9/11 coverup of Defense Dept. itnesses testimony

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Here's a bone for Gotholic.

SOURCE

EXCLUSIVE: Witnesses in Defense Dept. Report Suggest Cover-Up of 9/11 Findings

By Catherine Herridge

Published October 04, 2010 | FoxNews.com

A document obtained and witnesses interviewed by Fox News raise new questions over whether there was an effort by the Defense Department to cover up a pre-9/11 military intelligence program known as "Able Danger."

At least five witnesses questioned by the Defense Department's Inspector General told Fox News that their statements were distorted by investigators in the final IG's report -- or it left out key information, backing up assertions that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified a year before 9/11.

Atta is believed to have been the ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers who piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center. Claims about how early Atta first tripped the radar of the Department of Defense date back to 2005, but those claims never made it into the Inspector General's report. The report was completed in 2006 and, until now, has been available only in a version with the names of virtually all of the witnesses blacked out.

Fox News, as part of an ongoing investigation, exclusively obtained a clean copy of the report and spoke to several principal witnesses, including an intelligence and data collector who asked that she not be named.

The witness told Fox News she was interviewed twice by a Defense Department investigator. She said she told the investigator that it was highly likely a department database included the picture of Atta, whom she knew under an alias, Mohammed el-Sayed.

"When it came to the picture, (the investigator) he was fairly hostile," the witness told Fox News. She said it seemed the investigator just didn't want to hear it. "Meaning that he'd ask the same question over and over again, and, you know, you get to the point you go, well, you know... it's the same question, it's the same answer."

The IG report didn't accurately reflect her statements to investigators, she said, adding that she doesn't think the investigator simply misunderstood her.

Lt. Col Tony Shaffer, an operative involved with Able Danger, said he was interviewed three times by Defense investigators. He claims it was an effort to wear down the witnesses and intimidate them. Two other witnesses, one a military contractor and the other a retired military officer, said they had the same experience. The two witnesses spoke to Fox News on the condition of anonymity because they said they feared retaliation. A fifth witness told Fox that statements to investigators were ignored.

"My last interview was very, very hostile," Shaffer told Fox News last month before he was ordered by the department not to discuss portions of his book, "Operation Dark Heart," which included a chapter on the Able Danger data mining project.

When asked why the IG's report was so aggressive in its denials of his claims and those of other witnesses -- that the data mining project had identified Atta as a threat to the U.S. before 9/11 -- Shaffer said Defense Department was worried about taking some of the blame for 9/11.

However, It still isn't clear how -- or whether -- the information on Atta could have been used to the disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The big picture was not Atta, not so much the chart," Shaffer said. "The fact is this: That we had a pre-9/11 Department of Defense operation focused on taking action against Al Qaeda globally."

Specifically, the Defense Intelligence Agency or DIA wanted the removal of references to a meeting between Shaffer and the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, removed. Shaffer alleges that in that meeting, which took place in Afghanistan, the commission was told about Able Danger and the identification of Atta before the attacks. Shaffer, who was undercover at the time, said there was "stunned silence" at the meeting.

No mention of this was made in the final 9/11 Commission report.

"Dr. Philip Zelikow approached me in the corner of the room. 'What you said today is very important. I need you to get in touch with me as soon as you return from your deployment here in Afghanistan,'" Shaffer said.

Once back in the U.S., Shaffer says he contacted the commission, but without explanation, the commission was no longer interested.

Last month, the Defense Department took the highly unusual step of buying and destroying 9,500 copies of Shaffer's book "Operation Dark Heart" at a cost of $47,000 to U.S. taxpayers.

Click here to see Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, letter objecting to parts of the book.

When asked whether Defense Department stood behind the IG report's findings, Col. Dave Lapan, the acting deputy assistant Secretary of Defense said in a statement to Fox News dated Oct. 6, "The investigation found that prior to September 11, 2001, Able Danger team members did not identify Mohammed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker. While four witnesses claimed to have seen a chart depicting Mohammed Atta and possibly other hijackers or "cells" involved in 9/11, the investigation determined that their recollections were not accurate."

As for retaliation against Shaffer who said he lost his security clearance as a result of speaking out about Able Danger, Lapan said "The investigation found that DIA officials did not reprise against LTC Shaffer, in either his civilian or military capacity, for making disclosures regarding Able Danger or, in a separate matter, for his earlier disclosure to the DIA IG regarding alleged misconduct by DIA officials that was unrelated to Able Danger."

Separately, Fox News has obtained a letter that challenges the Defense Department's claim. In October 2006, then Rep. Christopher Shays, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, wrote to Shaffer's supervisor, Maj. Gen. Elbert Perkins, about the revocation of his clearance..

"Based on investigation of security clearance retaliation, it appears the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) used the security clearance system in an improper manner against LTC Shaffer and did not follow DOD security clearance guidelines," Shays, R-Conn., wrote.

Click here to se Shays' letter to Perkins.

In this case, the letter stated that the allegations used by the DIA to justify pulling Shaffer's security clearance included "the alleged misuse of a government cell phone in the amount of $67.00 and the alleged misfiling of a travel voucher for $180.00...these were not uniformed code of military justice (UCMJ) issues -- that there was no basis for punitive action and should be dealt with administratively...This decision cleared the way for LTC Shaffer's promotion, and his current 'good' standing in the Army Reserve.."
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
Able Danger...haven't we been here before?
It's all a tangled web of of radical Islam and shattered buildings.

Who cares what happened or how, it could never happen again.


mosque600.jpg
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
This is not surprising at all, Jim. Your article is only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, you still have not answered my question...



If anyone has not done so, please check out this: Highly Credible People Question 9/11.

I did answer the question when I stated that I was finished with the conspiracy theories after the discussion on the weight to inertia ratio of various aircraft hitting a building; the difference between a 707 and a 767; the disparity of fuel loads; the disparity of weight; the disparity of fuel vs common flammables; the disparity between a common structure fire and a structure which has been hit by an impact from an aircraft; the physics involved in an implosion; ad nauseum.

I don't care if Jesus Christ believes 9/11 was an inside job.

I don't care if they found Jimmy Hoffa's body in the rubble.

The physics do not match the criteria.

No one can explain how the so-called explosives were rigged in the buildings to bring them down; because anyone who has seen what it takes in preparation for an implosive destruction of a building would know that it could not be done in secret and would affect the structural integrity of the building prior to the detonation.

I just know that you are a big fan of conspiracy theories so I posted this for you.

Enjoy.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
nah peeler dood
can't you get behind the idea that the DoD
and the industrial military complex would ignore
the obvious threat posed by 20 Moosie guys
most in this country illegally
learning to fly airliners but having zero interest
in learning how to land one?

I mean c’mon every one knows JFK was going to
pull us out of Vietnam so the CIA whacked him.

Now we’ve got a ‘war on terror’ that can last for decades.
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
I could see us knowing information, more than we let onto. I could see trying to save some embarrassments. I odn't see us blowing our own shit up with the blessings of our elected government.

inB4GeorgiaStones
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
I did answer the question when I stated that I was finished with the conspiracy theories after the discussion on the weight to inertia ratio of various aircraft hitting a building; the difference between a 707 and a 767; the disparity of fuel loads; the disparity of weight; the disparity of fuel vs common flammables; the disparity between a common structure fire and a structure which has been hit by an impact from an aircraft; the physics involved in an implosion; ad nauseum.

How do you explain the molten steal, thermate, and the collapse at nearly or at free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance?

I don't care if Jesus Christ believes 9/11 was an inside job.

That was a bad example to use.

The physics do not match the criteria.

Like the collapse at or nearly free fall speed of greatest resistance?

No one can explain how the so-called explosives were rigged in the buildings to bring them down; because anyone who has seen what it takes in preparation for an implosive destruction of a building would know that it could not be done in secret and would affect the structural integrity of the building prior to the detonation.

I just know that you are a big fan of conspiracy theories so I posted this for you.

Enjoy.

"Each core column is adjacent to one of up to 50 elevator shafts (or utility rooms on upper floors) making it relatively easy to set chargers without detection." Months before 9/11, there were elevator-modernization work going on in the buildings. The elevators were locked and guards were placed while this was going on. That is likely how they did it without detection.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
Gothy tell me you are messin’ with this 9-11 conspiracy stuff
cuz there ain’t no one even close to playin’ with a full deck
that believes one bit of it.
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
Gothy tell me you are messin’ with this 9-11 conspiracy stuff
cuz there ain’t no one even close to playin’ with a full deck
that believes one bit of it.

I just created a thread for "Blueprint for Truth", if you watch that I think it might just convince you, even Jim.
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
What a piece of propagandist crap! Did you get nothing from their antisemitic use of "Zionist" throughout the narration? Do you agree with the hatred of Jews displayed in that video?

:rolleyes:

I do not agree. Being an anti-Zionist is not the equivalent of being anti-Semitic.

The video makes some valid points, if there are some you disagree with then what are they?
 
Top