http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Able_Danger&feed=atom&action=historyAble Danger - Revision history2024-03-28T21:03:30ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.22.7http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Able_Danger&diff=9880&oldid=prevMike: /* Links */2012-06-29T18:41:32Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Links</span></span></p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>The 9/11 Commission told us that, of the 19 alleged hijackers, only [[Khalid al-Mihdhar]] and [[Nawaf al-Hazmi]] were known to the US authorities prior to 9/11. However, in 2005 it was alleged that Able Danger, a classified military intelligence operation, had through the use of data mining techniques managed to identify [[Mohamed Atta]], [[Marwan al-Shehhi]], [[Khalid al-Mihdhar]] and [[Nawaf al-Hazmi]] as being part of a "Brooklyn" cell. What's more, the 9/11 Commission had been informed of this, but did not include it in their report.<br />
<br />
Responses to the Able Danger story have been varied.<br />
<br />
In their book "Without Precedent", 9/11 Commission leaders Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton said the information had been investigated but didn't stand up.<br />
<br />
{{divbox|amber||Another item that surfaced in early July was the "Able Danger" Department of Defense surveillance program that our staff had been briefed on in Afghanistan. On July 12, Dietrich Snell interviewed Captain Scott Phillpott, who requested the meeting. At that point, our staff had received all of the Department of Defense documents on Able Danger and had found no mention of Atta, though there had been mention of the al Qaeda operative Mohammed Atef.<br />
<br />
Phillpott told Snell he recalled seeing the name and photo of [[Mohammed Atta]] on an "analyst's notebook chart" involved in Able Danger before 9/11 - in other words, Able Danger had managed to get [[Mohammed Atta]] under surveillance. Phillpott said he saw this chart only briefly, and that it dated from the period February - April 2000.<br />
<br />
There was no documentary evidence whatsoever to back up Phillpott's sensational claim. Phillpott himself had not performed the analysis, not could he explain what information had led to this supposed identification of Atta by Able Danger. In addition to the lack of documentary evidence from Able Danger, there was no corroboration of Phillpott's account by any information from within the U.S. government, or by German government sources that had tracked the Hamburg cell. Phillpott's account also failed to match up with detailed evidence compiled by our staff documenting Atta's travels, activities, and entry into the United States, including from the INS and State Department records. Snell concluded that the officer's account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant inclusion in the report or further investigation. This conclusion was not a challenge to Captain Phillpott's good intentions; the tip he provided just did not check out.<br />
Page 294-295<br />
Without Precedent<br />
Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton}}<br />
<br />
The [http://www.dodig.mil/fo/Foia/ERR/r_H05L97905217-PWH.pdf official military report] seemed to back this up, stating that "the evidence did not support assertions that Able Danger identified the September 11, 2001, terrorists nearly a year before the attack".<br />
<br />
However, the report was itself attacked by Congressman Curt Weldon, who had championed the Able Danger story for some time, along with many others, and rebuttals soon appeared. [http://www.abledangerblog.com/2007/01/rebuttal-to-dodig-and-ssci-reports-on.html Here's one from "sources in the House" published on the Able Danger Blog], which amongst many other things says the Inspector General report "is grossly incompetent, or deliberately dishonest, in its process of discovering and reporting facts and in its analysis".<br />
<br />
Webster Tarpley, in his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, takes this even further, stating that "Able Danger were indeed the terrorist controllers and case officers for Atta and the rest". He supplies no evidence for this, however, and fails to explain why, if this were the case, the issue would be initially be raised by people who were involved in the Able Danger programme. <br />
<br />
Most commentators, even in the 9/11 truth movement, are more cautious. These clips from a Global Research article are typical (although the full piece has more to discuss, and we'd recommend you read the whole thing):<br />
<br />
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="" style="{{divstyleamber}}"><center><b></b></center>Schaffer’s decision to expose Operation Able Danger has given rise to some difficult questions, not the least of which concerns the role of Atta in the top secret operation. It also raises the question of whether anyone in the Pentagon knew in advance what Atta was planning on 9/11...<br />
<br />
If it is true that Zelikow declined to include the information on Able Danger in the Kean report, and if it is true, as Zelikow wrote, that Atta was the “tactical leader of the 9/11 plot”, and if it is furthermore true, as Schaffer publicly explained, that SOCOM protected Atta prior to his deadly attack on the US, which claimed 3,000 lives, then the account as provided by the official 9/11 report is discredited, and we are faced with a sea of lies and cover-ups.<br />
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050827&articleId=867</div><br />
<br />
Others have significant problems with the Able Danger story. Barrie Zwicker, in Towers of Deception, explains why:<br><br><br />
<br />
{{divbox|amber||The most fundamental problem with Able Danger is that it buttresses the official story about 9/11 being carried out by fanatical Muslims. Whatever mini-dramas swirl around Able Danger, however, many people become excited that this or that revelation will show that "the administration had foreknowledge", leaving intact the central lie - and in fact reinforcing it.<br />
<br />
It's not that Able Danger presents no opportunities for truth tellers. But these are different from the ones I'm hearing now. One opportunity is to note that that "whistleblowing" in that case would constitute a perfect "limited hangout" smoke screen for the true operation. Since that would be a desirable outcome for the true perpetrators of 9/11, it leads to the question of whether these are authentic whistleblowers. They could be, within their own lights. The psychological warfare operators at the CIA know, and not them alone, that a sincere person saying what you want said is better than an insincere person saying it.<br />
<br />
Page 345<br><br />
Towers of Deception<br />
Barrie Zwicker}}<br />
<br />
Meanwhile author Peter Lance, in his book Triple Cross, takes a different view again. He believes that Atta was identified by Able Danger, and that the official report is designed to cover that up, however the identification itself doesn't mean the 9/11 Commission timeline about Atta is incorrect.<br />
<br />
{{divbox|amber||...there was ''massive'' evidence on the high visibility of 9/11 hijackers al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, who were living openly in San Diego as early as January 2000. We showed how Atta himself entered the United States on June 3 and rented a room in Brooklyn near the Al Farooq Mosque, using his own name. Just how difficult would it have been for the Able Danger analysts to track his movements via airline reservations and immigration sources, since, according to the IG's report, the Able Danger data harvest was "collecting data from 10,000 websites each day"?<br />
<br />
In an interview following release of the report, one operative close to the data-mining operation told me that "we also accessed INS databases in the data harvest, so picking up Atta who had to get airline tickers and a visa prior to his arrival in early June was no big deal."<br><br />
Page 470-471<br><br />
Triple Cross<br><br />
Peter Lance}}<br />
<br />
Who's right? Or is the truth somewhere else entirely? This is too large an issue for a small web site like this one to usefully investigate, and so the best we can do is suggest some reading to help you find out more.<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger The Wikipedia page on Able Danger] is of variable quality, but it's a quick way to get aquainted with the basic story and so a good place to start.<br />
<br />
* [[:image:Able Danger Hearing.pdf|A couple of US House committees held a hearing into Able Danger]], which will give you more details on the issues.<br />
<br />
* [http://www.dodig.mil/fo/Foia/ERR/r_H05L97905217-PWH.pdf The Inspector General's report] dismissed the key Able Danger allegations. But even if you don't believe a word of that, it's necessary to read if before checking out the rebuttals.<br />
<br />
* [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Able_Danger The Wiki "SourceWatch"] lists a few reasons why you shouldn't uncritically swallow all the Able Danger claims.<br />
<br />
* [http://www.abledangerblog.com The Able Danger Blog] has all the latest news on any related issues. If you do nothing else, skim through the archives looking for stories of interest.<br />
<br />
* [http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=ableDanger The History Commons page on Able Danger] offers its own possible explanation of various related issues.<br />
<br />
* [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22able+danger%22&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=911blogger.com&as_rights=&safe=images Search 911Blogger.com for "Able Danger"]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22able+danger%22&btnG=Search Search Google for "Able Danger"]</div>Mike