NEWS: Congressman: Classified Intelligence Unit Knew Of 9/11 Terrorists In 1999

Um,

Who was in charge of intelligence when all of this happened?

Originally posted by dubiousone

the 9/11 commission was looking for all evidence up to September 11.

PULLEAZZE!!!! Spare us the transparent propaganda neatly salted within the text of your posts. You must be be joking! Looking for all evidence? Only if you don't acknowledge all the evidence two inches in front of their collectve noses that they expediently chose to ignore.

Propaganda? First of, i do not even agree with much of the conclusions that the 9/11 commission gave. I was simply stating that this theft happened while the 9/11 commission was investigating the events up to 9/11.....so no propaganda. BTW, if you have any proof that there is any "propaganda neatly salted within a text of mine" you should be providing the evidence instead of making wild and unfounded accusations...

Originally posted by Seekerof
How about you answer those questions to which your above quoted mention addresses? Your idea of a "cover-up" is quite different from mine given. I have indicated and asked you twice for specifics as to what you were refering to when you asserted cover-up.

Just what are you fishing for Seekerof? Im tired of your cryptic posts. If you've got something to say get on with it. I'd rather spend my time on other things than try to fathom just what you are on about.

Why are you asking me what my idea of a cover up is? You seem pretty confident as to what my idea of a cover up is.

If you want to use this story to further your political party and make it anti-Clinton. Go for it, I wont stop you.

My mention of a cover up surrounds this information being absent from, and contradictory to, the 9/11 commission's report.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Anyone with an ounce of research credibility would have picked up on my mention of Gorelick and how it pertains exclusively to what I was talking about, subz.

What ever Seekerof. You keep saying you dont have a beef. Your thinly veiled insults speak volumes.

Originally posted by Vampcrow
I live in Tampa Fla, and i saw a man on the local news that had friends that died in the twin towers...he escaped. When he found out this information, he became angry and wanted to know who was accountable. I think that at the back of his mind, he was asking himself,"Did they let this happen,did they make this happen perhaps?" I think that a lot of Americans are starting to ask themselves this question. Are we afraid of the truth? Are we in denial? Or are we just being parinoid? I personally have gotten used to the possiblity that our gov. was behind this sinister act. Its easier to see it now in hind sight, given how quickly the world had changed after 911. It makes me sad sometimes. could you imagine how this would change our country, how much unrest there would be if this possibilty were true?

The backers or believers in the one world government (NWO) needed a swift push into that direction. Clinton and the Bush administrations knew beforehand that there was a good possibility and an excellent probablility that a "terrorist" act would occur inside America's borders. So having this knowledge, what did they do (that is, CIA, FBI, NSA, etc), that hushed up the information about Atta and others, waited out the forthcoming "9/11", and as soon as the 9/11 did occur, wham it kicked the nwo into place. They were able to pass the USA Partiot Act into law, get us into two "wars", and make everyone/Americans believe that they are doing it all for our benefit.

Clinton and Bush are from the same vein, both are fascist-globalists. If there is someone who is unable to piece this puzzle together by now, then before you go completely under, yell for help, we'll throw you a lifesaver. If not, being dead in body and mind is equivalent to being a slave.

By the way subz, very nice post/new thread. If this information does not wake up people, then we might as well hope they die in their sleep (a painless death) or via ignorance.

Thanks for your time, Edward

[edit on 8/12/2005 by 39 drops of solder]

[edit on 8/12/2005 by 39 drops of solder]

Originally posted by subz
They were in the country legally and under visas, but the restriction on the military sharing information with the FBI relates to American citizens, not foreigners with visas. The fact that they were in the country legally didnt make a difference. It was a lie.

Also hindsight is 20/20 but Able Danger knew these guys were terrorists and they should of been arrested. You dont need hindsight to accept that suspected terrorists on American soil should be arrested.

Able Danger was a military intelligence unit......Aren't you one of those people who keeps saying the military shouldn't be doing police work? ...... They did what they were supposed to do. They passed this information to their superiors and they informed the past administration about these men. The past administration is the one who decided not to do anything about the information. You want to blame anyone, then blame the past administration.

Originally posted by Muaddib
The past administration is the one who decided not to do anything about the information. You want to blame anyone, then blame the past administration.

And thus we reach one of the fundamental flaws with how the system works.....

Accountability working retroactively towards an administration that for all intents and purposes is no longer able to accept accountability......

Convenient, to say the least......and I disagree. Especially when you consider that the figureheads who represent the public image of authority do not usually publicly/directly involve themselves in specific military projects...in fact, in many cases, the adverse is true. Public scrutiny of these manifestations of social rule and maintenance usually occur only when travesty comes to light and then we have concern, publicly, about the ethics and morals of the situation, passing over the actual reasonings employed....Gitmo would happen to be a great example of this.

Did the administration proper have knowledge of these 'expressions and exercises (Able Danger)? No. And thusly you have a situation where plausible deniability is cited to help justify the workings of what has been realized to be factions of our government and military working fairly independent of each other......

Placing the blame on past administrations is a cop-out meant to further emphasize a 'forget the past' reaction...

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Accountability working retroactively towards an administration that for all intents and purposes is no longer able to accept accountability......

Convenient, to say the least......and I disagree.

Did the administration proper have knowledge of these 'expressions and exercises (Able Danger)? No. And thusly you have a situation where plausible deniability is cited to help justify the workings of what has been realized to be factions of our government and military working fairly independent of each other......

Placing the blame on past administrations is a cop-out meant to further emphasize a 'forget the past' reaction...

You're right in saying Bill clinton himself likely did not have direct knowledge of "Able Dangers" findings.

However it was his policies that led to the said same inaction and ignorance to the danger presented by "Able Dangers" information.

I find it ironic that his failed policy becomes his defence.

The main mission of the 9/11 commission was to identify where policy went wrong so that a repeat would not occur - in this they have miserably let down the American people, its certainly no "cop out" to learn from past mistakes such as the policy setting up "The Wall".

Originally posted by Phoenix
You're right in saying Bill clinton himself likely did not have direct knowledge of "Able Dangers" findings.

And there is your context, as well as the theme for my rhetoric in this instance. Our current democracy allows, by neccessity, for independent operations.

Military projects are direct influences over specific social situations. The public perception of our upper tier, in terms of authority, is one of general social concern. Despite the ideoligies that are constantly flagged as the reason and the ryhme, the two don't neccassarily have to coincide. And that's the problem. We have policy from fill-in-the-blank administration dictating public perception of what the "other hands" are physically acting out.

As such, putting the blame on fill-in-the-blank administration is irrelevant. If the "other hands" are operating with specific information in specific instances, you are inherently going to find contradictions in the ideolgies cited for mass consumption.

And it is my opinion that this duality is intentionally played upon...

...to offer another vantage....you have a POTUS with personal oil interests is repeating over and over again that Iraq and the Middle East is a freedom charge. Likewise, you have a Clinton administration that focused more readily upon a domestic agenda......whose fruits were almost completely negated by the War On Terror. This is to point out the thematics of each agenda......completely different.

So not only do we have a military that is operating on a more permanent level than the revolving door of the upper tier, the upper tier is addressing different things at different times. In light of these fundamental concerns, placing blame on the past administration is a cop-out......fails to address the current situation and all of its intricacies....

Originally posted by Phoenix
I find it ironic that his failed policy becomes his defence.

Please don't mistake my expression for a defense of the past administration......

Originally posted by Phoenix
...its certainly no "cop out" to learn from past mistakes such as the policy setting up "The Wall".

Learning from the past and placing blame on the past are completely different.....

[edit on 14-8-2005 by MemoryShock]

So there are two issues to deal with here:

1. The failure to provide the FBI with the intel gathered by Able Danger

2. The failure of the 9/11 Commission to investigate the claims made by Able Danger.

The first issue has been dealt with; the walls are being torn down.

The second issue has not been addressed, IMO. Someone needs to explain why the 9/11 Commission dropped the ball.

jsobecky the 911 commission didn't want the ball in the first place.

All smoke and mirrors. The appearence of doing something.

Just like the OKC bombing.

Roper

I tend to believe you.

We're screwed.

Even though Al Felkenberg was the first 9/11 Commission spokesperson to comment on Congressman Weldon's stateement, Al is not the person to look to for total knowledge or responsibility on this new report.

The person in question, who has still made no comment, is Philip Zelikow, the administrative director of the 9/11 Commission. If you remember, Zelikow is the person whose appointment as 9/11 Commission Director the 9/11 Families objected to so strongly. Zelikow has a long murky history in the U.S. intelligence community. If there was a disconnect between the Able Danger task force findings, the 9/11 Commission Staff, and the 9/11 Commission Members (such as Governor Kean, Richard Ben-Veniste, et.al.) then the common denominator in that disconnect is far more likely to be Mr. Zelikow than Mr. Felkenberg.