Question for the Official Conspiracy Theory supporters

[HamdenRice]

Some of us have posted extensive discussions with supporting links concerning the links between Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence agency and the alleged hijackers. As you know, the chief of the ISI, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, was in intense discussions with the chairs of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Porter Goss and Bob Graham, in the summer of 2001, and Gen. Ahmad came to Washington days before the 9/11 attacks to meet with top officials of the defense, intelligence and diplomatic communities.

This is old news to everyone on these boards, both supporters and critics of the official story, so I won't reiterate it here.

But the peculiar thing is that I have never once read an explanation by an official story supporter of how these well documented facts fit into the official story. Most of the time, you simply ingore these posts. From time to time, you will say you simply reject these facts, presumably because it does not fit into the official theory. Once in a while an official story supporter will argue that Ahmad somehow knew that he would not be caught in the US and his role would not be disclosed until he returned to Pakistan, but I haven't really seen this argued with any conviction or detail.

My question here is, without talking about controlled demolition, the melting point of steel, no plane theories, space rays, mini nukes, etc.: will any official story supporter make an attempt to address this anamoly of the official story? I dedicate this thread entirely to your attempt to do so.

[greyl]

1. .

This has been posted before, but it was rejected on the fallacious grounds that 911myths.com is a bushco shill site.

[HamdenRice]

3. No, it is rejected because it is nonsense

The basic argument hidden in the convoluted argument of that site on the Ahmed issue is simply: this was reported in India, Pakistan and France, and you can't trust the news media coming from those countries.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Are you saying that the Indian press is objective about Pakistan?

The site doesn't dismiss the claim coming from the Indian paper, it simply gives a justifiable warning about accepting the story wholeheartedly. The language certainly isn't as dismissive as the same site's debunking of other issues.

However, Ahmed is still under house arrest these days, isn't he?

[greyl]

7. Your reply is unconvincing,

and right in line with the other out of hand dismissals that Inside Job Cultists make.

[MervinFerd]

9. Your reply misrepresents the 911Myths argument.

Which is most certainly -not- nonsense and does not reject the claim out-of-hand.

The article says that the information is murky and subject to multiple interpretations.

This is what one would expect.

Do you really think that there would be a clear, unambiguous proof of such an event in the public press? Ambiguity is all we are going to get.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. I find this very disturbing, for one

And always have. I don't think Ahmed's support of the 9/11 hijackers implicates Bush or the US Government in a material way, but then again, when threads start getting tugged, what unravels is what unravels. Bush's father had to deal with a diplomat who gave Saddam a "thumbs up" on invading Kuwait, and it has been my observation that throughout history, the surviving powerful have always learned from their mistakes.

The question is, what's in it for Pakistan? That answer appears to be: become a vital part of America's response against al-Qaeda as they had to be, and thus gain crucial support in their struggle against India. Did Musharref know about this? I don't have any evidence for or against that. I gather that Ahmed and other Pakistani officers of his rank have (or had, in his case) a larger degree of autonomy than their counterparts in America would have.

If anyone ever proves MIHOP, it will be right here.

PS: Let me hasten to disclaim - I like the treatment of this issue at the site greyl provides. But this issue is murkier than things like you foreswore in the OP, Hamden.

[HamdenRice]

4. Thanks for your open minded opinion

An honest "I don't know" is always acceptable.

On edit: I have not "foresworn" other theories; I just don't want to engage them in this thread and generally don't know if they are proveable.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Re: foresworn - that's all I meant n/t

[MervinFerd]

8. This is an entirely different thing than Holographic Death Rays.

Or the other CTs you mention.

-One- of the reasons for not believing the CTs is that they are absurdly complicated and dangerous to the perpetrators. Any part of the American Gov't planning a False Flag attack would do something like you suggest--manipulate a foreign government into supporting a terrorist group that would do the deed. After the initial stages, all proceeds as in the "OCT" and there is no evidence otherwise. Planting tons of explosives in the WTC, or rigging remote controlled aircraft is just unnecessary, as well as impossible.

It seems to me rather -more- likely that there the CIA had numerous nefarious things going on in that part of the world. Pakistan was supporting the Taliban, as was the US at one point. India and Pakistan are hostile nuclear powers; Pakistan was selling nuclear secrets to the highest bidder. With a little imagination, one can see how many strands could be interwoven in ways the administration (and the rest of the Gov't wouldn't want the public to see). Those strands could well lead to results nobody could predict. The movie Syriana explores how American corruption can interact with Mid-Eastern corruption to produce tragic effects.

(The theories you mention are also incoherent, physically and institutionally impossible, and supported by fallacious logic and false data. But, in the spirit of the post, let's leave that aside for the moment.)

[mhatrw]

11. How open-minded of you once again! n/t

[MervinFerd]

13. Are you being sarcastic?

-One- of the reasons that some of us take the time to debunk foolish theories is that we think there -is- stuff hidden that needs to be investigated and that bullshit about Holographic Death Rays just gives the administration cover.

[KJF]

10. CNN says:

Suspected hijacker Mohammed Atta received wire transfers via Pakistan and then distributed the cash via money orders bought here in Florida.

A senior law enforcement source tells CNN, the man sending the money to Atta is believed to be Ahmed Omar Sayeed Sheikh.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/07/sm.13.html

Kathy Gannon wrote in 2002:

Western intelligence sources believe Saeed sent $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, the suspected ringleader of the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackings,
http://web.archive.org/web/20021231182956/http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/021002/new_0210020108.shtml
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0801ransommoney

So it's not just the Indians that think the transfer happened. It was reported by Pakistanis, too.

We are doing more on this and it should appear at the website in a few days (hopefully). Just check recently added events.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

The way I see it the money came from one of Ansari's companies in Dubai to Saeed in Pakistan and he wired it to Atta through a charity (the Al Rashid Trust - its assets were frozen at the same time as Osama's).

It's hard to say what Mike at 911myths really thinks about it. As far as I can make out he's trying to suggest the money was sent to, say, Darkazanli and the Indian press is bigging the story up.

IMO Saeed sent at least USD 100,000 to Atta in August 2001. I'm not so sure about the other funding - it could be from Saeed or from someone else (say, Ali). As for the link to Mahmood Ahmed, AFAIK Indian intelligence just has the phone company records, not recordings of the calls, so we don't know exactly what they were talking about. Plus, this is supposed to be in the summer of 2000. Some of Saeed's e-mails were recovered for August 2001 and indicate he really did send USD 100,000, although they don't specify to whom (just a "noble cause").

On edit: spelling.

[KJF]

12. Lee Hamilton says:

Solomon: There’s also allegations that the Pakistani Secret Service, called the ISI, the head of which met here in the United States right before 9/11, and there’s some allegations and evidence to show that they paid Mohammed Atta $100,000. The reason this is important is: who funded the people who conducted the attacks, the terrorist attacks? What did the Commission make of payment from the ISI to Mohammed Atta of $100,000?

Hamilton: I don’t know anything about it.

Solomon: Was there any connection between.. Did the Commission investigate any connection between ISI, Pakistani intelligence, and..

Hamilton: They may have; I do not recall us writing anything about it in the report. We may have but I don’t recall it. We did estimate that Osama bin Laden spent about $500,000 for the 9/11 attacks. We did not identify all the sources of that money.
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

Pure comedy - better than Swiss Toni.