COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Able Danger

The military data-mining team that says it found Mohamed Atta in 2000

← Interactive guide and chronology · The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

The claim

Atta on a chart in 2000.

Able Danger was a Special Operations Command effort to map al Qaeda using data mining. Erik Kleinsmith, the Army intelligence chief who ran the analysis, testified that his team found “a surprisingly significant presence within the United States,” and that around spring 2000 he and a colleague “were forced to destroy all the data, charts, and other analytical products” not already passed to SOCOM, in line with rules on intelligence about U.S. persons. [2][3]

Shaffer said the team had identified Atta and other hijackers nearly a year before the attack, and that Defense officials stopped the team sharing it with law enforcement. The allegations became public in August 2005. [1]

What we can’t tell you. Kleinsmith’s written testimony does not itself say Atta was identified.

The sources

  1. DoD Inspector General, 18 September 2006: Alleged misconduct by senior DoD officials concerning the Able Danger program (H05L97905217), Federation of American Scientists copy ↗

    Found no evidence Able Danger identified Atta or other hijackers before 9/11 and did not substantiate claims of reprisal.

  2. Testimony of Erik Kleinsmith to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 21 September 2005 ↗

    The former Army intelligence chief who says he was ordered to destroy Able Danger data and charts in 2000.

  3. Senate Judiciary Committee, 21 September 2005: Able Danger and intelligence information sharing (hearing) ↗

    Testimony from Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and others who said a chart identified Atta in 2000.

What the investigations found

Not substantiated.

The Defense Department inspector general examined nine allegations and wrote: “We did not substantiate those allegations. The evidence did not support assertions that Able Danger identified the September 11, 2001, terrorists nearly a year before the attack, that Able Danger team members were prohibited from sharing information with law enforcement authorities, or that DoD officials reprised against LTC Shaffer.” It found “some procedural oversights.” [1]

Supporters say the inspector general could not find a chart because the data had been destroyed, and that several witnesses recalled the same thing independently.

What we can’t tell you. The Senate Intelligence Committee also reviewed Able Danger in 2006; its letter is a scanned document we could not read, so we do not report its findings.

The sources

  1. DoD Inspector General, 18 September 2006: Alleged misconduct by senior DoD officials concerning the Able Danger program (H05L97905217), Federation of American Scientists copy ↗

    Found no evidence Able Danger identified Atta or other hijackers before 9/11 and did not substantiate claims of reprisal.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

2 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 162 rated claims ↗

← The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFiles911 shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFiles911.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.