Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judy Wood's legal action dismissed with prejudice

Recommended Posts

the $100,000+ sent to Atta just before the attacks by the head of ISI [who was in Washington the week before the attacks].

The head of ISI was in Washington not only during the week before the attacks but on the day of the attacks. On the morning of 9/11 he was meeting with Bob Graham and Porter Goss on Capitol Hill (the same place where the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was hiding during the attacks in Senator Max Cleland's office). The ISI head met with other important officials during those days, but Bush's national security adviser apparently wasn't important enough. When some reporter after 9/11 asked Condoleezza Rice about the ISI head meeting with Graham and Goss, she acted like she had never heard of him, saying that she didn't know about such a meeting but "he wasn't meeting with me." She went quickly to the next question, lest she be asked if she had met with him on some other day. (Rice is the same person, you may recall, who said that no one thought that terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings. And there are actually people in the U.S. who want to see this lying disgrace run for Vice President.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for them saying "the question of who financed the 9/11 hijackers is not significant?" can Ron or anyone else provide a citation? (perhaps on another thread since it is OT here)

I can't give you the exact quote, which I have accurately paraphrased, for two reasons. My copy of the 9/11 Whitewash Commission report is in storage, and one of the links that I lost in a recent computer crash was a link to a report index or search engine in which any word in the report could be looked up. It was a valuable tool and I can't now find it with Google, so apparently it's pretty well hidden or remarkably so little used that it doesn't turn up on the first few Google pages. If anyone knows where it is, all you have to do is look up "significant" or "significance" and you will find the lying statement.

Here’s the quote in context:

General Funding

As we explained in chapter 2, Bin Ladin did not fund al Qaeda through a personal fortune and a network of businesses in Sudan. Instead, al Qaeda relied primarily on a fund-raising network developed over time. The CIA now estimates that it cost al Qaeda about $30 million per year to sustain its activities before 9/11 and that this money was raised almost entirely through donations.


Al Qaeda appears to have relied on a core group of financial facilitators who raised money from a variety of donors and other fund-raisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia.115 Some individual donors surely knew, and others did not, the ultimate destination of their donations.


To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.
Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000–$500,000 over nearly two years.


Our investigation has uncovered no credible evidence that any person in the United States gave the hijackers substantial financial assistance. Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government—or foreign government official—supplied any funding.131

9/11 Commission Report [Pgs 171 - 2] http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/US/9-11/911Report.htm#n752r

What they said was actually quite reasonable, the amount spent on the 9/11 operation was relatively small, AQ had many sources of funds some witting some not. Where they got the money specifically for 9/11 was not important. They could have added that money is fungible all money ultimately went into the same pot.

I believe Peter was referring to an incident where years afterwards a truther asked Hamilton about the allegation and he gave non answer like “I think we covered that”

As for the claim that the head of ISI sent Atta money all such claims ultimately trace back to anonymous sources in Indian intelligence (quoted in the Indian press) given the animosity between the two groups. How seriously would anyone take claims during the Cold War by anonymous sources in the KGB or CIA that members of the other agency had been involved in some nefarious act?

Read here for more:


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ISI is one of those intelligence agencies of other countries nearly under the complete control of our intelligence agencies [doing our bidding and not doing things we would not appreciate or be angered about].
There is evidence the ISI may have given Atta and he merry men up to 4x the amount cited.
Most of the 'hijackers' seem to have been in some way connected to US intelligence or their surrogates
and many never were on the flights - if any were.

I don't suppose evidence in support of these claims will be forthcoming?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...