9/11 Mastermind: Plan Involved 10 Planes

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, has told American interrogators that he first discussed the plot with Osama bin Laden in 1996 and that the original plan called for hijacking five commercial jets on each U.S. coast before it was modified several times, according to interrogation reports reviewed by The Associated Press.

Mohammed also divulged that, in its final stages, the hijacking plan called for as many as 22 terrorists and four planes in a first wave, followed by a second wave of suicide hijackings that were to be aided possibly by al-Qaida allies in southeast Asia, according to the reports.

customwire.ap.org...

Interesting read.

Torture a man long enough and he will admit to anything.

At this point I'm not even sure this guy had any role in the 9/11/01 attacks.

I'm with you on that heelstone. The more I read, think and follow the money the more it keeps coming back to "The enemy is within". It's sad to say and I wish it weren't true. But I'm not going to just put on rose colored glasses and ignore the facts. I read crap like the Northwoods Operation and different things about Pearl Harbor and it all starts falling together. Not a pretty picture but one I can't change. Sometimes I just feel sold out.

Don't believe a word of that latest story.

www.cooperativeresearch.net...

"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003. General elation greeted the news. Porter Goss (R), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, even proclaimed, "This is equal to the liberation of Paris in the second World War." [AP, 3/2/03 (C)] But its not that simple. Frankly, the official story of his arrest is a mass of lies, cover-ups and contradictions. It is highly likely Mohammed was not arrested on that day. What exactly did happen when is unclear, but the details of his arrest suggest something very disturbing is going on."

KSM has been captured and he will talk.

Heelstone, go read up on interrogation. Torture does not even come into it anymore.

OBL is just a 'escape goat' for somebody 'bigger'.

Anyone who reads either of the three links that I have posted will be in no doubt that the official story of the arrest and capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is by no means accurate.

www.unansweredquestions.org...

March 1, 2003: 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is reportedly arrested in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. [AP, 3/1/03] He is reported arrested in a late night joint Pakistani and FBI raid that also captures Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hawsawi, said to be the main money man behind the 9/11 attacks. [MSNBC, 3/3/03] However, there are serious doubts that Mohammed or Al-Hawsawi (who might not even exist) were at the house when it was raided. Mohammed has previously been reported arrested or killed (see June 16, 2002 and September 11, 2002 and also this essay, Is There More to the Capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Than Meets the Eye?, for a detailed analysis of his capture).

March 10, 2003: the ISI shows what they claim is a video of Mohammed's capture (see March 1, 2003). But the video only adds to doubts about that capture, as it is openly questioned to be a forgery by the reporters who see it. [ABC, 3/11/03, Reuters, 3/11/03, PakNews, 3/11/03, Daily Times, 3/13/03] A Fox News reporter even says, "Foreign journalists looking at it laughed and said this is baloney, this is a reconstruction." [Fox News, 3/10/03]



www.btinternet.com...

Remember, there was a failed attempt to hijack a group of planes on the other coast, just a little before 9/11 took place (less than a year before, if I remember).... The reason for multiple planes is simple, some would be circumvented...and prevented.

Torture does not even come into it anymore.

This much is true...there are far more effective means of interrogation to get truthful information, than torture... Breaking someone down to talk is pretty much a science these days...(denial/reward, isolation, depravation, gaining confidence, etc.)

Of course, as some have mentioned...there are doubts that we even have the guy....

Wow, I inclined to believe from reading these posts that you all wouldn't admit UBL planned and executed 9-11 if he showed up at your door in the morning, smacked you over the head with his privates and yelled.."Look, I did it, I'm proud of it so stop taking my glory !!" Why don't you all just admit that you don't want it to have benn UBL's group and so you will fabricate every denial possible to meet your needs.

Would even one of you admit that there might be a chance that this was a terror attack by al-Qaida ?


"The interrogation reports say bin Laden further trimmed Mohammed's plans in spring 2000 when he canceled the idea for hijackings in East Asia, thus narrowing it to the United States. Bin Laden thought "it would be too difficult to synchronize" attacks in the United States and Asia, one interrogation report quotes Mohammed as saying.

Around that time, Mohammed said, he reached out to an al-Qaida-linked group in southeast Asia, called Jemaah Islamiyah. He began "recruiting JI operatives for inclusion in the hijacking plot as part of his second wave of hijacking attacks to occur after Sept. 11," one summary says."

Astrocreep, it is in understanding the relationship between al-qaeda, the Pakistani ISI and the CIA. They are all one of the same and although it has been made to look as if a crew of Arab hijackers carried out the attacks, I personally believe the ISI was definately involved in every aspect of 9/11. The way that the ISI role has been covered up by the American's makes me think that the CIA and the ISI know more than they are letting on.

Well of course the CIA know more than they are letting on..thats their job. hell, I know more than I let on too. With knowledge comes power and you never totally tip your hat. The thing that troubles me is that we have this group who have threatened to do it, bragged when they did it and have vowed to do it again and we have another group whom refuses to even consider the fact that they might just be guilty of it.

The group that denies involvement has an interest in denying involvement. I think you will fingd that the CIA deny most of their work.

Do you not think it somewhat suspicious that the CIA helped set up and fund al-qaeda before, during and after the Soviet's war in Afghanistan?

How do you know that the CIA are still not linked with al-qaeda and assisted in the operation?

Why the cover up if the CIA is not at all guilty, why cover up for the Pakistani ISI?

So now we go from al-Qaida is innocent and the CIA did it to the CIA now assisted al-Qaida? Look, you all point out some really good descrepacies with the official story I'll give you that. But these theories you all form, you must understand also have as many if not more. In other words, its a little contradictory to point out a few holes in a canvass bag when you're holding an onion sack.

Yes I will admit that the US backed Afghan fighters against the USSR. We had a big threat from them back then and I don't think we've taken any action against any afghan as of yet. What we went against were Saudis and who took advantage of a post war afghanistan and set up their little totalitarian gov. Make no mistake, the Taliban were not Afghans.

Not sure what you mean about the Pakistan ISI, I really don't think they're that big a player in all this.

This simple fact is...the objectives of the 9/11 strike, could have been carried out far better if it was indeed, the goal of the CIA, Bush, etc.

The same objectives (Patriot Act, security over freedom, etc.) could have been accomplished without the disastrous side effect to the American economy and infrastructure (namely the airline industry). All they had to do was blow up a chunk of Mount Rushmore, and you'd have the same anger, feeling of insecurity, etc. and without the financial backlash... This is why I don't believe the government had anything to do with 9/11....

If anything though, UBL should be quite pleased... One of his goals as to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia...and if I'm not mistaken, the last group left today....

Nothing good will come of this... Sometimes I think we should simply turn the whole region into a glass parking lot, and spare us the next couple decades of turmoil... That region is a powder keg and the fuse is lit, and getting shorter by the day....

Originally posted by Gazrok
This simple fact is...the objectives of the 9/11 strike, could have been carried out far better if it was indeed, the goal of the CIA, Bush, etc.

Yeah, but this is a conspiracy board, so the point of view that some things are pretty much as they seem isn't going to fly very well.

Originally posted by Gazrok
This simple fact is...the objectives of the 9/11 strike, could have been carried out far better if it was indeed, the goal of the CIA, Bush, etc.

The same objectives (Patriot Act, security over freedom, etc.) could have been accomplished without the disastrous side effect to the American economy and infrastructure (namely the airline industry). All they had to do was blow up a chunk of Mount Rushmore, and you'd have the same anger, feeling of insecurity, etc. and without the financial backlash... This is why I don't believe the government had anything to do with 9/11....

If anything though, UBL should be quite pleased... One of his goals as to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia...and if I'm not mistaken, the last group left today....

Nothing good will come of this... Sometimes I think we should simply turn the whole region into a glass parking lot, and spare us the next couple decades of turmoil... That region is a powder keg and the fuse is lit, and getting shorter by the day....

What we do know is that the events of 09/11/01 do not play out exactly as the investigations into the matter have told us. It will be hard to impossible to ever find out any further information regarding what actually happened and to whom to place blame. Conspiracy theories at least solve a portion of this when real evidence is ignored or disappears, as in this case.

As for the financial backlash that happened after 09/11/01, it was probably presumed to happen and to have been acceptible with regards to the desperation of the act. If Mount Rushmore or some monument got blown up without loss of life, it would not have had the same impact. Probably just enough impact to cause outrage, but not massive prolonged outrage to incite all out war. I have never heard of a war starting over destruction of property/monuments anyway. Wars have started over loss of life multiple times.

You are correct that nothing positive will come of what is happening. I do not think it requires continued loss of life as killing incites more killing. History has proven this over and over again. As for that region being a powder keg. The U.S. has done nothing but light its fuse.

[Edited on 23-9-2003 by heelstone]

Of course they did it,

they were the hired help!