Military Drills

[Peregrine]

YOUR LINKS AND THEIR CONTENTS:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4135400.stm

 

Intelligence failures. Accusations that the government knew the identity of the hijackers, but failed to do enough about it (whether through malice, or more likely, incompetence and complacency.

 

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Lt.Col.+A...tab-web-t&x=wrt

 

Broken link. Provides no useful or relevant results.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1491889

 

Accusations of illegal wiretapping.

 

http://www.aclu.org/whistleblower/statements/2.html

 

Accusations of illegal retaliation against whistleblowers involved in intelligence mis-management.

 

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/2/16/194358/802

 

Whistleblowers again, this time related to the illegal wiretapping issue.

 

 

 

NOW, WHICH OF THESE ARE RELATED TO ENGINEERING AND MAKE YOUR SOURCE'S DEGREES AND MEDALS ACTUALLY RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION?

 

 

=============================================

(1) Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists provided by the airlines?

 

Has nothing to do with engineering.

 

Also, assumes that the passenger lists were acccurate, and the hijackers did not use fake names.

 

(2) What exactly is the status of the remote control system which conspiracy theorists say was used to hijack the airliners — a system designed to thwart hijackers by moving control from the cockpit to ground controllers.

 

Does not exist. The planes involved were not fly-by-wire, so a remote control system is extremely unlikely. Also, lag time in controling the planes from a distance does not match the recorded flight paths.

 

(3) Why is there no evidence of flight 77 which supposedly flew into the Pentagon? Why was there such a small hole in the Pentagon? Why were no wings or engines found? Why are there no eyewitnesses that saw the plane? Give us the evidence that it happened the way you say and that the Pentagon was not hit by a U.S. missile and flight 77 shot down over the ocean.

 

THANK YOU GOD, YOU REALLY DO EXIST!

 

I was just waiting and praying you'd post this argument and completely destroy every bit of credibility you might have had. Engine parts WERE found, and can be clearly seen in public photographs of the crash site.

 

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1111398451/...Wall_at_500_MPH

 

WATCH IT, THEN POST ANOTHER CLAIM THAT LACK OF DEBRIS ACTUALLY MEANS ANYTHING.

 

Ignore the idiocy in the video description that there was actually a pilot involved, of course. Just watch the plane completely dissappear on impact, reduced to a cloud of dust.

There are lots more questions, but you get the idea. Answer just a few of the questions, and the most virulent of the conspiracy theories goes away.

 

Oh, what's this? Your engineer AGREES WITH ME on the engineering issues. What a surprise...

 

Well, not really. It's not like anyone who is actually an engineer could look at the evidence and make those absurd claims. The only surprise here is your dishonesty in suggesting that the real engineers actually disagree with me on engineering issues. But I guess that's not a real surprise either.

 

 

 

Conspiracy arguments completely unrelated to engineering.

 

Now please explain how his engineering credentials have anything to with these arguments, or make him any more qualified to comment on them than the average person.

 

=================================================================

YOU WILL NOT SIMPLY IGNORE THE QUESTIONS YOU DO NOT LIKE. IF YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR THE LONG-TERM HEAT OBSERVED, POST ONE, OR CONCEDE THAT THERE ISN'T ONE.

[Alanador]

You are too much, you run in all the wrong circles. His qoute about the first three questions being dismissed IS THE INTRODUCTION>>>>

 

READ READ READ READ READ READ....and then READ ONE MORE TIME....THIS COMES AFTER WHAT YOU READ UP TO OBVIOUSLY, a half a**ed attempt at reading it....AGAIN...

 

Dealing with the other major theory, however, (that Osama bin Laden really did it, but Bush et al let it happen) will require more answers. Various web sites have literally hundreds of unanswered questions. A group of New Jersey widows of men who died in the World Trade Center collapse have compiled quite a few. If this government is to have any credibility and avoid being seen as responsible for allowing thousands of Americans to die, it must answer these questions promptly and honestly. Here are just a few:

 

(4) What was in the CIA daily brief presented to the president on August 6, 2001, and why has it been withheld for so long? The Congressional committee and the independent commission have both requested copies and been refused. Why?

 

(5) Why did John Ashcroft and top Pentagon officials cancel plans to fly commercial airlines the morning of 9/11? If they knew what was about to happen, why wasn’t it stopped?

 

(6) Who made all the millions of dollars selling short United and American Airlines just before 9/11? The hijackers obviously had no use for the money. Who besides them knew that those two particular airlines were going to suffer devastating losses on 9/11? Our intelligence agencies have Promis software that detects unusual stock trades. These trades were 25 times as great as usual. If, as has been reported, alarm bells were going off at our intelligence agencies on 9/10, why didn’t they beef up security on United and American flights? Why didn’t they react promptly to the hijackings?

 

(7) Why weren’t the hijacked airliners intercepted by jet fighters and shot down before they could fly into the WTC and Pentagon? Standard procedures call for any airliner that loses radio contact or goes off course to be intercepted. Four airliners were hijacked almost simultaneously, and it was obvious to air traffic controllers immediately. The transponders on the airliners were turned off. The hijackers were heard on the radio. And the four deviated drastically from their assigned courses. Was NORAD told? If not, why not? What did the air traffic controllers say, and to whom? Why did the FBI impound the tapes of those conversations? Why has the public never been told what was on them? Why weren’t the congressional investigators told? The independent commission? Who is hiding what, and why? If it was just a matter of incompetence or somebody not doing their job, why hasn’t anyone been fired or reprimanded? If someone ordered the standdown, who? and why? and why haven’t they been charged with treason?

 

( What was President Bush doing sitting in a classroom for half an hour after he was told that the country was under attack? Why didn’t the Secret Service rush him away from where everyone knew he was, unless they knew he wasn’t a target? If they knew that, how?

 

There are many more unanswered questions. If the PNAC oil mafia didn’t purposely let 9/11 happen so they could have their new Pearl Harbor and pursue their imperialist wars, then why don’t they answer some of these questions???

 

 

"There are lots more questions, but you get the idea. Answer just a few of the questions, and the most virulent of the conspiracy theories goes away." this is in response to only the first THREE QUESTIONS>>>>>NOT THE REAL THEORIES WITH CREDIBILITY>>>READ HIS ARTICLE AGAIN< AND STOP MISREPRESENTING WHAT IS SAID.

 

 

FURTHER IT IS NOT MY ARGUEMENT ABOUT THE OVEN>>>I HAVE MY OWN QUESTIONS>>>BUT THE THREAD IS ABOUT TACIT INVOLVEMENT....are you really this stupid?! I do not have to prove your theory right or wrong, I HAVE PROVIDED TESTIMNOY THAT MILITARY EXPERTS IN CHARGE OF THIS STUFF DON"T AGREEE>>>>NOT ONLY MILITARY BUT ENGINEERING< HAS HE MADE HIS ASSESSMENT BASED ON HIS WEALTH OF ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE AND MILITARY EXPERIENCE.

 

NOW IT IS YOU WHO IS FULL OUT LYING....READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN>>>NICE TRY TO TWIST THE FACTS BUT NO GO M8

 

QUOTING PEREGRINE>>>

Now please explain how his engineering credentials have anything to with these arguments, or make him any more qualified to comment on them than the average person.

 

THAT"D WORK IF THIS GUY WASNT ALSO UP TO HIS EYEBALLS IN MILITARY PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS 101 VIETNAM MISSIONS< AS WELL AS WORKING ON MILITARY SUPER SECRET SPACE PROGRAMS AND MUCH MORE>>>>again read the full information and STOP MISREPRESENTING IT>>>>COWARD.

 

 

as for the whistle blower links the important one didn't work...although they all show governemtn COVE UP>>>>i will re quote again...their testimony is ABOUT HAVING TOLD THE FBI WHO 4 OF THE ATTACKERS WERE AND BEING REPREMANDED!!!!

 

QUOTING AGAIN>>>>>

 

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer disclosed to the Intelligence Commitee that "Able Danger", one of the many, many covert operations he is highly decorated for, came forward to say that his group knew who 4 of the hijackers were, including the master mind ATTA...and told the FBI. This Massoui trial is futile, even if Massoui knew and didn't tell the FBI...THE ABLE DANGER GROUP KNEW WHO THEY WERE AND TOLD THEM. hmmm...interesting isn't it. So now we see this trial is in fact nothing more than drama, farce, or more eloquently...A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. The real fact of the matter is they DID know, and ABLE DANGER wasn't the only source. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer is EXTREMELY HIGHLY DECORATED by the administrations he worked for. He was a specialist in 'creating high risk, high gain situation..." and can be quoted further as saying "Inside the intelligence community I was a rock star..." Again he is extremeley highly decroated. His testimony is under oath and to the Intelligence Commitee. They all tesitfy to paperwork being "ROUTINELY" altered or fabricated. Rountinely does not suggest to me a few folks are covering their a**, it suggests much more. I will digress at this point until the testimony is made available. If I have to I will transcribe the testimony myself to expedite the issue if you cannot hold out for this very pertinent information. (It is 4 gigs of Mpeg2, 2.5 hours of testimnoy & questions, I think perhaps the UL failed due to size, I am going to shrink to DivX and see what I can compress it too and try again). If we have to you can get a PO BOX for a week and I will send you a copy of the video, with a check to cover the costs of said PO BOX.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165948,00.html

 

http://www.gsnmagazine.com/sep_05/shaffer_interview.html

 

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...show092005.html

 

Not only did he tell them HE WAS REPREMANDED FOR IT AND HIS FAMILY WAS THREATEND WHEN HE WENT TO CONGRESS.

 

QUOTE from peregrine "Well, not really. It's not like anyone who is actually an engineer could look at the evidence and make those absurd claims. The only surprise here is your dishonesty in suggesting that the real engineers actually disagree with me on engineering issues. But I guess that's not a real surprise either."

 

NOT ONLY IS HE MAKING THESE CLAIMS< HE IS THE MOVEMENT BEHIND THE 9-11 TRUTH MOVEMENT....HE SPEAR HEADS IT MY FRIEND>

 

 

WANT SOME SALT TO EAT THOSE WORDS WITH?

 

an IQ of 140...I doubt it, it seems you can't even read an article and retain it...OR FINISH IT COMPLETELY!!! Maybe I dont know engineering, but this guy does...as well as much more. YOU ARE OVER YOUR HEAD. MAYBE I CANT EXPLAIN WHY WITH THE FIRES>>>BUT I'M SURE HE CAN....and the fact that he backs this idea is more than enough for me to topple your STUDENT observations...boy.

[Peregrine]

"There are lots more questions, but you get the idea. Answer just a few of the questions, and the most virulent of the conspiracy theories goes away." this is in response to only the first THREE QUESTIONS>>>>>NOT THE REAL THEORIES WITH CREDIBILITY>>>READ HIS ARTICLE AGAIN< AND STOP MISREPRESENTING WHAT IS SAID.

 

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I posted exactly what you said, on the three engineering-related theories where his expert status applies, he agrees with me and dismisses them. It is only on the politics/intelligence related ones where he disagrees with the arguments I have posted, and his degrees and medals are entirely irrelevant to those.

 

I'm accusing you of dishonesty for the textbook appeal to authority fallacy where you stated that "the engineer with lots of medals disagrees with you", but in fact, he doesn't. You attempted to imply that I was wrong on the engineering issues, and that was pure misrepresentation of your source's statements.

 

 

POLITICS/INTELLIGENCE ARGUMENTS

 

I've already posted links with counter-arguments, I'm not going to post them again.

 

But I'd suggest you drop the textbook appeal to authority by quoting your source's degrees as proof of his knowledge on those issues.

 

FURTHER IT IS NOT MY ARGUEMENT ABOUT THE OVEN>>>I HAVE MY OWN QUESTIONS>>>BUT THE THREAD IS ABOUT TACIT INVOLVEMENT....are you really this stupid?! I do not have to prove your theory right or wrong,

How is it not your argument? You have made post after post attacking my explanations of the long-lasting heat, as if the flaws you are claiming are proof of a conspiracy. Either post the explanation I want, or concede that I am right on this issue.

 

I HAVE PROVIDED TESTIMNOY THAT MILITARY EXPERTS IN CHARGE OF THIS STUFF DON"T AGREEE>>>>NOT ONLY MILITARY BUT ENGINEERING< HAS HE MADE HIS ASSESSMENT BASED ON HIS WEALTH OF ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE AND MILITARY EXPERIENCE.

 

Again with the complete dishonesty. Even after seeing a direct quote where your source agrees with me, you are attempting to state that he doesn't. Let me repeat it just to be clear:

 

ON THE ENGINEERING ISSUES OF THE CONSPIRACY THEORY, THE ONLY ONES WHERE YOUR SOURCE'S EXPETISE IS RELEVANT, HE AGREES WITH ME COMPLETELY. YOU WILL CEASE POSTING ANY STATEMENTS THAT SUGGEST THAT HIS STATEMENTS IN ANY WAY ATTACK THE ENGINEERING-RELATED ASPECTS OF THE OFFICIAL STORY.

 

ATTEMPTING TO CLAIM ENGINEERING CREDENTIALS IN AN UNRELATED FIELD IS A SIGNIFICANT ETHICS VIOLATION, THAT CAN RESULT IN THE FRAUD BEING STRIPPED OF HIS CERTIFICATION. YOUR SOURCE IS NOT IN ANY WAY ATTEMPTING TO USE HIS ENGINEERING DEGREES AS JUSTIFICATION FOR HIS POLITICS-RELATED THEORIES, SO I SUGGEST YOU AVOID IMPLYING THIS.

[Alanador]

YOU ARE LYING< POINTS ONE TWO AND THREE OF HIS ARTICLE ARE MEANT TO BE DISMISSED< READ POINTS 4 AND ON>

 

YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING THE STATEMENTS AGAIN AND AGAIN..i will make sure everyone who reads this is going to see it to by posting it YET AGAIN FOR YOU TO READ FULLY

 

What Really Happened on 9/11; Why All the Secrecy?

 

by Dr. Robert M. Bowman

 

 

 

There are conspiracy theories flying around the internet like seagulls around a landfill. Many people are convinced that George W. Bush knew what was going to happen and purposely allowed it to happen so he and his neo-conservative buddies could have the “new Pearl Harbor” they needed to justify their wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Others go further. They are absolutely sure Cheney and company actually planned and carried out the attack (usually along with the Mossad). These folks don’t think there were ever any Arab hijackers at all.

 

What is so disturbing is that their arguments are quite convincing. If an enormous cloud of suspicion is not to be permanently over the head of our government, the Bush Administration must “come clean,” releasing information thus far withheld from the American people.

 

Clearing themselves of actively planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks ought to be fairly easy. All they have to do is give the American people the answers to a few key questions:

 

(1) Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists provided by the airlines?

 

(2) What exactly is the status of the remote control system which conspiracy theorists say was used to hijack the airliners — a system designed to thwart hijackers by moving control from the cockpit to ground controllers.

 

(3) Why is there no evidence of flight 77 which supposedly flew into the Pentagon? Why was there such a small hole in the Pentagon? Why were no wings or engines found? Why are there no eyewitnesses that saw the plane? Give us the evidence that it happened the way you say and that the Pentagon was not hit by a U.S. missile and flight 77 shot down over the ocean.

 

There are lots more questions, but you get the idea. Answer just a few of the questions, and the most virulent of the conspiracy theories goes away.

 

(KEEP READING BEYOND THIS POINT PEREGRINE LMAO)

YES RIGHT BELOW HERE...

KEEP GOING.....

SEE IT JUST UNDERNEATH US NOW.....

 

Dealing with the other major theory, however, (that Osama bin Laden really did it, but Bush et al let it happen) will require more answers. Various web sites have literally hundreds of unanswered questions. A group of New Jersey widows of men who died in the World Trade Center collapse have compiled quite a few. If this government is to have any credibility and avoid being seen as responsible for allowing thousands of Americans to die, it must answer these questions promptly and honestly. Here are just a few:

 

(4) What was in the CIA daily brief presented to the president on August 6, 2001, and why has it been withheld for so long? The Congressional committee and the independent commission have both requested copies and been refused. Why?

 

(5) Why did John Ashcroft and top Pentagon officials cancel plans to fly commercial airlines the morning of 9/11? If they knew what was about to happen, why wasn’t it stopped?

 

(6) Who made all the millions of dollars selling short United and American Airlines just before 9/11? The hijackers obviously had no use for the money. Who besides them knew that those two particular airlines were going to suffer devastating losses on 9/11? Our intelligence agencies have Promis software that detects unusual stock trades. These trades were 25 times as great as usual. If, as has been reported, alarm bells were going off at our intelligence agencies on 9/10, why didn’t they beef up security on United and American flights? Why didn’t they react promptly to the hijackings?

 

(7) Why weren’t the hijacked airliners intercepted by jet fighters and shot down before they could fly into the WTC and Pentagon? Standard procedures call for any airliner that loses radio contact or goes off course to be intercepted. Four airliners were hijacked almost simultaneously, and it was obvious to air traffic controllers immediately. The transponders on the airliners were turned off. The hijackers were heard on the radio. And the four deviated drastically from their assigned courses. Was NORAD told? If not, why not? What did the air traffic controllers say, and to whom? Why did the FBI impound the tapes of those conversations? Why has the public never been told what was on them? Why weren’t the congressional investigators told? The independent commission? Who is hiding what, and why? If it was just a matter of incompetence or somebody not doing their job, why hasn’t anyone been fired or reprimanded? If someone ordered the standdown, who? and why? and why haven’t they been charged with treason?

 

( What was President Bush doing sitting in a classroom for half an hour after he was told that the country was under attack? Why didn’t the Secret Service rush him away from where everyone knew he was, unless they knew he wasn’t a target? If they knew that, how?

 

There are many more unanswered questions. If the PNAC oil mafia didn’t purposely let 9/11 happen so they could have their new Pearl Harbor and pursue their imperialist wars, then why don’t they answer some of these questions???

 

(OK PEREGRINE THAT WAS THE END....)

 

Not only do his engineering credentials shatter your own, his military duties including WORKING ON SECRET MILITARY SPACE PROGRAMS...which implies intelligence experience, and his active military experience was during one of the worst wars for pilots, and he flew 101 missions....

 

I keep askin and you aint got an answer, what's your PhD....maybe you distract YOURSELF so much that you forget I keep asking. So I'll ask again.

 

ON APRIL 4th 2006, THIS GUY PUBLICLY IMPLICATES THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION...HE IS SPEARHEADING THE 9-11 TRUTH MOVEMENT. HAVE A NICE DAY... :)

[Peregrine]

1) I've already posted links to counter-arguments to the points made in that article. It's not my fault if you haven't read them, so either read them and address the issues they mention, or concede defeat.

 

2) The first three points of the article are the only ones where the author's engineering knowledge is relevant. By saying "this expert engineer disagrees with you", you are implying that the disagreement is actually in an area where his skills are relevant. Which is completely dishonest, because as we see, he completely dismisses all the attacks on the engineering-related aspects of the official story.

 

You first introduced this man's statements as an attack on my engineering knowledge, stating that I am over-stating my knowledge because another, more experienced, engineer disagrees with me. But now we find that he doesn't disagree with me, and you were either mistaken or dishonest.

 

Not only do his engineering credentials shatter your own, his military duties including WORKING ON SECRET MILITARY SPACE PROGRAMS...which implies intelligence experience, and his active military experience was during one of the worst wars for pilots, and he flew 101 missions....

 

And again you accuse me of mis-representing my credentials and knowledge. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand this.

 

You'll notice I have NEVER claimed any intelligence experience, only knowledge of engineering issues.

 

THE FACT THAT HIS CREDENTIALS ARE FAR MORE IMPRESSIVE THAN MINE IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE WHERE ENGINEERING CREDENTIALS ARE AT ALL RELEVANT, YOUR SOURCE AND I ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT. AND BY COMPLETE AGREEMENT, I MEAN WE BOTH AGREE THAT THE ATTACKS YOU HAVE MADE ON THE ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF THE OFFICIAL STORY ARE FLAWED AND COMPLETELY LACKING IN PROOF.

 

You will now apologize for the un-justified attack on my honesty and knowledge, and concede defeat on this point. If you do not, I will be reporting the thread to Dark0ne and requesting your banning for making false statements about me.

 

 

=====================================

You have made post after post attacking my explanations of the long-lasting heat, as if the flaws you are claiming are proof of a conspiracy. Either post the explanation I want, or concede that I am right on this issue.

[Alanador]

I can keep going for a long time Peregrine, can you. His testimony was for you to see that very high officials with engineering degrees and accolades dont believe the story. I couldn't care any LESS about the oven, not a relevent issue actually.

 

AS FAR AS HIS OTHER CREDENTIALS THIS GUY WAS IN VIETNAM< FLEW 101 MISSIONS THERE, HE WORKED ON NUMERUOS SECRET MILITARY SPACE PROGRAMS, so he knows a little about the intelligence community, served under many administrations,...but the OTHER 6 WHISTLEBLOWERS WERE TO SHOW THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS TURNING ON ITSELF. HERE IS A LIST OF THE WHISTLE BLOWERS THAT TESTIFIED ON 2-14-2006...CLAIMING NOT ONLY DID THEY REPORT THE INTELLIGENCE THEY HAD BUT THEY WERE REPREMANDED WHEN THE WENT TO CONGRESS TO RAT THEIR SUPERIORS OUT. ARE YOU REALLY THIS NAIVE>>>? I feel like I gotta hold you hand through this, are you just scared? Your oven is irrelevant to my discussion, and you only show nearsightedness in not getting beyond it.

 

I'm not saying you misrepresent your credntials, you just aren't qualified, you are a student...point blank. YOU HAVE NO credentials...

 

Maybe he agrees with you on the oven, but it certainly isnt in anything I've posted, again you try to twist things to no avail bro...

 

And report it bro, want a pen....with a tissue...you aren't even arguing the POINT OF THIS THREAD. BYE...Need a map to get there?

 

 

QUOTING YOU AGAIN P:

 

"You first introduced this man's statements as an attack on my engineering knowledge, stating that I am over-stating my knowledge because another, more experienced, engineer disagrees with me. But now we find that he doesn't disagree with me, and you were either mistaken or dishonest."

 

I introduced it to show you that a highly decorated engineer agrees WITH ME!!!! ARE YOU READING A DIFFERENT THREAD OR SOMETHING? He may or may not agree with you on your oven theory, but it is irrelevent, HE AGREES WITH ME ON THE POINT OF THIS THREAD! AND HE HAS ABSURD AMOUNTS OF EXPERIENCE and KNOWLEDGE above you OR I...PERIOD.

 

 

AND I HAVE SAID A MILLION TIMES NOW< I AGREE WITH THE OVEN< BUT WHAT STARTED IT!!!! Man you are redundant. I WILL NOT CONCED OVER YOUR CHILDISH BANTER AND BADGERING. THE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THERE IS NOW REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THE OFFICIAL 9-11 STORY. PERIOD. AND IF THEY LIED ABOUT THAT IT FURTHER IMPLIES TACIT INVOLVEMENT.

[Peregrine]

I can keep going for a long time Peregrine, can you. His testimony was for you to see that very high officials with engineering degrees and accolades dont believe the story.

 

Again with the dishonesty. IN EVERY AREA WHERE HIS DEGREES AND ACCOLADES ARE ACTUALLY RELEVANT, HE BELIEVES THE STORY COMPLETELY.

 

In simple terms, you are a liar. You continue to misrepresent this man's statements as something they are clearly not.

 

I couldn't care any LESS about the oven, not a relevent issue actually.

 

Which is why you made so many posts attacking it? For an irrelevant issue, you sure put a lot of work into attacking it...

 

AS FAR AS HIS OTHER CREDENTIALS THIS GUY WAS IN VIETNAM< FLEW 101 MISSIONS THERE, HE WORKED ON NUMERUOS SECRET MILITARY SPACE PROGRAMS, so he knows a little about the intelligence community, served under many administrations,...but the OTHER 6 WHISTLEBLOWERS WERE TO SHOW THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS TURNING ON ITSELF. HERE IS A LIST OF THE WHISTLE BLOWERS THAT TESTIFIED ON 2-14-2006...CLAIMING NOT ONLY DID THEY REPORT THE INTELLIGENCE THEY HAD BUT THEY WERE REPREMANDED WHEN THE WENT TO CONGRESS TO RAT THEIR SUPERIORS OUT. ARE YOU REALLY THIS NAIVE>>>?

 

Fascinating how your argument changes from engineering-related "flaws" in the official story to intelligence coverups...

 

Your oven is irrelevant to my discussion, and you only show ignorance in not getting beyond it.

 

YOU ARE A LIAR.

 

YOU first introduced the "oven" issue, by claiming that the long-lasting hot spots observed in the rubble pile contradicted the claims made in the official story.

 

You devoted significant effort over a long series of posts to attacking my arguments related to it.

 

Now please, tell me, if it is so irrelevant to you, why did you bring it up?

 

 

 

And it's far from ignorance. I refuse to allow you to use this dishonest tactic of shotgun debating, where you throw point after point at me, then ignore all the ones I disprove and continue flooding me with more new ones. You will either present your counter-argument, or concede defeat.

 

I'm not saying you misrepresent your credntials, you just arent qualified, you are a student...point blank. YOU HAVE NO credentials...

 

I have far better credentials than you, when talking about engineering-related issues.

 

And whatever my credentials might be, on the issues where they are actually important, the engineering community as a whole is in agreement with me (for good reason).

[Alanador]

QUOTE:

 

Which is why you made so many posts attacking it? For an irrelevant issue, you sure put a lot of work into attacking it...

 

I was learning, you were helping, in your abusive way...

 

DUDE>>>GO BACK LIKE $ PAGES>>>I AGREE WITH THE OVEN>>>WHAT STARTED IT>>>DAMN YOU ARE IGNORING ME>>>

 

 

IF THE ARGUEMENT WAS THE OVEN I HAVE BEEN AGREEING FOR PAGES AND YOU ARE JUST WASTING OUR TIME>>>>>>>I WANT O KNOW WHAT STARTED THE OVEN WHEN THE FIRE WAS 78 FLOORS PLUS FIVE BASEMENTS ABOVE THE MOLTEN STEEL. YOU AREN"T LISTENGIN TO ME< BUT I THINK THATS PROBABLY A PROBLEM THAT PERMEATS YOUR LIFE. MAYBE YOU"D HAVE MORE FRIENDS IF YOU DIDNT BADGER AND CHASE LIKE THIS> I HAVE AGREED FOR DAYS THAT THE OVEN EXISTED> WHAT STARTED IT? ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL ME IT WAS SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION. BY ALL EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS THERE WAS NO FIRE IN THE BASEMENTS OR LOBBY AND THE ASSISTANT CHEIF ENGINEER REMEMBERED ASKING HIMSELF "WHY ARE THE SPRINKLERS ON" IF THERE WAS FIRE HE"D HAVE KNOWN WHY>

 

Go report it big boy, really do yourself a favor and go, you arent adressing what I say at all....

[Peregrine]

IF THE ARGUEMENT WAS THE OVEN I HAVE BEEN AGREEING FOR PAGES AND YOU ARE JUST WASTING OUR TIME>>>>>>>I WANT O KNOW WHAT STARTED THE OVEN WHEN THE FIRE WAS &* FLOORS PLUS FIVE BASEMENTS ABOVE THE MOLTEN STEEL.

 

Thank you, concession accepted.

 

The "oven" was started by the debris collapsing so the fires were no longer 60+ floors above the basement. If you dispute this statement, I expect an alternate explanation for what started it.

 

================================================

I introduced it to show you that a highly decorated engineer agrees WITH ME!!!! ARE YOU READING A DIFFERENT THREAD OR SOMETHING? He may or may not agree with you on your oven theory, but it is irrelevent, HE AGREES WITH ME ON THE POINT OF THIS THREAD!

YOU ARE A LIAR.

 

Your "highly decorated engineer" agrees with ME on every single issue where his engineering credentials are even slightly relevant. Despite your continued attempts to misrepresent his statements, the only issues we disagree on are the intelligence-related issues.

 

Just answer the following two questions, with a yes or no answer. No elaboration, just yes or no.

 

1) ARE YOU AWARE THAT IT IS AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY TO SIMPLY QUOTE A SOURCE'S CREDENTIALS AS PROOF FOR YOUR ARGUMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THOSE CREDENTIALS ARE IN AN UNRELATED FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE (AND YOU REFER TO HIM CONSTANTLY AS AN ENGINEER, NOT AN INTELLIGENCE EXPERT)?

 

2) ARE YOU AWARE THAT IT IS A SIGNIFICANT VIOLATION OF THE ENGINEERING CODE OF ETHICS TO ABUSE YOUR CREDENTIALS IN AN UNRELATED MATTER? ARE YOU AWARE THAT IF HE WAS CLAIMING HIS DEGREE IN THE INTELLIGENCE DISPUTE, HE COULD BE STRIPPED OF HIS ENGINEERING CERFITICATION FOR THE FRAUD?

[Alanador]

THEN WHY HASN'T HE BEEN? HE'S NOT HIDING WHAT HE SAYS. HE HEADS THE 9-11 DISCOVER TRUTH MOVEMENT. AND YOU CONTINUE TO MISCONSTRUE THE EVIDENCE...AGAIN...BUT I EXPECT AS MUCH FROM YOUR CHILDISH TACTICS. I'll POST ALL OF THE INFORMATION AGAIN. THE OVEN WAS NOT THE ARGUEMENT HERE IN THIS THREAD, just a point we covered. SO YOU HAVE NO CONCESSION BRO...not from me...but i do have to crash and i wll continue tomorrow...and the day after...and the day after....

 

HE doesn't need to use his engineering credentials for intelligence thats what I've been saying, HE HAS INTELLIGENCE EXPERIENCE. TWO SEPERATE THINGS THERE P....AND I CALL THE WHISTLEBLOWERS TESTIMNOY TO PROVE THE INTELLIGENCE ASPECT. See ya tomozz

 

one more thing...

 

Anthony Shaffer on the Jerry Doyle Show

 

The Jerry Doyle Show

September 20, 2005

transcribed by vadkins

 

 

 

Jerry Doyle: Lt. Col. welcome to the program.

 

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer: Thank you sir, good to be on with you. I appreciate it.

 

JD: I know that the last time you had sent me some communiques that the Defense Intelligence Agency had actually had formally revoked your Top Secret security clearance. I thought that was highly coincidental in light of the fact that this testimony is supposed to start tomorrow.

 

AS: Well it's interesting that you should mention that. Yes, I believe, as does my attorney, Mark Zaid, that this was definitely, as you said, timing is everything, an effort to purposely, deliberately, slam me and try to discredit me before I go before the committee. As of like 20 minutes ago, Mr. Zaid received from DIA formal notification telling him that I am not, repeat, not to talk to Congress about this on the record in testimony. And, by the way, they gave no reason what so ever why reason whatsoever why they are denying me this invitation. Congress did issue the invitation. DIA denied it and gave no reason as to why they're denying it.

 

JD: Being a civvie, can they do that?

 

AS: Well, at this point in time they can. And there's a process which can over rule this, which is a subpoena process. Keep in mind Jerry that I was not subpoenaed, I was invited, formally invited by the Senate to appear before them tomorrow. It was DoD's decision based on whatever they did internally which has now been determined that they will not permit me, Captain Philpott, Dr. Eileen Preisser, or any other uniformed or civilian member of the Dept. of Defense to testify. However, I think you'll find this is a bright spot, it has just been announced about 20 minutes ago that Mr. Erik Kleinsmith, Erik Kleinsmith is the name. He is the major who was the individual who was directed by DoD authorities to destroy the 2.5 terabytes of data back in 2000, he is now a civilian contractor, and his civilian contractor, God bless them, even though if you're a defense contractor, has given him permission to testify. Therefore, he will indeed testify tomorrow of the fact that he was directed to destroy the data. So, in the end then Jerry what has happened is that while J.D. Smith, Eileen Preisser, Scott Philpott and I cannot testify, one thing that I think DoD does not want to come out of this that will come out, which is the destruction of documents.

 

JD: Now, outside of a subpoena, I guess the only way that you could testify in front of the committee is if you were to resign because you are still, quote, active duty and still collecting a DoD paycheck.

 

AS: Essentially, as long as I am collecting a duty paycheck, yes they can control what I can and cannot say concerning the testimony. Now I will say this as well, you will see me, I will be there tomorrow. I was asked by the Senate to be present in uniform. Therefore I will be there in full Army uniform. I will not be permitted to speak but I will be on hand in the Senate chamber (inaudible) as Congressman Weldon, my attorney, Mark Zaid and as others give their testimony. I will be present in uniform. I think that the Senate is trying to underscore the point here that people are willing to come forward here and give what their understanding is of the truth. And as you mentioned in your introduction about the whole issue and to me, let me tell you, we did not lack imagination. The 9-11 Commission and what they're saying is totally bogus and I as you noticed from the fact that we were doing cutting edge techniques, trying to find ways, creative ways to go after these guys. We did not lack imagination, we lacked support, and obviously right now the concern is, there is a definite appearance that we aren't being supported by DoD. Jerry, DoD mentioned on the first of September, they confirmed everything that we talked about to date. All we were going to do is go in as Captain Philpott, Dr. Eileen Pricer, J.D. Smith and myself. (inaudible) is color in the pieces of this thing. So the fact that DoD now would reverse itself, we can't even begin to figure out why they would do such a thing based on the fact that they've admitted the fact that the program existed and even confirmed the results of the program. So it's a mystery to us as well.

 

JD: Well, when you say DoD, where's this coming from at DoD? Is this instructions to DoD from higher ups? Is this people in DoD who are afraid of what information gets out? I mean who is the person who's making this happen?

 

AS: What I will tell you is I was told by 2 DoD officials today directly that it is their understanding that the Secretary of Defense directed that we not testify tomorrow. That is my understanding.

 

JD: You would almost think though that Rumsfeld would want this information to come out because, I mean, this is all tracable. If you've got an order of destruction of documents, someone has to sign it, someone has to sign off on it, someone has to have the authority to do that. You would almost think that the Pentagon would want this to come out, so is it Rumsfeld or is it someone above Rumsfeld? The problem I have is I can't figure out who and why and when and what.

 

AS: (inaudible) at this point in time, especially considering the fact that you know, you've been tracking it, this has been going on for about 6 weeks now. This is not a new story, this information is coming out little by little. And yes, for the DoD at this point in time, after on 1 September admitting the fact that this existed, admitting the mission, admitting what we did, then to reverse itself to say that the principal officers involved in this cannot testify, does not pass the common sense test. I don't know, and we don't know as individuals involved in this, what's going on. So my lawyer did say specifically, you know, that DoD, especially DIA wants me to shutup. And I think that that's the reason that they in writing down to my lawyer now, that I am not permitted to talk on the record to Congress on this issue. And there was no reason given. Go ahead sir.

 

JD: We're talking to Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, scheduled to testify tomorrow in front of Arlen Specter's Judiciary Committee with regard to Able Danger. With regard to, and I need to address this, the Defense Intelligence Agency formally revoking your Top Secret security clearance, they said that they did that because you lied to them. Can you explain that to the audience a little.

 

AS: Absolutely. Their formal claim in their written declaration of taking my clearance, they formally said that I lied to them in my written statement for basically doing my rebuttal of their allegation against me. And the official reason is that I lied to them about Army clearing me regarding the 3 allegations that I had a (inaudible) word, I had a phone bill of $67 and some odd sense, which you know is 25 cents at a time for 18 months. And I misfiled a voucher adding up to $180. Well Jerry, the bottom line is this. I was promoted to Lt. Col. on schedule in October, the Army has allowed me to keep the award, it was a valid award, an award I received for Able Danger. Tomorrow if you see me in the (inaudible), I will be wearing it on my chest. I have never been asked to give back or they've never collected the money from me in dispute. So to me, the layman's terms here is, the Army let me keep everything so I think they cleared me. And so DIA is saying somehow, no, even though you're promoted to Lt. Col., even though we've let you keep all this stuff, you falsely stated to us that the Army cleared you. So again, Jerry, they apparently did not take the time or have the interest of checking with the Army to figure out that the Army did clear me, that there's nothing adverse in my file. The Army reviewed these things, and said, nope, he's keeping the award, he's keeping the money and we're promoting him to Lt. Col.

 

JD: And you're still on the payroll, plus from what I can garner the government has spent some $400,000 to try and convince John Q. Taxpayer out there that you spent $67? Lt. Col. Shafer, can you stick with us for a couple more minutes?

 

AS: Absolutely, yes sir.

 

JD: My guest Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, scheduled to testify tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They're trying to shut him up folks. What don't they want to be known...

 

Commercial Break

 

JD: ...a timeline of events as to how this has all been unfolding with regard to Able Danger and the attempted coverup along the way. Back on August 22 according to the Pentagon chief spokesman, Larry DiRita, who is I should say, Pentagon hoax person, Larry DiRita, he said that while Col. Shaffer and Captain Philpott were respected military officers whose accounts were taken seriously, thus far we've not been able to uncover what these people said they said they saw, memory is a complicated thing.

 

AS: Right.

 

JD: When asked by the Defense Dept. in its 2 weeks investigation, if anyone else had spoken to anyone besides yourself, Captain Philpott included, he said he did not know, memory was a complicated thing apparently there. Then I take it to Sept. 14th. All ten members of the 9-11 Commission, in the words of ex-Senator Slade Gorton, bluntly it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us. Then on Sept. 16th this story out about 80 people interviewed with reagrd to Able Danger, this according to a Pentagon spokesman, that they combed through thousands of documents, millions of emails, and still found no documentation of Mohammad Atta. I would suggest to the people listening to the program that the reason they haven't found that is that because an order of destruction was given to Erik Kleinsmith, civilian contractor working for the Pentagon to destroy the documents. Am I making sense so far Lt. Col.?

 

AS: Sure. And there's apparently more than 1 destruction order that was issued. Congressman Weldon was made aware apparently that the second date apparently 2003 which kind of brings us up to the point of where this all became known to the 9-11 Commissioners, or at least their staffers there in the 2003 time frame.

 

JD: OK, can I just, when you were doing the datamining on Able Danger, there's 2.5 terabytes of information, one-fourth of all the Library of Congress books that exist today. You know and your team knows that you guys identified Mohammad Atta and three of the hijackers a year before September 11th, 1001. Is that true or not true?

 

AS: That is absolutely true, yes.

 

JD: Then your memory is not according to Lawrence DiRita at the Pentagon (inaudible).

 

AS: Jerry, I've spoken to a lot of folks about this and I think that my recollection has been pretty consistent. I know the picture, I know what I saw. While there's obviously disputes about what name was under that picture, J. D. Smith has already said that there were several names under that picture, we all recall the same issue and that the Pentagon confirmed. We recall the Atta photograph and we do recall in more detail, the other folks more than I, the other names of the other terrorists who were also detected in this process. And it is that fact that we have said consistently, this is what we remember seeing. The problem has been that there's been an effort to, in my judgement, to focus on Atta solely. Where they say that we didn't say this, or we didn't say that. Jerry, the fact is this, we used this technology to go after and identify individuals such as Atta, not just Atta, but people such as Atta who fit a profile. And it's frightening to me that that database which contained not only Atta's identity, but other's who matched the profile is now destroyed. So we don't know where those guys went. Just because the other guys in that database who fit that profile didn't do the World Trade Center attack, or didn't do the 9-11 attacks doesn't mean they're not in place to do some future attack. That's our concern here. Why would you want to destroy a database which potentially had other clues, other individuals, other identities, other linkages which some day-we all know Al Queda's a very patient enemy-they do things over years, not just days, not just months, years. So who's to say that that information didn't contain another nugget or two or three or four which would have helped us to identify now some of the sleepers in place. That is what we find frightening right now.

 

JD: And frightening to me is that these linkages that you discuss, Lt. Col., probably maybe extend outside of al-Qaeda. There's got to be something here why this has to go away. When just on Aug. 22nd the Pentagon's chief spokesperson, Larry DiRita said that you and Philpott were respected military officers whose accounts were taken serious, and then not just a couple of weeks later they're out to discredit you spending $400,000 to take you down and take you out of the game over $67 in personal phone calls on a military issued cell phone.

 

AS: Right. (inaudible) it was official phone calls being forwarded to my personal phone. Jerry, this was in their best interest to keep in touch with me. I was allowing them to phone me. So yeah, that's how bizarre this thing has gotten that they spent that amount of money, and oh yeah, by the way, you know, the Army has permitted me to keep everything. I was cleared. So that's the concern here. And I think, Jerry, as you pointed out, if they can do this to me, if they can do this to me who has given my entire life, 22 years to work in defense of this country. If they can do this to me over this issue, they can do this to anybody. I think that everybody has to understand that. I don't want to sound Orwellian here, but the fact is this. If they are willing to go to this length, to spend $400,000 to go through every detail in my background, and oh, by the way, Jerry, I've got to say, I'm kind of proud of the fact that this is all they've come up with. I mean, you know, I'm not a perfect guy, you know the fact that they're coming after me over these bogus issues, and that they're taking my security clearance over me trying to tell the truth, speaks volumes of what these guys are really about. (inaudible)

 

JD: It is Orwellian. And the fact that we don't have hard hitting investigative journalists reporting on this on a day to day basis, the fact that we don't have stories about this, the fact that people are telling me that they can't get a story that there is no story, but the fact that there is no story. There's a huge story that we're not getting, and that's the point that I'm trying to get people to understand. This is being made to go away and to look simple, to marginalize you and to take Philpott out of the game and to take Weldon out of the game and not give him the Chairmanship of Homeland Security, to give it to Peter King. I've heard rumors that Peter King supposedly has certain ties to people that are in the Irish Republican Army. There's a lot of weird stuff going on right now Lt. Col. And this is almost what they want to have happen. They want it to get in a place where people start to get conspiratorial. Where they start to say a plane didn't go in to the Pentagon, that kind of stuff starts to happen. That's where they want it to go because people who start to discuss because they have no real information to deal with, that they can say I got concretely from the Pentagon or DIA or DoD or from you under testimony, then it has to become about black helicopters and conspiracy theories and it marginalizes itself because that's where they wanted it to end up in the first place.

 

AS: Right. Again, the simple fact in all this is we, Captain Philpott and I, wanted to address a efficiency that we recognized which existed now based on our original experience working the original Able Danger project. The fact that datamining and some of these more esoteric capabilities that we wanted to develop. They're not new, they're a form of profiling, but the idea here is to actually do good. To try to find these guys before an attack happens. That's essentially what we're trying to do here. And I'm honestly, you know, flabbergasted that there's such resistance on this. And I don't know exactly which ant hill exactly we kicked over. We've all kind of talked amongst ourselves on this and there seems to be something else, something bigger here, that maybe we're just so close to that we can't see. And that's where, you know, I'm confused by the whole process.

 

JD: When this Able Danger thing started off, was this an SAP program that got reclassified. Was there a 1 star or 2 star that signed off on this? Give us a kind of account of the hierarchy of Able Danger.

 

AS: The basic planning of Able Danger started out as a Special Actions program. You're entirely correct. However, it was determined early on that to bring the best and the brightest in, to have this entrepreneurial idea, they were going to have to expand out the knowledgeability. So I was one of the original folks right into it. It was determined that very early on (inaudible) so it went from being SAP, Special Actions Program, to a compartmented program, which basically means one level less than SAP. But you still account by name everyone who was aware of it. You take and you put together something they call a bigot list. A bigot list is essentially a knowledgeability list. It's like Robert DeNiro talking about the circle of trust in a movie. This is what you're talking about, an official circle of trust of people who are aware of this operation. And then you basically expand out the knowledgeability only on the need to know. I think I mentioned to you before, Jerry, when the Pentagon talks about interviewing 80 folks, you know, I don't think there were 80 folks ever knowledgeable of the overall Able Danger project, you know, during the time that we were running it. I'm kind of wondering how all these other people ever became knowledgeable of it or somehow became on the radar of it. It was a very tightly organized, very small group pursuing this target. And it's interesting that Captain Philpott, Captain Scott Philpott, back then was the commander, he was actually the classification officer. He wrote the guidelines. So I know this for a fact from talking to him. I know what the perameters were. So, in essence we did not want to be so restrictive that it became ridiculous and we couldn't do work. But we wanted to make it so the people did understand that this was important, that this was an effort which had to be taken seriously, and we had to limit knowledgeability because it was at the time, obviously now, because of the push back we're even getting now. This was very contraversial. The idea of doing offensive operations against al-Qaeda 2 years before 9-11. It was very, very controversial.

 

JD: With all of the 2.5 terabytes of information that you garnered, this being a compartmented program, someone had to sign off on the authorization to destroy the documents. Does anybody know who that was?

 

AS: Let me get into that for a second. Whever you bring in even overt information, even stuff that's from open sources, once you bring it behind that classification wall to put it into that secret world, that becomes classified automatically. You can't then take it back out. It's like one of those mudcatchers. Once the mud goes in, it can't get out. Same way with this. Even though it was unclassified data, it becomes controlled in a controlled environment once it crosses that threshold. And the answer is, yes, there should be someone who is accountable, someone who signed the documents, someone overseeing them. Now the question becomes, Jerry, did DoD ollow proper procedures when they destroyed the data? And that right there will tell you and everyone else what the intent was. If the intent was to follow procedure as the Pentagon has outlined, doing it by the regulation, yes, everything should have been done 555, should be a written record, should be emails, should be very clear guidelines and emails and individuals who did it. However, if it was done for the wrong reasons, that is to say that they wanted to destroy it in such a way that there was no accountability for the destruction, no accountability for who ordered it, then it's going to have to come down to, as you've already noticed, people trying to recollect this stuff from memory because the official documentation may have been destroyed by those folks who ordered the destruction. I don't want to sound conspiratorial, but if it was done for that intent, to cover up, then yes, you're going to have no real documentation on it. That's the problem.

 

JD: And then this testimony that's coming forward from Erik Kleinsmith, the civilian contractor, does he have the ability to have copies of the documents or is it going to be he said, they said? And they're saying he's wrong.

 

AS: I don't know. I've not talked to Erik, in the sense, I saw him last in 2000 at LIWA. I don't know, I've not talked to him. He at the time was an active duty Army major. He was deputy to Dr. Eileen Preisser working on this issue. Eileen Preisser, you've seen her name in the news. So I don't know what he has. I don't know what he's brought forward. I do know he is credible. I do know that he had access to the controlled database. So those are acurate statements. That is the limit of my direct knowledge. However, it will come down as I mentioned, to if he did it properly with the proper oversight authority, then there will be documentation, you know, resulting in showing who ordered the destruction, why the destruction was ordered and who actually performed the function.

 

JD: If you could give us a couple more minutes I'd like to take a break and come back and just kind of give the listening audience an idea of how much information you collected and how far behind we are right now in looking at what you knew then, what information was garnered then, what we could be doing with it and, with all of the talk about not a questions of if but when we're going to get hit with a coordinated nuclear potential, biological, radiological attack in this country, where are we at now and how far behind are we in the game of getting information on these people who don't make it a game of wanting to destroy this country. My guest is Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer...

 

[Commercial break]

 

JD: ...talking with you about Able Danger, testifying in front of the Judiciary, the destruction of documents, Mohammad Atta, 9-11, why they want to silence people who have something to say and all 10 lines are open. No one's calling. That either says that there's agreement out there or here is fear. And I'm not exactly sure what I attribute to 10 lines being open. I know people are listening, they are certainly not going to call and discredit you because this is what you did, this ss what you were a part of with Able Danger. But in looking at what we say was known about Mohammad Atta and other terrorists in cells in Brooklyn and the list goes on, we have 2.5 terabytes of information. For those not familiar, that's 1/4 of all the books printed in the Library of Congress. That's a lot of information that we had that is gone now. How far are we behind the learning curve of what we need to have to protect us today from what they've been planning since that information was destroyed?

 

AS: Jerry, it's frightening because of the fact as we pointed out before the last break, that data is now gone. We don't know what happened to it, but it's just destoyed. Within that we believe there were clues and linkages to individuals who may well be here right now, who are here legally, and that's one of the topics we've talked about. These individuals applied for and received visas and green cards to be here legally. And so we don't know with this data being gone now. It's not like we can just go back and do the same thing. To do a new search on the Internet and recreate a large amount of that. But the problem is that data that we had back then, although open source which was openly available, is unique. It was a single snapshot of relationships of locations of individuals which no longer exists. So that is the first concern. The second concern is as Richard Ben Veniste said in an on-air interview, the 9-11 Commission had no ability to evaluate what Captain Philpott and I were saying because the technology to do so no longer exists. Unquote. Which means that the capability, the basic suite of software and computers, the neural networking, and the evaluation of how things looked in the way of a roadmap-and that's what we were after here, a roadmap of al-Qaeda-no longer exists. We can't build that roadmap today, we can't update it. So you can tell me, you know, if you're driving on a road and you don't know where you're going, how are you going to get to your destination? Same thing here. How do we now get to the destination of finding out where these guys are, how they're doing they're work, if we don't have that roadmap?

 

JD: I guess more importantly, Lt. Col. if we have the order of destruction for the information that we had, who's responsible for shutting down Able Danger and dismantling the infrastructure to continue to get information on suspected terrorist cells, organizations and connections?

 

AS: That's a good question. I don't actually know who that is. I know that, I know my part. I was ordered out of the operation by a 2-star Army general named Rod Isler, who came to the point where he was yelling at me, demanding that I stop supporting this. Each individual within the group had their own horror story at how we attempted to say, look this is pretty important stuff, global terrorism, you know these guys have killed Americans we should continue this. And we were told to a man and woman, no, sit down, shut up, move on, it's time to forget about it. And this all happened in the spring of 2001 right before the attacks. So I can't tell you what the philosophy was, I can't tell you who actually was behind it, I can just tell you that obviously my observations, the fact that it happened, the fact that we had Atta, we had other information which we tried to pass to the FBI. Plus, Jerry, I don't know if your listeners are aware, Captain Philpott actually told the 9-11 Commission about the fact that Able Danger discovered information regarding the Cole attack. The USS Cole which was attacked in October of 2000. There was information that was Able Danger found that related to al-Qaeda planning an attack. That information unfortunately didn't get anywhere either. So that is another clue that was given to the 9-11 Commission to say, hey, this capability did some stuff, and they chose not to even look at that. So now, where are we at? I honestly don't know. But it's not the place we need to be. That's what we need to determine. Is to take a pause, take a deep breath, figure out where we need to go next. How do we accomplish this technology, how do we then go about populating a database to support it, and then how do we take positive action to try to develop...

 

JD: Positive action would be to have you testify tomorrow in front of the Judiciary Committee. I know you'll be there. We'll be watching and following it. I hope you'll come back and let us know what was said and what you weren't allowed to say because there's a lot more that needs to be said about this and this is frightening...