Able Danger exposes 9/11 Coverup Commission

[pberq]

O.K. I know that some people on DU are downplaying the Able Danger story, but I think this exposes the 9/11 Commission for what it was - a massive coverup with the fig leaf of "bipartisan" thrown over it.

Of course Able Danger is not necessary to show the Commission was a coverup. All we need to do is note the many, many questions about 9/11 that they left unanswered. Like who benefitted from the insider trading that day; what about the wargames - not even mentioned in the report, etc, etc, etc.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050817/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/sept_11_hijackers

<snip>
. . ."I'm told confidently by the person who did move the material over that the 9/11 commission received two briefcase-size containers of documents," Shaffer said in the Fox News report. "I can tell you for a fact that would not be ... one-20th of the information that Able Danger consisted of during the time we spent."

Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and
Homeland Security committees, has said the Sept. 11 commission did not adequately investigate the claim that four of the hijackers had been identified more than a year before the attacks.

Former commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said last week that the military official who made the claim had no documentation to back it up.

Shaffer rejected that remark. "Leaving a project targeting al-Qaida as a global threat a year before we were attacked by al-Qaida is equivalent to having an investigation of Pearl Harbor and leaving somehow out the Japanese," he said in the Fox interview.

In the Times account of the interview, Shaffer said he was "at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued" in describing his efforts to get the evidence from the intelligence program to the FBI in 2000 and early 2001.

[spooked911]

1. Link to the NYTimes article on this today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/politics/16cnd-intel.html?ei=5070&en=381cfb426131fcc9&ex=1124942400&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - A military intelligence team repeatedly contacted the F.B.I. in 2000 to warn about the existence of an American-based terrorist cell that included the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a veteran Army intelligence officer who said he had now decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly. The officer, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said military lawyers later blocked the team from sharing any of its information with the F.B.I.

Colonel Shaffer said in an interview that the small, highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger had identified by name the terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta, as well three of the other future hijackers by mid-2000, and had tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the F.B.I.'s Washington field office to share the information.

But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 plot was still being planned.

"I was at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued," Colonel Shaffer said of his efforts to get the evidence from the intelligence program to the F.B.I. in 2000 and early 2001.

This story IS NOT going away.

And the questions still remain unanswered: what was Atta doing in the US much earlier than the official timeline and HOW DID HE GET A GREEN CARD?

[Kevin Fenton]

2. Databases

"Nor was he aware, he said, which databases had supplied the information that might have led to the name of Mr. Atta or other terrorists so long before the Sept. 11 attacks."

Might I suggest they got the CIA's database of Al Qaeda operatives, compared it with the INS' database of aliens in the US and got the four names Alhazmi, Almidhar, Atta and Alshehhi.

Maybe Atta got a green card whilst attending Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama.

[spooked911]

3. Yes, definitely.

I just wish the US media would seem to care about this rather important bit of info.

[janedoe]

8. There's HOPE! Today is the first day I might believe

there's even a chance this country might survive.
Today, I feel there's hope. Today, is a very good day.
(I posted this on another thread, but it seems appropriate here, as well.)
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=52329&mesg_id=52758)

Today, I sense something has really begun changing. 

(Below, I will use bogus to mean "lacking public confidence.")
You need not agree with the details. I am only noting the timing of these events. Feel free to add ones I've overlooked. 

• Bogus Election (appointed, not elected) 2000
  
• 9/11 (bogus presentation and media silencing)
  
• Bogus Election 2004 (especially Ohio)
  
• Downing Street Minutes
  
• Rovegate (Valerie Plame outing)
  
• 7/7/05 London event
  
• Tube shooting 7/22/05 of Jean Charles de Menezes (we now hear was innocent, and no longer the whitewash)
  
• Able Danger,
  
• Cindy Sheehan... (getting louder!)
  
• Able Danger is beginning to shine a big spotlight on the bogus 9/11 Commission
  

Until this past week or so, we may have hear tiny tidbits of these stories, but not enough for the general public to remember hearing about them. 
Now, the Cindy Sheehan story has been on FOX, CNN, and others, almost around the clock. And other stories have been bubbling up. Now, tonight, we're hearing the O'Reilly guy losing confidence in the 911 commission. 

Looking back, just this week, it appears that the media is working it's way up that list, in reverse order. Right now, FOX just switch from telling us, openly, that the guy killed in the tube shooting was completely innocent. (exposing the cover-up!) Now FOX is covering Able Danger. "What did they know, and when did they know it" (referring to 9/11). We're even hearing about something fishy in the Ohio vote count!

Could it be that we are beginning to get our media back?
I see a ton of momentum, picking up speed, fast. 

There's only one thing that can stop it now, another "9/11." Hopefully, the Camp Casey crowd is keeping a good watch on who's coming and going. i.e. babysitting/surveillance, with the media's eyes looking on. 

[pberq]

4. In the country legally?

Did you happen to notice Nafeez Ahmed's testimony in the Cynthia Mckinney hearing? He emphasized that the U.S. consulate in Saudia Arabia where the hijakcers got their visas was run by the CIA. So this excuse that the hijackers "were in the country legally" is highly suspect.

Here is a report about more of what Ahmed said that day:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/members/072905_mckinney_911_briefing.shtml

<snip>
Nafeez Ahmed gave an excellent presentation on the fact that Mohammad Atta and the Hamburg cell of terrorists did not exhibit the behavior of radical Islamic fundamentalists. Rather there were multiple reports of them drinking heavily, using cocaine, gambling in Las Vegas, and frequenting strip clubs. None of this accords with the behavior of genuine Islamists, allied with Al Qaeda, who believe in the strictest interpretation of the Koran as to how a Muslim should live his life.

Further, Ahmed referenced multiple published reports indicating that the alleged hijackers had trained in secure military installations in the United States. While Ahmed remained reserved about the implications of the documentation he was referencing, the truth of the matter is that this information shakes the very foundation of everything we've been told about what happened on 9/11 and why. . .(more)

So who were the hijackers? Obviously not Al Quaeda. At least not as has been sold to the American public.

[petgoat]

7. Ahmed said about Atta in Ahmed's CSPAN Appearance

that when Sen. Bill Nelson asked Ashcrift to investigate the possibility
that the alleged hijacker Mohammed Atta was the same person as the
Mohammed Atta who had military training, the FBI told Nelson that the
issue was complex and they could not say yes or no.

[Bushwick Bill]

5. Although I don't like Clinton being smeared...

Although I don't like Clinton taking the heat for the Able Danger news, if this can ever be used to re-examine the official story/report, maybe it can come in handy. Assuming the Able Danger story is correct, if you combine that with the fact that investigations by FBI field agents in Minneapolis, Phoenix and Robert Wright were shut down, then maybe people will begin to see the big picture that somebody high up was protecting these guys.

[petgoat]

6. I hang out with a lot of Republicans and they are all waxing indignant

about the 9/11 Commission -- "It's a joke!" they're saying. Their
belief that Able Danger reflects poorly on Clinton is giving them some
rather expansive ideas.

[Make7]

9. I found these passages from the NYT article interesting:

"We didn't that Atta's name was significant" at the time, he said, adding that "we just knew there were these linkages between him and these other individuals who were in this loose configuration" of people who appeared to be tied to an American-based cell of Al Qaeda.
__________

Colonel Shaffer said in an interview that the small, highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger had identified by name the terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta, as well three of the other future hijackers by mid-2000, and had tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the F.B.I.'s Washington field office to share the information.

But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 plot was still being planned.

"I was at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued," Colonel Shaffer said of his efforts to get the evidence from the intelligence program to the F.B.I. in 2000 and early 2001.

www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/politics/16cnd-intel.html?ei=5070&en=381cfb426131fcc9&ex=1124942400&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print

____________________

But this article is even more interesting:

SHAFFER AND THE 9/11 COMMISSION....One of the key allegations made by Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer in the Able Danger affair is that even though he specifically told the 9/11 Commission that Able Danger had identified Mohamed Atta, they failed to follow up on it. Today he recanted that allegation.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_08/006945.php

-Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

10. Recanting

Did he ever say specifically that he named the terrorists to Commission staffers when he was in Afghanistan?

This article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1739204,00.html
from the Times on August 17 (two days before he supposedly recanted) seems to indicate that he never even made that claim:
"According to Colonel Shaffer and Congressman Curt Weldon, the Republican politician who has brought to light the work of Able Danger, the full extent of the unit's findings were not passed on to the 9/11 Commission even after members of the Commission met Colonel Shaffer in Afghanistan in 2003."

So, the staffers talked to him about Islamic terrorists in the US, but never asked him if he noticed Team Atta! If this is the quality of staffer available in Washington today, no wonder the lone cadre snuck one by them on 9/11!

Can a person recant something they never said in the first place? Would it be more accurate that he conceded he never told Commission staffers the names in Afghanistan in 2003.

[spooked911]

11. It seems to me that everyone involved in this story is back-pedaling

as fast as they can, since the story is too explosive.

Besides, there are other sources other than Shaffer and Weldon who we haven't even heard from.

I think we can safely assume there was an Able Danger program, and they did idenotfy terrorists. Is it really a surprise they would have identified Atta? The only problem is that Able Danger identified Atta before he officially entered the US (according to the 9/11 commission). But Dan Hopsicker has also found evidence that Atta was int eh US before the commission says. Moreover, there is the story that Atta was trained at Maxwell Air Force base that was never followed up on.

The whole thing reeks of cover-up.

[Make7]

12. Well, according to these articles:

He said he told them.

August 16, 2005

Colonel Shaffer said that he had provided information about Able Danger and its identification of Mr. Atta in a private meeting in October 2003 with members of the Sept. 11 commission staff when they visited Afghanistan, where he was then serving.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/politics/16cnd-intel.html?ei=5090&en=fc1cfb447a0bfcc9&ex=1281844800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Then he said he didn't.

August 19, 2005

... Shaffer conceded that during his own personal briefing of Sept. 11 commission staffers in Afghanistan in Oct. 2003, he didn't specifically name the terrorists. Instead, he detailed how Able Danger had uncovered information about three terror cells with the use of then-advanced data-mining techniques.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166258,00.html

-Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

13. The difference

I think there's a difference between providing "information about Able Danger and its identification of Mr. Atta" and specifically naming Atta. It's possible to do the former without doing the latter. He may, for example, have given them information about the programme and then told them who to get in touch with for further information, knowing that such person could give a full set of names. He may merely have said that some of the hijackers were covered by the programme, without naming names.

However, whether Shaffer actually named Atta in 2003 is hardly the most important Able Danger talking point, is it?

[Make7]

14. connecting dots

So Colonel Shaffer briefed them about Able Danger and didn't think to mention Atta's name? Was he not able to connect the dots two years after 911? If this is the quality of officer doing intelligence work in the military, no wonder they can't find the terrorists they are looking for.

The title of the thread is Able Danger exposes 9/11 Coverup Commission. This would, of course, be based on the story of Colonel Shaffer. After reading some of the news articles, I think his story is somewhat less than consistent. That's just how I see it.

-Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

15. Consistency

Nobody is denying Able Danger existed. It appears that both Shaffer and the Commission agree the 2003 meeting took place and that they discussed Able Danger. What are you suggesting they talked about? Ice hockey?
Shaffer may not have known about Atta specifically - wasn't he only a liason officer, rather than one involved in the nitty-gritty of the operation?
Even though he did not name Atta, should not Commission staffers have asked him about this or got the name of someone in possession of more details about the operation? Would this not be a logical line of inquiry for them?
Perhaps the Commission distorted the results of the inquiry not merely by ignoring facts of which it was in possession, but also by deliberately neglecting to ask pertinent questions.

Are you saying Atta and al Shehhi were not in the US before the FBI claims they arrived?

[Make7]

16. Yes, that would be a logical line of inquiry.

Kevin Fenton wrote:
Nobody is denying Able Danger existed. It appears that both Shaffer and the Commission agree the 2003 meeting took place and that they discussed Able Danger. What are you suggesting they talked about? Ice hockey?

They may have talked about ice hockey - although no one has reported that they discussed that particular subject.

In this thread, my position has been that Colonel Shaffer said he told them Atta's name at that meeting, and then he said that he didn't. You may interpret the press accounts differently.

Kevin Fenton wrote:
Even though he did not name Atta, should not Commission staffers have asked him about this or got the name of someone in possession of more details about the operation? Would this not be a logical line of inquiry for them?

Yes, that would be a logical line of inquiry. The funny thing is that the 911 Commission said that they requested information on Able Danger from the Pentagon and that there was no mention of the hijacker's names in the material they were provided from that request.

Kevin Fenton wrote:
Are you saying Atta and al Shehhi were not in the US before the FBI claims they arrived?

I don't recall saying that. Or even discussing it.

-Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

17. Your position

I am aware that your position on this thread is that "Colonel Shaffer said he told them Atta's name at that meeting". However, since you are unable to produce a direct quote from Shaffer to back this up, I am unaware why this is your position.

"The funny thing is that the 911 Commission said that they requested information on Able Danger from the Pentagon and that there was no mention of the hijacker's names in the material they were provided from that request."
The funny thing is that, subsequent to the material, they interviewed another Able Danger officer and he explicitly told them they were following Atta, which both Kean and Hamilton admit, but they still ignored it and kept it out of the final report.

If you had to buy a used car from either Colonel Shaffer or Lee Hamilton, which would it be?

[Make7]

18. I'd walk.

Colonel Shaffer said that he had provided information about Able Danger and its identification of Mr. Atta in a private meeting in October 2003 with members of the Sept. 11 commission staff when they visited Afghanistan, where he was then serving.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/politics/16cnd-intel.html?ei=5090&en=fc1cfb447a0bfcc9&ex=1281844800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Okay, I interpret that sentence to mean that he identified Mr. Atta. I think that is what is being reported. If that's not what was meant, why didn't they just write:

"Colonel Shaffer said that he had provided information about Able Danger in a private meeting in October 2003 with members..."

That is how I am interpreting it.
____________________

So that's it, one source that named Atta in connection with Able Danger? One source that wasn't confirmed by anyone else or any documentation. And they still refused to put it in the final report? Weird.

-Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

19. I generally travel by foot, bus, tram and metro

The NYTimes actually phrased in a way that was misleading, but not completely untrue - providing information about his identification. Some other reports (written by people who didn't actually talk to Shaffer) went further. Shaffer set the record straight quite early, on Hannity and Colmes on Fox - wasn't this his first televised interview?

The reason the NYT is printing something which is misleading, but not completely untrue is to make the story as sound as sensational as possible - this is hardly the first time a newspaper has done this.

The Commission report appears to be wrong about the time Atta entered the US. How significant is this?
(1) It shows there are holes in the Commission Report.
(2) Insofar as the Report is based on the FBI's investigation, it shows the FBI's investigation is flawed - hardly a surprise given they shut it down so early and that they shredded all those documents in Saudi.
(3) It shows the authorities knew about Team Atta before 9/11.

The conclusion being drawn by some people is that the authorities deliberately allowed the plan to go forward. However, I'm confident further evidence will appear showing that they tried to stop it, but failed.

It is a blow to people (like myself) who previously claimed that the DoD could not have been piggybacking on the hijackers and helping them because the DoD would not have known about the hijackers, but I guess not every development is going to confirm what I thought previously, so I'll just have to take the rough with the smooth. I've got plenty more arguments anyway.

[spooked911]

20. So, do you think Shaffer is backpedaling on the Atta claim

because he really couldn't remember if Atta was identified or not (and went ahead with such a wild allegation just to get attention) or that Shaffer is backpedaling because he is being pressured to because of the explosiveness of the allegations and the clear implications for US government involvement in 9/11?

What is more likely?

That Shaffer would go out and make an ass of himself by making a wild unsupported claim, or that he is being severely pressured by the Pentagon to shut up because his claims are so damning?

[Make7]

22. "But there comes a time...to stand for what is right."

The only thing he seems to be backpedaling on is whether or not the name Atta was mentioned in the October 2003 briefing. (If indeed, the NYT report is correct in stating that he claimed he identified Atta then.) He very well may have thought he used Atta's name at that time, but realized he didn't after the 911 Commission statement came out.
:shrug:

But it does seem strange to me that he wouldn't specifically identify Atta by name at that briefing. It was more than two years after 9/11/01. He knew about Atta and was briefing members of the staff of the 911 Commission. Why on earth would he not identify Atta by name?
___________________

I think that Colonel Shaffer should have realized that the Pentagon might be less than happy about the story coming out. It is hard to believe that he would not have considered the possibility of some sort of repercussions for telling his story. Why would he come forward at all if he was just going to back down anyway?

Or as reported in the NYT:

Colonel Shaffer said he assumed that by speaking out publicly this week about Able Danger, he might effectively be ending his military career and limiting his ability to participate in intelligence work in the government. "I'm proud of my operational record and I love what I do," he said. "But there comes a time - and I believe the time for me is now -- to stand for something, to stand for what is right."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/politics/16cnd-intel.html?ei=5090&en=fc1cfb447a0bfcc9&ex=1281844800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

____________________

I don't know that, from what is known at this time, this story actually indicates US government involvement in 911. As far as I can tell, there were only a handful of people that knew about this information. Unless the people involved in the Able Danger operation were also doing the planning for 911 (which no one has claimed that I know of), the dots just don't seem connected yet to me.

-Make7

[k-robjoe]

23. I haven´t followed this close enough

but it seems to me that the evidence that FBI has been lying big time about Atta is piling up :

"The connect-the-dots tracking by the (Able Danger) team was so good that it even knew Atta conducted meetings with the three future hijackers. One of those meetings took place at the Wayne Inn. That's how close all this was - to us and to being solved, if only the information had been passed up the line to FBI agents or even to local cops."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x147245


"Because it isn’t just one elite Army Intel unit that’s saying it... In the aftermath of the 9.11 attack numerous eyewitnesses came forward to attest to Atta’s presence in the U.S. before June of 2000.

Their number even includes a U.S. Government official with a signed and dated loan application from Mohamed Atta his-ownself.

In interviews with major news organizations Johnelle Bryant, an official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, revealed that Atta and three other September 11th terrorists visited her Florida office seeking a government loan."

http://www.madcowprod.com/08122005.html

[Make7]

24. before and after

The people involved in Able Danger specifically stated that they did not share the information with the FBI. You can ascribe whatever motivation to whomever you care to regarding that, but how can the FBI be lying about the Able Danger info if they never had it?

The fact that the FBI (and/or others) had its own information about Atta (and/or others), just means that there are more dots. If the information was not shared, how can anyone be expected to connect them?

The dots are much easier to connect after knowing what someone has already done.

-Make7

[k-robjoe]

25. Lying?

I find this very confusing. If Bryant saw Atta in her office in May, and other witnesses testify that he was in the US before that, and now the Able Danger people say the same thing, well, it seems like he must have been in the US. And if he was, and the FBI, presumably having talked to Bryant and the others, is still saying that he didn´t get to the US until June, well, then they are lying, not?

And you make it sound like the Able Danger guys didn´t bother to share their information with the FBI, but the way I heard it, they wanted to, but somebody higher up blocked it... ( Isn´t that right? )

Something about Atta having a green card... (Not?)

But did he? :

"But all this is academic. Mohamed Atta was never a green-card holder. Worse still, he never had a valid entry visa. On the contrary, in January 2001, Atta was permitted reentry into the United States after a trip to Germany, despite being in violation of his visa status. He had landed in Miami on January 10 on a flight from Madrid on a tourist visa - yet he had told immigration inspectors that he was taking flying lessons in the US, for which an M-1 student visa is strictly required.

Essentially, Atta had entered the US three times on a tourist visa in 2001, although INS officials knew the visa had expired in 2000, and Atta had violated its terms by taking flight lessons. So Atta was illegal - and the Defense Department lawyers who blocked the FBI from accessing the Able Danger data were lying. So the question remains: why was the Able Danger report prevented by the DoD from circulating in the US intelligence community?"

http://www.911blogger.com/2005/08/nafeez-ahmed-comments-on-able-danger.html

(Edit to add to the quote.)

[k-robjoe]

26. Green card

Turns out that the "Green card"-explanation is commented on in the same link. (Ahmed-article)
That´s where I heard about that. Is it correct?

[spooked911]

27. the green card bit was in the St.Petersburg Times

one of the first articles on this story:
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/08/10/Worldandnation/Reports__911_clue_hid.shtml

[k-robjoe]

29. Weldon

Thanks.
They are saying that Congressman Curt Weldon told them this.
Would they make it up?

[spooked911]

31. would Weldon make it up? Possibly, but it seems like an odd detail

to make up out of the blue.

[spooked911]

21. Great timeline on Atta here:

http://911review.org/Wiki/AbleDanger.shtml


--basically, there is a good amount of evidence that Atta was in the US before the commisison says he was.

[spooked911]

28. Important confirmation today in NYT on Able Danger ID'ing Atta:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/politics/23intel.html?ei=5090&en=4010d072ce411d88&ex=1282449600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 - An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.

The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement on Monday that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. "My story is consistent," said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command. "Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000."

His comments came on the same day that the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters that the Defense Department had been unable to validate the assertions made by an Army intelligence veteran, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and now backed up by Captain Phillpott, about the early identification of Mr. Atta.

Colonel Shaffer went public with his assertions last week, saying that analysts in the intelligence project were overruled by military lawyers when they tried to share the program's findings with the F.B.I. in 2000 in hopes of tracking down terrorist suspects tied to Al Qaeda.

[k-robjoe]

30. Thanks again n/t