Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance.

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
The FBI estimated that the cost of 9/11 was approximately $400,000. Who cares where they got the money from?

Eleven years later I'm still shocked that nobody thinks it's important to find out who financed al Qaeda. According to the FBI Bin Ladin was not personally financing al Qaeda during that time.

Anyway there's a new book by Mark H. Gaffney that talks about this aspect of 9/11 and here's an interview with him.





As America prepares itself for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, some of the most vital questions about the financing of those attacks and the monetary anomalies of that day remain unanswered. In a new book on the subject entitled Black 9/11: Money, Motive and Technology, author Mark H. Gaffney tries to shine a light on these important aspects of the day that changed the world forever.




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
The FBI estimated that the cost of 9/11 was approximately $400,000. Who cares where they got the money from?

Eleven years later I'm still shocked that nobody thinks it's important to find out who financed al Qaeda


The statements you have made and the quote in the topic title are quite deceptive really. You take a single quote from a 22 page document and then imply that this is an adequate characterisation. In fact the paragraph you take it from reads thusly:

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used
for the 9/11 attacks. As we have discussed above, the compelling evidence appears to
trace the bulk of the funds directly back to KSM and, possibly, Qatari, but no further.163
Available information on this subject has thus far has not been illuminating.164 According
to KSM, Bin Ladin provided 85–95 percent of the funds for the plot from his personal
wealth, with the remainder coming from general al Qaeda funds. To the extent KSM
intended to refer to wealth Bin Ladin inherited from his family or derived from any
business activity, this claim is almost certainly wrong, because Bin Ladin was not
personally financing al Qaeda during this time frame.165 Ultimately the question of the
origin of the funds is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of
funding. If a particular source of funds dried up, it could have easily tapped a different
source or diverted money from a different project to fund an attack that cost $400,000–
$500,000 over nearly two years.


This comes only after more than 10 pages of discussion of the money and where it was handled. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the source is of no importance, just that no matter where it was sourced from, the costs were not exceptional and so easy to fulfil.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Hey there exponent, I almost missed you a little.



The statements you have made and the quote in the topic title are quite deceptive really. You take a single quote from a 22 page document and then imply that this is an adequate characterisation. In fact the paragraph you take it from reads thusly:



There is nothing deceptive about the title and my statement. this 22 page document does not try to explain where the money come from, it only states that "Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular source of funds dried up, it could have easily tapped a different source or diverted money from a different project to fund an attack that cost $400,000–$500,000 over nearly two years."

How about a list of those sources?

and this question is pretty much answered by 'Ultimately the question of the
origin of the funds is of little practical significance"





This comes only after more than 10 pages of discussion of the money and where it was handled. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the source is of no importance, just that no matter where it was sourced from, the costs were not exceptional and so easy to fulfil.


Half a million dollars is not easy to come up with... they didn't win the lottery or did they?
edit on 9-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Hey there exponent, I almost missed you a little.

How rude.


There is nothing deceptive about the title and my statement. this 22 page document does not try to explain where the money come from, it only states that "Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular source of funds dried up, it could have easily tapped a different source or diverted money from a different project to fund an attack that cost $400,000–$500,000 over nearly two years."

This is not what the document 'only' states, you are misrepresenting it. The quote you have just posted explains why the origin was of little practical significance. The rest of the document however does not ignore this problem.


How about a list of those sources?

Sources are provided, anything after that would be an ongoing investigation and so we would not be privy to this information.


Half a million dollars is not easy to come up with... they didn't win the lottery or did they?
edit on 9-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Half a million dollars is in fact trivially easy for an international network supported by many rich people over a reasonable time. Let us not forget that there are many sources of immense wealth with anti american sympathies in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Bin Laden himself was not a particularly poor person.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





How rude.

Rude?




This is not what the document 'only' states, you are misrepresenting it. The quote you have just posted explains why the origin was of little practical significance. The rest of the document however does not ignore this problem.


Of course it's not the only thing it states it's a 22 pages document. It states things like this


FBI Assistant Director Pistole testified that the FBI had traced the funds back to certain bank accounts in
Pakistan, see Senate Govt. Affairs Committee, July 31, 2003, but the FBI has clarified that Pistole meant
the funds were traced back to KSM in Pakistan. No actual bank accounts there have been identified.


and things like


Senior al Qaeda detainee Abu Zubaydeh has commented on the source of the funding; he said that KSM received funds for the 9/11 operation directly from UBL, bypassing al Qaeda Finance Chief, Shayk Said, and suggested that some of the funds came from money that Zubaydeh had provided UBL for use in an operation against Israel. Zubaydeh, however, apparently did not participate in the 9/11 planning, and his statements lack any foundation.




Instead, al Qaeda relied on donations provided by witting donors and diverted from legitimate charitable donations by al Qaeda supporters.


Who are the donors ?



It is also possible KSM meant that Bin Ladin funded the plot with funds he kept under his personal control.

Can we ask him to clarify between water boarding sessions?

but


this claim is almost certainly wrong, because Bin Ladin was not personally financing al Qaeda during this time frame


This thing is full of contradictions and open ended claims. It's very confusing to me at least. maybe you could explain ?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Rude?

Indeed, we are supposed to be civil and childish remarks have no place here.


Of course it's not the only thing it states it's a 22 pages document. It states things like this
...
This thing is full of contradictions and open ended claims. It's very confusing to me at least. maybe you could explain ?

Certainly. What you have posted shows how your original statement about not caring about the sources of money was completely incorrect. Clearly significant uncertainty exists as to the sources of the money and you have proven this by quoting the parts you previously left out.

It's likely that this money would be at least moderately 'cleaned' before use, used in cash deposits in unmonitored branches etc. This is fairly standard criminal procedure and once you have exchanged cash enough times then it becomes practically untraceable. I don't really see why you would be surprised about this, they managed to train and hijack 4 commercial airliners simultaneously, I don't think they were exactly sending cheques with 'TERRORISM' in the memo field!



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Certainly. What you have posted shows how your original statement about not caring about the sources of money was completely incorrect. Clearly significant uncertainty exists as to the sources of the money and you have proven this by quoting the parts you previously left out.


I did not leave anything out I provided a link to the document for people to read. If the Feds would care about who was financing the attacks they would go and find who financed the attack. This document seems to have answers but in reality it doesn't, it contradict itself.




Indeed, we are supposed to be civil and childish remarks have no place here.


I think it's rude that you didn't almost miss me a little. I enjoy our discussions here.
edit on 9-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I did not leave anything out I provided a link to the document for people to read. If the Feds would care about who was financing of the attacks they would go and find who financed the attack. This document seems to have answered but in reality it doesn't, it contradict itself.

Selective quoting is as bad as omitting information. Your second statement is a logical fallacy. Just because someone might want to do something does not mean they can. If I give you £10,000 in cash without telling you my real name, where exactly would you expect the Police to begin looking?

The document contains many contradictory statements, that is because it is reproducing the lines of enquiry. The whole point of lying is to confuse the source of the money and you've shown that this has been done quite well.


I think it's rude that you didn't almost miss me a little. I enjoy our discussions here.

Nobody misses that attitude.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Your second statement is a logical fallacy. Just because someone might want to do something does not mean they can.


They know where to go, they just don't want to go there.
New York Times

Unanswered questions include the work of a number of Saudi-sponsored charities with financial links to Al Qaeda, as well as the role of a Saudi citizen living in San Diego at the time of the attacks, Omar al-Bayoumi, who had ties to two of the hijackers and to Saudi officials, Mr. Graham said in his affidavit.





The document contains many contradictory statements, that is because it is reproducing the lines of enquiry. The whole point of lying is to confuse the source of the money and you've shown that this has been done quite well.


Yes this document succeeded.



Nobody misses that attitude.


Lighten up a little.. I wasn't trying to be rude.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
They know where to go, they just don't want to go there.

What evidence are you using to claim that they don't want to investigate, rather than cannot investigate? The very article you quoted indicates they are pursuing diplomatic solutions.


Yes this document succeeded.

This is either a non sequitur or an attempt to imply that the document was intended to confuse, more Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. You've misrepresented this document and its contents at every stage, but still you seem incapable of accepting this and continue to add implications without concern.


Lighten up a little.. I wasn't trying to be rude.

Then perhaps you need to spend more time conversing with people.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





What evidence are you using to claim that they don't want to investigate, rather than cannot investigate? The very article you quoted indicates they are pursuing diplomatic solutions.

They spent a lot less time pursuing diplomatic solutions with Afghanistan than with the Saudis. Could this be the reason for the extended diplomatic solutions efforts ?



This is either a non sequitur or an attempt to imply that the document was intended to confuse, more Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Yes that is exactly what I imply.

You've misrepresented this document and its contents at every stage, but still you seem incapable of accepting this and continue to add implications without concern.

I accept that you think I'm misrepresenting this document and it's contents. And I also disagree with what you think.


Then perhaps you need to spend more time conversing with people.

Noted



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
They spent a lot less time pursuing diplomatic solutions with Afghanistan than with the Saudis. Could this be the reason for the extended diplomatic solutions efforts ?

There are a lot of reasons for the US to have strong ties with Saudi Arabia, I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about if you are suggesting a personal friendship is the only factor. Afghanistan on the other hand was and remains a very different country.


Yes that is exactly what I imply.
...
I accept that you think I'm misrepresenting this document and it's contents. And I also disagree with what you think.

It is not a matter of opinion. You've now confirmed that you are accusing the report of intentionally being confusing which is an expansion of your original claims and questioning.

What evidence do you have for this? If this was a conspiracy, wouldn't it be trivial to use a scapegoat who would readily confess? This is why I mention Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. You don't seem to be looking at the situation trying to discern truth, instead you seem to be trying to doubt every fact put forward.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

I did not leave anything out I provided a link to the document for people to read. If the Feds would care about who was financing the attacks they would go and find who financed the attack. This document seems to have answers but in reality it doesn't, it contradict itself.


I agree.
So much of everything connected to 9/11 is that way...it seems to us that it should be simple...and I still have not yet, to this day, found any legitimate reason that it isn't.

As far as the Feds going and financing the attack...they know good and well who did and it is indeed a simple answer...but there is so much that depends on getting us to discard the simple and obvious answer so that we will continue to run around in circles looking for clues that aren't there....but thinking they are because there has got to be some answer!

There is...and Occam's razor demands it be looked at, once again.

Arab News from November 2001:


RIYADH, 8 November — Prince Turki Al-Faisal, former head of the Saudi intelligence, yesterday estimated Osama Bin Laden’s wealth at about $50 million. “Westerners have estimated it at between one and five billion dollars. But our estimate... put it at between $40 and $50 million at most.”

In the fifth part of a comprehensive interview with Arab News and the MBC television, Prince Turki also ruled out the possibility that the Al-Qaeda organization might have succeeded in amassing weapons of mass destruction. (Details on Page 17) “While I was in the intelligence service, we monitored all these claims — not only those related to Al-Qaeda, but regarding other organizations as well. But we have not received strong evidence to back that up.”

Asked whether Bin Laden has any frozen assets in the Kingdom, he said: “What I know is that when he left the Kingdom he had settled matters related to his partnership in the Muhammad Binladen Company with his brothers. If he had any other money, most probably it would be kept by the state to prevent him from using it to carry out his plans.”

The prince pointed out that Bin Laden had tried to gather followers in the Kingdom. “Don’t forget the blast that occurred in Olaya, Riyadh, several years ago. Those who were behind the explosions confessed to the crime and admitted that they were influenced by his thoughts. So there can be no doubt that he tried and will continue to try to gather followers,” he added.


What is a half million dollars to someone that has 80 to 100 times that much?
Also, bin Laden was a business man and had several companies and was not backwoods at all...easily he could have managed all the funding of the hijackers in a way that could not be traced back to him.
And at the same time, eliminate any unnecessary middlemen. And then, the one time asked, he denied being involved...no one could argue against it...and our suspicions then began to work in our midst, against us and against each other.


The reason for the obfuscation happened May 1, 2011...and I bet we will be seeing more for a while...this book was published May 22, 2012...it is just the start, no doubt...Mr. Gaffney had about a year to get it published, which is actually a pretty short time in which to write a book and get it accepted and ready for publication.

You see, the mad scramble began as soon as President Obama announced that he had pulled the rug out from under those who have been keeping us under the shadow of terrorism in order to keep us supportive of the war.

They've got no more reason for it so they just are trying to ignore it while they make more confusion for us...get our minds back on it so we start to hate again...to let our hurt and angry come back up and brew...because when the war stops...because the terrorist leader is dead for sure...the need to buy tanks and black hawks and everything that is connected to the war will be no more...none of which, I GUARANTEE, will you ever find bearing a MADE IN CHINA stamp. Once the demand is gone, the supply no longer will supply SOME with huge profits while the rest of us suffer.


edit on 9/9/2012 by queenannie38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



Afghanistan on the other hand was and remains a very different country.



Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Once the Taliban are overthrown and the U.S. installs a pro-Western government, lucrative investment opportunities will arise. Rob Sobhani, president of Washington-based Caspian Energy Consulting, said, "Other major energy companies could see big opportunities in a deal crucial to restarting Afghanistan's economy." A new pipeline could produce revenues totaling $100 million


Prior to September 11, United States policy toward the Taliban was largely influenced by oil. In a new book published in Paris, "Bin Laden, la verite interdite" ("Bin Laden, the forbidden truth"), former French intelligence officer Jean-Charles Brisard and journalist Guillaume Dasquie document a cozy relationship between George W. Bush and the Taliban. The book quotes John O'Neill, former director of anti-terrorism for the FBI, who thought the U.S. State Department, acting on behalf of United States and Saudi oil interests, interfered with FBI efforts to track down Osama bin Laden.

Afghanistan's Energy War

The primary obstacle to construction of the pipeline and to foreign oil companies actively seeking oil production contracts is, and always has been, security.


The pipeline would carry natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to India. It has been an objective of United States and western energy companies (and their governments) that have invested in the land-locked but energy-rich countries of the Caspian region since the mid-1990s, when companies including California-based Unocal began negotiating with the Taliban. Sanctions imposed on Afghanistan in 1998 made it impossible for U.S. companies to do business there, so negotiations stalled until 2001, when sanctions were lifted.


The Saudis didn't need a pipeline they already had very good relationship with US. And that is the difference between Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
The Saudis didn't need a pipeline they already had very good relationship with US. And that is the difference between Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

You seem to be under the impression that the pipeline has been built? In fact the only pipeline in progress is a natural gas line which has barely finished the negotiation stage: www.satrapia.com...

Are you really trying to suggest that the only reason the US invaded Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia is a pipeline which hasn't even been fully arranged over a decade later? Why are you constantly trying to simplify every scenario into the simplest possible model with no regard for the reality?

International relations are complex and varying, trying to simplify to a talking point is meaningless.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




It is not a matter of opinion. You've now confirmed that you are accusing the report of intentionally being confusing which is an expansion of your original claims and questioning.


Well maybe not intentionally but I didn't see anything regarding Saudi-sponsored charities with financial links to Al Qaeda in this document. Maybe they just forgot about it.




What evidence do you have for this? If this was a conspiracy, wouldn't it be trivial to use a scapegoat who would readily confess? This is why I mention Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. You don't seem to be looking at the situation trying to discern truth, instead you seem to be trying to doubt every fact put forward.

How many times should I show you how I came to my opinion? And what facts are you talking about?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





You seem to be under the impression that the pipeline has been built? In fact the only pipeline in progress is a natural gas line which has barely finished the negotiation stage:


Don't tell me that you don't know what the problem with the pipeline was prior to 9/11...

Security for the pipeline turned out to be very hard to obtain in Afghanistan, and also there is a little problem with Russia that had to be resolved.
They been trying to build that thing since the 1990s and I think it's set to be completed in 2014.



Are you really trying to suggest that the only reason the US invaded Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia is a pipeline which hasn't even been fully arranged over a decade later?


Yeah it's taking longer than they probably expected.. Afghanistan has history of being good at fighting wars.


Why are you constantly trying to simplify every scenario into the simplest possible model with no regard for the reality?

Because it is simple when you look at history. Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 and oil companies really wanted that pipeline over-there. But first they couldn't because of sanctions and the Taliban would comply with the human rights demands in order to be recognized as a government, and then it turned out to be a lot harder to secure the pipe.

Well may be you can explain the reality of why the US invaded Afghanistan even though most of the hijackers were Saudis.





new topics
top topics
 
6

log in

join