Wow. Can't think of another subject line for this one...

Story now in practically every newspaper worldwide... note that this is a whole new dimension of information, NOT a re-churning of what's already been known...

Congress and the Sept. 11 Commission have launched multiple investigations into reports that the Special Operations Command in Tampa held back information that could have foiled the 9/11 plot, officials said Tuesday. The fast-paced developments were in response to information provided by Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Weldon said a secret military unit known as "Able Danger" discovered a year before the attacks that ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers were in the United States...

When members of Able Danger made their presentation at command headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base, Weldon said, the legal team "put stickies on the faces of Mohammed Atta on the chart," to reinforce that he was off-limits.

"They said, "You can't talk to Atta because he's here on a green card,"' Weldon said.

Had SOCom shared the information with the FBI, Weldon said, 9/11 might not have happened.

SOCom is responsible for the nation's secret commando units, and has played a central role in the war on terror since 9/11...

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=atta+&btnG=Search+News

Perhaps the orders for the 911 attacks really did come from the White House...

 

A connection between 4 future hijackers.. from 19 . All i suspect replaceable.

It would have took a last minute 'strike' against these people for the plan to have not been either posponed or aborted...

 

it would have took (sic) the cia not to pay them the $100,000 for the plan to have been postponed or aborted...

 

$100,000 is chump change too OBL..

Plus he had finacial backing from his African 'connection'...

 

who said obl got the money anyway? it was the 'hijackers' fee for doing the gig (which they didn't realise was a suicide mission no doubt, they thought it was a war game)... the more i know u matthew, the more i realise that ur a real conspiracy theorist... 'his african connection'?

 

OBL gave it the green light and had as much to do with it as he had to do with the London bombings (very little)... more of a financial silent partner.

'the african connection' was a test to see if you were joking or not. I wanted a bit more thought than your somewhat of a joke (i thought). Now that i realise you are serious, i won't be so darned silly (well no more than usual). I only mentioned the 'african connections' because i have been reading about 'links' today..Just out of curiousity.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=african+islamic+terrorists+saddam&btnG=Google+Search&meta=



I still think 'you can't be serious' They did not know what they were doing ?.. Please james , this highlights more of a ridiculous specualtive theory than anything i could ever have dreamt of.

 

the new revelation is not what i find interesting about this but the fact that a member of congress (a republican no less) got the commission to investigate this claim, which i imagine is true as it fits in with other information about high-up protection of the hijackers. this follows on from the fox report the other day about the london bombings which said that the so-called mastermind of 7/7 was an mi6 asset. fox is the last corporate media u would imagine who'd run with a story like that. so what is happening here? my guess is it's a continuing battle between conflicted power groups in the us military-industrial complex. on one side we have the political ppl, represented by the neo-cons and rumsfeld et al, and on the other side the 'establishment' if u like: the ppl who've been running the cia for a long time now and dont want 2 see their economic interests (in money laundering and drugs principally) and power perogatives taken off them by the zionist upstarts. expect to see a story anytime soon that puts the focus (and the blame) back on rumsfeld or dod 4 allowing the hijacking to go ahead.

 

I worry about you James..

 

....dont forget the "72 virgins" lol

 

why?

 

man i wouldnt put anything past them, it so seems like something they would do. I cant see it ever being uncovered though, there so damn good at coverups and missdirection its like the status quo, hell we didnt even find out about the bikini islands being nuked until recently and thousands died there. four people died in the whitewater thing and people barely blinked, laughed it off as conspiracy theory. something like this will just fade away

 

You never dismiss anything, even if it is clearly speculative and the workings of 'CTs' who combine a grain of truth with shed loads of nonsense.. No disrespect god knows i am not one for clear and present thinking . but still . Your clinging to the words of a shiek (we don't even know who he is) speaking who knows when . to god knows what paper... You manage (sometimes) to convince yourself the latest info follows on like 1 2 3.. When it does not.

Fox is owned by Murdoch .. big deal he owns countless media outlets with wildly different editorial and political ideologies.. All he wants is percentages in markets.. I doubt he cares were his papers stand on this and that and apart from when he is being sued for libel or something, lets the machinations of the daily outpouring from his 'titles' go on and on and on and on.. .. He owns the Sun and also the Times with varying political viewpoints and allegiances.. And as newspapers are more 'comment' than news these days thats the 'bias' your reading into.

I was not being overly serious with that comment about worrying about you, it was just a reaction to a collection of wild ideas gathered together in one place. It was merely a off hand commet ..sorry.

 

speculative? the cia runs drugs and launders money? naw. that news is old hat.

uroh, u mean widely different political ideologies ranging from very extreme right wing to ordinary extreme right wing. show me one murdoch publication that argued against the us invasion of iraq or supports a new inquiry in2 9/11. u can't b/c there are none. that's the significance of this story running on fox. it goes completely against the habits of a lifetime for rupert. and if u follow his career u will know that he never does things like this by chance.

u don't need 2 apologise 4 anything dear. we're having a political argument. so no worries. we all get heated up now and then. anyway, what i said, as i prefaced my remarks, is only shooting the breeze. i have no idea what's really going on behind the scenes anymore than u do.

 

I was commenting on Aswat being a CIA asset.. another piece in your puzzle nicely and snuggly fitting in. Just the post in question, i hasten to add.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html

http://www.refuseandresist.org/war/art.php?aid=2052

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-1329748,00.html

Hardly a case for my point..but a reminder that they don't shy away from any kind of comment ..

I am humble [along with yourself] to admit this also.. don't show it often but i can admit too it

 

Speculation spiggy ... nothing more...from a right wing war mongering newspaper

 

right, in that case then it's new hat.

interesting array of things matthew. i particularly enjoyed resist and refuse, might even join i guess i was saying that murdoch's editorial policies consistently favour bush and blair on the important issues anyway. undoubtedly the papers will publish stories damaging to the side they favour, after all they are newspapers. did u ever see alex cockburn's piece on rupert 'the soul of rupert murdoch'? rather a good analysis i thought but possibly too left wing 4 u. he says that murdoch's newspapers and media are a kind of privatised propaganda machine that murdoch will lease out to whoever is in power or wants to be in power in exchange for favourable media regulations and legislation.

 

No i never read that article but will look for it. .... i have read countless opinions on the mans politics etc .. of course he will do these things he is a business man.. a right wing left wing middle ground whore.. as long as he prints interesting news opinion etc etc i don't really care what he personaly thinks.

http://www.refuseandresist.org/war/art.php?aid=2052




In a statement to Newsnight, Lord Goldsmith said: "In my parliamentary answer on March 17 2003, I explained my genuinely held independent view, that military action was lawful under the existing Security Council resolutions.

Lord Goldsmith's position was presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action.
It said it was "plain" Iraq continued to be in material breach of UN resolution 1441


"It was certainly not a view that I expressed as a result of being leaned on in any way, nor as I have already made clear, was it written by or at Number 10." The prime minister's official spokesman also rejected the claims, saying: "The attorney general made it clear the words and the judgement were his."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4290031.stm