Alarming 9/11 claim is found baseless

[LARED]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel25dec25,0,3149507.story?coll=la-home-headlines


WASHINGTON — The Senate Intelligence Committee has rejected as untrue one of the most disturbing claims about the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes — a congressman's contention that a team of military analysts identified Mohamed Atta or other hijackers before the attacks — according to a summary of the panel's investigation obtained by The Times.

The conclusion contradicts assertions by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) and a few military officers that U.S. national security officials ignored startling intelligence available in early 2001 that might have helped to prevent the attacks.

In particular, Weldon and other officials have repeatedly claimed that the military analysts' effort, known as Able Danger, produced a chart that included a picture of Atta and identified him as being tied to an Al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn, N.Y. Weldon has also said that the chart was shared with White House officials, including Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security advisor.

But after a 16-month investigation, the Intelligence Committee has concluded that those assertions are unfounded.

"Able Danger did not identify Mohammed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker at any time prior to Sept. 11, 2001," the committee determined, according to an eight-page letter sent last week to panel members by the top Republican and Democrat on the committee.

[G Hawes]

1. Oops.

Don't you hate it when a good conspiracy theory falls apart? Damn.







Oh, wait, it must be that the LATimes is in on the conspiracy, right?

Right?

Bueller?

[petgoat]

2. This article is shameful. By conflating the Able Danger story

with the Bush Warnings story, it gives the impression that a Senate committee
has concluded that the Bush Warnings were bogus.

Able Danger happened under Clinton. There's no connection to the Bush Warnings
story. The article is highly misleading, and the LA Times should be ashamed.

[LARED]

3. Enlighten me

where is the story conflated with warning given to Bush?

[petgoat]

6. where is the story conflated with warning

Paragraph Two:

"The conclusion contradicts assertions by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) and a few military officers that U.S. national security officials ignored startling intelligence available in early 2001 that might have helped to prevent the attacks."

This moves the effect of the Able Danger info from Clinton Era to Bush Era.

Paragraph Eight:

"The recently completed probe also dismissed other assertions that have fueled conspiracy theories
surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel25dec25,0,3149507.story?coll=la-home-headlines

OK, folks, the conspiracy theories have been investigated about the warnings before 9/11.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has examined them and declared them baseless. Go back to sleep.

[LARED]

7. Doesn't sound like any thing is conflated

Apparently Weldon stated information was available in early 2001. BTW, early 2001 could be Clinton or Bush. The conclusion is that Weldon was wrong.

I would hope you had something better than nitpicking how it's written.

[petgoat]

8. It's not nitpicking. It's the broad view of the busy commuter who

scans the headline and doesn't bother to read the story.

The implication is that the Senate Committee has concluded that there is
nothing to the pre-9/11 conspiracy theories. It's dishonest.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. I'm going to agree in a limited way with Petgoat on this one

I think the statement he's talking about is referring to early 2001 warnings about al-Qaeda attacks. That's the natural sense of it, and most people would walk away thinking that.

But that's more a function of sloppy reporting than outright malice. It's similar to the way the media branded any and all Bush Guard stories with the "Dan Rather forgery" meme (even though there was more to his story than just those memos!). It's the script that Petgoat is railing against (a la Bob Somerby), and I have to admit it's in evidence right here. Weldon being completely mistaken about Able Danger is being filed away as "no early 2001 warnings," and that's sloppy reporring. It's two different issues.

[mogster]

4. 'Intelligence' comittee?

You mean the guys with the 'Intelligence' report about 911?

They're about as credible (and intelligent) as the guys behind screwloosechange.

[vincent_vega_lives]

5. Why is it that the only 'credible' authorities on 9-11

reside behind the keyboard? It would seem the less connected to reality, the more water you hold with the conspiracy theorists. :crazy:

[mogster]

10. Well

How do you know wether I'm a 'conspiracy theorist' or not? I've never put forward any theory, just asked questions ;-)

Maybe that's why the official 'theorists' aren't credible anymore; they stopped asking questions and instead provide ready-made answers.

[mirandapriestly]

19. Well said. The only ones who have put forward a theory

are the ones who call OTHERS "conspiracy theorists". There is nothing wrong with a conspiracy theory, but the corporate/right wing owned media has given the term a derogatory connotation meant to distract from the actual information. The truth is the story that has been pushed by them is just a theory and it involves a conspiracy. This is a perfect example of how propaganda works and it might shed light on the subject to see who uses that sort of propaganda on this forum.

[mirandapriestly]

17. Oh yeah, GOP dominated "intelligence" Committees

are more trustworthy that my own instincts. I don't listen to any one "keyboarder" I am able to put 2 and 2 together. You need "authority" to tell you what to believe or guys with blow dried hairdos wearing suits and pointing fingers at you. Fool

[dailykoff]

23. Yep.

Just another coverup committee with all the usual conflicts of interest.

[vincent_vega_lives]

33. And I assume you would say the same thing

about a government committee that actually had a finding that you agreed with? Or are you a myopic hypocrite?

[vincent_vega_lives]

31. See there's the problem

You have misplaced confidence in you own instincts. They betray you. But its no use telling anyone that, they have to one day figure it out for themselves.

[mhatrw]

11. Just like NIST & SEC, they found "no evidence" to support the claims.

The panel said it found "no evidence" to support claims by military officers connected to Able Danger that Defense Department lawyers prevented the team's analysts from sharing their findings with FBI counter-terrorism officials before the attacks.

Weird how no federal politician questioning 9/11 in any way, shape or form can ever get elected or reelected to his or her office. You'd almost think the entire 9/11 event had been declared untouchable by the amount of play that any elected or hopeful federal politician asking for any level of 9/11 accountability gets from our corporate media.

Name a politician who will return to next session of Congress who has spoken out on the topic of 9/11 warnings, cover ups or accountability.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. I take it you endorsed Curt Weldon for Congress? n/t

[wildbilln864]

13. Assuming again?

:hi:

[mirandapriestly]

20. Do you really think we can't see throught such trickery?

Your specialties:
Insinuating posters are anti-semitic for supporting 9-11 research because of the unfortunate existence of some anti-semitic sites which blame 9-11 on Israel (Ignoring the fact that 600,000 Iraqis have been killed because of the false war on terror and the unproved allegations against supposed Islamic militants on 9-11)

Insinuating posters are homophobic for questioning the Mark Bingman story.

Insinuating posters support Republicans because they notice that those who mention 9-11 don't get re-elected.

Pretending to be morally indignant and offended in "honor of those who died on 9-11" by those of us who question what happened.

I recall specific instances of you doing all of those.
Do you really think people are that dumb?

[Bolo Boffin]

24. I have a few other specialities besides calling it like I see it.

I provide evidence for my claims. That's a speciality of mine that is far too often neglected on these boards.

How often has it been insinuated that I am a Republican because of standing up against this idiocy? Yes, most 9/11 conspiracy theories are IDIOTIC. Flight 77 denial has turned into full blown plane denial, and all of this bullshit about controlled demolition insults the thousands of people who worked the rescue scene that day. It's not just the dead, it's the living that are maligned. Every amount of effort used to exonerate these murderers, those 19 members of Al Qaeda, is an outrage.

There is no pretense to my moral indignation at these moronic theories. It is actual. These flimsy "theories" repulse me, as they do anyone who knows the truth about that day, who has investigated the claims of the 9/11 "truth" movement endlessly for four years and found them shamefully wanting in fact, in reasoning, and in common sense.

I am who I say I am, and I say who I am. I am Joseph Nobles, I am a lifelong Democrat, I am a proud gay man, I work constantly in support of Democratic aims, I love my country, and useful assets like these Democratic boards deserve to be defending from these mindless theories that exonerate America's enemies and villify America's heroes.

And that is more than any of you conspiracy theorists at this website can say.

[mhatrw]

22. Of course not. Did you?

Name a politician who will return to next session of Congress who has spoken out on the topic of 9/11 warnings, cover ups or accountability.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. You certainly are banging a drum for him.

You know all of that Able Danger bullshit was about blaming Clinton for 9/11, don't you?

Me, I'll stick with Russell Feingold.

[mhatrw]

27. Name one politician who will return to next session of Congress

who has spoken out on the topic of 9/11 warnings, cover ups or accountability.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Sounds like delusional politicians are SOL this election season.

And these conspiracy theories, all of them, are delusional.

[mhatrw]

34. So demanding even accountability for 9/11 is delusional?

What happened to the boloboffin who wrote this?

http://web.archive.org/web/20030223211654/http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5326.html#31

I do believe that Bush allowed Al Qaeda to attack America via criminal negligence. Whether this was calculated or not is another question, one that can be answered one day if we keep pressing legitimate question like the ones we have in this thread.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Now that delusional politicians are out of the way

Maybe real questions will gain a legitimacy heretofore denied them by association with nuts like Cynthia McKinney and Curt Weldon.

[mhatrw]

37. Really? So who is asking these real questions?

Who is saying a word about 9/11 -- apart from how it changed everything and all that jazz?

Oh, and you forgot to include Senator Mark Dayton on your list of supposed crazies.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Hide and watch. n/t

[mhatrw]

39. What?

Who is demanding answers to what happened on 9/11?

Who is demanding accountability?

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Hide. And watch.

You may have noticed that the power shifted from Republican to Democrat. Many questions are going to be asked. There is no telling where the answers will lead.

Hide and watch.

[mhatrw]

41. By whom? Who is going to ask these questions?

Can you name one member of the 2007 Congress who has ever said word one on the issue of 9/11 failures, accountability for 9/11 failures or even 9/11 unanswered questions?

[seemslikeadream]

14. Paul Thompson timeline

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=ableDanger

[wildbilln864]

15. the OP should...

read, found baseless by a government contractor in the interests of full disclosure!
:hi:

[Bryan Sacks]

16. The article is a litmus test - so is this new one

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061227/ap_on_go_co/able_danger

There is no basis in this new article for accepting or rejecting the prior Able Danger evidence. We learn in this latest one that witness accounts "varied significantly". The chart witnesses were asked about was seen four years before! Ask two people sitting across from each other at breakfast what color hair their waiter had, and they're likely to give significantly different accounts. Doesn't mean both couldn't identify him spot-on later if they saw him again.

The article says nothing about the substance of the supposedly siginificant variations. More MSM stenography, typical of the low quality stories churned out day after day by the corporate media. It's main value is to supply some context for weldon's departure from the scene - a departure completely consistent with an orchestrated effort to punish him for his willingness to scrutinize the Pentagon.

[wildbilln864]

18. Very well....

stated Mr. Sacks!

Investigate 911!

[KJF]

29. Mosque attendance

The Able Danger people say they identified 4 hijackers because they attended the same mosques as associates of the Blind Sheikh. According to the Congressional Inquiry, Atta and Alshehhi attended a mosque in Florida. One of the things we should be looking for is the name of this mosque. If we get it and its run by one of the Blind Sheikh's associates, this would be a break.

[dailykoff]

21. Let's look at the 2006 members of this committee:

Republicans:
1. Pat Roberts, Kansas, Chairman
2. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
3. Mike DeWine, Ohio
4. Christopher S. Bond, Missouri
5. Trent Lott, Mississippi
6. Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
7. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
8. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia

Democrats:
1. John D. Rockefeller IV, W.Virginia, Vice Chairman
2. Carl Levin, Michigan
3. Dianne Feinstein, California
4. Ron Wyden, Oregon
5. Evan Bayh, Indiana
6. Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland
7. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin

Bill Frist, Tennessee, Ex Officio
Harry Reid, Nevada, Ex Officio
John Warner, Virginia, Ex Officio

I wouldn't expect any other conclusion than the one reported today.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Russell Feingold was on that committee?

If he approved this report, then that's good enough for me.

Anybody here got a problem with Russell Feingold?

[Bryan Sacks]

32. Russ Feingold is a decent man - but gave us his 'friend' John Ashcroft, though

Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and apparently very poor judgment at times.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. No decent man is immune to slander

when it's idiotic conspiracy theories on the line.

[seemslikeadream]

30. true?

Not one federal representative who squawked one word about 9/11 returns to Congress for the 2007 session, and no candidate who made asking questions about 9/11 or even demanding so much as a shred of 9/11 accountability part of his or her campaign platform won.