I hate to jump in and derail the conspiracy fest but are any of you perhaps aware of the intelligence program code named able danger? If you are interested in the real reasons(as in FACTS as opposed to theories) 9/11 was allowed to happen you might look into that. It was a complete breakdown of government, that is the bottom line. No illuminati and skull n bones, just a breakdown of all parts of the government. Notice 99% if these attacks came when Bush was NOT president. Take that as you wish.
It would seem some of you think 9/11 was the first attack against the US by radical islam. In fact it is the 22nd by my count. See here for a timeline->
http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212088/tertime.htm
Here is a timeline of Able Danger...
http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline ... ableDanger
I am sure several of you will dismiss this in some way and or get angry at me for challenging your viewpoint but I would remind you that is not how people debate.. Hey don't shoot the messenger!
Some of you on here get mad at each other discussing issues like this and then act like dicks to each when you post about Live issues..that is pretty childish. I am sure many of you do not agree with me about real world issues but I would certainly discuss Live without thinking "oh that is the guy who thinks this or that about 9/11". Frankly I dont even know what a topic like this is doing on the ABLETON forum but I feel it may be valuable for someone to hear a differant point of view.
This interview with Curt Weldon is very telling indeed->
An Interview with US Rep. Curt Weldon
Government/Joe Stener
December 10, 2005 - This past summer, Washington and the nation were shocked to learn that the US intelligence community knew in ‘00 that the 9/11 ringleader, Mohammed Atta was in the United States. This revelation became public knowledge when Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer appeared on TV and confirmed that his intelligence team, Able Danger, had this information a year prior to the attacks.
Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon, made it his personal duty to “get to the bottom of this” and to learn who knew what information and when it was known. The Department of Defense is not allowing the truth to be known. In reaction, Weldon sent a letter signed by 246 representatives to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asking him to permit the Able Danger participants to testify in public. I had the honor of interview Representative Weldon on this very important topic:
The following is the transcripts of the interview with representative Weldon.
Question:For the record, please identify yourself with your name, and position in congress.
Answer: [My name is] Curt Weldon, Congressman from Pennsylvania.
Q: First, can you give me a short bio of the Able Danger group? What is it? Who formed it, etc?
A: Able Danger was a top-secret military planning operation, established in ‘999 by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to identify cells of al-Qaida worldwide and to plan action to take out al Qaida terrorists. They identified five cells world wide, one of them that was in Brooklyn. The cells were all involving al Qaida operatives, and were involved in attacks around the world against innocent people.
Q: How many men were working in this group?
A: Able Danger consisted of approximately 20 direct individuals working for Special Forces commend in Tampa, Florida. Supporting them, were a data mining operation in [an] army center outside of Washington D.C. and [in] a private facility in Texas. [However], the total amount of people working for Able Danger was twenty.
Q: In order for someone to [have] worked in this team, [did] he need security clearance?
A: These were all intelligence officers from the varies services, and they were all working together to collect massive amounts of data to understand where al Qaida terrorist were in fact operating. All of them had top-secret clearances or higher.
Q: Were you the one that encouraged Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer to speak out this summer, or he did it on his own?
A: I first met col. Shaffer in June (’05), when he told me the details of [what] Able Danger was been involved with. When I first told the story, he (Shaffer) saw the Media and some [other folks] were very critical of me personally, he said I want to go forward and talk my self. So I arranged for him to be interviewed by the New York Times, and FOX News. [In addition], as he told his story, more and more of the Able Danger people made themselves available to talk in the open.
Eventually, he had four five people that would be willing to testify publicly, but as of now have not yet been able to schedule a [congressional] hiring where they can testify in the open.
Q: In the discussions that you had with him, did he give specifics what he knew? And, Can you tell me what he said?
A: Basically, Tone Shaffer described Able Danger as a top-secret operation that identified Mohammed Atta in January of 2000. In September of 2000, the Able Danger team attempted to transfer information about the Brooklyn cell, to the FBI, so the FBI could follow up on the information about al-Qaida, Mohammed Atta, and money other terrorists. The lawyers in the Clinton administration blocked those meetings from taking place, even tough they have been set three times. In addition, he (Shaffer) tried to tell the story to the 9/11 Commission, but the 9/11 Commission refused to meet with him, and refused to follow up on the story; and in fact contained no information at all in the 9/11 Commission report about Able Danger or its activities.
Q: According to your research, did the Able Danger group have enough information to foil the 9/11 attacks?
A: I cannot make that statement, But Luis Free the FBI director during 9/11 wrote an op-ad in the wall street journal three weeks ago. In his op-ad, he said that this is the kind of information that would of allowed the FBI to prevent the hijackings. He has also made such statements on national TV. So, the FBI director at the time had in fact said that the information from Able Danger could well have prevented 9/11 from ever accruing. (Editing note: Free resigned of the agency mid ’01; Robert Muller was the director as of September 4, ’01).
Q: The 9/11 Commission report claims, that neither specific thing nor any person, standing alone, could have foiled the attacks. Do you agree?
A: The 9/11 Commission, which I supported with the voice of my vote, I think has turned out to be trolley inadequate and an embarrassment in this area of information regarding Able Danger. They refuse to fully investigate the facts surrounding Able Danger, and I think in the end there was a deliberate attempt by the commission not to have any of this information surface to the American people. They have been of no help in allowing the American people to understand Able Danger. And, I am extremely disappointed by the actions of the commission [and] the staff.
Q: Sharp words. Speaking of the commission: I followed hours of testimony; it was obvious that the five democrats were partisan members to the fullest extant. It appeared that the democrats were more interested in Bush’s 8 months, than Clinton’s 8 years. Is this what you want from a 9/11 investigation, especially now that you tell me that the commission was completely not interested in following Able Danger. Is [it not] a sign of partisan [ship]?
A: I think it is a sign of grouse failure. If you look at the 9/11 Commission [you will see that] they made a deliberate effort to only investigate from ‘99, ‘98 onward, whish meant they eliminated any ties that excited between other activities, between other bombings, [and] the ’93 attacks. That was because there were commissioners, especially people like (former deputy attorney general) Jaime Gorelick, who did not want anything prier to ’98 to be looked at. That’s a gross injustice and in my opinion caused the 9/11 Commission report not to be thorough.
Q: What was the immediate reaction in congress to Shaffer’s revelation?
A: The congress is very interested. The best evidence of the interest of the congress is, [that] within a week [of me seeking signatures] I was able to get 246 of my colleagues to sign a letter to secretary Rumsfeld demanding that we have open hidings where the Able Danger team can testify. (Mr. Editor: I wrote, “[of me seeking signatures],” to avoid the readers of thinking that he got the signatures within a week of the story).
Q: we will talk of that soon. How about the department of defense, Rumsfeld, [Peter Pace], and the rest of the Joint Chiefs: How did they react to this information?
A: Rumsfeld was not in office when this whole thing happened in ‘99 & 2000, so he would not have the details of what the Able Danger team was doing. But there are people within the administration who were there in ‘99 and 2000, who don’t want this information to be forward. What we are asking Rumsfeld to do is to tell them that it does not matter if they were in office; we want this information to be brought out to the public.
Q: Rumford’s spin in shutting up the Able Danger members is that it is classified information. Its non-sense, is it not?
A: None of this information is classified. I would never jeopardized classified information to be brought out to the public. This information is all open source information; there is no reason to worry in any way about classification. That is a red herring. That’s an excuse that does not have any merit. I would not be supportive of the telling of the story if it were classified [information]. It is simply an attempt by bureaucrats to cover their rear ends.
Q: Is it bureaucrats, or was it administration officials [that were blocking this investigation]?
A: The bureaucracy within the defense intelligence community does not want this story to come out. There are Clinton administration officials, like Jamie Gorelick and inner cell that do not want this story to come out. And there are a few people that are still within the Bush administration, who were in office in ‘999 –2000, who will also be embarrassed. [But] the American people deserve to know the details of what Able Danger was doing, what information they developed, and why this wasn’t past on to the FBI.
Q: You got the signatures of 246 Congressmen for your letter. This is a majority of congress; yet, why is not the whole congress in [to uncover] a scandal of this kind?
A: If I would have tried another week, I would of hade the entire congress. Everyone I asked signed the letter; I did that in two days. One forty three republicans, one hundred and three democrats [signed on to the letter, including] senior leaders from both parties. Steny Hoyer the number two democrat in the house, Roy Blunt the number two (acting number one) republican in the house, senior leaders of defense, appropriations, [committees], all of them have signed the letter. There is no one that turned me down.
Q: Is the senate working to put pressure on the pentagon, or maybe they are to busy protecting the rights of captured terrorist?
A: I do not know what the senate is doing. [However, senate republican] Arlen specter (PA) has been very supportive; [democrat] Joseph Biden (Delaware) has been very supportive; [Republicans] Chuck Grassley (Iowa), John kyl (Arizona), Jeff sessions (Alabama) [are all supportive]. So there has been senators who had expressed interest. Lindsey Graham has [also] expressed interest. We want to make sure this thing is not swept under the rug. Others want to try to hide this; they want the story to go away. This is not going to go away!
Q: Can you give me the names [of those who want to hide this]?
A: No, I [will] rather not give any names. All I can say is; we are not going to stop until the Able Danger team will [be] able to tell their story publicly.
Q: You submitted your letter to Rumsfeld two weeks ago Thursday (Nov. 17); did you get a positive response from Secretary Rumsfeld?
A: No, but I had a very positive meeting with [acting] Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England. We met for an hour and a half we explained the whole story. He promised me that last week (this interview took place Nov. 29) when Rumsfeld returned, that the two of them are going to have a private meeting where they will discuss Able Danger. I have not yet have been briefed on the results of that meeting which occurred probably, right after thanksgiving.
Q: IN your letter, you wrote, quote, “Further refusal to allow Able Danger participants to testify in an open congressional hearing can only lead us to conclude that the Department of Defense is uncomfortable with the prospect of Members of Congress questioning these individuals about the circumstances surrounding Able Danger.” End quote. Mr. Rumsfeld does not lose any sleep when congress acknowledges that the Pentagon is “uncomfortable.” Is this the best congress can do?
A: I wanted to take a positive approach here. Because Rumsfeld was not the Secretary of Defense when this whole program took place, I want to try to encourage him to cooperate, and deal with those bureaucrats below him who are putting up the resistance. I [will] rather not be harsh with him because Rumsfeld is not the problem. This is a case where the bureaucracy, 9/11 Commissioners and staff and others, who would be embarrassed by the story, do not want the story to [came out]. I am trying to present more of a positive relationship with Rumsfeld.
Q: Speaking of the letter it says, quote “Much of what they would present has already been revealed,” end quote. If so, Mr. Congressman, what difference will it make if we here already known [Able Danger] information from Shaffer, Capt. Scott Phillpott, and J.D. smith?
A: We did not have all that information come out; yet, when a testified in front of the Senate Judiciary committee, along with a lawyer representing col. Shaffer, [we] told the story. None of what we told, either the lawyer or m[e], was classified [information] according to the pentagon. We need to have these solders, the military officers, tell the story them selves, [because] many questions has to be asked: who are the lawyers in the pentagon [and] in the administration that stopped the material from being transferred to the FBI, and way did they stop that information from being transferred? What was the policy that caused the Able Danger information to be destroyed; 2.5 terry bites of data, that’s equal to all the printed material in the library of congress. Why would you destroy materiel regarding al Qaida, when Madeline Albright had declared Al Qaida to be the number one terrorist organization in the world? Why did the 9/11 Commission not investigate Able Danger? Why did not the 9/11 Commission not mention Able Danger even as a footnote in the report? All of these questions have to be answered, and we are not going to be satisfied until they are.
Q: You are rightfully hesitant to make this a partisan fight because lot democrats signed up to your letter. The fact of the matter is that the policies that led to this debacle are a result of left minded thinking. So why should we not debate the terrorist’s “civil rights” based on the negative results of Able Danger, which gave Ata a free pass?
A: That is a good Question; I do not have an answer for that. I would say that the policies in the ‘90s were to go soft on terrorists, and originations that pose a threat to the US. That is another reason why the Able Danger story has to be told. The American people need to know what polices in the ‘90s led up to: Al Qaida being able to operate, Mohammed Atta being able to live in a way that allowed him to come in and out of the United States, to allow links to occur. [We have to learn] who are the people that put these policies in place, and how to make sure this never happens again. Unless we have the complete open story, we will never be able to learn from the mistakes that have occurred in the past. It is extremely important that we learn lessens, and put in to place these new programs, new techniques, and new opportunities to protect America in the future.
Q: When Poll O’Neil, former treasury secretary, came out with a book attacking president Bush about things regarding department of defense (Iraq), every body jumped [to report] his book; with the reason that the treasury secretary has to appropriate money for the war. Now that we had [former FBI director], Luis Free coming out saying what he knew about the FBI, we did not have any coverage. Therefore, I think the same problem is with able danger [why the investigation is not going forward]: We do not have a brood-based coverage. I know you were on radio programs you had interviews, etc. But the mainstream media they [did not] pick up the story in a large scale.
A: The mainstream media has its own agenda. They do not want to print the facts. They have an agenda, they have a slant, [and] they have a bias. It is outrages to me. With the exception of the New York Times, Fox news, and Lou Dobbs on CNN, the rest of the mainstream media has remained silent. You have the facts and information right in front of them, [yet they do not repot it]. Here you have a scandal that is bigger than Watergate; which was the scale that brought back a president of the United States. How they can ignore a scandal, a cover up that involved the killing of three thousand innocent people, when they made such a big fuss over Watergate, a cover up of a third rate burglary, is beside me. [This shows], in my opinion more than ever, that there is such a liberal media bias in this country only to spin and tell those stories that are in [line] with the agenda of the reporters of the main stream media. Again, with the exception of the New York Times, Fox news, and Lou Dobbs of CNN, and as you said talk radio, the rest of the main stream media has basically been silenced like a bunch of dumb monkeys.
Congressman, thank you for your time. Enjoy life, and keep up the good work
