Is Able Danger A Hoax?

911=inside job recently asked my opinion about whether "Able Danger" is a hoax or not. I sent him this PM.

Quote Originally Posted by Gold9472
It depends on a few things. Is this true? Why does Curt Weldon still "support" both President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld? You'd really have to be a complete IDIOT not to see the criminality of the two of them.

I recently sent this to all of my "9/11 Truth" friends.

What are your feelings on Able Danger? I recently read the full text of Curt Weldon's appearance today, and something just didn't sit well with me.

Here's the text...

Statements like, "As a supporter of the President", and "support Don Rumsfeld" don't sit well with me. You'd have to be a literal idiot not to see how corrupt those two are. And to focus on Sandy Berger's crime, to specifically point it out, without pointing out Bush's fight against the creation of the commission, and ALL of the other evidence against Bush, makes Able Danger, and Curt Weldon "suspect".

It almost reminds me of the case they had against Clay Bertrand (Clay Shaw) in regards to the JFK Assassination. Something close, but not close enough... to "appease" the growing anger, and speculation about his death... maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.



Originally, as you can see by this thread, I have always been skeptical of "Able Danger".

With statements like:

"I think I'm beginning to see what this is... this is an attempt to move the focus away from Bush, and towards Clinton. However... if his efforts bring forth an investigation, that would destroy the Bush Administration, if it wasn't a "Witch Hunt" for Clinton..."

Not long after I saw that video, this article was released.

Who knows what to think?
I'd like to add a bit more. Why did the Able Danger "system" find a link between Al-Qaeda and Condoleeza Rice?

Why did the Pentagon refuse to allow Anthony Shaffer to testify? Is it like I said, a "Show"? Without knowing their testimony, it's hard to know that.

This brings attention to "9/11 Truth". That is ALWAYS a good thing. However, we must ALL recognize that it does NOT, and has not, focus on the ENTIRE story.

I see "Able Danger" as a possible "opening", but it is NOT by any means the whole story. I think the 9/11 Truth Movement as a whole should continue "covering" "Able Danger", however, I think we should always look at the story with a bit of skepticism. After all, it's not ludicrous to think that the "PTB (Powers That Be)" would create a story to end the story.

Here's what Nick Levis had to say about "Able Danger":

Able Danger does not "reinforce the hijacker myth." It begins to unravel it.

Certain people were presented as the perpetrators of 9/11.

The official story says they were unknown to US authorities beforehand.

Able Danger shows they were known. It fits in with the blanket surveillance of these guys before 9/11 we already know about (CIA, Mossad, German agencies).

This doesn't necessitate they were the real pilots or in involved in 9/11. It proves the government knew its patsies beforehand.

Pentagon then attacks Able Danger whistleblowers.

Is it a "limited hangout"? Certainly. Does it show a loose end that might unravel the whole myth?

I think so - a lot more reliably than some pixels you think show the planes had pods, missiles, or holograms.

And come on, don't you realize why Habib was singled out for this treatment?

McKinney's not on the front page as questioning 9/11 and she's in Congress.

Morgan Reynolds is not on the front page.

Griffin et al. are not on the front page.

Why does Habib make the front page?

Because it's an opportunity to single him out as a Muslim.

It's a good thing that 9/11 doubts were made public in this way.

But it's a distorted view.