Everyone be quiet about Able Danger

[El Barto]

This news must be suppressed. Move along, nothing to see here.

Able Danger

Third Source Backs 'Able Danger'

[SheetWise]

Shhh!

Damn! The pajama people are at it again ...

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
This news must be suppressed. Move along, nothing to see here.

Able Danger

Third Source Backs 'Able Danger'

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so the Clinton Administration ID'd the 9/11 hijackers for Bush and he still didn't do anything, even with the PDB saying that Bin Laden was Determined to Strike the U.S.?

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, so the Clinton Administration ID'd the 9/11 hijackers for Bush and he still didn't do anything, even with the PDB saying that Bin Laden was Determined to Strike the U.S.?


[/ QUOTE ]
I think you'll find that the Clinton administration suppressed information on the 9/11 hijackers and the Cole attack prior to Bush taking office.

[tolbiny]

That is one hell of a [censored] accusation that you should be backing up with any support you actaully have.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
The existence of Able Danger and its claimed identification of the 9/11 terrorists was first disclosed publicly on June 27, 2005, by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, in a special orders speech on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise because information has come to my attention over the past several months that is very disturbing. I have learned that, in fact, one of our Federal agencies had, in fact, identified the major New York cell of Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11; and I have learned, Mr. Speaker, that in September of 2000, that Federal agency actually was prepared to bring the FBI in and prepared to work with the FBI to take down the cell that Mohamed Atta was involved in in New York City, along with two of the other terrorists. I have also learned, Mr. Speaker, that when that recommendation was discussed within that Federal agency, the lawyers in the administration at that time said, you cannot pursue contact with the FBI against that cell. Mohamed Atta is in the U.S. on a green card, and we are fearful of the fallout from the Waco incident. So we did not allow that Federal agency to proceed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
On August 14, Mike Kelly, a columnist for the Bergen Record (New Jersey), described a telephone interview, arranged by the staff of Rep. Weldon, with a man who identified himself as a member of the Able Danger team but asked that his name not be revealed. In the interview the man claimed that his team had identified Mohamed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as likely al Qaeda terrorists operating in the United States, but were prevented from passing this information on to the FBI by government lawyers. He also claimed that he was ignored by the 9/11 Commission's staff when he approached them on two occasions to explain Able Danger's work.

On September 15, Weldon asserted that he had identified an employee who had been ordered to destroy the 2.5 terabytes (TB) of data collected by Able Danger two years before the 9/11 attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what do you think Sandy Berger was removing from the archives?

I'll play my ace.

www.copvcia.com

He claims BUSH knew about it before hand and did nothing to stop it. He even wrote a gigantic book on it. No one's proven him wrong.

What about the Pentagon clean-up after 911? Ever look into that? How about this site?

http://911research.wtc7.net

"The conclusion of this talk, Whatever Struck the Pentagon Was Not a Boeing 757, implies that no 757 was involved in the attack. 9-11Research does not endorse this implication, but only that no intact 757 impacted the Pentagon's facade. 9-11Research finds the most likely hypothesis one that involves a 757-like plane exploding immediately before impact, which we credit to French researcher Eric Bart. We find that, whereas the evidence that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition is overwhelming -- a case layed out in The World Trade Center Demolition -- the evidence regarding exactly what occurred in the Pentagon attack is ambiguous and difficult to draw clear conclusions from. We do, however, find the official story of the Pentagon attack untenable for a number of reasons: The fact that the portion of the Pentagon attacked was nearly empty due to ongoing renovations, and that the aircraft undertook an extreme maneuver to strike this portion are strong evidence that the attack was an inside job.
The complexity and precision of the approach maneuver are nearly impossible to reconcile with the official account that the plane was piloted by Hani Hanjour, an incompetent pilot of even single-engine prop-planes.
Several eyewitness accounts suggest that the jetliner exploded before impacting the building.
The rapid clean-up of evidence of the attack, and the indications of forgery in the five video frames released by the Pentagon suggest insiders have conspired to conceal the nature of the attack.


Recommended Resources

This new book by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman exposes the demolition of the World Trade Center and the financiers behind the crime.

9-11 Research is planning to publish a book based on this website some time in 2005. This promises to be the most complete and authoritative book yet disproving the official story that the attack was the work of Osama bin Laden."

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but if you want a war of links and childish games, I'll play.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but if you want a war of links and childish games, I'll play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not playing a game, you're starting one. I, for one, don't care to play your game.

Then don't. I want to play barto's "Clinton is responsible for 911 because of this bullshit" game with my "Bush is responsible for 911 because of this bullshit."

I'm not denying that it's not bullshit. I'm stooping down to barto's level.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not denying that it's not bullshit. I'm stooping down to barto's level.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what you're doing at all.

What you're doing is posting a lot of BS, admitting it's BS -- and then asserting that because what you've added to the topic is BS that the entire topic is BS.

Your tactic, quite frankly, is BS. Reply to the OP. Is it that you don't find the accusers credible? Or, are you simply blindly defending the indefensible?