Replies

Your collection of links at post #17 is a MUST read for those that are interested in this mess.

The thing I am trying to reference is if the fellow, Felzenberg, mentioned in the article above, as quoted here was the investigator that talked to those still asserting this was the unit's warning:

After having first denied that staff had been briefed on Able Danger, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said no reference was made to it in the final report because "it was not consistent with what the commission knew about Atta's whereabouts before the attacks," the AP reported.

There was a thread claiming that the 9/11 commission's investigative staff member took no transcript or recording of the questioning, but, instead took minimalist notes.

Was that this guy Felzenberg that is saying now, "Nothing to see here, move along."

If so, it is working because the Fox commentator on Intell issues is saying that source protection concerns, instead of the green card correctness ruling of Gorelick's minions mentioned in the article, all without even covering the green card issue itself.

Al Felzenberg said no reference was made to it in the final report because "it was not consistent with what the commission knew about Atta's whereabouts before the attacks," the AP reported.

How very interesting..
Another posted article here on FR noted that the commission's disclaimer was that Atta did not recieve his visa until MAY 2000, and "couldn't have been in the country before then..
The relevant data discussed by the officer showed Atta to be a member of an al-Qaida cell in New York City from February to April 2000, the statement said. But the commission knew that according to travel and immigration records, Atta first obtained a U.S. visa on May 18, 2000, and first arrived in the United States on June 3, 2000, the statement said.
9/11 Commissioners Defend Intel Omission

Yet, in THIS ARTICLE, there is a statement "from the commission" saying:
The CIA, and the 9/11 commission, say Atta wasn't in Prague April 9, 2001, because his cell phone was used in Florida that day. But there is no evidence of who used the phone. Atta could have lent it to a confederate. (It wouldn't have worked in Europe anyway.)

So, which IS IT?
Seems the Commission is saying Atta WAS here, and WASN'T here in practically the same breath!!!

He was in Florida in May, (or in Prague) but either way, he had a cell phone registered in his name in the US, on APRIL 9, 2000..
Yet, Commission officials insist he didn't apply for a visa until MAY 18, 2000, and didn't arrive in the US until JUNE 3, 2000..

These people need to be charged, and forced to testify before a Grand Jury, every one of them...
Then indicted, tried, and sent to jail for a very long time..
I know, it will never happen..