it leaves me speechless. People say it's because we need the oil, but we've had decades to work on alternative fuels and have done nothing. I call BS. It's that handful of big oil men that have been screwing us over since the 20s, with no Saudi oil they'd have to live on the billions they've already got. :puke:

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Here's stories from

CNN and The UK Guardian
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/01/inv.pakistan.funds/

And then there is this from the same newspaper the OP used to expose the "tin foil hatters."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.html#article_continue

Ironic, isn't it?

[HamdenRice]

16. Try that logic on any other organized crime case

As Sinti points out, the facts are not in dispute. Another comprehensive source would be Paul Thompson's cooperativeresearch.org timeline.

So if your theory is correct, the paymaster of the worst atrocity on American soil ever comes to visit the center of power as an alibi? We obviously don't know the full truth, but if this were a crime case would you say that your theory is the more likely explanation to pursue?

If John Gotti was eating in a restaurant with a police detective while Gotti's henchmen were killing innocent people and other police officers, would your first theory be Gotti was trying to create an alibi or Gotti was eating with a "dirty cop"?

And keep in mind, as Sinti points out, that the US helped create the very infrastructure through which ISI funded the Islamic movement in Afghanistan when it poured billions into the war against the Soviets.

Ahmad was the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency, for chrissake. Don't you think he understands the US capacity for signals intelligence and would grasp the possibility that his links to Atta might be known or discoverable before he could get out of town? Don't you think he would be just a little scared, while an atrocity he funded unfolded, of sitting down with people who could have him arrested at a moment's notice and imprisoned in a supermax next to Manuel Noriega for the rest of his life? Doesn't this make you even a little suspicious? Frankly your attitude is stupefying.

Why do so many suspend logic when it comes to the Bush cabal, and give them "the benefit of the doubt" basically on the premise, "I can't believe they would do that," when they are the most corrupt and murderous administration in American history? Why do so many people think an administration, that would allow thousands of Americans in New Orleans to die of thirst, exposure, hunger, drinking dirty water and drowning just so that Bush could continue his vacation, ride his bicycle and play air guitar, would never, ever allow thousands of people in New York to die so that they could deliver a trillion dollars worth of oil into the hands of their oil industry constituency?

Please help me here. I am really trying to understand the minds of people who won't even look into the 9/11 research because they believe the Bush administration would never, ever do anything so evil.

[TAM]

18. So where do you stand?

"Why do so many suspend logic when it comes to the Bush cabal, and give them "the benefit of the doubt" basically on the premise, "I can't believe they would do that," when they are the most corrupt and murderous administration in American history? Why do so many people think an administration, that would allow thousands of Americans in New Orleans to die of thirst, exposure, hunger, drinking dirty water and drowning just so that Bush could continue his vacation, ride his bicycle and play air guitar, would never, ever allow thousands of people in New York to die so that they could deliver a trillion dollars worth of oil into the hands of their oil industry constituency?"

Do you want me to respond to your "opinion" and "slander" with the same, or was this just for effect?
Rather than lower myself to it, I will just leave it...or will I?

Let me ask you, is there hard proof that the USG knew Ahmad was supplying Al-Qaeda at the time he was meeting with US officals around and on 9/11? If not, then why was it unusual for him to be meeting with them? If he was carrying out his duty as head of Pakistan Intelligence by meeting with these people, and if they knew nothing of his role at the time...what wrong was he doing.

My take on your position, is you are saying...correct me if I am wrong here, so that EVERYONE understands, that the CIA, govt officials, all who met with him, were part of the "inside job" as well, and were meeting with him on 9/11 to what...congratulate him? The breakfast...was that a thank you lunch in disguise. Sorry for the sarcasm, but given the amount of it in your last post, I felt the need to throw a little in...

either the man was in the US for official Pakistan Intelligence above board business, or he was in US to make sure all the ends of the "inside job" were intact. Correct? So he was the scapegoat rather than the archvillian?

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Why hasn't the USG attempted to extradited and put him on trial for

financing terror?

Why did they just let him retire in Pakistan?

Incompetence?:rofl:


(edit for spelling)

[TAM]

24. One answer

one answer...International relations/politics.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Is that why they let Osama escape too?

The war on terror appears to be a complete sham. They will fuck with low level nobodies all day and night, but it's obvious 9/11 didn't change anything for the the money men.

In fact, it strongly fuels the suspicion that the whole 9/11 story is a complete sham also. Or is that the one truth out of a bunch of shams?

And why would that be?

[TAM]

30. geopolitics

I think it is trickier that that. I think there are elements in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc... who are intent on destroying the USA and Israel. I think the USG (I am canadian btw) response is largely dependent on the geopolitics. Pakistan is much more vital and important to the USA on so many fronts, that they allowed Mousharreff (exuse spelling) to deal with him "quietly". You know, yourself, that Pakistan is much different than Iraq or Afghanistan.

Is it right...no of course not...is it unusual....No.

[John Q. Citizen]

36. So dealing with him "quietly" means letting him retire? Or do you

have any evidence that he somehow faced some kind of justice? That seems to be your implication. They let Pakastan deal with Osama "quietly?"


Is that wishful thinking on your part, eh?


All countries are different, but what do you mean by your semi-cryptic statement. Much different in what way?

I'd say if you buy the OCT, that letting the 9/11 finacier go would appear highly unusual.

On the other hand, if 9/11 is an inside job, then it wouldn't appear to be unusual at all. You just let the guy quietly retire in Pakastan, out of sight out of mind. Kind of like Osama.

Maybe they can use them again in some further capacity if the need should arise.

[TAM]

43. Some Solid sources for the transfer claim

I know they "fired" him or retired him.

Can you supply me with multiple SOLID sources that confirm the wire transfer you speak of. As much as Paul Thompson is a good researcher, he has a bias, so I do not consider links to his material or any other CT site a SOLID, Credible source.

I am not well versed in the event in question, so I would appreciate a more even playing field before I put my foot in my mouth.

but with regard to your question on treating countries differently...I am not condoning it, I am just saying it happens...

ie. North Korea was not invaded despite what most would consider a higher risk than Iraq in terms of national security...why? geopolitically and economically not as important.
ie. Pakistan, key allie, geographically it is adjacent to many areas of USA interest, as well it is important in terms of negotiations to keep the arms race betweem it and India. USA would want to be seen as neutral in this matter, so having "pull" with both sides is important. As a result of its relations with them, and assuming the transfer really did occur, the USA allowed Pakistan to deal with Ahmad themselves. Likely, if a CIA agent was sneaking money to a terrorist organization that was anti Mousharreff, the Pakistani's might allow the USA to take care of him (trial/dismissal) themselves. Once again I am not saying it is right, I am just stating what I think may have gone on.

Once again, I am not overly knowledgable in the area, but I will start to be, now that it has peaked my interest.

[John Q. Citizen]

44. Here's from my post up thread:

CNN
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/01/inv.pakistan.fund... /

And then there is this from the same newspaper the OP used to expose the "tin foil hatters." The UK Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.h...


Pakistan did nothing except retire the guy.

In terms of geopolitics, thewhole world now knows the war on terror is a joke, 9/11 victims and their families are pathetic pawns in keeping the dictator of Pakistan happy.

This leads me to believe that bush never had any intensions of hunting down the terrorists, because that would be him and his Neocons.

We didn't go after N. Korea because they don't have oil and the do have atomic weapons.

Any country in the world now knows. It's perfectly OK to finance terror against US citizens, especially if you are helping out the neocons when you do it!

[RedSock]

45. solid sources

As much as Paul Thompson is a good researcher, he has a bias, so I do not consider links to his material or any other CT site a SOLID, Credible source.

All of us have a bias. It is part of being human.

Nevertheless, Thompson relies mainstream sources, so I'm going to assume you do not consider links to (some US examples)

CNN
MSNBC
NY Times
Washington Post
Time
Newsweek
Wall Street Journal
LA Times
Chicago Tribune


solid sources.

So -- what *do* you consider a credible source?

[John Q. Citizen]

46. Good points about Paul Thompson's sources, RedSock.

I think that some of the people who lean toward the OCT have an unrational fear of anything even remotley questioning of the OCT, and tend to link in their minds questioning of the OCT with being a "gasp" a "conspiracy theorist."

I'm a little bit scared that TAM just may reply to your question about what TAM consideres as credible sources, "The 9/11 Commission, The White House, and Former Mayor Rudolph Guliani, Lol.

[TAM]

49. The sources are fine....

No, I consider the sources you listed as credible. What I meant (I apologize for the misunderstanding) is that I do not want to be given links to his opinion pieces, or his opinions or analysis of those sources you just mentioned. Like I said nothing against him. I just realize, as you say, we all have biases.

In general I do not consider AFP a reliable source, nor the telegraph, or the World Daily Planet. There are others, but if I spot them, I will just ignore them.

Thanks for the links JQC...I will go read them.

Edit: both links come back 400 (page not found).

TAM

[John Q. Citizen]

52. Sorry about that. Here they are

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/01/inv.pakistan.funds/


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.html#article_continue



on the other post I just cut and pasted from the Some stories thread up post so missed the complete urls

[TAM]

53. Times of India

I have read the "Times of India" article. From this article, I gain the following...

John S Pistole confirms that India helped in tracing money for the Terrorists back to pakistani accounts. He has said nothing more.

The "Times of India" states that Unnamed Indian Authorities provided the FBI with the info that the money came from Ahmad Saeed Umar Sheikh, and the money came to the sheikh from Mahmud Ahmad. The FBI, according to the "Times of India" is ignoring, or not mentioning this info.

Article written 3 years ago.

I will go read the other article that I can get working...

TAM

[John Q. Citizen]

54. I didn't give you the Times of India, but that;s ok. I gave you cnn and

the UK guardian.

Just a suggestion, though.

Google is your friend.

And, If you can get past being "tainted" by going to a site like Paul Thompson's, he links to the other sources or presents them in there entirety.

I know you might be afraid that you might absorb some "crazy wacko mojo, but I'm sure a strong mind such as yours can resist the call of the siren song. :)

And you just might learn something you don't already know.

[TAM]

56. another linker gave it to me

sorry...another in the link web here gave me the TIMES OF INDIA.

TAM

[TAM]

55. Sorry to seem so harsh...but

CNN article:

Money supposedly left over from Terrorist attack was wired to the United Arab Emirates, to a man who left for Pakistan on September 11th, 2001. Officials (unnamed) confirm the man who recieved this money was Mustapha Ahmad Al-Hawsawi.

That is all of relivence I get from that article. Is the man mentioned above the same man mentioned in the india article "Ahmad Saeed Umar Sheikh"? If not, where is the connection?


Guardian article:
The nature of the language, the tone, and the wording in the first three paragraphs are too biased and opinionated for me to take it seriously as a provider of honest information. His word practically read like a posting at a Conspiracy site. It is more of an opinion piece than a report on facts or events...

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2003/09/22/mpMichaelMeachersCrackpotConspiracyTheories.html

[John Q. Citizen]

58. Yeah, it's funny this stuff is so hard to find in the Big Corporate Media,

but the wall street jounal has something on it.

I can find you a lot of stories about a blond girl gone missing though, and they are all on sites you have trust and faith in.

But a story about the Pakistani General who financed Atta is a lot harder to find.

Course you can't find any blonde girls gone missing stories on Paul Thompson's site, either, so i guess it all evens out in the wash.

Do you wonder why it's so hard to find the story about Atta and the general on the corporate media sites? (i mean yeah the WSJ does have something but not much)

One would think in the competitve world of journalism that such a story would be all over the place. But it's not.

It's sad what's happened to my country.

[TAM]

60. So far....

ok JQC, you are entitled to your opinion on MSM. I am no fool. I knew coming in here that the MSM angle on evidence was gonna be a hard, if not impossible sell, but heh, it is what the majority of your country mates consider to be reliable.

That said. Your argument against MSM is the exact same as my argument against the "Times of India" wrt its coverage of anything Pakistani...Biased...

Since the only thing I have seen so far has been the "Times of India", the CNN article which didn't seem to make any direct connection, the Guardian article by a known CTer, and the WSJ article, which only mentions the Ahmad - Atta connection via the same "Times of India", what do I have to go on so far...

[John Q. Citizen]

62. You may have mis-read the WSJ bit, because it's sourced by the US

Gov. as well.


(Luckily, we know the WSJ is agendaless)

by the way, have you seen the recent polls on public trust of the media? You can google it, I bet. Pew research has a detailed and fairly recent poll. But back to the WSJ

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(emphisis mine) 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(emphisis mine) 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.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001298

So the second and third paragraph refer to the US government sources who confirmed that India, with helped the FBI.

(Can't the WSjournal hire reporters who can write clearly? My poor country)

[TAM]

64. Look Closer...

Look at the article closely. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are indented from the first, and are quotes from the "Times of India" including the bit you mention.

here is a link to the Times of India Article. Within it you will find in their entirety, the 2nd and 3rd paragraph from the WSJ.

http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?catkey=-2128936835&art_id=1454238160&sType=1

[John Q. Citizen]

68. Yes, you are correct. I also missed the colon after the first paragraph.

[Sinti]

48. It's a pretty well-established fact - oops I think I doubled down on this

Sorry.


This is one of those things we've stipulated to locally at least. What should have been done about it, and why did the Warren... er... Kissinger... um... 9/11 Commission (and Fed Gov in general) choose not to deal with it are the remaining arguments, AFAIK.

This was in the Washington Times - have to go to Archive.org now

On Oct. 9, 2001, the Pakistani daily Dawn reported the ISI director-general, Lt. Gen.
Mahmoud Ahmed, was fired after FBI investigators established a link between him and a
$100,000 wire transfer to 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta in the summer of 2000. This
report was also carried by the Wall Street Journal.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050211163421/http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040726-01

3340-4811r.htm

In The Guardian here.

Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed,
the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the
9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed
nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1266317,00.html


Times of India - watch out for their damn pop-ups :(

Indian authorities also told the US that the trail led back from Sheikh to the then chief
of ISI, Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmad who was subsequently forced to retire by Pakistan president
Pervez Musharraf. The FBI had been provided with the details, including Sheikh’s mobile
numbers. But Pistole’s testimony is silent on these issues. The FBI has estimated the
September 11 attacks cost between $175,000 and $250,000. That money — which paid for flight
training, travel and other expenses — flowed to the hijackers through associates in Germany
and the United Arab Emirates.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=107432

[TAM]

50. 2 out of 3 working...thanks

Your first link not found...other two work...I will go read. Although the 3rd link is the Indiatimes. Given India/Pakistan relations, I am not sure I will give it much credit. The guardian I reservedly consider ok...it has had some "out there" well left of center pieces, especially re:9/11

[Sinti]

57. I swear the Archive.org one was working when I posted it a short while ago

They're not as dependable as they used to be :(

How about Wall Street Journal

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.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001298

[TAM]

59. the evidence...

I consider the WSJ to be a good source, however, the article you sent bases its "9/11 attack" connection to the Ahmad based on the "Times of India" article. You may find my comments on that article within the last few posts...I do not consider multiple articles sourcing the same information from the same source to be "multiple sources". call me picky, but I know you all must be just as picky...Extrodinary Claims require Extrordinary Proof...I'll settle for reliable, unbiased proof from sources without agendas.

So far the only thing that strikes me as either bit strong in the evidence department is the India Times article, which is not exactly unbias toward pointing the finger at Pakistan...kind of like Al-jazeera articles on the USA or Israel...

[Sinti]

61. Fair enough - it's in the Op Ed pages anyway

:shrug:

[RedSock]

37. gotta keep up appearances (eom)

[Sinti]

21. TAM, that is a damn good question. I think the USG, is an overstatement

It only takes a small group of criminals to perpetrate these crimes, and these individuals may work in the USG - but, even so, they do not comprise the USG. However, did anyone in the USG know about Mahmoud's relationship with terrorists, or should they have known.

The meeting doesn't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, it's just suspicious. In the context of many other things it's even more suspicious. As HamdenRice points out, in an organized crime setting it would look very, very suspicious, even though it wouldn't put the cop in question in jail - probably wouldn't even get an indictment.

This is a good alley to look down, though. Thanks. :thumbsup:

[John Q. Citizen]

25. More to the point, why hasn't the USG indicted Mahmoud and

extradicted him to stand trial for financing terror?


(sorry to post this again, but nobody seems up to an answer)

[TAM]

26. I did answer

I answered...I was late, because I had to go eat lunch...going out soon...this is the internet you know...:)

TAM

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Just saw it and replied. Thanks. n/t

[Sinti]

29. Has any one, anywhere actually been called to account for this $h!t?

Hell no. They got promotions and raises, and mo money, and they're our biggest, most important allies, and all that other good stuff. Pakistan may not be willing to extradite him, but he's not even spoken of, must less indicted by us. How about AQ Khan, the nuclear Wal-Mart dude? This is why I don't play the shell game - no one wins unless they're an insider.

OTOH, if Mahmoud has a history of supporting al Qaeda, and he's meeting with our folks, pressing the flesh, and updating them on the Paki position, well there's your what did they know and when did they know it IMO. That's tough to overcome. I didn't know don't work here, they're the intelligence committee, it's their job to know - they have info from all the three letter organizations.

[Nozebro]

31. 9/11 criminal law approach v. civil law approach

In a criminal law case, the facts are what count the most. Was the bank robbed and did the defendant do it. Most 9/11 skeptics want to know WHAT the facts are and WHO are the perps.

In a civil law case, a lawyer tries to find a precedent that will justify/excuse what the client did or wants to do. That's the approach we see taken by OCT defenders here and elsewhere.

[petgoat]

32. I'm inclined to think Gen. Ahmad was a hostage.

Obviously in breakfasting at the Capitol he would have been disarmed
and he would have been subject to arrest.

Other possible hostages include Osama's brother Shafig at a meeting of the
Carlyle Group with Poppy Bush; Osama himself, who turned himself in to the
Pakistani military in Rawalpindi (Pakistani military HQ) on 9/10; and
W himself, who sat in line with the runways of the Sarasota airport just two
miles away in a place easily identified from the air and well publicized.
Bush sat there until the Pentagon strike had been achieved.

[Nozebro]

34. "Obviously in breakfasting at the Capitol..."

In what respect are you saying that the General was a hostage? That would be a first, wouldn't it, for a General/hostage to be having breakfast at the U.S. Capitol with powerful civilian political leaders? What am I missing?

[petgoat]

41. It's just an idea that popped into my head one day.

I was in another forum, expounding on the mystery of why Bush wasn't immediately
rushed away from the Booker school to an undisclosed location, and the freeper
I was debating made up a fact, as they will, claiming the school could not be
easily seen from the air.

So I looked at the Google satellite photos and found the place practically like
"X Marks the Spot" from the air. It's directly in line with the airport runways,
it's on the next major e-w thoroughfare south of the runways, it's near a golf
course and a railroad and a subdivision with a peculiar tennis-racket street plan.

And then I remembered someone had suggested to me that Shafig bin Laden had been
a hostage, and I considered the possibility that Osama was not really getting
dialysis treatment (normally he did this in Peshawar (1) up in the mountains)
but having high-level meetings or submitting himself as a hostage. 9/10 Osama
was in Rawalpindi, a city of 3 million that's six miles from the capital,
Islamabad. It's the HQ of the Pakistani military, it's filthy with US
military advisors, and it's near the International airport.

And then I considered Gen. Ahmad. If he wired a hundred thousand dollars to
Mohammed Atta and then on 9/11, possibly knowing the attacks were going to
happen, submitted to a security check and entered the US Capitol he must
have been very confident or he must have balls of steel. Of course maybe he
didn't know when the attacks were happening, or didn't know what the money
was for.

1. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-789042,curpg-1.cms

[Nozebro]

47. Did you consider that Gen. Ahmad may have been set up? If he was, and

I think that's a good possibility, then saying he was a hostage is a very plausible explanation. Someone in his position simply wouldn't do something that risky voluntarily, in my opinion.

[petgoat]

51. You mean set up to be a fall guy if necessary, and he didn't

know he ws a hostage?

Interesting idea. I'm really out of my depth as to the possible implications.

Another factor to me was Bush's expression when he was doing the goat thing.
He doesn't just look oblivious to me. He looks calculating, like he's trying
to figure the angles. It makes me wonder if flight 77 was behind schedule,
so Card told him he had to stall. Then he's wondering what went wrong, and
is he being set up to take the fall?

[Nozebro]

63. Define "hostage" & then I can say if I agree or not. Re: Bush & Card...

I don't know what your basis is for saying/conjecturing that Bush is wondering "what went wrong, and is he being set up to take the fall". What IS your basis for that?

[petgoat]

65. The basis is the hypothesis that what Andrew Card

whispered to him was not "the nation isunder attack" but
"flight 77 is delayed. Stall fifteen minutes."

The natural reaction would be to wonder about the nature of
the delay, how long it might last, if the plot was discovered,
if what he was on TV was a computer-generated animation, and
if he'd been stinged.

It's an hypothesis.

A hostage I guess is someone who delivers himself into a situation
where he is exposed to the risk of arrest or other harm for the
purpose of demonstrating good faith in the carrying out of an
agreement.

[Nozebro]

66. Based on that definition, then no, I don't agree that President Bush was a

hostage.

Telling him to "stall fifteen minutes", if that was what Card said to him, strikes me as just Mr. Card informing him of the status of the "exercise". Since we can only guess about how much foreknowledge Bush had, my own guess is that I think it's very possible he knew very little about what was planned to take place. If that is the case (i.e. that Bush knew only that "something Big might happen"), then what took place on CCTV takes on more importance, in my opinion, but it goes not to whether he (Bush) was being "stung", rather something else, as described below.

Your point about "if what he was on TV was a computer-generated animation, and
if he'd been stinged" might well be a real possibility except for the "if he'd been stinged (sic)".
If you are driving at the well-known intel device of giving certain superiors what is commonly referred to as "guilty knowledge", I wouldn't disagree with that characterization.

[petgoat]

67. As Michael Moore pointed out, Bush had plenty of

guilty knowledge even if he wasn't in on an "inside job" plot.

How did he put it? Something like, "maybe he was thinking about
the 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' memo and how he'd
ignored it. Mayhe he was thinking about all those vacation
days."

And it's entirely possible he didn't know what was going on,
didn't know he was a hostage sitting on crosshairs for an
aerial attack.

My suggestion that he may have been wondering if he'd been stinged
(and I use the ingrammatical deliberately just as you use 'mouses'
when talking about computer mouses to distinguish it from what a
wasp does) would of course only apply if he knew of the plot and
wondered if the entire thing had been a setup to bring him down and
the TV was all a fake. It would be a natural thing to cross his
mind when things went wrong and he was left sitting all by himself
in front of the TV cameras.

[Nozebro]

69. In your "setup"- wondering scenario, who might have set him up? EOM

nt

[petgoat]

70. I'm not saying anybody did or would have. I'm saying

he would have been wondering.

His subsequent flight to Nebraska is in my mind behavior consistent with
that of someone who's been greatly traumatized, and doesn't trust anybody.

If he was aware of the entire plot, I see him in his plane, evaluating.
"Did we get away with this? Damn, why'd they use so much explosives on
the towers? Who's going to believe the fighters flew out to sea?
And 93 shot down."

It kinda looks like he was headed for Crawford, or even Mexico, and then
they talked him down so he could give a press conference at Barksdale AFB.


Of course this is all sheer speculation.

[Nozebro]

71. If anyone felt they'd been set up that day, wouldn't OBL be a better

candidate?

You must have some reasonable basis for conjecturing that Bush might have wondered if he'd been set up. I can't think of what that might be and you haven't said what YOU think it might be. So far, you've said what Bush "might have been wondering", but since it isn't possible to know for sure, then I assume that since you are well-informed about 9/11 you surely didn't just make up the idea without any basis or reason whatsoever. I'm interested to know what that is.

[petgoat]

72. Yeah,OBL is a good candidate for having been set up.

Again, obviously Bush WASN'T set up to take the fall, so I'm commenting
only on what he might have been feeling at that point.

You can believe the official story, which is unbelieveable, that the
CiC sat on his butt for ten minutes or more after learning that the
nation was under attack. The guy is obviously very uncomfortable,
so why doesn't he get up and find out what's going on?

If you believe the Bushcists plotted to pull off the attacks, the
proposition that the best cover story they could find for the CiC's
non-action (and the violation of Secret Service procedures) was
that he didn't want to alarm the children is absurd. He could have
quietly said "Something's come up, I have to go."

What fits the facts best IMHO is that something went wrong. Flight
77 and flight 93 were behind schedule. The President had to remain
incommunicado because whether he ordered fighters scrambled or didn't,
or ordered planes shot down or not, whatever he did was going to be
wrong. Scramble the fighters and 77 can't hit the Pentagon. Don't
scramble the planes and you're an idiot.

So I tend to believe he sat there for a reason, and sat there because
that's what he was told, and that it was not what he expected. I
generally try not to pretend to know what's in other people's minds,
but under the circumstances it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't
be trying to figure the angles.

[Nozebro]

73. You've confused me but I don't think it's intentional. I'm not even sure

what point you were/are trying to make. In MY own humble opinion, 9/11 was an inside job that was blamed on OBL. I can see no reason at all why Bush would have had anything to worry about. Certainly not from forces within the U.S. Gov't. His own father was at the WH that morning and Cheney was there, too. Why would Bush necessarily even KNOW about FL 77, 93 or any of the rest? The need for plausible deniability would have precluded him from being told any such details about "the plan".

[petgoat]

74. It's confusing.

You've lured me into a speculative area I rarely indulge
where my thinking is vague.

In MY own humble opinion, 9/11 was an inside job that was blamed on OBL.

I take it you believe then that the Oct. 2004 tape was faked, or mistranslated,
or that he took responsibility for it for some strange reason of his own?

It could have been an inside job AND OBL was involved, if he was wearing his CIA
hat when he did it.

I can see no reason at all why Bush would have had anything to worry about.

It appears that he didn't. But he may have thought he did on the morning of 9/11.
Presumbly he had some kind of plan to go out and give a spiel after the attacks were
finished, and suddenly he was on a delay vector and nobody was telling him what was
going on.

Why would Bush necessarily even KNOW about FL 77, 93 or any of the rest?
The need for plausible deniability would have precluded him from being told any such
details about "the plan".

Maybe he didn't know. Not knowing what was happening would be as anxiety-producing as
knowing. I'm just speculating, from the look on his face and in his eyes, that he's
calculating, that some paranoid thoughts might be flashing through his mind.

I don't claim to have the answers. As to the hostage notion, it connects to the idea
that there was some very complicated deal going on among Rummy, Bush, Cheney, Pakistan,
and al Qaeda that was only concluded when the Pentagoon was hit. The Kunduz airlift
and Osama's escape from Tora Bora corroborate this notion.

If you think about what all these parties wanted, you can imagine how this deal would
have benefited all.

[RedSock]

15. Don't forget Bob Graham

Democrat Bob Graham was also at that 9/11 breakfast with Goss and Ahmad -- something that is quite absent from his book "Intelligence Matters". (Graham and Goss then went on to chair Congress's Joint Inquiry into 9/11 in 2002.)

Graham mentions Ahmad in the book a couple of times, very briefly (talking about how smart he is), but does not mention the breakfast or the 100K.

Ain't that funny.

[JackRiddler]

33. Sorry...

Have a look at the book again.

He talks about the breakfast on the very first page of the Introduction (x). It's a compressed version where apparently nothing is said as news of the two strikes arrives, and then they break it up. Ahmed is said to have talked about how Al Q and Taliban desire paradise through martyrdom. No connection whatsoever is made between ISI and Al Q in the book as a whole.

[RedSock]

35. you're right.

You are right.

I should have said that he makes no mention of the $100,000 or Ahmed's quiet "retirement" once the payoff was confirmed by the FBI.

[leftofthedial]

22. and numerous reports from Dick Cheney and George Bush

and the repukes in Congress clearly show that 9-11 was the work of evil dewars who must be hunted down and killed

umm, except for the saudis and pakistanis and yemenis and egyptian ones

I mean they would know and have no alternative agendas--they are from the government!

The State Department especially has been a reliable source of information and enlightened diplomacy . . .

[Sinti]

23. Mmmm... Dewars with ice, and a spritz of fizzy water - no lime please n/t

[dailykoff]

38. Where are these "two official reports published last week"?

There are no titles, links, or any other references in the Guardian article, at least that I could find.

Strange.

[mirandapriestly]

40. two OFFICIAL studies, lol....