the pakistan connection

[sandycoosworth]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.html

The Pakistan connection


There is evidence of foreign intelligence backing for the 9/11 hijackers. Why is the US government so keen to cover it up?

Michael Meacher
Thursday July 22, 2004
The Guardian


Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, is waiting to be hanged in Pakistan for a murder he almost certainly didn't commit - of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002. Both the US government and Pearl's wife have since acknowledged that Sheikh was not responsible. Yet the Pakistani government is refusing to try other suspects newly implicated in Pearl's kidnap and murder for fear the evidence they produce in court might acquit Sheikh and reveal too much.


Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?
Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?

Another person who must know a great deal about what led up to 9/11 is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, allegedly arrested in Rawalpindi on March 1 2003. A joint Senate-House intelligence select committee inquiry in July 2003 stated: "KSM appears to be one of Bin Laden's most trusted lieutenants and was active in recruiting people to travel outside Afghanistan, including to the US, on behalf of Bin Laden." According to the report, the clear implication was that they would be engaged in planning terrorist-related activities.

The report was sent from the CIA to the FBI, but neither agency apparently recognised the significance of a Bin Laden lieutenant sending terrorists to the US and asking them to establish contacts with colleagues already there. Yet the New York Times has since noted that "American officials said that KSM, once al-Qaida's top operational commander, personally executed Daniel Pearl ... but he was unlikely to be accused of the crime in an American criminal court because of the risk of divulging classified information". Indeed, he may never be brought to trial.

A fourth witness is Sibel Edmonds. She is a 33-year-old Turkish-American former FBI translator of intelligence, fluent in Farsi, the language spoken mainly in Iran and Afghanistan, who had top-secret security clearance. She tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, but is now under two gagging orders that forbid her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or the countries involved. She has been quoted as saying: "My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up".

Furthermore, the trial in the US of Zacharias Moussaoui (allegedly the 20th hijacker) is in danger of collapse apparently because of "the CIA's reluctance to allow key lieutenants of Osama bin Laden to testify at the trial". Two of the alleged conspirators have already been set free in Germany for the same reason.

The FBI, illegally, continues to refuse the to release of their agent Robert Wright's 500-page manuscript Fatal Betrayals of the Intelligence Mission, and has even refused to turn the manuscript over to Senator Shelby, vice-chairman of the joint intelligence committee charged with investigating America's 9/11 intelligence failures. And the US government still refuses to declassify 28 secret pages of a recent report on 9/11.

It has been rumoured that Pearl was especially interested in any role played by the US in training or backing the ISI. Daniel Ellsberg, the former US defence department whistleblower who has accompanied Edmonds in court, has stated: "It seems to me quite plausible that Pakistan was quite involved in this ... To say Pakistan is, to me, to say CIA because ... it's hard to say that the ISI knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of." Ahmed's close relations with the CIA would seem to confirm this. For years the CIA used the ISI as a conduit to pump billions of dollars into militant Islamist groups in Afghanistan, both before and after the Soviet invasion of 1979.

W ith CIA backing, the ISI has developed, since the early 1980s, into a parallel structure, a state within a state, with staff and informers estimated by some at 150,000. It wields enormous power over all aspects of government. The case of Ahmed confirms that parts of the ISI directly supported and financed al-Qaida, and it has long been established that the ISI has acted as go-between in intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA.

Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate select committee on intelligence, has said: "I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted, not just in financing ... by a sovereign foreign government." In that context, Horst Ehmke, former coordinator of the West German secret services, observed: "Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service."

That might give meaning to the reaction on 9/11 of Richard Clarke, the White House counter-terrorism chief, when he saw the passenger lists later on the day itself: "I was stunned ... that there were al-Qaida operatives on board using names that the FBI knew were al-Qaida." It was just that, as Dale Watson, head of counter-terrorism at the FBI told him, the "CIA forgot to tell us about them".

· Michael Meacher is Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton. He was environment minister 1997-2003

massonm@parliament.uk





Special reports
Attack on America
Afghanistan
Political response to September 11
Media response to September 11
The terrorism threat to Britain
United States

Full text
24.07.03: Report by House and Senate intelligence committees

[ToxicAvenger]

and all of em are sitting in karachi fucking brit and russian hookers as we speak! 

[sandycoosworth]

its amazing that dipshits on here keep clammoring for experts to speak up

while this article mentions several, and how many of them have been on CNN?

[a_joker10]

America views supporting Musharraf as better than a civil war in a nuclear power.

Actually Sibel Edmonds was on CNN.

Zacharias Moussaoui was convicted.

[Camel Jockey]

This is pretty shocking, especially this:

Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?
Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?

How can one ignore something like this? This IF MONSTER PROOF THAT THE ISI IS TRYING TO COVER SOMETHING UP AND THEY'RE DOING IT ON BEHALF OF UNCLE SAM!

[sandycoosworth]

nope, they're just trying to help musharraf

[240 is Back]

Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?
Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?


When his involvement was revealed on the Senate floor, an odd thing happened.

The White House stenographer, the testimony transcript had *inaudible* when they mentioned Adhed's name.   And while CSPAN recorded the testimony just fine, the audio feed failed there.

AN obvious and weak attempt to keep this $100,000 wire transfer off the official record.

THINK ABOUT THAT

The top general in Paki intel is sending Atta $, a few days before 9/11.  There is clearly at least one other party yet to be brought to justice.

[sandycoosworth]

and that party is the potential energy in the WTC towers

[ToxicAvenger]

and that party is the potential energy in the WTC towers

well whattdoya know..it knows physics! 

[a_joker10]

and that party is the potential energy in the WTC towers

I don't think Newton was involved, but he might be a mason or illuminati.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

[sandycoosworth]

agreed

i think the the potential energy was also the cause of the explosion in the north tower before the first plane struck

[a_joker10]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

[sandycoosworth]

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that — as the collapses began — a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of Univ. of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These "short-period surface waves," reflect "the interaction between the ground and the building foundation," according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.

"The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on January 7, 1983," the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.

One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was "not coupled" to the ground.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers hit the ground. Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated."

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Last November, Lerner-Lam said, "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage — but not causing significant ground shaking,"

Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the huge towers.

furthermore

While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.

Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC collapse. Corley told AFP that while some tests had been done on the 80 pieces of steel saved from the site, he said he did not know about tests that show if an explosion had affected the steel. "I am not a metallurgist," he said.

[a_joker10]

Seeing that the reports are 3 years newer than your posted information and the palisades lab was included in the NIST report. I tend to believe the NIST report

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

[sandycoosworth]

seeing as NIST was bush selected i would rather listen to someone with no vested interest

[a_joker10]

seeing as NIST was bush selected i would rather listen to someone with no vested interest

I listen to the scientific community not NIST. The scientific community including ASCE and all of the major universities, stands behind the reports. Until there is sufficent evidence put forward from the CT groups that is peer reviewed and backed by major universities and technical groups, I will put my cards in with the scientific community.


BTW the scholars for truth and most CT websites, generate revenue, they also have a vested interest in their side.

[sandycoosworth]

you know its funny, i remember the entire investment community giving a strong buy reccomendation for enron based on the doctored financial statements arthur anderson was putting out

[a_joker10]

you know its funny, i remember the entire investment community giving a strong buy reccomendation for enron based on the doctored financial statements arthur anderson was putting out

The difference being the NIST report was peer reviewed and much of the content was composed by outside consultants.

[sandycoosworth]

The difference being the NIST report was peer reviewed and much of the content was composed by outside consultants.

all the financials were reviewed by the banks, brokerage houses, SEC, FERC .... and you need a shiload of outside consultants to make statements as complicated as enrons

anything else?

[240 is Back]

The difference being the NIST report was peer reviewed and much of the content was composed by outside consultants.

How long have you worked in the NIST PR dept?











You don't care about who exploded the towers on 9/11.  

You know damn well that one test on the metal showing nanothermite residue would render that entire NIST document worthless.

[a_joker10]

all the financials were reviewed by the banks, brokerage houses, SEC, FERC .... and you need a shiload of outside consultants to make statements as complicated as enrons

anything else?

Financial figures were reviewed by banks that were in the deal with Enron.
Normal investors weren't reviewing the figures or whistle blowers would have come around long before things got out of hand.

With the NIST report, they have been out for over 1 year, with no University, or technical organization asking for amendments, or putting out their own peer reviewed theories.
There is plenty of press and anyone that spoke out with real evidence would become instantly famous and rich. But it isn't happening, because the reports are accurate.

Have the CTer's put out a theory that they are willing to have peer reviewed.

[sandycoosworth]

Financial figures were reviewed by banks that were in the deal with Enron.
Normal investors weren't reviewing the figures or whistle blowers would have come around long before things got out of hand.

With the NIST report, they have been out for over 1 year, with no University, or technical organization asking for amendments, or putting out their own peer reviewed theories.
There is plenty of press and anyone that spoke out with real evidence would become instantly famous and rich. But it isn't happening, because the reports are accurate.

Have the CTer's put out a theory that they are willing to have peer reviewed.

you dont know much about the process of coming up with financials ...

the normal investigators are arthur anderson (the accountants), the SEC and the banks ... they all knew exactly what was happening and did nothing ... and everyone outside that circle would have had no way of knowing how fuct up the situation really was because they had the doctored financial statements which they were supposed to be able to rely on telling htem everyhting was ok

just like the NIST report left out anything that created a problem for their fairy tale

[a_joker10]

How long have you worked in the NIST PR dept?











You don't care about who exploded the towers on 9/11. 

You know damn well that one test on the metal showing nanothermite residue would render that entire NIST document worthless.

Classic try to discredit me, by making it personal.
I have posted the reasons why testing for nanothermite would be inconclusive and why I believe that the towers came down.
I happen to agree with the official report.

I care who attacked America with planes. I don't think there were explosives in the building.

[a_joker10]

you dont know much about the process of coming up with financials ...

the normal investigators are arthur anderson (the accountants), the SEC and the banks ... they all knew exactly what was happening and did nothing ... and everyone outside that circle would have had no way of knowing how fuct up the situation really was because they had the doctored financial statements which they were supposed to be able to rely on telling htem everyhting was ok

just like the NIST report left out anything that created a problem for their fairy tale

Your right I now little about how business come up with financial statements.

I do however know how the scientific community works. It is based on peer review. Science is one of the business that always tries to disprove a theory.
NIST report was reviewed by its peers and even had input from the general public. If you don't believe me go to their site.

If the scientific community has different peer reviewed hypothesis then it would get interesting. They don't.

[240 is Back]

I care who attacked America with planes. I don't think there were explosives in the building.

I definitely enjoy this aspect of the conversation.

Okay, straight up here.  You saw how all the concrete in WTC7 was converted into powder, and did that little pyroclastic flow with the dust clouds.

Looking at all the fires throughout history - slow, ugly collapses of only partial areas (those with severe fire damage).   Looking at the WTC - I mean, very large chunks of the building were still completely intact when the collapse occured - easily 50% and I would wager 80+%...

This building converted itself to powder and 20-30 feet of debris.  In under 10 seconds.

Don't tell us about the NIST report for it, which may or may not come out.

In your opinion - do you really believe the building did this with zero explosives?