Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Pentagon Pushes to Hide 9/11 Mistakes

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted September 20, 2005.


The military hopes to keep the press and public from this week's long-awaited Congressional hearings about intelligence failures before the attacks.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Rory O'Connor

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Will the press and the public be excluded from this week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings concerning a once-secret military intelligence unit called "Able Danger" that identified four of the 9/11 hijackers in 2000?

Yes, if the Pentagon has its way. According to Fox News, military officials have been exerting pressure to close the hearings for at least a week. But Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Penn., is said to be resisting their request to classify the "intelligence information sharing" hearings, expected to feature testimony from several Pentagon sources.

Why should you care? In addition to the fact that members of the once clandestine intelligence unit say they identified Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as threats a year before the attacks, former Able Danger analysts also claim that they tried to turn the information over to the FBI -- but were repeatedly ignored.

Although Pentagon officials originally cast doubt on Able Danger's very existence, they now confirm that five former members of the unit remember Atta's picture or name being on a chart in 2000.

Rep. Curt Weldon -- a Republican from Pennsylvania -- has been pushing the issue for weeks. Now he appears to have succeeded in persuading Congress to look into what the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, (informally known as the Sept. 11 Commission) knew about the Able Danger intelligence group, and whether the Commission ignored evidence about the hijackers' presence in the United States.

Weldon has also been critical of the Commission for not including the Able Danger project in its report on the attacks. But Commission Chairman Thomas Kean maintains the panel acquired no evidence indicating that anyone in the government knew about Atta in advance of the attacks.

"The Sept. 11 commission's statement that it does not believe a secret military intelligence unit discovered a group of future hijackers more than a year before the terrorist attacks is a total denial of the facts," Weldon says. "For the 9/11 commission to say that this did not exist is just absolutely outrageous."

Members of Able Danger say their group identified Atta and three other hijackers as potential members of a terrorist cell in New York City. Able Danger analysts Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott add that Pentagon lawyers rejected a recommendation that the information be turned over to the FBI in 2000. Shaffer and Phillpott also say they met with staff members on the Sept. 11 Commission about their findings. But commission members say Atta was never mentioned by name at those meetings.

No one questions the credibility of Shaffer and Phillpott, but Defense Department officials can find no documents to back up the claims, have not found the chart and don't even know if it exists, despite having reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents. Since the Pentagon confirmed this month that documents associated with Able Danger were destroyed (because of strict regulations governing the collection of data on foreign visitors in the United States) this is not surprising. Nor, given the volatile subject matter, is the Pentagon pressure to close the judiciary hearings to the press and public.

What is surprising, however, is the fact that former members of the Sept. 11 commission roundly reject the claim that the Able Danger group identified the hijackers so early. Commissioner Slade Gorton, a former Republican senator from Washington, for example, dismissed it out of hand. "Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us," Gorton said.

Senator Specter's Communications Director says that no decision on whether to classify the hearings or not has been made and that discussions with the Defense Department continue. Speaking on behalf of Rep. Weldon, Communications Director John Tomaszewski said the Congressman "would be disappointed" if Pentagon pressure led to the closing of the hearings. "We all want to get to the bottom of this," Tomaszewski told me. "We need to bring these issues before the public, not to hide them."

Maybe it will all be sorted out in front of Arlen Specter and his committee this week. But if the hearings are in fact closed, we the people may never know the truth.

Digg!

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
You mean, "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 20, 2005 1:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know the specific history behind the standard vow made by witnesses in court, but I suspect it reflects the familiar history of people telling half-truths and attempting to minimize the truth by making up stories.

My fantasy has been that I might someday meet a salesman who would tell me what was wrong with his product rather than give me a sales pitch. I have never seen anything that was perfect, so whenever anyone tries to tell me it is flawless, I know I'm being conned. I could deal with realistic expectations of something less than perfect better than with phoney hype.

When Walter Mondale told Americans that he would raise taxes if elected President, he doomed his campaign. Reagan won and proceeded to rack up the biggest fiscal deficit by tripling the national debt, despite finally agreeing to raise taxes slightly. Current leadership follows that example without the sense to change direction when clearly needed.

My point is that Americans don't demand the whole truth because we don't want to hear the whole truth. The consequence is that we don't know who to believe. So we continue to vote for what seems, at best, the lesser evil.

All of that is amplified a thousandfold when it comes to bureaucrats whose first law is "Cover your butt." It is the best liar who succeeds. To ask for truth is to ask the impossible. Although lies endanger us, truth in Washington, DC, has no more of a prospect than the proverbial snowball in hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the truth? Posted by: IanA
» RE: the truth? Posted by: chololo
» Sales Pitch Posted by: churchofone
More hidden truths.
Posted by: Colin on Sep 20, 2005 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not so much hidden as professionally buried.

I thought this post might be a good place to suggest a link to the community. This blue bit here will take you to a website called Project Censored who have taken it upon themselves to rank and award the 25 stories which, for some reason or other, didn't get the coverage you'd have thought such a story would receive.

It's funny, this geezer called Bush or something, seems to feature quite heavily. Indeed, when you look, all of them seem to convey some sort of agenda or other. Weird...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1984
Posted by: kww355 on Sep 20, 2005 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Orwell was prescient. But he saw the wrong government. The Bushies have made stonewalling a national pastime. They deny the existence of Able Danger. They destroy the files. How long will it be before people start "disappearing" ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the islander
Posted by: the islander on Sep 20, 2005 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hasn't everyone read Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" with his compilation of evidence on what was happening on 9/11? Let's stop beating around the bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush Knew All About 9-11 Way Before It Happened.
Posted by: stoney13 on Sep 20, 2005 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush knew all about 9-11 way before it happened! Nobody could have had that much warning and not listened to at least some of it!

No I'm not saying he knew the exact date it was going down,(although it wouldn't suprise me if he did). But he damn sure had the plans ready to make the best of it when it did.

Face it! 9-11, was the best thing that ever happened to Bush! At the time people were questioning his very legitamacy as an elected official. After 9-11 the whole country lined up behind him like lambs to the slaughter.

Its taken five years for this country to wake up. Finaly the people are beginning to see what this prick is all about and if you ain't a millionare, or a big corporation it damn sure ain't you!

Getting his cheerleaders out of Congress next year will send a clear message!

WE WON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GEORGE BUSH IS NOT AN IDIOT. Posted by: johnny-boy2
» George Bush's Brains. Posted by: Colin
There's a lot to hide
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Sep 20, 2005 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This government did the same thing during WW2. Facts about the failure of radar to detect an invasion were construed
to cover the fact that our government made the invasion plans and gave them to the perspective enemy to execute.
The same is true for 9/11. The Clinton Admistration was the first to prop up Bin Laden as a threat,could you be more'1984' Bill?. The current Administration saw ol' Binny's
'enemy potiential' and worked with him on finding folks that were willing to go Kamakazi. Money from the Saudi's paid the training and phoney documents bill. We had the Airliner Training Centers. Fly-by-wire guarenteed the target hits. The Pentagon is just another link in the chain that will turn into the noose for all involved. Yes we were attacked on 9/11,it was Terrorists, just what kind is yet to be seen. If you swallow the Administration's story, The Great Pumpkin will be here on Oct 31st and Santa a while later.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They NEEDED It To Happen
Posted by: Gold9472 on Sep 20, 2005 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We sit here all day thinking of the most compelling piece of evidence that the Government was complicit in 9/11 when it's staring us RIGHT IN THE FACE.

What were our Government's intentions BEFORE 9/11?

Reporter Ron Suskind said that he received documents from "White House Insiders", including Paul O'Neill. The titles of those documents were as follows:

"Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq."
"Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts"

Paul O'Neill himself described a meeting that took place a few days after the first inauguration where "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this."

What about Afghanistan? Would we have invaded Afghanistan had it not been for 9/11?

According to BBC's George Arney, Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Just yesterday, Rep. Peter King said, "We would not have invaded Iraq without 9/11".

According to Bob Woodward's book, "Plan Of Attack", Paul Wolfowitz said, "The terrorist attacks of Sept 11 created an opportunity to strike."

So... were they hoping and praying that 9/11 would take place, or did they make it happen?

I've prayed my ass off before to a God I no longer believe in, but I can honestly say that a massive attack against the United States, in the timeframe that they specified, is a tad more than any God could give.

Links
Ron Suskin & Paul O'Neill: CBS News

George Arney & Niaz Naik: BBC News

Rep. Peter King:
Newsday

Paul Wolfowitz & Bob Woodward:
Amazon Books

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They NEEDED It To Happen Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: They NEEDED It To Happen Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: They NEEDED It To Happen Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: They NEEDED It To Happen Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: They NEEDED It To Happen Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: They NEEDED It To Happen Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: They NEEDED It To Happen Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: They NEEDED It To Happen Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: They NEEDED It To Happen Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: They NEEDED It To Happen Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: They NEEDED It To Happen Posted by: Gold9472
Please Watch This 9/11 Mom On The 4th Anniversary In Front Of The United Nations
Posted by: Gold9472 on Sep 20, 2005 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Donna Marsh O'Connor - 9/11/2005

If this doesn't wake you up, nothing on earth will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Warnings
Posted by: Gold9472 on Sep 20, 2005 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see people on this board discussing whether or not Bush had any idea something like 9/11 could happen.

Feel free to browse through the warnings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Shehova
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Shehova
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: IanA
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: The Warnings Posted by: russianblue1
johnny-boy2
Posted by: Gold9472 on Sep 20, 2005 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has our Government ever lied to us before? Requires a simple yes or no answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: johnny-boy2 Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: johnny-boy2 Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: johnny-boy2 Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: johnny-boy2 Posted by: Gold9472
» Gold please... Posted by: Ely Whitney
» RE: Gold please... Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: Gold please... Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: Gold please... Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: Gold please... Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: Gold please... Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: Gold please... Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: Gold please... Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: Gold please... Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: Gold please... Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: Gold please... Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: Gold please... Posted by: Gold9472
» RE: johnny-boy2 Posted by: stoney13
» RE: johnny-boy2 Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: johnny-boy2 Posted by: russianblue1
If You're Interested In 9/11 Truth...
Posted by: Gold9472 on Sep 20, 2005 5:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Feel free to register, and say hi. Myself, and others are there to help answer any questions you may have. There is no "in-fighting" on my board. I don't allow it. We are all about how best to get the truth out. Remember, no one knows everything, only together may we find the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

from truthtalkziraq.blogspot.com
Posted by: rockpicker on Sep 20, 2005 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John, sometimes you sound almost rational. Take some time off, and go read the rest of this ...


>" Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
>
http://prisonplanet.com
> Morgan Reynolds
>
> "It didn’t seem real… There are thousands of
> these steel beams that
> just
> fell like pickup sticks."
>
> ~ John Albanese, volunteer firefighter and amateur
> photographer
>
> "What struck us – guys like Warren Jennings and
> myself, who have
> spent
> basically all our lives in the scrap business – we’d
> never seen steel
> this
> heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just
> unbelievable."
>
> ~ Michael Henderson (p. 93),
> General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management
> NE
>
> To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of
> the twin towers at the
> World
> Trade Center on September 11, 2001, mainstream
> experts (also see The
> American
> Professional Constructor, October 2004, pp. 12–18)
> offer a three-stage
> argument:
> 1) an airplane impact weakened each structure, 2) an
> intense fire thermally
> weakened structural components that may have
> suffered damage to
> fireproofing
> materials, causing buckling failures, which, in
> turn, 3) allowed the upper
> floors to pancake onto the floors below.
>
> Many will nod their head, OK, that does it and go
> back to watching the NBA
> finals or whatever, but I find this theory just
> about as satisfying as the
> fantastic conspiracy theory that "19 young Arabs
> acting at the behest of
> Islamist extremists headquartered in distant
> Afghanistan" caused 9/11. The
> government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on
> its own terms, but
> its
> blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the
> paramount defect unshared
> by its
> principal scientific rival – controlled demolition.
> Only professional
> demolition
> appears to account for the full range of facts
> associated with the
> collapses of
> WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the
> much-overlooked collapse
> of...
>

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simple Logic Exposes the Truth
Posted by: somebigguy on Sep 20, 2005 8:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot has been said about the fact that no steel framed building have ever collapsed from fire before or since 9/11. I've found that if you take this one simple fact just a little further, the truth of 9/11 becomes unmistakable.

In order to convince everyone of the truth, this is the only argument you'll need. Lets take it from the top:

Something that pundits of the official story as well as the media like to ignore is that there was a third collapse on 9/11. Building 7 (WTC 7) collapsed around 5:20 on 9/11 and WAS NOT hit by any airplane. Officially it caught fire from debris and collapsed due to these fires. Additionally, the existence of diesel fuel stored in the building is often blamed for creating the non-existent inferno and bringing the tower down. However, even FEMA's half baked analysis of the collapses conceded that there was only a small probability of that being the case.

Additionally, the FEMA report states that it was the infernos that brought down the twin towers, not the impacts. This fact is supported by the fact that the buildings did survive the initial impacts and stood for an additional 90 minutes and 45 minutes respectively. This is further supported by these images that depict what affect a major structural failure will have on skyscraper:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall6.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall2.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall7.jpg

And it wasn't the jet fuel that caused the inferno, according to FEMA, the jet fuel burned off in ten minutes. It was the resultant fire of materials in the building that caused the collapse, the furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo.

Based on this, on 9/11 three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed due to fire. Despite the fact that there is little evidence of an inferno, this other basic truth proves this last theory false as well. No steel framed building has collapsed from fire in history, never. Here are some examples of buildings that have survived real infernos:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1389
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

Furthermore, one of the towers suffered a far more severe inferno in 1975 and did not collapse:

http://www.total911.info/750214nytimes.jpg

continued...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Simple Logic Exposes the Truth Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: Simple Logic Exposes the Truth Posted by: johnny-boy2
How X-files does it get?
Posted by: gonzoskismet on Sep 20, 2005 8:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Read the Plan for the Project for the New American Century.
Pay close attention to the clause 'a Pearl Harbor like event' to get the American people to back a war in the Middle East.

2. Watch the video. A plane once crashed into the Empire State Building, a B-25 going full tilt boogie and IT didn't collapse. The WTCs came down like somebody meant for them to come down.
Might have something to do with the Head of Security there, a Marvin P. Bush, Georges younger brother. Don't take my word for it. Google it and find out.

3. How many times do you have to turn a beer bottle up before you realize it's dry. Come on, folks. Snap out of it.

4. Nobody saw these guys? Nobody knew nothing? I don't think so, you don't think so and the rest of the bloody world doesn't think so. So who does that leave that think it was all on the up and up? Bushs base. That's all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How X-files does it get? Posted by: johnny-boy2
Shock
Posted by: eosinglemum on Sep 20, 2005 9:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is deep. This is corrupt. This is the worst administration ever? I thought this kind of thing was par for the course.

"Why should you care? In addition to the fact that members of the once clandestine intelligence unit say they identified Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as threats a year before the attacks, former Able Danger analysts also claim that they tried to turn the information over to the FBI -- but were repeatedly ignored."

This is ignorant administration all right. Doesn't even want to hear its own intelligence reports?!

Man if we survive the tales I will have to tell my daughter...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Shock Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: Shock Posted by: eosinglemum
» RE: Shock Posted by: COLD WAR SURVIVOR
GET a CLUE.....eh....???
Posted by: COLD WAR SURVIVOR on Sep 26, 2005 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it REPREHENSIBLE that folks will jump all OVER the innuendo and "pseudo facts" that run rampant hereabouts.

What if I told you that your beloved DEMOCRATS would like to initiate a program that would utilize over 10,000 U.S. Servicemen as HUMAN TEST RATS for Bio-Chemical Weapons development over a 10-year period...???

Why, you'd scream and rant over how you HATE Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc......

But you would NOT look at the TRUTH in the matter.

OH, and you'd be WAY too late in defending your "heros"....

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14556

http://www2.projectshad.us:81/index.php

http://www1.va.gov/SHAD

~~~~~~

No, even with thousands of pages of genuine EVIDENCE....your unreality meter will be stuck on HATE BUSH, above all else.

Odd, isn't it...???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]