Latest revision as of 20:34, 1 July 2012
The 9/11 truth movement has been criticised by many for focusing on poking holes in the "official story", rather than developing any coherent narrative of what they believed happened on that day. Even details like motive are unclear for many claimed actions. Why would anyone want to demolish WTC7, for instance? There's no real agreement.
There is, however, one notable exception in the case of Saeed Sheikh, the man who it's claimed wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta on the orders of ISI chief General Mahmud Ahmad. Many significant researchers believe his story to be of great importance (Paul Thompson describes him as September 11's "smoking gun").
And for once it's not just about finding anomalies within the "official story" - there's an actual theory about what it all means, and how it may support a 9/11 coverup.
The theory
The background to this story is lengthy and complex, and if you're unfamiliar with it then you really should do a little research before continuing. Read "Sept. 11's Smoking Gun: The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh" and Chaim Kupferberg's Daniel Pearl and the Paymaster of 9/11: 9/11 and The Smoking Gun that Turned On its Trackerbefore you continue. If you've read them already, though, you'll already be familiar with the core theory, which runs something like this.
Soon after 9/11 the US began to identify sources of cash that appear to have been used to prepare the attacks. Paul Thompson describes this:
So the US moved gradually towards identifying Saeed Sheikh. What is the significance? Kuperberg tells us it made it much easier to connect bin Laden to 9/11:
But then there was a problem. The transfer was reportedly connected to the head of Pakistan's ISI. Thompson tells us:
The ISI chief had been in Washington talking with very high level officials immediately before the attacks, and on 9/11 itself. If General Ahmad were to be exposed then this might also implicate the US government, explains Kupferberg:
So the plan changed, and now many other names were introduced. In the resulting confusion just about everyone forgot that Saeed Sheikh was ever implicated. Here's Thompson:
Not only did Mahmood suddenly become persona non grata, but so did Saeed Sheikh, now that he was implicated in Mahmood’s story. He was again mentioned as the 9/11 paymaster the day before the Mahmood story broke [CNN, 10/8/01], and then suddenly, all mention of him ceased (with one exception [CNN, 10/28/01]). Since then, the FBI has put forth a variety of alternates for the identity of the person in the 9/11 paymaster role. The story is too complicated to greatly detail here, but the FBI and media have variously filled Saeed Sheikh’s shoes with an Egyptian named Shaykh Saiid [Sydney Morning Herald, 9/28/01, New York Times, 10/15/01, Los Angeles Times, 10/20/01], a Saudi named Sa’d Al-Sharif, said to be bin Laden’s brother-in-law [Newsweek, 11/11/01, AP, 12/18/01], a Kenyan named Sheik Sayyid el Masry [CNN, 10/16/01, Trial Transcript, 2/20/01, Trial Transcript, 2/21/01], a Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi or al-Hisawi (suggesting no alias was used) [MSNBC, 12/11/01, Wall Street Journal, 6/17/02], a Shaikh Saiid al-Sharif [AP, 6/4/02], an Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (for some of the money transfers) [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/26/02], and so on. Most recently, the FBI said the most well-known candidate, Shaikh Saiid al-Sharif, doesn’t actually exist, but is probably a composite of Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hisawi, Shaikh Saiid al-Masri, and Saad al-Sharif. [AP, 12/26/02] Newsweek, in describing yet another name variation, Mustafa Ahmad Adin Al-Husawi, says the person “remains almost a total mystery,” and no one is sure of his name or even if he is one person. [Newsweek, 9/4/02] (Note that Saeed appears to be a master of disguise, as can be seen by the bewildering number of names he is referred to in the media: Sheik Syed, Ahmad Umar Sheikh, Umar Sheikh, Sheik Omar Saeed, Omar Saiid Sheikh, Sheikh Omar, etc… He opened bank accounts using many of his name variations, or even completely unrelated names. [The News, 2/13/02])
While the FBI and media have been putting forth a series of names sounding remarkably similar to Saeed Sheikh or the aliases he used, they have been ignoring or forgetting solid evidence that links Saeed Sheikh to the funding of 9/11. To do so would mean confronting Saeed’s ISI ties, and the possibility that he was acting on orders from Mahmood, or even President Musharraf.
http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essaysaeed
In summary, then, the claim is that Saeed Sheikh was initially identifed by the US as a financier of the attacks, but after being linked to General Mahmud Ahmad the FBI and others put forward a series of other names in an effort to obscure his involvement (claimed or real). A number of sources are used to support this, but as is so often the case in 9/11 stories, everything is not quite as it seems.
Immediate problems
You don't need an in-depth knowledge of 9/11 to realise that this theory has some very obvious problems.
No-one's yet made a definitive case to show that that Sheikh transferred any money to Atta, for instance.
Even if he did, there's vanishingly little evidence to show that Ahmad had anything to do with it. Read more about the realities behind these claims on the ISI funding of the attacks page.
And even if General Mahmud Ahmad could be implemented in the funding, why should this lead anyone to suspect US involvement? It's hardly a surprise to hear that someone in the pro-Taliban ISI, even the chief, might want to support a radical Islamist. And on the other hand there is no evidence whatsoever to show that he did so because American conspirators requested it. The idea is bizarre: why would Ahmad help frame al Qaeda in the first place? Go check Thompson's and Kupferberg's essays and you'll find they have little light to shed on this part of their theory.
The bulk of the story relies on the initial US reports, then, supposedly first naming Sheikh, then moving to others after the ISI story became public. But these, too, are far weaker than Thompson and Kupferberg reveal.
Initial identifications
Paul Thompson described the initial reports here, as we read earlier:
On September 23, 2001, it was first reported that authorities were now (finally) looking for Saeed Sheikh, though it wasn’t explained why. [London Times, 9/23/01] The next day, it was reported that the 9/11 “paymaster” had been found, using the alias “Mustafa Ahmed.” [Newsweek, 9/24/01] On October 1, 2001, the Guardian reported, “The man at the center of the financial web is believed to be Sheikh Saeed, also known as Mustafa Mohamed Ahmad,” but it wasn’t immediately clear who this person was. [Guardian, 10/1/01] On October 6, CNN revealed that “US investigators now believe Sheik Syed, using the alias Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, sent more than $100,000 from Pakistan to Mohamed Atta.” More importantly, CNN confirmed that this was in fact the same Saeed Sheikh who had been released from an Indian prison in 1999. [CNN, 10/6/01]
The first story referring to Saeed Sheikh was this one:
London Student Has Key Role In Terror Network
by Nick Fielding
The London Times
September 23, 2001
As a pupil at his London prep school, the academic talents of Ahmed Omar Sheikh were already apparent to his parents and teachers. Not only was he mathematically gifted, but he also displayed a flair for chess, winning a competition for all-comers from the capital.
After A-levels at private school, a future in the City beckoned as he began his course in mathematics and statistics at the London School of Economics (LSE).
That was seven years ago. Today he is the subject of an international manhunt, identified by British and Indian authorities as an Islamic terrorist linked to Osama Bin Laden, the prime suspect behind the attack on the World Trade Center. Omar Sheikh's intelligence, his experience as a fighter in the "holy war" for independence in Kashmir and his charisma have even led Indian intelligence experts to describe him as a potential leader of the fractured Islamic movement.
How the boy from the well-to-do family in Wanstead, east London, came to join the world of Islamic terrorism provides an insight into the kind of people such organisations are now looking to recruit. Like many of the World Trade Center bombers, he is highly educated, articulate and committed to his cause.
Omar Sheikh, now 27, first emerged as a figure in the Islamic movement in 1994 when he kidnapped three Britons and an American in India. He was caught when police stormed his hideout. An officer and one of the kidnappers were killed in the exchange of fire.
However, after three years in prison awaiting trial, all charges against him were dropped after a hostage exchange. He and two other Islamic militants were freed in return for the release of 154 hostages seized when hijackers took over an Indian aircraft on Christmas Eve 1999 and flew it to Afghanistan. One of those hijackers is suspected of being involved in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
British officials have now asked India for legal assistance in seeking information on the whereabouts of Omar Sheikh, whose family still lives in Wanstead. British security services confirmed this weekend that they wanted him for questioning.
Since the hostage exchange, Omar Sheikh has disappeared, though he is believed to have returned to Kashmir, where he began his terrorist career fighting with Muslim militants for independence from India.
Although his parents were from Pakistan, there are few clues in Omar Sheikh's early upbringing to explain his conversion to radical Islam. His parents were ambitious for their bright son and paid for the best education they could afford.
He repaid them by working hard. At Forest School in Snaresbrook, east London, where he took his A-levels, he got not only an A grade in mathematics but also a merit in a special paper. Popular with staff, who saw him as "pleasant and communicative", he was made head of house and a school monitor.
"He had a jolly good brain and was a willing and capable student," said George Paynter, his tutor in economics at the school. Besides A in mathematics, he also got an A in economics and a B in general studies.
One of the only signs of his future interest in Islam was his decision to take an AS-level in religious studies in the sixth form, which he passed.
According to Paynter, he also had a "penchant for arm-wrestling in professional contests". With the support of a glowing reference from the school, he secured a place at the LSE.
For the first year, he pursued his course with the same dedication as he had his school studies. It was 1993, the height of the war in Bosnia between Muslims and Serbs. Omar Sheikh decided to join a charity mission to help fellow Muslims. The desolation, stories of rapes and murders of the Muslims affected him profoundly.
He returned to Britain, but, disenchanted with his studies, decided to go to Afghanistan and train as a guerrilla fighter under the aegis of Bin Laden. From there he joined Harakat ul-Ansar, one of the most militant Kashmiri separatist groups. Now known as Harakut ul- Mujaheddin, the group is close to Bin Laden.
When Bin Laden issued a fatwa calling for attacks on America in February 1998, it was signed by one of the organisation's leaders.
Whether Omar Sheikh will play a part in an American conflict is unknown. His key role within the group is, however, confirmed by the Indian authorities.
"He has a good-quality educational background and is highly motivated," said an Indian police officer who handled his case. "The fact they were willing to organise a plane hijack to get him free shows they think he is very important."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/londontimes092301.html
As we can see, there's no mention of US involvement here.
The second story, appearing in the Guardian, is more helpful:
Thompson told us that "it wasn’t immediately clear who this person was", but that's a little disingenuous. We can be reasonably sure who they're talking about here: and it's not Saeed Sheikh.
The first clue is in the name, Sheikh Saeed. A few articles after this suggested Saeed Sheikh used this as an alias, but we've seen no evidence of that. In any event, why would an article use an alias rather than his real name?
But the major revelation is that he "worked as a financial manager for Bin Laden when the Saudi exile was based in Sudan". Bin Laden was in Sudan from 1991 to 1996; Paul Thompson's own essay doesn't connect Saeed Sheikh with al Qaeda until 1994, and although he says Sheikh "developed close ties with al Qaeda" at this time, he would also in languishing in a prison later that same year. Thompson provides no evidence that Saeed Sheikh was ever in Sudan, and the timetable makes it very unlikely that he could have played any major part in bin Laden's financing there.
And it doesn't stop there. Search a little further and you find there is a Sheik Saeed al-Masri, sometimes known only as Sheikh Sayyid, who was in Sudan with bin Laden and has been described as handling al Qaeda finances:
Mustafa Ahmed Mohammed Uthman Abu al-Yazid (a.k.a. "Sheikh Saeed al-Masri") is an Eyptian national born in 1955...
According to the As-Sahab Media Foundation (the official media wing of Al-Qaida's central leadership in Pakistan and Afghanistan), Mustafa Abu al-Yazidfirst came "yo Jihad in Afghanistan in 1988. He took part in founding al-Qaida in 1989, and is a member of the Shura council of Qaida al-Jihad." This information was confirmed during sworn testimony by former Al-Qaida member Jamal al-Fadl during United States v. Usama Bin Laden et al. (SDNY, 2001). Al-Fadl recalled that al-Yazid had served on Al-Qaida's Shura Council from an early point in the organization's history, and that-while in exile in the Sudan in 1991-al-Yazid even had his office in the same building as Usama Bin Laden in the city of Khartoum. During direct examination by federal prosecutors, al-Fadl was asked to describe al-Yazid's role as chief "treasurer" for Al-Qaida and Bin Laden (herein, he is referred to be his pseudonum, "Sheikh Sayyid"):
Q. And what was that salary for?
A. That salary for from the al Qaeda members.
Q. And where did you go to get that salary?
A. I do to Sayyid el Masry office and he give it to me.
Q. That was in the same McNimr Street office?
A. Yes.
Q. And how much were you paid per month for your work for al Qaeda?
A. It's around $300.
Q. And how often would you be paid for al Qaeda work?
A. Monthly...
Q. And if you took a business trip from the Sudan to someplace else, who would pay the expenses of the trip?
A. The al Qaeda membership, the al Qaeda committe money.
Q. And what if you were sent on a business trip for Taba Investments?
A. We got same thing. Sometimes you got some money from Khalid Ali Waleed and you got extra Sheikh Sayyid el Masry...
Q. And why would you also get money from Sheikh Sayyid?
A. Because the al Qaeda tried to help the members for extra.
Al-Fad also acknowledged that he had actually worked for a time as an assistant to Mustafa Abu al-Yazid at his business office at his business office in Khartoum. Again, under examination by federal prosecutors:
Q. Did you ever become involved in actually helping to pay people the al Qaeda salary?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us what you did?
A. I help Sheikh Sayyid for the al Qaeda members, when they came, each one he write file, and we check his file and if he created money, we add it and we give him whatever money left...
Q. Now, can you tell us more specifically what you would do when you helped Sheikh Sayyid with the paytoll? What files were you given access to?
A. Some members, they came and I just checked their file and I sign, and I give it to Sheikh Sayyid and he gives them the money... we have different salary for al Qaeda members from Khalid Ali Waleed and from me and Sheikh Sayyid el Masry and we give them the files and all the papers."
Q. And what did the files look like?
A. The files, each person he got his own file and his nickname and his salary and if he created money, it go in that file."
Likewise, several sources have also reported that Mustafa Abu al-Yazid assisted in providing the 9/11 suicide hijackers with some of their financial arrangements.
http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/nefayazid0608.pdf
(See the full court transcript here).
The Guardian report is a clear match for this Sheikh Saeed, then - and it doesn't fit with Saeed Sheikh at all. Further, the article really only provides the same information that appeared in an Economist article of September 21st, 2001:
This story appeared before the first report mentioned by Thompson, and about two weeks before the ISI link was first proposed, and that illustrates a very important point: the media were not initially pointing the finger at Saeed Sheikh. And when, after the ISI story broke, other accounts also said the financier may have been Sheik Saeed al-Masri, they need not have been trying to "cover something up". They were simply repeating stories that appeared within 10 days of the attacks.
Other accounts
The early Economist story wasn't the only one to name Sheikh Saeed, rather than Saeed Sheikh, as a plot financier. Others repeated the Sudan connection.
Bush froze the assets of Shaykh Sai'id (aka, Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad) on September 24th 2001.
Another version of the above article:
In Sudan, Mr. al-Fadl worked in al-Qaeda's Khartoum office with a payroll officer, Sheik Saeed. Also known as Mustafa Ahmed, Sheik Saeed is believed to be the mysterious man in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, who sent money to hijacker Mohamed Atta and received other amounts back. The man disappeared on Sept. 11.
The Globe and Mail (Canada), October 9, 2001
This does lead on to another question, of course. Why did CNN say that Saeed Sheikh was suspected of providing the funds?
The CNN story
Here's the full text of the CNN story:
Suspected hijack bankroller freed by India in '99
October 6, 2001 Posted: 4:07 PM EDT (2007 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A man suspected of playing a key role in bankrolling the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States was released from prison in India less than two years ago after hijackers of an Indian Airlines flight demanded his freedom, a senior-level U.S. government source told CNN.
This source said U.S. 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.
Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest act of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead.
In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Syed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11.
Syed also is described as a key figure in the funding operation of al Qaeda, the network headed by suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.
But Syed would still be in prison were it not for the December 1999 hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814 -- an ordeal strikingly similar to the four hijackings carried out on September 11.
The plane, with 178 passengers on board, was en route from Katmandu, Nepal, to New Delhi, India, when terrorists used knives to take control of the aircraft, slitting the throat of one passenger to force the pilots to open the cockpit door.
For eight days, the passengers and crew were held hostage in a terrifying journey that finally ended up in Kandahar, Afghanistan, when the Indian government agreed to release three Islamic militants held in Indian prisons.
One of those men was Syed, widely recognized as the leader of an al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic militant group known as Harkat-ul-Muhahedin, which is fighting for independence for Kashmir, a disputed region between India and Pakistan.
Because investigators have now determined that Syed and Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad are the same person, it provides another key link to bin Laden as the mastermind of the overall plot. Investigators have said at least three of the 19 suspected hijackers were tied to al Qaeda.
Syed was educated at the London School of Economics and has experience in international money transfers. Indian intelligence officials said the last time they spotted him was six months ago at a bookstore in Islamabad, Pakistan.
"He is also linked to the financial network feeding bin Laden's assets, so therefore he's quite an important person," said Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert. "He's quite an influential person because he transfers money between various operatives, and he's a node between al Qaeda and foot soldiers on the ground."
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.terror.investigation/
This seems compelling at first, until you notice a problem or two.
The story never uses the name Saeed Sheikh, for instance, only referring to a "Sheik Syed". Again, is there any evidence that Saeed Sheikh used such an alias prior to 9/11? And why would an article use an alias rather than his real name?
Further, we've never seen anyone outside of this story say that Saeed Sheikh "transfers money between various operatives" or is "a node between al Qaeda and foot soldiers on the ground." But as we read previously, that's an excellent description of the function performed by Sheik Saeed al-Masri.
What's going on? It seems to us at least possible that CNN were told that the suspect was a "Sheik Syed", but something went wrong in the process of verifying who this was. As a result they mixed Magnus Ranstorp's comment about the real suspect with their own details about Saeed Sheikh, creating a story that really made very little sense at all.
This is just conjecture, of course, but it may explain something else. Kupferberg tells us:
His theory is that the story wasn't mentioned again because it was intentionally buried, as the ISI link might expose US involvement in 9/11. Our theory is that the story wasn't mentioned again because it was incorrect. Which is more plausible? You decide.
Aftermath
Part of the supposed case for a cover up is that, as Paul Thompson says:
But was this really true? Not in any meaningful way. Although he wasn't mentioned in the next few days (entirely understandably if the CNN report were incorrect), in early 2002 and after being connected to the murder of Daniel Pearl his claimed 9/11 connections made frequent appearance in the press. Thompson himself tells us this a little further down the page:
...one might think that the story of Daniel Pearl’s murderer’s ties to both the ISI and the 9/11 hijackers would be the subject of front page headlines. But, outside of India and Pakistan, the media generally reacted like Colin Powell. Most media accounts failed to mention Saeed’s ties to the ISI, al-Qaeda or 9/11. But even stranger were the accounts that reported on one of Saeed’s roles but not the others, as if Saeed’s different roles were done by completely different people. In the next several months, at least 12 US or British articles mentioned Saeed’s links to al-Qaeda [ABC News, 2/7/02, Boston Globe, 2/7/02, AP, 2/24/02, Los Angeles Times, 3/15/02], including his financing of 9/11 [New York Daily News, 2/7/02, CNN, 2/8/02, AP, 2/9/02, Guardian, 2/9/02, Independent, 2/10/02, Time, 2/10/02, New York Post, 2/10/02, Evening Standard, 2/12/02, Los Angeles Times, 2/13/02, New York Post, 2/22/02, Sunday Herald, 2/24/02, USA Today, 3/8/02], and at least 16 articles mentioned his links to the ISI. [Cox News, 2/21/02, Observer, 2/24/02, Telegraph, 2/24/02, Newsweek, 2/25/02, New York Times, 2/25/02, USA Today, 2/25/02, National Post, 2/26/02, Boston Globe, 2/28/02, Newsweek, 3/11/02, Newsweek, 3/13/02, Guardian, 4/5/02, MSNBC, 4/5/02] But only three articles considered that Saeed could have been connected to both groups at the same time [London Times, 2/25/02, London Times, 4/21/02, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 3/3/02], and only one of these mentioned he could be involved in the ISI, al-Qaeda and financing 9/11 all at the same time. [London Times, 4/21/02]
http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essaysaeed
Now "all mention of him ceased (with one exception)" is transformed into "at least 12 US or British" articles mentioning his "financing of 9/11" alone, and the complaint changes to an inability to mention all the points Thompson names. Whatever the merit of that claim, it's plain that Sheikh's claimed connection to 9/11 was not ignored by the media.
Conclusion
9/11 researchers have produced little evidence to show that Saeed Sheikh transferred any money to Mohamed Atta.
9/11 researchers have produced even less to demonstrate that General Mahmud Ahmed was involved.
Even if these two claims were to be proved, there's nothing to show US involvement, and in our view the idea that the story would have to be covered up to hide this is implausible in the extreme.
What's more, in this case there is no evidence of a coverup to conceal Saeed Sheikh's name. Those alleging this pretend that the media named him first, and only introduced others after the ISI claims broke, but that simply isn't true. As we've seen, the very first descriptions of the financier were more likely talking about Sheik Saeed al-Masri, not Saeed Sheikh, and this seems to have been the view of everyone until the flawed CNN report. And if the media did not consistently name Saeed Sheikh prior to the ISI story, then there's no reason to read anything into them not naming him afterwards. Although it turns out that claim is wrong, too - he was mentioned frequently. The supposed "smoking gun" turns out to be based on a false premise, then, and without more evidence we see no reason to believe there's anything here at all.
Further reading: