Gold9472
10-07-2010, 12:51 PM
Further Proof 9/11 Needs A Real Investigation
Jon Gold
10/7/2010
On October 4th, Catherine Herridge of Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/04/exclusive-witnesses-defense-department-report-suggest-cover-findings/) broke a story concerning the DoD Inspector General's report on Able Danger.
If you don't know, Able Danger was a military unit set up (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=afall99abledanger#afall99abledang er) by the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in late 1998. It was tasked with collecting "huge amounts of data in a technique called "data mining." They get information from such sources as al-Qaeda Internet chat rooms, news accounts, web sites, and financial records. Using sophisticated software, they compare this with government records such as visa applications by foreign tourists, to find any correlations and depict these visually." The information would then be used to "conduct real operations against al-Qaeda targets."
On August 9th, 2005, the New York Times will report (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/politics/09intel.html?) that "more than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress." In September 2006, a report (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69870&postcount=1) was released by the DoD's Inspector General that said, "a review of records from the unit, known as Able Danger, found no evidence it had identified ringleader Mohamed Atta or any other terrorist who participated in the 2001 attacks."
In Catherine Herridge's report, it is made clear that "at least five witnesses questioned by the Defense Department's Inspector General told Fox News that their statements were distorted by investigators in the final IG's report -- or it left out key information, backing up assertions that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified a year before 9/11."
The report goes on to say that investigators were "hostile" towards witnesses, and that they also attempted to "intimidate" them.
It also mentions Philip Zelikow. A man that I feel deserves (http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/#fact16) to be investigated for his part in the 9/11 Cover-Up as Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission.
At the time this article is being written, very few media outlets are covering this story. Anthony Shaffer's book is climbing the New York Times' best seller list, and is currently listed (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/) at #7. Not to discount Tony's writing ability, but I think he would agree that this has mostly to do with the fact that the Pentagon bought up (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10books.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss) and destroyed, "10,000 copies of the first printing" in an effort to contain "intelligence secrets."
Now, I don't know about you, but I would think that if the DoD's Inspector General was shown to be, and I'm being nice, a fraud, you would think that the media would pick up on it.
Especially when you take into account that this Inspector General's office is the same IG that let NORAD off the hook for 9/11 (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=96864&postcount=1), and helped to cover-up Pat Tillman's death (http://www.dodig.mil/Inspections/IPO/reports/Tillman_Redacted_Web_0307.pdf).
Maybe I'm naive.
In my opinion, this story further shows that the 9/11 Commission (http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/#fact26) was a farce. That all 9/11 Whistleblowers (http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/#fact19) need to be heard. That retaliation against whistleblowers is a common occurence in our Government. That there needs to be a real investigation into the 9/11 attacks, the event that created the "Post-9/11 World."
I hope I'm not naive.
Jon Gold
10/7/2010
On October 4th, Catherine Herridge of Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/04/exclusive-witnesses-defense-department-report-suggest-cover-findings/) broke a story concerning the DoD Inspector General's report on Able Danger.
If you don't know, Able Danger was a military unit set up (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=afall99abledanger#afall99abledang er) by the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in late 1998. It was tasked with collecting "huge amounts of data in a technique called "data mining." They get information from such sources as al-Qaeda Internet chat rooms, news accounts, web sites, and financial records. Using sophisticated software, they compare this with government records such as visa applications by foreign tourists, to find any correlations and depict these visually." The information would then be used to "conduct real operations against al-Qaeda targets."
On August 9th, 2005, the New York Times will report (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/politics/09intel.html?) that "more than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress." In September 2006, a report (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69870&postcount=1) was released by the DoD's Inspector General that said, "a review of records from the unit, known as Able Danger, found no evidence it had identified ringleader Mohamed Atta or any other terrorist who participated in the 2001 attacks."
In Catherine Herridge's report, it is made clear that "at least five witnesses questioned by the Defense Department's Inspector General told Fox News that their statements were distorted by investigators in the final IG's report -- or it left out key information, backing up assertions that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified a year before 9/11."
The report goes on to say that investigators were "hostile" towards witnesses, and that they also attempted to "intimidate" them.
It also mentions Philip Zelikow. A man that I feel deserves (http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/#fact16) to be investigated for his part in the 9/11 Cover-Up as Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission.
At the time this article is being written, very few media outlets are covering this story. Anthony Shaffer's book is climbing the New York Times' best seller list, and is currently listed (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/) at #7. Not to discount Tony's writing ability, but I think he would agree that this has mostly to do with the fact that the Pentagon bought up (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10books.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss) and destroyed, "10,000 copies of the first printing" in an effort to contain "intelligence secrets."
Now, I don't know about you, but I would think that if the DoD's Inspector General was shown to be, and I'm being nice, a fraud, you would think that the media would pick up on it.
Especially when you take into account that this Inspector General's office is the same IG that let NORAD off the hook for 9/11 (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=96864&postcount=1), and helped to cover-up Pat Tillman's death (http://www.dodig.mil/Inspections/IPO/reports/Tillman_Redacted_Web_0307.pdf).
Maybe I'm naive.
In my opinion, this story further shows that the 9/11 Commission (http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/#fact26) was a farce. That all 9/11 Whistleblowers (http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/#fact19) need to be heard. That retaliation against whistleblowers is a common occurence in our Government. That there needs to be a real investigation into the 9/11 attacks, the event that created the "Post-9/11 World."
I hope I'm not naive.