T Nation

NY Post Article: Able Danger

Just wondering if anyone else caught the article in the NY Post today or anywhere else by the Lt. Col from Able Danger. The basic storyline was how this task force(Able Danger) had intel on 4 of the 9/11 masterminds(atta included) and attempted to relay to the FBI that these guys were operating as a cell in the US.

The only problem was due to the fact that the clinton administration made it illegal for these agencies to share intel the pentagon shot this Col. down 3 times. Now it isn’t just this lite colonel talking about there are others still active who have to wait for clearance from their respective agencies before they can talk about it in the press. Anyone care to comment on this article??

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/27181.htm

Let’s hide and see if the ABBer’s will come out in droves and blame the inaction of the Clinton Administration for 9/11.

It aseems the Commission was set up for the express purpose of blaming Bush. Now that some truth has come to light - it is Clinton’s fault.

My bet is that they will call names, scream, holler and pretty much throw a temper tantrum. And then they’ll still blame Bush. That has been their MO around here lately, anyhow.

I dare someone on the left to get on this thread and NOT namecall, or ignore the subject in lieu of personal attacks.

Wow this post is remaining awfully quiet, I’m waiting for some sort of rebuttal, but nearly 2 hours of being posted and only one reply and thats in support. Vroom? Elk? ProfX? Anyone wan to say anything?

20 bucks says that Sandy Berger was leaving the National Archives, his pants were stuffed full of Clinton’s PDB’s that contained discussions of Able Danger.

In the end, I think this is going to save us from President Hilary.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Wow this post is remaining awfully quiet, I’m waiting for some sort of rebuttal, but nearly 2 hours of being posted and only one reply and thats in support. Vroom? Elk? ProfX? Anyone wan to say anything?[/quote]

If it’s indeed true then it’s a terrible fuck up of the Clinton administration. I would like to know the whole truth of the matter. It could be somewhat true and tilted by right wing media or it could be wholly true which as I stated before puts the blame on the Cliton admin.

First off, the idea that 9/11 was just a big misunderstanding resulting from an inter-agency communication failure is pure propaganda…the media puppets give you a simple explanation that makes you go “Damn, what a shame” without investigating the issue further. Go back to sleep, your government has everything under control.

Secondly, there are so many facets of this event that are far more interesting than the notion that somehow it is Clinton’s fault. Where was NORAD? What caused the collapse of building 7? What about the reports of bombs going off in the buildings? Why was the debris immediately sold as scrap to China, despite numerous calls for a forensic investigation? Isn’t it almost too convenient that the majority of the steel beams and columns came down in sections less than 30 feet long? Each tower had 47 steel core columns, each measuring 14" by 36" and was 4" thick at the base. How is it that the WTC collapses after being on fire for around an hour, but the Windsor Building in Madrid burned for more than 24 hours and DID NOT COLLAPSE? What about…

Now before you fire off some brilliant comment about my tin foil hat and wild conspiracy theories, investigate this for yourself. Got a minute? here’s some links:

http://www.911truth.org/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_911.html

http://infowars.com/resources.html

And look, no name calling or temper tantrums.

YAY a liberal conspiracy theorist, my favorite. Ok crazy man let’s see, was the Windsor building hit by a large plane full highly volatile rocket fuel traveling about 400 miles an hour(give or take)? I don’t think so. When the federal building was hit in Oklahoma City did it collapse? Did the USS COLE sink when it was hit? What about te saudi barracks, did they collapse? The answer to all of those questions is a resounding NO!!!

Do you know why? Because the WTC’s were hit by humungous guided missiles, the fires that burned on the upper levels coupled with the vibration of something that big slamming into metal and concrete toppled it. Did you know even after it collapsed and the fire somewhat smothered it still burned at a couple of thousand degrees.

As for the debris being sold to china, there was still “debris” there as of about a year ago. Get the frick out of here with your crazy conspiracy theory. Every liberal has some conspiracy, just like the elections and god knows what else. If it doesn’t work out in the liberals favor there must be a conspiracy around it. The fall of the soviet union under REAGAN, he must have had help from aliens…

[quote]doogie wrote:
In the end, I think this is going to save us from President Hilary.[/quote]

Don’t worry, doogie. There is no way that Chillary will even get the Dem nomination, let alone elected president.

The very first woman to ever become president will have to be physically attractive. Not trying to be a pig, it’s just true.

Think about it.

snipeout, shut up. You’re going to ruin the magic.

STOP MAKING SENSE RIGHT NOW!!!

Hey, weren’t there flashing lights on the wings of the airplanes after they were allegedly “hijacked by Muslim extremists?” Why hasn’t there been a single solitary government review of those lights?

BECAUSE IT WAS FUCKING ALIENS CONTROLLING THE PLANES WITH THEIR SCI-FI TELEKINETIC RAY-BEAMS, DUDE!!! THEY’RE IN LEAGUE WITH BUSH SO THAT HE COULD GO TO IRAQ AND STEAL ALL OF THEIR OIL!!!

It’s a cover-up, man!

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Wow this post is remaining awfully quiet, I’m waiting for some sort of rebuttal, but nearly 2 hours of being posted and only one reply and thats in support. Vroom? Elk? ProfX? Anyone wan to say anything?[/quote]

Why would you mention my name in this? Boston Barristers thread is more credible as far as multiple references than this one article. If you want to be retarded enough to believe a claim that everything involving 9/11 is Clinton’s fault, so be it. Things have never been that simple in government.

Lets not forget that in august 2001 bush got intelligence reports saying al quaeda plans to crash planes into buildings but ignored it, refused three chances to kill bin laden and then to top it off allows bin ladens terrorist brothers to leave usa when all other plane traffic was grounded.

The operation was planned in pakistan, germany and financed by saudi arabia so bush invades … iraq! so incresing al quaeda’s appeal and the terrorist risk.

Man that bush is certainly bin laden’s best friend.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
YAY a liberal conspiracy theorist, my favorite. Ok crazy man let’s see, was the Windsor building hit by a large plane full highly volatile rocket fuel traveling about 400 miles an hour(give or take)? I don’t think so. When the federal building was hit in Oklahoma City did it collapse? Did the USS COLE sink when it was hit? What about te saudi barracks, did they collapse? The answer to all of those questions is a resounding NO!!!

Do you know why? Because the WTC’s were hit by humungous guided missiles, the fires that burned on the upper levels coupled with the vibration of something that big slamming into metal and concrete toppled it. Did you know even after it collapsed and the fire somewhat smothered it still burned at a couple of thousand degrees.

As for the debris being sold to china, there was still “debris” there as of about a year ago. Get the frick out of here with your crazy conspiracy theory. Every liberal has some conspiracy, just like the elections and god knows what else. If it doesn’t work out in the liberals favor there must be a conspiracy around it. The fall of the soviet union under REAGAN, he must have had help from aliens…[/quote]

Fuel used for passenger planes is in fact incredibly stable, and not “volatile rocket fuel.” You could pour it onto a fire and it would simply extinguish the flames as the fire would not be nearly hot enough (typically) to ignite the fuel. If you are wondering why then it works so well in a turbine engine, its due to high pressures generated by the first two stages in which incoming air is slowed and then compressed.

Talk about a non-issue.

The guy got busted for lying about a personal affair.

I’d hate to see how busted he’d of gotten for encouraging illegal information transfers between government agencies.

Things changed.

You can’t judge the past by the present or the present by the past, they aren’t the same thing.

Oh well, keep stroking off whenever you find a new way to blame Clinton for something. The man is gone guys, get over it.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Talk about a non-issue.

The guy got busted for lying about a personal affair.

I’d hate to see how busted he’d of gotten for encouraging illegal information transfers between government agencies.

Things changed.

You can’t judge the past by the present or the present by the past, they aren’t the same thing.

Oh well, keep stroking off whenever you find a new way to blame Clinton for something. The man is gone guys, get over it.[/quote]

I think your missing the point, vroom. It’s not about getting a chance to blame Clinton for something else. This was on his watch. Why is it okay to draw and quarter the President that took over instead of the President that ignored evidence that would have saved thousands of lives?

The 9/11 Commission was supposed to be set up to find out what happened. It was in fact, a witch-hunt to place the blame on Bush. The Commission ignored Able Danger on at least 2 occasions in favor of cell phone records. The were blind to the truth.

You can all it a non-issue if you want. But I disagree

[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
Talk about a non-issue.

The guy got busted for lying about a personal affair.

I’d hate to see how busted he’d of gotten for encouraging illegal information transfers between government agencies.

Things changed.

You can’t judge the past by the present or the present by the past, they aren’t the same thing.

Oh well, keep stroking off whenever you find a new way to blame Clinton for something. The man is gone guys, get over it.

I think your missing the point, vroom. It’s not about getting a chance to blame Clinton for something else. This was on his watch. Why is it okay to draw and quarter the President that took over instead of the President that ignored evidence that would have saved thousands of lives?

The 9/11 Commission was supposed to be set up to find out what happened. It was in fact, a witch-hunt to place the blame on Bush. The Commission ignored Able Danger on at least 2 occasions in favor of cell phone records. The were blind to the truth.

You can all it a non-issue if you want. But I disagree [/quote]

You can disagree. You have that right in America…for now. However, the truth is, much of this is hear-say and even FOX news recognized that this morning on that same issue. The documents that are said to prove this are supposedly unavailable without high security clearance. That means you are all too ready to believe “he said she said” instead of proof. I would prefer to wait for real truth rather than your desire to point blame other than on the man who has allowed many more deaths since 9/11.

[quote]DDeviant wrote:
How is it that the WTC collapses after being on fire for around an hour, but the Windsor Building in Madrid burned for more than 24 hours and DID NOT COLLAPSE? What about…
[/quote]

Read some of the civil engineering reports regarding the collapse. Here’s one of many that are available.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
No bombs, no conspiracy, just physics. Dose that tin-foil hat mess up your hair?


Clinton…just a puppet of the globalists…

[quote]snipeout wrote:

The only problem was due to the fact that the clinton administration made it illegal for these agencies to share intel the pentagon shot this Col. down 3 times.

[/quote]

Actually I believe that the law prevented the Army from sharing info about US citizens and those here to gain residency. The 4 guys in question were on visa’s if I remember correctly, so the information should have actually been passed on to the FBI.

Did Clinton mess up some things when it came to dealing with terrorists? Yes, he did. Did Bush also mess up? In my opinion, I think he did.

The difference between the 2 is that Bush has the power to do something about it now, he can recognize his mistakes and make the changes needed to prevent those same mistakes from happening in the future. Clinton didn’t and can’t do that anymore.

Nope professor a vast majority of it was clintons fault, but I just wanted to lower you to your normal name calling and bring out that condascending I’m better than you attitude that you have in every single post regardless of the topic.