Third Source Backs 'Able Danger' Claims About Atta
"WASHINGTON — A third person has now come forward to verify claims made by a military intelligence unit that a year before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, it had information showing that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta (search) and other terrorists were identified as being in the United States.
J.D. Smith, a defense contractor who claims he worked on the technical side of the unit, code-named "Able Danger" (search), told reporters Friday that he helped gather open-source information (search), reported on government spending and helped generate charts associated with the unit's work. Able Danger was set up in the 1990s to track Al Qaeda activity worldwide.
"I am absolutely positive that he [Atta] was on our chart among other pictures and ties that we were doing mainly based upon [terror] cells in New York City," Smith said."
Holy Cr_p....
Ok, "JD" worked on the "technical side". Of course that could mean be anything from the computer programmer/IT manager to gofer.
JD adds to the mix:
Smith said data was gathered from a variety of sources, including about 30 or 40 individuals. He said they all had strong Middle Eastern connections and were paid for their information. Smith said Able Danger's photo of Atta was obtained from overseas."
Now we have "30" 0r "40" paid CI's.....sheesh...."
Let me tell you the worth of a paid informant.......
(grain of salt, flipped over right shoulder)
However, let's continue with what he said:
"During Friday's roundtable with Smith, he was asked by reporters about Atta, who was using another name during 1999-2000. Smith said the charts Able Danger was using had identified him through a number of name variations, one being "Atta."
Two sources familiar with Able Danger told FOX News that part of its investigative work focused on mosques and the religious ties between known terrorist operatives such as Omar Abdul Rahman, who was part of the first World Trade Center bombing plot in 1993.
An independent terrorism analyst pointed out to FOX News that German intelligence had no record of Atta before the Sept. 11 attack; that's significant because Atta headed up the Sept. 11 Al Qaeda cell in Hamburg. The analyst also questioned how Atta could be connected to Rahman, who was in prison by the mid-1990s.
Smith claims that one way the unit came to know Atta was through Rahman. Smith said Able Danger used data mining techniques — publicly available information — to look at mosques and religious ties and it was, in part, through the investigation of Rahman that Atta's name surfaced."
Ok, more problems. As I said here Atta wasn't even a blip on the radar in 1999. He was "hanging in Hamburg" going to "America Sucks meetings" and dreaming of Chechnya. The odds of putting him together with Rahman or any other significant target during that time defy credibility.
Simply put, with the information anyone had at the time and available to "Able Danger" there is no freaking way Atta would be on anyone's chart during that time period - he simply wasn't a significant enough *player at that time.
UPDATE: Cpt. Ed: "This further confirmation puts more pressure on the Pentagon to either come up with specific data that discounts this testimony or a better explanation for the disappearance of Able Danger's data. It also ups the ante for the 9/11 Commission staffers, such as Philip Zelikow, to either explain why they didn't pass this information to the Commission itself -- or to publicly identify which Commissioners knew of it and decided not to pursue it."
I disagree. It really does nothing of the kind. Yes, we have more witnesses, and more of the story seems to be coming together, but this stll far from a confirmation of the facts. Accusations in no way makes the onus on the Pentagon to produce something out of thin air if in fact it never existed.
The burdon of proof is squarely on Weldon and his "witnesses". He's throwing around some pretty serious charges. He brought it up, let him positively prove it. Just as in a criminal prosecution, the burdon of proof is on the prosecutor.
**note: Although I do find AJ Strata's "Two Atta's"take, a little bit of a stretch (almost as much as AJ does himself)
...though...it's interesting.
UPDATE: Via Captains's Quarters, John Podhoretz over at NRO discovers this tidbit in Today's New York Post:
"Cyber-sleuths working for a Pentagon intelligence unit that reportedly identified some of the 9/11 hijackers before the attack were fired by military officials, after they mistakenly pinpointed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other prominent Americans as potential security risks, The Post has learned. The private contractors working for the counter-terrorism unit Able Danger lost their jobs in May 2000. The firings following a series of analyses that Pentagon lawyers feared were dangerously close to violating laws banning the military from spying on Americans, sources said.
"The Pentagon canceled its contract with the private firm shortly after the analysts — who were working on identifying al Qaeda operatives — produced a particularly controversial chart on proliferation of sensitive technology to China, the sources said.
"Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the veteran Army officer who was the Defense Intelligence Agency liaison to Able Danger, told The Post China 'had something to do' with the decision to restructure Able Danger.
"Sources said the private contractors, using sophisticated computer software that sifts through massive amounts of raw data to establish patterns, came up with a chart of Chinese strategic and business connections in the U.S.
"The program wrongly tagged Rice, who at the time was an adviser to then-candidate George W. Bush, and former Defense Secretary William Perry by linking their associations at Stanford, along with their contacts with Chinese leaders, sources said."
Ok,..so the program, that is "Able" to finger Mohammed Atta and put him in the middle of a chart of bad guys before September 11th, pinpoints Condi Rice as Chinese Agent? Was the Stanford, or the hair, the eyes or the fact that maybe she liked take out?
I'll be the Kos is jumping for joy!
Subsequently this "goof" get's a bunch of contractors fired (see ya JD) and the program according to Schaffer gets "restructured". I'll bet.
Freaking hilarious! Who wrote this stuff? It's going to make a great movie!
Even more funny is what I'm reading about good ole Ltc. Schaffer. You see, he and Weldon are getting pissed because everybody is getting what they were and are trying to say then and now - backwards.
Amazing! Everyone has it wrong except them.
"Atta was on the chart dammit!" "No! Not that chart, but this chart - NO! Over there!" "No I didn't say that, I said this!, No...this...." heh....
Now this via Tom Mcguire who points to an article in Weldon's home town Time's Herald:
Cyber-sleuths working for a Pentagon intelligence unit that reportedly identified some of the 9/11 hijackers before the attack were fired by military officials, after they mistakenly pinpointed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other prominent Americans as potential security risks, The Post has learned. The private contractors working for the counter-terrorism unit Able Danger lost their jobs in May 2000. The firings following a series of analyses that Pentagon lawyers feared were dangerously close to violating laws banning the military from spying on Americans, sources said.
"The Pentagon canceled its contract with the private firm shortly after the analysts — who were working on identifying al Qaeda operatives — produced a particularly controversial chart on proliferation of sensitive technology to China, the sources said.
"Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the veteran Army officer who was the Defense Intelligence Agency liaison to Able Danger, told The Post China 'had something to do' with the decision to restructure Able Danger.
"Sources said the private contractors, using sophisticated computer software that sifts through massive amounts of raw data to establish patterns, came up with a chart of Chinese strategic and business connections in the U.S.
"The program wrongly tagged Rice, who at the time was an adviser to then-candidate George W. Bush, and former Defense Secretary William Perry by linking their associations at Stanford, along with their contacts with Chinese leaders, sources said."
To which Tom asks: "Hello - how could Specter's staff get that wrong? And how did the Times get that wrong on Aug 9 when they met with Weldon and a fellow later revealed to be Shaffer? And might source credibility be a reason that the NY Times seems to have lost interest in this story?
As a communicator and liason, Shaffer may not have been a great first choice. One might almost wonder if the 9/11 Commission staffers are correct in saying Shaffer did not mention Atta to them in October 2003."
Capt Ed. say's he thinks Tom's got it wrong on Col. Schaffer, but Tom is right.
There is a credibility question here with his story and there always has been.
Let me be clear. The fact is that only if with all you're heart you would like to see the 9/11 Commission hog tied and Jamie Gorelick hung at Sunrise, and the Clinton Administration as a whole blamed for 9/11, could anyone continually defend this story.
Every day, the more that comes out, the more Shaffer's story begins to shift and change and become so incredible and convoluted that when it's all said and done, ...... they'll be enough eggs to pass around.
Yet remember, when it's all said it done, it will have been EVERYONE elses fault but Weldon's and Shaffer's.
UPDATE II: AJ over at Strata-Sphere is single handedly keeping this story on the map! He links to this story for which he rightly warns us to keep our "tin foil hats" at the ready.
If the conspiracy/wild speculation wasn't rampant by now, this story will take it through the (sorry AJ) Strata Sphere.
However, I do find this re-conformation of one my findings, with a twist I find irresistible. More on this in a minute, but check out this paragraph from the article:
"Recently, there has been revealing news about the U.S. Army's Project "Able Danger," which was established in September 1999 by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, then head of the Special Operations Command. Schoomaker had previously advised Texas Governor Ann Richards and the FBI regarding what military equipment could be used in the attack upon the Branch Davidians at Waco (a mock-up of the Davidians' compound was at Fort Hood, Texas, where Schoomaker was an assistant to Gen. Wesley Clark, a Rhodes Scholar named by fellow Rhodes Scholar President Bill Clinton to be military head of NATO). Schoomaker has also advocated joint military training exercises with the Communist Chinese, and on August 1, 2003 President George W. Bush named him Army Chief of Staff."
Holy Cr-p!
Schoolmaker.....Waco mockup (Reno?).....Governor Richards (Democrat).....Gen. Wesley Clark (Superdemocrat).........
Oh stop it! I can't stand the irony! At this point, allow me to just wax tin foil myself a little:
Want to know what I think? Able Danger (if real), was set up to "spy" not on Al Qaeda - but on citizens US. Simple this, Able Danger was simply product of the paranoid Clinton Administration.
Follow me. It has been long alledged that the Clintons used "intel' (FBI records, et) to get to their 'political enemies'. What IF this ABLE DANGER was such a program - at least in it's genesis? Just a simple program to keep tabs on citizens - specifically citizens that the Clinton's found "dangerous".
So they get this program together. Yet it's of course "Super-Secret".
As I said before, General Schoomaker running his 'afterschool program' under General Shelton's (Able What?) nose with that super secret "plussed up" funding of Weldon (Republican). But not to find "Al Qeada" but to "play around" a little with "domestic intel" - or "big daddy spying on you!"
Weldon then "opens the door" to more greater use by asking the "team" to get some background on the "Serbian" in preparation for Vienna trip. It works, he get's ten pages on the Serb and the FBI and CIA are amazed! Note, no problem with the wall on sharing that information in his office..hmmmm,...
Yet, these contractors get froggy, and begin to fool around....you know inputing things like, "Al-Qaeda" + American Infidel + Easy Targets"....and come up with all kinds of "hits" - not necessarily Atta, but hits.
They even come up with obviously crazy hits such as "Condi Rice = Dirty Rotten Chinese Agent".
Of course these kind of "discoveries" would have the pontential to take the information outside the parameters (and into the open) and therefore it wouldn't be a "super-secret" program anymore.
Not good. Damn it, when the Government has a super-secret program, they want to keep it that way!
So, what happenes if the secret get's out back in 99/2000? Well, press goes nuts, not to mention asking embarrassing questions about that "plussed up funding" and how it got diverted from where it was appropriated to where it ended up.
so...what to do?
Sure! Hit the "Kill Switch!"
It's Katie bar the door, shred the files, everyone go home.
Wierd? Yeah. Crazy? Yeah. But no more crazy or wierd than what we've seen so far.
UPDATE: Per AJ via an email from Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse, the Global Research article referenced above should be taken with a tall glass of grape Kool Aid. Figures.
As well AJ has a link to a "bust" on the NY Post "Condi Rice" Article.
Just a note to remember, as I have consistantly seen this "google" comparison to Able Danger.
Let's not atribute 2005 search/datamining technology to it's 1998-2000 equivilant , it is not the same. For one, many of the existing data-mine technologies, such as information data-trees, search parameters and results, hardware and query load balancing, as well as Linux cluster topology, scalability, and fault tolerance, simply didn't exist back then in the advanced state as they do now.
Describing how someone found "Atta in a Haystack" in 1999, would be a lot harder if not clearly impossible with the PMML Verson 1.0 at that time - if in fact it was the prototype in use then. This has been one my "sticking points" since this story broke and one which cannot be easily over come if the charges are true.
Subscribe by Email
Follow Updates Articles from This Blog via Email
No Comments