Posted on 02/28/2006 1:29:12 PM PST by vadkins
Able Danger identified Mohammad Atta and at least 2 other 9-11 hijackers more than a year before the 9-11 attacks. Why was the data that connected Mohammad Atta as a possible terrorist threat to the United States destroyed, and why wasn't this information shared with the FBI so the 9-11 attacks might have been prevented?
1. Dr. Stephen A. Cambone, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, explains that there wasn't any prohibition against sharing Able Danger information with the FBI. One of Dr. Cambone's colleagues says, "...we share in Army intelligence and DoD intelligence, we share information with the FBI probably every working day of the year..."
(Excerpt) Read more at qtmonster.com ...
Here is my preface:
I am on a mission of liberation. Yes, I am determined to free all of the eye popping information that is now locked up in 1 1/2 hours of audio (give or take a minute or five) that I captured of the Able Danger hearing so more folks realize that we, the people of America, still do not know the truth of 9-11 no matter what the 9-11 Commission is currently claiming (they do change their story you know).
I'll be waiting for the rest.
Why is this NOT getting the MSM attention it deserves?
Cuz we have a corrupt Govt in CYA mode on BOTH sides of the aisle.
I am behind your efforts 100% - thank you.
One of my family members writes for one of the networks broadcast newswires, and this individual was told NOT to break any news!!
Explains a lot doesn't it?
Wasn't there the first rumblings of this about the same time that Sandy Burgler was caught stealing documents from the citizens?
The CFR has had media locked up as well.
A shell game pure and simple for sure.
The post-Std Oil Rockefellers and the Intl Banking cabal pull all the strings.
After the "social reformers" took down Std Oil, Rockefeller joined them and created the CFR to influence everything from Universities to the medical professions with tons of tax protected foundation cash, always serving themselves but now instead in the name of the "public good".
Here's an excellent article/essay that fairly sums up the differences between citizens and those who seek to plan their lives for them, for their "own good", under laws they deem necessary to do it under. Very good stuff in here well worth re-quoting. I think you'll enjoy it immensely and want to share it. The presumtuousness of some of the "great" thinkers he quotes and where they got their grandiose ideas from is worth the read all by itself. At minimum, bookmark it for later review.
The Law (Stirling Translation, 1874) by Frederic Bastiat
The law perverted! How has this been accomplished? The right to assistance, the poor man's plunder. Partial and universal plunder. Explaining plunder. Socialism confounds Government and society.
Bossuet | Fenelon | Montesquieu | Rousseau | Raynal | Mably | Condillac | Saint-Just | Robespierre | Billaud Varennes | Lepelletier |
What sort of liberty should be allowed to men?
What is law? What ought it to be?
I cannot avoid coming to this conclusion
http://www.mises.org/story/2060
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.