MISSY: yes I am too, bye

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ilovebeeswarzone:

Beezy, he’s not back yet, that comment is from June 11. Hope he is doing well, am very worried about him.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

NICE to have you back, OT. good day to all.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Appears some idiotic spammer hijacked our Neo’s handle. Don’t click on to this site.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Greg, Obama fooled a lot of folks.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Uh….you do understand this this thread is 3 years old right?”

Uh, yeah, I missed that this was an old thread when I initially posted, and I’m honestly uncertain how I happened to stumble onto it after so long. Post 14 references “President Obama”, which reinforced my mistaken impression.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I think we’ll probably never know for certain what the correct conclusion really is. I suppose it comes down to a question of who to believe. I’ve never seen anything to convince me that Lt. Col. Shaffer is anything less than a honorable, dedicated man.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Greg: Uh….you do understand this this thread is 3 years old right? There is also a category for Able Danger, plenty was written about it on FA. You should really try to pay attention every once in awhile.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

On September 21, 2006, The Washington Post reported that a Defense Department investigation into Able Danger found that Able Danger did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other hijacker before the September 11 attacks, and that a widely discussed chart was “a sample document passed to the military as an example of how to organize large amounts of data,” and was created after 9/11.
[edit] Inspector General’s report

On September 18, 2006, the Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Investigations released a report stating that Shaffer was put on leave, that the crew responsible for removing any classified documents from his office to prevent his taking them home with him found that he did not have any of the Able Danger-related documents trusted to him he claimed he had and that despite the fact that the Army cleared him of any wrongdoing in the allegations “DIA officials would have taken action to revoke LTC Shaffer’s access and clearance regardless of his disclosures to the DIA IG, the 9/11 Commission staff members, Members of Congress, or the media.

The Department of Defense investigation concluded:

* The anti-terrorist program, Able Danger, did not identify Mohammed Atta or any other 9/11 terrorists before the 9/11 attack.
* Able Danger members were not prohibited from sharing intelligence information with law enforcement authorities or other agencies that could have acted on that information. In fact, Able Danger produced no actionable intelligence information.
* The destruction of Able Danger documentation at LIWA and Garland was appropriate and complied with applicable DoD regulations.
* The Able Danger program was not terminated prematurely. It concluded after it had achieved its objective and its work products were used in follow-on intelligence gathering efforts at USSOCOM.”

The real issue here was the influence of Jamie Gorelick, a Clinton Staffer, that prohibited sharing of terrorist intelligence within the federal government. Also a 911 Commission Panel Member.

Draw any conclusion you wish here.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

That there are al Qaeda cells in the U.S. comes as some sort of shocking revelation?

9/11 was perpetrated by an al Qaeda cell operating inside the United States.

What’s more, unless you dispute the word of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, Navy Captain Scott Phillpott, and Major Eric Kleinsmith–all directly involved in the military intelligence operation known as Able Danger–cell members, including Mohamed Atta, had been identified as threats and were the subjects of close attention in 1999 and 2000. Kleinsmith, who was Chief of Intelligence for the Land Information Warfare Activity until February 2001, states that he was ordered to destroy all Able Danger data in May and June of 2000. This consisted of all charts, photographs, and classified and unclassified documents, including 2.5 terabytes of electronic data files. Civilian contractor James D. Smith, who was part of the operation, also confirmed the story.

The statements of those directly involved in Able Danger were ultimately disregarded by the US Senate Intelligence Committee because supporting evidence couldn’t be found. An absence of evidence is generally the situation when all supporting documents have been deliberately destroyed.

This b.s. didn’t happen on Obama’s watch, folks.

Like or Dislike: 0  0