Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:53 pm Post subject: Government foreknowledge
|One theory is that individuals within the United States government and private sector knew of the impending attacks and purposefully did not act on that knowledge. Former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher suggested this possibility. The theory does not necessarily suggest that individuals within the US Government actually conducted the operation, but rather that they had enough information to have prevented the attack.
Shortly after the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, stated that the government had been warned in 1995 about a future attack on a government building and that later he was contacted by three FBI agents who mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan.
According to the story, as the agents informed their superiors they were briefed not to pursue the issue and threatened with prosecution. David Schippers declared, "Five weeks before the September 11 tragedy, I did my best to get a hold of Attorney General John Ashcroft with my concerns." According to Mr. Schippers, Ashcroft responded that they do not start investigations at the top.
Mr. Schippers has said the information dated back to a 1995 warning that indicated a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device.
Author William Norman Grigg furthered the Schippers story in his article "Did We Know What Was Coming?" According to the article, three unnamed veteran federal law enforcement agents confirmed "the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the Bureau before September 11."
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) has asserted that over a year before the 9/11 attacks, a classified US intelligence unit known as "Able Danger" identified Mohammed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers as likely members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. (Able Danger was a SOCOM exercise.)
The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI, but the military's Special Operations Command rejected the recommendation. (New York Times, “Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00”, 8/9/2005)
Acting Pentagon Inspector General Thomas Gimble in a 71-page report given to Defense Department officials in September 2006 dismissed claims that an Army intelligence unit code-named Able Danger uncovered data that could have thwarted the September 11 attacks, saying the allegations could not be substantiated. "Able Danger team members did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker," "In fact, Able Danger produced no actionable intelligence information"
Reacting to the Pentagon report Rep. Weldon said "The report trashes the reputations of military officers who had the courage to step forward and ... describe important work they were doing to track al-Qaida prior to 9/11". 9/11 commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean said he hoped the report would put an end to discussion about Able Danger. "After this I don't know where it can go"
Pentagon officials said they have found three more individuals who recall an intelligence chart identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year prior to the attacks.
FBI agent and Al-Qaeda expert John P. O'Neill warned of an Al-Qaeda threat to the United States in the year preceding the attacks. He retired from his position in mid 2001 after an undisclosed source leaked information to the New York Times about an investigation into an incident that had occurred 13 months earlier. He was then recruited to be chief of security at the World Trade Center. His body was found in a staircase inside the south tower rubble.
Possible early warning
On September 12, 2001, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown may have received an early warning of the attack, because Brown had said a phone call from his airport security eight hours before the attacks advised him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. He did not cancel his flight plans until he became aware of the attacks.
Of the call, Brown said it "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement. It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."
Allegations of insider trading by people with foreknowledge
News accounts in the aftermath reported a suspicious pattern of trading in the options of United and American Airlines as well as Morgan Stanley and other unusual market activity.
In a statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003, Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, said:
"Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account."
However, according to the 9/11 Commission, the SEC and FBI examined each trade, the trades were innocuous, and no evidence of a connection was found:
A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, that recommended these trades.
Numerous conspiracy theorists express doubts that the Commission was actually able to explain worldwide trading patterns around the 9/11 attacks.