Archive for the September 11th Category

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 Jehad.net 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 Jehad.net 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 jehad.net are correct for October, 2002:

Whois Information from “whois.arin.net” about http://www.jehad.net/
IP address=216.180.224.51
OrgName: Net Depot, Inc.
OrgID: DEPO
Address: 55 Marietta St NW
Suite 1720 Atlanta GA 30303

AdminName: Hinkle, Jeff
AdminPhone: +1-404-230-9150
AdminEmail: jhinkle@dv2.com

TechName: DV2 Engineering
TechEmail: engineering@dv2.net

AbuseHandle: DV2AB-ARIN
AbuseName: DV2 Abuse
AbusePhone: +1-404-230-9150
AbuseEmail: abuse@dv2.net

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/773359/posts (source)

The question of who owned and ran Jehad.net 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 Jehad.net 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, Jihad.net, 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 andreweslazak@yahoo.com.au or via operation_breaklock@yahoo.com.au. 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: http://lists.eramuslim.com/archive/news/2002-November/002774.html 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 Jihadunspun.com 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 http://www.marsad.net. 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 Jihad.net 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 http://www.Taliban-News.com 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. webhostingtalk.com, 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 Waaqiah.com.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/756623/posts

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 Jihad.net 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: http://www.thehindu.com/2002/09/16/stories/2002091604181200.htm

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 “jehad.net” 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 MSNBC.com 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 Jehad.net 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 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG01126PA.jpg) 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 (http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=fahad_al-quso) 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 (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=complete_911_timeline_yemen_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 (http://www.kualalumpureguide.com/attraction.php) 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 Salon.com, 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.”
Source, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/07/suskind/print.html

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 archive.org. 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.

Advertisements

When was Ramzi Bin al-Shibh (al-Shibah) arrested and why does it matter?

Posted in ramzi bin al-shibah, ramzi bin al-shibh, September 11th with tags , , , , , , , , on May 16, 2011 by operationbreaklock

The war on terror instigated by America and its allies has now entered a new phase. The apparent death of Osama bin Laden and the ongoing dislocation of Muslim life in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East epitomises this new phase because, by all measures, the neo-colonialist agenda is now counter-productive for America and its allies because it fires the insurgency to the point where these regions will become ungovernable and will lead to the collapse of the regimes. We have seen in recent times that it is relatively difficult to maintain viable capitalist nation states in places such as Ireland, Greece and North Africa. The aerial bombardment of Afghanistan and areas of Pakistan may serve the purpose of fueling American arms manufacturers’ profit margins and thereby delay the total collapse of the American economy – but this aggression has opened wounds that cannot be healed within the framework of a capitalist, nation-state. Therefore the introduction of God’s Laws and values in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere, has been hastened by imperialist aggression and now seems to the population of these countries as the only viable option. Islamic Law has attained a new dynamic in the last ten years and presents itself as a liberation theology to the Muslim masses, whereas the nationalist and socialist doctrines have been exposed as failed ideas. This is an almost 360⁰ turnaround from the situation when the last Muslim Caliphate collapsed and Islam has been transformed into a revolutionary force for change in the world. In fact, revolutionary Islam, forged in the crucible of American and Zionist terror campaigns, is now the only revolutionary force for change in the world and the Muslim insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, for that matter, form the new vanguard of the global revolutionary movement.

As our contribution to these revolutionary forces who will surely triumph in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa and the Middle-East – and ultimately throughout the world – we will present a report in the next few days (insh’allah) which truthfully exposes the tangled web of American lies about the origins of the present conflict. We have previously pointed out to our readers that the conflict between Islam and the failed capitalist states goes back centuries and is in part theological. Although we find an analysis of the conflict within a broader historical context tempting and a challenge, we find it necessary to limit our analysis to events of the last ten years, at least for the time being. We wish to stress at this point that Islam forbids the charging of interest on loans and therefore the introduction of Islamic law in any part of the world is a tremendous advance for any society. If such a prohibition was introduced in large areas of the world, the effect would be immediate, dynamic and advantageous for humanity. The introduction of Islamic law throughout the world would immediately cripple the usurious, capitalist world economy and would unleash mankind’s creative potential to tackle such daunting challenges such as global warming, ending war and delivering justice to the oppressed. Furthermore, we believe that the introduction of Islamic law would see the demise of the nation state, at least throughout the Muslim world, with all the Muslim Ummah united in a single society. Thus, the artificial, colonialist divisions created by the British, Americans, French and Dutch, would be swept away and a new, united Muslim super-state would shine like a beacon of progress in a sea of disbelief and sin.

We could go on and list some of the other advantages of God’s Laws over secular, man-made law and point out that God’s Laws also prohibit the consumption of alcohol and gambling. Therefore, if alcohol production became illegal and gambling dens such as the obscenity here in Melbourne known as Crown Casino were forced to close down, billions of dollars would immediately flow into the local economies and stimulate the depressed in areas such as Broadmeadows, Frankston and Dandenong. Muslims would immediately benefit even in countries where they are a minority and the streets would be safer because drunkenness would be a thing of the past. It is well-known that organised crime syndicates use casinos and gambling dens to launder their filthy profits, and so shutting down the source of sin in one particular area has a flow-on effect to the next area as society is progressively cleansed. We realise this cleansing tsunami of Islam and truth is going to transform Planet Earth in the coming period and wish to advise any non-Muslim readers to transform their lives and immediately revert to Islam. Before Islam can transform the world, it must transform you.

Islam is, in fact, the religion of science and truth and this is the major reason why evil people are hostile to it. Many apologists for decadence and sin will point out, for example, that Islam oppresses women. We don’t need to analyse all of the spurious allegations that are used to try to convince people that this is a valid argument – but only need to point out that Islam forbids pornography, the graphic exploitation of sexuality in advertising and also prostitution. Islamic law in a more general sense alleviates poverty and so all the oppression women face in the world of sin and debauchery is challenged by Islam because God is with the oppressed and has made laws to liberate humanity. As Muslims, we call for the liberation of western women from a life-time of servitude and sexual exploitation. We also aim our message of reverting to Islam to many millions of western women who are prisoners in their own homes, fed on a diet of television lies about weapons of mass destruction and Osama Bin Laden, and who are forced to send their children to schools where the primary aim of the teachers is brainwashing children to believe in the fake freedoms of the west. Women in western societies face prohibitive child-care costs which keep them prisoners in their homes almost indefinitely: a million self-contained Guantanamo Bay detention centres in every town and city in the country.

The future of Planet Earth belongs to the children and Islam alone is capable of meeting their needs. Islam will protect the children of Planet Earth in the following ways: firstly, education. Education in the western world is biased towards secular, man-made concepts such as the promotion of so-called democracy where Europeans and North Americans consume the overwhelming majority of the world’s resources while children in places such as India and Pakistan and South America have absolutely nothing at all. Some time ago in Haiti, the country was devastated by an earthquake that left the country in ruins and the surrounding capitalist countries have done nothing to help the people since then. Islam will transform the face of Planet Earth to prevent such tragedies occurring in future. By abolishing the charging of interest on loans, which is against God’s Laws, the people of Haiti – and Pakistan, for that matter – would have sufficient funds to reconstruct their devastated countries. Additionally, in an Islamic future, we would see massive airlifts of supplies and medicines to areas hit by natural catastrophes and a vast flotilla of ships bringing relief. In an Islamic future, this relief would follow anytime a natural catastrophe occurred. If the people affected by these disasters were non-Muslims in Haiti, for example, or Jewish people in occupied Palestine, as another example, the supplies would still be delivered. The capitalist vampires of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank could not stop these supplies being delivered in ten thousand years as the people delivering the supplies would be following God’s Laws to help the weak and oppressed. To ignore the plight of a people who are in dire need is a negation of Islam, as Muslims are obliged to give 10% of their wealth to the poor. To illustrate the point that Muslims can always be counted on to help in times of need, we point out that beggars here in Melbourne always gravitate to the Muslim suburbs when they are in need of assistance and if they go and beg near Coburg Market, for example, they get fifty or sixty dollars in half an hour or so to help them on their way.

Furthermore, in terms of education, a child needs to be properly educated and to get the basics right so they can get grow into good, righteous people. In the coming Islamic future, it will be necessary to teach children the reality that there is One God in the Universe who created everything. It is actually an unscientific belief to suggest that the Universe was created from an uncontrolled expansion that allegedly occurred after the Big Bang, as scientists have been unable to explain where all the large-scale structure came from, without resorting to pseudo-religious beliefs themselves by suggesting that somehow dark matter and dark energy or superstrings enabled to large-scale structure to coalesce. Similarly, in another area of science, Muslims have adopted the right response in rejecting Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection, which states that evolution occurs through chance miscopying of the genetic code, and which predicts that this chance miscopying should be seen in the fossil record. Instead, what we see in the fossil record is sudden changes at the Cambrian boundary, for example, or the extinction of the dinosaurs, and the sudden rise of mammals. By teaching children the proper equation that God created the Universe, we will be safeguarding the future of the children by giving them the right start in life which will be followed by a prosperous future because usury, sexual exploitation, alcohol and gambling will all be abolished and consigned to the garbage bin of history. By safeguarding children’s rights on Planet Earth we point out that no longer will they be forced to sing objectionable hymns at nine-o-clock in the morning, such as God Save the Queen or Rule Brittania and then be forced to learn revisionist history such as Captain Cook discovered Australia and Israel is a democratic country. Children in Australia should also face a future where they are not called upon to fight imperialist wars for the ruling class’ allies, the shameful, disgraced Americans – who killed millions in Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. They should be free to travel overseas when they are old enough without having to look over their shoulders all the time because monsters such as John Howard and Richard Butler waged a Zionist led blockade of Iraq which killed a million plus Iraqi infants. This is only a personal thought but it seems a good idea on the face of it to educate a small group of Australian students in all aspects of international criminal law and war crimes legislation to enable monsters such as John Howard, Alexander Downer, Paul Keating and Richard Butler to be tried here in Australia for the nefarious crimes they committed, such as lying the country into war with Iraq, invading Afghanistan and acting as agents for a foreign power which is expressly forbidden under the Australian Constitution. In fact, we would like to send this futuristic team of Australian lawyers after some members of various state police forces, who have committed terrible crimes against the Aboriginal population and have always got away with it. To our Muslim brothers and sisters in Afghanistan, please be aware that we are aware that criminal members of the Australian Defence Forces have been murdering Afghan civilians in cold blood and we are investigating the incident where the five little children were murdered. Unless we agitate now for a future based on truth and justice, we won’t be able to hold our heads high again and we will have become just as bad, rotten and murderous as the lying disbelievers.

Muslims in the middle ages were the first genuine scientists, who more or less invented mathematics, and perfected the science of astronomy by liberating it from the mythological Greek influence. Therefore children of the world should not be afraid of a Muslim education in any sphere or activity. In fact a Muslim education is a tremendous advantage to have in life, not only because Muslim beliefs and science are in perfect accordance but because Muslims realise that young people need to be protected from Satan. Here in Australia we have noticed that drug-crazed fiends and devils are active in the community, promoting what is called death-metal music – or black metal music – depending on which brand of Satanism is being heard. Most of these fiends and acid-tripped out devils take their inspiration from a black metal band called Bathory who practice the same form of Satanism as Alistair Crowley. Crowds of young people regularly visit night-clubs and licensed premises, who peddle their own source of sin in the form of alcohol and the drug ecstasy, which is also sold at these events. God help these devil fiends when the Muslim revolution sweeps through their neck of the woods. Perhaps it would be a good way to mobilise the people here in Australia to join up with Christian groups and close down these events. Of course the danger inherent in such a program would be that the Christians might support the closure of devil concerts but then still maintain their right to sin in other ways such as drinking alcohol and practising polytheism. It might be a better idea for Muslims alone to act and close down the source of sin by burning their guitars and drums in front of them and then taking their black crucifixes and goat horns and destroying them as well. Planet Earth belongs to us, not them.

In the coming days we will work on our report about 9/11, insh’allah. We will be focusing on the allegation that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah (Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh) conspired to carry out the attacks. The Americans recently decided to withdraw the charges against these two alleged 9/11 conspirators and all hope of an open trial with evidence, witnesses, etc etc have now been lost. We will be analysing why this is the case; why the Americans decided to abandon their plans for a trial in New York. Everything we know (almost) about 9/11 has been disseminated by the Americans and all statements by any of the accused before the military trials in Guantanamo has been presumptively classified. Please bear in mind that the Americans have consistently lied about the involvement of KSM and Al-Shibah in the plot and have also gone out of their way to prevent these two accused from giving evidence in the ludicrous Hamburg terror trials and the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. When Al-Shibah faced the military tribunal in Guantanamo, he refused to come out of his cell at first but was then persuaded to attend the hearing by his fellow co-accused. A redacted audio recording was made available by the military where the listener can hear accused conspirator Khalid Sheikh Muhammed take part in his defence. Similar recordings were made available for downloading for the tribunal cases against Ammar Al-Baluchi, Tawfiq bin Attash, Abu Zubaida (may God help him) and Hambali. There is no transcript for Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah and no audio. Why? Please bookmark this site and drop by Friday and we’ll try to get it done.

Dulles

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: “clearinghouse.infovlad.net 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. (andreweslazak@yahoo.com.au)   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.

Two separate identities, one unknown individual

Posted in Hamburg cell, September 11th, zacarias moussaoui conviction unconstitutional with tags , on September 20, 2010 by operationbreaklock

It should be emphasized at the outset that our investigations employ a common sense approach and this is one of several reasons why we publish solid intelligence and meaningful achievements as opposed to unmitigated hype. There are other reasons why we deliver the goods such as our unique database which is so comprehensive and extensive that we have been told we compete equally with various state sponsored intelligence organizations. And because we are committed to the truth no matter what the consequences, we believe we receive Almighty God’s blessings when He pushes a bit of information in our direction. We were the first to reveal the true location of the Lockerbie bomb on Pan Am 103 and we also published the information that the same batch of C4 plastic explosive was used in the USS Cole attack and the first Bali bomb. Furthermore, without wishing to put too fine a point on it, we know we get results because when we deconstruct the official version of a particular event, we let the facts do the talking.

The September 11th terrorist attacks are sometimes described as the worst terrorist attacks ever. We beg to differ. We see the American attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being far worse. We also think the mass murder of civilians carried out by the RAF in Dresden, Germany, should be treated as a war crime. We don’t have to go back seventy years to find examples of worse terror attacks, either. The Israeli attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians have reached unparalleled heights of criminality. Because we attempt to achieve balance in our views, however, we also condemn German persecution of Jews, gypsies and idealogical opponents of Nazism. We denounce those who attempt to re-write history for political purposes, such as the delusional President of Iran and other apologists for common criminals. In fact, our record of defending Jewish rights is quite good as we were particularly active in exposing the stooge Glen Jenvey when he concocted a vile plan to target Alan Sugar. We didn’t just expose Jenvey, we actually shut him up. We don’t think he’s going to resurface again in a hurry and we express our surprise and dismay that  he finds support in South Asia. What self respecting government minister would consider giving him a visa to enter the country after all the trouble he’s caused?

Being a small, cohesive unit does sometimes have its drawbacks, however. We cannot focus our attention everywhere and are sometimes forced to make arbitrary decisions to not take on a particular project as we don’t have the resources. A good example of this is the recent attack by international pirates on a flotilla of aid carrying boats to Gaza. We would particularly like to commence an investigation in that direction by publishing names and photographs of the pirates so Interpol can arrest them. We haven’t exactly chickened out of that particular project because we’re frightened of being arrested or shot, we just don’t have the resources to focus in more than one direction at once. So after getting rid of Jenvey/Chetty/Webb/Zia  and with the well-timed release of Mr Megrahi from prison in Scotland, we decided to focus on the September 11th attacks and slowly but surely expose the real structure of the event. We maintain that the event still dominates American domestic and foreign policy nine years after the attacks. We hope that by deconstructing the official version we can at the very least maintain that someone was prepared to speak the truth in an era dominated by falsehood. This, we believe, is what God wants.

It goes without saying that American taxpayers are funding a monolithic defence and security structure that we can quite clearly see devouring billions of dollars worth of tax-payer funds and leaving the table bare for initiatives in health, education and developing national infrastructure. Many American cities such as Detroit and Los Angeles are in a state of terminal decline with social conditions in areas such as housing rivaling those in the third world. The scourge of drug-addiction has reached epidemic proportions and American prisons are so overcrowded that basic prisoner’s rights have ceased to exist. The permanent war economy developed in the post WW2 period is literally bleeding America dry. President Roosevelt’s New Deal has turned into a nightmare for millions of American families who are forced to raise their children in a society dominated by violence, drug addiction, state sponsored racism and crime. Old people and the homeless regularly freeze to death in the bitterly cold American winters and women fleeing domestic violence are forced to sleep in tents or cars.

Despite this, the security services are well-funded and the Army, Navy and Air Force have the most advanced equipment in the world. With the demise of the Soviet threat twenty years ago, American intelligence agencies had to refocus on the new reality and this process led to the creation of agencies focusing on Iran, Iraq, North Korea and the perceived threat of terrorism from radical Muslims. The levels of spending didn’t decrease when it became clear that the Soviets posed no threat to Americans. In fact, the opposite was the case. The embassy bombings, the USS Cole incident and of course 9/11 helped define the new threat in the post Soviet period and ensured continued, increased funding for the agencies. American intellectuals incorrectly saw this as an attempt to take away their constitutionally enshrined freedoms. Some saw the introduction of wiretaps, government spying and the concept of enemy combatant status as attempts to white-ant the Constitution. We see the development of these trends as a consequence of America’s feeble Constitution and an inevitable outcome of the permanent war economy. After the German Nazis developed a permanent war economy in the 1930’s, they had nowhere to go except into Poland and the Soviet Union. A nation that bolsters defence industry profits to a large extent will eventually need to deploy the weapons to keep the industries viable. In America’s case, they had nowhere to go except into Iraq and Afghanistan and we predict that the period of perpetual war will consume more victims in the coming period. It is our view that people like Bush and Cheney are puppets of the defence industry. Clinton was just as culpable except that he didn’t have to deploy the same forces at that time.

Everyone familiar with the period in question will recognise landmarks defining the epoch: H.W Bush launched Operation Desert Storm; Bill Clinton deployed military forces in Somalia; WTC93; the Oklahoma City bombing; the attacks on the American embassies; the USS Cole incident and 9/11. Of course there were other sub-plots taking place at the same time: the millennium plot and the case against Sheikh Omar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahman, for example. With the absence of a Soviet enemy, these events became the life-blood for the American agencies. The combined resources of the NSA, CIA, FBI and other, smaller units such as Able Danger sank billions of dollars and millions of hours into identifying this new threat. The Americans worked closely with their European counterparts and created the largest spying operation in the history of the world. Mosques were infiltrated in an attempt to identify radical Muslims in Finsbury Park, London, for example. The agencies combined their vast eavesdropping powers to create vast data bases and watch-lists to prevent radical Muslims from travelling and communicating with like-minded people without the agencies becoming aware of it. With the above in mind, we will now consider the case of Ramzi bin Al-Shibh (Ramzi bin Al-Shibah) more closely and place his case under the microscope of analytical scrutiny.

As stated earlier, the official version of events as outlined by Mr McDermott in his book Perfect Soldiers, saw Ramzi apply for refugee status as a Sudanese named Omar only to have his application rejected. Undaunted, he allegedly departed Germany only to return again a short time later with his Yemeni identification papers and a Yemeni passport # 00085243. Then he applied for refugee status again and was finally accepted. We pointed out the logical inconsistencies of this yarn and described it at the time as bogus information. We now wish to further advance our arguments and provide context for our earlier disclosures.

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-Shibh 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 did – 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 American’s understanding of the planning for 9/11 and the pretense that the CIA made errors of judgement and was 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 and Ramzi bin Al-Shibh. Malaysian Special Branch allegedly photographed Ramzi bin Al-Shibh 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-Shibh 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-Shibh was involved.

Are we to believe that Al-Mihdhar and Ramzi bin Al-Shibh 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 did. 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 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 scrutinized 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.

Please be aware that if you are an American reading this report you are engaging in dangerous activity. To reinforce this perspective here is a short video clip of the current and former American Presidents clearly stating that thinking for yourself and employing common sense is a dangerous and unpatriotic activity and should be avoided at all costs. Please watch the video and carefully consider whether you really wish to continue reading because it gets worse for the American spin doctors, far, far, worse.

We have sufficient evidence to call into question the identities of most of the 9/11 participants. In some cases, naturally, the evidence is stronger than others. We have provided evidence that Ramzi bin Al-Shibh has been incorrectly identified and elements within American intelligence know this too well. A major part of the problem the Americans faced when making their supposed identifications was that all roads had to lead back to Osama Bin Laden as part of a predetermined outcome for any investigation. Therefore, the agents on the ground were compartmentalized into units focusing on a particular issue. The issue of funds and the issue of the entry of individuals into America were dealt with separately with no overlap. When we look at the issue of funding we are led in the direction of focusing on Atta’s Suntrust account and on the role allegedly played by Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh who allegedly went by the alias Ahad Sabet. When we look at the brief history of the Pentbom investigation we immediately see this compartmentalization in practice, with FBI agents in Boston and Portland kept totally in the dark about the direction of the wider investigation. FBI Chief Mueller, it must be said, was forced to conduct such an unwieldy investigation that it must have been very difficult to pull all these disparate elements together.  We think we can see that the version released to the general public is a construct.

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-Shibh’s Sudanese identity and a variety of different names, including the one the Pakistanis identified him by and published first on this blog, 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 birth-dates. The 1973 birth-date links him to Khartoum, Sudan while the 1972 birth-date links him to Yemen. We’re 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 mobilize for political and Constitutional reform.

A fundamental doctrine of any democracy in the world, let alone the American one, is that the executive arm of government and the judiciary should be quarantined from each other. Yet the Zacarias Moussaoui case shows quite clearly the executive arm of government deciding which witnesses would be available, which portions of evidence should remain under seal and what Moussaoui would be allowed to say in open session. When Moussaoui tried to insist that Ahad Sabet and Ramzi bin Al-Shibh were two different people, he became the subject of a gag order and his sanity was questioned in a twenty first century American remake of a Franz Kafka novel.  We think, therefore, his conviction should be considered unconstitutional and avenues of appeal launched on that basis. We also take note of the fact that Zacarias Moussaoui has been sentenced to life in isolation from other inmates and is allowed no visitors, no doubt to prevent him from revealing important evidence that Ahmed Atif was a British agent.

While the anonymous author of the Xymorpha blog had some intelligent comments about 9/11 at the time and the author Chaim Kupferberg is astute and gifted, we can’t find any Americans at all who pose serious questions about 9/11. We think that Americans have in general watched one too many episodes of the X Files and in one way or another have become delusional. With the latest revelations about thermite in the WTC dust and the so-called peer reviewed paper on the subject, we conclude that intelligent debate is not taking place – as far as we know.

Eyewitness Testimony via Jihad Unspun

Posted in Hamburg cell, September 11th with tags on September 8, 2010 by operationbreaklock

Glory and thanks be to Almighty Allah. We repent to him and seek his refuge from our evil actions, indeed whoever He guides, there is no one who can misguide, and whoever is misguided, will perish by the will of Allah.

From Abu Shihab Al-Qandahari (nickname) to the Muslims who can hear with respect to the lies and fabrications of the American Government and the apostate regime of General Mushareef pertaining to the arrest of Sheikh Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah, the lion of Allah, this is what really took place.

A group of Pakistani mercenaries came to a building where some brothers lived (Ramzi has never lived there) and drew people and passers by from a nearby street in order to divert people’s hearts to create fear for the Mujahideen (may Allah grant them victory) who are being supported and loved by the Muslims in Pakistan. The main issue here was that four Pakistani American agents tried to invade the house where there were even women and children however, the Mujahideen killed many of the apostates without even using their full force so that the apostates did not hit innocent civilians.

The battle went on for over three hours and when the Mujahideen’s ammunition ran out, the enemies of Allah were able to kill two of the Mujahideen from the land of Ansaar (Yemen) and arrest ten of the dignified Mujahideen; 8 from Yemen, 1 Saudi and 1 Egyptian. While all this was going on, the lion of Allah Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was very far away from this incident although he wishes that he was there to face the American intelligence dogs himself.

So by Allah, how can he be in two places at once? And I hope the brothers do not forget that the brother being held (i.e. Safar) has denied being Sheikh Ramzi but Allah has blinded the Kuffar (disbelievers) in their arrogance. One of these mercenaries was able to fool the Americans and convince them that Sheikh Ramzi was amongst the (arrested) brothers, only to claim the bounty for him self. We promise him that he will never be happy with the bounty, even if he was foolishly granted it by the Americans.

O brothers and sisters, O those who cried and wept for Ibn Al-Shibah, thinking that he has ended up in Guantanamo Bay, be informed that he made an oath never to step foot in Cuba except as a conqueror, never as a prisoner. We wonder how the Arab media has benefited from feeling pleased about this alleged arrest – it is through the arrest of Ibn Sheikh made them happy. And to the rest of the brothers, we pledge that we will never give them up and we will liberate them so patience my brothers – indeed the victory of Allah is close.

This is a testimony to the people for whom I am responsible for before Allah in order to expose the American conspiracy to appear successful to those who heard about the arrest of Sheikh Ramzi so they would then hurry to contact him which would then expose him so he could be brought to the Americans. This is the only possible reason the Americans delayed the announcement about the arrests for three days so that they could review their security measures but they will never fool the Mujahideen.

This is my testimony, I declare it and ask Allah’s forgiveness. In addition, my brothers, don’t forget about the tape which the USA broadcast last Ramadhaan (Holy Month) which claimed to be Sheikh Osama Bin Laden’s. He is innocent from it and notice the degree of technological progress which the Americans have reached and their ability to fool the people, although this does not fool us.

I am Abu Shihab Al-Qandahari Al-Yemani and I declare what I saw with my own eyes on the same street. By Almighty Allah I swear that brother Ramzi has survived all this and my eyes will never mistake the face of Ramzi even if they put 1000 masks on him. I thank Allah, the one who kept Shaytan (Satan) away from the Mujahideen, and I thank him for he choosing them to support his Deen. I praise the Prophet (saw) etc…

In conclusion, it comes as no surprise that the American government continues its war of disinformation and deceit, particularly now that support for President Bush is declining in the days leading up to the elections. From the “smoking gun” tape to the supposed capture of Abu Zubaidah (who was killed in action during a Pakistani raid and who was not captured to disclose high level plans and key information on Al-Qaida he has been attributed with), the propaganda machine continues to ensure the American people support a government that has an unending thirst for power and global control, regardless of the consequences.

From Jihad Unspun

Posted in Hamburg cell, September 11th with tags on September 8, 2010 by operationbreaklock

As information surrounding the much trumpeted arrest of Al-Qaida leader Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah in Karachi has continued to be marred in controversy, an eyewitness account has emerged that finally confirms earlier reports that his capture was a public relations ploy and that Ramzi is not in the hands of the Americans.

Prior to the eye witness account, several facts emerged that now back up this latest confirmation. The first clue was that photos from the scene showed the alleged Ramzi with his face covered. This instantly sent up red flags considering the FBI, who were part of the raid team, had been under great pressure to show results in a year of calamities that produced little results in their efforts to capture Osama bin Laden or any senior Al-Qaida leaders for that matter. Had Ramzi actually had been captured, American and Pakistani forces would have saturated global media with close-ups and detailed shots of their trophy, showing their great catch American style. Instead FBI file photos and pictures showing an individual with almost all distinguishing features covered appeared sporadically throughout the press and not a single picture from the scene shows “Ramzi”s face uncovered.

In the hours following the raid, top intelligence officers from Pakistan and the United States were unable to confirm the identity of the person which they suspected was Ramzi – the person who had allegedly planned and financed the September 11 terror attacks in New York and Washington. This alone raises doubt as surely authorities know the face of this man they claim is a senior Al-Qaida figure and who they have pursued relentlessly over the past year. Shortly after, a spokesman from the Pakistan Foreign Office stated on the record that it was not hundred percent certain that the person they arrested from Karachi was in fact Ramzi bin Al-Shibah but rather “if the Americans say we have them then I guess we do”.

The family of Ramzi has also denied that the photograph published by the newspapers of the suspected covered was Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah. His brother said that there was no resemblance in the photograph to his brother. He also stated that the family has learned through credible sources that Ramzi was safe and that he was not among those who were arrested in Karachi. There is also the statement of the alleged captured “Ramzi” himself, who adamantly denied he was Ramzi, stating his name was Abdullah.

Meanwhile, contradictory statements of senior government officials about the extradition of Ramzi added further doubt to the situation. Pakistan Officials stated categorically at the time of the arrest that those captured, all foreigners, would be tried in Pakistani courts and they would then be handed over to their respective governments. No sooner did this announcement come but with the blink of an eye, the alleged “Ramzi” was being flown out of Pakistan by the US officials on a special plane to an unknown location and away from public scrutiny.

Another convincing piece of evidence came soon after Ramzi’s apparent arrest, when Mujahideen sources in phone conversations with the news agency Jehad Online said Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah “is with us” and that both he and Khaled Sheikh Muhammad were safe in an undisclosed location. Jehad Online, which has close contacts to the Mujahideen, challenged the authorities in a news report to show Ramzi in a video tape to disprove what they called “solid information” that Ramzi had not been captured. It comes as no surprise that this “proof” has not materialized.

But most telling fact of all until now is that the tip off to authorities to locate Ramzi came as the result of the Al-Jazeera documentary Top Secret – The Road to September 11th which the Arabic TV channel say they produced from an interview conducted by their reporter Yousri Fouda with the two men in person in Karachi. In close examination of the documentary, the faces of both Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah and Sheikh Muhammad are shadowed. The Mujahideen insist the short audio segments by Ramzi in the documentary were recorded independently and were sent to Al-Jazeera along with another tape which contained the last will of Abu Al-Abaas Al-Omari – one of the 19 hijackers in the September 11th attacks.

One only has to think about the logic of a face-to-face meeting to conclude its absurdity. If Ramzi is in fact one of the planners of 911, which all agree was planned meticulously, and has managed to evade authorities for an entire year even with a $25M bounty on his head, it is very hard to believe that Ramzi would have a meeting in person with an Al-Jazeera reporter.

This lack of tactical savvy doesn’t fit with the near perfect execution of Al-Qaida operations to date. Of course that fact seems to go right over the heads of the American public, with help from the propaganda machine that continues to portray Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network as backward, camel-riding nomads incapable of high level military planning which even previous operations that lead up to the 911 attacks sharply disprove.

And of course, Yousri Fouda himself has now denied the face to face meeting, saying in fact he obtained a video tape. He claims he didn’t get the video tape immediately as Al-Qaida wanted to remove the faces from the tape first. The person who handed him the video tapes after some weeks allegedly demanded money so Fouda refused. When Ramzi and Khaled Sheikh Muhammad came to know about this they supposedly sent him an audio tape of the interview instead.

With all this information omitted from main stream press, both American law enforcement officials and President Musharraf have basked in the glory of catching the “big fish” which of course furthers their political agendas. It is far too coincidental that this arrest occurred exactly one year after 911 just when congressional hearings were underway in the failure of the FBI to prevent the 911 attacks, when President Bush was desperately appealing to congress, the UN and the world at large for a preemptive strike on Baghdad that is pivotal in America’s pursuit of control of the Middle East and at a time when President Musharraf was lobbying his US friends for a payday for his support on harnessing terrorism that incidentally netted him $73 million in an aid package.

All these facts simply don’t add up to the “official” story.

Now finally, an eye witness has come forward in a sworn declaration that says Ramzi was not present during the Karachi raids. This eyewitness account, first appeared on the Arabic news board http://www.marsad.net and published here in full unedited and uncensored, leaves absolutely no doubt that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah has not been captured and is actively continuing to operate.

When was “Ramzi bin al-Shibh” arrested?

Posted in September 11th with tags , , on September 5, 2010 by operationbreaklock

According to the American government in its various statements, the arrest took place on the 11th September 2002. The international police organisation, Interpol, published a differant date, however – and various United Nations web pages displaying differant, updated versions of a document commonly known as The Consolidated List, echo the date given by Interpol for the date of arrest: 30th September, 2002.

Is this at all significant? Could it be that Interpol collect their data at the end of the month, for example, and that explains the later date? It might also imply that the United Nations simply collects data from Interpol and perpetuated the error. We considered that possibility but came to doubt that a data collection process could lead to such an error –  at least in this case. We think that by delving into the circumstances leading up to the arrest a great deal of uninformed speculation can become reasonable grounds for doubting the entire government case. Certainly, the conviction of  Zacarias Moussaoui has been shown to be doubtful and dubious as a result of our revelations thus far. We must remind our readers that for a conviction to have any validity, the defendant must be guilty as charged – not guilty in any general sense that the defendant was obviously up to no good and therefore the conviction is sound.

Firstly, some background information is necessary for those new to the case to form a preliminary judgement. It is of little use to have a bunch of supposed facts in one’s mind and then rush out to proclaim to the world that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. People need to see the facts laid out before them and to have a basis upon which to form their own judgement. That’s what we will be focusing on in the coming period. Because we are again experiencing technical difficulties we find it necessary to publish in installments – and hopefully the process will lead to a finished document in about two weeks. Readers are welcome to check back onto this website to view any progress in the meanwhile – but to see the finished document we recommend returning after a two week period, approx.

We are also of the belief that so-called technical problems can sometimes be of benefit in determining an outcome. The constraints placed upon us will hopefully make us proceed more cautiously, with greater dilligence – and with the utmost care. As Muslims we find it difficult publishing personal details about other Muslims, especially when they are confined to Guantanamo Bay and we don’t have the opportunity to seek their advice or permission. Alternately, we have found that the American government and its allies in the corporate media circus are seemingly incapable of telling the truth even on rare occasions which is the justification we have for writing these pieces.