Skip to comments.Navy Officer Affirms Assertions About Pre-9/11 Data on Atta
Posted on 08/22/2005 4:13:55 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 - An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret defense intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.
The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. "My story is consistent," said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command. "Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000."
His comments came on the same day that the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters that the Defense Department had been unable to validate the assertions made by an Army intelligence veteran, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and now backed up by Captain Phillpott, about the early identification of Mr. Atta.
Colonel Shaffer went public with his assertions last week, saying that analysts in the intelligence project had been overruled by military lawyers when they tried to share the program's findings with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2000 in hope of tracking down terror suspects tied to Al Qaeda.
Mr. Di Rita said in an interview that while the department continued to investigate the assertions, there was no evidence so far that the intelligence unit had come up with such specific information about Mr. Atta and any of the other hijackers.
He said that while Colonel Shaffer and Captain Phillpott were respected military officers whose accounts were taken seriously, "thus far we've not been able to uncover what these people said they saw - memory is a complicated thing."
The statement from Captain...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Hope this story hangs in there. Something happened and we have a right to know.I tend to believe the Lt. Col.I don't tend to trust bureaucrats.
Another voice is heard...
ping a ling a ding dong!
The big question is, why is the New York Times printing stories that may prove immensely damaging to their politics? It's totally out of character.
Who cares? What does Cindy Sheehan have to say about this?
That is what matters.
Thanks to documentaries like NGC's "Inside 9-11", this story isn't going away. With yet another source, and the inevitable Weldon hearings, this story has legs.
You'r assuming that they don't want to redeem their reputation. Money talks!
Hmmm, lets see, they seem to have known the name of this Atta insect a full year before he managed to pull off the single worst atrocity ever commit ed against the American people but this doesn't seem to constitute "proof" in Mr. Di Rita's vacuous little head. Simply amazing.
"He said that while Colonel Shaffer and Captain Phillpott were respected military officers whose accounts were taken seriously, "thus far we've not been able to uncover what these people said they saw - memory is a complicated thing."
This statement is simply too asinine to comment on.
They aren't going to be able to unscramble an egg soon. I believe it's reached a point to where the genie can't be put back into the bottle. It's growing daily.
This is an active duty captain? I think he can forget about ever getting those stars on his collar.
"My story is consistent"
Interesting. does he think others' stories aren't?
"The former contractor, James D. Smith, said that Mr. Atta's name and photograph were obtained through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East."
Doesn't sound much like data mining, but old fashioned-humint.
"Mr. Smith said that he had retained a copy of the chart for some time and that it had been posted on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base. He said it had become stuck to the wall and was impossible to remove when he switched jobs."
Oh yeah, the old "sticky wall" excuse. He should have just said he didn't think to take it. Instead he creates a story where no poster will be found on his old wall, therefore there was a conspiracy.
Smart. I remember hearing Rep. Weldon say there were a dozen of these folks lined up - not necessarily all willing to go public, but there are quite a few sources form which to draw info/corroboration.
How was that, by the way?