It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
Originally posted by maxella1
Hey there exponent, I almost missed you a little.
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?
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)
How 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.
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.
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.
It is also possible KSM meant that Bin Ladin funded the plot with funds he kept under his personal control.
this claim is almost certainly wrong, because Bin Ladin was not personally financing al Qaeda during this time frame
Originally posted by maxella1
Rude?
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.
Indeed, we are supposed to be civil and childish remarks have no place here.
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.
I think it's rude that you didn't almost miss me a little. I enjoy our discussions here.
Your second statement is a logical fallacy. Just because someone might want to do something does not mean they can.
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.
Nobody misses that attitude.
Originally posted by maxella1
They know where to go, they just don't want to go there.
Yes this document succeeded.
Lighten up a little.. I wasn't trying to be rude.
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.
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.
Then perhaps you need to spend more time conversing with people.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
Afghanistan on the other hand was and remains a very different country.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?