Overwhelming evidence of insider complicity on 9/11
David Chandler and Jon Cole | 03.01.2011 19:25 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Social Struggles | Sheffield | World
If you watch our videos and read the links on our site (
http://www.911speakout.org) you will understand why we assert that the weight of the evidence points to the fact that 9/11 was orchestrated by insiders…
http://www.911speakout.org) you will understand why we assert that the weight of the evidence points to the fact that 9/11 was orchestrated by insiders…
Photos of Debris Outside the Pentagon
Overwhelming evidence of insider complicity on 9/11
by David Chandler and Jon Cole, 2 January 2010
If you watch our videos and read the links on our site (
http://www.911speakout.org) you will understand why we assert that the weight of the evidence points to the fact that 9/11 was orchestrated by insiders… * with access to high tech military-grade nano-energetic materials (aka nano-thermite)
* with access to the infrastructure of some of the most highly secure buildings in New York over an extended period of time
* with the expertise to accomplish the most difficult demolitions in history
* with the ability to manage public perception of the event despite numerous contrary
contemporaneous eyewitness reports
* with the ability to coordinate the take-downs of the twin towers with the airplane flights
* with the ability to coordinate with the military to not intercept the airplane flights
* with the ability to stage a highly coordinated cover-up, starting on the day of 9/11 itself
* with the ability to prevent ANY investigation for many months
* with the ability to stage-manage fraudulent investigations once the demand grew too loud (the 9/11 Commission report the NIST reports)
All of this evidence comes from the investigation of the World Trade Center, based on public evidence and the laws of physics. The evidence is overwhelming, consistent, persuasive, and broadly agreed upon by the “scientific wing” of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The concrete physical and video evidence leading to these conclusions narrows the field of possible perpetrators significantly.
The Pentagon
There are also anomalies in the events at the Pentagon. The biggest anomalies, in our opinion , have gotten some of the least attention.
* How could the Pentagon, the hub of the US military, have been so poorly defended that it could be hit in the first place, after the buildings in New York City had already been hit and other hijacked planes were known to still be in the air?
* Why was Norman Minetta’s testimony about Cheney’s response to the approach of the aircraft discounted in the 9/11 Commission report?
* Why was the target the newly reinforced west face of the building, occupied primarily by accountants that were tracing down what happened to the missing trillions of dollars announced just a few days earlier?
* Why would the purported hijackers perform a difficult spiral descent to hit the face of the Pentagon that had the least number of people in it, and was opposite from the offices of the Pentagon high command?
* Why would the purported hijackers risk mission failure by choosing a difficult ground level approach when they could have simply dived into the building?
* How could an untrained pilot have performed the difficult maneuvers? Was the plane flown by some kind of automatic controls and/or guided by a homing beacon?
Instead of these important questions, from very early on the focus has centered on what hit the Pentagon. The nearly unanimous testimony of over a hundred eyewitnesses, is that a large aircraft, consistent with a 757, flew very low at very high speed, clipped several light poles, and crashed into the face of the Pentagon at ground level. Still, speculation persists that the Pentagon was hit by something else, such as a Global Hawk or a cruise missile. The eyewitness testimony is consistent with the pattern of damage both inside and outside of the Pentagon (
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html). Read through the many eyewitness accounts ( http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html). What is very clear is that there is a consistent and blatant ongoing cover-up at the Pentagon. Those INSIDE the Pentagon have all the physical evidence and all the confiscated videos. They undoubtedly have the definitive proof of what hit the Pentagon, and how it was done, but they are not saying.
The problem with focusing on a protest of the Pentagon cover-up is that the population at large attributes to the military the right to keep secrets. Secrecy in wartime is understandable, if it is in furtherance of military objectives. It is not reasonable that the military should be allowed to extend this privilege to the cover-up of evidence of a monstrous crime, but the fact is, they can get away with it. The population is not willing to second guess military prerogative in matters like this. Therefore despite the absolutely blatant cover-up of the facts of 9/11 at the Pentagon, there is no public outrage, and there is no reasonable possibility that the public can be aroused on this issue.
Therefore the Pentagon is a dead-end for research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might be fascinating or intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold all the cards.
Fortunately the evidence at the World Trade Center makes the investigation at the Pentagon almost irrelevant. If anything essentially new (and verifiable) can be discovered at the Pentagon, fine, but the sparseness of information and the thoroughness of the cover-up at the Pentagon makes it an unlikely venue for significant new findings.
The Honey Pot
On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories. (This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.) This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited. There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms. What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?
Despite popular belief, the physical evidence does not rule out that possibility that it was American Airlines Flight 77 that actually crashed into the Pentagon. Confidently asserting otherwise, then being proven wrong and discredited for sloppy research, would be disastrous for the credibility of the solid science-based research at the World Trade Center.
Why, then, the strenuous push to focus the attention of the Truth Movement onto the Pentagon? Does it sound too cynical to suggest that we are being intentionally set up? We must remember that we are in a situation where nearly 3000 people were murdered in a day not counting the thousands who have died since, and millions killed in the resulting wars. If agencies of the US government really are complicit, which the evidence shows to be the case, then the people who really know what happened are playing for keeps. Any movement with real potential for arriving at incriminating truth will certainly be highly infiltrated. This is not paranoia: it is a simple fact. The 9/11 Truth Movement must respond by policing itself and holding itself to the highest standards of intellectual rigor.
CIT (Citizen Investigation Team)
It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between simply foolish theories and intentionally planted foolish theories. The difference is generally speculative. The wisest policy is to avoid foolish theories altogether.
The generally accepted story regarding the Pentagon is that American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked and flown to Washington DC, did a very difficult downward spiral maneuver, approached the Pentagon flying essentially eastward along Columbia Pike, descended to very low altitude, knocked over several light poles, damaged a generator sitting on the Pentagon lawn, crashed into the west face of the Pentagon at ground level, at very high speed, and created a trail of damage inside the outer three rings of the Pentagon in perfect alignment with the exterior trail of destruction.
Enter CIT, the Citizen Investigation Team. This grass-roots-sounding organization consists essentially of two individuals from California who fly back to Washington, conduct interviews with a number of witnesses on video who reconstruct the flight paths (from memory, years after the event) as being significantly further to the north than the generally accepted flight path. A north flight path is inconsistent with the trail of damage, both inside and outside the Pentagon, so this flight path would require that all the damage was intentionally and elaborately faked. CIT then asserts that since the north flight path is inconsistent with the damage in the building, the plane did not actually hit the building. Instead it pulled up and flew over the Pentagon perfectly timed with an explosion set off in the Pentagon. The plane was hidden by the explosion as it flew off and blended in with general air traffic. (How the passengers were disposed of is a question they don’t consider.) Interestingly, nearly all of the people they interview are certain that the plane hit the building and none directly confirm the flyover hypothesis. The best they can do is elicit sketches of northerly flight paths that actually differ significantly from each other. They compile their thirteen interviews in a feature-length video called “National Security Alert” (with an eyebrow-raising acronym shared with the National Security Agency: NSA), then further cherry-pick their witnesses and present the four who are most in agreement with their own views, and add a musical sound track for a second video they call their “Smoking Gun” version.
Think about it just for a minute. The Pentagon is completely ringed by major highways, including Interstate 395 which had stand-still traffic that morning. Any flyover of the Pentagon would have been witnessed by hundreds of people from all directions. If a plane flew over the Pentagon at low altitude leaving a major explosion in its wake, anyone who saw it would certainly think they were witnessing a plane bombing the Pentagon. Yet there were no such reports, and some who were questioned later, who were in a good position to see any flyover, said they did not see any such thing.
The CIT videos don’t qualify as scientific studies. Their witnesses are not representative of the overall eyewitness pool, the witnesses accounts are far from contemporaneous with the events, and the conversational style of the interviews frequently leads the witnesses. Who knows what conversations preceded the videotaped interviews to either shape or filter the testimonies? The “researchers” ignore the fact that none of their witnesses directly confirms their primary hypothesis: a Pentagon flyover. Some of the witnesses contradict themselves, but this does not count against their credibility. Furthermore, there is no mention of the voluminous eyewitness testimony that supports the conventional path in line with the path of destruction. Rather than subject their work to peer review, even internal peer review within the 9/11 Truth Movement, they simply disparage any who take issue with their methods or their results, and instead rely on a list of questionable endorsements. They posted a literal “enemies list” on the internet in which they attacked the character of those who disagree with them. [Ed. Note: we are not yet on that list, but after posting this essay we will surely qualify.] CIT has even gone so far as to disparage their own witnesses, accusing the driver of the taxi that was hit by a light pole of being a co-conspirator with the perpetrators of the crime. CIT has gone out of its way to make themselves a highly divisive issue in the 9/11 Truth movement. The “Flyover theory” had recent success in getting main stream media coverage on the Jesse Ventura “Conspiracy Theory” show. Whether CIT in fact represents an orchestrated attempt to splinter the 9/11 Truth Movement or not, it is having a splintering effect. “Divide and Conquer” has a long history, going back to Caesar in the Gallic Wars, and Alexander the Great before him. CIT is attempting to become the public face of the 9/11 Truth Movement. If it succeeds, the 9/11 Truth Movement will be seen as vicious, mean spirited, crazy, and ultimately discredited.
If the Pentagon issue intrigues you, we highly recommend that you balance your reading with the literature that sets Pentagon theorizing into perspective. Here is a short recommended reading list. (All of the authors are on CIT’s enemies list, but read them and decide about their credibility for yourself.)
In conclusion, we urge you not to be taken in by divisive speculation masquerading as research.
___________________________
Recommended Reading:
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’ by Victoria Ashley
http://www.911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html 9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described
[[
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html]] A Critical Review of "The PentaCon – Smoking Gun Version"
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smoking-gun.html Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon (Smoking Crack Version) by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html American Memory Project of the Library of Congress (
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/afc911bib:@field%28SUBJ+@od1%28Pentagon++Va++%29%29) — Interviews shortly after 9/11 by witnesses to various aspects of the Pentagon events.
Note in particular the interviewing style compared to the CIT interviews. There is no leading the witness. There is no agenda to prove a particular point. The interviewees are allowed to express themselves freely and fully with no coaching. Several of the witnesses interviewed here are also on the CIT videos. Notice the differences in the overall tone as well as the details of their stories.
The National Security Alert video and the The PentaCon: Eyewitnesses Speak,
Conspiracy Revealed (Smoking Gun Version) are available to view online on various CIT web sites.
The National Security Alert:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html The PentaCon (Smoking Gun Version):
http://www.thepentacon.com/googlesmokinggun.htm ____________________________
David Chandler and Jon Cole
Homepage:
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-01/joint-statement-pentagon-david-chandler-and-jon-cole
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
Well said
03.01.2011 19:58
Eyewitness and video/photographic evidence indicates an AA 757 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. While some are justifiably perplexed and disturbed by the govt's failure to disclose hard evidence that this plane was AA 77, there is no evidence it wasn't (or that it flew over the Pentagon), and therefore there's no basis for claiming '9/11 was an inside job because AA 77 didn't crash at the Pentagon'.
There's a wealth of evidence that 9/11 can only be explained by insider involvement, including the points David and Jon listed at the beginning of this article.
The Complete 9/11 Timeline
anon
How is this relevant to Sheffield indymedia?
03.01.2011 20:40
(A)
Wouldn't it be nice...
04.01.2011 10:41
But we are not: Think Globally and Act Locally.
Beach Boy
Local news?
04.01.2011 13:09
"Non-Bristol/South West: posts which have no clear relation to these geographical areas [will be hidden]. Whilst the Bristol Indymedia collective acknowledges that national/world events have an impact upon the people of Bristol/the South West of England, the purpose of Bristol IMC is to share local news. We aim to raise awareness of the role of UK IMC as an open forum for national news, and the role of other IMCs, as relevant, as open fora for international news. NB: This does not include articles which analyse the impact or potential impact that national/world events have upon Bristol/the South West of England - postings which articulate such connections are welcome. "
For some reason I assumed it was an Indymedia standard thing. Evidently not.
(A)
the thermite described was described as military grade, not thermite grenades
04.01.2011 13:48
Only military thermite grenades contain barium nitrate, the thermite described was described as military grade, not as thermite grenades.
Thermite is used in welding railtracks etc.
Whole floors were taken over for building work& renovation just before 911 for months, +nightwork was done.
Trained special forces or mercaneries train to plant devices like these unkowningly,
thermite as used it welding would have been set of by the impact fires.
More analysis of the thermite taken for the tests& how it was collected would be good.
James
Norvello disputes every questionable element of 911 official conspiracy theory
04.01.2011 18:26
I did call you a spook, which of course is not proven. I should have instead labelled you a Shill - which is clearly what you are.
Baloney/ Really? Easy to just dismiss a whole swathe of argument with incricately written putdowns without making an intelligible attempt to argue the contrary.
main points of disputation regarding the official version of 911:
1). Widespread reporting of explosions in the twin towers in the minutes immediately before the freefall collapse of each of the twin-towers, most notably by many members of the fire crews present at the base and in and around the twin towers before their collapse
2). Why were thermal hotspots detected on the site of the twin towers by thermal imaging recorded by satellites 5 days after the attacks? Why was molton steel discovered a week after the collapse of the towers, as well as nanothermitic material with properties which are highly energetic, pyrotechnic or explosive?
Ref:
3). Why were over 15 terror and defence drills all being operated by the US military at exactly the same time as the 911 attacks (such as special forces drill Able Warrior and a drill run by the National Reconnaissance Office which involves scenerios where planes have been crashed into buildings), as if these drills where pretend antagonist elements were operational in the context of a drill were in all probability switched to going 'live' (actual real-time scenerios)? Why did Major Eric Kleinsmith of LIWA destroy data (including 2.5 Terrabytes of info, destroyed in May-June 2000 - much of which was stored at the Pentagon, and other data destroyed in 2001 and Spring 2004) on orders from the Army Intelligence & Security Command General Councel Tony Gentry?
Taken from: "US 'let slip 9/11 hijacker 13 times' "
Aljazeera, Wednesday 15 February 2006
Ref:
Curt Weldon, a Republican representative, said on Tuesday data produced by the US military intelligence unit code-named Able Danger showed Atta's name 13 times.
Weldon said: "Thirteen times we have hits in the data that's still available, that we were told was destroyed."
Weldon, vice-chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committee, cited recent analyses of data gathered by Able Danger before the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.
"They knew he was up to no good and that he was planning something."
4). The collapse of Building 7 - a building which inexplicably not only collapsed in on itself, but which fell on it's own footprint at a freefall speed at 5.30pm on September 11th 2001 - around 7 hours after the collapse of the twin towers. Buildings closer to the twin towers (WTC 5 & 6) remained standing. Larry Silverstone - the building owner - let slip the truth when he said in an interview that they made a decision to "pull the building". A CIA office and the HQ of the Security & Exchanges Commission were located in Building 7. In regard to the latter, all the paper file records related to the investigations into large-scale fraud at Enron and World Comm was stored - now incinerated into dust.
Severe flaws in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (Nist) report into the collapse of Building-7 ihave been exposed. The big blackhole in the middle of the Nist computerised model and explanation of how the collapse occurred is the nature of it's collapse (ie. the symmetrical nature of its collapse at freefall speed).
If one compares the freefall collapse of WTC 7 NIST Model & actual footage of Building 7's collapse, one can observe that in the Nist model, the top of the building started to collapse with the sides of the building folding inwards into the crumbling mass. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN! Building-7 collapsed with symmetrical descent at freefall speed. It did not collapse as depicted in the Nist computerised model.
View here:
Taken from:
The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:
“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.” The only way that the remaining structure and mass can be got rid of so that the upper block can fall at Free-fall is by additional energy being supplied to destroy remaining structure and shift mass out of the way.
Architects of eminent reputation and common sense are of this obvious opinion:
As far as I have been able to ascertain, none of the discrepancies identified by the architects and engineers who wrote their response to the Nist report have had an answer to these major disputations they have raised regarding fundamental parts of the NIST report. They are detailed and substantial. For the record, here they are listed one-by-one:
(i). Nist model showing the collapse of Building-7 is completely wrong
(ii). Data used in flawed computerised model cannot be tested and verified because modelling data not made available to the public
(iii). Flawed explanations about structural failure within Nist
(iv). Problems with the scientific method within NIST
(v). NIST entirely ignored the voluminous evidence of molten metal at the building's base
More Deatils on each of these points:
(i) - dealt with above
(ii) - Data used in flawed computerised model cannot be tested and verified because modelling data not made available to the public
Source:
Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modelling data. Mr. Chandler explains:
“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out they way the wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”
(iii). Flawed explanations about structural failure within Nist
NIST advances a theory that the entire "collapse" was caused by a beam disconnecting itself from its column supports through thermal expansion - a behaviour that is the opposite of that exhibited by actual building fires and building fire simulations, in which severely heated beams sag downward and stay connected, rather than remaining rigid and breaking their connections.
Source:
(iv). Problems with the scientific method within NIST:
A group of scientists, scholars, architects & engineers responded to the NIST report here
Here are some telling extracts in their response to NIST (the fuel load referred to was a diesel tank located in the building for a back-up generator):
“On page 381 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 3, sent. 3) NIST flatly states that, in its fire simulations for the 12th floor, “[t]he [fire] spread rate was about one-third to one-half slower than that on the lower floors due to the higher fuel load [on the 12th floor simulation].” NIST goes on to report that the burn time across the north face in the simulation was longer than observed in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 381, para. 3, sent. 4) NIST then rejects the possibility that this could have resulted from the fuel load being too high, citing the sensitivity analysis in Section 9.3.3. (para. 3, sent. 4-8)”
“In Section 9.3.3, we find the referenced sensitivity analysis. Here, NIST reports that doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor resulted in the fires moving distinctly more slowly than in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 5, sent. 1-3) Confusingly, NIST also reports that decreasing the fuel load by more than one-third on floor 12 “showed little effect on the rate of fire progression.” (Id., para. 6, sent. 1-3)”
“REASON FOR COMMENT: NIST’s contradictory statements raise the question of why reducing the fuel load by more than one-third would show no appreciable effect on the fire rate of progression on the 12th floor, when doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor did result in an appreciable change.”
& also:
“COMMENT: In Section 11.4 (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 523-532), NIST goes through a detailed comparison of the structural response of the lower floors of WTC 7 to Case B and Case C fire scenarios. Case B used gas temperatures that were 10% higher than Case A, while Case C used gas temperatures that were 10% lower than Case A. No analysis of the structural response is shown or discussed for Case A.”
“On page 533 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 1) NIST makes the unsupported assertion that “comparison of Case B and Case C results at 4 h (Section 11.3.3) showed that the Case C structural response would be nearly identical to the Case B structural response at a time between 4.0 h and 4.5 h.” However, when we read Section 11.3.3, we see that the analysis of Case C structural response was not carried out to 4.5 hours. Instead, we see that the response of Case C at 4.0 h was somewhat similar to the response of Case B at 3.5 h. NIST must explain how it extrapolated the Case C damage to 4.5 hours, when it was using lower temperatures in Case C than in Case B.”
“Also, no detailed analysis is disclosed for the Case A temperatures. NIST must include this data generated by Case A temperatures in its Report so the public can independently determine whether Case A profiles should be used in the subsequent LS-DYNA model.”
“REASON FOR COMMENT: Most important is the fact that NIST’s use of the structural response to only Case B temperatures in its subsequent LS-DYNA model represents yet another example of NIST choosing input data that would tend to overestimate the temperatures and structural damage caused during the WTC 7 fires. We explained above how NIST did this before with respect to gross overestimates of combustible loads on floors 11, 12 and 13. These happen to be the exact floors on which the most damage was caused in NIST’s black box model. Why did NIST not use the Case A and Case C structural response in the LS-DYNA model? Or, if it did, why did it not report the results of these models?”
(v). NIST entirely ignored the voluminous evidence of molten metal at the building's base, and steel sulfidation documented by FEMA, despite these issues having been directly raised with NIST in press conferences, and public comment periods for this and the previous report on the Twin Towers. NIST's pointmen act as if they never heard of aluminothermic incendiaries, yet some of the NIST Report authors and other supporters of the collapse theory have been on the forefront of research into advanced energetic materials based on thermite.
Here are quotes from someone else which directs us more so to the likely cause of the unprecendented implosion of Building-7:
“We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7″.
[Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field.]
Dr Jonathan Barnett again: “A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. [New York Times, November 29, 2001]”
5). After the first of the Twin towers were hit, why did it take 1hr and 15 minutes for the US Air Defence to come into operation in the vicinity of the area under attack (the F16s)
6). Why intelligence revealed by FBI surveillance teams monitoring Mohammed Atta and other supposed terrorists supposedly responsible for the attacks on the twin towers who were training at flying schools in Florida was not acted upon?
7). Reports of an alleged money trail between the former Head of the Pakistani Intelligence service (ISI) and Mohammed Atta. The Pakistani newspaper Dawn cited “informed sources” in Pakistan confirming that “Director General of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmed has been replaced after the FBI investigators established credible links between him and Umar Sheikh.” When the FBI traced calls made between Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad and Ahmed Omar Sheikh Saeed’s cellular phone, a pattern linking the ISI chief with Sheikh clearly emerged. The US intelligence community believed that “it was at General Mahmud’s instruction that Sheikh had transferred 100,000 US dollars into the account of Mohammed Atta.”
[Source: Nafeez Ahmed in 'The War On Truth', (Ch-6, p-139)].
The Dawn news report was published on the 8th Oct 2001. The day before - the Sunday prior to the onslaught of the bombing of major cities in Afghanistan (October 7th) - Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was sacked from his position as head of the ISI in what was described as a routine "reshuffling."
Ahmad had been in the US before, during and after the 911 attacks. he held regular meetings with the US state deaprtment, including a breakfast meeting on the morning of the attacks on 911 in Washington. On the 9th of September while General Ahmad was in the US, the leader of the Northern Alliance Commander Ahmad Shah Masood was assassinated. The Northern Alliance had informed the Bush Administration that the ISI was allegedly implicated in the assassination.
The Bush Administration consciously took the decision in "the post September 11 consultations" with Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad to directly "cooperate" with Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) despite its links to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and its alleged role in the assassination of Commander Masood, which coincidentally occurred two days before the terrorist attacks.
8). How a group of 5 Israelis seen celebtrating when the planes first hit the twin towers. Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. anonymous phone call to the authorities actually led them to close down all of New York's bridges and tunnels. The mystery caller told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that a group of Palestinians were mixing a bomb inside of a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel. Based on that phone call, police then issued a "Be-on-the-Lookout" alert for a white mini-van heading for the city's bridges and tunnels from New Jersey. When a van fitting that exact description was stopped just before crossing into New York on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel, the suspicious "middle-easterners" were apprehended and were revealed to be Israelis, as reported by ABC's 20/20, the New York Post, and the New Jersey Bergen Record.
Police and FBI field agents became very suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives. [Source: New Jersey News - 12/09/01, Ref:
The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the The Record of New Jersey that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were joking about the attacks. A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities. Suter's departure was abrupt, leaving behind coffee cups, sandwiches, cell phones and computers strewn on office tables and thousands of dollars of goods in storage. Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and other hijackers and suspected al-Qaeda sympathizers, suggesting that U.S. authorities felt Suter may have known something about the attacks.
[Source: Ketcham, Ref:
The Jewish weekly The Forward reported that the FBI finally concluded that at least two of the detained Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. This was confirmed by two former CIA officers, and they noted that movers' vans are a common intelligence cover. The Israelis were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released.
Bullshit Detector