[NOTE: This is a full response to the recent blog entry accusing 9/11 Press For Truth of spreading disinformation via the ISI link to 9/11. Be sure to note that the intention of this thread is not to exchange insults or divide the ‘truth community’, but rather to inspire friendly debate, further analysis, and a better understanding of the issue at hand. So keep it civil!]

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Following the money is perhaps the most basic and essential tactic used by criminal investigators to solve major crimes, yet, according to the 9/11 Commission, the source of the money used to facilitate the 9/11 attacks was of “little practical significance” to their investigation.

Consequently, the 9/11 Commission completely failed to examine the conspirators financial network, admitting with no shame that the “origin of the funds [used to plan and carry out the attacks] remains unknown.”

This is curious for a number of reasons, most notably because of reports directly linking the financers of the attacks to the governments of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United States, specifically to underground networks historically used by the CIA.

For instance, prior to 9/11, General Mahmood Ahmed, the head of Pakistan’s notorious intelligence agency the ISI, ordered a suspected CIA asset, Omar Sheikh, to wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, who subsequently distributed the funds to his fellow hijackers in the United States.

Amazingly, the week of the attacks, General Mahmood was on a diplomatic visit to Washington DC for mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council.

In fact, as the attacks were occurring, General Mahmood (who reportedly ordered $100,000 to be wired to the lead hijacker) was meeting with members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and according to Senator Bob Graham, who attended the meeting, General Mahmood had just received a gift (a book about the American Civil War) from Rep. Porter Goss—then Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a former CIA agent who would go on to become CIA Director in 2004.

Responding to such explosive information, the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, largely credited for forcing the very creation of the 9/11 Commission, submitted the following questions to be answered during the course of the government’s investigation:

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

· What was Mahmood Ahmed's relationship with Al Qaeda?

· Where did the money come from?

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

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

All of the above questions were completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission in their Final Report. It should therefore come as no surprise that members of the Family Steering Committee are demanding an explanation…

There are some in the ‘truth’ community, however, contending that such efforts by family members, researchers, and concerned citizens are misguided, futile, and lacking in credibility.

In a recent blog entry that has received a warm welcome from about half of the ‘9/11 Bloggers’ to view it, Jesse Passwaters of PA 911 Visibility argues that the ISI money trail is nothing but disinformation that was cooked up by the U.S. in October 2001 in order to establish a link between al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks.

According to Jessie, those of us pursuing the ISI-CIA connection to 9/11, including Paul Thompson of cooperativeresearch.org and the family members behind 9/11 Press For Truth, are all on a “Wild Disinfo Goose Chase”.

He argues that the segment of 9/11 Press For Truth summarizing the $100,000 connection “is soooo entirely full of inconsistencies and contradictions” that he “can't believe so many people have swallowed this stuff hook line and sinker.”

Despite his assertions and lack of modesty, Jessie has only presented a few brief points to support his premise, all of which, as I will show below, are highly flawed.

“The recipe for perpetual ignorance,” Albert Hubbard once wrote, “is to be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.” With these words in mind, I hope all parties will fully examine both sides of the issue and draw their own conclusions, regardless of their current preconceptions.

CLAIMS OF DISINFORMATION

Argument #1: The U.S. fabricated the money trail to Omar Sheikh because they required evidence of an al-Qaeda link to 9/11 in order to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. To this day, the government’s main ‘smoking gun’ of an al-Qaeda connection to 9/11 is Omar Sheikh.

This is the basic theory put forth by those arguing that the money trail is disinformation, but as we will see, the theory is based on false information, an illogical premise, and uninformed speculation.

Firstly, the U.S. does not use Omar Sheikh as their definitive ‘smoking gun’ proof that al-Qaeda was involved with 9/11, nor was the connection central to the government’s justification for invading Afghanistan. Most people have never even heard of the money trail leading back to Omar Sheikh and the story began to change as soon as the true implications became clear.

Secondly, the money trail leads back to underground networks historically used by the CIA to funnel cash to Islamic militants, so the notion that the story is a product of U.S. intelligence is absurd on its face. If the U.S. wished to doctor up evidence, they certainly wouldn’t have implicated the CIA…the money trail would have led back to somebody like Osama or Saddam, not the head of the ISI who was in Washington on 9/11.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the information did not emanate from Washington. The money trail was originally discovered in India by mistake as part of an entirely separate kidnapping/ransom investigation:

“The Atta link was established by the interception of a series of e-mail between India and Dubai in which the kidnappers have spoken about how part of the ransom money was sent to Atta from Pakistan for ‘the Noble Cause’ of 9/11.”

As we can see, the story did not originate in Washington and the timing had nothing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan.

Argument #2: The FBI never confirmed the $100,000 transfer, but if they did, it was part of a massive disinformation campaign.

These two arguments lack any factual backing and are, by definition, hypocritical.

Simultaneously arguing two contradicting points just because they both support one’s underlying argument is indicative of a narrow and arrogant viewpoint. As Plato once said, “The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions.”

According to several reliable reports, the FBI did confirm the story linking Omar Sheikh to the 9/11 attacks…and unless one can produce credible evidence showing that these reports were fabricated, they should refrain from making such accusations.

Let the record show that following India’s initial findings, the FBI dispatched investigators, who examined Omar Sheikh’s cell phone records and discovered the link to General Mahmood:

“The FBI’s examination of the hard disk of the cellphone company Omar Sheikh had subscribed to led to the discovery of the ‘link’ between him and the deposed chief of the Pakistani ISI, Gen. Mehmood Ahmed. And as the FBI investigators delved deep, sensational information surfaced with regard to the transfer of 100,000 dollars to Mohammed Atta, one of the Kamikaze pilots who flew his Boeing into the World Trade Centre. Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, the FBI investigators found, fully knew about the transfer of money to Atta.”

Argument #3: The sources for the information are all unnamed.

While many of the government sources are indeed unnamed, ‘on the record’ statements confirming the information are available. Furthermore, just because someone speaks anonymously does not necessarily mean they are lying, especially when the sources come from both India and the U.S. and are corroborated by separate reports.

According to former Labour MP Michael Meacher, “this is the same Omar Sheikh who, at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, before the New York attacks, as confirmed by Dennis Lormel, director of FBI's financial crimes unit."

Some argue Dennis Lormel only confirmed that the transfer was made, not the identities of those behind it. If Meacher was referring to Lormel’s October 2001 testimony before the House’s Committee on Financial Services, then I will admit, this appears to be the case. Lormel is only quoted as saying, “they wired over $100,000 in to Mr. Atta a year ago, and…we (the FBI) tracked that back to accounts in the UAE.”

However, while there is no mention of Omar Sheikh or General Mahmood here, we know from the timeframe exactly what Mr. Lormel is referring to. Indian authorities, responsible for breaking the first leads, had recently informed the FBI of the transfer, which the Bureau subsequently confirmed and traced to Gen. Mahmood.

To be sure, a senior-level government official told CNN three days after Lormel’s testimony, “investigators now believe Sheik Syed, using the alias Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, sent more than $100,000 from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta, the suspected hijacking ringleader who piloted one of the jetliners into the World Trade Center.”

Directly coinciding with reports coming out of India, the CNN article specifically identified this person as the same Omar Sheikh (Sheik Syed) that attended the London School of Economics, joined the HUM, and was freed from jail in December 1999 in exchange for the safe release of the passengers of Indian Airlines Flight 814.

John S. Pistole, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counter-terrorism division, similarly confirmed the transfer following the agency’s collaboration with India, but he too neglected to mention any specifics. This is once again suggestive of an effort to cover up Omar Sheikh’s role, not propagate it.

Argument #4: There is no hard evidence that Omar Sheikh used the alias Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, and it is likely that the alias was used by another individual with a similar name as Omar Sheikh.

Not only is this argument not supported by the available evidence, it is the government’s unofficial cover story.

Executive Order 13224 identifies Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad as an alias used by ‘Shaykh Sai'id’, whose name and background have changed time and time again since the original reports confirmed his true identity and role in the attacks.

Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, as reported by both Indian and U.S. officials, was the pseudonym used by Omar Sheikh to wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta under the instructions of ISI chief General Mahmood. As mentioned earlier, this information was gained by tracking Sheikh’s cell phone records.

Since the original reports, however, the U.S. has attempted to distort Omar Sheikh’s true identity by offering numerous alternative aliases and backgrounds for the paymaster.

Argument #5: Omar Sheikh has been referred to in press by several different pseudonyms and variations of his real name, making it difficult to discern his true identity.

While true, this in no way suggests that the money transfer to Atta is disinformation. On the contrary, it is indicative of an intentional effort to 'muddy the waters'.

The numerous aliases can be attributed to three simple factors: (1) Omar Sheikh used pseudonyms and variations of his real name to set up bank accounts, (2) Arabic names do not have exact translations in English, and (3) the U.S. government has attempted to distort the truth by changing the paymaster’s true identity.

CONCLUSION

The disinformation theory, as demonstrated above, is irrational and lacks any factual backing.

In the end, however, whether you believe Omar Sheikh wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta or whether you believe the story is nothing but disinformation, the public’s need for the truth is no less important.

As 911Truth.org recently noted:

“Given the incompleteness of the facts at hand, our theories will invariably differ. They therefore can and should be sincerely discussed and analyzed, but this debate must not obscure the reality that the investigative tasks we face still remain extremely challenging. … This work is far too important to debilitate with egotism, zealotry or self-inflicted wounds, and we must make every effort to sustain the unprecedented progress we have made.”

Divisive back-and-forth accusations of disinformation are becoming more and more common amongst the truth community. We must rise above such counterproductive accusations and unite under our common belief in truth and justice.

We must not forget that we are all on the same side in pursuit the same goal. We all agree that we’ve been lied to. We all seek answers to the same questions. Let us therefore work together to produce enough evidence to paint a picture so clear that the facts will speak for themselves and debate will no longer be necessary.

Devlin Buckley
The American Monitor