Complete 911 Timeline: Sept. 11’s Smoking Gun: The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh
Posted by Anders den april 7, 2008
Viktig essay om Saeed Sheikh. Sheikh er mannen som overførte penger til Mohamed Atta, på ordre fra ISIs General Mahmood Ahmed (skrives også Mahmoud Ahmad).
***
Det kan også være greit å merke seg at “konspirasjonsekspert” Jan S. Haugland aldri har sett noe som dokumenterer påstanden om pengeoverføringen:
– Den påstanden har jeg ikke sett dokumentert. Like før angrepet sendte Atta penger til andre. Men han fikk ikke selv noen penger (de hadde han jo ikke bruk for). . . .
http://www.aftenbladet.no/krigenmotterror/article620849.ece
Mer om Ahmed, pengeoverføring og 9/11-kommisjonens rapport:
***
Complete 9/11 Timeline: Sept. 11’s Smoking Gun: The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh
If you read just one thing at this website, please read this essay. Don’t mind the length and complexity. Saeed Sheikh’s story is not just mildly interesting. Understanding the history of this young man may not only explain many mysteries of 9/11, including solid evidence of foreign government involvement in the attacks, but may also reveal if nuclear war in the near future is likely. No kidding. Please read! Note that this was first written in September 2002 but has been thoroughly overhauled based on exposure to additional evidence. Also, click to find more details about Saeed Sheikh and his boss Mahmood Ahmed.
Saeed’s 9/11 Role is First Revealed
By now, the al-Qaeda 9/11 plot was in motion. Someone in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), using an alias, periodically wired money to and from hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi between June 2000 and the day before 9/11. [MSNBC, 12/11/01] The identity of this person has been a highly disputed subject. 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]
On October 7, 2001, Pakistani President Musharraf fired Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, the head of the ISI. The next day, some newspapers, mostly in India but also in Pakistan, shockingly said he was fired for his role in the 9/11 attacks. [Press Trust of India, 10/8/01] For instance, a Pakistani newspaper stated, “Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed has been replaced after the FBI investigators established credible links between him and Umar Sheikh, one of the three militants released in exchange for passengers of the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in 1999… Informed sources said there were enough indications with the US intelligence agencies that it was at Gen. Mahmood’s instruction that Sheikh had transferred 100,000 US dollars into the account of Mohammed Atta…” [Dawn, 10/9/01] Indian newspapers claimed that Indian intelligence had been instrumental in helping to establish the connection. [Times of India, 10/9/01, India Today, 10/15/01, Agence France-Presse, 10/10/01, Daily Excelsior, 10/18/01] Yet this explosive story was barely mentioned in the West. [Australian, 10/10/01, AFP, 10/10/01] In the US, surprisingly, the only mention was in a one short piece in the Wall Street Journal, mentioning that, “The US authorities… confirm[ed] the fact that $100,000 [was] wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the insistence of General Mahmood.” [Wall Street Journal, 10/10/01] Most other Western accounts simply explained Mahmood was fired for being too close to the Taliban. [London Times, 10/9/01, Guardian, 10/9/01]
