Skip to comments.Atta known to Pentagon before 9/11
Posted on 09/28/2005 9:07:33 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Four years after the nation's deadliest terror attack, evidence is accumulating that a super-secret Pentagon intelligence unit identified the organizer of the Sept. 11 hijackings, Mohamed Atta, as an Al Qaeda operative months before he entered the U.S.
The many investigations of Sept. 11, 2001, have turned up a half-dozen instances in which government agencies possessed information that might have led investigators to some part of the terrorist plot, although in most cases not in time to stop it.
But none of those leads likely would have taken them directly to Atta, the Egyptian architecture student who moved to the U.S. from Germany to take flying lessons and later served as Al Qaeda's U.S. field commander for the attacks.
Had the FBI been alerted to what the Pentagon purportedly knew in early 2000, Atta's name could have been put on a list that would have tagged him as someone to be watched the moment he stepped off a plane in Newark, N.J., in June of that year.
Physical and electronic surveillance of Atta, who lived openly in Florida for more than a year, and who acquired a driver's license and even an FAA pilot's license in his true name, might well have made it possible for the FBI to expose the Sept. 11 plot before the fact.
Atta is presumed to have been at the controls of American Airlines Flight 11 when it struck the north tower of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
The FBI has reviewed the voluminous records of its extensive Sept. 11 investigation and can find no mention of Atta before Sept. 11, a senior FBI official said. If the Pentagon knew about Atta in 2000 and failed to tell the FBI, the official said, "It could be a problem."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The Gorelick Wall
(/stirring the pot)
Lunatic lefties try hard to blame bush, but remember, Bush retained many Clinton apointees in the FBI CIA and Pentagon when he first got into office.
Bush didn't even have time to wash down the white house and remove the stains the pervert Clinton left behind before 9/11 happened.
Plus remember right from the start everything was delayed for President Bush because of all of that Florida election crap.
...and the Rats who held the Senate were stalling on confirmations.
Wow! Chicago Tribune no less .. amazing that they are bringing up Able Danger. I'm very surprised.
I thought the hurricanes had all but obscured it.
It's a fairly long article too, recaps the high and low points.
The most regretful failure was that 9-11 could have been prevented with just a little more common sense, (the box cutters the terrorists carried were legal at the time),
a little less PC, (be suspicious of Arab Muslim males bewteen the ages of 18 and 40) and search them),
and a little more dedication to airport security.
"Wow! Chicago Tribune no less .. amazing that they are bringing up Able Danger. I'm very surprised."
My thoughts are the same. Able Danger is moving up the media food chain---but is it fast enough? At the moment, the bulk of the momentum seems against us---but not as bad as the last time things shifted against us.
Frankly, I can barely believe its gotten this far---fighting both the Democrat and Republican establishments at the same time.
Well .. you are aware that Rumsfeld was consulted about the military witnesses - and he evidently gave his okay.
So .. while the dems continue to lie that Rumsfeld was covering-up .. I don't think he was consulted .. I believe a Clinton-leftover tried to keep the military people from testifying.
Also if everyone remembers that Navy electronic intel gathering plane landed on that Chinese island. I forgot the name of it but he had to deal with that the first month or two of his administration. Big foreign policy issue at the time. I would say the Dems attempted coup in Nov and Dec of 2000 slowed down his administrations start up in the beginning of 2001.
"Well .. you are aware that Rumsfeld was consulted about the military witnesses - and he evidently gave his okay.
So .. while the dems continue to lie that Rumsfeld was covering-up .. I don't think he was consulted .. I believe a Clinton-leftover tried to keep the military people from testifying."
Personally, I definitely believe Rumsfeld has been involved in the cover-up so far. what we're talking about here, is that a team in the Defense Department identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as a potential threat before 9/11. They were present prevented from getting this information to the FBI
This is a huge issue that would, of necessity, be brought to Bush's attention in some manner. Granted, they are being very careful to insulate him from any cover-up charges, I'm sure. But I don't see any other level, the top like this could be dealt with.
In addition, the very latest news is not quite so positive. Schaefer's lawyer, at least, seems to believe that the Defense Department is backtracking from its initial commitment to allow the five people to testify on October 5.
My sense is that the government is still testing the waters to see if they can keep the whole thing covered up.
This is the military for heavens sake .. they have levels and levels of people in charge.
Sessions - in his statements during the Able Danger hearings said that Rumsfeld's staff was not aware that the SecDef had prohibited the military guys to testify .. and that since the SecDef was due on Capital Hill that afternoon to brief the Senate, Sessions claimed that he was going to ask the SecDef about it.
I heard this statement .. and I saw it on TV .. and the very next day it was revealed that the military people were allowed to testify.
Now .. if Rumsfeld was trying to cover-up .. why would he suddenly change his mind. I don't recall that he does that .. because when he makes a decision - he doesn't waffle and change his mind a few days later.
There are probably hundreds and possibly thousands of people within the Pentagon who do not want this exposed. But .. since Rumsfeld was not SecDef at the time Able Danger was formed and also disbanded .. why would Rumsfeld care if it's hidden or not.
Of course, if you're judging Rumsfeld guilty by the fact that he's there and he's a Bush appointee .. then go for it. But .. you're going to come up empty.
Yes that is a sort of a forgotten incident. I remember many commenting on how President Bush stayed out of the limelight by not being there when the crew returned to US soil. Something Clinton would have never done as he would have hogged the camera.
until we know more - until they start naming the names of the people who destroyed Shaffer's document store (if that indeed happened) - saying Rumsfeld was involved in the "cover-up" is a big stretch.
"Of course, if you're judging Rumsfeld guilty by the fact that he's there and he's a Bush appointee .. then go for it. But .. you're going to come up empty."
No way. I am a huge Rumsfeld fan. I thought his role in the invasion of Iraq was fanatastic.
I realize there are many levels in the military---but I believe sometimes those levels can be used to insulate people. I just can't believe Rumsfeld, and even Bush, wouldn't have been aware of this as soon as Weldon started his complaints in the House. This is 9/11 we are talking about.
Yes, I can see it is possible they would have had a "hands off" attitude for awhile, but by now its pretty clear that something bad happened and someone is covering up.
If Bush wants the truth to come out, he can make it happen easily enough. It seems clear to me that he does not.
Rumsfeld will generally obey Bush's orders, as is his role.
"naming the names of the people who destroyed Shaffer's document store (if that indeed happened)"
Not only did it definately happen, but the name of the person who did it is publically well known and the person has made statements to the media. What is not yet clear is who initiated the order.
Well .. you're contradicting yourself when you say this:
"If Bush wants the truth to come out, he can make it happen easily enough. It seems clear to me that he does not."
If Bush does NOT want the truth to come out .. then why did Rumsfeld say that the military witnesses could testify ..??
"If Bush does NOT want the truth to come out .. then why did Rumsfeld say that the military witnesses could testify ..??"
It appears that there are two different forces at work, and we can't really see what is going on. The latest reports that I read on one of these threads indicated that Specter's people are currently in negotiations with the Defense Department as to exactly what will happen (including whether or not the hearings will be open). While some reports indicated that the hearings have been delayed due to the Jewish New Year, Schaefer's lawyer has indicated that the hearings have been delayed by the Defense Department.
The important thing is, that hopefully the hearings will take place. I'm still worried that they may not.
Soon to be the Gorelick Levy, since she'll undoubtedly chair some Katrina commission...
"When they(dod) originally agreed to allow 5 witnesses to testify maybe they figured that would take all the heat off them. They probably figured the news cycle will ignore what they are doing now which it will,in the msm, but not in the new media. We will hold their feet to the fire as long as it takes."
I hope we can pull it off. I was very heartened to see the Chicago Tribune article. I went to Drudge, and was disappointed to see they that the only article returned when I entered, "Able Danger" into the search was published in August of this year. I suggested that they publish another article in the "News Tip Box."
It would be nice if somebody would do a demonstration in Washington, DC. However, I suppose that would not be covered by the media.
But an attorney for a military intelligence officer who was expected to appear said the Defense Department's refusal to allow such testimony _ not the Jewish holiday _ was the real reason for the delay.
"Soon to be the Gorelick Levy, since she'll undoubtedly chair some Katrina commission..."
extended LOL! Thanks, I needed that.
fair enough. I can't see Rumsfeld being part of the chain of authority that made this decision, but let's see what happens.
Weldon is going to be on Savage again....like in a few mins.
someone should start a live thread
"I actually asked Shaffer on C-Span that question."
Unbelievably cool that you spoke to him.
"I asked him if Hillary might have instructed Gorelick."
The bad thing from our point of view is that this was probably not Hillary's job. It was more likely Bill.
I heard all about it on ABC.....NOT!
BTW, it's Bush's fault.
Could be an understatement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.