COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Pakistan and the $100,000

The story that Pakistan’s spy chief had money wired to Mohamed Atta

← Interactive guide and chronology · The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

Where the claim came from

Indian officials, unnamed.

On 9 October 2001 the Times of India reported, citing Indian sources, that Indian help had led the FBI to evidence that $100,000 was wired to Mohamed Atta by Ahmed Umar Sheikh “at the instance of” General Mahmud Ahmed, head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence. [1] Dawn carried a similar account that day, linking Mahmud’s departure to his ties to Sheikh. [2]

Mahmud was visiting Washington at the time of the attacks. In the days after, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met him and Pakistan’s ambassador and pressed Pakistan to side with the United States. [3]

What we can’t tell you. The reports name no official source, and no U.S. agency has confirmed them.

The sources

  1. Times of India, 9 October 2001: India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links ↗

    The original report that $100,000 was wired to Atta at the ISI chief’s instance, attributed to unnamed Indian sources.

  2. Dawn, 9 October 2001: Gen Mahmud’s exit due to links with Umar Sheikh ↗

    Pakistan’s leading paper carrying the PTI report on the ISI chief’s removal.

  3. 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 10: Wartime ↗

    The days after: the Saudi departure flights, the PATRIOT Act, the turn to Afghanistan and the early discussion of Iraq.

What investigators found about the money

Pakistan comes up, but not the ISI.

The Commission put the plot’s cost at $400,000 to $500,000 and wrote that “the origin of the funds remains unknown.” [1] Its staff traced about $300,000 that passed through the hijackers’ U.S. accounts, much of it wired from the United Arab Emirates by Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. [2]

In 2003 the FBI’s John Pistole told Congress the funding had been traced back to accounts in Pakistan, according to the Times of India. The reported testimony did not mention Sheikh or the ISI. [3]

What we can’t tell you. The financing monograph does not say who supplied al Qaeda’s money before it reached the plotters.

The sources

  1. 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 5: Al Qaeda Aims at the American Homeland ↗

    KSM’s planes operation, the selection of the hijackers, financing, and the finding of no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials individually funded al Qaeda.

  2. 9/11 Commission staff monograph: Terrorist Financing ↗

    The cost of the plot ($400,000–500,000), how money moved, and why the staff found no evidence of foreign-government funding.

  3. Times of India, 2003: 9/11 funds came from Pakistan, says FBI ↗

    FBI official John Pistole’s Senate testimony that funding was traced to accounts in Pakistan, and what it left out.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

3 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 162 rated claims ↗

← The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFiles911 shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFiles911.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.