HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Nov. 28, 2005 Congressman Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania is seeking to open an investigation into a US Army Intelligence Program called ‘Able Danger’, which was active from October, 1999 until some time in 2001, when it was disbanded. Weldon claims that the existence of Mohammad Atta and three other hijackers was known to members of Able Danger over a year before the hijackers mounted their attack on the World Trade Center, perhaps as early as the first part of year 2000. Able Danger engaged in an activity called ‘data mining’, whereby masses of information were analyzed by computer in the hopes of discerning patterns of behavior that might betray the infiltration of terrorists into the country. The information was destroyed when the unit was disbanded, which was standard operating procedure, according to officials. Weldon claims that the 9/11 Commission rejected attempts to get them to consider some of the allegations he is now making, years later. He feels that he has caused them embarrassment by turning up information that they failed to find. He also contends that the Pentagon is engaging in reprisals aimed at silencing or punishing his witnesses. Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer is Curt Weldon’s primary witness. Shaffer claims that he saw spreadsheets, now apparently destroyed, with pictures of the hijackers, well over a year before the attack. But he has admitted that he did not recall seeing the pictures until someone told him that the pictures had been there; then, thinking back, he remembered. Shortly after Weldon made his statements in the summer of 2004, the New York Times published an article to the effect that a second witness was backing up Shaffer’s allegations. This second witness, Navy Captain Scott Philpott, turned out to be the man who had informed Shaffer of the pictures in the first place. So he hardly amounts to a second witness. Rather he is the source that suggested the allegations. Major Eric Kleinsmith claims he was ordered to destroy the 2.5 terabytes—2,500,000 megabytes—of data under penalty of arrest. But the Pentagon claims that this was routine. A private contractor, one Mr. J. D. Smith, has also alleged that Atta’s name came up in data analysis in the time frame agreeing with Weldon’s assertions. Weldon has claimed that he presented to Stephen Hadley, Deputy National Security Advisor, a chart showing Atta’s name and picture. But when Hadley said he did not recall seeing the name and picture, Weldon admitted that he wasn’t sure that the name and picture were on the original chart, but they appear on reconstructed charts that he has been using to drum up support for his agenda. So the upshot is that Weldon has no documentary or virtual evidence whatsoever and is relying on the memory of three or four witnesses who claim that they saw Atta’s name and/or picture in documents around 5 years ago. If I had seen Atta’s picture 5 years ago, I am not sure I would recognize it today. In fact, I am not even sure I would be able to state with confidence that one picture of Atta depicted the same individual as another picture even only several days later. Atta’s full name is Mohamed Mohamed el-Amir Awad el-Sayed Atta. Even though I have devoted thousands of hours to studying Arabic, I still have trouble with those long complicated names. Not only that, but such names are susceptible of different renderings in English. Thus ‘Mohamed’ is spelled ‘Mohammad’ really, but in some more modern transcriptions, variants crop up. Moreover, Arabic has a number of doublets of consonants. In other words, for example, Arabic has two entirely different letters both of which are rendered ‘t’ in English. Final silent ‘h’ may or may be written; so we might have ‘Atta’ or ‘Attah’. Some of Atta’s documents bore the name ‘Mohamed el-Amir’. So I would be awfully hesitant about identifying an Arabic name that I had seen 5 years ago. I don’t know whether Curt Weldon has any motives beyond getting at the truth. It’s possible that he may be trying to embarrass the CIA or the 9/11 Commission or the Clinton administration. Or perhaps he has some vague misgivings that have been exaggerated. On the other hand, his concerns may be perfectly legitimate. He has about 200 congressional signatories to a petition he’s been circulating, in any case. But I don’t see that he has much of case. ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
