Able Danger is a Red Herring

Recent revelations concerning Able Danger, the U.S. government program which identified later-named hijackers more than a year before 9/11, are a red herring. Specifically, they are an attempt to take the wind out of the growing 9/11 truth movement and to divert attention from the growing public awareness that 9/11 was an inside job. In propaganda language, Able Danger is a "limited hang out".

Why? Because Able Danger is receiving tremendous press, and yet it feeds into the "incompetence" theory of 9/11 -- Bush and the administration were negligent in failing to see the signs and follow the leads that would have prevented 9/11 -- instead of addressing the fact that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition or that the U.S. military was intentionally "stood down" through the use of multiple war games, the injection of false radar blips onto air traffic controllers' screens, etc.

However, that doesn't mean that -- if people bring up Able Danger -- we can't use it to our advantage. Specifically, in discussing Able Danger, some heavyweights are questioning the 9/11 Commission. For example:

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh said there was a "cover up" by the Commission, and he understood why the 9/11 families were calling for a new commission

Representative Chris Shays (R-CT), the Chair of the 9/11 Caucus and the Gov't Reform Subcommitee on National Security and Emerging Threats, said "If this wasn't reported by the Commission, what else wasn't reported." (CQ Weekly, Aug. 12)]

And Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer (Bronze Star recipient and Able Danger Liaison) said "Plus the 9/11 Commission may not have 'connected the dots' as completely as they could and should have - and that is my concern - and the concern of others working this issue - what else have we missed? Where else are we vulnerable? Was there an effort to ignore specific information? Why is there the appearance of a cover-up?"

Moreover, the efforts by 9/11 Commissioners themselves to smear the people leaking the Able Danger story shows that the Commission was never interested in the truth of what happened on 9/11, and will viciously attack anyone who questions the "official" 9/11 story.

In other words, the fact that "pillars of the establishment" are questioning the 9/11 Commission may help to discredit that cover-up operation. Once the main disinfo effort is discredited, maybe Americans will start engaging their brains in thinking about what really happened on 9/11.

So those spreading 9/11 truth should not raise Able Danger -- it is a red herring and a limited hang out (and anyone pushing Able Danger to the exclusion of more important 9/11 facts may be part of the disinfo effort). But if someone else raises Able Danger, you can use it as a bridge to talk about the real 9/11 issues: seize the opportunity to respond by pointing out that even the former FBI director has acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission engaged in a cover up, that prominent congressmen have said the Commission missed many other and more important facts and will smear anyone who brings up such facts, and THEN launch into what those facts are: controlled demolition of the world trade centers; the intentional and very active stand-down of the U.S. military, etc.

This is information judo: if the opponent tries to poke you in the eye to blind you, use his own motion to flip him on his back.