9/11 Press For Truth Accused of Spreading Disinformation

[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

Did he give you his permission to use his real name?

Because otherwise, that is exceedingly bad form.

Not a secret.

He is not trying to keep his identity a secret.

His handle, 'jpass', is simply a shortened version of his name, which he openly provided on the previous thread. His blogger profile also links to his website, where he uses his real name.

No shit, Sherlock.

Use his handle.

People who make a show of using the real names of people who post here with aliases, even when they are not "secret," are not a crowd with which you want to be associated.

Hey c'mon...


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Perhaps pdevlinbuckley does not realize

that using a real name like that is a common intimidation tactic on this board. I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Pot meet kettle: Whatever

Pot meet kettle:

Whatever the facts are about the use of a name, the argument presented seems convincing to me.

Like...

when you were accusing anonymous posters of being me?

anyhoo.....

What is in a name?

As I noted in my original post, the point of this thread is not to exchange insults or instigate divisive arguments. I wasn't trying to 'out' anyone.

 Jesse has openly stated, "Yes I am Jesse from PA/911." He also promotes his website in his 9/11 Blogger profile, so he obviously doesn't care if people know his real name.

If he has a problem with me using his real name, I'm sure he'll speak up.

Is this evidence, and if so, of what?

It is not clear to me why Lormel's testimony should be trusted, nor why, even if it can be trusted, it necessarily leads to the conclusion that Pakistan was involved in 9/11. The same goes for stories in the Indian press.

Your argument that the government is lying about Pakistani involvement in 9/11 is based on many premises that come from the government and its official story. The fact that Mahmoud transferred money to Atta proves nothing, even if Atta actually was involved in 9/11, a proposition for which we have no evidence other than the word of the government.

The Passwater links are broken.

http://911blogger.com/5945#comment-113280

http://911blogger.com/5945

I think people are very naive

not to consider how many ways this story could be spun in the murky, complex world of intelligence/counterintelligence.

Like...

The story of 9/11?


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

No, like

the "truth" of 9/11.

I suspect...

That whatever the real story behind 9/11 is, will be the truth.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

This binary proposition makes my point

"whether you believe Omar Sheikh wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta or whether you believe the story is nothing but disinformation, "

It could be true and be disinformation. It could also be true and not disinformation, but also not important and diverting in prosecuting the true perpetrators. Stories can be true and originate from honest sources and reporters, yet have ascribed to them a significance which proves unwarranted.

Why do you think...

Thomas Kean denied any knowledge of the wire transfer when Alex Jones' team confronted him about it, and he said, "I'm not aware of the $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammad Atta?"

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."

Did Commissioner Kean not even take the time to read the families questions? He did say, "they've supplied us with some of the best questions we've asked."


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

because it reinforces the official story

and is a dead-end trail? That possibly needs to be considered if you want to play with these people who are playing with us.

I don't consider something...

That may lead to the White Houses' doorstep a "dead-end trail".

Why did Lee Hamilton shun Kyle Hence when he confronted him about it?


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

because it reinforces the official story

and diverts attention from the real perps, and can be spun in a way that is not evidence of a crime.

Please explain to me...

How an "Official Story" that "did not even mention the allegation about Ahmed's role in the $100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta" reinforces that very same "Official Story?"

Where in this "Official Story" is there mention of the alleged $100,000 Wire Transfer?

One of the things they teach us as "Truther School" is that if something is left out of the "Official Story", it is probably something worth looking into.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

The Official Story

is 19 Arab hijackers taking down the World Trade Center towers and hitting the Pentagon. I have seen no evidence that this is true.

That is the...

Sean Hannity "Official Story." The planes flew into the buildings, and the buildings came down. As Paul Thompson says in the movie, "I'm not suggesting from this that Pakistan is the quote unquote "solution" to 9/11 because it's not. Pakistan is one part in a very complicated story. The question to me is who else was involved with Al-Qaeda? Was Al-Qaeda used as a tool just as in the 1980's the Mujahadeen were basically used by the U.S. Government?"


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

"Was Al-Qaeda used as a tool

"Was Al-Qaeda used as a tool just as in the 1980's the Mujahadeen were basically used by the U.S. Government?"

That would certainly be incredibly damning, assuming you could prove it was true. I think there are a myriad of alternative explanations that could be engineered out of the murky, complex world of intelligence/counterintelligence.

It would still leave intact the key proposition for which I have yet to see evidence - that 19 Arab hijackers flew planes into the WTC towers and the Pentagon.

I agree that this story could be true and part of a very complicated story. I am simply pointing out the dangers of accepting key elements of the official story without independent proof.

There is no doubt...

More to the story. No one is saying that 9/11: Press For Truth tells us everything. Christ, I could tell you that. I wish it covered Sibel, the Wargames, the PNAC, and on and on, and it didn't. It is a very good start to entering the "rabbit hole", and if you are as I described earlier, there is no turning back.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

It almost seems as if...

People are looking at 9/11: Press For Truth as something that should tell the entire story of 9/11. I wish it did. I certainly don't know it. PFT is just a tool in our arsenal. A very good one.

I didn't mean to "hijack" your thread PDB. Excellent read by the way. You are a very talented writer.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Fair enough

I liked Press for Truth when I saw it, and it very effectively makes a key point that the 9/11 Commission did not answer legitimate questions, one of which is the alleged ISI connection. Although I have concerns that the rabbit hole we enter through 9/11 Press for Truth may lead into a side tunnel, I think the argument that Press for Truth is a good introduction for newbies is a fair one.

I'm definitely not accusing the makers of the film of disinformation - I'm just concerned they may be victims of disinformation.

Press for Truth is on Link TV this weekend and I look forward to seeing it on television.

The bank transfer could be real

and designed to reinforce what may have been the true role of Atta, et al, assuming they exist - patsies (knowing or not).

Was Atta used as a Patsy?

That's an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT subject... One I tend to agree with.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

The question is whether

he is a patsy that got on a plane or a patsy that went about coking and whoring (and trying to get a loan for cropdusters?) to draw attention to himself, then disappeared.

how many Attas?

When Jay Rockefeller dismissed Able Danger, he "leaked" that the Army Intelligence people were confused because there were so many Mohameds and so many Attas and they all looked alike, so there was no way to verify that military intelligence knew THE Atta who was going to be a hijacker.

"One of these individuals depicted on the chart arguably looked like Mohammed Atta," the committee concluded. "In addition, the chart contained names of Al Qaeda associates that sound like Atta, as well as numerous variations of the common Arab name Mohammed."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel25dec25,0,3149...

The Zelikow Report stated that the hijackers used hundreds of aliases.

Lee Harvey Oswald did not

Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone and could not have fired the shot that killed Kennedy, but the fact that he was connected to the FBI and right wing anti-castro groups is still a significant lead and relevant to the investigation of who killed Kennedy.

Mohammed Atta may not have flown the plane into the WTC on purpose, it could have been remote control, it could have been some other person hijacking the plane, but the questions we have about the evidence of Atta's ultimate responsiblity do not negate the significance of his connection to the ISI and, by extension, CIA.

Do not mistake my position.

Do not mistake my position. There certainly is a cover story being pushed by the government, much of it riddled with disinformation. But the purpose of the disinformation is to distract people from the ISI link, not propagate it. 

I've overstayed my welcome

Thank you for a provocative blog.

How is the effort to deny

How is the effort to deny the significance of Atta's connection to the ISI different from a hypothetical effort to deny the sifnificance of Lee Harvey Oswald's connection to the FBI?

Answer to your questions at jpass's blog

http://911blogger.com/node/5945#comment-113280

"Let me ask you this: if this whole $100,000-ISI-Omar Sheikh story was just disinformation cooked up by the U.S. to establish an al-Qaeda link to 9/11, then why on earth did the money connect back to covert U.S. channels and a man that was in Washington DC on 9/11!?

1. Who knows?
2. To feed speculation and diversion because it sounds so damning in the context of the official story, which it thereby strongly reinforces.

If the U.S. was writing the script, then why didn't the money link back to Iraq instead of the ISI-CIA nexus that had been used by the U.S. for nearly two decades?"

See 2 above.

and may be they wanted to go to Afghanistan first and the idea that Iraq was involved was too far fetched. And again - who knows how these people think and want us to think?

Establish Doubt to Discredit Facts is how disinfo operates

* On April 29, 1991, Dick Cheney, then President Bush’s Defence Secretary, said Saddam Hussein had no capacity to threaten his neighbours.
* On Feb. 24, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Hussein had not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
The 10-year span between these two similar observations indicates that during the 1990s, Saddam Hussein did not develop a WMD capacity, and frankly was not a military threat to anyone, He did, though, actively support the Palestinians and was a declared enemy of Israel.
The Bush Administration had plans to attack Iraq at least as early as 2000, but it could not justify an assault because Iraq did not pose a threat to the U.S., as Cheney and Powell both knew. The problem was solved when the junta propagated official “doubts” about the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors. Their inability to find any WMDs was merely a sign that they were hidden and further “proof” of Iraq’s dishonesty.
The “controversy” over Hussein’s WMDs became firmly established in the public’s mind, thanks to the New York Times and the rest of the palace press. Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003, warmongering State of the Union Address contained the culminating lies that made invasion possible.
Untill it is proven that this $100,000 scheme did NOT take place, My gut feeling is that it did.

Not saying transfer did not happen

"Until it is proven that this $100,000 scheme did NOT take place, My gut feeling is that it did."

It may well have taken place - I'm just wondering what it means.

About Iraq, the junta eventually fell back on the story that it does not matter whether Iraq was involved in 9/11 or even had any ties to Al Qaeda, because after 9/11 the government would not wait for proof before taking action to protect the American people. "9/11 changed everything." "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

This is why I don't think it is significant that the junta did not blame 9/11 on Iraq, which debunkers often cite as a reason why 9/11 was not an inside job - "they would have blamed Iraq."

Blaming 9/11 on Afghanistan allowed an invasion already planned and was just as effective in justifying invasion of Iraq which was also already planned.

Thanks for the response - I don't disagree with you.

Ningen, keep in mind both times that these statements

were made from Cheney and 10 years later, Powell that preceded an invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan was a prequisite to satisfy the CIA so that the drug trade continues and that the starting place of Al-Queda becomes a justification for the fake war on terror. While public opinion polls are highly positive for the Neocons, Iraq was the opportunity they waited for to use the WMD excuse to invade. Thus bringing them closer to Iran and control of the Strait of Hormuz, to control 2/3 of the oil AND to ensure it's safe passage out through the strait. The Taliban is sarting to flourish again in Afghanistan because it seems to be a better alternative to whatever kind of government Karzai controls, which is not much beyond Kabul. The warlords there, the military as protectionist, even Karzai's group, and of course the CIA are benefiting from heroin sales from Afghanistan, which is now between 85-90% of the worlds sale.

...

"To feed speculation and diversion because it sounds so damning in the context of the official story, which it thereby strongly reinforces."

This does not reinforce the official story by any means. Instead of placing the blame on 'al-Qaeda' as the official story does, it places the blame with the ISI, Western intelligence, and the U.S. government. 

If story was meant to reinforce the official story, why would the money trail lead back to Omar Sheikh, who had been offered a passport by the British government in 2000 after being busted out of jail in a hijacking/ransom operation? Why would it lead back to the ISI, which had been a conduit for the CIA for years? Why would it lead back to General Mahmood who was in Washington on 9/11?

Moreover, the story did not originate in Washington and its discovery had nothing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan.

Show "Truthmove.org spreading disinformation too" by Killtown

you want to follow a money trail...

start with globalvision and harpercollins.
globalvision was co-founded by ex-msm senior producers
harpercollins is owned by the parent company of fox news
who is derek mitchell?
hmmmmmm....

and...

al-queda doesn't exist
see 'power of nightmares'

See Robin Cook's

Definition of Al-Qaeda. To quote casseia, "No Sh_t Sherlock". "Al-Qaeda", whatever the hell that is, a combination of the Pakistani ISI and thugs who happen to be Muslim, a combination of the CIA through the ISI through to thugs who happen to be Muslim, a combination of the MI6 through to the ISI through to thugs who happen to be Muslim, WHATEVER, does NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, have the tentacles those in power would want us to believe.

Incidentally, there are people in the world that HATE the United States of America. Moreso now since we started our "crusade."


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

My Biggest Problem is This

I have a huge problem with anyone who supports this movement taking such a BROAD attack against one of the most important and effective tools in our movement - Press For The Truth.

Using the word "Disinformation" is out of line. It inplies that this film is INTENTIONALLY spreading lies. This is unfair and inaccurate.

The fact that you personally disagree with the significance of the Pakistan research does not negate its existence and significance. The Pakistan connection has been documented my multiple researchers in and out of this movement. The history of the CIA - ISI - Taliban - Al Qaeda - and the drug trade - is a long and and well documented.

The fact that YOU choose to INTERPRET these facts in your own way is encouraged - but does not entitle you to accuse this film of intentional disinformation.

We have enough problems with REAL science fiction issues like space beams and no planes to waste our time accusing sincere film makers and the VICTIM'S FAMILIES.

and lastly - i find your interpretation of the Pakistan research to be entirely narrow and superficial. Nearly every reputable researcher i know - including Paul Thompson at Cooperative Research - David Ray Griffin - Barry Zwicker - 911Truth.org - Jon Gold - agree that Pakistan's complicity in creating the fable of Al Qaeda, and creating the foundation for war in Afghanistan, and laying the foundation for 911 itself is indesputable.

You really have to wonder about the motives of someone who attempts to accuse one of our most reputable films of disinformation - while simultaneously undermining the most significant research we have. But - that's just MY opinion.

who is derek mitchell?

the creator of cooperativeresearch. answer that, jo(h)n.

He's a very cool guy

Why don't you just ask him if he used to work at the State Department?

That would be a lot more informative and helpful than making endless comments insinuating that he did.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

hey yt

is this the man that gave you a ride home? that'd be very helpful. thanks.
http://www.dynamic-korea.com/opinion/view.php?main=ITV&sub=&uid=20050001...

Is he...

Any of these people?


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

ah, there we go

That's a very different Derek Mitchell than the one I met.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

heh...


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

cool...

so who is the derek mitchell that created cooperativeresearch?
why doesn't he provide a link?

ummm..

because he does not want to be smeared and attacked by disinfo agents like Haupt?

i don't see YOU using your real name.....

just the fact that you seem to be insinuating something that you have NO PROOF of is telling.

"just who IS Derek Mitchell??" (ominous swell of music)

this is kiddie stuff.

Cooperative Research provides well vetted research with links to all its sources. It provides timelines of events. Somebody out there doesn't like that - apparently.

Why do you...

Why do you go out of your way to use my real name?

Why do you go out of your way to make it seem like I am calling the 9/11 Family members out as misguided?

I will not be applying the john albanese filter to anything I write. If anyone thinks anything is disinfo speak up so we can talk about it.

Dennis Lormel of the FBI financial crimes unit did not cofirm that the money came from pakistan but only that , yes, 100k was wired to the hijakcers.

Read the article section again and you will see the shifty play on words the author uses.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

#2 is way offf....

You say:

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

Re-read the entire blog about the disinfo goose chase. I don't think anyone doubts that the FBI confirmed this. What the FBI has not confirmed is the dubious Times of India story about the Mahmood invovlement.

Also, Paul Thompson still has a massive amount of broken source links on his Smoking GUn Of 9/11 Article.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Attack?

Sorry for the consecutive comments but I just found this thread a few months late...

First off, I think the use of my real name in this blog is lame. I do not like the tone and I do not understand why Jpass was not used in the first place. IMO, there is an intimidation factor going on here. Some might say that it is ridiculous that I feel that way...but it's not YOUR NAME being repeated and associated with attacking Press For Truth, attacking family members of 9/11, attacking paul thompson?

John Albanese....you call it a 'broad attack'?

I am not attacking anything but the ISI / Atta / General Mahmood angle. It's weak and anyone who looks at it can plainly see that. You make it seem I'm attacking Paul Thompson, Press For Truth, 9/11 Family members...

Lame.

Also, why is it that you guys NEVER MENTION THAT Sheik Syed is not the same as Omar Saiid Shekh? Two DIFFERENT GUYS, same sounding name...one is CONFIRMED al qeada pre-9/11....but it's not the guy you are talking about. It's not the same guy....

A man known to be the 'financial chief' of Al Qeada used an alias just like the one you quote in your cnn article.

People use the presidetial executive order as a source...it's NOT referring to your Omar Saiid...
The 9/11 Commission footnote is used as a soure....It's NOT referring to your Omar Saiid....

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

And here I thought you were just taking the high road...

just kidding.

As you can see from my comment at the very beginning of the thread, I found the use of your real name to be very inappropriate. It happened back at a time when one particular troll (not the author of this blog) was harassing people by stopping by and posting personal information about them. EVERYONE found that objectionable, so I couldn't figure out why this guy was given a pass (sorry -- unintentional pun.) I think it would be reasonable to drop dz an email and just register your complaint -- mostly so there's a context for any possible future bad behavior on the part of the author. I would have done so myself at the time -- I didn't know if you had a problem with it or not.

heheh 5 months to the high ground

I did wait 5 months to respond :)

I did e-mail DZ as I felt the a bit intimidated. I know it's been months. I mean it's not a big deal as I don't hide my name. I don't care but usually but it seems like the poster went out of his way to use my real name a bunch of times and then you have the John Albanese guy claiming I am attacking 9/11 Press For Truth and even 9/11 Family members...something Jon Gold hinted at on a previous thread.

Maybe I'm jumping the gun...but what is it with this ISI issue? Why do people feel so strongly about it when I just don't see a convincing case?

Do you?

Then John Albanese seems to be saying we should just swallow it up and not even ask questions about it because it would be 'wrong' to question 9/11 press for truth and 9/11 Family members.

I am not saying they are creating disinfo but maybe they are unknowingly spreading it. It's quite possible and not 'mean' towards anyone to consider the possibility.

My feeling is that if someone thinks something is disinfo....bring your case to 9/11blogger and lets discuss it.

I've done that and Jon Gold, Jon Albanese, and pdevlinbuckly...along with a few other passionate bloggers on this subject seem not even to want to give credit where it's do.

Admit it guys....the Pakistani ISI / Atta / 100k wire story just isn't very strong. This blog doesn't do anything for the case either.

Another thing....

Why do you guys never mention the OTHER Sheikh Sayed when you discuss this? Guy uses the same alias as the alias used to wire 100k, was a known Al Qeada financier, and is often cited as proof that the british Omar Saiid is the source of the 100k....

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Here...

Is an example of how you come across jpass.

Monday - Thread #1
jpass: Christie Todd Whitman did not tell New Yorkers that their air was safe to breathe.

Jon Gold: Here is the press release from September 18th where she says exactly that.

Tuesday - Thread #2
jpass: Christie Todd Whitman did not tell New Yorkers that their air was safe to breathe.

Jon Gold: Didn't I just show you yesterday in Thread #1 the press release from September 18th?

Wednesday - Thread #3
jpass: Christie Todd Whitman did not tell New Yorkers that their air was safe to breathe.

Jon Gold: WTF dude? Can't you read? In Thread #1 and #2, I showed you the press release.

Two weeks later...

Monday - Thread #23
jpass: Christie Todd Whitman did not tell New Yorkers that their air was safe to breathe.

Jon Gold: Are you still saying that? As you can see in Threads #1, #2, and #3 from two weeks ago, I proved to you that she did say it. Why do you keep bringing that up?

Tell me jpass. How are we supposed to interpret your "efforts?"


Donate To 9/11 First Responders

Jon...

at is a 'theoretical' scenario right? Because I don't recall ever typing those words at all.
As for interprateing my efforst...

I'm thinkingt hat you mean...sepcifically...my efforst towards the ISI link....

Interprate them like this...

"Jpass took a critical look at the 'facts' and 'sources' and concluded that it was a wild goose chase and looks like disinformation. Infact, Jpass concluded that it is disinformation. He made his argument on 9/11 Blogger and many people agree with Jpass that the ISI story is without sufficient evidence.

Many agree."

I think that should work well for you.

You should make it explicately clear that you made up the entire scenario you created above. That is not something that actually happened.
Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

It was a hypothetical example...

Of your actions, and MANY more DO NOT agree that the ISI link to 9/11 is disinformation. However, as my argument points out, unless I am a masochist, it would be a waste of time for me to argue with you on this point. Therefore, I say to people don't listen to me. Do your own research, and come to your own conclusions.


Donate To 9/11 First Responders

Jon, unless you

bring something other then an indian inteligence report to the table...you are right...i'm not convinced and won't be.

Why don't you call Dennis Lormel? Would help your case a lot. I find it interesting no one has called him yet.

I guess alleged Indian Inteligence Reports are just not my style.

Let me ask you...

is there ANY EVIDENCE that this Indian Inteligence report actually exists besides the mention of it in a few articles?

Likewise, I am not able to convince you of the flimsyness of your case.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Again...

An "indian inteligence report" is not the only thing brought to the table. I am done. This argument can go on and on, and go no where so long as you ignore every piece of information brought to the table. Again, don't listen to me, OR jpass. Do your own research, and come to your own conclusions.


Donate To 9/11 First Responders

This reply...

I re-read this blog and I will go home after work and write a detailed, point by point resposne. The author is confused and uses information that I've already showed is not accurate.

The executive order - does NOT refer to the British Omar Saiid
The 9/11 Commission Foot Note - DOES NOT refer to the British Omar Saiid
The CNN aticle - confuses two men and merges them into one
The BBC article - confuses two men and merges them into one

the FBI - DID NOT confirm the ISI link. The excerpt often quoted is unclear at least...intentionally misleading at worst.

The author of this blog starts off with this:
"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!] "

Then you have this:

" 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.”

Yea I'm partisan. I'm actually a fan of the ISI and me and Omar go way back.

The tone the author and others are presenting, IMO, is either except it or don't discuss it. If you disagree with conclusions of some on this subject you are close minded, and you care nothing about the truth. The question the author seems to be asking is:

"Are you a real 9/11 Truther or not?"

Because real truthers don't question the evidence brought forth by the 9/11 Family members!

Stay tuned.