Breaking News! 9/11 Mastermind confesses

If you've actually read that story, you'd know that no conclusion is reached, and that no conclusion is even possible based on what's written there. A full page (page 4) is dedicated simply to describing what Israel has either done or been acused of in the past, seemingly in an effort to indict these "art students" based on history. Even more bizarre is that, apparently, despite the author's contention that Israel is extremely skilled in conducting intelligence operations, the "art students" described demonstrate zero skill in covering their tracks, apparently being "caught" frequently in places they weren't supposed to be and approaching government agents directly with no apparent purpose. If they are indeed Mossad, then they must be the most incompetent agents ever fielded by their home country...

Further, there is nothing in that story that indicates a direct relationship between the "art students" and the CIA, which is the latest nonsense you've been foisting on us in this thread, of which I've asked you for evidence.
 
Good morning,

I strongly recommend that you read this article about how KSM became the official mastermind of the 9/11 attacks:

http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20070317133619214

I'm still going through the sources because some are not presented.

(For source of Fouda's lie about the timing of his alleged june 2002 interview with KSM, source is here: http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall02/Fouda.html)

What do you honestly think? (answer only if you have actually read the article please)

Busherie
 
I think you should read the 9/11 Commission report and point out what it gets wrong, as should have the author of the article. Here's chapter 5. I'll be glad to read your critique. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm

Gravy, I have a bit of a problem with the Commission report about KSM.

Because we are told to believe that these information obtained under torture are the truth. How do I know if all of this hasn't been written by propaganda specialists? The answer is: We do'nt know.

When you read this...

"Detainee Interrogation Reports
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot.
Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.
We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report. We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government.2"




And then you check the notes that support the chapter 5 about KSM's life and actions:




1.Though KSM and Bin Ladin knew each other from the anti-Soviet campaign of the 1980s, KSM apparently did not begin working with al Qaeda until after the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM, Nov. 21, 2003; Jan. 9, 2004; Feb. 19, 2004.
2.Those detainees are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Riduan Isamuddin (also known as Ham-bali), Abd al Rahim al Nashiri,Tawfiq bin Attash (also known as Khallad), Ramzi Binalshibh, Mohamed al Kah-tani,Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani,Ali Abd al Rahman al Faqasi al Ghamdi (also known as Abu Bakr al Azdi), and Hassan Ghul.
3. On KSM's relationship to Yousef and his ethnicity, see CIA analytic report, Khalid Sheik Muhammad's Nephews, CTC 2003-300013, Jan. 31, 2003. On KSM's biography, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, July 12, 2003; FBI electronic communication, requests for information on KSM colleges/universities, June 10, 2002.
4. In an uncorroborated post-capture claim that may be mere bravado, KSM has stated that he considered assassinating Rabbi Meir Kahane when Kahane lectured in Greensboro at some point between 1984 and 1986. Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, July 12, 2003. On KSM's connection to Sayyaf, see Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM, July 3, 2003; July 12, 2003; FBI electronic communication,"Summary of Information . . . with regard to . . . KSM," July 8, 1999. On KSM's battle experience and his electronics work, see Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM, July 3, 2003; July 12, 2003. On KSM's anti-Soviet activities, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, Feb. 17, 2004 (in which KSM says he apparently met Bin Ladin for the first time when the Sayyaf group and Bin Ladin's Arab mujahideen group were next to each other along the front line).
5. Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, July 12, 2003 (in which KSM also notes that his group continued fighting in the Jalalabad area, and his brother Abid was killed there). KSM claims that Ramzi Yousef visited the NGO's establishment in Jalalabad while Yousef was undergoing training. KSM adds that between 1993 and 1996, he traveled to China, the Philippines, Pakistan, Bosnia (a second time), Brazil, Sudan, and Malaysia. Most, if not all, of this travel appears to have been related to his abiding interest in carrying out terrorist operations.Although KSM claims that Sheikh Abdallah was not a member, financier, or supporter of al Qaeda, he admits that Abdallah underwrote a 1995 trip KSM took to join the Bosnia jihad. Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, July 23, 2003.
6. On KSM's learning of Yousef 's plans, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, Jan. 9, 2004 (in which KSM also contends that Yousef never divulged to him the intended target of the attack). On KSM/Yousef phone conversations, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, Feb. 17, 2004 (in which KSM also says that most of his phone conversations with Yousef were social in nature, but that Yousef did discuss mixing explosives ingredients once or twice and that on one occasion,Yousef asked him to send the passport Yousef had in his true name,Abdul Basit). On KSM's money transfer, see FBI report,Tradebom investigation, Mar. 20, 1993.
7. Evidence gathered at the time of Yousef 's February 1995 arrest included dolls wearing clothes containing nitrocellulose. FBI evidence, Manila air investigation. On KSM's rationale for attacking the United States, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, Sept. 5, 2003 (in this regard, KSM's statements echo those of Yousef, who delivered an extensive polemic against U.S. foreign policy at his January 1998 sentencing). On the Manila air plot, see Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM,Apr. 17, 2003; July 12, 2003 (in which KSM also says bojinka is not Serbo-Croatian for "big bang," as has been widely reported, but rather a nonsense word he adopted after hearing it on the front lines in Afghanistan).According to KSM, the plot was to receive financing from a variety of sources, including associates of co-conspirator Wali Khan and KSM's own funds. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM, Nov. 26, 2003; Jan. 9, 2004; Feb. 19, 2004. On activities during the summer of 1994, see Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM, May 3, 2003; July 12, 2003; Nov. 10, 2003; Feb. 21, 2004; Feb. 24, 2004.




And it goes on, which leads me to the conclusion that he whole 9/11 CR KSM story is very likely to be based on torture and/or false documents.


I'm sorry Gravy, but I can't take this report for granted. I'm sure you will agree.




I'd love to see your analysis of the article I linked.

Thx very mych

Busherie

 
WTF, dude? Did you miss that the article is from 2003 and posits that Khalid may be dead?
Obviously, since in 2003 nobody knew what happened to him. The article is relevant though. I'm preparing a shorter version because it's a very dense article.
 
Evidence that torture was involved in eliciting KSM or Binalshibh's statements?

Evidence that statements KSM made prior to his capture were coerced?
 
Obviously, since in 2003 nobody knew what happened to him. The article is relevant though. I'm preparing a shorter version because it's a very dense article.
My point is that much has been learned since that entirely speculative article was written.

If KSM's statements are supported by other evidence and by other detainee statements, will you dismiss them anyway?

If he pleads guilty at trial will you dismiss his plea? What do you make of his admissions to Yosri Fouda in 2002?

ETA: and do you believe KSM is a terrorist?
 
Evidence that torture was involved in eliciting KSM or Binalshibh's statements?

Evidence that statements KSM made prior to his capture were coerced?

First question: well, it's pretty obvious that torture was involved. What do you think takes place in gitmo? why do you think nobody was granted access to the detaineeds? why do think they aren't given a lawyer? multiple reports show KSM was subjected to waterboarding... (it was posted in this thread if i remmeber, an ABC article if i'm correct. We can assum the same for binalshibh.

Second question: well that's one of the questions by the fouda interview: the article shows clearly that fouda's account places in the interview not in june, but in may or april... What more can we learn about Fouda's interview? i'm analyzing the article right now.
 
My point is that much has been learned since that entirely speculative article was written.

If KSM's statements are supported by other evidence and by other detainee statements, will you dismiss them anyway?

If he pleads guilty at trial will you dismiss his plea? What do you make of his admissions to Yosri Fouda in 2002?

ETA: and do you believe KSM is a terrorist?

Entirely speculative article?: multiple sources are quoted.

detainee's statements? if they come from gitmo, this is no proof at all.
Imagine I put you in jail, then publish your statements saying "I believe 9/11 was an inside job"after 5 years of dentention and waterboarding without seeing a lawyer, a NGO, or anything that looks like a decent judicial system, will other people believe these statements?

Obvisouly, they won't. And they wil be right.

Fouda's article should be taken with caution, since we do no know the exact date. The exact date, before or after the US administration came out saying KSM was the mastermind, is very important.

i'll get back to you as soon i finish analyzing the article.

Busherie
 
If he pleads guilty at trial will you dismiss his plea? What do you make of his admissions to Yosri Fouda in 2002?

ETA: and do you believe KSM is a terrorist?

If he pleas guilty for 9/11, I'll pay attention to the HARD evidence.

Obvisouly KSM is a terrorist! Obviously he is part of AQ.

The question is: is he the mastermind of 9/11?

B
 
First question: well, it's pretty obvious that torture was involved. What do you think takes place in gitmo? why do you think nobody was granted access to the detaineeds? why do think they aren't given a lawyer? multiple reports show KSM was subjected to waterboarding... (it was posted in this thread if i remmeber, an ABC article if i'm correct. We can assum the same for binalshibh.
Ah, but you miss my point. I asked you for evidence, not speculation. Now, suppose no evidence is forthcoming that his confession was coerced, but KSM retracts his confession on thost grounds anyway? Whose word would you take: his, or the U.S. governments?

Second question: well that's one of the questions by the fouda interview: the article shows clearly that fouda's account places in the interview not in june, but in may or april... What more can we learn about Fouda's interview? i'm analyzing the article right now.
The author presents a false choice dilemma there. He posits that KSM was suspiciously elevated to the status of a major player by investigators in June, without giving us any evidence that this is so. Then he asks us to chose between these scenarios:

Scenario One: Khalid and Binalshibh's respective roles in the plot were first discovered solely due to Fouda's contact with them; or Scenario Two: The decision to send Fouda on his interview errand was made at the same time that a decision was made to market Khalid as the new 9/11 mastermind
That's bad logic and bad reporting, with loads of leading verbiage.
 
I'm gad we agree at least that KSM is a terrorist! He's been wanted by the U.S. since 1996.

I'm not in favor of the use of torture, but if it comes down to KSM's word about that versus the US's, I'm siding with the US.
 
Last edited:
Fouda's interview date

Ah, but you miss my point. I asked you for evidence, not speculation. Now, suppose no evidence is forthcoming that his confession was coerced, but KSM retracts his confession on thost grounds anyway? Whose word would you take: his, or the U.S. governments?

The author presents a false choice dilemma there. He posits that KSM was suspiciously elevated to the status of a major player by investigators in June, without giving us any evidence that this is so. Then he asks us to chose between these scenarios:

That's bad logic and bad reporting, with loads of leading verbiage.

Evidence (i'm sad I have to show evidence, everybody show know this by now)

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866


Concerning Fouda's article, I think after a thorough analysis we can assume that he lied about the date of the interview to protect himself. Remember Ramzi (who was with KSM at the time of interview) was arrested soon after, in September.

Fouda was accused of being responsible for this by extremists. So he tried to protect himself. Read this:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]But to get back to Ramzi. Shortly after your documentary appeared around the anniversary of 9/11, Ramzi was caught by the Pakistanis and turned over to American intelligence officers. This capture was described by President Bush as a major boost in the war of terrorism but you found yourself initially denounced as "a pig and a traitor" on various Islamist websites and you told the Washington Post (which reported as did other media that the interview had taken place in Karachi last June) that you "couldn't blame people for thinking what they do" and that you yourself wondered at first if there could have been some unforeseeable link.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]YF: Yeah. Well there were rumors going around at the time that American intelligence agents were secretly planting tracking devices on Al Jazeera correspondents likely to be in contact with Al-Qa'ida. But when you think about it, that doesn't make sense. If that were the case why would the intelligence apparatus wait for all that time to act? According to the official version, the interviews took place in June but they didn't get hold of Ramzi until early mid-September. Actually this question of dates is very important for another reason. All of these Islamist websites that were denouncing me alluded to my interview as taking place in June. That's what I mentioned both in my article in The Sunday Times Magazine and in my documentary-that I met them in June.

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]SAS: So?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]YF: I lied.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]SAS: Really?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]YF: Yeah.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]SAS: But you're going to come clean with TBS, right?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]
YF
(laughter): Yes, of course. I lied because I needed to lie. I'll tell you why. Because I thought, maybe even expected, that if something went wrong and I needed to get in touch with them through a website or a statement or a fax or whatever-the people that I met then and the people who were around them, they would be the only ones who would know that I had met them one month earlier than I let on, and so I'd know I was talking to the right people. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]So after the first wave of denunciations a pro-Qa'ida website "jehad.net" put up a statement online in the name of Al-Qa'ida clearing me of any blame or connection with Ramzi's arrest and I knew this was an authentic communiqué because it alluded to the interview taking place in May.[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]However, I have a little problem with this asummption, because he changed his version later on: (source is the article I posted a the begining)
[/SIZE][/FONT]

"Apparently, Fouda had lied again, for on March 4, 2003 (i.e. a few days after Khalid's eventual arrest), Fouda offered up this newest version of his 48-hour encounter to The Guardian:
"It was late afternoon, Sunday 21 April 2002, when I packed my bags before joining Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-shibh for a last prayer before saying goodbye."​
That, as they say in legal parlance, is a very
definite recollection. In short, Fouda had impeached his own testimony through these two explicitly detailed, contradictory dates."

But the article goes on:

"Fouda, through this compounded lie, was now calling into question the very credibility of his entire interview with Khalid and Binalshibh..."

I'm not sure we can go that far, but why change his version many times?

There is another problem: remember the jehad.net communiqué i put in blue above?


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]I knew this was an authentic communiqué because it alluded to the interview taking place in May.

Wow, problem here... then the communiqué lies as well? Is it just a mistake in the communiqué?

Honestly, is there any room for doubts here?

The "i lied to protect myself" theory is weakened by this double mistake.

What do you think?
[/SIZE][/FONT]



 
If he pleas guilty for 9/11, I'll pay attention to the HARD evidence.

Obvisouly KSM is a terrorist! Obviously he is part of AQ.

The question is: is he the mastermind of 9/11?

B



Operation Bojinka, 1995.

-Gumboot
 
Yes, he is inconsistent with the date of the meeting with KSM and Ramzi. I dont even understand why he needs to tell the TBS interviewer about this lie. All he needs to say is that Islamic websites accused me of complicity in Ramzi's arrest, Al Quaeda cleared me with a statement on jehad.net. The relevance of the May date is known only to him, not to people reading Al Quaeda's statement.

What about the rest of his interview, busherie? It strikes me that he is either a masterful liar or he is telling the truth. Of course, if he is lying then Al Jazeera join the cast of thousands involved in this alledged 9/11 conspiracy.
 
Yes, he is inconsistent with the date of the meeting with KSM and Ramzi. I dont even understand why he needs to tell the TBS interviewer about this lie. All he needs to say is that Islamic websites accused me of complicity in Ramzi's arrest, Al Quaeda cleared me with a statement on jehad.net. The relevance of the May date is known only to him, not to people reading Al Quaeda's statement.

What about the rest of his interview, busherie? It strikes me that he is either a masterful liar or he is telling the truth. Of course, if he is lying then Al Jazeera join the cast of thousands involved in this alledged 9/11 conspiracy.
I think you ask some good questions.

There are questions raised by his changing timelines as shown in my previous post.

I don't think that the eventuality of him lying about the date or the content interview implicates Al J as a whole.

You know journalists are always looking for scoops. The descrepancies about the date of the interview are troublesome, that's for sure.

It raises questions, that's what I wanted to underline.

It even raises the question: was he the mastermind? Or whas it convenient for the US government to present him as the big mastermind?

Remember, they were kept in the dark for a long time, pressured by 9/11 families to come up with answers and clear culprits.

Did they have word of the Fouda interview and therefore said they had found the mastermind?

If I sum it up: the US administration ironically "found out" KSM was the mastermind thanks to Fouda's interview. If Fouda's made it up (as the changing dates seem to raise the possibility), is it possible KSM just became the convenient culprit?

Then why did he confirm it in Gitmo? Well remember this guy:
- was tortured
- likes to put himsled as the super mastermind of all the attacks that have occured in the last 10 years...


PS: note that I believe the attacks were carried out by AQ. My question here is: was KSM presented as the mastermind of 9/11 just because it looks "nice" for the 9/11 familes, the american public, and the world in general?
 
IIf I sum it up: the US administration ironically "found out" KSM was the mastermind thanks to Fouda's interview.
Absolutely, 100% wrong busherie. KSM was the primary suspect to being the mastermind behind 9/11 and in Daniel Pearl's murder long before the al Jazeera interview. Once again, you're changing facts to fit your story, because you simply can't handle the truth.
 

Back
Top Bottom