George Tenet Talks About Pakistani ISI Chief, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmed In D.C. During 9/11
I think all of this talk of threats, and such are a "show." Methinks thou protests too much. Mahmoud ordered Omar Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta. It's not like he had no idea 9/11 was going to happen, as did most of Pakistan's military brass. I think the Administration is trying to show how "difficult" a relationship Pakistan and the U.S. have, even though it was recently reported that even now, the administration is advising/influencing terrorists through the ISI.
If the U.S. was going to frame Pakistan for 9/11, they would have mentioned their involvement in the 9/11 Report. They would not act to cover-up their involvement. The act of covering up their involvement, indicates there's more to the story. I think that story is about a collaborative relationship as opposed to an uncooperative one. - Jon
Ex-CIA chief confirms Armitage bullied Pakistan post 9/11
Source: newkerala.com
Washington, May 1 : Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief George Tenet has claimed that former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage bullied Pakistan into joining the global campaign against terrorists, but adds that Armitage did not 'threaten to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age'.
Tenet recalls in his book that on Sept 13, 2001, two days after the 9/11, Armitage invited Pakistan's ambassador Maleeha Lodhi and the-then ISI chief Mahmood Ahmed to his office in Washington, 'and dropped the hammer on them.'
"Mr. Armitage is a bull of a man. (Lt. General) Mahmood must have felt like he had been run over by a stampede by the time he left Rich's office," the Dawn quotes Tenet as saying in his book.
"I seriously doubt, however, that Rich actually threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age, as Gen Mahmood reportedly told President (Gen) Musharraf."
Tenet, one of the longest-serving CIA chiefs, had to resign following a controversy over the Iraq war. He describes Mahmood as a man who sympathised with the Taliban and tried to defend Mullah Omar in the meetings Tenet had with him.
"He made it clear that neither he nor his service would have anything to do with the (U.S.) effort (against the Taliban), not even to the extent of advising us whom we might approach," Tenet says in his book
Tenet says that Mahmood was in Washington when the attack on the Pentagon took place, and he realized then "how deeply and viscerally the Americans felt about the attacks."
Mahmood, Tenet says, was still trying to save the Taliban, but "he knew that if we did not get satisfaction, we were still coming after Al Qaeda, no matter who objected or who tried to stand in the way."
That's when Mahmood finally agreed to meet Taliban leader Mullah Omar when he returned to Pakistan, Tenet adds.
"Within hours of Mr. Armitage's delivering his ultimatums, and despite some violent internal opposition, General Musharraf agreed" to support the U.S. offensive.
- Jon Gold's blog
- Login to post comments
And yesterday...
It was reported that Cheney really likes Pakistan.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
September 13th, 2001...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/13/se.46.html
QUESTION: Mr. President, if this is a different kind of war, it might require perhaps a different kind of coalition. Many people believe that for a real war on terrorism to work, you'll need cooperation from governments that haven't necessarily done so in the past, specifically, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Have you made any progress on that front?
BUSH: I would refer you to the statements that the Pakistani leader gave about his -- I don't have the exact words in front of me -- but his willingness to work with the United States. And I appreciated that statement and now we'll just find out what that means.
Won't we? We will give the Pakistani government a chance to cooperate and to participate as we hunt down those people who committed this unbelievable despicable act on America.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Would...
Those of you in this movement who feel the ISI's connection to 9/11 is an important link to the truth, please vote this blog up.
So the newcomer doesn't disregard the information.
Thanks.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
It's absurd that
people around here who believe Mossad was singularly responsible for 9/11 won't even entertain credible evidence implicating the ISI in some way.
I don't know which of these intelligence agencies was the primary (don't forget the Saudis), but I think it's important to consider credible evidence implicating any of them.
What I think is absurd...
Is that people are willing to disregard people in Washington D.C. meeting with someone that allegedly helped to fund the attacks. What I think is absurd is that people are willing to disregard 3 decades of history between the CIA, and the ISI. What I think is absurd is that people are willing to disregard Musharraf's statement that Omar Sheikh was an MI-6 agent, and the Pittsburgh Tribune's statement that he was "bought and paid for" by the CIA. What I think is absurd is that people are willing to disregard the fact that Tenet, Goss, Graham, and Kyl all flew to Pakistan in the months prior to 9/11. What I think is absurd is that people are willing to disregard everything about Randy Glass. What I think is absurd is that people are willing to dismiss the fact that Bill Doyle spoke of a source that told him part of the 28 redacted pages in the Joint Congressional Inquiry spoke of money being funneled from the U.S. to Pakistan.
It's definitely absurd... for those reasons off the top of my head, and MANY more.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
I think it's absurd to
--
Bernard-Henri Levy
But keep saying it.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Do you have more than one account here?
Is this you, JessPass:
http://www.911blogger.com/user/556
EDIT
Never mind. I read on the open thread from last week where you stated: "I registered a new name":
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8157#comment-137306
As long as you don't abuse 911blogger's voting system with your two accounts I suppose there's no problem.
_______________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!" -Dr. Frank Greening
Ah...I have company in my
Ah...I have company in my confusion....;-)
BTW--it would really help, JessPass, if in your profile you wrote just a little something about this--say,what you put in the open thread. It was the 3 day old profile that put me on yellow alert. Well, that and a spot of forgetfullness...
SORRY, AGAIN!
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Yea it's jpass
Yea you are right, my new account. I was unable to post messages under my Jpass account. It became unbearable to sit and wait for 4 mins for any page to load.
I will make a note in my profile.
Cheers!
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
The "stone age" comment actually was:
"Help us and breathe in the 21st century along with the international community or be prepared to live in the Stone Age."
Armitage didn't mention bombing.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091101mahmoodextend...
That's just Musharraf's spin.
I think the deal with Pakistan is that they play a double game: with the US, and with the militants against the US. The US doesn't actually mind this because the militants have their uses, like kidnapping Iranian soldiers, extremism in China and Central Asia, etc.
A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE ISI / Omar Saiid Sheikh Story
The case against Mahmood is shoddy. Jon, you know my feelings I'm sure. I think that people have strung together events and multiple people to create the impression that the ISI ordered $100,000.00 to be sent for the purpose of facilitating the 9i/11 attacks.
I just don't see the so called evidence and I've looked through all the information you've provided...on more then one occasion.
There really is no basis for anyone to say, unequivocally, that the ISI or General Mahmood orderd $100,000 to be sent to the 9/11 Hijackers. Not saying it didn't happen, saying that the evidence is not there.
Anyone who is interested in a critical look at the ISI/Mahmood/Omar Saiid Sheikh can read my old blog on the topic.
Read the comments as "sources" used to support the cased are debunked with little research.
Omar Saeed Sheikh Disinfo Goose Chase
http://911blogger.com/node/5945
Bernard-Henri Levy
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
SORRY! Forgot you got a new account because of problems!
Just thought I'd post it up here before you read my confusion further on.
;-)
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
No problem. Yea I tried
No problem. Yea I tried fixing it but it didn't work.
Mahmoud ordered Omar Sheikh
Mahmoud ordered Omar Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta" - Jon Gold
Jon, you say this with such authority. Is there REALLY evidence of this? I've tried to confirm this statement over the past few months and have been unsuccessful.
Bernard-Henri Levy
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Can you be more specific...
I'm familiar with Bernard-Henri and there are many claims.
He claims that the Daniel Pearl was murderd by the ISI and that Saeed was an ISI agent.
He claims that he 'saw proof' in New Delhi, IN that may prove that Omar Saeed wired money to 9/11 Hijcakcers but I can't find what that evidence is myself.
He also claims that there is evidence that Saeed wired more money in August of 2001 but again I can't find what this evidence is.
Sorry man, I need proof. The story is still soggy as far as I'm concerned. An author's claims are not proof.
A writer is called into a court room to testify only to say:
"The proof is here, see...I say in this article I wrote:
Excerpt from theoretical article...
"I saw proof in India"
I will read more about Levy. My hopes are not high because, unless there is new information, I still conclude that there just isn't enough information to make authoritative claims like:
"General Mahmood ordered Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to Muhamed Atta".
A review...
Of Bernard's book in the Wall Street Journal, the same, and only paper in America that reported the wire transfer, said, “It is a fact that Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, then head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta before 9/11 through an intermediary."
I've noticed Jesse that you act more like a debunker than a truther. Whatever floats your boat.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
I'm not sure what you mean...
What is the difference between a debunker and a truther?
My understanding is that a debunker is a truther and vice versa. Am I wrong?
Are we not here for the same thing? Debunking the bunk and finding the truth? That is why I'm here.
Also, the book review provides no context to the quote that you provide. Even if it does, and I suspect that the author is quoting Levy, it is not proof.
“It is a fact that Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, then head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta before 9/11 through an intermediary."
Let's use our present situation as an example. At this very moment a person may be reading the quote that you provided above. Does that then make it proof? Of course not.
Proof would be:
"with phone records provided by verizon wirelss, we were able to confirm that Jesse spoke with Osama Bin Laden on 9/10/2001 and discussed tea and crumpets for 5 mins and 32 seconds starting at 5:05PM"
Well I just disagree with you
I have not seen proof. I've seen you and the guy you say 'schooled' me using 'sources' you claim to back your case when, in fact, the source is talking about an entirely different person. Or the source is a news article that mentions a Times Of India article that also provides nothing more then a mention of some Indian Intel report.
The fact is that your statement below has not and can not be confirmed:
"Mahmoud ordered Omar Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta" - Jon Gold
This statement requires evidence. Your evidence is nill. Anyone reading the "Goose Chase" blog will see that the evidence is hardly strong enough to make authoritative claims like the one I quoted you making above.
I am not disagreeing just to disagree as you claim. I have studied this issue and you still have yet to provide EVIDENCE to support your claim that:
"Mahmoud ordered Omar Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta"
And to top it off you were seemingly un-aware that there was a known Al Queada member using a name very similar to the Omar Saeed you speak of. At least that is what I am led to believe because you provided a few pieces of 'proof' that were not even referring to the guy you claimed they were.
I don't know if it was you that provided them both but it was the Executive Order and the 9/11 Commission Report foot notes. You and another claimed it was confirmation but it was talking about a totally differrent guy and you didn't know it.
So, on this subject, I say down to your up and left to your right because the evidence is just not there.
See...
This is now the 3rd or fourth time you've made these allegations, and I've dealt with them twice and refuse to deal with them again.
I'll tell you what, call Mahmoud Ahmed in Lahore, Pakistan. That's where he's living now. Ask him.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
If you can't (or are unwilling to) make an argument
to back up your position on a very contentious topic, then why are you writing another blog related to it?
Very uncool.
"I've noticed Jesse that you act more like a debunker than a truther."
Jon, this is a bad habit of yours. You cannot accept legitimate disagreement with you on certain issues without resorting to the "you are not a (real) truther" card. (You also show fondness for the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.)
You are going to have to accept that a) some people disagree with you on the merits of the particular evidence surrounding the money transfer and b) MANY people disagree with you regarding the significance of the ISI role in 9/11.
BTW, although board admins have prohibited some member(s) from responding to Jon, I am not one of them. I've only been "prohibited" from responding to Jon by Jon himself.
Not so MANY...
As you would imply.
I have dealt with EACH of Jesse's allegations in different blogs throughout this site. Obviously he has forgotten that, MUCH like a debunker would.
This conversation ends now because I'm tired of Nico using my arguments on 911Blogger.com as ammunition for whatever hit piece he decides to write against me.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
"This conversation ends now"
You, of course, mean because you're leaving this sub-thread, right?
Probably a good idea. We need to be careful what lying bitches like Nico will use against us. Divide and conquer is their game, it is.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Not just...
Steve, but a few others as well...
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=3295
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=3334
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=3218
http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/04/fat-wars-911bloggercoms-jon-gold-c...
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/04/slc-starts-draft-jon-gold-f...
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
what the hell..
Jeez, I didn't realize the infighting that seems to be going on.
And EACH...
Word we use during an argument can be used against us in the blink of an eye.
Which is why I'm trying MY BEST to avoid them.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Well I read one of the links...
Well I read one of the links... above and it's garbage. It was something about Jim Fetzer and Jon Gold and fat people and 9/11 Truth. I don't know, I didn't make it through the first few paragraphs because it was garbage.
You are trying your best to avoid using certain words towards me? I am not sure I completely understand what you are saying in the last part of your comment.
Arguments...
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Yes, Jonny should reign in his bad habits...
....but it's also true, this JessPass person sounds alot like a debunk trying to "pass". And they've only been with us about three days. Not proof by itself, but usually sincere newbies don't glom on to any one person or topic and push it relentlessly.
And if I'm wrong, JessPass, I apologize. ;-) Perhaps you could share with us how you got into 911activism?
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
He was here...
As jpass, and did pretty much the same thing as his new identity. He was also a member of PA911Visibility. To me, he sounds more like a debunker, than a truther. That's my personal opinion.
Now Jenny, I am done.
Also, my name is Jon, Jonathan, or Mr. Gold. Not Jonny. Thank you.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
"Now Jenny, I am done."
Um, okay. Yay, you.
Oh, bugger! JessPass, you're the one who changed your name because there was something wrong with your old account, right?
Well forget most of what I said--unless you really ARE a debunk.
Sorry about that! ;-)
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Duplicate post--GOD DAMN IT!
However I will take the time to apologize for calling Jon "Jonny" since he doesn't like it. In future I will address you as you've requested.
And this reminds us there are other apologies due out there...
Apology accepted.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Thank you.
Now isn't there an apology you owe someone for something?
(No, not ME...)
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
And vice versa?
Sure, casseia, I apologize for every wrongdoing I've done on 911Blogger.com towards you since Arizona.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Or...
you could apologize for the sick, intimidating emails you sent to me privately. That's an apology I would consider -- but then again, I don't expect one.
Fine.
I apologize for the "sick, intimidating emails" I sent you privately.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Thanks.
n/t
Aren't you...
Going to apologize? There was a time when you would adamantly oppose those that promote "Holocaust Revisionism", and try to associate with the 9/11 Truth Movement, and now, you defend them, and welcome them with open arms.
That is, after all, what originally started this argument.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
as civilized worm would say:
What
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Talk to her...
I've dropped it as requested.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
politics
"although board admins have prohibited some member(s) from responding to Jon"
Kind of a strange way to deal with whatever situation 911blogger is dealing with. What is the situation?
I'm not going to air any more dirty laundry on the thread
and I see that your "contact" feature is turned off. You can email me if you like.
Suffice it to say, it appears that some users of 911blogger are more equal than others.
this could all have been
this could all have been solved (a number of times) by just banning people - rather than do that i asked people not to respond to each other anymore.. maybe we need to rehash this a dozen more times? i don't want to ban people who i know are dedicated to this, and that goes for all of you who apparently have developed bad blood - all i can say is GET OVER IT - PLEASE!
You got it.
It has NEVER been my intention to cause you headaches. I hope you know that.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
casseia,
casseia,
please know my comment was not directed at you, but the situation.. the reality is that this site was never intended to be a message board like it has become for some.. that spawned from allowing hierchial threads (being able to directly reply to others) - which was done to try to prevent thread-jacking..
ah well.. hopefully ppl can keep the bigger picture in mind.. i only comment here like 5 times a week, anything much more and it might just be a waste of time :(
in any event, best wishes.
USA occupies bases in
USA occupies bases in Pakistan.
four more airfields in southern Punjab and Baluchistan provinces were being readied to be handed over to U.S. forces.
The airfields include Rajanpur in Baluchistan Province and coastal airports at Pasni, Gwader, also in Baluchistan
Gwadar is the end-point of the trans-afghanistan pipeline.
Doesn't that make you proud to be american?
Maybe you rather get the oil and gas than oppose the evil injustices and bloodbaths of capitalist expansion undeveloping country after country?
Have you even driven an electric car?
I see this as an empty assertion:
"If the U.S. was going to frame Pakistan for 9/11, they would have mentioned their involvement in the 9/11 Report. They would not act to cover-up their involvement. "
On repeated occasions, people have outlined their arguments against this position -- and against the idea of true Pakistani "agency" in the events (as opposed to involvement that may have been manipulated by other entities.) Your editorial comment, appended to this story, is why I have no interest in making sure newbies don't miss it.
See...
Above.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Except you have to admit,
Except you have to admit, Casseia, that the individuals who have outlined these arguments are the ones who would point to similar documentation of a Mossad transfer to Atta (and it's unmentionable status in the administration and media) as the "smoking gun" of Israeli involvement and ultimate proof of US/Israeli collusion in the events of 9/11. So where is the parity?
No, that's not how I see it.
The people who outline these arguments are very skeptical of any argument which reinforces the hijacker story, period. Any money transfer to Atta, from any source, would be questioned in terms of its relevance to the events of 9/11. You can go ahead and frame this as "ISI versus Mossad" if that's what floats your boat -- most critics of ISI leads, however, are framing it in terms of patsy versus agent (in the sense of a participant with *agency*.)
So in short, no I don't have to admit that and in fact I strongly disagree.
Whether or not Atta was
Whether or not Atta was actually on the flight, the OCT says he was. If he -- a US intelligence asset, trained on US military bases and feted on Abramoff's party cruises -- was wired funds by a known CIA brother organization, it disrupts the OCT.
Remember the statements: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" and "Anyone found to have provided aid to the terrorists will share in their fate?" It doesn't mean it is the end of the story by any means, and it certainly doesn't dismiss the idea of Atta's being used as a patsy. It is quite similar to the Oswald grooming and "patsification," in fact. It sounds, with all due respect, as though you are summarily rejecting any information that doesn't skew in a direction you have elected it should go. I suspect we all do it from time to time, but it's not an honest research perspective.
And yes, some have framed it as an though it were an either/or debate.
The truth of what happened that day is undoubtedly more complex -- with more players, more layers, more backstory, and more plausible deniability built in -- than anything any of us can imagine. A trial lawyer building a prosecutorial case would consider this particular trail quite relevant.
If he was wired the money, yes
but if he was not, or it cannot be proven he was, it disrupts nothing, and is a false lead that reinforces the OCT.
I find the story inherently implausible. A real transfer would be done through a series of shell companies with no link to a Pakistani general. A real transfer would not occur the day before if used for the operation, and if it was compensation for Atta, would be paid for the benefit of his family in an offshore trust account, again through shell companies.
I conclude that this is what the perpetrators and/or the cover-uppers want us to think. Not addressing it in the 9/11 Commission Report tells me that they really want us to think it.
Wanting us to think it is a different matter from it being true and provable. I would expect it to be a dead end -- in the end explained as just anti-Pakistani propaganda by Indian intelligence that the FBI and the Wall Street Journal gave too much credence to.
Cassiea is right - it reinforces the official story and is unlikely to lead to anything. If you could prove who spread the story, and make a case it was done to cover up something else, it might have some significance, but that is secondary to proving what really happened.
Actually, it was routed
Actually, it was routed through Dubai.
"...If you could prove who spread the story, and make a case it was done to cover up something else, it might have some significance, but that is secondary to proving what really happened..." You've just described nearly everything about an alternative theory regarding 9/11. I don't believe anyone who says they know what really happened. Dick Cheney doesn't know all the details of what happened.
Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else in the movement is tasked to prove what happened. It's impossible for anyone to prove anything without access to secret documents, receipts, and sworn testimony (and we know that some would lie while others would be relieved to be subpeonaed). We know that our argument is cumulative and theirs falls apart because it is deductive. We can prove impossible certain things documented in the OCT; that is very different from proving what did happen. But none of us will be asked our opinion on anything in court; neither will our most favored or most reviled 9/11 speakers or book authors or pundits or editorialists, although some may be consulted on background.
The type of legal or quasi-legal process which will be necessary for even a modicum of justice will involve testimony from people who are hostile witnesses, people who have very compartmentalized information, and people who don't subscribe to any theses. Many criminal trials contain dozens of witnesses who don't agree on a damned thing, but each tiny piece is important to the case as a whole.
The best thesis anyone could possibly claim at this time as to players, operations, and mechanics would be proven wrong in many respects if the whole truth were revealed. As Col. Prouty said about the assassinations and secret plans, the actual operation takes far less planning than the backstory and coverup and planting of false leads, so we don't really know what is relevant and what are red herrings. (My leading contender for planted lead is the bizarrely brazen dancing Israelis, but I don't claim to KNOW that I'm right about it.) They all have to be carefully vetted.
As I've said before, Silverstein's "pull it" comment doesn't prove his involvement either, although most of us consider it tantamount to a slip of the confessional tongue. It's a very good piece of evidence and it is more than sufficient reason to haul him in under oath and juxtapose it with testimony of all the others with knowledge of WTC7 surrounding 9/11. While we can prove scientifically to a general audience or grand jury that the fire collapse theory is impossible, that is not the same as incriminating Lucky Larry for his comment. See what I mean? Documentation of the wire transfers exists, and Sun Bank's information was reported in Florida. What does that prove at this point? Nothing, but it would be fairly simple with full imperative and access to track it back each step of the way. And once the ISI can were opened, all manner of US intelligence demons would come flying out.
Thank you
I still am skeptical that the transfer would be done leaving documents tying the transfer to a Pakistani general, and suspect it is purposefully misleading, but you make excellent points here about how a legal process would play out.
Why do guys keep misunderstanding this case?
"I still am skeptical that the transfer would be done leaving documents tying the transfer to a Pakistani general,"
HE WAS UNDER SURVEILLANCE BY INDIAN INTELLIGENCE! THEY MONITORED HIS PHONE CALLS! SECRET INDIAN EAVESDROPPING IS THE SOURCE OF THIS LINK.
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
The Only Reason..
I'm just commenting on this one ISI/ Mahmood story and nothing more.
The evidence just isn't there. Not saying it isn't possible, just that the evidence does not support the statement Jon made that claimed General Mahmood ORDERED Saeed to wire 100K to atta.
Evidence...
ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&n(t)s, -v&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
Everything I have posted indicates there is a cover-up of MASSIVE proportions regarding Pakistan's involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Several things, or pieces of information have been helpful to me and others in forming that conclusion.
As LEH said, "A trial lawyer building a prosecutorial case would consider this particular trail quite relevant."
And that's what I'm going with. Agree with me, don't agree with me.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Jon what exactly are you saying?
What is a debunker?
What is a truther?
I have not really discussed many issues with you Jon. I am not sure which we agree or disagree on. To (just about) make the judgment based on this one disagreement is weak.
You seem to be hinting that I'm one of two things.
1 A debunker who is 'against' the truthers for whatever reason, disinfo agent, bush supporter
2. someone who, mentally, does not posses the adequate brain power to 'see' the proof as truthers do. Like I have a mental block on the proof you present. Therefor, all hope is lost for me...so....as you said, you are done with the conversation.
My problem is this:
Your PROOF is nothing more then an author claiming to have seen proof or read it in another publication.
You have presented numerous clippings from news papers that provide no context or evidence of any kind or the wording is just unclear as to what it is claiming.
It's a "I heard it from so and so" kind of argument.
Or
"I saw the proof, trust me" kind of argument.
I'm not against circumstantial or gossip type evidence, but without physical evidence I'm going to continue disagreeing on this topic.
For example, my most recent request for evidence from you yielded this one line posted on 3 or 4 of my comments on this blog:
Bernard-Henri Levy
You provided this quote when I asked you for something more specific:
A review...
"Of Bernard's book in the Wall Street Journal, the same, and only paper in America that reported the wire transfer, said, “It is a fact that Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, then head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta before 9/11 through an intermediary."
No context. Is this an excerpt from the author? Is this the author of the 'book review' quoting something he has vetted for accuracy to sort of confirm something he read in the book? Is it Levy himself saying this to the author? Is this a quote from Jon Gold himself speaking about an article?
My point is you are doing the same thing the authors of all your other sources are. You expect me to believe you because you post this on the internet and someone said they saw proof.
Consider this: I'm asking you for 'evidence' to back up your authoritative claim that:
"General Mahmood ordered Saeed Shekikh to wire 100K to Atta"
and you provide me with a book review with no context and then request that 'newbies' be exposed to this stuff.
Wait, maybe we will get the proof..
A big part of this story is the claims made by the Times of India....
THey say they saw an "Indian intelligence report" that had the proof of cell phone records.
So i figure Indian Intelligence records probably don't have much more then a 250 year hold on them for national security of course. We can just wait it out.
There is...
More to Bernard than just a quote from a review of his book.
Summer 2000: Saeed Sheikh Frequently Calls the ISI Director
In 2002, French author Bernard-Henri Levy is presented evidence by government officials in New Delhi, India, that Saeed Sheikh makes repeated calls to ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed during the summer of 2000. Later, Levy gets unofficial confirmation from sources in Washington regarding these calls that the information he was given in India is correct. He notes that someone in the United Arab Emirates using a variety of aliases sends Mohamed Atta slightly over $100,000 between June and September of this year (see June 29, 2000-September 18, 2000), and the timing of these phone calls and the money transfers may have been the source of news reports that Mahmood Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send $100,000 to Mohamed Atta (see October 7, 2001). However, he also notes that there is evidence of Sheikh sending Atta $100,000 in August 2001 (see Early August 2001), so the reports could refer to that, or both $100,000 transfers could involve Mahmood Ahmed, Saeed Sheikh, and Mohamed Atta. [Levy, 2003, pp. 320-324]
September 7-10, 2001: Dubai Banker Claims Al-Qaeda Agent Speculates on Airline and Blue-Chip Stocks
French author Bernard-Henri Levy claims to know an anonymous manager at a Dubai, United Arab Emirates, bank who gives him astute and accurate tips on Arab banking. The manager tells Henri-Levy in 2002, “We know a bank here that made [a put option] transaction between the 8th and 10th of September on certain Dow Jones blue-chip stocks for accounts linked to bin Laden. I know the name of a bank that, by shorting 8,000 shares of United Airlines on the 7th of September, then 1,200 shares of American Airlines on the morning of the 10th, allowed the attack to finance itself.” The manager won’t name the bank, but he quotes bin Laden from a late September 2001 interview, stating, “al-Qaeda is full of young, modern, and educated people who are aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system, and know how to exploit them. These faults and weaknesses are like a sliding noose strangling the system.” [Daily Ummat (Karachi), 9/28/2001; Levy, 2003, pp. 312-313] The timing and amount of type of stock speculation mentioned in this account is similar to, but not the same as, previously published reports (see September 6-10, 2001). Levy suspects the al-Qaeda agent making these transactions is the financially astute Saeed Sheikh, graduate of the London School of Economics. An al-Qaeda agent using the alias Mustafa Ahmad is captured by a surveillance camera entering the Bank of Dubai on September 10, Dubai time, to pick up money sent by Mohamed Atta in previous days, but this video footage has never been publicly released. Levy and others argue that Mustafa Ahmad and Saeed Sheikh are one and the same (see September 8-11, 2001). [Levy, 2003, pp. 312-313]
September 18, 2003: Questions of ISI Leader’s Ties to 9/11 Resurface
A Wall Street Journal review of Bernard-Henri Levy’s book “Who Killed Daniel Pearl?” notes, “It is a fact that Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, then head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta before 9/11 through an intermediary. (This was reported in the Journal on Oct. 10, 2001.) So what have we done about it?” The article notes that few are willing to look into this issue or take action against Pakistan since Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is considered a close ally and cooperative in the fight against terrorism. [Wall Street Journal, 9/18/2003] Other reviews of the book raise similar points, and even the conservative columnist George Will notes in the Washington Post, “It is not fantasy that there have been many reports that the then-head of Pakistani intelligence was responsible for $100,000 being wired to Mohamed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker.” [Washington Post, 10/5/2003]
As I said, I have addressed your "issues" regarding Omar Sheikh several times. Here is just one example.
Now, I'm done.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
no evidence here
So I guess we have to just trust Bernard-Henri Levy. Do you recommend me sending him money for his book?
Do you...
Have subpoena power? Do you have the ability to bring someone before a jury to testify under oath? I don't. Anyone on 911Blogger.com have this magic ability?
Incidentally, I'm not putting Bernard forward as proof positive of what took place. Just another form of verification for the story.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
One Good Use of ISI Connections
Understanding ISI connections (which I learned from Michel Chossudovsky's book and website http://www.globalresearch.ca ) has proven to be very useful for showing the nature of supposed terrorist groups. The various intelligence agencies connections to various terrorist organizations are important facts that must be known in order to confront many myths surrounding 9/11. It is most likely that Pakistan simply functioned as contributers or controllers of patsies. This does not mean ISI had a top role in the attacks. Perhaps their role was a little bit larger than the Mossad's, but I feel at the least the agencies likely had prior knowledge and observed. That aside, we must know the history of the patsies alleged groups and the groups offshoots in order to help break down what false-flag terrorism is. False-flag terrorism is the important political reality we have to expose. 9/11 truth must understand the collusion of the intelligence agencies and these rogue groups.
Peace
http://www.thesonsofliberty.us
Randy Glass enter stage
Randy Glass enter stage left...
My problem with Glass is not that he is an ex-conman...somehow...I can manage to look that over.
I simply find his story hard to believe.
Randy Glass claims he is acting as an undercover agent selling some massive weapons to some evil guys. Don't worry, the FBI has it all under control though.
So, after Randy finishes his steak and the evil guy finishes whatever evil doers eat, the ISI spy outs himself, Usama Bin Laden, and bombs on Randy.
He says that:
1. Usama Bin Laden is the buyer
2. That he works for the ISI
3. That the twin towers are the target
So this guy is an ISI spook and he just drops all this info over din din to a random 'weapons dealer'? He even OUTS HIMSELF.
If this is true, I find it hard to believe the ISI was involved in 9/11. Your spy agency is only as strong as your weakest spy....
I'm not saying Randy is lying though.
Technically, the "proof" is of cover up.
We have proof that the Indian intelligence service and the Times of India have claimed ISI chief Ahmed ordered Sheikh to wire the money to Atta.
The Indians have claimed this was confirmed by members of the FBI.
Robert Mueller (FBI) mentioned money transfers, but the name of the person sending it was unclear, and the follow up seems to be non-existent.
We have proof that -- given these outrageous press reports -- the Congressional Joint Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission failed to mention the subject matter at all!
We have proof that when Condi Rice was asked about meeting with Ahmed, the White House transcript deleted the title "ISI chief" and replaced it with "inaudible."
We have proof that ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmed resigned immediately when this hit the press in India.
Was Ahmed set up to implicate Pakistan by the Brits, or by CIA?
That, we cannot tell. It's possible. Omar Saeed Shekh was British and a wild card.
Whatever the truth, we can prove the cover up. That's enough for me to start screaming about it. This is after all the money that financed September 11th. Their failure to investigate is high treason in my book.
Have you got a different take on this?
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
My perspective exactly, John
My perspective exactly, John -- proves cover-up, leads not followed, and an overall unwillingness to investigate. Does this lead to proof of operational input? Who knows?
I'd like to expand...
On this...
We have proof that -- given these outrageous press reports -- the Congressional Joint Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission failed to mention the subject matter at all!
Watch Alex Jones' team confront Thomas Kean about the $100,000 wire transfer.
http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Here is question #22 on the list of questions submitted by the family members.
22) On the issue of state sponsored terrorism:
According to the Washington Times, "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. On 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."
So as you can see... when Thomas Kean said, "I'm not aware of the $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammad Atta", he was LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH.
Either that, or he didn't bother to look at the questions.
Also, watch Kyle Hence confront Lee Hamilton on this very issue, and watch Hamilton's reaction.
Kyle starts in at 1:50:32. (realplayer)
I would be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than me could somehow rip, and cut out Kyle's portion of that video.
Thanks.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Times Of India
Someone sent me a scan of the original Times Of India article.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Yea I have the article
I have all the articles, quotes, excerpts etc.
I just don't beleive the scenario you present. Maybe I'm wrong but without physical evidence we are pretty much stuck taking the word of a french author, and the Times Of India, neither of which provide any physical evidence for their claims.
So in the end we are pretty much where we started huh? I don't believe the case has been made and you do.
Hey Jon, I don't want you to think that because of this one issue I'm somehow not down with 9/11 Truth or Jon Gold. I've followed some of your work and I think you are a patriot.
It takes a lot of courage to dedicate as much as you have to a movement. Maybe focus and willpower are better words.
...
"we are pretty much stuck taking the word of a french author, and the Times Of India, neither of which provide any physical evidence for their claims."
Yesterday was the first time I posted information pertaining to the "french author." As I said, it was another form of verification for the story. Not the basis of proof, even though some are trying to act as if that's the only piece of information that links Pakistan to 9/11. The Times of India is not the only source for the information, as we have debated about over and over and over again.
In regards to your argument about physical evidence... again, do you have subpoena power? Do you have the ability to bring in the individuals that originally reported the story to ask them to provide their sources? Do you have the ability to bring those sources in to ask them to present their evidence? Do you have the ability to bring in the FBI agent that verified the story to ellaborate on his findings? No, but that's what a real investigation would look like, and all of the information I have presented is admissable in a court of law.
We have no physical evidence that shows a missile hit the Pentagon, yet a large amount of people promote that as fact.
We have no physical evidence of the missile that supposedly shot down Flight 93, yet a large amount of people promote that as fact.
We have no physical evidence that shows Dick Cheney orchestrated the attacks, yet a large amount of people promote that as fact. Including myself.
Why? Because we have INFORMATION that leads us to believe that that is the case. Non-physical evidence. So if you want to use the argument that physical evidence is required to come to a conclusion, then feel free.
I, however, choose to incorporate circumstantial evidence in my arguments, and will continue to do so.
Thank you for your compliments.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
No problem
No problem about the compliments.
I also use circumstantial and here-say evidence in my arguments. Without physical evidence we are at a stand still.
I wonder why the evidence has not been provided? India is not a fan of Pakistan for sure. Someone there must know what a hotly contested issue this is...I'd imagine they would be jumping through hoops to disseminate physical evidence linking Pakistan to the 9/11 Hijackers.
Same with Levy. Where is he today and what exactly did he see?
Do you know what the evidence he was shown in New Delhi is?
Follow the Money, Not
Jess,
Robert Mueller confirmed wire transfers.
This is the money that financed 9/11.
The 9/11 Commission Report says in black and white:
"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."
Are you kidding me?
Do you understand what we're talking about?
This is the key to unravelling the cover up.
India and Pakistan were brought to the brink of nuclear war just after these revelations when ISI connected gunmen machine gunned the Indian Parliament. High level US officials were there getting the new story straight, in India AND Pakistan.
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
"This is the money that financed 9/11."
No, and that is precisely why it is difficult to muster enthusiasm for blog after blog about a wire transfer. *If* it could be proven that it took place it would still be necessary to prove for what it was used, as per Ningen's post above. As far as we know, Mossadmed Atta spent it on a last minute pork chop/stripper blow-out -- and that's not illegal, nor does it represent the financing of 9/11.
Was Mohammad Atta...
Presented to us as the lead hijacker of 9/11?
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
The answer to the question...
Is yes, Mohammad Atta was presented to us as the lead hijacker. That means he is worthy of investigating. If the allegations are true that he received $100,000 from the Pakistani ISI, then it really doesn't matter what the money was used for. If the money was used for hamburgers and hookers, and that saved him from starvation, and blue balls, then that helped him to allegedly pull off the 9/11 attacks. Which means part of the $100,000 WAS allegedly used for the 9/11 attacks.
Now, if the allegations are true that he received $100,000 under orders from the head of the Pakistani ISI, and that particular head of the ISI was meeting with top officials within our Government during the time of the attacks, don't you think that might be considered suspicious? I do.
Now, if you are going to say that there were no hijackers, then I will say you are full of it. You don't know what took place on those planes anymore than I do. The argument that promoting information pertaining to the alleged hijackers reinforces the idea that everyone should hate all Muslims is absurd, and here's why...
The 9/11 Truth Movement, to my knowledge, blames elements within the U.S. Government for the attacks. Not Muslims. One of the purposes of the 9/11 Truth Movement is to STOP the genocide taking place against innocent Muslims in the Middle East.
To me, that sounds like the most pro-Musliim thing I've ever heard.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
ISI, Atta, and State Sponsored Terrorism
Question: Who told us that Atta was the lead hijacker? Who wants us to think that? Was he really? If he wasn't really, what do we make of sources that indicate he was the lead hijacker?
The CIA willingly leaks "false information" i.e. disinformation. Is it possible that some of the stories we hear about 9/11 are disinformation? Something to keep in mind: I don't have the answers.
There are many indications that Atta was incompetent, barely self-sustaining human being. He did drugs and went to strip clubs.
However, I do believe that the ISI may have been involved, but perhaps not in the way that the US administration would want us to believe. My personal suspicion (not proven—just speculation), is that the ISI is part of the US Intelligence community “asset handlers”. Bin Laden did the dirty work for the US, and there is some evidence that these ties (along with the ISI) were never broken.
If Al Qaeda really was a continuing US intelligence operation, then, they could do with them as they pleased—set them up to make them look guilty, use them as “suicide” bombers in the 7/7 attacks and so on. I believe these people are being used for the purpose of creating fake terrorism, smuggling drug operations and other nefarious purposes. Not all of "terrorism" is fake, but some of it is “politically motivated” by the people who really pull the strings.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Of course...
However, the U.S. Administration has told us nothing about the ISI's involvement. Unless you think they planted the wire transfer story. That is speculative, and unproveable. So if they wanted us to believe it, they certainly haven't done a good job of promoting it. And in fact, have done everything to AVOID talking about it. Which includes editing out a reference to the ISI in a White House press briefing transcript, leaving it out of the 9/11 Report, avoiding the question twice when confronted, etc...
Again, in regards to Atta... we don't know what happened on those planes, and whether or not he was legitimately involved. So, if they put him forward as the "lead hijacker", and we find ties between the "lead hijacker", and the U.S. Government (Able Danger, CIA/ISI, etc...), then he should remain a topic of focus.
That's my opinion. You should listen to Michael Parenti's talk on JFK. He goes into great detail about the importance of "patsies."
Edit: Someone sent this to me the other night...
Hey Jon,
I browsed through some of the posts on 9/11 Blogger and I do not have the energy nor the time to enter in some sort of debate with people about the wire transfer, but I did not see anyone mention what I think is the key to the whole issue. That Mahmoud Ahmad was sacked after the first mention of his involvement in the transfer. As far as I know off the top of my head, that the Oct 7, 2001 article in the Times of India is the first mention worldwide of any connection of General Ahmad to the wire transfer. The fact that he was retired either that day or the day after is key. Especially since he was meeting with the chairs of the House and Senate Intelligence committees on the morning of 9/11 and they went on to chair the House and Senate 9/11 Investigations which framed the whole event as an intelligence failure. To me that timing is about as glaring as the anthrax timing at the time of the passing of the Patriot Act. Here's a good article, which I am pretty sure you have already
read:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html
For those that say that none of the wire transfers were made to Atta and that the hijackers are completely phony because it does not fit into the framework of them all being patsies are not understanding the compartmentalization and history of the system. They should read PDS's "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK." Personally I think that those arguements are there to deter people from both understanding the compartmentalization and history of the system and pursuing avenues that lead to naming names. I believe you're getting attacked so much because you are doing the right thing.
Another, thing I see people doing is that they are only blaming the CFR, the Rockefellers, the Federal Reserve and other eastern establishment, Wall St banking institutions, which is very similar to what the John Birch Society does. Only blame one segment of the ruling class for what is going on. Check out this Mae Brussell radio show that addresses this issue really well. I put it online so you can pass out the link if you like it.
Part 1: https://webspace.nyu.edu/xythoswfs/webui/_xy-521482_1-t_npDnAbzr
Part 2: https://webspace.nyu.edu/xythoswfs/webui/_xy-521483_1-t_Hy462BA6
Keep up the great work...
Anonymous.
Edit: By the way, you're talking to someone who used to think Able Danger was a "hoax."
Arabesque... I have a question. Are you of the mindset that the 9/11 attacks were completely orchestrated by the U.S. Government from top to bottom?
Edit: I had no idea who Mae Brussell was when he sent this to me. I sent PDS, and John Judge an email asking them about her.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Funny your anonymous source should mention
Ahmed's sacking after the wire transfer story emerged.
That's where my lengthy encounter with JPass ended several months ago, if I'm not mistaken.
All of this circular discussion about the wire transfer story just ignores the obvious: If the Times of India story is worthless, in part because as people like to point out India and Pakistan don't get along, why would Ahmed quickly get retired after the story emerged? That's like the head of the CIA retiring because of a story in a North Korean newspaper. Makes no sense.
There's definitely something important about the wire transfer story. I just don't know exactly what it is.
Important enough...
For people to start lies like Bernard-Henri Levy is "the sole source for the Patsystani wire transfer story."
It must be because I said that the information is "not the basis of proof, even though some are trying to act as if that's the only piece of information that links Pakistan to 9/11."
Reminds me of when Alex Jones was talking about Steve, and how he didn't want to talk about anything crazy so as to give the disinformationists ammunition.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Could you provide a source
for Mueller confirming a wire transfer to Atta tied to Mahmoud Ahmed.
All I could find was this, about bank accounts:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0901fundingvaries#a...
Thank you.
A little background on BHL
His affinity for American neo-cons:
"Thierry Chervel: In the epilogue to your book "American Vertigo," you sketch an impressive panorama of the intellectual landscape in the United States, citing many names from Samuel Huntington to Francis Fukuyama to Paul Berman. Would you say that the intellectual centre of gravity has shifted from Europe to America?
Bernard Henri-Levy: Absolutely. The impact of Christopher Hitchens' articles in Slate or elsewhere, the neo-conservative movement, the way a speech by Charles Krauthammer and a response by Francis Fukuyama fired up discussion for six months...(emphasis added)"
"i think I was one of the very first - but you'd have to check it - to use the term "Islamofascism". It's not a neo-con term, it's just a reality."
www.signandsight.com
His feelings about Pakistan:
"Throughout his book Lévy shows an intermittent disdain for Islam, and something approaching hatred for Pakistan. He rightly criticizes Pakistanis for their anti-Semitism, and for regarding Israel as evil incarnate, but then goes on to use the same prejudiced language about Pakistan. It is "the Devil's own home," "drugged on fanaticism, doped on violence," a "silent hell, full of the living damned" and their "nightmare mullahs." Karachi is worse still: "a black hole," full of "the half-dead," where "fanatic... long-haired dervishes with wild, bloodshot eyes" howl outside "the house of the Devil." Lurid comments are stacked up to support this picture of national delinquency: one cabinet minister is "amiable in the extreme," but when he thinks BHL is not "looking, a gleam of murderous ferociousness would shine through." The ordinary people of Pakistan are portrayed as fanatical Orientals who "scowl" as Lévy passes and "narrow their eyes" with a "tarantula-like stare." One man, "his smile venomous," actually issues a snake-like "hiss.""
www.nybooks.com
That's certainly...
Interesting. I wouldn't trust what he has to say. Much like I wouldn't trust what a Holocaust Denier has to say.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Oh, I see.
You wouldn't trust what he has to say. Okay, I guess we'll factor that in to our reading of your posts that cite him as a reliable source.
I just found out...
About him yesterday. As I said, it was the first time I posted the information. I was not aware that he had affiliations with Neocons. I am glad that you pointed that out to me because I won't use that information anymore. I'll just have to rely on the mounds of information that already exists.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
If the U.S. was going to
If the U.S. was going to frame Pakistan for 9/11, they would have mentioned their involvement in the 9/11 Report. They would not act to cover-up their involvement. The act of covering up their involvement, indicates there's more to the story. I think that story is about a collaborative relationship as opposed to an uncooperative one. - Jon
just speaking for myself here, but i see the frame-up of Pakistan as a LAST RESORT for when 9/11 truth cant be ignored any longer. that would explain Pakistan not being framed in the 9/11 Commission Report. plus as we all know Iraq was their first target, certaintly not Pakistan. not to mention the Commission was a complete whitewash and ISI is so closely linked with the CIA that it wouldnt look too good, hence it being a last resort. that said im not bashing you or your work in this area, im all for people pursuing all evidence be it physical, circumstantial, Pakistan, Israel etc. it should never be either/or.
"just speaking for myself
"just speaking for myself here, but i see the frame-up of Pakistan as a LAST RESORT for when 9/11 truth cant be ignored any longer"
That is what my gut tells me. The evidence for this ISI thing is heresay. At the end of the day we are supposed to take the Inteligence Agency of India as our source.
They have sekrit reports I tell you!
To string all this together without physical evidence is foolish. I'm all about connecting the dots but filling in the blanks with new dots...assumptions...is a waste of time.
Not only that...but the fact is that many of the sources end just as this guy Levy has ended.
Just read the Wild Disinfo Goose Chase. There are quotes from newspapers that seem to be purposely misleading. I don't have time to go into it now but a few will use shady wording to suggest the FBI confirmed that the wire transfers were ordered by General Mahmood but if you read over the excerpts you notice that the wording is arranged so that you really can't tell if the author is saying:
"The FBI confirmed the wire transfer"
or
"The FBI confirmed that General Mahmoud ordered Omar Saeed to wire money"
To me it seems like they purposely combine the two scenarios to make it seem like the FBI confirmed both when in fact, as far as I can tell, they ONLY confirm the existence of a wire transfer.
Am I wrong?
One of the articles was Micheal Meacher @ the guardian.
"im all for people pursuing
"im all for people pursuing all evidence be it physical, circumstantial, Pakistan, Israel etc. it should never be either/or."
Spot on and Amen, Chris.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Good thing...
I don't practice that.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
I'm...
In the process of getting an important perspective on Pakistan's connection to 9/11. FYI...
Edit: I clearly understand how a statement like that deserves to be voted down.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up