Yohannon (yohannon) wrote,
Yohannon
yohannon

  • Mood:

5 Years Later...

Do you know what Able Danger was?

Able Danger was a special DoD intelligence project that specialized in data mining to spot possible terrorist activity, among other things. That, of course, is a gross over-simplification -- take a look at this overview to get a good running start.

They had the unmitigated gall to point out that they had identified 4 of the 9/11 high-jackers... in 2000. Using the INTERNET. Fully a year before the towers came down, they had names and pictures -- and they were told to drop it by their superiors.

Somehow, after over three years, the 9/11 Commission managed to completely miss the Able Danger angle -- until they started talking. Which has promptly resulted in military retribution against the whistle blowers.

Congressman Curt Weldon has started a petition to pressure Rumsfield to cough up the truth about Able Danger, and how they possibly could have been ignored until now. Go and sign it. Please.

Me? I had heard rumors that we had advance warning of the hijackings, but this is ridiculous. It's almost as bad as that FBI agent who thought it was weird that foreign nationals were getting training on how to take off in a big jet... but never bothered learning how to land. At least, not in the sense we're used to.

This isn't a conspiracy theory folks -- it's damning evidence of human stupidity on a grand scale. This is write letters to the editor, congresscritter, and protest in the streets inflammatory -- if you realize exactly how badly the 9/11 commission has screwed up.

Oh yeah, those nice little headline grabbers like "we're not ready for the next attack" belie a simple idea: Why not work on PREVENTING an attack?
Tags: politics, rant
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 3 comments