Archive for the fake terror Category

Barakat: Gaza massacre exposes true nature of Zionism and imperialism

Posted in fake terror on June 23, 2018 by operationbreaklock


When was Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh arrested and why does it matter?

Posted in fake terror, ramzi bin al-shibah, ramzi bin al-shibh, September 11th with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 26, 2011 by operationbreaklock

We noted in our previous reports on this subject that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was reported in the world press to have been arrested in Karachi, Pakistan, on 11th September 2002, exactly one year after the attacks he and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed allegedly masterminded. The fact that he was arrested on the anniversary of the attacks was commented upon excessively by some American writers, who seemed to make a big deal out of numbers and dates and who claimed the arrest was no more than a publicity stunt, staged by the Bush administration in much the same way the Mars rover landed on the red planet on the 4th July. These armchair conspiracy theorists, whose previous observations included spotting the face of Satan in the smoke bellowing out of the World Trade Centre and who were peddling the fallacy that bombs were planted in the buildings, were desperate to latch onto a new conspiracy theory to distract serious investigators and to create confusion in the minds of the public. Would Bush be so stupid to claim an arrest when none were made, we asked at the time. It would only take one disgruntled Pakistani Ranger or one FBI agent with Democrat sympathies, we reasoned, to blow the whole story apart. We did not think Bush would risk claiming Ramzi’s arrest if it did not happen but shortly after the claimed arrest one Islamic website hosted at DV2.COM in Atlanta, Georgia, also claimed that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah had not been arrested and was still with the Mujahideen.

We did not see the original posting on which denied the arrest had taken place and so our knowledge of the denial comes from second hand sources. We wondered why an American service provider in Georgia would have anything to do with Mujahideen associated with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-thinkers and we were surprised to learn that was a reliable source of information for so-called Islamic fundamentalists. Yosri Fouda, the Al Jazeera journalist who claimed to have conducted an interview with Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah and KSM in April, May or June, depending on which version of the story he was relating, claimed to have contacted the Mujahideen via the above-mentioned website and described the website as a reliable source of Mujahideen news. We were doubtful and, all these years later, we still are.

Atlanta, Georgia, it seems, was quite a hot-bed of so-called Islamic extremist activity back in 2002. In addition to posting the denial of Ramzi’s arrest, the same website also claimed responsibility for a shooting attack on a US marine in Kuwait and praised the attack in the following terms: “We hail this courageous and successful operation … that caused huge losses to the Americans.” Incredibly, other so-called Islamic extremist websites operating in Atlanta were ratcheting up the threat level too, with one site providing advice about kidnapping Americans and another divulging plans to poison American food supplies and kill people in restaurants. Yet another Atlanta based website posted instructions for bomb-making and explosives. What on earth could be happening in Georgia, we wondered. Had the epicentre of international ‘terrorism’ miraculously shifted from Afghanistan and the Arab world and put down its roots in Atlanta, GA? The Whois details for are correct for October, 2002:

Whois Information from “” about
IP address=
OrgName: Net Depot, Inc.
Address: 55 Marietta St NW
Suite 1720 Atlanta GA 30303

AdminName: Hinkle, Jeff
AdminPhone: +1-404-230-9150

TechName: DV2 Engineering

AbuseHandle: DV2AB-ARIN
AbuseName: DV2 Abuse
AbusePhone: +1-404-230-9150
AbuseEmail: (source)

The question of who owned and ran is an important one because many state intelligence agencies run fake Jihadist websites to entrap aspiring fighters by harvesting their internet protocol addresses. All it takes to discover this ruse is a simple ‘whois’ search to discover who the registered owner of a website is and in which country the website is hosted. And while it is true that a ‘whois’ search cannot definitively identify a fake Islamic website, there would obviously be cause for concern if the website was hosted in America, for example, or Saudi Arabia, where the internet is closely monitored by government security agencies. We mention all this in passing because according to another website, Jihad Unspun, which itself was described as suspicious by Azzam Publications, individuals posting messages on were emphatic that the raid in Karachi had not netted Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah and that Ramzi was safe with the Mujahideen.

Perhaps all this is confusing to someone who has not followed this story before, especially when Azzam Publications categorically refuted the information being disseminated by Jihad Unspun and implied that the webmaster of Jihad Unspun was an American government agent. According to the webmaster of Azzam Publications, Jihad Unspun was trying to discredit Azzam with the information that Ramzi had not been netted and damage their reputation as the ‘authentic voice of the Mujahideen’. It is interesting to note that Azzam publications did not attack the website which first published the claims,, but instead chose to attack the messenger, Jihad Unspun, perhaps because it was an easy target and easier to discredit because it was run by a female Canadian convert to Islam and had, as Azzam succinctly put it, slick graphics and a well-designed lay-out, again implying the website had been set up by government agents. We should add at this point that we do know the identities of the webmasters concerned but do not feel the need to identify them here as doing so may cause difficulties for them. The webmaster of Azzam publications did not cease his attacks against Jihad Unspun with a single report but went on to make quite a meal of the story, claiming at a later date that because Jihad Unspun charged their readers money to view the Saeed Al-Ghamdi confession video, to cite just one example, that this indicated that Jihad Unspun was a government set-up designed to entrap radical Muslims by getting their credit card details. In short, a war of words broke out. And as we followed the story we could see that there was a lot more to it than two competing webmasters trying to come to grips with facts associated with the arrest or non-arrest of Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah. We thought we could discern the outline of an intelligence operation in full swing although, to be honest, we really didn’t know what was happening. Now we think we do know and that is the reason we are compiling this report. In this particular case, however, we can’t say with any certainty that we know, for sure, what exactly happened. We do have a viable theory, which makes very interesting predictions. As usual we would like assistance from anyone who has knowledge of these events and we can be contacted via or via We are only interested in the truth of the matter as the questions that are at the forefront of our thoughts have been brewing for quite some time.

As if the story wasn’t complicated enough, with competing webmasters contradicting each other and then making accusations of being government agents, we came across what we think is important information on a website named eramuslim news. We reprint the information here because the link is now dead. We downloaded the document on Sunday, 10th August, 2003, and the link we got the file from is: By the time this was posted, the Azzam website had closed after a campaign of harassment led by Johnathan Galt, one of Glen Jenvey’s associates. Galt had written to Azzam’s hosting company, complaining that they were hosting terrorist websites and making demands that the site be closed down. When no action by Azzam’s hosting company was taken, Azzam Publications formed the opinion that the authorities actually wanted to keep their website alive so they could monitor it, hence the decision to close it down. Azzam Publications were not content to let the issue of Ramzi’s arrest fade away with the closure of their website, however, and posted the following information on eramuslim news:

3. The ‘front’ behind is supposedly a middle-aged Canadian businesswoman who is said to have accepted Islam after 11 September 2001. The Muslims can draw their own conclusions from this, bearing in mind the tenfold increase in the budgets and manpower of Western intelligence agencies in the post-September-11th World.
4. We re-iterate and reconfirm the capture of Ramzi bin Al-Sheebah in Karachi in September 2002 regardless of any claims made by JUS or on any Arabic discussion boards. Furthermore, we put our credibility and the credibility of every news item we have provided over the last six years, on the line to confirm that Ramzi bin Al-Sheebah was arrested in Karachi, that the photograph the media alleged was him was not him but someone else, that Ramzi bin Al-Sheebah was not arrested following a shootout in an apartment block and that the remaining people that were captured or killed by the Pakistani authorities were ordinary Arabs with no connection with Al-Qaida whatsoever – they were neither commanders, leaders nor ‘terrorists’. They were simple people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. As for Ramzi bin Al-Sheebah himself, he was just an ordinary Mujahid who was said to have attempted to enter Afghanistan after the American attack in November 2001, just like thousands of other Muslims. He is certainly not a senior Al-Qaida official nor a ‘terrorist’ – such claims are made by the US authorities in order to brainwash the American people that America is succeeding in this war against Islam. Various Arab discussion boards circulated reports that Ramzi bin Al-Sheebah was not captured because the person in the photograph of Pakistani newspapers was not him. These reports were translated by JUS, who published them in a special feature, which we interpreted as an indirect attack on our credibility.

We think what happened is that the chorus of protests that Ramzi had not been arrested were growing and spreading through ‘various Arab discussion boards’ like wild-fire – but still, interestingly, Azzam chose not to attack the originators of the source material – but instead intensified their campaign against Jihad Unspun. The original claim made by Jihad Unspun was that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah had not been arrested and that a youth, Abdullah (Safar), had been taken into custody after an anonymous individual tried to claim the reward money by claiming that Abdullah was in fact Ramzi. Jihad Unspun also reprinted eyewitness testimony from Abu Shihab Al-Qandahari Al-Yemani – a nickname – which was first published on The eyewitness denied that Ramzi had been taken and assured readers that “Ramzi was safe and sound.” While we find this information interesting in itself, it is full of loopholes in our opinion, and does not explain events in any meaningful way. If we were to disclose to the Australian police that their most wanted criminal lived at a certain address, and that information was subsequently discovered to be false, we would have no chance of claiming any reward money and could end up being charged. Pakistani police procedures aren’t any different from Australian ones so the information that the reward money provides a meaningful explanation simply doesn’t cut any ice.

Our initial premise was confirmed, in our opinion: that an intelligence operation involving the Pakistanis and Americans was in full swing. We decided that the competing claims were a smoke-screen to hide the real situation. Please bear with us while we attempt to explain how we arrived at our conclusion.

A raid took place in Karachi on 11th September, 2002 and the Americans claimed that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah had been arrested. Self-evidently, he was or he wasn’t. The information was either true or false. Photographs of the blindfolded alleged 9/11 conspirator were taken by the press as he was taken into custody and were published in major newspapers throughout the world. Bush trumpeted the event as a major breakthrough, describing Ramzi as “just another killer – and we’ve got him.” The problem arose for this version of events when ‘various Arab discussion boards’ refuted the claim. As reported by Jihad Unspun, Ramzi’s brother said that the person photographed bore no resemblance to his brother. Claims were made on and repeated by Jihad Unspun that Ramzi was safe with the Mujahideen.

These assertions were vehemently denied by Azzam Publications, who saw the claims as an attack on their credibility, in what appeared to be a case of wounded pride. But appearances can be deceptive because of the nature of webhosting on the internet. A statement dated 24th September, 2002 and posted on had this communication from Azzam Publications:
Sometime in November 2001, our web-site was transferred to hosting companies in South-East Asia and we began to provide daily, uninterrupted news on the events in Afghanistan. The site continued to remain online until July 2002. During this time, whilst tracking the continuing efforts of Mr Galt, we realised, as we thought at first, that the FBI was ensuring that our site remained online, even though officials at the US State Department cited concern over our site, in news reports that were carried by major news organisations. A number of discussion boards specific to web hosting companies, e.g., revealed threads stating that companies wanted to shut down service to the web-hosting companies hosting our sites, but they were specifically instructed by the FBI that ‘this site must remain open at any cost’. We concluded that US Intelligence wanted our site to remain open for two reasons:
(i) To use it for gathering intelligence on events happening on the ground in Afghanistan and perhaps that our news bulletins might lead them to capture ‘Mujahideen suspects’.
(ii) To gather intelligence on the infrastructure behind the site. Mr Galt and Co., apparently not convinced of the ‘benefits’ of the FBI’s strategy, continued to pressurise both the FBI and the web hosting companies, to remove our web-site, and this tit-for-tat saga continued until July this year. In June and July 2002, American forces in Afghanistan took heavy casualties and many of the incidents in which these casualties occurred, were being daily reported by us. By the end of July 2002, the Americans concluded that there was no useful intelligence to be gleaned from leaving our site open and they decided that enough was enough. During the South-East Asian ‘Anti-Terrorism’ Summit in July, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s delegation personally delivered a written order to the local authorities asking them to immediately shut down our site. Our site has remained shut since then, but we have continued to post daily news bulletins on other web-sites, such as

We can see from the above information that Azzam’s own website shut down in July 2002 and so it is difficult to definitively attribute anything posted after that date to them. Statements posted on eramuslim news or anywhere else for that matter, could be written by literally anybody and attributed to Azzam rightly or wrongly. But the story gets interesting from our perspective because Azzam Publications – long considered to be the ‘authentic voice of the Mujahideen’, appeared to be backtracking with their statement on eramuslimnews. After previously confirming the arrest took place in Karachi, they then claimed that well, yes, it did take place in Karachi but not at the place the Americans said it did. They also claimed that the photograph of the arrested Ramzi wasn’t him, despite the fact that they took offence when Jihad Unspun and Ramzi’s brother said the very same thing. Their article (if genuine) posted at eramuslimnews, implied that Bush was lying when he claimed Ramzi was arrested after the shoot-out in Karachi, a position which was now exactly the same as the position adopted by and Jihad Unspun. Why bother arguing? Of course the additional information provided by Azzam was that Ramzi had been arrested – but not following the shoot-out.

In the past, we have criticised American researchers who read newspaper claims often attributed to anonymous sources and who then proceed to cite these sources to reinforce their own agenda. We find this method sloppy and consider it is inappropriate to cite the American media on almost anything except the weather and then consider the story ‘confirmed’. Whether or not we agree with their conclusions, the investigators at CIT did a very good job going on a field trip to Washington and interviewing Sergeant William Lagasse. That’s the kind of research 9/11 investigators should be undertaking instead of sitting at home with their feet up reading half baked American media reports about 9/11 and then citing the information as ‘confirmed.’ The worst culprit for doing this was Mike Ruppert although he is by no means alone in acting in such a way. If you’re like us and stuck millions of miles away from a source it’s still possible to pick up the telephone or send an email and we have discovered it’s much better to send a letter if a postal address can be obtained. Investigators who simply cite news reports can’t be trusted as a general rule and they’re guaranteed not to find new information. Having said all that and apologising to our readers for being so hypocritical, we ourselves found a news report which, if true, would support Azzam’s assertion that Ramzi was arrested – but not at the shoot-out. The link is here:

Whether or not we should do so based upon the available evidence, the authors of this report conclude that as a result of the claims and counter-claims, we believe that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was not arrested in Karachi following the widely publicised shoot-out at the apartment. That cannot be the end of the story however, because there are other threads of evidence to consider. It is conceivable that Secretary of State Colin Powell requested local authorities to close Azzam Publications at the anti-terror summit in July as part of the operation to capture Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah and Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. It seems reasonable to assume that the interview with these two accused conspirators by Yosri Fouda, the Al-Jazeera journalist, needed to be carried out in a kind of vacuum – a situation which could be achieved with the closure of the website long considered the ‘authentic voice of the Mujahideen’. Please remember that Mr Yosri Fouda dated his interview with KSM and Ramzi first to June, then May and finally April. He did so, he claims implausibly, because if the need arose to contact the Mujahideen in relation to the interview, he could confirm he was talking to the right people if they knew the interview took place in May. Despite the fact that Mr Fouda is a Muslim and we are sure that he is a good one, the most likely course of action to take in the circumstances would be to create a password that only he and the participants knew. Lying about the date of the interview seems a very clumsy way of verifying a person’s bona fides, and Mr Fouda is well aware that he is stretching people’s credulity with such an implausible claim. Having said all that, however, it is also conceivable that the operation that raided the Karachi apartment and resulted in the shoot-out was carried out with the knowledge that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was not in the apartment but was designed to flush him out because authorities knew he was in Karachi and had unspecified links to the apartment. With the ‘authentic voice of the Mujahideen’ offline and silenced, the sting operation could proceed as planned. With blanket saturation coverage of the raid in Karachi and the reported arrest of Ramzi and early reports indicating KSM was killed in the operation, the CIA could have anticipated a flurry of telephone calls and communications from or to their target which could be intercepted by the NSA’s much trumpeted Carnivore eavesdropping system or perhaps more specific intercepts of telephone numbers in the hands of American or Pakistani intelligence. Is this what happened?

We need to place these events in a much broader context at this point to get a better understanding of what in fact occurred. Back in September 2002, the question of who masterminded 9/11 was by no means certain although, as pointed out in his excellent, landmark report, Chaim Kupferberg documented that the Americans ‘rolled out’ KSM as their chief suspect in June. This month also coincides with the date Yosri Fouda first claimed as the date of his interview with KSM and Ramzi. We take pleasure in reprinting here part of Mr Kupferberg’s analysis but also implore our readers to take the time and read the whole essay if they want to find out about 9/11 instead of absorbing the usual 30 second snippets that are usually delivered to the gullible population via the internet and television: The seminal essay can be linked to here but the section relevant to our investigation can be read below:

The Official Legend of 9/11 as a prefabricated set-up.

As we will see, the Moussaoui indictment had lain the groundwork for the eventual Khalid Shaikh Mohammed/ Ramzi Binalshibh/ Mustafa Ahmed nexus that really gets rolling in June 2002, when Khalid is first introduced as the 9/11 “mastermind”, then proceeds through Binalshibh’s choreographed arrest in September 2002, and culminates with the simultaneous arrest of Khalid and Mustafa Ahmed in March 2003. Further, we will see how FBI Director Mueller uses the details in the Moussaoui indictment to explicitly pair up Khalid and Mustafa Ahmed – a full nine months before these characters end up sharing news space for their own simultaneously choreographed apprehensions.

The unsealed December 2001 Moussaoui indictment also set out two “unindicted co-conspirators” who had yet to play their final roles in the unfolding 9/11 Legend – Ramzi Binalshibh and Mustafa Ahmed al-hawsawi (the “official” paymaster)…

Of the various pivot points in the unfolding 9/11 Legend, the time period of June 4-5 2002 was among the most significant.

…Around the same time that the joint Senate-House Inquiry was proceeding under the co-chairmanship of Bob Graham and Porter Goss (the September 11 breakfast partners of Omar Saeed’s reported ISI “handler”), Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was formally introduced as the operative mastermind behind 9/11. John J. Lumpkin of the Associated Press wrote the definitive article, courtesy of the revelations of an anonymous “top U.S. counterterrorism official”

…Lumpkin’s key June article served as a guidepost as to how the unfolding 9/11 Legend would finally crystallize. As reported by Lumpkin, in the same article where Khalid was introduced as the new 9/11 mastermind, he was also “accused of working with Ramzi Yousef in the first bombing of the World Trade Center [in ’93]” in addition to working with Yousef on a 1995 plot (code-named Bojinka) to bomb a dozen airliners headed to the United States

…It was not by accident that the 9/11 paymaster – now officially dubbed as Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi – was mentioned in an article introducing Khalid as the mastermind. As it turned out, about the same time that Lumpkin’s article was making the rounds, Robert Mueller was making a statement before the Senate-House Committee, narrating the full details of the money trail story (as set out in the Moussaoui indictment), but this time adding the role of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who, according to Mueller’s statement, shared a credit card with Mustafa Ahmed “Alhawsawi.”
Thus, Mueller inserted Khalid into the Money Trail Story by way of a direct connection with the “Mustafa Ahmad” alias. And now, thanks to Lumpkin, “Mustafa Ahmad” was not to be thought of as simply a convenient pseudonym, but rather as a real person, bin Laden’s bona fide “financial chief”…

…Once Lumpkin’s June 2002 article on Khalid was out, further incriminating details were coming out fast and furious. According to CBS News, U.S. officials now had “evidence” that Khalid had met with “some of the 9/11 hijackers at their Hamburg, Germany apartment in 1999.” Presumably, Ramzi Binalshibh – Mohammed Atta’s Hamburg roommate who was also thought to be a potential “twentieth hijacker” – was among them. Lumpkin’s key June article also mentioned Binalshibh as part of Atta’s Hamburg “cell.” And as Binalshibh was paired with Mustafa Ahmed as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Moussaoui indictment, we have perhaps an indication that Khalid, Binalshibh, and Mustafa Ahmed were part of a concerted strategy touched off in early June 2002 to bring this phase of the 9/11 Legend to a close. Conveniently timed for release on the very next day – June 6, 2002 – further news followed that, according to National Security Agency intercepts, Khalid was heard talking on the telephone with hijacker Mohammed Atta. Moreover, for the very first time, authorities were now reporting that Khalid was actually the uncle of Ramzi Yousef. In other words, when the nephew failed to bring down the Towers in ’93, the uncle took up the slack in ’01.

Perhaps it was this sort of conceptually artistic symmetry that made Khalid so attractive as the designated mastermind. Through Khalid, one had a direct connection to the first World Trade Centre attack, providing a smoking gun continuity leading directly to al-Qaida. Prior to Khalid’s June 2002 public promotion, he was lurking on the official terror lists merely as an indicted conspirator in the 1995 Bojinka plot masterminded by Ramzi Yousef. Thus, while Khalid had not previously been directly connected to the 9/11 plot, he did make the “most wanted” cut based on his alleged 1995 collaboration with Yousef. With that in mind, one can almost picture sitting in with the members of the National Security Council on a balmy Spring morning in late May 2002, leafing through their photo albums as they argued over the most appropriate candidate to close off the official 9/11 Legend. As it turned out, they chose the guy with the unibrow and the hair shirt.

What was the official reason for revealing the role of Khalid at this point in time? According to CBS News, it was senior al-Qaida figure Abu Zubaydah (captured a few months previously) who had “fingered [Khalid] as the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks.” Abu Zubaydah, the first “big fish” captured in the War On Terror, had previously – and conveniently – been fingered as a major al-Qaida player by Ahmed Ressam…

… As we will see, once Ramzi Binalshibh’s number comes up for apprehension (in September 2002), followed by the capture of Khalid and Mustafa Ahmed in March 2003, another version will be offered for the timing of Khalid’s introduction as 9/11 mastermind. But first, we should take note of James Risen’s June 5, 2002 article for the New York Times, in which Risen reported that the authorities “had begun to suspect soon after the [Sept. 11] attacks that [Khalid] had some role in the hijackings. But in the next months, a detailed financial investigation of the money trail from the plot led officials to believe that he had a more prominent role than previously suspected.” In other words, as Risen had framed it, Khalid had first garnered notice for 9/11 by way of his connection to the money trail. Was this a retrospective addition into the record? – for Khalid most certainly did not make it into the Money Trail Story as of December 2001, when pretty much all the details of the money trail were crystallized within the Moussaoui indictment. On the other hand, there is a possibility that Khalid was intended from the very beginning to be featured as the 9/11 mastermind, yet perhaps he could not be safely inserted back into the Legend by way of the money trail until that nasty confusion over the “Mustafa Ahmad” alias was resolved…

…By June of 2002, the contents of the Moussaoui indictment could indeed be viewed as the clear signpost pointing the way to the manner in which the final loose ends of the Official 9/11 Legend would be tied up for posterity. With Ramzi Binalshibh and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi already tied together as unindicted co-conspirators in the Moussaoui case, FBI Director Robert Mueller would, by this time, explicitly weave in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, pairing him up with Mustafa Ahmed and thereby inserting this newly-christened 9/11 mastermind into the Money Trail Story. The Associated Press’ John Lumpkin would reference all three in his key June 2002 article. It is as if the powers-that-be were putting this trio of nefarious characters on notice – from here on, their fates were to be indelibly entwined.

If habitual coincidence is the mother of all conspiracy theories, then one must surely raise a discerning eyebrow at the revelation that, around this time – after more than a decade of staying hidden in the shadows – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed suddenly was stricken with an urge to conduct his very first interview, with none other than Ramzi Binalshibh at his side. The journalist chosen for this honour was the London bureau chief of Al-Jazeera, Yosri Fouda…

…On September 9, 2002, the die was cast. Al-Jazeera was broadcasting Part I of Fouda’s historic interview with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. For the first time, millions would hear – from the planners themselves – exactly how the September 11 plot was put in motion. It was al-Jazeera’s version of VH1’s Behind The Music, featuring guest commentaries from Vincent Cannistraro and Lyndon LaRouche. Unfortunately, viewers would only get the audio feed of Khalid and Binalshibh, as Binalshibh and Khalid purportedly had confiscated from Fouda his videotape of the proceedings before he had taken leave of them back in June.

In more ways than one, September 9 was an ideal launch date for the interview broadcast. By then, the mainstream media had the whole summer to feed the public – and themselves – with various leaks, revelations, and “official” comments concerning Khalid and Binalshibh’s newfound place in the 9/11 pantheon. Set-up and payoff. Moreover, the interview was now being broadcast in the immediate lead-up to the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, thereby further raising the profile of this historic broadcast…

…It was practically a seamless propaganda extravaganza, except for one small detail – Fouda had gone on record as dating the interview to June of 2002, thereby raising the prospect of two plausible 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. Of the two scenarios, the first one was far more palatable – from a propaganda perspective – as at least it could be kept within the borders of plausible deniability, and only Fouda would get burned by it. The second scenario, however, would raise the prospect of one of those uncomfortable coincidences that could conceivably expose the 9/11 Legend as a pre-fabricated set-up.

Only two days after the initial broadcast of Fouda’s interview with Khalid and Binalshibh – on the first anniversary commemorating the 9/11 attacks – Pakistani forces, accompanied by FBI agents, raided an apartment complex in Karachi. After a “four hour” gun battle involving “hundreds” of Pakistani soldiers and policemen, the authorities captured, among a few others, Ramzi Binalshibh himself. Their original target, however, had been Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom they had been tracking for months throughout Karachi. While Khalid had just barely slipped away only a few hours before Pakistani forces had arrived at his door, the authorities were reportedly “surprised” to discover that they had netted Binalshibh in the process. At least that is now the official version of the day’s events…

…With the well-timed arrest of Ramzi Binalshibh in September 2002, journalist Yosri Fouda was in a bind. Only days before, he had gone on record – repeatedly – as dating his interview with Khalid and Binalshibh to June 2002. Up to the time of Binalshibh’s arrest, the official legend had it that Khalid’s pivotal role as 9/11 mastermind was revealed to U.S. authorities through their interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in March 2002. Now, in the aftermath of Binalshibh’s capture, word was circulating that perhaps authorities had learned of Khalid’s true role by way of Fouda. That contention, of course, would remain most plausible if Fouda’s interview could definitively be back-dated to a time before early June 2002 – that is, to a time before Khalid was first publicly announced as 9/11 mastermind. The alternative scenario quite simply pointed to a conclusion that would have to be denied at all costs – that the decision to out Khalid publicly as the 9/11 mastermind was coordinated with the decision to send Fouda on his interview errand with Khalid. Had Fouda erred, then, by initially claiming that his historic interview had taken place in June 2002? Had he possibly exposed a seam pointing the way to a coordinated set-up?

Soon after the Binalshibh arrest, Fouda took the opportunity to revise the date of his interview for the record, revealing to Abdallah Schleifer of the Kamal Adham Center For Journalism:
Fouda: “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.”

Schleifer: “So?”

Fouda: “I lied.”
Schleifer: “Really?”

Fouda: “Yeah.”

Schleifer: “But you’re going to come clean with [us], right?”

Fouda (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 … 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.

So after the first wave of denunciations a pro-Qa’ida website “” 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.”

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

…Recall that, back in June 2002, the “official” legend at the time had it that it was Abu Zubaydah, back in March 2002, who had spilled the goods on Khalid. Yet with Khalid’s March 2003 apprehension, this one aspect of the legend was duly revised. As revealed by Keith Olbermann in a March 3, 2003 item: “Ironically, it would be [Fouda’s] interview that would point out, to U.S. intelligence, that [Khalid Shaikh] Mohammed and Binalshibh were the brains behind the 9/11 attacks”…

Now, despite the fact that Mr Kupferberg is gifted and we admire his analysis, he does have some facts mixed up. To begin with, Yosri Fouda’s documentary, Top Secret: the road to September 11th contains no audio of KSM and only voice distorted audio of Ramzi. There have been allegations on the website that the interview never took place and that the audio delivered to Al Jazeera was provided separately, along with Abdul Aziz Al-Omari’s confession video. Mr Kupferberg then appears to accept at face-value the September 11th 2002 arrest of Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah and the March 2003 arrest of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, which we have seen – in the case of the former – and will see, in the case of the latter, is based on very flimsy evidence indeed. In the case of Ramzi, serious doubts and divisions arose from the alleged arrest and in the case of KSM, the Sunday Times and The Independent of England questioned the American version of events. Robert Fisk of the Independent went one step further in reaction to the alleged arrest of KSM and said quite simply: I’ll believe it when I see it.

We can also see Mr Kupferberg relying unreasonably on news reports of events, specifically the Olbermann report, as we are willing to concede that Lumpkin’s report may be part of the pre-fabricated set-up Mr Kupferberg refers to. There are two important factors for the reader to consider: firstly, why would anybody accept at face value anything the Americans said at a time when they were brazenly lying about weapons of mass destruction and using forged documents to reinforce the case for war; secondly, how is it that American society has progressed to such a pitiful state that an anonymous “top U.S. counterterrorism official” can provide information to a private organisation and people so willingly accept the corporatization of news and do not protest about it? Yes, okay, we are willing to concede that some Americans do protest against the situation and at the time Bush administration officials were desperate to murder hundreds of thousands more Iraqis, on top of the million plus already killed, the Traprock Peace Centre shone like a beacon of real American values in a climate of fear and loathing and lies. We congratulate Traprock for this and advise them that without their contribution some of us would have lost faith in all non-Muslim populations irrevocably, and viewed the Muslim Ummah as the only population capable of dealing with the truth.

Thus far we have dealt with reactions to the arrest of Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah, some of which accepted the arrest at face value and others that did not. We have not dealt with evidence of the arrest itself, the actual operation, because evidence is very, very scarce. We have seen that a large number of people in Pakistan and elsewhere denied the arrest took place and that number was not limited to the webmaster and her associates at Jihad Unspun. What possible evidence of the arrest can be considered at this point? As we pointed out in a previous post on this subject, there are photos, presumably taken in the police or army barracks in Karachi, of the alleged Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah holding a board with a name written on it. We have published this evidence before but will do so again because the evidence causes a great deal of controversy because Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah may not be his real name.

new photos of ramzi bin al shibah

his real name is umar

The person photographed looks, to us, to be the same person who was later photographed by the Red Cross in Guantanamo. But he is holding a board of some kind which identifies him as Umar Muhammad ‘Abdallah Ba’ Amar. Had the Pakistanis and the Americans failed to correctly identify him at this point of time and, if that was the case, why did the board positively identify him as Umar Muhammad ‘Abdallah Ba’ Amar? That’s a very important question as far as we’re concerned and, we suspect, takes us to another level: namely, to ask the question: what is his real name? Is he the same person who allegedly sent money from Hamburg, Germany to Zacarias Moussaoui using the alias Ahad Sabet? Is he the same person who allegedly tried to enter the United States only to be knocked back as an overstay risk? Do two separate identities – two entirely different people – have their identities merged in the official American 9/11 narrative, to create a kind of cut-out, a composite identity created solely to support the narrative?

If the world wasn’t quite sure who Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was, Terry McDermott, in his book Perfect Soldiers, was quick to give us the answer. He lived in Germany with the identity of a Sudanese named Omar and applied for refugee status only to be rejected, Mr McDermott informed us – citing unnamed German intelligence reports. He then returned to Germany under his real name, with an equally real Yemeni (passport # 000852243) identity and applied for refugee status again – and this time was accepted. We remember at the time reading the relevant passages, stopping, and forcing ourselves to read it again. It wasn’t the easiest thing to digest because it frankly didn’t make sense. If there was nothing wrong with his own identity, why had he taken the risk of using a false Sudanese one. Add to that there can only be so many officially sanctioned channels for individuals seeking refugee status in Hamburg and it seems impossible, on the face of it, that he wouldn’t be recognised as the same individual who previously applied with a Sudanese identity. The situation is further complicated by the information that Ramzi was always known as Omar whilst living in Hamburg, even after he returned to Germany with a Yemeni identity with the first name Ramzi. Mr McDermott, despite his unparalleled access to BKA reports, was off to a shaky start, we thought at the time. Quite frankly, we didn’t believe a word of it.

We can see from this visa application ( that the immigration officer dealing with the application has noted that the applicant was travelling back and forth to Jordan. That’s very interesting because Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah is also said to have travelled to a summit ( of Al Qaida terrorists in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in the year 2000. That particular meeting provides the central narrative for the 9/11 Commission Report and recounts how American intelligence first heard about the planned meeting by wire-tapping the phone of an alleged Al Qaida hub ( in Yemen. The CIA allegedly requested Malaysian Special Branch monitor the meeting and they allegedly did so – photographing the participants poolside at the apartment and also “ducking in and out of internet cafes” in Malaysia’s splendid ( capital city.

So much emphasis has been placed on this meeting in Malaysia by the 9/11 Commissioners and associated newspaper reports that at one stage we thought the Americans would run out of paper rehashing the story of Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar slipping through the American dragnet. The narrative is central to Americans’ understanding of the planning for 9/11 and the pretence that the CIA made errors of judgement and were asleep at the wheel. The participants of the meeting allegedly included Hambali, Yazid Sufaat, Nawaf Al-Hazmi, Khalid Al-Mihdhar, Tawfiq bin Attash, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, Fauzi Hasbi (possibly a spy) and Ramzi bin Al-Shibah. Malaysian Special Branch allegedly photographed Ramzi bin Al-Shibah next to Tawfiq bin Attash and there is also said to be video evidence of his presence. Despite this, we are led to believe, both Al-Mihdhar and Ramzi bin Al-Shibah left Malaysia and participated in the attack on the USS Cole later in the year. The Prime Minister of Yemen declared that Al-Mihdhar was involved but left Yemen a few days later. American intelligence sources later ‘confirmed’ to Al-Jazeera journalist Yosri Fouda that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was involved.

Are we to believe that Al-Mihdhar and Ramzi bin Al-Shibah engaged in this frenzy of Jihad activity and then attempted to enter the United States using their real names? Do the 9/11 Commissioners seriously expect us to believe that if the aforementioned information is true that the CIA couldn’t co-ordinate their activities with the State Department and lay a trap for two obvious terror suspects? Again, the suggestion doesn’t make sense. We understand that the 9/11 Commissioners contend that the agency was guilty of incompetence but this suggestion doesn’t cut the mustard, in our opinion. After all, the CIA requested Malaysian Special Branch monitor the Malaysia meeting and they allegedly did so. They also forwarded a report and photographic/ video evidence to the American agency. The participants were known and so were monitored in Singapore, Bangkok and K.L. Why weren’t they stopped if the narrative is essentially correct?
At the very least, after two and possibly three of the participants of the Malaysia meeting allegedly took part in the attack on the USS Cole, why wasn’t action taken? The drowsy driver must surely have woken up by now – or was he catatonic?
The narrative isn’t sustainable and when it is scrutinised it breaks down. Common sense enters the equation; common sense informs us that if these two weren’t watch-listed they weren’t who the Americans say they are or they were deliberately allowed to proceed.

A good method of confirming this contention is to look at the small print. In the United Nations Consolidated List we see that Ramzi bin Al-Shibah’s Sudanese identity and a variety of different names, including the one the Pakistani’s identified him by and published first on this website, simply will not go away. We suspect that the reason for this is that the Americans might be able to run an FBI investigation but they can’t control an international one. What results do we get when we turn to German sources, for example? The same ambiguity with two nationalities, two birthdates. The 1973 birth date links him to Khartoum, Sudan while the 1972 birth date links him to Yemen. We’re think we are looking at an unknown individual with an identity constructed from two separate, equally real identities. The fact that Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted partly on the basis of the Ahad Sabet evidence should make Americans mobilise for political and constitutional reform.

We mentioned already that our theory makes some very interesting predictions and it is not surprising that these predictions have generally come to pass. Our theory predicts that the Americans cannot produce Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah in a court of law because he isn’t who the Americans say he is. Neither can they produce audio of him at the military tribunal in Guantanamo, despite the fact that the audio of KSM and ‘Ammar Al-Baluchi, and an all star cast of other alleged 9/11 conspirators, has been placed in the public domain. It should be pointed out that there is audio of Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah in the public domain already, speaking at a Hamburg wedding, and so the audio at the Guantanamo gulag would obviously be expected to match. Does the suggestion that they could not match explain why there is no Guantanamo audio of Ramzi? Does this also explain why the audio of the interview in Karachi was distorted? Thus far the Americans have derailed the prosecution of two alleged co-conspirators in Germany and, again in our opinion, a miscarriage of justice occurred in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, because of the authorities’ refusal to allow Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah to testify. The instance that took place at the military tribunal was particularly illuminating from our point of view as tribunal members noted that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was delusional and refused to attend the hearing. Has Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah’s condition been diagnosed, we wonder. Is it a symptom of his condition that he is claiming to be someone else?
We became aware that the American military junta and its Wall Street backers recently withdrew charges Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah would have faced had he fronted a civilian court. We think he now faces further prolonged detention until his eventual appearance at a tribunal hearing (audio redacted) or his death. This isn’t justice, one way or the other. After all the misery that has been caused in Afghanistan and Iraq, and New York, for that matter, the Americans should be held accountable and should bring any evidence into the public domain. Judge Leonie Brinkema presided over a terror trial and her name was not kept secret as is the case with the tribunal members in the gulag of Guantanamo Bay. Also the evidence should be made public, not just for the sake of people who criticise the Americans like us – but for the benefit of American society. The behaviour of prosecutors and the judge in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial was unacceptable, in our opinion, because large portions of the evidence were subsequently redacted. And yet that particular side-show took place in the glare of public scrutiny, with reporters present at various times, and proceedings reported upon regularly. What hope can there be for a more transparent process, where the Star Chamber inquisitors have their names redacted and have their fingers poised over an electronic button which cuts the audio feed?

Of course we could be wrong about this and we won’t mind admitting it, unlike some American writers who claimed OBL died at Tora Bora and who now claim that his recent demise is faked. We haven’t dug ourselves into a hopelessly entrenched position by asking these legitimate questions. As we pointed out earlier, the raid at Karachi may have taken place to bring Ramzi into the open and he may have been netted in a separate raid. But that possibility does not explain the question of his identity. Nor does it explain Zacarias Moussaoui’s insistence that Ramzi was not Ahad Sabet. Even when Moussaoui realised his goose was cooked he continued to make the point, which is very strange in the circumstances, if indeed it is true.

Mr Kupferberg refers to a pre-fabricated set-up – a set-up he imagines involves members of the press. A more realistic picture emerges when we consider “Top Secret: the road to September 11th” in a much wider context and focus on the claims made about the documentary by Yosri Fouda himself. Mr Fouda claims to have exposed the true nature of the plot as a coup for Al Jazeera and for himself personally but when we study the entire song and dance routine, the claim falls flat on its face. Upon his return to the Al-Jazeera offices after playing the role of the 9/11 caped crusader, details of Mr Fouda’s interview were examined by the Emir of Qatar, who subsequently gave information to the CIA. In an interview with, the author of the One Percent Doctrine, Ron Suskind, another privileged insider with ties to various unnamed intelligence officials, makes the following claims:

“Bin al Shibh, no. I’m not talking about the bin al Shibh stuff or the KSM stuff. Ultimately, we ended up getting the key breaks on those guys, KSM and bin al Shibh, from the Emir of Qatar, who informed us as to their whereabouts a few months before we captured bin al Shibh. That was the key break in getting those guys. KSM slipped away; in June of 2002, the Emir of Qatar passed along information to the CIA as to something that an Al Jazeera reporter had discovered as to the safe-house where KSM and bin al Shibh were hiding in Karachi slums. He passed that on to the CIA, and that was the key break. Whether Zubaydah provided some supporting information is not clear, but the key to capturing those guys was the help of the Emir.”

Assuming Mr Fouda’s interview took place in Karachi, which is by no means certain, we hereby express our doubts that Mr Fouda knew where he was in the city, as elaborate security measures were put in place to prevent him doing so. Mr Fouda recounts that he was driven around blindfolded to disorient him and, unless he was wearing a tracking device, it is difficult to see where security broke down. Mr Fouda may have heard evidence that there was a mosque nearby – or a hospital, for instance, and this information may have been forwarded to the Americans by the Emir of Qatar. We can now see from information in the public domain that the interview itself – or perhaps reports of the interview, played a largely undetermined role in creating the Legend of 9/11. But can we go on to claim that parts of the legend were deliberately obscured? Is it safe to make the assumption that KSM’s reported links to Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaida leadership in Afghanistan, for example, were created by Al Jazeera and the Emir of Qatar, in conjunction with a pro-western intelligence service, if not the CIA?

We have an indication that this may be the case from two related sources: in the transcript of KSM’s tribunal hearing in the Guantanamo gulag, KSM denies telling Mr Fouda that he was head of Al-Qaida’s military committee, contradicting the Al Jazeera journalist who made the explicit claim. Mr Fouda also makes the highly interesting claim that he agreed not to divulge KSM and Ramzi’s real operational names as a condition to getting the interview. We would like to focus on this particular statement for a moment, to see if we can uncover some facts.

As members of the public who are supposed to buy all this caped crusader stuff, we thought we already knew KSM’s operational names:

Khalid Sheikh Mohommad alias Mohommad the Pakistani alias MP (ISI jargon)

During the past decade, law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies have identified Khalid to use (sic) at least 50 aliases. They are Walid Muhammad Salih Ba Attas; Khalid Shaikh; Khalid Al-Shaikh; Mohammad Khaled; Khalid; Salim Ali; Ali Salem; Muhammed Khalid Al-Mana; M Almana; Ashraf Refaat Nabith Henin; Ashraf Refaat Nabih Henin; Nabih Hanin; Fahd Bin Abdallah Bin Khaled; Muhammad Muhannadi; Ashraf Ahmed; Ashraf; Ahmed Refaat; Khalid Abdul Wadood; Khalid the Kuwaiti; Babu Hamza; Mukhtar; Al-Mukh;Muhammad Ali Al Balushi; Mukhtar Al-Baluchi; Abdul Rahman Abdullah Al-Ghamdi; Khalid Mohammad Mohammad; Khalid Shaikh Mohammad; Khalid Mohammad; Khalid Al-Shiekh; Khalid Abdul Wadood; and Khalid Saeed Muhammad. Although Khalid appears older, Khalid frequently uses two birthdays – April 14, 1965 and March 1, 1964. In addition to using forged and adapted passports, Khalid uses several fraudulently obtained passports – African (Sudanese), Middle Eastern (Saudi) and Asian (Pakistani). For instance, his Saudi Arabian passport is no C174152 with expiration date April 23, 2005 lists his date and place of birth as September 24, 1968 and Saudi Arabia respectively. Similarly, he received Pakistani passport numbers 488555, issued at the Pakistani Embassy in Kuwait and 113107, issued at the Pakistani Embassy in Abu Dhabi on July 21, 1994, the latter with an expiration date of September 18, 1997. In 1995, the FBI retrieved a photograph of Khalid from Yousef’s Toshiba laptop, the first indication that he was an important terrorist. Even before the FBI and the CIA knew the link between Khalid and bin Laden or Khalid and Al Qaeda, Khalid has been a wanted terrorist. Nonetheless, by using multiple identities, Khalid has evaded law enforcement authorities worldwide and operated on every continent including in Latin America. For instance, operating under the Egyptian name Ashraf Refaat Nabih Henin, Khalid obtained a Brazilian visa no 194-95 (C0077250) issued in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. (Source, Rohan Gunaratna, Al Qaeda’s Trajectory in 2003.)

We also thought we knew Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah’s operational name: Abu Ubaidah and his other aliases.  So it is interesting to ponder which additional operating names Mr Fouda agreed to keep quiet about. Were they names, we wonder, which tie KSM or Ramzi – or both – to the Pakistani ISI by any chance? And if not, why did KSM and his collaborators allegedly distribute video on behalf of the National Movement For The Restoration Of Pakistani Sovereignty, whose demands included the delivery of F16 planes that Pakistan paid for and never received? Isn’t that a strange demand for an Al Qaida ‘terrorist’ to make? Source, Pearl murder video. (author refuses to provide link). Can the reader now see the fingerprints of an intelligence operation upon the events we are dealing with? And whose fingerprints are they? Who are the obvious suspects once the implausible suspects have been eliminated from the investigation?

We also wish to point out that in the aftermath of the raid in Karachi which allegedly netted Ramzi, there were persistent reports that KSM was killed in the shootout and that his wife and two young children were taken into custody. Please remember that we extracted the screenshots of Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah holding the board from a video called The New Al-Qaida, a BBC production available at There is also additional footage in the same section we haven’t previously extracted frames from, and interestingly there are additional frames of KSM at the time of his arrest. While these photographs of KSM are obviously in the public domain, they are not widely known about and have not been published until now to the best of our knowledge. In our view, they strongly suggest that ‘KSM’ and ‘Ramzi’ were detained at the same time and that the photos of KSM with his clothes in disarray were not taken at the place of his arrest. We have come to this conclusion for the following reasons: firstly, the film has unique, bluish tint which is unlikely to have been used in both Karachi and Rawalpindi. The same batch of film showing both accused terrorists strongly implies that the film was used to photograph the accused at around about the same time. Numerous reports have circulated, moreover, that the wall behind ‘KSM’ – the wall with the peeling paint on it, is not to be found at the address in Rawalpindi where ‘KSM’ was arrested. This could be explained if the photographs were taken in the Pakistani police or army barracks where they were taken after their arrests sometime in September, 2002. Furthermore, ‘KSM’ is identified in the film not by holding a board but by caption. We think this is unlikely to have occurred at the place of his arrest but at a subsequent detention centre, after the accused had been identified by Pakistani authorities.

khalid sheikh muhammed positively identified

is this the same batch of film?

All of our reports except the humorous ones carry a direct message which goes way beyond the facts. We pointed out, time and time again, that the American government and its gullible population cannot be trusted to deliver the truth on 9/11 and the ongoing ‘War on Terror’ partly because of government secrecy and partly because American investigators employ sloppy methods and refuse to go out to interview people. Even the so-called shining stars of the 9/11 truth movement, such as Paul Thompson, really do nothing more than compile newspaper reports and then make often incorrect assumptions based on them. A good example to illustrate this perspective are the repeated assertions that General Ahmed instructed Saeed Sheikh to transfer $100,000 to Muhammed Atta while the latter was allegedly in Florida. Those who wished to gain a modicum of respectability and therefore distanced themselves from the thermite in the dust crowd, repeated this propaganda claim by Indian Intelligence ad infinitum, so that eventually the story acquired a life of its own – but the information eventually led nowhere, as it was a dead-end no-brainer to start with. Because of the way Americans investigate, all any author had to do was use Google to find the original story in the Indian press, copy and paste the url – and hey, presto, the story became embedded in the 9/11 narrative. There are many, many similar examples we could use to demonstrate this fact. Whereas the American investigator is in a good position geographically to conduct an investigation, they always waste their opportunities with a combination of a priori assumptions and unwillingness to take any risks. Let us demonstrate to our readers what we mean by this.

There are a large number of Americans who have valuable information. We can think of a number of them without mentioning their names. Usually they had high-level clearance in the Bush administration but now most of them have retired or moved on. There are also a large number of people in the current administration who possess important information that could be used to help derail the American putsch into the Muslim world. Has anyone in America even thought about asking these people about the real story? Has an informal approach been made to even 1% of them? Last night on the television news it was reported that an additional 5 Americans were killed in Afghanistan, four in one incident and another in a separate one. That, we might add, is in addition to one Australian soldier killed and another hospitalised with life threatening injuries. For previously loyal intelligence officials, and some serving military personnel, these casualties are their weak spot. A large number of them could be persuaded to talk in the right circumstances, especially after rapport building and trust has been established. And while it is possible to do this by making phone calls, writing letters or emails, the American investigator is in a far better position than we are because they can sit down face to face.

It can be argued, of course, that Americans are not unique in this respect. In this particular report we have looked at events in Karachi, which is in Pakistan, and not the USA. Has anyone even contemplated going along to the apartment and asking questions? Is this really asking too much for a population who instinctively know that they are being lied to? Is it too much to ask that an independent investigation be undertaken, instead of letting the intelligence services and the controlled press define the moment? Stokely Carmichael once described the ruling class in America as ‘masters of definition,’ as they control language and the media to reinforce their rule. Thus, one particular group are defined as terrorists while the favoured group are described as freedom fighters. The myth of democracy is used to reinforce this perspective although the opposite is the case. One particular armed group can be portrayed as diligent citizens who are upholding their constitutional right to bear arms, while another group, such as the residents at Waco, Texas, are accused of stockpiling weapons in a sinister and conspiratorial way. Why do Americans allow the ruling class to define language in the way they have done? This author firmly believes that the best way of taking this privilege away from them is to establish local committees of inquiry – whatever the subject – and to steadfastly maintain the independence of those inquiries with no government interference or involvement.

This methodology has been effective in two examples that immediately spring to mind here in Australia. In the first of our two examples, a people’s investigation was effective in exposing the ASIO bombing in Sydney, back in the 1970’s. Asio, a branch of the Australian secret services, exploded a device near the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting – and then blamed Amanda Marga, an Australian religious sect, for the crime. An Australian Trotskyist group conducted the investigation and the end result was that the then Australian Attorney General was persuaded – some would say forced – to personally lead the raid on the ASIO offices with a search warrant in his hands. Another example that springs to mind is the investigation of some deaths in custody – murders committed by generally white, redneck police officers – against members of Australia’s indigenous community. The case we wish to illustrate: John Pat. Where did all the calls for a Royal Commission into his death lead? Did we tell you at the time that a Royal Commission would only result in a cover-up? Were we proven right? And where did the independent investigation lead? Can you remember?

We mention all this in passing because the same mistakes are being made again. Americans who doubt their government is telling the truth are again being led in the direction of calling for a new inquiry. They have effectively no chance, one way or another. Assuming that the government eventually accepted the demand, the terms of reference would be restrictive; members of the defence forces and intelligence services would be exempted from giving evidence as the ruling class in America have no interest in allowing the truth to emerge. In terms of general chatter within the wider intelligence community, there is a significant faction who has formed the opinion that Saddam Hussein ordered the American embassy bombings in Africa, to cite just one example. We haven’t got access to all the information they have but we know what they’ve been saying because they’ve told us. What could we make of the decision to attack Afghanistan and Sudan with cruise missiles with that little nugget of information up our sleeves? What does that say about Hilary Clinton and her sometimes husband and their commitment to upholding the truth?

We maintain that aside from the damage done to individuals’ lives, with Star Chamber Inquisitors at the Guantanamo gulag still running the show with their fake military credentials and their overwhelming sense of priorities, that the entire ‘War On Terror’ is essentially based upon a lie. It is interesting to note that Azzam Publications, the website mentioned earlier in our analysis of the Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah episode, were the last major source of information that Osama Bin Laden did not organise or have involvement in the September 11th attacks. In fact the majority of so-called Islamic websites including Azzam, The Unjust Media and a host of others, all maintained his innocence and preferred to believe him and the Taliban when they issued their denials. What has changed in the meanwhile? Has the growth of the police state and the drive to maintain the permanent war economy had anything to do with the fact that these websites were forced to close? We call for an independent investigation and we call on our supporters to establish a meaningful website, properly constructed and not on a free server, with multi-lingual writers who are committed to the truth – and we call on members of the public to support that effort collectively. Our aim should be to expose the War On Terror and confine western military forces to their barracks, at least as a first step.

“Think not of those who are killed in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive with their Lord, and they are being provided for. They rejoice in what Allah has bestowed upon them from His bounty and rejoice for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice in a grace and a bounty from Allah, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers.” [Quran 3:169-171]

additional links and photos soon to be added.

The FBI operation around the 9/11 hijackers (coming soon)

Posted in fake terror with tags on April 19, 2011 by operationbreaklock

Circumstances beyond our control have made it impossible to post regular updates to the blog recently and we would like to take this opportunity to inform our readers that we shall be returning to our investigations with renewed determination and a newly acquired dose of enthusiasm in the coming period. We hope to be able to present to the general public new, vital intelligence about the nature of the FBI investigation operating around the 9/11 hijackers back in 2001. We will be presenting evidence to demonstrate, God willing, that plans for the 9/11 operation were being hatched in the United Kingdom as early as July 2001 when key operatives operating on yahoo message boards  sent confirmation of the number of hijackers expected to take part as well as the date of the operation.  No, we are not talking about Atta’s cake with a dash and two sticks down. We are talking about the operation launched in conjunction with Indian intelligence. (CBI)

We find it disturbing, actually frightening, that people educated in the western world believe that the current air-strikes taking place against Libya are to protect the civilian population. The British and French have in recent years taken part in a criminal bombardment and siege of Iraq where many people died. To suggest that suddenly these two imperialist has-beens have discovered a social conscience is somewhat ludicrous, in our view, especially as the French recently took the unprecedented step of criminalizing Muslim dress codes in a display of contempt for God’s truth. We confidently predict that the (northern) summer will see riots on the streets of Paris, Lyon, Marseilles, London, Birmingham etc etc as these two countries continue to disintegrate.

We will also be delivering a report on the origins of the Nation Of Islam in the coming period, God willing, and will attempt to disprove the allegation that Master W.D. Fahd Muhammad and Wallace Ford are one and the same person. We are quite good at photographic analysis and the temptation to diversify, temporarily, is something we need to do. With all that said we urge our readers to study the document below this post which deals with the USS Cole attack. We have previously written obliquely about the USS Cole incident in conjunction with our reports on the Bali bombings. We pointed out, for example, that the Yemen government kept releasing those detained over the Cole incident, thereby implying that those accused by the American government were in fact innocent. When studying the report below, we suggest that readers bear in mind the feud that erupted between John O’Neil and the American Ambassador. Many American armchair pundits have reported this feud was a result of a personality clash but after reading the document we think it is safer to conclude the feud arose because of the dissemination of false information.

Thank-you for being patient and please don’t forget to bookmark. Because our opponents have nothing much to say of any merit and have resorted to sending spam comments to our blog, we found it necessary to turn off the comments section. To communicate with us readers are advised to send an email to either or Without your continued support our reports will be substandard as we rely on fresh information from members of the public to maintain a cutting edge in false flag terrorism analysis and other intrigues, especially  in the UK.  We read recently that Dominic Wightman kindly gave us a mention in his so appropriately named Westminster Journal. Yes, we had a little chuckle about that. Not all is lost when Mr Wightman can take time off from his obsession with Tim Ireland and have a dig at some of his other opponents. This sort of behavior needs to be encouraged and all my readers are hereby urged to log onto Westminster Journal to make his stats go up and cheer him up. Ahem.

Operation Snake Charmer

Posted in fake terror, Lockerbie false flag on March 22, 2011 by operationbreaklock

Dealing with the Bali bombings has been particularly difficult for us as investigators because we couldn’t expect an outcome – someone released from jail, for example – or even a decision on behalf of the ruling class to examine the new evidence. We knew that the people associated with the event had essentially run for cover – and anything short of physically chasing after them simply wouldn’t work. This was frustrating for us because the only realistic outcome that could be achieved was that our stats went up and we received some vital intelligence. We knew we weren’t going to get an admission of responsibility because the culprits would never be charged. We did lay a trail, however, and examined the quite remarkable coincidence that the same batch of C4 was used to cause explosions in Yemen and Bali. We wonder where else this C4 was used and find it interesting that first reports emerging from London in the wake of the 7/7 bombings also spoke of this particularly ubiquitous military grade explosive. Let us pause for a moment and consider the political repercussions of that.

In the United States, the so-called 9/11 truth movement has been active over the years trying to uncover what happened. Of course it goes without saying that some 9/11 Truthers are a lot brighter than others and have the ability to physically investigate by conducting interviews, visiting the area around the Pentagon or talking to people in Florida, for example. They therefore have a distinct advantage over other investigators and it is important to realise that the results have sometimes been impressive. American investigators who employ proper investigative techniques have successfully determined the North Side approach of Flight 77 to the Pentagon, again as an example, thereby demonstrating that the operational methodology of having boots on the ground is the only way to do the job. Having said that we might begin to speak of the tyranny of distance and rue the fact that we are firmly based in Australia although, on balance, we feel much safer operating in Australia as the authorities don’t have the same capabilities to track us, despite multiple attempts to do so, especially when we investigated Lockerbie and started to dig deeper into the morass of Bali related lies. Perhaps we should begin, then, to consider political expediency as an operational necessity. Many 9/11 Truthers operate in very similar conditions although some of them are conscious of the fact and others are not.

To demonstrate to our readers where this argument is heading, please consider what would happen if elements within the 9/11 Truth Movement did succeed in establishing conclusively that the United States government was involved in the attacks. Is it unreasonable to conclude that the United States would undergo a political transformation and a parallel revolution and that the Democrats and Republicans would be swept from power? What new political force could emerge in the aftermath of such disclosures and would that political movement uphold the Constitution of the United States? We doubt it, for reasons we will outline, and confidently predict the United States and other so-called western democracies, particularly Britain, France, Germany and Australia, will morph into totalitarian dictatorships as further damaging disclosures emerge. 9/11 Truthers, and other investigators for that matter, need to realise, therefore, that the system they are questioning is on the brink of collapse as it has become impossible for those in power to maintain so many lies simultaneously. While we do not claim that disclosures by investigators have plunged the system into crisis, we recognise that the system was already in crisis and the disclosures have only made things worse. The architecture of the investigations we conducted about Dulles, Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah and Bali, could therefore be identified as confrontational and we freely admit we were attacking the system. We weren’t going to benefit and there was nothing to be gained by going on the attack except to deepen the crisis. There was nobody sitting in jail who could possibly benefit with the exception of Zacarias Moussaoui, and we realised, from the outset, there was nothing we could do about that.

Conducting an investigation in an unbiased, objective way is one thing but launching an intelligence operation is a different kettle of fish. When we presented the reports on Dulles or Bali that’s all there really was to it. We just looked into events, found what we found and then went on the attack. Although the reports were persuasive we know we didn’t have any real proof as such. We were looking at logical inconsistencies, examining disinformation and there was no real involvement by us as investigators in actually shaping the facts. In other words, we didn’t write the narrative. It was someone else’s story. The situation could not be compared with our report on Lockerbie where we did write some of the facts. We launched an operation that was eventually successful, Operation_Breaklock. We weren’t on the attack for the sake of it as was the case later on. We had one goal, in fact, due to political expediency. This single goal was getting Abdel Bassit Al-Megrahi out of jail.

Long before we wrote a report on the subject, we were active, needling Jenvey. That was just before the appeal was granted. We made a bit of noise but kept it to a minimum, because of political expediency and strictly limited objectives. Then about six weeks before the appeal was granted we made a strategic decision to disclose the information about the bomb in the Lockerbie sewage tank in a very limited way. We did this in the form of emails to 7 or 8 addresses, not by creating a website because we didn’t want to lose control of the information which we considered a weapon, a useful weapon, to get the man out of jail. We also suspected that MI5 would quite readily dump Jenvey because they were sick and tired of him and his antics and the fact that he wouldn’t shut up, something which has been confirmed to us in the ensuing period. What we didn’t say then but what we are saying now is that we had confirmation of the sewage tank claim and we would like to take this opportunity to discuss this with our opponents.

Defend the Libyan Revolution


In recent days the United States and some of its European allies have started bombing Libya because they need to deplete their stocks of cruise missiles to maintain their permanent war economies and because they want to divide the country prior to occupying it and seizing its oil reserves. We call on the US led coalition to immediately halt all military action otherwise we promise, not threaten, to launch Operation Snake Charmer. Where did we get that confirmation of the sewage tank claim from – and is the information enough to bring down a government or two? Please bear in mind that although the Lockerbie bombing took place under conservative administrations in Britain and America, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were in some ways equally as culpable although we have been told that Mr Blair was kept in the dark for much of his time in office. Whether this is true or is another piece of disinformation is really anybody’s guess but the claim has been made by a source we trust implicitly and so we are reporting it in the interests of being fair. Certainly, from what we have been told, President Obama could not hope to achieve any benefit from full disclosure as a number of his key allies have a lot to lose as lying to Congress and in sub-committees is considered to be a serious crime.

Libya emerged from the control of the feudal Monarchy and the Italian occupation with a unique system of government, the Libyan Jamahiriya.

The Jamahiriya is built on three distinct foundations:

Firstly, that authority should be in the hands of the people so that the people will be able to govern themselves by themselves.

Secondly, that the people should possess their own wealth so that they will be able to satisfy their basic needs and to create a socially just society and,

Thirdly, that the people should possess arms to defend the revolution, its achievements and its principles.

While we do have a number of differences with Muammar Gadhaffi, we do admire the revolution and celebrate its achievements. We think that the decision by Gadhaffi to over-rule the People’s Congresses on the question of women in the military was wrong and think that Gadhaffi should be listening to the revolution and not the other way around. The political situation in Libya worsened because the revolution stalled for many years due to a number of factors such as sanctions, political isolation and the enslavement of the Arab masses in Egypt by supporters of America and Israel. While all the above mentioned factors are important, and because Libya was framed for Lockerbie, we promise to destroy American and British political careers with the information in our possession if the attacks against Libya do not cease. We did not need to do this before as our goal was to release Mr Megrahi and, to be honest – brutally honest – we didn’t care much about the truth.

We have tried to write this in a non-threatening, non confrontational way to avoid inflaming further tension. The Americans and their British allies can choose to avoid this warning and carry on with their seemingly endless aerial bombardments of Middle Eastern populations if they so wish. If they do so beyond a seven day deadline we will do our utmost to bring down some of their so-called shining stars. This seven day deadline starts Tuesday 22nd March at midday, Australian Eastern standard time. Operation Snake Charmer operatives would prefer to let the situation rest at this point but if the Americans and British wish to escalate they have only themselves to blame.

Finally, we call for the establishment of no-fly-zones over Libya – but not to protect the Libyan people from the Libyan Air-Force – but to protect the Libyan population from this new Crusader front opened by the Americans and British, with their French poodle – Sarkozy – whose mandate to govern was issued in Tel Aviv. Were it not for the seriousness of the situation where lives are being lost even as you read this, we would find it comical that the alliance of imperialist lackeys is being led by the French and the ever stoical control freak also known as the Australian Foreign Minister.

Bali: Disinformation from the micro-nuke crowd.

Posted in fake terror with tags , , , , , , on February 2, 2011 by operationbreaklock

More information has been pointed out to Operation Breaklock investigators and although some of this information has been in the public domain for some time, we were unaware of it. We think that now we are in possession of additional facts, some of which are undisputed, we can significantly advance our research into the terror attacks in Bali in 2002. Although some of this information comes from Muslim sources and will no doubt be dismissed by many because of its origin – to do so would in our opinion be a grave mistake. We aim to place the Bali explosion firmly within an historical context, thereby giving our analysis a finer cutting edge. We will examine whether Australia’s role in East Timor’s independence push played any part in the decision to target predominantly Australian tourists on the island of Bali and whether Abdur Rahman Wahid’s assertion that the Bali bomb plot was hijacked by the military or the police is deserving of further scrutiny. Please bear in mind that we are hanging a large part of our developing theory on the intel derived information that the C4 used in the second Bali device came from the same batch as that used in the USS Cole attack. If we are wrong on this point we do believe that significant inroads can still be made in an overall analysis although our report would be fundamentally flawed. We have reason to believe, however, that only Muslims are capable of finding the truth in these cases – as Muslims are sole custodians of the truth in so many aspects of life. Whereas western societies brought nothing but shame and defeat upon humanity with endless wars, fascism, racism and a dysfunctional social system, Muslims alone have the ability to deal with the truth because Almighty Allah assists them. Allah The Exalted aids the true believers and calls on the world population to break free from false beliefs and revert to Islam. Thus, Allah sent forth a Glorious Koran to all of humanity as guidance – not just for Muslims – but for everybody else as well.

We can quite clearly see a pattern emerge after the Moscow apartment bombings of 1999: an attack against civilians takes place and a false trail of evidence leads back to Muslims to create an epoch of conflict between the two sides. Perhaps it is possible to push back this 1999 date to the beginning of the 1990s when false allegations about weapons of mass destruction were levelled against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Crude attempts to frame Osama Bin Laden for the Khobar Towers bombing and the African Embassy bombings could then be included in the time-frame. Some people argue, on the other hand, that the disbelievers’ implacable hatred of Islam goes back centuries to perhaps the First or Second Crusades. We take the view, however, that the false flag terrorist acts started in earnest in the late 1990s when the armaments industry’s collapse was imminent after the demise of the Soviet Union. Because the American economy became so dependent on large-scale conflict and the arms race, new enemies needed to be created to avoid economic collapse. The turning point for the Americans came, of course, when the attacks against the Twin Towers and Pentagon took place. Sweeping powers of arrest were introduced and monolithic fascist structures, such as the Department of Homeland Security, were established. Most importantly, the cruise missile contracts started flowing again. What major powers such as the United States and Britain needed most, however, were regional allies in the Muslim and non-Muslim world. To operate successfully and to enable the United States to seize strategic oil interests around the Caspian Sea and Iraq, Dick Cheney’s command structure needed to extend far beyond his bunker to include the rest of the world. The rest of the world, of course, included Indonesia and Australia and despite ongoing problems in the Indonesian Republic where the nationalist movement appeared to be losing its stranglehold on society, Australia could as per usual be counted on as a tried and trusted ally.

Much has been made of the activities of a group in South East Asia called Jemaah Islamiyah which, we think for reasons we will outline, is a fiction created by Singapore intelligence. It is somewhat amusing and at the same time illuminating that the organization allegedly operating in Malaysia, Indonesia and the southern Philippines, had never been heard of in the countries in which it was supposed to operate. When the Singapore authorities took the world by storm in announcing their discovery, Malaysian authorities were perplexed and astonished that the Singaporeans were disseminating the information. Of course the Malaysians, for example, were aware that many within the country rightly interpreted Islam literally and called for the implementation of Islamic law. Many within the broader Islamic movement saw the creation of a South-East Asian Muslim Super-State as a way of stamping out corruption, nepotism and the introduction of alcohol and heroin into the heart of Muslim society. To some extent it is fair to say that the progressive Muslim movements in the various communities began to reject the nationalist perspective of their respective nation-states. They rejected the ethnic Chinese capitalist control of their societies and the introduction of unclean foods into their markets; the sale of alcohol in Chinese owned bars and strip-clubs; the introduction of narcotics by predominantly ethnic Chinese gangsters into the communities and the charging of interest on loans by multi-national banks. For many within Malaysian society, again as an example, nationalism was seen as an abject failure that led to the enslavement of  Muslim society. An indication that Muslims were indeed rejecting the nationalist perspective was seen in the Malaysian state of Kelantan when a state government was elected promising to introduce Islamic law. It is interesting to note that Kelantan has a predominantly rural economy and the major town, Kota Bharu, has little in the way of industry. To the south of Kelantan, Terengganu is another rural state where most Muslims live in small villages or kampongs, and where the introduction of Islamic law is immensely popular. To sum up this perspective it should be noted that traditional Malay societies by and large support the introduction of Islamic law, setting off alarm bells in the secular western part of the country where the majority of the ethnic Chinese population dominate the economy.

And while it is true that popular Islamic movements enjoy strong support throughout Malay society, it is equally true that the government in Kuala Lumpur is hostile to the introduction of Islamic law. The Kuala Lumpur government is desperate to avoid a repeat of the 1969 race riots when groups of armed Muslims attacked the source of sin by burning Chinese owned bars and strip clubs and shops selling pork and alcohol.

There is a similar situation in Indonesia where the local Muslims are hostile to the introduction of sinful practices, such as gambling, alcohol consumption and night-clubs. The heroin epidemic is not as bad in Indonesia as it is in Malaysia – but other drugs such as amphetamines, magic mushrooms and pot threaten the foundations of Muslim society. Within a broader context, then, this so-called vast Islamic conspiracy that allegedly occurs throughout the South-East Asian region is nothing more than a natural reaction by Muslims who rightly oppose sinful practices in their communities. It is also necessary to point out that ethnic Malay Muslims and their Indonesian counterparts are in no way hostile to Chinese people per se. They are acutely aware that millions of Muslims live in China itself where they are terribly oppressed along with other religions such as the Buddhists in Tibet. They are not in the least opposed to Chinese people because they are Chinese or speak a different language. They are solely opposed to the introduction of sinful practices in their communities and correctly see the introduction of Islamic law as a solution not just of their own problems but of the entire world’s problems.

Being guilty of a thought crime and being guilty of being a member of a coherent, structured organization with a membership, leaders, oaths of allegiance etc., are two very different things – and we think the Singapore government’s decision to publicly declare they uncovered a hitherto unknown organization – takes a leaf out of the American book when they successfully identified Al Qaida as an organization in the January 2001 trial of four men charged in connection with the embassy bombings in Africa. The prosecutors in the case also decided to charge Osama bin Laden and required evidence of a criminal organization to enable a successful prosecution to go ahead. Because prosecutors required evidence of a coherent organization with Bin Laden as its leader to prosecute, they essentially created one with the assistance of a key prosecution witness, Jamal Ahmed Al-Fadl. The Singapore decision to identify Jemaah Islamiyah as an organization follows essentially the same narrative except that Abu Bakr Basheer is identified as the leader of this new, mythical structure with identifiable ties to Afghanistan through individuals such as Hambali. This declaration by the Singapore authorities provided them with additional ammunition to clamp down and repress legitimate Muslim opposition to sinful practices in the region because they could claim that Muslims were part of a criminal organization. Please remember at this point that the Singapore government is itself a totalitarian regime that will not even entertain the idea of opposition parties or indeed criticism of any sort.

Parts of the document published by the Singapore Authorities border on the absurd: at one point the alleged JI leader in Singapore advises “members” to avoid telling family members what they have had to eat and to keep sensitive documents in “safe boxes.” In a letter written to Mullah Omar in Afghanistan by the same JI “leader,” he asks whether all Muslims in places such as Singapore are required to migrate to Afghanistan and asks Mullah Omar what will happen to all the mosques and Islamic institutions if all Muslims leave. This same JI leader then goes on to ask Mullah Omar if it is true that the Saudi king is an American ally who co-operates with the non-believers in “many matters.” We are left to imagine Mullah Omar raising a discerning eyebrow if he ever received such a letter. Of course he did not.

We do not think it is necessary for us to attempt to debunk the many allegations contained in the report about JI activities in Singapore because this is primarily a report about Bali and to launch into separate investigations would be a diversion. One particular allegation in the report should not go unchallenged, however, and it concerns the information that Khalim Jaffar planned to cause explosions at the Yishun (please scroll down page) Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) station at the behest of Mohamed Atef. It is stated that American forces found a video in the bombed house of Mohamed Atef (Abu Hafs) showing surveillance footage of the aforementioned station. We don’t believe this for a moment as it comes hot on the heels of the famous American discovery of the laughing Osama Bin Laden confession and Ramzi bin Al-Shibah’s last will and testament, also allegedly found in bombed houses. Firstly, if Abu Hafs did ever possess such a video, we do not think he would be stupid enough to leave it lying around waiting to be discovered by American forces. More importantly, Abu Hafs was extremely loyal to Mullah Omar and the Taliban and always obeyed Mullah Omar who ordered that no foreign operations should be launched from Afghan soil. Immediately after 9/11, Osama bin Laden issued denials that he was responsible for the attack but noticed that his denials received scant attention and the chorus of threats intensified. Bin Laden then switched tactics and started praising the attacks without taking personal responsibility. Even this tactic was opposed vehemently by Abu Hafs who continued to deny any involvement and remained totally loyal to the Taliban. For this reason, Abu Hafs’ video statements are literally impossible to find on the internet today – and he has been almost completely expunged from the (official) 9/11 narrative by the Americans and As-Sahab, Al Qaida’s so-called media company. Abu Hafs did not simply issue denials that their group was responsible for 9/11, he strongly opposed foreign operations altogether. Allegations that he had a role in the African Embassy bombings are an example of the Americans clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to conceal the fact that one of their own operatives carried out the surveillance of the embassies involved. For the Singaporeans to disseminate information that Khalim Jaffar was acting on behalf of Abu Hafs makes their report appear even more unreliable and suspicious than it would be had they made the allegations against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for example.

We also note with interest that Abu Hafs was identified as the organizer of the plot to bomb the Singapore MRT station at a time when the Americans had not completely developed their fictional narrative about superstar terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The report is dated January 2003 and we imagine it took a reasonable amount of time – three or four months – to assemble. The Singapore government’s decision to identify Abu Hafs as the organizer of the MRT plot therefore echoes American disinformation prior to the outing of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the organizer of almost every terror attack since WTC 93. For those readers who wish to develop this insightful perspective further, we recommend reading Chaim Kupferberg’s Truth, Lies and the Legend of 9/11 linked to here. In this beautifully constructed document Mr Kupferberg analyzes trends and undercurrents underpinning American allegations in its newly declared War on Terror. We can see how trends evolve and then shift to keep abreast with intelligence related developments. Perhaps more than any other writer, Mr Kupferberg’s analysis focuses on various threads in the fabric of disinformation and clearly exposes the lies disseminated by the American agencies and their subordinate international counterparts. Readers who are particularly interested in this aspect of the 9/11 plot should not despair that we provide no further information at this point in time. We will return to the subject (God willing) in the future and provide a more detailed account. As something of a preview for this perspective, however, we provide a link to one of Abu Hafs’ denials here. Of course Abu Hafs supported Jihad as it is ordered in the Qur’an and that’s why he was in Afghanistan helping to consolidate the gains of the Islamic Emirate. To allege that he was in Afghanistan organizing foreign operations is a vile slander and a lie based on manufactured evidence.

We maintain that wide-spread opposition to the exploitation of the region’s resources by multi-national companies and ideological opposition to widespread sin such as gambling and alcohol consumption was and still is the primary component of Muslim opposition to governments in the region – and of course this perspective does not sit well with those governments and multi-national companies like BHP, Rio Tinto and the foreign owned banking sector. These companies are not just hostile to Islam – but to anyone else who threatens their interests. When the people of Bougainville unanimously opposed copper mining on their island, criminal gangs in London, Port Moresby and Sydney sent in mercenaries to smash up the resistance, commit murder and destroy the communities. A similar situation developed in Iryan Jaya when local people opposed mining on their traditional lands. An indication of the depths of criminality flourishing in Australia was made apparent when the regime in Canberra sent attack helicopters to destroy the fledgling resistance. Australia then supported a Gaza like siege on the people of the region and it was left to a brave group of Australians to try to break the siege and deliver much needed medical supplies.

Brave resistance leaders such as Francis Ona  posed a serious threat to transnational mining companies in the 1980s although the resistance was short-lived because of the overwhelming force used against the civilian population by transnational mining companies and their backers in London, New York and Sydney. In this important period, Australia strengthened its self appointed position of defending the exploitation of the region’s resources by Australian mining companies and financed a campaign of murder and intimidation with regional allies in Port Moresby and Jakarta. Throughout the 1980s, importantly, Australia was implacably opposed to the East Timorese independence movement and even went as far as ignoring the death of Australian journalists in East Timor to avoid upsetting their lucrative relationship with the Suharto regime in Indonesia. This caused a hell of a stink in Australia because the government was seen to be capitulating to Indonesian pressure to keep their mouths shut on the issue – despite clear evidence the journalists were chased into a house and murdered in cold blood. Throughout the period of the 1980s and 1990s when a Labor government was in power in Canberra, Australia strongly opposed independence for East Timor and politicians portrayed the East Timorese resistance as leftist rebels intent on a Nicaraguan style take-over. In this period, the population of East Timor was attacked ruthlessly by the Indonesian military and many thousands of people died with the government in Canberra paying little more than lip-service to the concept of human rights. One particular violent incident occurred when many hundreds of people were killed in what became known as the Dili graveyard massacre and Australian so-called human rights campaigners were outraged that the government in Canberra would not support independence for East Timor.

It is important to point out that Indonesia saw East Timor as an integral part of the Republic from a nationalist perspective. For a long time after Indonesia won its independence from the Dutch, a tiny outpost of Portugese colonialism maintained links to Lisbon and defied the legitimate decolonization process. The government in Indonesia rightly saw East Timor as an integral part of Indonesia that had been taken over by foreigners, colonized – and they wanted it back. The trouble, at least from an Indonesian perspective, was that the population overwhelmingly wanted independence. The Australian government backed the Indonesian claim until John Howard became Prime Minister of Australia and the government of Paul Keating was voted out of office in 1997.

The Howard government publicly supported Indonesia’s claim to its sovereign territory but secretly and treacherously worked against the Indonesians by encouraging the separatists to continue to push for independence. The reason for this about-face was the realization that an independent East Timor could proclaim its own territorial limits, thereby giving any independent government in Dili access to lucrative gas fields in what were Indonesian territorial waters. The Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, negotiated a deal with the East Timorese leaders in which they would receive support for independence from Canberra in exchange for allowing Australia access to the gas fields and thus robbing Indonesia of the sovereign right to its territory. The territorial boundaries were in fact crucial for Australian and East Timorese negotiations and it is impossible the Indonesian government was unaware of the deal being struck between Canberra and Dili. John Howard suddenly became a spokesman for human rights in the area and supported the idea of a referendum to determine East Timor’s future status. Howard also pushed for foreign peacekeepers in East Timor and was responsible for the invasion of sovereign Indonesia by Australian troops. In this scenario, we will demonstrate quite clearly, that it was Howard and his imperialist plots against Indonesian sovereignty that lit the fuse on the Bali bomb. The powerful Indonesian military would never forgive the Australians for the humiliation they suffered by the presence of Australian troops and the loss of its legitimate sovereign territory.

We have now arrived at a point where we can begin to look at the complexities of the Bali bombings and begin our analysis in earnest. Unlike other investigators who make unsubstantiated allegations against Muslims because they feel immune from repercussions sitting behind their computer monitors in the United States and elsewhere, we are unable to do so. There have been allegations, for example, peddled by right-wing nutcases, that Azzam the American and Omar Al Farouk are either CIA or Mossad agents on the basis that the first was born into a Jewish family and the second escaped from Bagram detention centre. Of course what these right wing nutcases all fail to realize is that real Jews, true Jews, are People of the Book and should not be criticized ad infinitum for their beliefs. Stigmatizing Jews is a long-time preoccupation of the American right who blame Jews for many of their own problems because they are unable to honestly look at themselves. Of course it wasn’t Jews who launched a genocidal war in Vietnam nor was it Jews who dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This long time preoccupation with all things Jewish led to some outrageous allegations against Jews in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, with various right wing commentators blaming Jews for the attacks. One example of this was the allegation that Mossad agents tracked and followed some of the 9/11 hijackers in America and even rented property in the same street as Mohammed Atta. We saw this at the time as essentially disinformation and we were right – because it was subsequently established that the residence in which Mohammed Atta allegedly lived was a post office box. There are many other examples of right wing nutcase westerners blaming Jews for terror attacks and the attacks in Bali are no exception. They remind us of the allegations peddled by right wing nutcases such as Henry Ford of a vast Jewish conspiracy behind the Bolshevik revolution and it is interesting to note that the right wing nutcases used manufactured evidence – The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion – as evidence to support their warped and twisted theories.

We feel quite sure that blaming Jews and the semi-mythical Mossad organization for every terrorist attack is an established part of procedures to provide disinformation to the general public. We ourselves have been conned in this way in some instances although now we feel we have broken free from this trap. We can see right through the nut-case schemes of various American commentators who endlessly rant about Israeli control of Congress, Mossad hit-squads operating in America and how Mossad agents on Flight 11 took control of the aircraft. We feel quite sure that if indeed there were Mossad hit-squads roaming the streets of America, some of these right wing nutcases would be pushing up daisies themselves. To constantly rebuke true Jews who believe in the Torah, which is a revelation of God, is another example of sin.

We mention all this in passing because the Mossad did it angle is relentlessly pursued by other so-called investigators in the Bali bombings case and is quite clearly disinformation. When the C4 component of the Bali bombings was identified by Indonesian investigators, a campaign of disinformation was launched claiming the C4 was made in Israel. When that ploy essentially fizzled out because there was no evidence to support it and an astute blogger noticed the fraud, a new tactic was launched by a (now deceased) ex-special forces member who claimed the Bali bomb was a micro-nuclear device with the core plutonium coming from the Dimona plant in Israel. The evidence that reportedly establishes this conclusion is nowhere to be found – nowhere. Presented instead is circumstantial evidence which correctly establishes the fact that the bomb which exploded outside the Sari Club was far too powerful to have been caused by Amrozi’s device and photographic evidence of burns on the bodies of some of the victims.

To present photographs of dead or severely burned victims of the Bali bombing to attempt to establish the Israeli made micro-nuke theory is another example of sin. Nowhere, for example, is evidence presented to show where these victims were in relation to the blast site and the victims were not interviewed. In fact, so-called eyewitness testimony presented elsewhere to reinforce the Bali micro nuke “theory” consists of reading extracts of newspaper reports and falsely claiming these reports are eyewitness reports. An eyewitness report is the process where an investigator actually interviews another person, preferably on camera, and records as many details as the victim (in this case) can remember. A good example of proper investigative techniques employed by real investigators are the interviews conducted by the Citizens Investigation Team, who established beyond reasonable doubt the true flight path of Flight 77, the plane that hit the Pentagon. Because they went out of the way to conduct these interviews in Washington in a proper, cohesive manner, we think this is one of the reasons they have upset so many within the so-called 9/11 truth movement, who prefer to conduct their “research” glued to their computer monitors, drinking wine and smoking pot – while looking for imaginary explosions on grainy videos.

We are not defending the State of Israel in the slightest by writing this report. There have been cases where Israel has conducted terror campaigns such as in Gaza and the West Bank, for example. We quite readily agree with the suggestion that the state of Israel itself was established as a result of terror campaigns waged by the Irgun and Stern gang. We see the dispossession of Palestinians as a crime against humanity. But what we are dealing with here is disinformation and the stupid arguments presented to support the Bali micro-nuke theory do nothing except divert attention away from serious analysis. Why on earth Abu Bakr Bashir ever went along with the theory is really anybody’s guess and goes to show, to some extent, that Muslims as well as disbelievers need to be more critical when digesting so-called facts. Astonishingly, the originator of the Bali micro-nuke theory, Joe Vialls, claimed that Mossad used another micro-nuke in the 2004 bombing of the Australian Embassyl in Jakarta and that yet another Mossad micro-nuke was used in Baghdad in 2003. Perhaps after reviewing his work at this point Mr Vialls thought he was onto a good thing by getting people to actually read this drivel and so when the Asian tsunami was triggered by an earthquake in 2004, Mr Vialls likewise decided to go for the big one by claiming that the earthquake was triggered by a nuclear device. Mr Vialls has also in the past claimed that smoking tobacco doesn’t cause cancer and attributes the spike in cancer rates to – wait, you guessed it – radioactive dust.

As we recently pointed out in our analysis of the alleged hijackers at Dulles airport, Mr Vialls’ assertion that the cctv video taken at Dulles airport could not be genuine because the shadows cast by people in the video were too short – is just plain wrong. At that time we felt somewhat reluctant to debunk his analysis comprehensively because we knew he died and did not feel comfortable attacking deceased individuals. We feel no such compunction now because Mr Vialls’ legacy lives on at the website On this website we find much of Mr Vialls’ analysis repeated by the former editor of the Jakarta Post, Robert S. Finnegan – and false allegations against the mujahideen fighter Omar al-Farouk. Much of what Mr Finnegan has passed on to his band of new-age flunkeys appears to have been influenced by the fact that Mr Finnegan is dependent on Indonesian authorities to extend his visa. Thus, he claims that Indonesian authorities were lied to repeatedly by the Americans and Australians, without adhering to the truth that all three conspired together to enable a cover-up. While we agree that there is evidence that pressure was put on the Indonesian authorities to go along with the chlorate bomb scenario and to leave it at that, Mr Finnegan refuses to examine the probability that Indonesian intelligence learned of Amrozi’s plans and facilitated the larger explosion by either doing it themselves or passing on the information to the regional CIA station chief.

When we in turn focus on other so-called facts presented to reinforce the Mossad did it angle, we find confirmation of disinformation at work in the shape of an unusual aircraft which departed from Denpassar airport in great secrecy immediately after the bombings. This aircraft, a DeHavilland Dash-7, is reported to be Israeli owned by the various proponents of the micro-nuclear device theory but again, quite predictably, no evidence is presented to back this claim. No registration number is given and there have been no reports presented into how its Israeli ownership was established. In fact, from our information, the plane was registered in Queensland, Australia – and so if any of these clowns without a circus provides a registration number, one of our investigators will willingly undertake a search with Queensland aviation authorities to establish its true owners. The Bali micro-nuke clowns instead link back to a so-called ex-American Naval intelligence operative named Wayne Madsen (maybe he’s one of Mike Vreeland’s friends) who claims to have been told by his sources that the plane was Israeli owned. Where’s the evidence? Where are the registration details? Readers are advised not to go rushing over to Wayne Madsen’s website seeking information because you have to pay to read the articles and we wouldn’t pay these people ten cents.

What are we left with after all the radioactive dust has blown away? It is quite clear that the Bali explosion was far larger than an explosion caused by Amrozi’s device. It is equally clear that the Indonesians convicted of the bombings had their local operation hijacked by external elements. Let us focus on this aspect of the bombing for a while and see if we can make any sound assumptions. Who could conceivably have learned about Amrozi’s plans and decided to use that operation as a cover to launch a far more deadly operation? Being quite rational human beings and guided by the truth of Islam, we can only conclude that local operatives had to be involved. To us, the most likely candidates would be elements of the Indonesian security services, possibly working as agents of the CIA. Indonesian supporters of Jihad could not gain access to the military grade explosives used to detonate the explosion at the Sari Club.

Is there any evidence elements of the Indonesian security services penetrated the cell whose members were subsequently convicted? Well yes, there is – and although the individual named Nasir Abas  has a terrible reputation for truthfulness within Indonesian Muslim circles – we have an indication he was telling the truth in one particular instance. Nasir Abas is an Indonesian informer who was allegedly turned by the Indonesian security services after his arrest in early 2003. He is also the brother in law of Mukhlas who was subsequently convicted for his involvement in the bomb plot. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this – and disregarding the question of whether Nasir Abas is now telling the truth in any particular instance – he states in an interview that the Indonesian police knew he opposed the first Bali bomb and confronted him with this at the time of his arrest.  This information – if true – implies that Indonesian security services were getting information from sources very close to the cell. Of course it could be argued that Nasir Abas expressed his opposition to the Bali bombing in  much wider circles and this information could have filtered back to the police from a variety of sources – who may not have had any connection to the convicted bombers. We base our assumption on the fact that Nasir Abas was related to Mukhlas and on the information that the bombers were subsequently ostracized by those who opposed the bombing.  It seems that the security services were aware of this rift. We found this information in a very interesting documentary called: Al Qaeda: Turning the Terrorists which is linked to below. In case problems encountered by viewers watching Google videos persist, we are linking to a transcript here.

We have come across an official document produced by the American Department of Homeland Security that identifies the explosive components used in the Bali bombings. Unlike other pronouncements by people like John Howard, who insisted the bomb was made with commercially available chlorate, the Department of Homeland Security document is not meant to be disseminated to the public. It is an official document and it has not been declassified and we believe the information contained within comes from American intelligence sources, probably from the FBI. Therefore, it should not really be on the internet – but it is. We didn’t put it there, that’s all we know. We have done everything we can think of doing to preserve the evidence for this document in the event it is taken off-line as a result of this report. It is a document meant for internal consumption within certain classified sections. We therefore believe its information is believable as we think it is unlikely the Americans would present disinformation to themselves. The document is about explosives generally but contains information that the Bali bombs contained C4, PETN and TNT. This information corresponds precisely with a statement released by Police Maj. Gen. I. Mangku Pastika, Indonesia’s chief investigator on the blasts, on November 13th, 2002. Please note that unlike the rag-tag army of so-called intelligence experts and the micro-nuke crowd, we are presenting real evidence to reinforce our theory. All we need now – what we’d really like to see – is for Abu Bakr Bashir to embrace our perspective and provide us with more information. We don’t expect him to contact us personally but we are calling on Indonesian Muslim sources to contact us and provide fresh information. We think we’re getting close to unraveling the origin of the Bali device and we need help to finish it off. We can be contacted at

Let us summarize the information we presented thus far. Glen Jenvey claimed the C4 used in the Bali device and the USS Cole attack came from the same batch. We have no way of knowing whether this information is correct but it appears to be specific enough not to be a guess. It is specific information and, in our view, believable. We also have no way of knowing how the C4 used in the Bali device made its way from Yemen to Bali but we’re not going to take the easy way out and start insulting dead Muslims like Omar Al-Farouk with allegations of being a CIA agent and transporting it there. We are well aware that Omar Al-Farouk put up a courageous fight against the British when they surrounded him in Basra and we don’t want to insult his family with false allegations. It is disinformation anyway – just like 99.9% of other information coming from British, American and Australian sources in the so-called war on terror. Anyway, we prefer to believe the testimony of Sheikh Abu Yaya Al-Libi who escaped from Bagram air force base with Omar Al-Farook and whose testimony about the good character of Omar al-Farook can be examined in the video. This video information is provided for information purposes only, educational purposes, to refute the disinformation peddled by these new age flunkeys. Crucially, in our view, it is important to remember that Clinton did not retaliate militarily for the USS Cole attack when it would have obviously boosted Al Gore’s election chances had he done so. Did Clinton know something we don’t? We have information the Yemenis only pretended to keep those allegedly involved in the USS Cole attack in prison and kept letting them out, implying they were not guilty. We also have information that there are individuals allegedly connected to the USS Cole attack in the Syrian prison system.

Finally, we have Abdur Rahman Wahid’s assertion that the Bali bomb plot was hijacked and that Amrozi was unaware of the second device – and for the ex-President of the Indonesian republic to say such a thing we suspect there are concrete reasons. We don’t think he was taking cheap pot-shots at his own military for some perverse political reasons and we think he knew something too.

We consider the making of this documentary as being part of the plot by the Australian government to force the Indonesian government to clamp down on Indonesians opposing sin in their own country. As usual in all of these cases, it is only Muslims who can even get close to the truth. The other so-called investigators are surrounded by a thick fog of radioactive dust and we take this opportunity to ask them to revert to Islam because if they can’t solve the Bali case after nearly ten years they should just give up and learn about Islam so at least they will know the truth about God.

Furthermore, we are not in a position to allege the Bali bomb was planted by the Indonesian military or police – the ex-President of the Indonesian republic did so on camera and we are only pointing out that information because we are aware of it. We do not know the origin of the bomb, who made it or who delivered it. We can also identify a disinformation campaign in relation to this particular aspect of the conspiracy as well, with allegations the Bali device was constructed by Azahari bin Husin made by the Indonesian authorities. If we make a list of all the people alleged by the Indonesians and Australians to have constructed the device or masterminded the plot, the list would become essentially redundant because of its length. It may well be an Indonesian, American or even an Israeli supplied device but there is no evidence for this. The Department of Homeland Security document and the Glen Jenvey document are hereby presented as evidence, nothing more and nothing less.

We therefore challenge the band of new-age flunkeys to provide the Dash-7’s registration information and the evidence they presumably have about the plutonium from Dimona. While they are feverishly working out an excuse about why they can’t do this, we’ll go away and study the absurdities of the micro-nuke theory in greater detail, focusing on the fact that these hypothetical devices need critical mass to go bang.

Censored: Inside Indonesia’s war on terror

Posted in fake terror with tags , , on December 26, 2010 by operationbreaklock

In one of our previous reports we stated that the same C4 was used in the Bali and USS Cole attack. We mean by this that the C4 came from the same batch. While this documentary does not confirm our findings, it shows we are not alone in believing that the second explosion at the Sari Club was far more powerful than the bombers anticipated and had been tampered with. The former President of Indonesia says the same thing towards the end of this documentary.  We would like to repost the whole of our Bali report in the near future, with information from the documentary incorporated. We hope to do this because the relatives of the deceased do not deserve to be lied to. We have been told the documentary is subject to a D-Notice, and that publishing it within Australia is prohibited. We maintain that the Australian Constitutional Free Speech provisions take precedence over any flimsy D-Notices – which are of a voluntary nature anyway. What on earth is the Australian government going to do to us as punishment for breaking the D Notice we haven’t even seen? Are they going to bar us from their press conferences at Parliament House? Does that mean we won’t get any more free Sara Lee cheesecakes? Many thanks to Archangel for providing the link and info.

Of course we must be wary of accepting information at face value from SBS television in view of the fact that they are partly funded by the Australian Federal Government and have a track record of providing disinformation. It is also plausible to consider a  scenario where the Australian Government wanted to put pressure on the Indonesian Government because of its perceived failure to reign in radicals, terrorists and extremists.  Despite the fact that this documentary disappeared from the SBS website and a transcript was not published, the film was made and shown on prime-time television. All the fuss occurred after it had been shown. Therefore, it is safe to say the Indonesian government did get the message as embassy staff  in Canberra would have recorded it for their bosses in the Republic. Was the film made for the Australian public or the Indonesian government? All the fuss about removing the transcript from the website could, in this view, be seen as a smoke-screen. It gave the Australian government a chance to demonstrate they were distancing themselves from the production – but only after the film had been aired. If they had not wanted it to be shown in the first place, we feel sure they could have prevented it. Or does the Australian government want its gullible citizens to believe that they spend hundreds of millions of overpriced Australian dollars on ASIO and ASICS but don’t know when a government funded television station is producing a documentary highly critical of  Indonesian Intelligence?

SBS television have, moreover, a track record of lying through their teeth in their so-called news reports. To cite just two examples, we refer to the infamous ‘Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction’ claims and also a report about the criminal behaviour of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. It was reported approximately two years ago in the New York Times that Australian soldiers had attacked defenceless villagers in Afghanistan and a number of children were killed. SBS television reported that Australian forces had attacked a so-called Taliban compound without mentioning that the New York Times had already identified the village attacked and the horrendous casualties. As a partly funded government entity, we feel sure the views expressed on SBS television mirror those of the government itself.  To reinforce this perspective we point out that at no time have SBS television told the truth about Afghanistan or Iraq. They have never conceded that Australian forces face a mass resistance movement; that the overwhelming majority of Afghans want them to depart and have constantly described attacks upon occupation forces as being the work of militants, extremists and Taliban.

When an Australian soldier is killed in Afghanistan, on the other hand, SBS television show their true colours. Immediately the accolades start flowing and extended coverage is given to “our brave diggers.” The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are  given ample opportunity to present a eulogy and reinforce the lie that the soldiers are there to protect future generations from terror attacks such as those that occurred in Bali. In conjunction with the Singapore intelligence services, they have created a South-East Asian bogeyman named Abu Bakar Bashir, in much the same way that American intelligence created the legend of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. Together with their counterparts in the Singapore Intelligence community, they have even given Abu Bakar Bashir’s organisation a name: Jemmah Islamiya.

Could SBS television be telling the truth in this case, given the above-mentioned factors?

We can see from this report that C4 plastic explosive was definitely used in the Bali bomb. Why the cover-up? Why not just admit it? We can see from this link that Glen Jenvey claimed the C4 used in the Bali bomb and the USS Cole came from the same batch. The only plausible reason for denying the discovery of C4 at the Bali bomb site was the knowledge that Amrozi and his cell could not get their hands on such material. It is also possible that  Amrozi’s cell was infiltrated by agents of Indonesian intelligence who worked actively in the cell to produce a much larger explosion than Amrozi expected. It is also possible to conclude that had evidence been produced to demonstrate the presence of C4, then investigators would have to examine the origin of that material and the results could not be controlled by the American military as they had been in the USS Cole attack.

The Americans admitted C4 was used in the USS Cole attack but there was no pressure for them to demonstrate the origin of that material because the Navy controlled the investigation. If the same C4 turned up two years later in Bali which is part of  independent Indonesia, that’s another kettle of fish.  The Americans could not control that investigation so effectively so they summoned the Deputy Sheriff in the region, John Howard. Howard dismissed the C4 results and said the Australian Federal Police could not support the conclusion that C4 was used. The investigators from Indonesia were left with egg all over their faces but Howard – and the Americans – effectively diffused the ticking time bomb of where the C4 used in Bali actually came from. We know it is possible to determine as C4 plastic explosive has markers. Do the markers point to an American military origin?

That would be guesswork on our behalf. We don’t have samples to investigate ourselves so obviously we can’t say. There are reports circulating that plastic explosives could be purchased quite easily in Belgrade, Serbia. If the C4 used in the Cole attack and Bali had a Serbian origin, then investigating that angle could prove highly embarrassing for the Americans and British as they had helped recruit fighters for the KLA through the Finsbury Park Mosque using Abu Hamza to further their geopolitical schemes.

It is important to state that SBS television said nothing about the explosion at the Sari Club being carried out by the police or military. That statement came from the former President of Indonesia. And just in case our detractors start saying that he was only speculating, that’s the way he talks. He throws out a proposition and then counters it by saying he doesn’t really know. He knows alright, otherwise he wouldn’t have said it in the first place.

We found some sort of confirmation for the evidence  presented. Iman Samudra in an interview conducted in prison claimed the bomb was indeed tampered with. Readers can link to the interview here.


Posted in fake terror, September 11th with tags , , , , , , , on December 15, 2010 by operationbreaklock

We think it is an opportune time to rewrite a report we first presented to the general public on a now defunct website approximately 18 months ago. We are used to our opponents on the web taking extreme measures when confronted with irrefutable evidence of government lies – but their reaction – closing the website down, surprised us at the time. The website in question served as something of honey pot for western intelligence agencies who could easily see what the so-called Islamists were up to. It served as a forum for radicals, spies and members of the public who were gutsy enough to provide their email addresses to register. It also served as a media outlet for  Muslims whose videos were sometimes downloaded by commercial television stations for various news reports.
We have no way of knowing whether ip addresses were sometimes forwarded to government security agencies – although we suspect they were. We think that the forum for radical Muslims was closed down because it outlived its usefulness and was proving to be an embarrassment when a group of individuals led by andrew007 began to deconstruct the 9/11 legend in an unprecedented way. We pushed buttons, revealed a lot of information and succeeded, to some extent, in winning over neutral readers.
Myths are hard to define in the twenty first century because not only do the Americans want the general public to believe that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 – but many radical Muslims cling to that illusion as well. To suggest that George Bush ordered the entire operation is something many Muslims see as an affront to their Jihadist beliefs.  To say that the CIA or Mossad did it is seen by some Muslims as being in a state of denial that stems from an assumption that Muslims in general and Arabs in particular do not have the technical ability to conduct such an operation. We, on the other hand, have no time for these considerations as they do not relate to evidence. Whether or not we agree with a particular viewpoint is neither here nor there. Reality for us has an objective characteristic that transcends an individual point of view. We think that’s why infovlad decided to pull the plug on us eventually: because our reports, based firmly on reality, were being read by literally thousands of people who could then take a leaf out of our book. We do not, furthermore, consider ourselves the only people in the world capable of critical thinking. We do think, however, that outside some state sponsored intelligence agencies, our database is the best in the world.
Visitors to the infovlad website can now see a small image of two wooden birds, the kind sometimes planted in a pot alongside a flower. Underneath the image is the following text: “ is history, stark history; every stone is soaked in blood.” How true.
If the existence of the old Soviet state defined the course of world history in the twentieth century, then 9/11 is likely to define the course of history in the twenty first century. We often make the point that the American permanent war economy needs its daily narcotics fix of death and misery so it can continue to lead the world and prevent economic collapse. The military service industries alone, such as Blackwater and Halliburton, employ thousands of people worldwide.  General Atomics, the producers of the Predator drone, are optimistic they can sell their devices to other countries, aside from a small group of NATO allies. No doubt the Obama administration will favourably consider granting export licenses for these weapons when it needs to review its current stimulus package. We are of the opinion that the so-called sub-prime mortgage crisis will quickly engulf the commercial property market and further plunge the world economy into crisis. As the world’s leading arms manufacturer, America is well positioned to avoid capitalist collapse by igniting conflict throughout the world – but at what cost? Will the insatiable greed of capitalist class eventually destroy the world?
We would like to begin this report in earnest by stating that not only are there major question marks about the conclusions of Pentbom investigators in relation to events at Dulles on the 10th and 11th of September, 2001 – but also that the standards of investigative journalism are very poor throughout the USA. When the major media organisations lost their monopoly control over the flow of information with the introduction of the internet, a golden opportunity was lost, in our view, when alternative media outlets by and large refused to employ serious investigative techniques such as interviewing people and instead resorted to guesswork, conspiracy theories and using a priori assumptions about Israeli control of America, for example. The issue of Israeli control of America led some webmasters to claim that Israel was in fact behind the 9/11 operation without any real evidence. The investigative techniques used by these clowns without a circus included watching television, reading newspaper reports and visiting websites run by right wing nutters such as Alex Jones and Michael Rivero. It is ironic and amusing that the above mentioned journalistic techniques were first deployed by an ex-LAPD detective who put together a time-line relying solely on various newspaper reports. Criminals operating in the Los Angeles area should be encouraged by this state of affairs – carry on as usual and the LAPD won’t sit up and take notice until they read about it in the press.
Of course there are exceptions within the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement. We know, for example, that Sander Hicks undertook the basic journalistic technique of interviewing people and – despite his prejudiced, bigoted views which include the outrageous slander that the Taliban wanted to become the world’s major drug cartel – so did Daniel Hopsicker. In the case of the former, we think the unquestioned ability of the individual was wasted by focusing so exclusively on Vreeland and in the case of the latter, we admit we were among the gullible who read his work. We would like to point out at this time that the stories about the hijackers drinking alcohol and taking prostitutes are a deliberate government plant, in our view. The FBI took extraordinary steps to denigrate the moral character of the hijackers in order to prevent millions of Muslims throughout the world from admiring them. Reports that Atta drank rum and Coke, for example, when in reality he drank cranberry juice, reinforce this perspective. Because so much of the information denigrating the hijacker’s character came from Hopsicker, we cannot avoid the conclusion that Hopsicker was part of a wider operation. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that had Hopsicker discovered everything he said he had, someone would have shot him. Instead, we are asked to believe, he walks around Venice uncovering major drug operations, DEA collusion with those operations, establishes a relationship with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris to those operations and miraculously lives to tell the tale. Mr Hopsicker developed what he amusingly calls the magic Dutch boy theory in relation to these developments. We at this point would like to ratchet up the general level of amusement by referring to a magic Hopsicker survival theory we have been patiently developing over the last few years.
We can only find two examples of independent investigators having a look at what happened at Dulles on the 10th and 11th September, 2001. It is interesting to note that both presented reports on the subject which reinforced their own perspectives. The first report, presented by Joe Vialls, an Australian based investigator who has since passed away, should be studied here.
Mr Vialls presents three photographs at the top of the page to argue incorrectly that the 9/11 Commission used the video these frames were extracted from to hoodwink the American public into thinking they were taken from a recording taken on the morning of 9/11. The fact is that the video was given to Associated Press on the evening before the 9/11 Commission released its report by Motley Rice, a legal firm representing families who were suing the government and the security companies in charge of screening passengers. While it is true that the 9/11 Commissioners had access to a video, we are not sure which version of the video (there are at least two taken from separate cameras) they had access to or whether the video had time-stamps on it. Mr Vialls argues that the absence of time-stamps renders the video effectively useless as evidence. He then goes on to point out that the shadows of pedestrians outside the terminal are very short and an indication that the video was taken much later in the day. Mr Vialls also points out that the amount of bright sunshine streaming in from the outside indicates that the video was taken later in the day, perhaps around midday, he suggests. Let us examine the photographs presented by Mr Vialls as evidence. Mr Vialls gets off to a shaky start with the photograph on the left, in our opinion, as it is easy to see a long, extended shadow at the top of the photograph.  The photograph on the right has no visible shadows and while the photograph of the taxi does appear to show a short shadow, there is nothing – nothing – to indicate that photograph was taken in connection with the video taken in the terminal building. Instead, the photograph of the taxi appears to have been taken on a cloudy, overcast day while reports inform us there were clear skies that morning. Where are the short shadows Mr Vialls claims to have identified then? While it seems obvious that the length of the shadows has more to do with the direction of the sun vis a vis the entrance to the terminal building, we feel obliged to examine Mr Vialls claims more closely to determine whether they have any validity. Here are some snapshots we took to demonstrate that the shadows are in fact long in places where they are visible. long shadows

We would like to point out  that although the amount of sunlight streaming through the front entrance to the terminal does appear intense, it is normal procedure to calibrate exposure times to best capture peoples faces in an area under surveillance. If the exposure times were not adjusted for the bright light at the entrance, then the faces of the passengers being screened would be so dark they would be indistinguishable. A consequence of this adjustment is that the white light at the entrance appears more intense than it actually is. What matters, of course, is that the cameras preserve an accurate record of people passing the check-point. The area by the entrance is deliberately over-exposed, hence it appears brighter than it actually is. Furthermore, we have in our possession video with a time-stamp although the time-stamp has several problems with it. Firstly, as we can see from the images below, there is no date but only a timer which, in the first of our snapshots, was activated 17 minutes and 21 seconds before. The video the frames below were extracted from is 37 seconds long and has clearly been edited but the time-stamp runs in sequence – with no breaks to go with the edits. Obviously it was added later but by who – and why – we are unable to say. As this video is less than four mb in size, we will happily send it as an email attachment to other researchers. Just ask. (   It is a shame that Mr Vialls passed away and it does not feel very comfortable denigrating his work when he has no chance to reply. (Perhaps we are wrong on this and a thunderbolt will hit us tonight.) We understand he did some important work with the Libyans on the Yvonne Fletcher frame-up and congratulate him for that. When all the above elements are combined, however, we think our exclusive database is capable of refuting so-called evidence presented to reinforce an a priori assumption. It appears the time-stamp was there but was layered on top of the video. The shadows outside the building do appear reasonably long where they are visible. We suggest, furthermore, that to study the length of shadows to determine the time would require a trip to Washington to assess all light sources in the vicinity. Shadows can be formed by reflected light off white buildings, for example. What you think you see is not necessarily an indication of the time of day, especially in a high density built up area such as Dulles Airport.

We think the most startling images in the video come from the section with Hani Hanjour. We think he arrived with a woman and present the following snapshots as evidence. The last time we did this on the infovlad website, the whole website got pulled overnight, which makes us think, somehow, we are dealing with sensitive information. Prior to the release of the 500 megabyte video for the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, no versions of the video released to the public showed Hanjour passing through the terminal. By releasing the Hanjour section for the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, the Justice Department may have been asserting their independence or may have been trying to clear up a great deal of confusion that arose when many 9/11 researchers noticed that in the initial release, Hanjour was absent. In the first photograph we present, Hanjour pauses by the terminal entrance to wait for the woman approaching from behind. In the second and third photo, he is clearly interacting with her: In the last photo, they pass through the terminal together: We think we can understand the difficulties the government had presenting this evidence and puts the delay of the Hanjour segment into some context. Of course they did not have to release the information at all, as the Zacarias Moussaoui trial could proceed without the video as evidence. Again, placing the release of the video in context, we can see extraordinary pressure building up in America at the time, as large numbers of its citizens refused to accept the government line. On the Democratic Underground discussion forum, for example, Hanjour’s absence on the initial video release was regularly commented upon. And although these debates inevitably descended into farce with the “no plane hit the Pentagon” brigade regularly hijacking the debates, the government was clearly in a bind with no pilot for Flight 77 shown on initial video. There was a report in the Washington Post, for example, that Hanjour did not have a ticket and somehow bypassed airport check-in altogether. Clearly, the government did not want investigators to turn in that direction as it opened up a can of worms the government did not want the public to examine. And while other 9/11 investigators may disagree with the arguments presented in this report, they would agree, if they studied the evidence, that Hanjour was added almost as an afterthought to the list of hijackers. Obviously, American authorities needed to identify someone who could fly.

It is also very interesting that Al Qaida have released a number of videos of the hijackers, starting in 2002. As we can see from the following photo, the hijackers’ photos appears to be screenshots taken from their video wills – with the exception of the pilots. In cases where the video wills have not been released, in Al-Suqami’s case, for example, As-Sahab, the so-called Al Qaida media organisation, have a screenshot of him with traditional Arab clothes,   presumably a screenshot from an unreleased video. In the case of Hanjour, as with the other pilots, the photos in the possession of As-Sahab are commonly available photos taken from visa applications, drivers licenses etc etc. There has been no new video or photographs of any of the hijacker pilots released by Al Qaida which isn’t surprising since in our view they never had possession of that material.

The main argument presented in this report is that the hijackers arrived at Dulles airport on the morning of 9/11 with no idea they were about to hijack Flt 77.  Before we proceed with the main body of evidence to bolster our case, we need to review another report produced by independent film-makers Susan and Joseph Trento.  In their video, the couple start out with a definite point of view: namely, that airport security isn’t tight enough. And while most Americans would readily agree in light of the hijackings, it is important to realise the film-makers agenda at the outset. Most interestingly, the video producers interview Eric Gill, who was employed at Dulles airport and who claims he spotted some Arab males in a secure area of the airport on the 10th September.

Please note that Gill identifies Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Marwan Al-Shehhi as being present in the secure area. This is particularly interesting since we know that Al-Shehhi was a pilot and could fly – but the case presented by the government has him at the controls of Flt 175 which departed from Boston. We have reports that Al-Shehhi shaved his beard off on the 10th September leaving only a moustache. The identification of Nawaf Al-Hazmi in the secure area is crucial as he has variously been described as the deputy commander of the attack and a Saudi Arabian intelligence asset. We must stress, however, that we are unable to reach any firm conclusions about the identification of these two individuals by Gill.  Of all the possibilities that arise from Gill’s identification of the pair, we are unable to say whether they corresponded with reality. Perhaps he was correct in identifying Al-Hazmi but wrong in the case of Al-Shehhi. Or the opposite may be true. We have no way of knowing although we suspect his identification was correct on both counts. That would account for the late introduction of Hanjour into the video and his inclusion in the official 9/11 narrative. It is also necessary to point out that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah, in an interview with Yosri Fouda, allegedly sometime in 2002, claimed Nawaf Al-Hazmi piloted Flt 77 and not Hanjour.

The only plausible explanation for Al-Hazmi being in the secure area was that he was either surveying that part of the airport or leaving behind weapons to be used the next day. And it is important to realise that Nawaf Al-Hazmi was overall second in command of 9/11 so if the report by Gill is correct, we are no longer able to believe the hijackers turned up the next morning with concealed box-cutters or knives. Gill states quite clearly that the intruders wore American Airlines uniforms. They were in a secure section of the airport and attempting to open a door with a security pass when Gill intervened. Suddenly, in our view, we leave behind the notion the hijackers were amateurs who trained on Cessnas and we gain an initial glimpse of a state-sponsored intelligence/terrorist operation.

This perspective is tremendously reinforced by the doctored video evidence of the hijackers passing through airport security and also by the decision of the alleged hijackers to drive to Dulles in a blue Toyota Corolla on the morning of 9/11. Even defenders of the official government line on 9/11 could not claim the video released by Associated Press or the video introduced as evidence in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial are the original, unedited videos. The time-stamps have at various times been removed or added and the problems associated with the Hanjour section have been explained. With all state-sponsored terrorist operations, almost without exception, a trail of evidence is left behind to incriminate the chosen victim, in this case Osama Bin Laden. The events at Dulles on the morning of 9/11 proved no exception. We can see from the following document the incredible amount of evidence the alleged hijackers left behind for the FBI to subsequently discover. Additionally, in what can only be described as fortuitous in the extreme, Salem Al-Hazmi’s wallet was subsequently found at the Pentagon.

The evidence left behind in the car led to the arrest of Osama Awadallah and Mohd. Abdi. Perhaps more importantly, although certainly not from the perspective of the individuals concerned, Lofti Raissi was arrested in London on the basis of documents left behind in the car. The prize find for the FBI, however, was a Fedex slip relating to a packet sent by an individual with the unusual name of Rawf Al-Dog to Mustafa Al-Hawsawi’s UAE post office box on the 10th September. Although Mustafa Al-Hawsawi allegedly flew to Pakistan and didn’t receive the packet, subsequent investigations by international law-enforcement discovered links between Mustafa Al-Hawsawi and Khalid Sheikh Muhammed through a joint account and – once that association had been established – it was easy to establish a link to Osama Bin Laden. The packet allegedly contained Khalid Al-Mihdhar’s debit card. The car itself contained Khalid Al-Mihdhar’s email address so his associates could be tracked. It was very convenient that the alleged hijackers left behind all the information in the blue Corolla that enabled the FBI to solve the case once the car’s contents had been investigated.

Hijackers don’t behave like this in the real world – and this makes us believe it was a false-flag terrorist operation. But is there an alternative explanation? Is there a plausible explanation about why Hanjour would turn up with a woman and the evidence left in the car was left for the FBI to discover? Osama bin Laden once stated that the hijackers didn’t know the details of the operation until the very last moment in a statement we believe was forged. Could Nawaf Al-Hazmi have kept everyone in the dark until they were actually seated on Flt 77 it is reasonable to ask? Well, that didn’t stop him cleaning the car out so no incriminating evidence was left behind. He could have prepared properly and kept the details of the operation to himself.

Of course many Americans will lap up this information as it is possible to use this report to support the theory that Flt 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon. Of course we have looked at that information. We do agree that the flight path of Flt 77 does not seem to be believable in view of the witnesses who say they saw it coming from the East, flying over the Potomac River and then banking before allegedly hitting the Pentagon. If American authorities  have to create an imaginary flight path for the Flight 77 of course we wonder what they are hiding. It also very hard to believe that Flt 77 hit the Pentagon at essentially zero altitude while leaving no marks on the grass. The trouble for the theory, in our opinion, is that too many people would need to be in the loop. In view of the fact that the World Trade centre towers had already been hit, we don’t think George Bush needed the Pentagon strike to launch his administration’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We think he already had enough ammunition up his sleeve. Anyway, enough Americans have already adopted that cause and we don’t think adding ourselves to their number would bring the issue any closer to being resolved. We watched a video the other day by a group calling itself CIT. At least they got out and about, went to Washington and actually interviewed people, unlike the many clowns without a circus who think you can investigate by reading newspaper reports. Whether they are right, partly right or completely wrong, we can’t say. We don’t know. Maybe a stray missile deployed as part of air defences hit the Pentagon as well as Flt 77. That’s not even an educated guess. One day perhaps we will turn to focus our attention on what happened after Flt 77 took off and examine whether it hit the Pentagon or not. Please note that for some unknown reason we are unable to properly format this document. It’s just another mystery.