Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Another 9/11 Coverup in the Making?

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted August 23, 2006.


The author of a new book about the mistakes that led to 9/11 accuses the National Geographic Channel of diluting a documentary about the book in order to protect the government.
cross
cross

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Rory O'Connor

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Despite the best efforts of the Pentagon to keep the lid on, the story of Able Danger -- the controversial secret military intelligence program that purportedly identified five active al-Qaeda cells and four of the 9/11 hijackers more than a year before the worst terror attacks ever on American soil -- continues to make news.

The latest wrinkle is a nasty public spat between the National Geographic Channel, which plans to broadcast "Triple Cross: Bin Laden's Spy in America" on Aug. 28, and author Peter Lance, whose new book forms the basis of the documentary.

Lance is an Emmy-winning former reporter-producer for ABC News. His book, "Triple Cross," which will be released in September, accuses law enforcement officials of negligence in tracking down Ali Mohamed, an alleged al-Qaeda agent in the United States for years before Sept. 11. The book says Mohamed was hired by the CIA and worked for the FBI, all the while providing information to the terrorists. The book also contains, according to Lance, "a major new insight" into why the Pentagon killed the Able Danger operation in April 2000.

It involves the discovery by Able Danger operatives that Ali Mohamed was a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle. Mohamed turned up in FBI surveillance photos as early as 1989, training radical Muslims who would go on to assassinate Jewish militant Meir Kahane and detonate a truck bomb at the World Trade Center. He not only avoided arrest, but managed to become an FBI informant while smuggling bin Laden in and out of Afghanistan, writing most of the al-Qaeda terrorist manual and helping plan attacks on American troops in Somalia and U.S. embassies in Africa. Finally arrested in 1998, Mohamed cut a deal with the Justice Department, and his whereabouts remain shrouded, unknown.

''The FBI allowed the chief spy for al-Qaeda to operate right under their noses,'' Lance said. ''They let him plan the bombings of the embassies in Africa right under their noses. Two hundred twenty-four people were killed and more than 4,000 wounded because of their negligence."

Lance contends that when Pentagon officials realized how embarrassing it would be if it were revealed that bin Laden's spy had stolen top-secret intelligence (including the positions of all Green Beret and SEAL units worldwide), they decided to bury the entire Able Danger program. Lance further states that his book also contains evidence that Patrick Fitzgerald (of later Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame fame) covered up key al-Qaeda intelligence in 1996, when he was then an assistant U.S. attorney in New York. To Lance, Fitzgerald was "one of the principal players in the government's negligence, who engaged in an affirmative coverup of key al-Qaeda-related intelligence in 1996."

Lance believes "Fitzgerald was hopelessly outgunned by Mohamed, a hardened al-Qaeda spy, who was bin Laden's personal security advisor." Despite two face-to-face meetings with Mohamed, whom Fitzgerald called "the most dangerous man I've ever met," he left him on the street, which allowed Mohamed -- who actually planned the surveillance for the African Embassy bombings -- to help pull off that simultaneous act of terror in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998, in which 224 died and more than 4,000 were injured.

There is also a chilling tie-in in the book to the airliner-bombing plot revealed last week by the British intelligence. Much of the key intelligence that Fitzgerald helped to bury in 1996 was directly related to the Bojinka plot, a scheme by original WTC bomber and 9/11 architect Ramzi Yousef to smuggle small improvised explosive devices aboard up to a dozen U.S. bound jumbo jets exiting Asia.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor writes the Media Is A Plural blog.

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

Advertisement
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:
source
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 23, 2006 3:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps the source of the problem is that Rupert Murdock who is on a crusade to destroy the integrity of the entire major USA video industry by substituting propaganda for truth and by sucking up to the criminal Bushies who know what happened but are keeping it a secret to save themselves from impeachment or indictment or both.

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

» RE: source Posted by: willymack
» This stinks for Clinton.. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Strike 3..you're out! Posted by: Conservasaurus
Who is paying Peter Lance to write this book?
Posted by: HeadsUp on Aug 23, 2006 4:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SLENSKE: When you came back, was there anything that really bothered you about the American public?

ROWE: Yeah, their ability to believe the B.S. they see on TV. They're so in tune with their television and CNN and Fox News and the New York Post. They watch the news and the news reporter, whoever it is, forms an opinion for them. Take the release of the Pentagon video. CNN had been bashing conspiracies all day because people kept writing in about conspiracy theories. They build it up for two hours, then they show the video, then Jamie McIntyre, who we actually use in our video says, "All right, there's the plane, you can see it. There's the vapor trail, and there's the explosion. They only shoot in half-second frames; it's the only shot of the Pentagon. We'll be right back to cover more of this. This is undisputed proof that a plane hit the Pentagon."

They go to commercial, and instead of coming back and going to Flight 77, they go to "American Idol." They just implant the idea, there's Jamie McIntyre saying he sees a 757 flying into the Pentagon, and then they switch to "American Idol." So then when someone says there's no plane that hit the Pentagon, someone else can say, "That's not true; I watched CNN this afternoon. Jamie McIntyre saw the plane; he showed me." People believe anything because it's on CNN.

Or in a book!

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

Before we go all half-cocked
Posted by: Jesse on Aug 23, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I might say that it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that if I am National Geographic, and I want to air a documentary, I sure as hell won't air stuff that I can't at least get my fact-checkers to confirm. Magazines do this all the time. Why? Because the last thing you need -- especially when dealing with a controversial subject-- is another Stephen Glass affair, or even a set-up like what hit Dan Rather.

I haven't seen this yet, so I am not sure I buy that this is biased towards the Federal government, but who knows, I'll figure that out when I do see it.

But the important thing to remember--especially for progressive people-- is to stick to what you can reliably establish. Even if it would be nice to think something else. This is called "reality-based" thinking.

I don't like the Bush administration. But he isn't responsible for all the evil in the world. Yet I see people going off on how Rupert Murdoch must be responsible for something when in fact, it may well be that the producers were uncomfortable with certain pieces of the original documentary. This does not mean they love George Bush, Rupert Murdoch or are under the mind control of Karl Rove. It just means they don't want to go out on a limb.

What we have here strikes me as a bit of a prima donna complaining about his vision. Well, get over it, editing happens. I used to work at a local paper, and you would be amazed at the stuff I had about the local cops that I could never really prove. But my editor did me a favor-- he refused to run that stuff. Not because he was buddies with the local cops, but because the facts I could prove were bad enough. We didn't need to add a lot of stuff that might be true but was almost unverifiable. As it turned out, some of the stuff we were nervous about turned out to be garbage. It happens even to the very best reporters -- sources lie to you.

See Dan Rather. He was doing a story that was true--George Bush probably did cut out on his National Guard service (to be fair, a lot of upper-class twits did that). He had a piece of paper that his fact checkers and producers knew said something that was true. But their sources still managed to set them up and make them look damn silly. He did a story that was based on false evidence. You can't do that.

I sympathize more with Nat Geo. I wouldn't want to risk my whole organization's reputation either without solid, solid reporting. That means facts checked twice and three times. Do two people say the same thing (albeit from different perspectives)? Can you get the documents? Can you verify their authenticity? Are you sure, based on the facts available? Not, "I'm sure it is true because X is a bad guy and I know he would behave like this." But "These are the facts I have before me, do they support a hypothesis or not?"

That's reporting 101. We all (should) strive for it, even if we don't always get to do it or do it right. When in doubt, leave it out or make it clear what you don't know. Often what you do know is damning enough.

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

» RE: Before we go all half-cocked Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: Before we go all half-cocked Posted by: Iconoclast421
It's all according to plan.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 23, 2006 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why were analysts in Able Danger not able to communicate to the FBI, the Pentagon or the administration what they knew about the terrorists who eventually brought down thw World Trade Center?

Golly-gee, ya' think it might have been that 9/11 HAD to happen? That the already-sinking Bush administration, and especially Bush's power-mad neocon backers, needed 9/11 like Hitler needed the burning of the Reichstad to consolidate power? NAH! It's all just coincidence...right? The "new Pearl Harbor" mentioned in the Project For A New American Century was just wishful thinking...right? And the loss of freedoms and manufactured paranoia we all are experiencing today in America are just in our imaginations...right? And the Patriot Act, and the coming Patriot Act II really don't mean anything...right?

Democracy in America can never die...right?

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

"...many questions still remain unanswered..."
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 23, 2006 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I realize that 9/11 is being treated as history, but it is the final three paragraphs of this article that are full of fire.

Has anything changed? Has the Dept of Home Security really gotten the FBI and CIA to talk to each other? Where are the answers to the questions?

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

Comment on O'Connor article
Posted by: writer33 on Aug 23, 2006 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
O'Connor: Why, for example, were three planned meetings with the FBI canceled at the last minute, thus preventing the bureau from hearing evidence that may have helped them "connect the dots" before the terror attacks? Why was the guided missile destroyer USS Cole sent to refuel at the port of Aden, Yemen, in October 2000, despite the fact that Able Danger had identified Aden as the location of an active al-Qaeda cell? Why did Special Operation Command chief Peter Schoomaker (now Army chief of staff) apparently do nothing after Able Danger analysts personally briefed him about the danger in Yemen just two days before a suicide bomb attack blew a 40-by-40-foot hole in the side of the Cole, killing 17 crew members and injuring 39 others?

Comment: In whatever comes out of this, I will be surprised if anything at all is mentioned concerning the well-documented ties (and certainly including oil ties) between the George Bush and the bin Laden families. Could this have anything to do with why these meetings were cancelled. If I could find it immediately I would, but I recall BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast has reported some background on the Cole incident. I consider any news gathering that persists in ignoring these connections complicit in whitewashing the truth in this growing phenomenon of "managed news" in the mainstream media. I'll be getting to Jesse's comments about Dan Rather also.

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

» RE: Comment on O'Connor article Posted by: Conservasaurus
Rely to Jesse's very relevant comments
Posted by: writer33 on Aug 23, 2006 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesse, your comments about Journalism 101 are laudible, and I agree. However, I hope I can cast a little more light on the Dan Rather issue. From your comments:

"See Dan Rather. He was doing a story that was true--George Bush probably did cut out on his National Guard service (to be fair, a lot of upper-class twits did that). He had a piece of paper that his fact checkers and producers knew said something that was true. But their sources still managed to set them up and make them look damn silly. He did a story that was based on false evidence. You can't do that."

But was it false? Perhaps incomplete. Why did CBS News fire Dan Rather? So what the hell difference can it make? Probably none, unless there was something extraordinary going on behind the scenes. It seems there was! Call it an expose on George W. Bush's fictitious military record, an expose that never quite made it all the way. But the fact that Dan Rather had begun working on it and got the story only partially told, the CBS ax fell on Rather's neck before it could all come out! Remember Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Harriett Miers? Why do you think she was nominated? Because she is such an excellent jurist? Try political favors. At the time of her nomination, something of this peeped out about her role in covering up Bush's military record. But nothing was mentioned of this by the mainstream media (are we surprised?). I pulled something off a blog about it, but little more came of it after her nomination with withdrawn.

The following report on Dan Rather's demise by BBC investigative reporter, Greg Palast, kind of puts it all back in focus. And much sharper this time.

Dan Rather's Raw Deal
By Greg Palast, AlterNet. Posted June 23, 2006.
http://www.alternet.org/story/37948/

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

This is all hype
Posted by: Reader11722 on Aug 23, 2006 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The gov't orchestrated 9/11. The gov'ts first story was that they had no idea this could ever happen. Then scholars researched former FEMA documents and realized that there were similar occurrences in the past. Now the gov't changes its tune and states that maybe they missed some signs but hold on to the theory that 19 cave-dwelling Arabs pulled this off. When will they address the fact that NORAD stood down on 9/11 (Norman Minetta's testimony about Cheney), explosives were detonated in the towers and WTC#7 (firefighter's tapes of conversations), and no passenger lists or medical examiner's lists have a single name of a single Arab. Who benefits? Not the American people who are subject to cages when they protest, subject to books like "America Deceived" thrown off Amazon, subject to illegal wiretaps and the loss of private property. Who benefits? Anyone who makes money off wars and Israel. Nobody else. This National Geographic hype is to make more of the sheeple watch another propaganda piece. Instead buy Loose Change - 2nd edition.
Support indy media, last link (before Google Books caves):
America Deceived - Book

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

The War on Terror is Phony
Posted by: rwa on Aug 23, 2006 12:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Geov Parrish
WorkingForChange.com exerpt:



Was British terror plot a load of crap?
Liquid explosives very difficult to make; Orange Alert a political move?


An article posted last Thursday in the British online outlet The Register raises a very good question I haven't seen posed anywhere else, certainly not in our sycophantic American media: was the exposed British "plot" to bring down commercial airliners by mixing harmless household chemicals in the lavatory even remotely possible from the standpoint of basic chemistry?
To address that question, it's worth quoting from The Register's article:

"We're told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner -- all easily concealed in drinks bottles -- and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane. ... Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together.

First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.

But let's assume that you can obtain it in the required concentration, or cook it from a dilute solution without ruining your operation. Fine. The remaining ingredients, acetone and sulfuric acid, are far easier to obtain, and we can assume that you've got them on hand.

Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.

It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate -- especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation -- to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.

Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide/acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.


These plots and lurid announcements accumulate; each necessarily has to be a bit more lurid than the last, as in this year's Miami, Canadian, and now British busts, so as to properly frighten a public plagued by a short attention span. In most cases, the "plots" turn out to be far less credible than originally advertised (remember Jose Padilla, the dirty bomber?), with charges quietly either reduced or dropped entirely. Their fantasies become fodder in a still larger war, the endless war for political power.

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

Forgetting something?
Posted by: Groucho Costello on Aug 23, 2006 1:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It goes far deeper than criminal negligence- there's no question that there was government COMPLICITY in the 9/11 attacks. At least five of the purported hijackers were enrolled at secure US government military training installations - including Mohammed Atta. This fact was uncovered and reported by several metro newspapers shortly after 9/11 but just as quickly fell into the brain dead corporate media amnesia industry void.

Investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker verified these reports and even got a positive identification of Mohammed Atta having attended an officer's training school at an air force base in Alabama. When he asked the FBI for some comments on these findings he was told, "it's complicated."

Yes, indeed it is complicated - the serpentine turns of betrayal and disinformation by the Dumbya dictatorship can be mind boggling.

This country requires a Constitutional amendment providing for the automatic appointment by lottery of an Independent Special Prosecutor (with no political or business ties to the government) and a Grand Jury to conduct full criminal investigations with unlimited judicial subpoena power anytime the nation is attacked. It should also be retroactive to 9/11.

This is the only way the country is ever going to learn the truth about 9/11 and the appalling truth about the despicable government under the stewardship of both corrupt monopoly parties. It is also the only way the public is going to learn how the Bush crime family was hard wired into the 9/11 attacks.

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

» RE: Forgetting something? Posted by: colek
» RE: Forgetting something? Posted by: willymack
Read the book and ignore the movie.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 23, 2006 7:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the author is condemning the fact that the movie has his name on it, well , I'll take the author's word over the film producers. PBS (frontiline and nova) have done some decent reporting on related issues, for example:

John O'Neill: The Man who Knew

and Nova: Why the Towers Fell (2002)

The Bush Administration and the Feds were in bed with the terrorists? Really! When has the US not been in bed with terrorism? Back in the good old days, the 'terrorists' were called 'freedom fighters in the fight against the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan'. Reagan even met them at the White House! He had this to say, (from wikiquote):

"Every country and every people has a stake in the Afghan resistance, for the freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability.

(Referring to groups, who later became involved with Al Queda, who were resisting Soviet rule of Afghanistan with U.S. support) in Proclamation 4908 — Afghanistan Day, March 10, 1982

Saddam was also a loyal US ally at the time, worthy of a visit and a Rumsfeld handshake (rather like that Uzbek terrorist, Karimov, who is today a major US ally in the Caspian). Is Israel also a source of future terrorist attacks? They've been using illegal cluster bombs and other chemical weapons against civilian targets - that would also be terrrorism, yes?

Notice how the "911Truth.org" folks religiously avoid any mention of historically relevant issues?

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

» RE: ignore the movie. Posted by: dainin
9/11
Posted by: bansidh@citlink.net on Aug 23, 2006 10:12 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The one thing that anyone can see about the WTC attack was that the building were brought down by controlled demolition. It was obvious the day it happened and it is obvious now.
Show me one other building , of all the thousands of bombed, burned buildings that have collapsed in that signature fashion? You can't, it doesn't happen.
JUST OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK

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

this is for all the criminologists out there!
Posted by: 911 truther on Aug 24, 2006 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=9007079754355711945

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

Follow the money...
Posted by: mojohand on Aug 24, 2006 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and it takes you here: Fox Cable Networks Group owns 67% of the National Geographic Channel.

That fact, more than any other, explains to me why the National Geographic Channel -- which has a curious fixation and perspective on 9/11, Osama bin Laden, and the Islamic world -- is nothing at all like National Geographic magazine.

FWIW, I blogged about one of its earlier attempts at neocon agitprop -- "Inside 9/11" -- here.

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