Evidence against [alleged] 9/11 plotters revealed
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/10/evidence-against-911-plotters-revealed/
By Agence France-Presse
Sunday, April 10th, 2011
WASHINGTON – US prosecutors compiled lots of evidence against the five men accused of having organized the September 11 attacks on the United States, but not until this week have details been fully revealed.
The indictment charging self-professed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others was unsealed when US Attorney General Eric Holder referred the case to the Defense Department for military trials instead of trials at a US federal court in New York.
Holder said Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and Mustapha Ahmed al-Hawsawi could have been prosecuted in federal court and blamed Congress for imposing measures blocking civilian trials of Guantanamo Bay inmates.
They will be tried in military courts in the US naval base in southeastern Cuba.
The now-public details show that the United States, nearly 10 years after hijackers flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, reconstructed step by step the logistics of the five accused men.
They compiled bank transactions, flight records, visa applications, and dozens of telephone conversations to create the most comprehensive account of the chain of events before the attacks.
Implementation of the plan began in 1999, when Sheikh Mohammed (referred to as "KSM" by US officials) proposed to Osama bin Laden to use commercial airliners as missiles against US targets.
Until the last minute, according to the indictment, Sheikh Mohammed controlled the entire operation.
"From in or about December 1999, through in or about June 2000, Al-Qaeda selected operatives to pilot the airplanes to be hijacked and dispatched the operatives to the United States to obtain flight training and otherwise carry out the plot," the indictment said.
Walid bin Attash, born in Saudi Arabia in 1979, traveled in first-class between Bangkok and Hong Kong, with a knife in his pocket "and approached the cockpit to test security measures." He then took several other international flights, each time with his penknife undetected.
Meanwhile, Ramzi Binalshibh in Hamburg became friends with future hijacker Mohamed Atta. Binalshibh, a 38-year-old Yemeni, applied four times for a visa to the United States in 2000 but was denied each time.
So, at the request of KSM, Binalshibh became and intermediary between KSM and the future hijackers.
At the same time, from Dubai, KSM nephew Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, of Pakistan, provided flight simulation software to the hijackers and began transferring money to US accounts. Between January and June 2000, US investigators pinpointed 35 telephone calls between him and the hijackers.
Mustapha Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a 42-year-old from Saudi Arabia, was accused of being the principal financier of the attacks.
Bank transfers were made in small amounts so as not to arouse suspicion and different names were used each time. Tens of thousands of dollars arrived in US accounts, including for Zacarias Moussaoui, who was involved in the plot but was arrested a month before the attacks.
In the United Arab Emirates, al-Hawsawi monitored the operations and discusses them with KSM.
Between July 9-16, 2001, Ramzi Binalshibh met with Mohamed Atta in Spain. The two men "discussed, among other aspects of the plot, potential targets for the hijacking attacks."
On July 23, KSM filed a visa application for the United States which was refused. At the end of August, he told bin Laden of the date for the attacks.
Between September 4-10, the men made their way from the UAE to Pakistan.
Walid bin Attash was with bin Laden on September 11, after which the Al-Qaeda leader ordered him to Tora Bora in Afghanistan to prepare for an offensive.
The five men, all of whom were arrested in Pakistan, could face the death penalty if convicted.
One year after the attacks, Pakistani police arrested Binalshibh at a home in a chic Karachi suburb. He was alone and didn't put up a fight.
In March 2003, al-Hawsawi and Sheikh Mohammed were picked up by Pakistani special forces in a raid in Rawalpindi.
The indictment said the two men were "at a safe house where they possessed false identification and materials related to Al-Qaeda and the planning and execution of the September 11, 2001, attacks."
Bin Attash and al-Aziz Ali were arrested by Pakistani police in April 2003.
All five men disappeared into secret prisons until September 2006, when they reappeared at Guantanamo.
Sheikh Mohammed is known to have been "waterboarded" or subjected to simulated drowning 183 times during his years in US custody, a method widely recognized as torture.
After his arrest in 2003 he was handed over to American agents who held him in secret prisons before sending him to Guantanamo.
Sheikh Mohammed also claims to have personally beheaded US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 with his "blessed right hand" and to have helped in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six people.
- Lullaby Academy's blog
- Login to post comments
Official Story Totally Unproven
After all, the WTC "black boxes" were never reported as recovered and there was no "black box" data ever presented demonstrating hijacker control of the WTC planes. Can the government prove the WTC flights were not under GPS-guided autopilot control, which could convert them literally into guided missiles?
As for the "we have some planes" transmission allegedly made by AA 11's Atta, anyone capable of broadcasting on the frequency being monitored could have made that broadcast.
And NIST cannot explain the post-collapse initiation destruction of the WTC towers and never tested for explosives.
The government and media will tell you to find the answers to 9/11 in obscure foreign "intelligence" data and remote foreign cave complexes. The best answers will be found much closer to the actual events.
Reads like a Dean Koontz novel
Except we can't honestly believe that any defense lawyer they get would honestly bring up any evidence like wtc7. I am sure the rules of engagement in this case will be very focused on PRE-Event evidence. How about they represent themselves that wouldn't surprise me. Didn't Moussaoui defend himself? I forget. The stage has to managed away from those who demand truth and real justice. What a charade this is I can barely stand to watch.
And I hate how everytime KSM is named by the MSM, it's always the "self-professed" mastermind, never "alleged" etc.. just pointing out the newspeak.
peace everyone.
dtg
Zap
I doubt they would be so brazen as to outfit him with an electronic stun belt like they did Zacarias. Christ, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if they had an ACTOR PLAYING KSM, the real individual having been shot years earlier. This is how low we've sunk.
The Trial by Franz Kafka
Eric served as the lawyer for Chiquita Brands International when they were charged with funding death squads in Colombia.
The man is utterly without principle -- a perfect fit for the Obama administration.
This farce of a trial is akin to Stalin-era Russians admitting to counter-revolutionary activities.
Even if they can get KSM to spit out some sort of "motivation" for the attacks, thereby placating liberals, the testimony is useless. It was obtained through torture. End of story.
Flight simulation software
Quote : « At the same time, from Dubai, KSM nephew Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, of Pakistan, provided flight simulation software to the hijackers and began transferring money to US accounts. Between January and June 2000, US investigators pinpointed 35 telephone calls between him and the hijackers. »
FBI Director Robert Mueller asserted: « The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. »
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1830834/1/
I wonder how the hijackers had used this flight simulation software, if they had no computer, and especially how they were able to accomplish performances of piloting planes to attack the pentagon and the twin towers, without any training with the aircrafts which were allegedly hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001.
Tit2 France
You needn't wonder
because you answer your own question in the link to the LC thread you provide:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=474931&t=1830834
Besides, in the same speech by Muelller, he says: "We went to those who run a popular travel website that several of the hijackers used to make their flight reservations."
So how did they visit a website without using a computer?
Here's a photo of Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a082302fisa#a082302fisa
I get the point of establishing the untrustworthiness of Mueller's speech given at the California Commonwealth Club, but I don't quite see the point of you asking questions you already know the answer to, like I don't see the point of you still advocating that the Pentagon was hit by a missile.
See also:
October 1999: Hamburg Cell Downloads Flight Training Software
I'm not sure that the
I'm not sure that the statement of FBI Director Robert Mueller that: « The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. » was a lie because even if all the hijackers, who are supposed to have participated at the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, had personal computers, those who killed them (I do not know how) could have recovered their computers and it could be the reason for which the FBI did not find them. But it could be also a lie of the FBI, I do not exclude this possibility.
Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested before the attacks and his arrest was certainly not foreseen by the mass murderers of September 11, 2001. It would explain why, unlike other hijackers, its personal computer was found. But it is interesting to note that the FBI agent Harry Samit who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui was not allowed to investigate the computer of this one:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/FBI+agent+warned+superiors+70+times+about+...
“Harry Samit, the Minnesota FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui three and a half weeks before the September 11,2001 terror attacks, provided explosive testimony against his superiors during cross-examination by Moussaoui's defense attorneys. Samit, who arrested Moussaoui and his Oklahoma University roommate Hussein Al-Attas on August 16, confirmed on the witness stand that he and other agents in the Minnesota office had argued repeatedly with their Washington, D.C., superiors, urgently requesting permission for a warrant to search Moussaoui's laptop computer, as well as Moussaoui and Al-Attas' apartment and possessions.
Agent Samit said he had contacted his superiors 70 times, urgently requesting assistance with the Moussaoui/Al-Attas investigation, only to be repeatedly rebuffed without any rational explanation. He said the superiors who thwarted the Minnesota investigation were guilty of "criminal negligence and obstruction”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Samit
"I am so desperate to get into his computer, I'll take anything,"Samit wrote in an e-mail on September 10, 2001.”
Quote:
“Besides, in the same speech by Muelller, he says: "We went to those who run a popular travel website that several of the hijackers used to make their flight reservations." So how did they visit a website without using a computer?
Perhaps FBI Director Robert Mueller thought that a personal computer was not necessary to visit a website and make flight reservations. Another question would be to know if they are the hijackers themselves who made these flight reservations. When I look at the activities of Mohamed Atta and of Marwan al-Shehhi in the hours precedent attacks, I am not sure that they knew that they are going to participate in a suicide mission on September 11, 2001.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/atta_9-11.html
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101beforepinkpony
I know
...about Harry Samit, tit2.
The question is: do you understand that the hijackers had computers or access to computers, as the evidence suggests, and if so, why use a weird statement by Mueller to suggest that they didn't and subsequently reason from this premise as if you weren't aware this was false, considering you answered your own question in the forum thread you linked?
In the case of Moussaoui, what matters is that he did have a laptop, not that he didn't, since the information on his laptop could have prevented 9/11, had Samit not been stonewalled by his superiors, which, who knows, might include Mueller at the end of the chain.
Assuming.....
>>>In the case of Moussaui, what matters is that he did have a laptop, not that he didn't, since the information on his laptop could have prevented 9/11.>>>
Assuming that 9/11 was a LIHOP scenario and that there is no connection between Al-Qaeda and our government. And assuming that the planes were not under superior control and were actually being flown by the Muslims. And assuming that 9/11 did not include plans to demolish the towers. Assuming this was not a false flag operation.
Indeed it is important that Moussaui did have a laptop to be discovered incriminating this network of patsies.
Your assumptions
are yours and yours alone, not mine. We disagree on the parameters and boundaries you assert. I reject false dilemmas. My definition of what a "LIHOP plus" scenario entails doesn't jive with yours.
That said, investigating why Mueller made this ridiculous comment is a worthwhile endeavor, instead of accepting his false claims as factual and then reasoning from there to support a "no hijacker", "no passenger", "doppelganger" or "hijackers alive" scenario. To each his own.
Who said anything about "no hijacker"
"no passenger," "doppleganger" or "hijackers alive" scenario?? A false flag does not require those things. 9/11 was either a false flag or it wasn't. I make no assumptions that is was not. If it were a false flag then the incriminating evidence on Moussaui's computer serves the same role as the incriminating evidence in Atta's bag.
A false flag: meaning that the hijackers were tied to our government in some capacity
And/or the planes were controlled from the ground. This does not exclude live hijackers.
And/or the towers were brought down with explosives.
hijackers-government
RL McGee said....."A false flag: meaning that the hijackers were tied to our government in some capacity"
Actually it was another Government they were tied to called Saudi Arabia. Bandar Bush and his lawyer Louis Freeh don't like us mentioning this though, neither does Bandar's brother in law who was head of Saudi Intelligence at the time.
Intelligence ties
Yes, but there were ties between US and Saudi Intelligence. Ties between the Bushes and Bin Ladens... and Saudi Royalty. Some of the hijackers trained at US miltary bases. Others appear to have been managed by CIA in the states. Elements of our government had a hand in these Saudis. And elements of our government had a hand in things the Saudis didn't actually do on 9/11.
Nanothermite
War Games
Stand down
Louis Freeh
in Crossing the Rubicon, looking in the index:
"Freeh, Louis, 12"
Then on P12:
"The intelligence/criminal wall
One of the hottest themes in the well-watched hearings of the so-called inde-
pendent 9/11 commission in April of 2004 was that there was an alleged wall
between law enforcement activities at the FBI and other agencies and the intelli-
gence side of the FBI and the CIA which prohibited the sharing of information
that might have prevented the attacks. This theme was sung like choir practice by
virtually every witness who testified during the week from Condoleezza Rice, to
Janet Reno, to John Ashcroft, to Louis Freeh, to Robert Mueller.
How does that reconcile with the following statement from a RAND
Corporation study on terrorism from 2001? The RAND Corporation was formed
as a think tank by the CIA and the US Air Force in the 1950s.
Finally, it is important to note that efforts to prevent or disrupt terror-
ist action frequently are successful, and these activities have reducedthe
number of terrorist incidents that would have occurred in the absence
of these activities:
Disruption of terrorist events by working with foreign intelligence
and law enforcement services has proved profitable; U.S. intelligence
agencies prevented Osama bin Laden’s organization from carrying out
at least seven vehicle bomb attacks on U.S. facilities since August
1998 (Kelly, 1999, p.1A), and U.S. intelligence has conducted suc-
cessful disruption operations in as many as 10 countries in the six
months up to March 1999 (Associated Press, 1999).
In actual operations and special events, agencies generally coordi-
nated their activities. For example, we examined several overseas
counterterrorist operations and found that agencies generally followed
the draft interagency International Guidelines. DoD, the FBI, and the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) performed their respective roles in
military planning, law enforcement and intelligence gathering under
the oversight of the State Department (e.g., the ambassador). Minor
interagency tensions or conflicts during these operations were resolved
and did not appear to have posed risk to the mission.
In a similar vein, FBI data on terrorism in the United States sug-
gest a reasonably high degree of success in terrorism prevention
activities at home — only a small annual number of actual terrorist
incidents occurred in recent years, and more preventions of terrorist
incidents than actual incidents.8 "
Then on p344:
"April 14, 2004, stories in the New York Times, the Boston Herald, the Boston
Globe, and the Washington Post, all took the same line, emphasizing that the sim-
ulation suggested in the POGO email was rejected as being “unrealistic.”
TheBoston Globe, however, added:
Concerns that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles date
back to the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, when jets were placed on
patrol to guard against such a threat.26
In the same story, retired FBI Director Louis Freeh (who had been FBI Director
in 1996) stated regarding 9/11: “I was never aware of a plan that contemplated air-
liners being used as weapons after a hijacking.” I suppose a really rich terrorist
could buy a Boeing 757 for such a mission. Osama had lots of money. "
Quote : The question is: do
Quote :
The question is: do you understand that the hijackers had computers or access to computers,
« had computers or access to computers » it is not the same thing. What kind of access? The FBI's assertion is that all the hijackers who participated at the attacks did not have a personal computer. (and to my knowledge, except the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, no other computer of a hijacker has been found). Yet it is obvious that if the prosecutors'assertion that « KSM nephew Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, of Pakistan, provided flight simulation software to the hijackers » was correct, they should have need of a personal computer in order to train intensively for piloting aircraft, Boeing 757 or 767, which they planned to hijack. Even in that case, they could not train properly because they would have needed of many practice flights on the same planes as those they planned to pirate. Here :
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14290
« Philip Marshall, who is licensed to fly Boeing 727s, 737s, 747s, as well as 757s and 767s, recently authored a book, False Flag 911, in which he states categorically that the alleged 9/11 hijacker pilots, including Hani Hanjour, could never have flown 767s and 757s into buildings at high speed without advanced training and practice flights in that same aircraft over a period of months.»
Thanks...
... for the link.
as we don't know
for sure hanjour was at the controls, perhaps someone competent enough was at the controls
the FDR seems to point that way rather than a remote controlled plane hitting the pentagon
Possibly true
This, to me, means that if the evidence is true (i.e. not planted) then it would point to the fact that this really was going to happen on some scale and that the gov't knew about it and then made damn sure it went off as planned and decided to add a few pieces to the puzzle (i.e. bringing the towers doen, wtc 7, etc).
I would say
the evidence for al Queda culpability and US. participation is about equal.
About the headline of this post ...
... and as I pointed out in the comments today at Raw Story ...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/10/evidence-against-911-plotters-reve...
... the headline should read: "Evidence Against Alleged 9/11 Plotters Revealed"
I don't need to point out why this is a problem. Guys and gals, please consider changing it here and on reposts for the sake of the archives. Words are used as weapons, and we must be better journalists than the propagandists.
Thanks everyone!! :-)
That's what we did at 9/11 Truth News
US Reveals Evidence Against Alleged 9/11 Plotters
same story, accurate headline
Done!
Done!
Thanks for changing
Thanks for changing the headline!
Zero evidence
Please look closely: There is no, nothing, nada evidence for a 9/11 plot involvement. ATS bank receipts, car rental receipts, flight tickets are NO evidence whatsoever. They only show that a group of people was present in the US and booked on the planes.
Crucial points: Why did some of the alleged hijackers booked connection flights? Why didn't they make sure that a prompt confession was made to the public? How could they had done it, navigating and nose diving and reaching the targets?
The oct only has circumstantial evidence: The planes diverted from their routes and crashed. So it has to be a hijack with mass suicide. But we have to assume the demolition. If the demoltion charges were set up, someone has to made shure the planes hit, on the right floor eventually.
And "elephant trace" evidence: The "We have some planes" radio message. The bag packed with burdening stuff, that does not make sense to left in any way. The allegedly false UA93 voice recording. Never checked for authenticity.
Evidence, once and for all could prood beyound doubt a hijacking: The original voice and flight data recording, with all the automatically messages, as it was recorded, not something someone made in a lab with false islamic statements in english wording.
Mueller was most probably right: There was no sign of any 9/11 planning left on paper trail, because such planning did not exist, at least not by Atta and Co. All the chatter of a upcoming attack could mean a hijack, as acknowledged by Mossaoui, too.
Connecting flights
I'd be interested to know sources of information you might know about relating to suspects' having booked connecting flights.
This info was revealed by FOIA requests in 2008
from the first "hijacker timeline" release, and Rawstory did an entry on it:
Post Sept. 11, 2001 flights
The FBI timeline reveals that Al-Ghamdi, the alleged United hijacker, was booked onto several flights scheduled for after the 9/11 attacks, a piece of information not documented in the Commission�s final report. According to the FBI timeline, Al-Ghamdi was booked on another United Airlines flight on the very day of the attack.
On page 288 under an entry pertaining to AlGhamdi, the FBI timeline reads: "Future flight. Scheduled to depart Los Angeles International Airport for San Francisco International Airport on UA 7950."
The sourcing reads simply: �UA passenger information.
The timeline similarly documents Al-Ghamdi's bookings for several other post 9/11 flights, including one on Sept. 20, 2001 from Casablanca, Morocco to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and another on Sept. 29, 2001 from Riyadh to Damman, Saudi Arabia. (FBI Timeline 2, p. 296 under Alghamdi)
No additional information or explanation is offered in the FBI timeline itself
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/FBI_documents_contradict_Sept._11_Comm...
Thanks.
Thanks.