EXCLUSIVE: Witnesses in Defense Dept. Report Suggest Cover-Up of 9/11 Findings


By Catherine Herridge
Published October 04, 2010

A document obtained and witnesses interviewed by Fox News raise new questions over whether there was an effort by the Defense Department to cover up a pre-9/11 military intelligence program known as "Able Danger."

At least five witnesses questioned by the Defense Department's Inspector General told Fox News that their statements were distorted by investigators in the final IG's report -- or it left out key information, backing up assertions that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified a year before 9/11.

Atta is believed to have been the ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers who piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center. Claims about how early Atta first tripped the radar of the Department of Defense date back to 2005, but those claims never made it into the Inspector General's report. The report was completed in 2006 and, until now, has been available only in a version with the names of virtually all of the witnesses blacked out.

Fox News, as part of an ongoing investigation, exclusively obtained a clean copy of the report and spoke to several principal witnesses, including an intelligence and data collector who asked that she not be named.

The witness told Fox News she was interviewed twice by a Defense Department investigator. She said she told the investigator that it was highly likely a department database included the picture of Atta, whom she knew under an alias, Mohammed el-Sayed.

"When it came to the picture, (the investigator) he was fairly hostile," the witness told Fox News. She said it seemed the investigator just didn't want to hear it. "Meaning that he'd ask the same question over and over again, and, you know, you get to the point you go, well, you know... it's the same question, it's the same answer."

The IG report didn't accurately reflect her statements to investigators, she said, adding that she doesn't think the investigator simply misunderstood her.

Lt. Col Tony Shaffer, an operative involved with Able Danger, said he was interviewed three times by Defense investigators. He claims it was an effort to wear down the witnesses and intimidate them. Two other witnesses, one a military contractor and the other a retired military officer, said they had the same experience. The two witnesses spoke to Fox News on the condition of anonymity because they said they feared retaliation. A fifth witness told Fox that statements to investigators were ignored.

"My last interview was very, very hostile," Shaffer told Fox News last month before he was ordered by the department not to discuss portions of his book, "Operation Dark Heart," which included a chapter on the Able Danger data mining project.

When asked why the IG's report was so aggressive in its denials of his claims and those of other witnesses -- that the data mining project had identified Atta as a threat to the U.S. before 9/11 -- Shaffer said Defense Department was worried about taking some of the blame for 9/11.

However, It still isn't clear how -- or whether -- the information on Atta could have been used to the disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The big picture was not Atta, not so much the chart," Shaffer said. "The fact is this: That we had a pre-9/11 Department of Defense operation focused on taking action against Al Qaeda globally."

Specifically, the Defense Intelligence Agency or DIA wanted the removal of references to a meeting between Shaffer and the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, removed. Shaffer alleges that in that meeting, which took place in Afghanistan, the commission was told about Able Danger and the identification of Atta before the attacks. Shaffer, who was undercover at the time, said there was "stunned silence" at the meeting.

No mention of this was made in the final 9/11 Commission report.

"Dr. Philip Zelikow approached me in the corner of the room. 'What you said today is very important. I need you to get in touch with me as soon as you return from your deployment here in Afghanistan,'" Shaffer said.

Once back in the U.S., Shaffer says he contacted the commission, but without explanation, the commission was no longer interested.

Last month, the Defense Department took the highly unusual step of buying and destroying 9,500 copies of Shaffer's book "Operation Dark Heart" at a cost of $47,000 to U.S. taxpayers.

Click here to see Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, letter objecting to parts of the book.

When asked whether Defense Department stood behind the IG report's findings, Col. Dave Lapan, the acting deputy assistant Secretary of Defense said in a statement to Fox News dated Oct. 6, "The investigation found that prior to September 11, 2001, Able Danger team members did not identify Mohammed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker. While four witnesses claimed to have seen a chart depicting Mohammed Atta and possibly other hijackers or "cells" involved in 9/11, the investigation determined that their recollections were not accurate."

As for retaliation against Shaffer who said he lost his security clearance as a result of speaking out about Able Danger, Lapan said "The investigation found that DIA officials did not reprise against LTC Shaffer, in either his civilian or military capacity, for making disclosures regarding Able Danger or, in a separate matter, for his earlier disclosure to the DIA IG regarding alleged misconduct by DIA officials that was unrelated to Able Danger."

Separately, Fox News has obtained a letter that challenges the Defense Department's claim. In October 2006, then Rep. Christopher Shays, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, wrote to Shaffer's supervisor, Maj. Gen. Elbert Perkins, about the revocation of his clearance..

"Based on investigation of security clearance retaliation, it appears the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) used the security clearance system in an improper manner against LTC Shaffer and did not follow DOD security clearance guidelines," Shays, R-Conn., wrote.

Click here to see Shays' letter to Perkins.

In this case, the letter stated that the allegations used by the DIA to justify pulling Shaffer's security clearance included "the alleged misuse of a government cell phone in the amount of $67.00 and the alleged misfiling of a travel voucher for $180.00...these were not uniformed code of military justice (UCMJ) issues -- that there was no basis for punitive action and should be dealt with administratively...This decision cleared the way for LTC Shaffer's promotion, and his current 'good' standing in the Army Reserve.."

This investigation is part of an ongoing series, "Fox News Reporting.” Earlier this year, the series special "The American Terrorist" uncovered new details about the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is linked to the attempted Christmas Day bombing, and about efforts by the FBI to track and recruit him for intelligence purposes after 9/11.



Same IG that let NORAD off the hook for 9/11.

With regards to the fight for 9/11 Justice, here is how Able Danger helps I believe…

1) It is another example that information pertaining to some of the alleged hijackers was in the Government realm prior to 9/11 happening.

2) It is an example of Government retaliation against whistleblowers.

3) It shows how absurd the 9/11 Commission was.

4) It brings Philip Zelikow into the spotlight.

5) It brings up 9/11 whistleblowers in general.

6) It brings the CIA’s connection to the ISI into the spotlight.

7) It shows the Inspector General for the DoD was a fraud.

credit where it is due..

I appreciate Jon Gold's clear communication on the benefits of the Fox News piece. Give credit where it is due, not everything is simply black and white.. Fox News did half decent work reporting on Congressman Curt Weldon accusing a 9/11 panel of a cover-up in August 2005. The article was headlined 'Able Danger' Could Rewrite History.

Most independent researchers know Atta as a US operative, like the government operative who left a bomb in 1993 in the World Trade Center. Having an exclusive Fox News report on such evidence is truly welcome. Perhaps there is hope for some truth reporting from Fox, which is non-existent other mainstream media networks.

Thanks Jon for listing all the key points related to our efforts. Of course we can't depend on Fox going much further with the story, but it may in deed raise awareness for some where the dots begin to connect to the obvious government cover-up, which was used for engaging two tragic energy-drug wars, and financial burden for most all. I will link from www.FlybyNews.com

James E. Schmitz and Thomas

James E. Schmitz and Thomas F. Gimble were the two DoD IG's that reported on NORAD (Schmitz) and Able Danger (Gimble). I found that out yesterday. All I knew back then was that it was the same IG from the DoD.

All research of mine is with the video... in the description and in the comments. I have not written an article


It DOES NOT look good for them at all. Basically, because Trump brought up Pat Tillman, it reminded me of this. In 2009, Frank Rich from the NYTimes went on the Rachel Maddow show and said that all reports from the past "5/6 years" from the DoD Inspector General were questionable and they may have taken orders "from above." I looked up the names of the two DoD Inspector Generals and the first one (who let NORAD off the hook) resigned in disgrace, went to work with Blackwater, and was hired by Trump as a "Foreign Policy Adviser."

In 2010, it was reported that the second one (who said there was nothing to Able Danger) and his subordinates distorted and left out information, and intimated and were hostile towards witnesses.

The 9/11 Commission on these matters? LIARS BIG TIME!!! THEN they went to the DoD IG.

Now that I know their names...

It's very easy to find information on them within the Government or elsewhere. It turns out the WaPo reported on the name of the DoD IG instead of just saying "DoD Inspector General" for Able Danger (Thomas F. Gimble) the day after the release of the report. I might have missed that at the time because the importance of Able Danger was questionable to many, including myself (it seemed like they brought out Able Danger, so as to be able to point the finger at Bill Clinton, instead of Bush). It's not on my site. We learned later that it was both Administrations, Clinton and Bush (later Obama). If the corporate news mentioned their names instead of consistently saying "DoD Inspector General" for the most part, we may have figured out that they were two separate individuals (instead of thinking maybe their names were classified or whatever). I did so much research to find out their names, and I even went to this page, and didn't see the list (if I had scrolled down I would have seen it). When you take into account that both reports were made available to the public around the same time, it's not hard to think maybe it was the same DoD IG. No, they are not, and the fact that they are not shows us just how corrupt the position is overall. Even today, there are reports that make the current DoD IG not look good. There are other reports about different DoD IGs that don't make them look good (besides these two).

I just wrote this...


I just realized that Thomas Gimble is mentioned in the first report about NORAD, but as “Deputy Inspector General for Intelligence.” He’s listed in the report for Able Danger as “acting.” It’s possible that Gimble was the lead investigator on both? Maybe I was right and it was one DoD IG?

Burning of books?

What the heck can that mean? I work in publishing. If I get an order for my last 9500 copies of a title, my next call is to the printer for a new order. Something very fishy is going on.

books were not burned, but censored

The first printing was first approved by the Defense Department for security issues, but later they found something they wanted to conceal, so our so-called representative government bought the first printing, and the next printing will have certain parts of it deleted or changed,

Destroyed or burned

What's the difference? Aren't the censored sections now out in the wild?

I believe so

I believe I heard on a fox news report about his book that advanced copies were printed so it should be out there.


help finding the deleted-changed portion

I hope someone with the 1st printing of this book will highlight what was removed, and post at 911blogger.


Supposedly Wikileaks has a copy. According to the Twitter page.

O hell yes

Go Wikileaks.

Of course, if they release it, Schaffer's going to miss out on the revenue of books not sold but downloaded.

hmmmmmmmmmm Fox News...

Hmmmmmm, this is fishy.

My assumption is that this story is designed to make those that are for the first time believing there is a cover up, believe that the cover up is much smaller than in reality.

NO WAY would Fox news work towards the truth, lets remember how Fox news have worked against us.


Perfectly clear - and agreed - if it's on Fox there's no real info here and it does change the focus of the story line back to the patsies. By the way, how can the 100,000 plus that went into Atta's bank account possibly pay for nano-thermite and the contractors needed to place the charges? I'd say it's more than would go on his credit card, too.

How does nanothermite

cause Mohammed Atta and ISI links to 9/11 to cease to exist?

And why must Mohammed Atta have "paid for nanothermite" in order to have anything to do with 9/11?

You've absolved Atta from placing nanothermite in the WTC, so what?

Who is actually known to have done what?

No matter how often the news media assert it as beyond question, the role of Atta in the actual deeds of death and destruction at the WTC and the Pentagon is anything but clear to me. And so, the same is true of the role of the funds he received in those acts of death and destruction. The video footage from the Portland airport and the baggage that conveniently turned up at Logan airport (first they reported in a rental car, later changed to inside the terminal) just leaves too much unanswered. While tracing the trail of money that wound up in the hands of 9/11 suspects is pertinent to getting a grasp of the overall operation, I think it is also wise to be careful not to encourage people to keep assuming (as the government would like them to) that the terror attacks wouldn't have happened but for Atta's spending of funds which he recieved from ISI. What actually caused all those deaths on 9/11, who was responsible for it, and have the government's answers to those questions been credible?

Yes I know

There are many people who embrace no hijacker, no plane crash (AA 77, UA 93) or no passenger theories. I don't.

Where is Atta now? (Hint: he died inside AA 11)

Remember, either you admit Atta had intent to attack the United States or you assert that Anthony Schaffer and the entire Able Danger story are a hoax, as was Atta's flight training and the peculiarities surrounding it, as are Atta's surviving family members.

If I had to compile an entire list of evidence for government complicity and facilitation that would be moot if Atta was just a peaceful, irrelevant nobody, it would take me a long time. On the other hand, using these terse and random examples might never get the point across. Ask yourself the following: is everything I know learned by proving things false or by proving things true?

To be agnostic is not to 'embrace'

Why do some people presume that saying 'They haven't proven (x)' is the same as saying 'it wasn't (x)'?

Regarding Atta and whether he was on flight 11, my answer is still--maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. I'm not satisfied he was based on what's been offered us as evidence...but he may have been.

You assert, 'he died inside AA 11.' I'd be happy to know what has made you so sure of this.

I'd also like to know what the ISI funds were actually spent on before accepting as certain that those expenditures made possible the destructive acts of 9/11.

As for Atta's intentions and state of mind , I'm not sure what the best way is to go about ascertaining this. But I don't think my chief criterion would be, 'What best accords with what we've been told about Able Danger?'

And in any case, even if one were not satisfied with the claim of his 'intent to attack the United States,' I see no reason to presume that would necessitate the rejection of the 'entire Able Danger story' as a hoax. It's significant that people thought they had reason to believe he was dangerous and were ignored. But I'm not going to limit my view of how dangerous he actually was to what people thought they had reason to believe.

And in any case, prior concern that someone might do something bad--even if soundly based--is not sufficent proof that that someone actually did something once the deed is done. Police and prosecutors would have a much easier job in that case.

' is everything I know learned by proving things false or by proving things true?'

I consider knowing which things are false and (distinction) which things have not been proven to be true to be an important part of what a person knows, in addition to those things which are proven to be true. Here, we're talking about a major event that has been the subject of non-stop cover-up, deception, and the whole arsenal associated with informational warfare. The version of Atta most people have received has come to them courtesy of the purveyors of cover-up. I think it's important to avoid the trap of thinking we need to be able to prove what actually did happen before we can say that they haven't proven their version of what happened.


You have no understanding of what I wrote. It's obvious that Atta couldn't have been privy to the massive expensive operation that brought about the destruction and there's nothing in his records that were "found" to suggest he did.


You claim I have no understanding of what you wrote, then you repeat that Atta couldn't have been responsible for the 'controlled demolition' of the WTC. I agree. I agreed already in the post you responded to. My question is: what's your point?

I agree

You beat me to it. Fox News is not to be trusted, ever, and especially not in the arena of 9/11 truth.

How on earth did they get 'exclusive' access to a clean copy of the report?

Atta "exploited"?

I recall hearing John Judge telling how, when he was working for Cynthia McKinney, he encountered Shaffer outside a House committee hearing on Able Danger and asked him if Atta had been "exploited", in reference to the wording of the goals of the Able Danger operation. Shaffer replied something like: "That's why this hearing is closed." That's the best I can do on this. Anybody know Judge?


Agreed: Fox is not to be trusted !!!!!!!!!

Grand F*** up

My apologies for using profanity, but I can't think of a more descriptive term. I agree with those who are suspicious of both Fox News and the way this story redirects attention back to the patsies. Is this a big set-up? Are we being lead down a path that in a few years will summize that Defense/Intell were part of a "Grand Fuck up" in tracking the "hijackers," rather than having planned/enabled the attack, AKA Grand Conspiracy? I've even had weak moments when I've though Schaffer might be the biggest disinfo agent of them all (though I've contemplated the same about DRG and Sibel, too, so I don't take my doubts too seriously).

Also, Able Danger was shut down in 2000. That would be the Clinton administration, since Bush didn't take office until Jan 2001.

The book burning is too obvious and too in-your-face to be believed at face value. I agree, "somethings up."

Thank god we have the "Building What?" campaign and all the great work of the science professionals going for us. I still maintain it's our strongest suit. It's the one that got me hooked -- devoid of politics and interpretation. I'm watching everything, but I'm more hooked on CD than ever.

[ edited title for profanity, call me a nanny if you want - LW]

One of the many possible limited hangouts

is to pin 9/11 on the ISI and this could be part of that. Mr. Obama has been highly critical of Pakistan for years.

Fox could also be using this to put the Obama administration in a negative light, as well.

I think the reason the DoD bought the first edition is that they could not keep it from being printed and they probably got an injunction to prevent the second edition from being published until they can have some stuff removed.

And, as always, this could just be a big distraction to keep some spinning their wheels chasing wild geese.

While this is interesting and a bit tantalizing, let's keep track of what happens to the producer of this story, keep working everything as we have been and just see what happens next. Several times a week 911blogger gets sent things that are disinfo in one way or another, so the other side is definitely trying to mess with the 9/11 truth movement in any way it can (but WE ARE smarter than that, eh brothers and sisters?)

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.


has always been involved with 9/11.


And the ISI is linked to western intelligence:


So.. now ISI ties to 9/11 are 'disinfo'?


and my apologies to anyone who thought that's what I was implying. Allow me to clarify:

There are clearly some ISI / Pakistani elements involved in the 9/11 false flag operation, just as there are also elements from the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and the U.K. (and undoubtedly other countries).

I think that Pakistan was designed in to the operation as one possible state-sponsor cut out in a limited hangout. The 9/11 false flag operation was planned for at least two decades, so there are, almost certainly, multiple layers of cover-up contingencies, just as there was a very extensive contingency tree during the operation itself.

I've read and use historycommons.org extensively, it is an immensely valuable resource.

The disinfo that we receive never sees the public site, it gets moderated, btw.

Please don't hesitate to ask for further clarification.


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Which is why

I love the slogan: 9/11 was an outsourced job!

The reasons for outsourcing are the same: insulation. Expendables.


the last six weeks have produced the craziest string of events related to 911 truth issues in the mainstream since I've been a truther (2006). And this may be a sign of what's to come. I can only conclude that we are bigger than even we think we are and that we are touching a nerve(s). There are some keen and sober minds on this site, like yourself, and as you say, "We are smarter than that." Hope we can all sit around a big TV together once the next round of 911 hearings begin........ which WILL happen.

What I think is funny...

Is that Rupert Murdoch owned news outlets have reported on several things over the years that have been used repeatedly by members of the "9/11 Truth Movement."

For instance...

The Israelis arrested after 9/11.

Sibel Edmonds' story that was picked up by the Sunday Times. The only outlet in America to pick up on it? You guessed it, Fox News.

The Downing Street Memos were originally reported in the Sunday Times.

And how many local Fox Affiliates have covered 9/11 Truth issues over the years? SEVERAL. Including Dylan & Co.

And yet, we hear things like, "Fox is not to be trusted/NO WAY would Fox news work towards the truth/if it's on Fox there's no real info here."

I despise Fox News. However, I'm also aware that sometimes they occasionally report on the news.

When Able Danger was first reported on, I was skeptical of it because of how it focused on the Clinton Administration. Then, it started to focus on the Bush Administration. Now, Obama's DoD is getting in on the act. I saw the retaliation against Tony, and the fact that they destroyed his career.

It is possible they will try to make this a Clinton/Democrat issue before the upcoming elections, however, Tony has repeatedly told me that he is well aware that it goes back to the Clinton and Bush Administrations, and agreed with me the other night about the Obama Administration as well.

If they did, it would be nothing more than spin from Fox News, as usual. But the REAL story, as is often the case, is something completely different. The perspective I gave above is a context that will most likely not get mentioned.

It is also possible that Fox has taken such a beating lately that they're trying to regain some semblance of "credibility."

Someone suggested that this may be apart of Obama linking the ISI to 9/11. If the U.S. Government was going to play the "$100k wire transfer card" on Pakistan, it would have done so by now. Instead, it has done everything within its power to cover up any connection between the ISI and 9/11. Part of Tony's book talks about how he didn't trust the CIA because of their relationship with the ISI.

The individuals acting as if we should ignore everything except "Controlled Demolition" have no place here in my opinion. Individuals in general who act like that have no place with this cause in my opinion. It is cult-like, and they really need to take a look in the mirror when they accuse me of suppressing information.

This is one of my all time favorite clips.

On a local Fox News station...


And I can't stand Fox News!! OutFoxed is good reason why.

I don't question

that Fox reports news every once in a while, even though it's hard to believe.

However, the case of the dancing Israelis, please allow me to venture into speculation. I recently had an inspiration.

What if all of that were a psyop, planted disinfo, in which case Fox News would be an excellent waystation for kickstarting the "Jooos did it" meme that attracts anti-semites? Why would Mossad agents be dancing in public in view of the WTC? Are Mossad agents really taught to deliberately attract attention this retardedly? Drive around with a van with traces of explosives on 9/11? It seems like a deliberate frame up, buried in the media, "only reported" by Fox News, a scoop which will be defended to the death by whichever researcher who finds it, simply because he believes he found it, unwitting it was sitting there, planted, waiting to be 'scooped'. The Bush family and their advisers are overheard meditating precisely this tactic of planting 'deep disinformation' specifically for researchers to find. (As told in Russ Baker's book 'Family of Secrets')

Don't for one minute think this is far-fetched, because you know what they did to Dan Rather.

The other stories, well... yeah, occasionally some stories will slip through the cracks at Fox News. Shapiro's WTC 7 blunder comes to mind. He may have made a monumental blunder deploying his limited hangout scheme about Silverstein discussing "Controlled Demolition" on the phone the same day.

But Fox must be pushing the Able Danger story because they have some disinformational agenda with it. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense. It could be Fox News are informants for DoD, providing information about their DoD sources/leaks. Excuse my cynicism, but Fox News is the belly of the beast. And local Fox affiliates... I would presume they simply don't matter that much in the eyes of HQ, and so they aren't policed as strictly.

ETA: Admittedly, one other possible explanation, of course, is that Fox "News" must balance the equation every once in a while by actually reporting something existentially important without distortion and without any political agenda. It's possible, but ... it won't be happening too often, and certainly not on this subject.

ETA 2: Essentially what I was saying w.r.t. to Fox News and DoD, is that Fox' Able Danger reporting may be a whistleblower honeypot.

I don't think so...


You're right. For a moment, I convinced myself only Fox reported on the 'dancing Israelis'. This is incorrect, sorry. Thanks for pointing that out. Nevertheless, I would still like to brainstorm about the possibility that the 'dancing Israeli' - and related - incidents were a pysop, planted and acted out in order to be discovered by whoever would take the bait. If there were any real links to Mossad, they might be obscured this way - the essence of disinformation.

I certainly don't discount those stories I believe they happened, and I don't discount Sibel Edmonds either. Where did you get that idea Jon? I promoted her last in my article about Assange. :)

Anyways, the 'spilling of the beans' story you linked to doesn't mention Israelis, instead phrases it as follows:

"The names of the four suspects are not known, but one of the lead 9/11 hijackers, Marwan Alshehhi, and the sister of another, Mohamed Atta, will later be associated with the target of an FBI investigation connected to nuclear sciences, so this could possibly be a reference to this person (see July 1999)."

I presume you don't agree with this characterization of the four suspects?

As for that 'common occurrence' you link to at the end, I find that far from convincing. If there's any entity involved in pysop recently, it's IDF and Mossad, and I have extensive evidence of this. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the 'paid agent' / 'paid internet troll' phenomenon is being pioneered by Israel at the moment, but not as much in relation to 9/11 per se, but in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the corresponding propaganda war. The IDF and Mossad are acutely aware of the pressing need to improve Israel's PR, especially after the Flotilla incident, and they're willing to go to extreme lengths to do so. Scrubbing history of the 'art students' controversy by sending some more, this time merely to muddy the waters and confuse things, doesn't seem unthinkable, in fact, it seems possible and plausible.

I think it's assumed...

That the individuals were Israeli, since Israelis were arrested and let go after 9/11.


"Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks.

Edmonds said the State Department official once again proved useful. "A primary target would call the official and point to names on the list and say, 'We need to get them out of the US because we can't afford for them to spill the beans'," she said. "The official said that he would 'take care of it'."

My working hypothesis about the "dancing Israelis",

from the moment I first heard about them, is that they were intentionally provocative and intended to get caught, as a form of disinfo inoculation for the rest of the Israeli and/or Mossad operation.

Thus, when someone points out the "dancing Israelis" most people's first reaction is "who would be that stupid?, certainly not the Israelis, so this is nonsense pushed by anti-semites who want to blame the Jews for 9/11". They then dismiss all the other evidence showing links between the 9/11 false flag operation and Israel out of hand. This is why when I discuss the Israeli connections to the 9/11 false flag operation, I begin with all the other evidence and end with the "dancing Israelis".

I think it very important to keep in mind that the 9/11 false flag operation was planned for at least 20 years, so that many layers of disinfo and misinfo have been built in from the very beginning, which makes peeling away the layers all the more difficult and tedious. This is why I think so many retreat to the much more straight forward case for controlled demolition, as it is much easier to talk about with most of the public (i.e. it requires much less research and avoids the many unknowns involved in most of the other aspects of the 9/11 false flag operation).

I happen to love puzzles, so following the money and unraveling the various social networks is quite an enjoyable challenge for me.

Let's just keep following all the leads wherever they go, brothers and sisters, and share what we find as we go and together we will solve this crime and expose the responsible parties.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.


I like your analysis.

At the risk of seeming sarcastic

I found your commentary fair and balanced.

Please note that I'm not being sarcastic, at all. Well done, Jon.

You baffle me, Jon

In one post you can make an amazingly salient argument for why the Shaffer testimony is so important (see above), followed almost immediately by slamming those of us who prefer the apolitical, science-based approach, popularly known as Controlled Demolition. What's up with that? You have obviously come under attack by people in this movement. Welcome to the club. I get attacked too. So do a lot of other people who have strong opinions. But I have never declared that this or that person has "no place in the movement," with the possible exception of the "no-planers" and the "reptilian" theorists. Even the CIT crowd, with whom I have serious concerns, have a place in our movement. We are all looking for the truth about 9/11, and some of us are simply much more comfortable with the seriously flawed science-based issues than we are with political and military affairs. The work of Gage, Jones, Ryan, et. al. is without question on par with that of the Jersey Girls and the Press for Truth constituents. Most truthers I know have a healthy balance of both perspectives. I'm one of those people who thinks that in 2010, CD is our strongest suit, and I say it repeatedly here. Big deal. As far as being "cult-like," this whole friggin movement is cult-like, at the very least from an outsider's perspective. Please do us a favor and lay off the judgment. You have in the past and continue to have too much good to contribute to our cause. Leave your personal baggage at the door, please, and get on with whatever it is you do best. Thank you.

Show "The cult-like behavior..." by Jon Gold

Generally speaking,

I haven't found the advocates for controlled demolition any more cult like than those that put Dr. Griffin (and a few others) on pedestals.

Unfortunately, there are some people who act like cult members within any large movement, this says more about their personality type and the way they see themselves within a larger movement than it does about whatever evidence or subject they attach themselves to. This also says something about the relative maturity of the movement, it is old enough and large enough to have these small cliques within it (this is both positive and negative, imo). We, as a movement, just have to remain vigilant to not let these very small groups become either an internal distraction for the movement or become the public face of the movement. All part of the organic movement process, imo.

Jon, I think you may get the brunt end of some of these CD proselytizers because you took quite awhile to come around on controlled demolition, still do not give it primary status (which is your right as an activist, imo) and have a relatively high profile within the 9/11 truth movement. You have to realize that in some ways you have made yourself a target for this small group of people and your stubborn rejection of their lobbying (also your right, imo) further underscores their suspicion of you (completely unwarranted, imo). Then, for a sub-group of these folks, your ongoing efforts to keep your own research as broad as possible (an approach I also take, btw) and not narrow it down as they have, makes you even more suspect in their minds. Once again, this is due much more to their own personality types, a bit of an echo chamber effect, more than a little paranoia (part of their personality type) and the fact that you have attained a certain level of recognition within the movement, thus you make a convenient target for their suspicions.

When personality conflicts go on long enough they gain a life of their own, unfortunately, and using phrases like "church of controlled demolition" and "cult of CD" that have negative connotations only adds more energy to irrational viewpoints (humans are inherently irrational, so this is a pretty easy trap to fall into and requires constant work to avoid).

I have been criticized since I was eleven years old for being different and learned very early to take the high road, let my actions speak for me and now have very thick skin, which allows me to ignore those who have no case (while also respecting them for their existence, if nothing else).

Finally, I have never seen anyone "scared off" because of controlled demolition. I have seen people repelled by hostility and anger, which has been voiced in the promotion of all kinds of evidence regarding the 9/11 false flag operation, not just controlled demolition.

I hope that you and yours are well, Jon.

Thanks again for all your hard work on behalf of the family members, first responders and 9/11 truth.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

One possiblility

Is that Fox is flexing its muscle with the globalists so as to garner greater power or threaten a powerful agency. They will use 911 truth as THEIR leverage tool. If they show that they have enough info to blow it wide open, yet hold it closed while displaying that ability then they make their position abundantly clear and threatening to those agencies.
In this way they can claim power from the shadowy globalist interests that are afraid of 911 truth, but remain in allegiance with them.


911Peacenik said......."Also, Able Danger was shut down in 2000. That would be the Clinton administration, since Bush didn't take office until Jan 2001."

Sure about that? .........

">>>>>>>>>February 2001-March 2001: <<<<<<

The new Director of Operations for the DIA, General Ron Isler, has Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer brief him on a series of operations. According to Shaffer, Isler strongly objects to Shaffer assisting Able Danger. “I said, ‘Well, sir, with all due respect, this is an important operation focused on the global al-Qaeda target,’ and he said, ‘You’re not hearing me, Tony. This is not your job.’” After further disagreement, Shaffer recalls the argument ending, “‘Tony, I’m the two star here. I’m the two star. I’m telling you I don’t want you doing anything with Able Danger.’ ‘Sir, if not us then who?’ ‘I don’t know, but it’s not your job.’ And that effectively ended my direct support and my unit’s [Stratus Ivy] support to Able Danger.” Recalling how this helped end Able Danger, Shaffer says, “I remember the last conversation I had with Captain Scott Phillpott on this was a desperate call from him asking me to try to help use one of my operational facilities to at least try to exploit the information [Able Danger had collected] before it got lost.” However, Isler says he cannot recall any discussion with Shaffer about Able Danger.

BTW, historycommons seems to have the incorrect name...I believe his name was Rod Isler, not Ron..............

Okay, after the 2000 presidential elections, the Bush administration comes into power in January of 2001. How, if at all, does that change anything that Able Danger is doing? Do you get new guidance? Do you have a new hope that someone will listen to you? Is there a new round of proposals to get the information out to the FBI? What happens when President Bush takes over?"

At one point in time, the then Director of Operations [for the DIA] had me come in and brief him on a series of operations. This was February /March 2001. This general said, “I want you to explain to me every one of your operations in detail.” So, I started going through the laundry list of each operation and describing it to him."

"From moment one, it was a bad conversation. It was like, “Well, I don’t agree. Well, I don’t agree. Well, I don’t agree.” So, he basically was saying all the operational focus that I had been required to focus on by the previous leadership, by Colonel Harding, was not something he wanted to pursue. No matter how much common sense, no matter how much reason I tried to use with him, it seemed to be an emotional issue with him."

How do you explain his objections to your various activities?"

I can only speak to the facts. His opinion was, “That’s not part of your job.” As he walked through things, he kept saying, “I don’t see this as your job. This should be done by someone else.”

What was the name of the general who said “No, this is not your job.”

>>>>>>>General Rod Isler.<<<<<<<<<<

Don't feel bad for Rod, he got a nice job for a defense contractor.....

Rod Isler
Title and Company:
Vice President at General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems
Isler also served as the associate director of the Central Intelligence for Military Support at the Central Intelligence Agency and as the associate deputy director for operations (military support) at the National Security Agency. Isler retired from the U.S. Army in 2002

since UR quoting me

I am not SURE about anything, but History Commons also cites the Congressional record, which states:

"As best we can ascertain, US SOCOM had Raytheon, at the end of its effort in November of 2000, take most of the data that had been generated at Raytheon, and take it out of its system, essentially to purge it. A small percentage of information, roughly about one percent of that developed at Garland, was in turn transferred over to US Special Operations Command.” Cambone says the reason for this second massive data purge was, “[W]here we are by the end of the year 2000 is that, information that had been generated at LIWA [Land Information Warfare Activity] runs up against the concern about US persons information being stored improperly, as well as having the authority to do the operation for the Army.” [US Congress, 2/15/2006] Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer will later blame the retirement of Gen. Pete Schoomaker in October 2000 and his replacement by Gen. Charles Holland as a major reason for the shut down of the data mining effort. He says, “Gen. Holland, in my judgment, did not understand the concept, and order[ed] the effort to terminate its activities in Garland, Texas, and for the personnel to return to Tampa [Florida, the location of SOCOM headquarters].” Over the next few months, Holland will direct Able Danger to change into the Special Operations Joint Integration Center (SOJIC). According to Shaffer, “the teeth and operational focus [are] removed and the capability to do the complex data mining and mission planning support (leadership support) is eliminated,” effectively ending Able Danger. [US Congress, 2/15/2006]"

Obviously this is a gray area since the shut down of Able Danger seems to coincide with the transfer of power from Clinton to Bush. But if we are to believe the Congressional Record and Schaffer, the shut down definitely began before the 2000 (s)election and Bush's inauguration. This would be a good question to ask Schaffer, himself, although I think the record is pretty clear.

Lets not forget

Mr Schaffer's unqualified position that the does NOT believe the gov't had any hand in 9/11. Even though he was hung to dry by his own he must have done something right because I believe he as a cushy little teaching assignment at the infamous college of the americas. Although I am glad he did mention Zelikow visit to him in Afghanastan. Additionally, notice how buried the fact that all the evidence collected was deleted (like wtc steel). 2 terabytes worth I believe. Often with these pieces, its what they don't tell you. I think if they wanted to do a real piece they should have former congressmen Weldon on.

peace everyone


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie; deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy

CADS Center for advanced defense studies

Anthony Shaffer heads this up. What do you make of this project?

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer

crazy as a FOX

Methinks there is a simpler explanation of FOX's role in this. Consistently, news items working against the official version of 9/11 have been released piecemeal and in a non-coherent fashion in the mainstream media. This has the effect of a slow pressure release that prevents splashy investigative journalism by those who might be so inclined, leaving them only the more easily deflected role of weaving previously published stories into "conspiracy theories".

In the present case, FOX is making "old news" of the potentially explosive story of DOD's massive book purchase by blurring it into a piece that rehashes older news (Able Danger) that was previously released in a similar slow bleed fashion. If you listen very carefully, you can hear the slow release of pressure.

Patsies are useful idiots. Like them, FOX plays the part of the useful idiot news agency.

Zeilkow was told that we knew about Atta & the

hijackers before 911

He didn't even put that in the 911 commision report.

Therefore the report is 100% fradulent & Zelikow should go to jail.

re Curt Weldon

Anyone know what has become of Curt Weldon? I know his office or home was raided after he made a big stink about Able Danger. Then is seemed to disappear.