The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

If you did it illegally and while it was occupied you sure as hell attacked it! Can you show us the demolition permit for WTC 7 dated prior to 9/11?


Are you going Ace Baker on us and claiming it was instead vaporized? Because it sure wasn't 22 storys tall at the end of the day on 9/11... :rolleyes:
I could illustrate you and your charmingly empty headed colleagues evident difficulties understanding the meaning of the word "fall", but suffice to say, 22 stories in NY is not a skyscraper.

[mjd1982]

In point of fact the warnings were NOT unprecedented. There were many, many, MANY warnings prior to 9/11 that were similar and of which nothing came. Hence the reason for investigations into the credibility of the source and into the intelligence itself.

As an example; prior to the embassy bombings in Kenya, Tanzania, and Libya, there were numerous warnings from the IC about possible attacks against US interests abroad, but as with 9/11, they were vague and unspecified enough to make it nearly impossible to determine possible locations or targets. Looking back in hindsight we run into the same problem we have with 9/11; we see the warnings and say, "see, we should have beefed up security at embassies! It's clear now that they were talking about the embassies!" All the while forgetting that when the warnings were initially delivered we had no clue where possible targets might be.

Intelligence is and always will be a vague practice. In essence, an intel analyst is playing a giant guessing game. They're giving their best guess as to what will happen based on a series of factors and knowledge of the group or groups in question. It is not a perfect practice by a long shot; mistakes, sometimes costly ones, are made more often than most people care to admit, but at least it's better than doing nothing. It is notable that, whenever catastrophes like 9/11 occur, blame is immediately placed on the intelligence as if the intel agents should be omniscient and be able to explain exactly what will happen ahead of time, and that just isn't the case. President Bush and the rest of the government were working with vague intelligence that came at a volume only slightly higher than normal, and in response they requested more information in order to be able to make a more definitive action possible (i.e. the 70+ investigations undertaken by the FBI and other agencies). Given that the warnings we received (you know, the forty warnings that mjd says are so specific) contained NO actionable intelligence, rather than going off half-cocked, the government decided it would be better to search out more information. It's a decision faced EVERY TIME warnings come in, and not just by the government, but by the intelligence agencies and the military as well. Collectively they have to decide if it's worth it to take action right away or if it's better to wait for more information. Sometimes they're wrong, but more often they are right. It's just a shame that some of the times they're wrong is when tragedies like 9/11 occur, but they are only human; they are not gods.

And by the way, mjd, I dislike you acting as though those were the ONLY reports received the entire time; there are, at any given time, thousands of reports on various intelligence investigations circulating in the IC in my estimate, and while not all of those get up high enough to be inserted into the PDB, there were dozens of other reports that were in the PDB BESIDES those forty reports. The President receives the top fifteen or twenty, as I understand it (and I might be making a low estimate) reports his advisors feel are most important on a daily basis, and prior to 9/11, there were EIGHT MONTHS worth of PDBs in which those forty reports were scattered. Even taking my lowest estimate of fifteen reports per day for eight months, you still have around 3600 items that the President saw in his daily brief prior to 9/11. Explain to me, please, how those forty reports supposedly stood out over the other approximately 3560 reports he received that year prior to 9/11. Trust me when I say you can't.
The warnings were, in the words of Tenet, unprecedented. His opinion is worth more than yours, or mine. He was around at the time of the Millenium bomb threats, which I believe was the highest level of post war terror alert in the US. Hence we conclude that they were indeed, unprecedented in post war US history.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=200&before_9/11=warnings

[mjd1982]

MJD

After the posts in this thread about your friend Scott Forbes and his false or exagerrated claims regarding the power downs in the tower, it became apparent that you were claiming he was keeping very quiet about them because he had been warned by his company to put a sock in it or he would be fired.

You were quite specific in this and the fact that you would like it if we stopped sayiong we would contact his work or he would get in trouble. You said he has attended a few 911 meetings in the UK and posted on a few 911 boards but that is it.

What I want to know is how do you explain the fact I have just heard an interview he has done that was dated the 19 july??

He reiterates all his previous claims in some detail. Does this mean he has now decided to come forward with his claims and ignore the possible threat of repercussions from his company?

How do his claims, as they stand now, cross check with the fact that we now know there was power on floors in the tower that weekend?

Could you chase this up as it seems to make your claims look a bit suspect?

cheers
He is having to keep his head down. Please count the number of interviews he has done post 911, and you will see that he is doing this.

Incidentally, that interview would have happened shortly after the Rodriguez talk I think, which would explain why he would have felt an extra urge to get out and do something. Nonetheless, the above point still stands.

[mjd1982]

most employed people who I know who also have a life have no time to participate in phone polls and consider them a nuisance. It is conceivable that people with a political agenda will participate in an effort to give their agenda validity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics
How tragic and deluded. How unbelievably sad. How terrribly pathetic.

[mjd1982]

So you believe that "hiding something" with regards to the entirety of 9/11 implies "inside job?" Where did you get that particular interpretation?

Also, just as a technical aside, the MOE for the poll is +/-4%, so it's technically correct to say that 16% +/-4% (i.e.g 12 - 20 %) believe the Bush adminstration is hiding nothing about the 9/11 attacks, 49 - 57 % believe they are hiding something, 24 - 32 % believe they is mostly lying about what they knew, and 0 - 7 % are unsure. It doesn't say what the confidence level for the polling is, which is somewhat troubling.

All of which doesn't translate directly into "believe it was an inside job" or anything of the sort. Also, this is current as of October 2002, so you might want to consider getting more recent polling results.

Perhaps if some members of the Truth Movement could actually sponsor a scientific (e.g. as random as possible, unbiased sample) poll with unambiguous questions like "Do you believe that the Bush administration directly planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks using government agents? Yes/No" then you can make more definitive statements about how many people believe what... for whatever that's worth.
You have been posting here for how long? However long it is, you have wasted every single second you have been here. Because you dont understand what the purpose ofthe TM is- hardly any of your herd does. It is not "It was an inside job", rather "There is sufficient evidence of gov complicity to warrant a new investigation". This does also allow us to bypass the cowardly obfuscations that are all too prevalent here.

Understand the movement, and think about what you are doing with your life.

[Sabrina]

How tragic and deluded. How unbelievably sad. How terrribly pathetic.

Oh the temptation... but no, I'll be nice. I won't say it... no matter how easy it is.

[mjd1982]

That's because it's a response to a REALLY REALLY BAD post. And then your response is an even worse post. Hindsight is 20/20. Why weren't you raising these issues before 9/11? Oh right, YOU DIDN'T KNOW EITHER.

Perhaps you can tell us about all the future terrorist attacks that will happen so we can be ready now? Oh right, you don't know about them, just like everyone else. I guess it would only be fair to still fault you like you arr doing to others.

And you wanna know what? The biggest attack before 9/11 was unprecidented. And so was the one before that. And the one before that. Please stop using conjecture as facts.
errr....

Ok. 1. I am not saying the attacks were unprecedented, rather the warnings. Think before you post if you want me to reply to u.

2. I dont work in the intel community. Tenet does. Clarke does. They both agree with me. They both disagree with you and the rest of your class. Their opinions are worth many times more than yours. End of story.

[mjd1982]

Also, the poll was conducted just one month before the 2006 elections, not that that should bias anyone's responses. :rolleyes:
#3004.

If there was a weeping emoticon, I would be using it here.

[mjd1982]

Absolutely brilliant.

Good researching skills, MjD.
#3001

[volatile]

#3001

Wikipedia says that the word "skyscraper" is largely dependent on context, but that "at least 20 stories or more are required for a building to be considered a skyscraper".

Marriott had 22 stories. Unless you want to play a semantic game, WTC3 was a skyscraper as any normal person would understand it.

You were just shown to be hideously, hilariously wrong. Suck it up.

[JonnyFive]

You have been posting here for how long? However long it is, you have wasted every single second you have been here. Because you dont understand what the purpose ofthe TM is- hardly any of your herd does. It is not "It was an inside job", rather "There is sufficient evidence of gov complicity to warrant a new investigation". This does also allow us to bypass the cowardly obfuscations that are all too prevalent here.

Understand the movement, and think about what you are doing with your life.

Too bad the poll didn't ask that question either, which it easily could have. It's extremely ambiguous, and doesn't support the conclusions you think it does. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never studied either statistics or sociology (with emphasis on statistical data collection) to any great degree, or you would understand the problems with these polls.

Oh, I think I understand "the movement" quite well. I've seen a motley collection of paranoids, hangers-on, and assorted non-thinkers who are slavishly devoted to ignoring reality while simultaneously claiming that everyone who disagrees with their position is a mindless sheep. I've seen stunning displays of ignorance in various fields of science, politics, history, economics, and government (among other things). I've seen a lot of meaningless, pointless hand waving and nothing of substance.

I think you're just full of hot air, mjd. You're here to posture and prattle about your swell theories, churning out the same rehashed "evidence" as a dozen other posters here before.

Too bad you do nothing. You scream for a new investigation, but you do nothing to further what you claim to support. You can't even expound upon the "evidence" you post here, or respond to challenges to it with more than "see above."

Having seen you in action, I know the probability of you changing your position on anything approaches mathematical insignificance, so I frankly don't give a good god damn about trying to convince you.

I can only hope that any undecided parties privvy to this discussion can compare your cut-and-paste barrages of pseudo-argumentation to the responses from the other posters here and make up their own minds. I've seen too much of the logical black hole that is the "Truth" Movement to hope for much else these days.

See above, mjd1982; your points are already well-trodden, and no one here has to answer to you about anything.

[funk de fino]

1. Which report states this?

Are you being serious Incivility removed? It is in the 911 Commission report that you told me to go and read? it is obvious you have not read it.

Disruption operations against al Qaeda–affiliated cells were launched
involving 20 countries. Several terrorist operatives were detained by foreign
governments, possibly disrupting operations in the Gulf and Italy and perhaps
averting attacks against two or three U.S. embassies. Clarke and others told us
of a particular concern about possible attacks on the Fourth of July. After it
passed uneventfully, the CSG decided to maintain the alert.


and these were not the only operations.

2. What was the content of these operations. It doesnt matter if you are running after some chap in Dhaka, if when the FBI have Moussaoui handed to them by the French, the superiors prevent anyone from looking at his laptop even though agents are convinced he is about to fly a plane into the WTC, and recent intel suggests AQ are preparing to hijack planes and cause multiple, simultaneous attacks.

read the report

More to the point, it is common knowledge, understood and publicy stated by Clarke, Tenet and others, that the Bush admin didnt give a monkey's about the terror threat leading up to 911. This has been reported by all and sundry. If you are trying to argue against this, I dont think you are being very serious.

It will be very clear to people on here who is not being serious, it is the person who has twice accused me of being an American even after being told I am not as well as the person who tells me to read the 911 commission report and then fails to recognise information from it when it is posted

pathetic effort

[lapman]

You have been posting here for how long? However long it is, you have wasted every single second you have been here. Because you dont understand what the purpose ofthe TM is- hardly any of your herd does. It is not "It was an inside job", rather "There is sufficient evidence of gov complicity to warrant a new investigation". This does also allow us to bypass the cowardly obfuscations that are all too prevalent here.
So the "Truth Movements" constant chants, t-shirts, signs, etc. that say "9/11 was an inside job" doesn't mean that's what they stand for? So "inside job" is a super-duper secret code that means "new investigation." I knew I should have kept my super spy decoder ring. Thank you for clearing that up.
:boggled:

[funk de fino]

He is having to keep his head down. Please count the number of interviews he has done post 911, and you will see that he is doing this.

Incidentally, that interview would have happened shortly after the Rodriguez talk I think, which would explain why he would have felt an extra urge to get out and do something. Nonetheless, the above point still stands.

You cannot say he is keeping his head down due to some threat from his employers and then say it is OK to give an interview last month??

This makes your claims look rather foolish, if you are keeping your head down you do not do interviews.

Regardless, his claims in the interview are still incorrect as regards the amount of floors that were powered down

I take it this will cause problems with FT now as they will be aware of it?

[stateofgrace]

How tragic and deluded. How unbelievably sad. How terrribly pathetic.

What is truly pathetic, tragic and deluded is yourself, dear boy. I have repeatedly offered you an outlet to take your evidence to, you have repeatedly ignored it, dismissed or avoided it. I have offered you an organisation that has 186 countries who have all pledged to bring everybody involved in this crime against humanity to justice. You have repeatedly refused to even consider submitting your evidence to them and I have repeatedly asked you why. This is one of many places you could take your evidence, again you will refuse and again I would ask you why.

I am though asking you questions sunbeam, I am actually going to answer these questions for you. The answer,sunbeam, is because you come from here.

http://www.crank.net/usenet.html (http://www.crank.net/usenet.html)

Here you will find yourself along with all the other self important people. This is the world you inhabit, it is the make believe world that the rest of the planet reject. This rejection is your bitter pill. This rejection is the sad reality of your sad little world where you feel so important. It is the pain of being utterly rejected that drives you to come here and call me and anybody else sheep, vile, fools or whatever other label you wish to put on people who further reject you. It is here you vent your fury at the world that totally and utterly rejects you and your pathetic movement. It is here you try to show everybody just how important you are, how everybody should listen to you, everybody should respect and admire your towering intellectual mind and grasp on worlds events. It is here you try desperately to inflate your ego and try desperately to pretend you are not one of lives rejects.

And when you are done, you have achieved nothing, zero. The world moves on, you are still unimportant and so you will remain. I personally have no further use of you, you have served my purpose, and you have proved beyond any shadow of a doubt what a complete and utter waste of time it is to even try and engage in anything other than complete and utter rejection of your silly movement, is pointless. I will leave this thread and engage you no further in this or other thread. Of course you will declare victory and pretend that your superior intellect as defeated yet another sheep. Reality is I simply cannot be bothered reading your self righteous, arrogant, pretentious drivel any longer. You are welcome to your little paranoid world, you deserve it.

Goodbye, little man, I have no doubt you will still be here in another seventy odd pages of mind boggling nonsense, blowing your own trumpet, feeling all self important and pretending you are the saviour of humanity. Humanity has rejected you sunbeam, the entire planet as rejected you, I now join the rest of the planet and reject you.

End it.

The end,welcome to ignore.

[jsfisher]

#3004.

If there was a weeping emoticon, I would be using it here.


You'd do better with facts than with tears, but it's your choice.

[HyJinX]

Ahhhhhhh....another day, another mjd tyrannical conniption fit.

[Sabrina]

The warnings were, in the words of Tenet, unprecedented. His opinion is worth more than yours, or mine. He was around at the time of the Millenium bomb threats, which I believe was the highest level of post war terror alert in the US. Hence we conclude that they were indeed, unprecedented in post war US history.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=200&before_9/11=warnings

Tenet is one man. Clarke is one man. Do you honestly believe that if the majority of the intelligence community believed the same as these men, that they would keep silent about it? Sorry, no. The majority of the IC views Tenet as a golddigger saying what he says in order to sell his book.

I speak with intelligence professionals daily. I have put the question to them regarding the so-called "unprecedented" warnings, and they have all said that they felt the warnings were not, in fact, unprecedented; unusual certainly, and fairly vivid and obvious in retrospect, but not unprecedented. I also find it interesting that the very report you cite does not mention "unprecedented warnings". It says there was a "significant increase in information indicating bin Laden and Al Qa'ida intended to strike against U.S. interests in the very near future" (bolding mine; note that U.S. interests is a blanket term in the IC referring to any U.S. businesses, embassies, etc both here and abroad) and that "Beginning in 1998 and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received a modest, but relatively steady, stream of intelligence reporting that indicated the possibility of terrorist attacks within the United States. Nonetheless, testimony and interviews confirm that it was the general view of the Intelligence Community, in the spring and summer of 2001, that the threatened Bin Ladin attacks would most likely occur against U.S. interests overseas, despite indications of plans and intentions to attack in the domestic United States." (again, bolding mine; hardly seems like the IC considered the warnings "unprecedented" doesn't it?). And then there's this:

Finding: Although relevant information that is significant in retrospect regarding the attacks was available to the Intelligence Community prior to September 11, 2001, the Community too often failed to focus on that information and consider and appreciate its collective significance in terms of a probable terrorist attack. Neither did the Intelligence
Community demonstrate sufficient initiative in coming to grips with the new transnational threats. Some significant pieces of information in the vast stream of data being collected were overlooked, some were not recognized as potentially significant at the time and therefore not disseminated, and some required additional action on the part of foreign governments before a direct connection to the hijackers could have been established. For all those reasons, the Intelligence Community failed to fully capitalize on available, and potentially important, information. (emphasis mine).
Many things are significant in retrospect that were not at the time. That's human nature, to look at an incident in the fullness of time and realize its significance AFTER the fact. Add to that the IC being hampered by the other factors in play, and you realize the issue.

Moving a little further on in the document, we come across this little gem:

Finding: Prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community’s understanding of al-Qa’ida was hampered by insufficient analytic focus and quality, particularly in terms of strategic analysis. Analysis and analysts were not always used effectively because of the perception in some quarters of the Intelligence Community that they were less important to agency counterterrorism missions than were operations personnel. The quality of
counterterrorism analysis was inconsistent, and many analysts were inexperienced, unqualified, under-trained, and without access to critical information. As a result, there was a dearth of creative, aggressive analysis targeting Bin Ladin and a persistent inability to comprehend the collective significance of individual pieces of intelligence. These analytic deficiencies seriously undercut the ability of U.S. policymakers to understand the full nature of the threat, and to make fully informed decisions.

Looks like the warnings might not have been so obvious for the administration, doesn't it? And if they didn't see how obvious the warnings were, how, pray tell, were they to make the best decision possible?

In all honesty, mjd, I find your condescension and know-it-all attitude to be extremely rude and certainly unwarranted. I may not have as much experience as Tenet or Clarke, but I certainly have more experience than you do when it comes to the business of intelligence, AND I have the advantage of having access to individuals who know more than both of them AND myself. I believe I will be joining stateofgrace in no longer responding to your threads, as you have demonstrated time and again you do not care how articulately and knowledgably people respond to you so long as they feed your need for attention. It's sad, and it's wrong, and I will have no further part in it. Feel free to claim your hollow victory if it pleases you, but just remember, you're going to end up dying friendless and alone because you drove everyone away with your condescending BS. Hope that makes you happy.

[Unsecured Coins]

Damn... I love you.

[JonnyFive]

In all honesty, mjd, I find your condescension and know-it-all attitude to be extremely rude and certainly unwarranted. I may not have as much experience as Tenet or Clarke, but I certainly have more experience than you do when it comes to the business of intelligence, AND I have the advantage of having access to individuals who know more than both of them AND myself. I believe I will be joining stateofgrace in no longer responding to your threads, as you have demonstrated time and again you do not care how articulately and knowledgably people respond to you so long as they feed your need for attention. It's sad, and it's wrong, and I will have no further part in it. Feel free to claim your hollow victory if it pleases you, but just remember, you're going to end up dying friendless and alone because you drove everyone away with your condescending BS. Hope that makes you happy.

Yes, that sums it up rather well, I think.

I'm not sure precisely what mjd hopes to accomplish here, but he would be wise to remember that old saying involving small, irritating insects and congealed sugar of some sort or another.

[DGM]

MJD:
I hope Tenet wasn't just covering his butt in his testimony to the commission.

The inquiry boards were recommended for officials including former CIA Director George Tenet, his deputy director for operations Jim Pavitt, Counterterrorism Center Chief Cofer Black, and agency Executive Director A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard.

U.S. spy agencies, which were overseen by Tenet, lacked a comprehensive strategic plan to counter Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. The inspector general concluded that Tenet “by virtue of his position, bears ultimate responsibility for the fact that no such strategic plan was ever created.”
The CIA’s analysis of al-Qaida before Sept. 2001 was lacking. No comprehensive report focusing on bin Laden was written after 1993, and no comprehensive report laying out the threats of 2001 was assembled. “A number of important issues were covered insufficiently or not at all,” the report found.
The CIA and the National Security Agency tussled over their responsibilities in dealing with al-Qaida well into 2001. Only Tenet’s personal involvement could have led to a timely resolution, the report concluded.
The CIA station charged with monitoring bin Laden — code-named Alec Station — was overworked, lacked operational experience, expertise and training. The report recommended forming accountability boards for the CIA Counterterror Center chiefs from 1998 to 2001, including Black.
Although 50 to 60 people read at least one CIA cable about two of the hijackers, the information wasn’t shared with the proper offices and agencies. “That so many individuals failed to act in this case reflects a systemic breakdown.... Basically, there was no coherent, functioning watch-listing program,” the report said. The report again called for further review of Black and his predecessor.

You see MJ it's still being investigated.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20378187/

[WildCat]

22 stories in NY is not a skyscraper.
So 22 is not, but 47 is? My, isn't that convenient for you!

And if it didn't fall, what happened? Was it dustified? Was it bombed to kingdom come?

[WildCat]

The warnings were, in the words of Tenet, unprecedented.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf
No, those were the words of Richard Armitage, describing Tenet. From your link:
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, in his testimony, described his recollection of the threat and the U.S. Government’s response:
"We issued between January and September nine warnings, five of them
global, because of the threat information we were receiving from the
intelligence agencies in the summer, when [DCI] George Tenet was
around town literally pounding on desks saying, something is happening,
this is an unprecedented level of threat information."
And followed by:
He didn’t know where it was going to happen, but he knew that it was coming.
Interesting that you think the first part is incontrovertible truth, but the second is a blatant lie. Or you'd have to think that the Director of the CIA, Tenet, knows nothing of the conspiracy. This really makes sense to you mjd1982?

[Belz...]

Damn... I love you.

We ALL love Sabrina, I think.

Now all she needs to do is change that dull Avatar for something more <growl>.

[Belz...]

I could illustrate you and your charmingly empty headed colleagues evident difficulties understanding the meaning of the word "fall", but suffice to say, 22 stories in NY is not a skyscraper.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/608045fd3950b30f8.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4645)

Understand the movement, and think about what you are doing with your life.

Appeal to emotions.

If there was a weeping emoticon, I would be using it here.

Ignoring contrary evidence is not a hobby for you, Mjd. It's genetic.

Why don't you just counter the argument instead of dismissing it ?

[Sabrina]

We ALL love Sabrina, I think.

Now all she needs to do is change that dull Avatar for something more <growl>.

I'll make a note of that and change it at home, Belz. *chuckles* I have an avatar you might like that I use on other forums.

[Swing Dangler]

Looks like the warnings might not have been so obvious for the administration, doesn't it?

Sabrina, I would like to know your thoughts on the following discussion George Tenet and with Larry King live on national television regarding the warnings and how specific they actually were.
The following quotes relate directly to 9/11.

TENET: Well, you know, Larry, I'm more critical at the back end. I'm more critical about when we saw data that came forward, when we understood what this insurgency looked like, we under -- when we understood the implications of de-Baathification, when we understood the implications of disbanding of the Iraqi Army, when we took the Sunnis and basically shoved them off, when we looked at what was happening on the ground, I think that we had a lot of data in our possession, data that we faithfully reported that we all should have done a better job at.
Look, these are tough jobs and -- and I think -- and I think particularly in the post-war environment, I think we looked at data. I think that data was available. I think the intelligence was clear. I think the course should have been changed.

KING: Did you warn her or threat -- did you warn her that a threat was imminent?

TENET: You're talking in the run-up to 9...

KING: Yes.

TENET: ... to 9/11?

Well, you know, we provided, I think...

KING: You knew there was a threat imminent.

TENET: Well, sure. There was -- we had a meeting on July 10th and we -- we, you know, I jumped in the car and went down to see the national security adviser. We believed that there were -- the threat was imminent, there would be multiple spectacular...

KING: What did she do?

TENET: Well, she got it. She understand the nature of the threat. She turned around, she had the deputies convene. Other things happened around that time. We had asked for -- we had asked for specific authorities to help us get into Afghanistan. We had asked for those in the spring. This all came a little bit slowly.

But, Larry, everybody now wants to look at was one person responsible?

Look, look, policymakers and law enforcement intelligence, all of us in this owed the families of 9/11 better than they got. Human beings make mistakes. There's no silver bullet in any of this.

So having the game of who did what and what happened, look, this was the most painful day of our lives.

Larry King:So did we provide strategic warning?

George Tenet: Yes.
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...30/lkl.01.html

[Cuddles]

Really? The citizens of France, Britain, Germany, Australia, Japan, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Norway, Greenland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, they're all don't know the facts or are just sheep? What a wonderful world view you have.

In all fairness, the citizens of New Zealand and parts of Britain are sheep.;)

[Sabrina]

SD: The link no longer works; could you please supply one that does so that I may read the entire transcript?

[Unsecured Coins]

SD: The link no longer works; could you please supply one that does so that I may read the entire transcript?

in other words...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/suck.jpg

[mjd1982]

Wikipedia says that the word "skyscraper" is largely dependent on context, but that "at least 20 stories or more are required for a building to be considered a skyscraper".

Marriott had 22 stories. Unless you want to play a semantic game, WTC3 was a skyscraper as any normal person would understand it.

You were just shown to be hideously, hilariously wrong. Suck it up.

There is no official definition or a precise cutoff height above which a building may clearly be classified as a skyscraper. However, as per usual practice in most cities, the definition is used empirically, depending on the relative impact of the shape of a building to a city's overall skyline (even though at least 20 stories or more are required for a building to be considered a skyscraper). Thus, depending on the average height of the rest of the buildings and/ or structures in a city, even a building of 80 meters height (approximately 262 ft) may be considered a skyscraper provided that it clearly stands out above its surrounding built environment and significantly changes the overall skyline of this particular city.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper

therefore, 3 was not a skyscraper, by this definition. End.

[Unsecured Coins]

another lost argument you claimed to have won. 76 pages later and you still don't get it, do you?

[mjd1982]

You cannot say he is keeping his head down due to some threat from his employers and then say it is OK to give an interview last month??

This makes your claims look rather foolish, if you are keeping your head down you do not do interviews.

Regardless, his claims in the interview are still incorrect as regards the amount of floors that were powered down

I take it this will cause problems with FT now as they will be aware of it?
As I have told you, just because he has just done an interview, it doesnt mean he is not keeping his head down. This is very, very simple to comprehend.

[WildCat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper

therefore, 3 was not a skyscraper, by this definition. End.
By that definition, WTC 7 was not a skyscraper.

[mjd1982]

Tenet is one man. Clarke is one man. Do you honestly believe that if the majority of the intelligence community believed the same as these men, that they would keep silent about it? Sorry, no. The majority of the IC views Tenet as a golddigger saying what he says in order to sell his book.

I speak with intelligence professionals daily. I have put the question to them regarding the so-called "unprecedented" warnings, and they have all said that they felt the warnings were not, in fact, unprecedented; unusual certainly, and fairly vivid and obvious in retrospect, but not unprecedented. I also find it interesting that the very report you cite does not mention "unprecedented warnings". It says there was a "significant increase in information indicating bin Laden and Al Qa'ida intended to strike against U.S. interests in the very near future" (bolding mine; note that U.S. interests is a blanket term in the IC referring to any U.S. businesses, embassies, etc both here and abroad) and that "Beginning in 1998 and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received a modest, but relatively steady, stream of intelligence reporting that indicated the possibility of terrorist attacks within the United States. Nonetheless, testimony and interviews confirm that it was the general view of the Intelligence Community, in the spring and summer of 2001, that the threatened Bin Ladin attacks would most likely occur against U.S. interests overseas, despite indications of plans and intentions to attack in the domestic United States." (again, bolding mine; hardly seems like the IC considered the warnings "unprecedented" doesn't it?). And then there's this:

(emphasis mine).
Many things are significant in retrospect that were not at the time. That's human nature, to look at an incident in the fullness of time and realize its significance AFTER the fact. Add to that the IC being hampered by the other factors in play, and you realize the issue.

Moving a little further on in the document, we come across this little gem:



Looks like the warnings might not have been so obvious for the administration, doesn't it? And if they didn't see how obvious the warnings were, how, pray tell, were they to make the best decision possible?

In all honesty, mjd, I find your condescension and know-it-all attitude to be extremely rude and certainly unwarranted. I may not have as much experience as Tenet or Clarke, but I certainly have more experience than you do when it comes to the business of intelligence, AND I have the advantage of having access to individuals who know more than both of them AND myself. I believe I will be joining stateofgrace in no longer responding to your threads, as you have demonstrated time and again you do not care how articulately and knowledgably people respond to you so long as they feed your need for attention. It's sad, and it's wrong, and I will have no further part in it. Feel free to claim your hollow victory if it pleases you, but just remember, you're going to end up dying friendless and alone because you drove everyone away with your condescending BS. Hope that makes you happy.
Very simple. We can either go with what the most senior man in the US intel community, and one of the most senior men in the US intel community has to say about it, or, we can go with what you say some people have said to you about it.

As with everything here, there is no choice to be made. It is too simple

[mjd1982]

Damn... I love you.
Err, mate, I think i told you on slc, this aint the lonely hearts page

[mjd1982]

So 22 is not, but 47 is? My, isn't that convenient for you!

And if it didn't fall, what happened? Was it dustified? Was it bombed to kingdom come?
1. LMAO

2. It was destroyed.

[WildCat]

Very simple. We can either go with what the most senior man in the US intel community, and one of the most senior men in the US intel community has to say about it,
You're talking about Tenet, right? The guy who says they had no no idea where or when or how it would happen? So you admit there was no actionable intel prior to 9/11? And you are abandoning your claim that because they knew precisely where WTC 1 would fall on WTC 7 and exactly where the fires would and wouldn't rage they therefore knew exactly where to place the bombs that would blow up the building 7 hours later?

[Sabrina]

Well, since Swing Dangler never answered me, I looked up the transcript myself, and not that surprisingly, there's more to it than just that one section. Before I go any further, I would like to request to any mods reading this post that the posts relating to this subject be moved to a new thread, as they have no relation to the OP; thank you. That being said, I have read the transcript and I've found a few things that would seem to contradict the idea that George Tenet thinks we had everything we needed to prevent 9/11. I also found a few quotes from other members of the administration that would seem to support my current opinion that many people view George Tenet as more of a golddigging opportunist than a brilliant man who's always right. Case in point:

KING: Six former CIA officers write a highly critical open letter to you, among other things, describing you has[sic] having been the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community. One of those officers, Larry Johnson, spoke with CNN earlier today.

Here's some of what he had to say.

Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM "AMERICAN MORNING")

LARRY JOHNSON: I think George Tenet owes the soldiers and their families who have died or have been killed or wounded in Iraq part of the proceeds of his book, because now -- he could have stood up and spoke out when he had the chance, when he had the job. He could have changed the course of American history.

Instead, he kept silent and now he wants to get a $4 million payday and $50,000 speaking engagements. The man is profiting from the blood of American soldiers and I think he owes America -- Americans more than just an "I'm sorry."

That's at least one individual who would seem to support my idea of what the IC thinks of Mr. Tenet. His response would also seem to support what I have been arguing all along; that simply because we have intelligence that is obvious in retrospect does not mean we would have automatically been able to prevent anything.

TENET: Well, Larry, when -- when Mr. Johnson attacks your integrity that way, there is a lot of things you can say. But I'd like to say a couple of things.

First of all, our job -- my job -- I -- I viewed my job to protect American soldiers, to make them safe. The notion that we -- I have blood on my hands is just -- just something I will never accept.

Now, let's get down -- let's get down to issues for Mr. Johnson.

The implication, of course, is I knew how bad this was all going to be and didn't speak up.

Well, Larry, nobody had that kind of wisdom. I wasn't prescient. I will say this, we called them as we saw them when we got on the ground in Iraq. When we understood how badly a post-war plan would be implemented, we spoke truth to power.

We always did our best to tell people what we thought, why we thought and made it as clear as possible. We were wrong on weapons of mass destruction. We were not wrong on what happened in the post-war Iraq environment. And the notion -- and the notion that I didn't look at my job as a sacred responsibility to protect those soldiers, to warn them, to make sure that when they were put in harm's way, we didn't give them the best intelligence, well I -- I just can't agree with that.

Now granted, this is more about the war in Iraq than 9/11, but it's still relevant to show my point. Mr. Tenet is saying that just because we have the intelligence, doesn't always mean we know exactly what it's telling us. A lot of the time we have to go with what amount to "gut feelings" when making determinations. They're based on patterns and other factors, but they're still basically a "best guess".

Moving on to the 9/11 quotes; I'll repost what Swing Dangler had in his post and then respond.

TENET: Well, you know, Larry, I'm more critical at the back end. I'm more critical about when we saw data that came forward, when we understood what this insurgency looked like, we under -- when we understood the implications of de-Baathification, when we understood the implications of disbanding of the Iraqi Army, when we took the Sunnis and basically shoved them off, when we looked at what was happening on the ground, I think that we had a lot of data in our possession, data that we faithfully reported that we all should have done a better job at.

The NSC should have done a better job by itself.

Look, these are tough jobs and -- and I think -- and I think particularly in the post-war environment, I think we looked at data. I think that data was available. I think the intelligence was clear. I think the course should have been changed.

KING: Did you warn her or threat -- did you warn her that a threat was imminent?

TENET: You're talking in the run-up to 9...

KING: Yes.

TENET: ... to 9/11?

Well, you know, we provided, I think...

KING: You knew there was a threat imminent.

TENET: Well, sure. There was -- we had a meeting on July 10th and we -- we, you know, I jumped in the car and went down to see the national security adviser. We believed that there were -- the threat was imminent, there would be multiple spectacular...

KING: What did she do?

TENET: Well, she got it. She understand the nature of the threat. She turned around, she had the deputies convene. Other things happened around that time. We had asked for -- we had asked for specific authorities to help us get into Afghanistan. We had asked for those in the spring. This all came a little bit slowly.

But, Larry, everybody now wants to look at was one person responsible?

Look, look, policymakers and law enforcement intelligence, all of us in this owed the families of 9/11 better than they got. Human beings make mistakes. There's no silver bullet in any of this.

So having the game of who did what and what happened, look, this was the most painful day of our lives.

So did we provide strategic warning?

Yes.

I would like to note that the transcript actually has TENET and not Larry King asking as well as answering that last question; it wasn't Larry asking the question and Tenet answering, as Swing Dangler's post seems to show, but as that is probably an honest mistake, I won't harp on it. I will however point out another important part of this response that wasn't highlighted before; namely that there was "no silver bullet" as I've highlighted, and also that he is more critical "at the back end"; or, in other words, in retrospect. And it should be noted that there's a big difference between offering a strategic warning and telling someone "this is exactly what will happen". I would also like to post a few more quotes from Tenet from the same interview:

KING: Was there fear?

TENET: Well, of course there was, Larry.

I mean, you know, the homeland in the United States was -- was struck. You know, it -- during the millennium, in the year 2000, we told the president of the United States to expect between five and 15 attacks against the United States either here or overseas. We told President Clinton, you know?

And if you look back historically, one thing -- one thing that didn't happen was that fellow in -- in Vancouver who came over on the ferry who was going to bomb the Los Angeles airport. A very alert woman on the border picked that guy up.

In hindsight, when you go back and look at that, it was the first hint -- they're coming here.

So, the moral of the story?

The moral of the story, people -- people are now inconvenienced when they go to the airport. People don't like the fact that we have to be vigilant.

Well, the country was absolutely unprotected on 9/11 -- borders, visa policies, how we did airline security, how we thought about securing the country.

We all thought terrorism was over there, not here.

TENET: Look, the country is saver[sic] than it once was. We put in -- you know before 9/11 we didn't have any of the security measures we have in place. That creates a huge deterrent. You have to keep working at it every day with great religion, OK.

What are they counting on? You're going to get lazy. You're going to get sloppy. The longer you get away from the event; Americans will lose their appetite for protection, security, and other kinds of -- it's not pleasant. It's not pleasant. While we work at this overseas and try and get new plot lines and while the FBI works at it here and tries to develop more leads, you need to protect the country and be vigilant about it. And you can't get lazy about it.

KING: Was, in retrospect, 9/11 preventable?

TENET: Larry, you know, we probably -- we probably sat around and thought about that. I wish I could tell you there was a silver bullet. One thing that would have happened that would have made it so. I can't. If you go looking through the literature, you looking through everything that happened, you know there are multiple places where everybody should have done better. I can't point at one thing that, said, "God, if we'd only done this."


KING: What's the biggest failing in government? What's the biggest problem in getting things done, making things happen?

TENET: Well, Larry, everybody believes -- the biggest failure about how we're thought of is everybody believes that everybody's in this -- everybody knows everything, everybody has perfect judgment. We've got hundreds of things going on everyday. When you come back and look at something and put the spotlight on it, you and everybody else believes, well, my God, how could you miss something like this, when the pressure you were under and things you were doing. So there's a lack of patience and tolerance. There's a lack of understanding of risk. There's a lack of understanding of the fact, human beings make mistakes. We all do all the time. You can't design a perfect mousetrap.

It would seem even TENET doesn't think we did anything horribly wrong as regards our actions prior to 9/11. That while we had the intelligence (which no one disputes, I might add; the only thing we dispute is that we understood it unfailingly) we can't honestly say that if we'd just sat up and done this thing or that thing, that 9/11 would have been prevented. Even that PDB about bin Laden only said that they thought he would attack either in or out of the US; it didn't say anything about when, how, how bad it could be, etc. "Spectacular attacks" isn't very specific; dramatic yes, specific, no. Every intelligence professional I've spoken to since beginning to work in the IC has said they felt that, while the intel was there, it wasn't specific enough to raise the kind of red flag that would be needed to have prevented 9/11. So if you're asking me if I feel that we did everything we could to prevent 9/11, the answer would be no, but only because I can look back in retrospect and see what is now obvious when you look back at it. The recent report released by the CIA would seem to support that stance. However, that does not automatically translate to the idea that we knew what was happening and either chose to let it happen or orchestrated it ourselves. As for Tenet, he doesn't seem as solidly on the side of "the warnings were completely specific" like some truthers would have you believe, if this interview is any indication. Rather he accepts that mistakes were made, that things were obvious with hindsight, but he recognizes that the pervading issues within the IC and the entire country, to some extent, contributed to being unable to prevent the greatest tragedy this country has known since the Civil War, and every member of this administration including him, from the lowliest aide all the way up to the President, bears some of the blame and guilt for letting it happen. And he is, ultimately, in my opinion, right. However, I still think he's a golddigging opportunist.

ETA: Almost forgot two things; first, if you want to read the transcript yourself (I highly recommend it; it's very interesting) you have to search it on Google yourself, as the link I found is the same one Swing Dangler posted that didn't work when I clicked on it for some odd reason. I have no reason to believe my link will work any better, so just Google "Larry King Live transcripts George Tenet" and it should be the first link posted there. Second, as this post is in response to Swing Dangler and not anything from the author of this thread, I would like to respectfully request that said author not respond to this post, as I have no intention of feeding his need for attention. Thank you.

[mjd1982]

Oh, incidentally...

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/22/1421223


The CIA's Inspector General has concluded the CIA...failed to act on information indicating that suspected Al Qaida members had been dispatched to the United States. The newly declassified report released states that the CIA had identified two of the 9/11 hijackers as threats over a year before the attacks. But the CIA failed to rapidly pass their names --- Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar -- on to the State Department or to the FBI. The report said that between January and March 2000, up to 60 individuals read CIA cables about how the two men were expected to travel to the United States. It wasn't until late August 2001 that the men were put on watch lists that might have resulted in their capture before the attacks


This is getting almost unbearably hilarious....

[WildCat]

Oh, incidentally...

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/22/1421223
It was illegal for the CIA to pass on anything to the FBI.

This is getting almost unbearably hilarious....
It is indeed. But how long can we watch you chase your tail in circles? Will a "conspiracy fact" emerge from this thread?

[mjd1982]

Well, since Swing Dangler never answered me, I looked up the transcript myself, and not that surprisingly, there's more to it than just that one section. Before I go any further, I would like to request to any mods reading this post that the posts relating to this subject be moved to a new thread, as they have no relation to the OP; thank you. That being said, I have read the transcript and I've found a few things that would seem to contradict the idea that George Tenet thinks we had everything we needed to prevent 9/11. I also found a few quotes from other members of the administration that would seem to support my current opinion that many people view George Tenet as more of a golddigging opportunist than a brilliant man who's always right. Case in point:



That's at least one individual who would seem to support my idea of what the IC thinks of Mr. Tenet. His response would also seem to support what I have been arguing all along; that simply because we have intelligence that is obvious in retrospect does not mean we would have automatically been able to prevent anything.



Now granted, this is more about the war in Iraq than 9/11, but it's still relevant to show my point. Mr. Tenet is saying that just because we have the intelligence, doesn't always mean we know exactly what it's telling us. A lot of the time we have to go with what amount to "gut feelings" when making determinations. They're based on patterns and other factors, but they're still basically a "best guess".

Moving on to the 9/11 quotes; I'll repost what Swing Dangler had in his post and then respond.



I would like to note that the transcript actually has TENET and not Larry King asking as well as answering that last question; it wasn't Larry asking the question and Tenet answering, as Swing Dangler's post seems to show, but as that is probably an honest mistake, I won't harp on it. I will however point out another important part of this response that wasn't highlighted before; namely that there was "no silver bullet" as I've highlighted, and also that he is more critical "at the back end"; or, in other words, in retrospect. And it should be noted that there's a big difference between offering a strategic warning and telling someone "this is exactly what will happen". I would also like to post a few more quotes from Tenet from the same interview:







It would seem even TENET doesn't think we did anything horribly wrong as regards our actions prior to 9/11. That while we had the intelligence (which no one disputes, I might add; the only thing we dispute is that we understood it unfailingly) we can't honestly say that if we'd just sat up and done this thing or that thing, that 9/11 would have been prevented. Even that PDB about bin Laden only said that they thought he would attack either in or out of the US; it didn't say anything about when, how, how bad it could be, etc. "Spectacular attacks" isn't very specific; dramatic yes, specific, no. Every intelligence professional I've spoken to since beginning to work in the IC has said they felt that, while the intel was there, it wasn't specific enough to raise the kind of red flag that would be needed to have prevented 9/11. So if you're asking me if I feel that we did everything we could to prevent 9/11, the answer would be no, but only because I can look back in retrospect and see what is now obvious when you look back at it. The recent report released by the CIA would seem to support that stance. However, that does not automatically translate to the idea that we knew what was happening and either chose to let it happen or orchestrated it ourselves. As for Tenet, he doesn't seem as solidly on the side of "the warnings were completely specific" like some truthers would have you believe, if this interview is any indication. Rather he accepts that mistakes were made, that things were obvious with hindsight, but he recognizes that the pervading issues within the IC and the entire country, to some extent, contributed to being unable to prevent the greatest tragedy this country has known since the Civil War, and every member of this administration including him, from the lowliest aide all the way up to the President, bears some of the blame and guilt for letting it happen. And he is, ultimately, in my opinion, right. However, I still think he's a golddigging opportunist.

ETA: Almost forgot two things; first, if you want to read the transcript yourself (I highly recommend it; it's very interesting) you have to search it on Google yourself, as the link I found is the same one Swing Dangler posted that didn't work when I clicked on it for some odd reason. I have no reason to believe my link will work any better, so just Google "Larry King Live transcripts George Tenet" and it should be the first link posted there. Second, as this post is in response to Swing Dangler and not anything from the author of this thread, I would like to respectfully request that said author not respond to this post, as I have no intention of feeding his need for attention. Thank you.
Oh, and no, this shouldnt be moved, since I have mentioned SD's comments in #750, and in the repeat of 750, ~#2900

[Unsecured Coins]

Err, mate, I think i told you on slc, this aint the lonely hearts page

darn... I guess I'll be like you and go start a thread about how no one likes me then

[DGM]

Oh, incidentally...

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/22/1421223



This is getting almost unbearably hilarious....
Yeah, Seems Bush wasn't getting the info he needed. I hope Tenet wasn't trying to cover his but, the inquiry into him will find that out.

BTW try reading the actual report. I posted to it earlier.

And MJ: We have known all along that there were screw-ups in the intel community. Humans are like that.

[funk de fino]

As I have told you, just because he has just done an interview, it doesnt mean he is not keeping his head down. This is very, very simple to comprehend.

No, it is a contradiction that is very, very simple to see

A few posts on messageboards under a username, a few clandestine meetings with fellow UK truthers is keeping your head down, giving interviews is not

get a grip

If as you say FT are keeping tabs on him he is busted - No?

[Belz...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper

therefore, 3 was not a skyscraper, by this definition. End.

Er... no that's not what it says.

Mjd. I'm truly amazed at your ability to read something in a text that's NOT in that text (or vice-versa). How do you do it ?

LMAO

Yes, you truthers sure do LYAO at the death of 3000 people.

There, some of your own medecine.

[twinstead]

There, some of your own medecine.

mjd gets all indignant, outraged, and if that's possible even more arrogant when somebody does the same thing to him that he does to other people in his posts.

It's kind of funny.

[Belz...]

I'll make a note of that and change it at home, Belz. *chuckles* I have an avatar you might like that I use on other forums.

Unholy mother of HELL!

I like it.

Unfortunately I won't be believing that's you.

Unless I'm shown more proof, that is! ;)

[Sabrina]

It's not me; just an avatar I like to use because I think it's pretty. I have a bunch of pictures similar to this that I use on occasion. Trust me when I say I'm not that pretty, nor could I wear what she's wearing and pull it off like she does. As far as I know it's just a painting or picture someone photoshopped together.[/derail]

[Unsecured Coins]

odd... I wore the same thing in that picture to the store last night...

[Swing Dangler]

Well, since Swing Dangler never answered me, I looked up the transcript myself, and not that surprisingly, there's more to it than just that
one section.
Sorry, Sab, I just read your post the following day. There is more to it of course but that revolves around, as you said, Iraq. The 'more to it' is Tenet's way of saying there is no one to blame, ie. covering his hide and the administrations hide. It has no relevances to the fact of what George presented to Condi.
That being said, I have read the transcript and I've found a few things that would seem to contradict the idea that George Tenet thinks we had everything we needed to prevent 9/11. I also found a few quotes from other members of the administration that would seem to support my current opinion that many people view George Tenet as more of a golddigging opportunist than a brilliant man who's always right. Other opinions of Tenet have no bearing on his warning to the administration, so I don't feel the need to address that. George Tenet did not commit our troops to war, the President did.

Moving on to the 9/11 quotes; I'll repost what Swing Dangler had in his post and then respond.

Quote:
TENET: Well, you know, Larry, I'm more critical at the back end. I'm more critical about when we saw data that came forward, when we understood what this insurgency looked like, we under -- when we understood the implications of de-Baathification, when we understood the implications of disbanding of the Iraqi Army, when we took the Sunnis and basically shoved them off, when we looked at what was happening on the ground, I think that we had a lot of data in our possession, data that we faithfully reported that we all should have done a better job at.

The NSC should have done a better job by itself.

Look, these are tough jobs and -- and I think -- and I think particularly in the post-war environment, I think we looked at data. I think that data was available. I think the intelligence was clear. I think the course should have been changed.

KING: Did you warn her or threat -- did you warn her that a threat was imminent?

TENET: You're talking in the run-up to 9...

KING: Yes.

TENET: ... to 9/11?

Well, you know, we provided, I think...

KING: You knew there was a threat imminent.

TENET: Well, sure. There was -- we had a meeting on July 10th and we -- we, you know, I jumped in the car and went down to see the national security adviser. We believed that there were -- the threat was imminent, there would be multiple spectacular...

KING: What did she do?

TENET: Well, she got it. She understand the nature of the threat. She turned around, she had the deputies convene. Other things happened around that time. We had asked for -- we had asked for specific authorities to help us get into Afghanistan. We had asked for those in the spring. This all came a little bit slowly.

But, Larry, everybody now wants to look at was one person responsible?

Look, look, policymakers and law enforcement intelligence, all of us in this owed the families of 9/11 better than they got. Human beings make mistakes. There's no silver bullet in any of this.

So having the game of who did what and what happened, look, this was the most painful day of our lives.

So did we provide strategic warning?

Yes.
I would like to note that the transcript actually has TENET and not Larry King asking as well as answering that last question; it wasn't Larry asking the question and Tenet answering, as Swing Dangler's post seems to show, but as that is probably an honest mistake, I won't harp on it. I will however point out another important part of this response that wasn't highlighted before; namely that there was "no silver bullet" as I've highlighted, and also that he is more critical "at the back end"; or, in other words, in retrospect. And it should be noted that there's a big difference between offering a strategic warning and telling someone "this is exactly what will happen". I would also like to post a few more quotes from Tenet from the same interview:

Quote:
KING: Was there fear?

TENET: Well, of course there was, Larry.

I mean, you know, the homeland in the United States was -- was struck. You know, it -- during the millennium, in the year 2000, we told the president of the United States to expect between five and 15 attacks against the United States either here or overseas. We told President Clinton, you know?

And if you look back historically, one thing -- one thing that didn't happen was that fellow in -- in Vancouver who came over on the ferry who was going to bomb the Los Angeles airport. A very alert woman on the border picked that guy up.

In hindsight, when you go back and look at that, it was the first hint -- they're coming here.

So, the moral of the story?

The moral of the story, people -- people are now inconvenienced when they go to the airport. People don't like the fact that we have to be vigilant.

Well, the country was absolutely unprotected on 9/11 -- borders, visa policies, how we did airline security, how we thought about securing the country.

We all thought terrorism was over there, not here.
This is laughable in the face of the OKC bombing, but I digress.

Quote:
TENET: Look, the country is saver[sic] than it once was. We put in -- you know before 9/11 we didn't have any of the security measures we have in place. That creates a huge deterrent. You have to keep working at it every day with great religion, OK.

What are they counting on? You're going to get lazy. You're going to get sloppy. The longer you get away from the event; Americans will lose their appetite for protection, security, and other kinds of -- it's not pleasant. It's not pleasant. While we work at this overseas and try and get new plot lines and while the FBI works at it here and tries to develop more leads, you need to protect the country and be vigilant about it. And you can't get lazy about it.

KING: Was, in retrospect, 9/11 preventable?

TENET: Larry, you know, we probably -- we probably sat around and thought about that. I wish I could tell you there was a silver bullet. One thing that would have happened that would have made it so. I can't. If you go looking through the literature, you looking through everything that happened, you know there are multiple places where everybody should have done better. I can't point at one thing that, said, "God, if we'd only done this."
Quote:
KING: What's the biggest failing in government? What's the biggest problem in getting things done, making things happen?

TENET: Well, Larry, everybody believes -- the biggest failure about how we're thought of is everybody believes that everybody's in this -- everybody knows everything, everybody has perfect judgment. We've got hundreds of things going on everyday. When you come back and look at something and put the spotlight on it, you and everybody else believes, well, my God, how could you miss something like this, when the pressure you were under and things you were doing. So there's a lack of patience and tolerance. There's a lack of understanding of risk. There's a lack of understanding of the fact, human beings make mistakes. We all do all the time. You can't design a perfect mousetrap.
It would seem even TENET doesn't think we did anything horribly wrong as regards our actions prior to 9/11.
Of course not. If there were, fingers would have to be pointed and of course that hasn't happened as no one was demoted or fired to my knoweldge.


That while we had the intelligence (which no one disputes, I might add; the only thing we dispute is that we understood it unfailingly) we can't honestly say that if we'd just sat up and done this thing or that thing, that 9/11 would have been prevented.

Do you honestly believe that hijackers would have not been prevented if security measures were implemented immediately? The box cutters and possibly knives would have made it through security when a 75 year old man is yanked out and searched and has his toe nail clippers confiscated?


Even that PDB about bin Laden only said that they thought he would attack either in or out of the US; it didn't say anything about when, how, how bad it could be, etc. "Spectacular attacks" isn't very specific; dramatic yes, specific, no.
Unfortunately, Larry King cut off Tenet from getting into details so we are unaware if the warnings would have been more specific or not. He may have followed up with airliners, trucks, etc. Who knows what might have followed.


Every intelligence professional I've spoken to since beginning to work in the IC has said they felt that, while the intel was there, it wasn't specific enough to raise the kind of red flag that would be needed to have prevented 9/11. Increased security at airports and U.S. air marshals or armed pilots would not have prevented 9/11?


So if you're asking me if I feel that we did everything we could to prevent 9/11, the answer would be no, but only because I can look back in retrospect and see what is now obvious when you look back at it.
Would you agree then that the administration sat on the intel and did nothing with security measures to prevent 9/11?

The recent report released by the CIA would seem to support that stance. However, that does not automatically translate to the idea that we knew what was happening and either chose to let it happen or orchestrated it ourselves. As for Tenet, he doesn't seem as solidly on the side of "the warnings were completely specific" like some truthers would have you believe, if this interview is any indication. Rather he accepts that mistakes were made, that things were obvious with hindsight, but he recognizes that the pervading issues within the IC and the entire country, to some extent, contributed to being unable to prevent the greatest tragedy this country has known since the Civil War, and every member of this administration including him, from the lowliest aide all the way up to the President, bears some of the blame and guilt for letting it happen. And he is, ultimately, in my opinion, right. However, I still think he's a golddigging opportunist.

Do you think Tenet ignored the "Atlantic Rules" that were in place as early as the inauguration of 2001 and even earlier with the Republican Convention?

Source for the following: http://www.justiceblind.com/airplanes.html
All of the following accounts are documented and can be found within the mainstream media:
. Graham says there were at least 12 instances in which intelligence found information outlining terrorist plans to use airplanes as weapons, there were at least 12 instances in which the plot could have been interdicted but mistakes by individual people assured it did not happen (and yet not a single person has been held accountable for their failures), and the plot was very complex and resilient. In fact, as Graham notes: “I find a pattern of substantial logistical, personnel, and kills development and financial support consistent with what the President was told in his fateful August 6 briefing. I further suspect that the pattern of such support was more pervasive than is currently known or acknowledged”. Graham also says this structure of support was maintained by a nation-state [and no he does not say it was Iraq!].

Graham asserts that “after September 11, members of the Bush administration would claim that nobody could have imagined that planes might be used as weapons, during the course of our inquiry, we found that the possibility had been imagined, investigated, and interdicted more than once, and that in one case the Pentagon had been a target”! His examples include:


* Algerian terrorists who in 1994 tried to fly an Air France plane into the Eiffel Tower;

* Project Bojinka in 1995 to blow up 11 planes simultaneously and crash a twelfth into CIA headquarters and thirteenth into the Pentagon;

* An August 2001 plot to fly a plane into a US embassy in Nairobi or bomb it from a plane.


But of course, there is much, much more evidence! Consider for yourself the following:

• 1990-1996: Mary Schiavo, former Inspector General for U.S. Dept. of Transportation (1990-1996) resigned after the FAA tried to classify her report detailing lax security at the nation's major airports. Agents were able to sneak fake bombs, hand grenades, guns and knives through metal detectors. Congress, according to Schiavo, was not interested in making it hard on the airline industry, so they swept it under the rug!

• 1993 – A Pentagon expert postulates that an airplane could be used as a missile to bomb national landmarks. This idea is not published in the “Terror 2000" report.

• 1994 – Phoenix FBI discovers videotapes two men trying to recruit an FBI informant to be a suicide bomber, one of which is linked to Sheikh Abdul-Rahman (the blind Shiekh incarcerated in New York for his role in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993).

• 1994 – Three planes are crashed or attempted to crash into buildings this year. A Fed Ex employee tries to crash a DC-10 into a company building in Memphis but is overpowered by the crew. A lone pilot crashes a small plane onto the White House grounds. An Air France flight is hijacked by terrorists linked to al Qaeda, with the goal to crash it into the Eiffel Tower, but French Special Forces storm plane before it takes off.

• Bob Graham asserts that since at least 1994, intelligence agencies received information indicating terrorists were contemplating using aircraft as weapons, and this information did not lead to any specific intelligence assessment of this form of threat or any government reaction to it.

• December 1994 – Ramzi Yousef plants a small bomb on Philippine Airlines flight to Tokyo as part of a trial run of Operation Bojinka.

• January 1995 – Philippines disrupts Operation Bojinka to explode 11 or 12 passenger planes over the Pacific Ocean and to crash others into prominent US buildings. Philippines warns US of targets for attack, including CIA headquarters, Pentagon, nuclear power plant, TransAmerica Tower (San Francisco), Sears Tower (Chicago), and World Trade Center. Plotter Abdul Hakim Murad is handed over to FBI in April 1995 and he identifies 10 other men in flight training who were involved.

• April 1995 – Senator Sam Nunn outlines an attack on the US Capitol using a radio-controlled airplane (idea taken from Tom Clancey’s book, Debt of Honour).

• 1996 – FBI investigates US flight schools after finding a business card for a school in the possession of Abdul Hakim Murad (who had been training at about 6 schools since 1990).

• January 1996 – US intelligence receives information of a planned suicide attack on the White House by a plane flying from Afghanistan.

• July - August 1996 – US officials identify crop dusters and suicide flights as threats to the Atlanta Olympics. They ban planes from getting too close to events, deploy Black Hawk helicopters and US Customs jets to intercept suspicious aircraft, monitor crop-duster flights near downtown, place armed fighter jets on standby at local air bases, screen passengers to Atlanta more carefully, and send law enforcement agents to regional airports to make sure nobody hijacked a small airplane (these become known as the “Atlanta Rules”).

• October 1996 – US intelligence learns of an Iranian plot to hijack a Japanese plane over Israel and to crash it into Tel Aviv.

• November 1996 – Ethiopians take over a passenger airliner, let it run out of fuel, and crash it into Indian Ocean off Comoros Islands.

• 1997 – FBI and CIA have concerns that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) will be used to attack a US embassy or delegates overseas.

• January 1997 – “Atlanta Rules” used to protect against airplane attack for Clinton inauguration.

• February 1997 – White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (Gore Commission) issued its final report, reference failed Operation Bojinka, and call for increased aviation security. The commission “believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose.”

• December 1997 – Retired CIA agent and counter terrorism consultant Randy Baer meets with a former police chief from Qatar and learns that Khalid Shiekh Mohammed (KSM) was sheltered in Qatar by Interior Minister Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani. He is also told that KSM is a key aide to UBL and that KSM “is going to hijack some planes.”

• 1998 – FAA “Red Teams” conduct testing of screening checkpoints at domestic airports and successfully smuggle through guns, bombs, etc. and are successful in some case 85% of the time ... high level FAA officials are made aware of the problem and do nothing

• 1998 – FBI’s international terrorism squad investigates possible Middle Eastern man taking flight lessons at a Phoenix airport. FBI agent Ken Williams starts an investigation into the possibility of terrorists learning to fly.

• 1998 – President Clinton is warned of a possible plan to hijack a plane to gain the release of Oman Abdul Rahman.

• May 1998 – A FBI pilot sends a memo to a supervisor warning of a large number of Middle Eastern men receiving flight training in Oklahoma airports.

• August 1998 – CIA asserts Arab terrorists plan to fly a bomb-laden plane from a foreign country to the World Trade Center ... FBI and FAA do not think the state of aviation in unstated country makes the attack possible.

• September 1998 – US intelligence learns that UBL’s next operation might be a crashed airliner loaded with explosives into a US airport.

• October 1998 – FAA issues 3 warnings to airports and airliners urging a high degree of vigilance against threats to civil aviation posed by al Qaeda ... threat specifically mentioned a metropolitan airport in the Eastern US.

• Fall 1998 – US intelligence learns of a plot to attack New York and Washington DC with airplanes ... learns that plans to attack are preceding well and 2 individuals have successfully evaded checkpoints at a New York airport.

• November 1998 – US intelligence learns of a plan by a Turkish extreme group to crash an airplane packed with explosives into a famous tomb during a government ceremony.

• 1998-1999 – FBI issues warnings of possible terrorists training at US flight schools.

• 1999 – US intelligence learns that an al Qaeda agent studied at a flight school in Norman, Oklahoma (hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi visited school there in 2000 and Zacarias Moussaoui trained there in 2001).

• September 1999 – FBI in Oklahoma City visits a flight school in Norman Oklahoma to investigate UBL’s personal pilot Ihab Ali who attended there in 1993.

• 1999 – Britain’s M16 domestic intelligence agency reports to US that al Qaeda plans to use commercial aircraft in unconventional ways possibly as flying bombs.

• 1999 – FBI learns that terrorists are planning to send students to US for flight training. FBI’s Counterterrorism Section issues a notice to 24 field offices to pay close attention to Islamic students from the target country engaged in training. Ken Williams’ squad receives this memo too. No investigation is conducted by any office. A 2000 notice sent out shows there was no indication uncovered that terrorist group is recruiting students.

• September 1999 – US intelligence suggests “Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land aircraft packed with high explosives ... into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House...”. Report is made by the National Intelligence Council which advises the President and US intelligence on emerging threats.

• October 1999 – EgyptAir flight 900 crashes into the Atlantic Ocean off of Massachusetts. The eventual conclusion of the National Transportation Safety Board is it was intentional crash, which killed 33 Egyptian military officers.

• 1999 – “Atlanta Rules” used to protect against airplane attack for North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s 50th Anniversary in DC.

• 2000 – FBI learns that a Middle Eastern nation has been trying to purchase a flight simulator in violation of US restrictions.

• April 2000 – Niaz Khan, a British citizen from Pakistan, tells FBI of a plot to fly airliners into building. He was trained on a mock cockpit of 767, including how to hijack a plane and how to smuggle guns and other weapons on board. He flew to US and was told to meet with a contact to then meet up with others to fly a plane into a building. He passes a polygraph given by FBI but he is deported to London.

• July–August 2000 – “Atlanta Rules” used to protect against airplane attack for Republican Convention in Philadelphia and Democratic Convention in New York.

• August 2000 – Italian intelligence wiretaps al Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy and overhears plan to attack enemies of Islam with aircraft. Warning is sent to US in March 2001.

• October 2000 – Pentagon conducts an emergency drill for a crashed airline that had been hijacked and flown into the Pentagon.

• September 2000 - September 2001 – NORAD conducts regional war games exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets; one target is World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets conduct a mock shoot down of airliners over Atlantic Ocean. In another, the Pentagon is the target (but this one was called off). Exercises are called Vigilant Guardian and Northern Vigilance, and another is being held at the National Reconnaissance Office which included an airplane being used as a flying weapon.

• January 2001 – “Atlanta Rules” used to protect against an airplane attack for Bush inauguration.

• January - August 2001 – FAA issues 15 warnings to airliners ... Bush officials claim information is so vague it does not warrant additional security ... but the warnings remain classified today.

• February - July 2001 – Trial of embassy bombers in New York features testimony of 2 UBL associates that received flight training in Texas and Oklahoma. One UBL aide gives evidence to government about pilot training.

• March 2001 – Fox’s show The Lone Gunmen depicts an attack by terrorists using a remote-controlled 727 aircraft against the World Trade Center (the real attackers turn out to be US government agents who want to justify continued, large military budgets by creating fear of terrorism).

• April 2001 – NORAD special operations personnel imagine a scenario where a terrorist group hijacks plane and flies it into the Pentagon ... the plan is rejected as too unrealistic.

• April 2001 – FBI translators Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar learn of a warning given to FBI by an FBI informant that al Qaeda is planning to attack US and Europe with airplanes and that al Qaeda agents are being trained in US as pilots. Edmonds says: “President Bush said they had no specific information about September 11, and that’s accurate. However, there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand, and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001." Says US claims about not knowing of 9/11 plan were outrageous lies ..."That's an outrageous lie and documents can prove it's a lie."

• April 2001 – FAA sends a warning to US airlines that Middle Eastern terrorists could try to hijack or blow up US planes and that carriers should demonstrate a high level of alertness.

• May 2001 – Pentagon practices for crashed 757 into Pentagon.

• June 2001 – German intelligence warns CIA, M16, and Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols, which stand out.”

• June 2001 – NORAD conducts Amalgam Virgo 01 and Amalgam Virgo 02, the latter of which involves two simultaneously hijacked commercial airliners. Fighters are to respond and consider shooting down planes.

• June 2001 – Men in Cayman Islands are overheard by Cayman Islands and British intelligence discussing plans to conduct hijacking attacks in New York City. Information is forwarded to US intelligence.

• June 2001 – Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke gives a direct warning to FAA to increase security measures in light of impending terrorist attack and FAA refuses to implement them.

• July 2001 – Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircraft due to an unknown threat assessment ... Ashcroft will not answer questions about it.

• July 2001 – FBI agent Ken Williams sends a message warning of suspicious activities involving group of Middle Eastern men taking flight training lessons in Arizona: subtitle of memo is “Osama bin Laden and Al-Muhrjiroun supporters attending civil aviation universities/colleges in Arizona.”

• July 2001 – US intelligence reports a spike in warnings against G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy. Head of Russia’s Bodyguard Service reports that al Qaeda will try to kill President Bush ... Egyptian intelligence discovers communication from UBL saying he would assassinate Bush and other leaders during the G-8 summit using an “airplane stuffed with explosives” ... US and Italy are sent urgent warnings ... Germany sends warning of UBL paying German neo-Nazis to fly remote-controlled aircraft packed with explosives into conference hall ... Bush and other leaders stay on an aircraft carrier and a luxury ship away from the area.

• July 2001 – FAA issues a warning telling airlines to use the highest level of caution and another saying “terror groups are known to be planning and training for hijackings, as we ask you therefore to use caution.”

• July 2001 – Egyptian intelligence passes on message to CIA that 20 al Qaeda members had slipped into US and that 4 of them were training on Cessnas.

• August 2001 – Britain warns US of al Qaeda attack involving multiple airline hijackings.

• August 2001 – Russian President Vladimir Putin warns US that suicide pilots are training for attacks on US.

• August 2001 – US intelligence learns of a plot to crash airplane into US Embassy in Nairobi.

• August 2001 – Actor James Woods relays concerns of four Arabic-looking men who look suspicious in first class aboard his flight ... flight staff notifies FAA ... Woods is not interviewed by FBI until after 9/11 ... all four are believed to have been involved on 9/11 and were believed to be on one of their practice runs for 9/11.

• August 2001 – the “bin Laden Determined to Strike In US” memo is given to President Bush while he was on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas ... it reads in part: “bin Laden wanted to hijack US aircraft to gain the release” of Oman Abdul Rahman and others and tells of “suspicious activity in the US consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”

• August 2001 – Zacarias Moussaoui is arrested in Minneapolis, MN with letters that connect him to Malaysia (where a meeting of al Qaeda operatives occurred under the watch of the CIA in 2000) and some of the hijackers. He also has an unexplained $32,000 bank balance, two knives, fighting gloves, shin guards, and has prepared for violence through physical training. He paid $8,300 for flight training, mostly in cash, to use a 747 aircraft simulator. He asked “how much fuel is on board a 747 and how much damage could it cause if it hit anything”? He has no aviation background, little previous training, and no pilot’s license, he wants to fly only as an ego-boosting thing, he is extremely interested in the operation of the plane’s doors and control panel, and wants to know how to communicate with flight tower. He is evasive and belligerent when asked about his background. He mostly practices flying in the air rather than taking off or landing. The flight school sends information to the FBI and receives little interest, so it contacts them again as says: “Do you realize how serious this is? This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon.” Moussaoui is arrested but not connected to the 9/11 attackers until after 9/11.

• August 2, 2001 – FBI headquarters Radical Fundamentalist Unit agent calls FBI Minneapolis office supervisor that he is getting people “spun up” over Zacarias Moussaoui. The supervisor says he is trying to get people at FBI headquarters “spun up” because he is trying to make sure Moussaoui does “not take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center.”

• August 23-27, 2001 – FBI agents in Minneapolis are convinced Zacarias Moussaoui is planning to do something with a plane. One agent writes he might “fly something into the World Trade Center.” They decide to pursue a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant – in more than 10,000 requests over 20 years, every single warrant has been granted – yet FBI headquarters decides against it due to a mistaken understanding by its legal experts of the FISA rules.

• August 24, 2001 – A Minneapolis FBI agent contacts CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center and calls Moussaoui a “suspect 747 airline attacker” and a “suspect airline suicide attacker.” FBI headquarters chastises the Minneapolis office for contacting headquarters without permission.

• Bob Graham explained the Moussaoui failure by the FBI, and in doing so, discussed in depth the warnings that should have been clear. From June to July 2001, the National Security Agency (NSA) noted an increase in threat activity (the third such rise since the winter). The US military declared ThreatCon Delta and all ships in the Persian Gulf were sent to sea. And Attorney General John Ashcroft began traveling only on government jet. Graham says this was “opposed to the commercial aircraft Attorneys General normally take, despite the fact that senior FBI and CIA officials knew of no specific threat against the Attorney General” (p. 72). In July 2001, when the FBI’s Phoenix office sent a memo voicing concern that UBL might be using US flight schools to infiltrate America’s civil aviation system, it was ignored by superiors and never reached the FBI’s Minneapolis office (which arrested Zacarias Moussaoui one month later for suspicious activities at a flight school). This is called stove-piping (when information did not move across FBI field offices).

• This “Phoenix memo” was sent by Kenneth Williams, who first became concerned with Libyans with suspected terrorist ties working for US aviation companies in the 1990s. Williams was later told about Arabs in a local mosque involved in aviation training. In April 2000, Williams watched a man name Zakaria Mustapha Soubra, a Lebanese national studying aeronautical safety in Arizona. Williams interviewed Soubra at his apartment and Soubra was defiant. He had photos of UBL and injured mujahedeen fighters on his wall. Soubra’s car outside had a license plate on it that came back of a man named Mohammed al-Qudhaeein who had been detained in 1999 for trying to get into the cockpit of an America West flight from Phoenix to Washington, DC. Al-Qudhaeein was traveling to a party at the Saudi embassy and his ticket had been paid for by the Saudi government. The FBI did not even investigate the case! In 2000, al-Qudhaeein was put on the State Department’s TIPOFF terrorist watch list after US intelligence learned he might have received explosives and car bomb training in Afghanistan. In August 2001, al-Qudhaeein applied for a visa to reenter the US but was denied entry! Perhaps he was an additional hijacker?

• Williams was taken off of counterterrorism to work an arson case in early 2001. The arson case was closed in April 2001 and he wrote an electronic communication (EC) to FBI headquarters in Washington, DC (this is the Phoenix memo). The continuing investigation of Soubra found six associates also involved in aviation training. While Williams did not know it, it was discovered that Soubra knew Hani Hanjour through a local religious center and carpooled with him to flight school. On at least five occasions, they were at the same flight school on the same day and at least once, they flew together! In July 2001, Williams finished his EC and sent it to the Counterterrorism Division at FBI headquarters. READ the memo on pp. 44-45. Williams’ recommendations, if followed, would have prevented 9/11. Graham says that “had William’s recommendations been acted upon promptly, liaisons with the flight schools would have found at least one and perhaps as many as three other hijackers still developing their flying skills” (p. 47). ECs are sent to the specified units and then forwarded to the individual assigned to the lead. Williams sent the EC and requested that both the Radical Fundamentalist Unit and the Usama bin Laden Unit consider his recommendations. Both of these are operational units (that investigate specific crimes) but it did not go to an analytic unit (which considers long-term, strategic issues). It was ultimately forwarded to an FBI intelligence analysts in Portland, Oregon along with a note specifying Williams’ theory. The agent did not take any action or share it more widely and the lead was closed by officers in the RFU and UBLU on August 7, 2001. As it turns out, way back in 1983, the INS asked the FBI for assistance in locating Libyan nationals engaged in aviation or nuclear-related education! In 1998, the head of the FBI Oklahoma City Field Office contacted headquarters to express concern about the large numbers of Middle Eastern males at Oklahoma flight schools. In 1999, the FBI received word that a terrorist organization was planning to send students to the US for aviation training. In response, the Counterterrorism Division at FBI headquarters sent a communication to twenty-four field offices asking them pay close attention to Muslim students from the country who were engaged in aviation training in their areas. No FBI field offices followed up on this instruction. The investigation was dropped in November 2000 when the INS failed to respond to an FBI letter asking them to search databases for individuals from the target country studying in the US!

• Graham asserts that had the Minneapolis FBI Field Office seen these memos and requests, it might have broken the 9/11 plot when it arrested Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui was not a typical flight school student for he did not have a pilot’s license, was not employed by an airline, and had not logged any flight hours. His suspicious activities concerned flight school employees – he had extreme interests in operation of the plane’s doors and control panel, he repeatedly said he would love to fly from London’s Heathrow Airport to JFK Airport in New York, and he paid $6,800 in cash. Employees say he discussed how much fuel is on a Boeing 747 and the damage such a plane could do if it were to hit something. A flight manager contacted a friend at the FBI and Moussaoui was arrested for being “out of status” (overstayed his visa). Minneapolis informed FBI headquarters of Moussaoui’s detention by the INS and it asked the CIA and the FBI’s legal attache in Paris for any information they could get on him. The FBI and INS went to his hotel and seized his laptop computer and belongings, yet they were told they need a warrant to search them. The FBI could have gotten a FISA warrant but it decided against this route! So they decided for the French to search his belongings and not get a FISA warrant. According to Graham, the FBI’s legal attache in Paris reported that Moussaoui had been in Chechnya assisting Chehen rebels which could have been enough to secure a FISA search warrant. The FBI mistake was thinking that Moussaoui had to be connected to an organization that the State Department listed as a foreign terrorist organization (which was not a FISA requirement). FISA does not require it be a “recognized foreign power” just a foreign power. So they spent about 3 weeks trying to connect the Chechen group to al-Qaeda! The FBI did not even try for a normal criminal search warrant and did not even make his presence public, which could have disrupted the plot!

• According to Graham, Minneapolis sent a memo to FBI headquarters stating that Moussaoui’s “possession of weapons and his preparation through physical training for violent confrontation” gave them reason to believe he “and others yet unknown” were conspiring to take control of an airplane. Minneapolis contacted the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center for more information on Moussaoui and a Minneapolis case agent sent an email on August 21, 2001 to the supervisory special agent in the RFU who was handling the matter. It said: “It is imperative that the [US Secret Service] be appraised of this threat potential indicated by the evidence ... if [Moussaoui] seizes an aircraft from Heathrow to NYC, it will have the fuel on board o reach DC.” Yeah, not to mention the World Trade Center! On August 23, two FBI agents visited the Airman Flight School in Oklahoma City where Moussaoui first learned to fly ... one of the agents had visited the school in 1999 to investigate the training there of UBL’s personal pilot!

• August 2001 – FAA issues a warning to airlines that terrorists have made breakthroughs in disguising weapons as cell phones, key chains, and pens.

• August 2001 – Spanish police record conversations from calls in Britain to Spain saying “in our classes, we have entered the field of aviation, and we are even going to cut the Eagle’s throat.”

• August - September 2001 – NORAD practices for hijackings of planes from the states of Utah and Washington.

• September 2001 – NSA intercepts phone calls from Abu Zubaida, UBL’s chief of operations, into US (which are still classified) ... British intelligence intercepts call from UBL to man in Pakistan with specific information as to attack including time frame (which are still classified).

• September 2001 – Author Salman Rushdie is banned by US from taking internal US flights due to “intelligence of something about to happen.”

• September 2001 – Sydney Olympics officials reveal that “A fully loaded, fueled airliner crashing into the opening ceremony before a worldwide television audience at the Sydney Olympics is one of the greatest security fears for the Games.” Australia puts 6 planes in the air at all times to intercept wayward aircraft (planning is also underway for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah to defend against plane attacks when 9/11 occurs).

• September 4, 2001 – FBI headquarters sends a message to US intelligence community about the Zacarias Moussaoui investigation. Warning is given to the FAA but the FAA does not issue a security alert to the nation’s airports.

• September 9-11, 2001 – NORAD runs Operation Northern Vigilance which deploys fighters to Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor Russian air force exercise in Russian arctic. US fighters are thus diverted from US. Exercise is cancelled at 9 am on 9/11.

• September 10, 2001 – Eight hours prior to the attacks, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives warning from his security people at the airport to be cautious when traveling ... he is headed for New York

• September 10, 2001 – President Bush is staying at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort on Longboat Key, FL. Surface to air missiles are placed on roof of the resort.

• September 2001 – Pentagon officials, including US generals, are warned not to fly and cancelled trips for the morning of September 11

I think it is fair to say there were specific warnings of multiple spectacular attacks by Mideastern men using airliners as weapons to strike high profile targets within the U.S.
The only thing missing is the specific date of said attacks and the security to stop them.

[Belz...]

It's not me; just an avatar I like to use because I think it's pretty. I have a bunch of pictures similar to this that I use on occasion. Trust me when I say I'm not that pretty, nor could I wear what she's wearing and pull it off like she does. As far as I know it's just a painting or picture someone photoshopped together.[/derail]

DAMMIT!

[Cuddles]

I wear what she's wearing and pull it off

Must... stop... bad... thoughts...;)

[SpitfireIX]

Must... stop... bad... thoughts...;)


Sabrina, I presume you were prepared for comments like this when you chose that as your avatar (great choice BTW; it really makes me drool ;) ).

One of my women friends once made the half-joking comment, "Oh, you men--all you ever think about is sex." I shot back, "Yes, and it's a good thing, too, or the human race would have become extinct by now." :D

[funk de fino]

I think it is fair to say there were specific warnings of multiple spectacular attacks by Mideastern men using airliners as weapons to strike high profile targets within the U.S.

The only thing missing is the specific date of said attacks and the security to stop them.

I do not think you understand what specific means, sunshine

You also have a lot of untruths and speculations in that list of quotes

[Swing Dangler]

I accept the fact that not all are within the United States, however, many of them are. Enough to qualify the specificity of the warnings.

[funk de fino]

I accept the fact that not all are within the United States, however, many of them are. Enough to qualify the specificity of the warnings.

No, they are not specific and do not all mention inside the US and most do not even mention the US

Lots of them are untrue and unsubstantiated and pure speculation

Again, you do not understand what specific is

[Sabrina]

What would you like me to say, SD? That we chose the wrong course of action? Fine, consider it said. We. Chose. The. Wrong. Course. Of. Action. That is a risk accepted by everyone in any position of authority within the government, military, or intelligence community, and it happens a lot more often than you might know. Just look at the war in Iraq, for God's sake.

Do you understand the concept of arrogance at all? Do you understand that, prior to 9/11, we considered ourselves invincible and immune from attack in our own country FROM FOREIGN SOURCES? And that to some extent, we still do? No one is disputing the OKC bombings, but remember, Tim McVeigh was an American; not an Islamic extremist. And even taking into account that there were attempted attacks from outside sources prior to 9/11, we didn't consider them spectacular; more of a nuisance, since so little consequence resulted from them. I would be the first to admit that losing even one person to a foreign or domestic terrorism attack is going too far, but I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone who lived through that day in 2001, not someone from prior to that event who would likely say, as long as the majority are safe, what do I care if a few people die? That's an oversimplification of the stance they likely held, but I trust you take my meaning; basically, no one considered the relatively small attacks prior to 9/11 of much consequence.

Look at it from this perspective. Prior to 9/11, the last major attack on our soil from an overseas entity was Pearl Harbor. We then went on to so thoroughly spank the Germans and the Japanese that in the process we established this image of ourselves in the rest of the world's eyes as the biggest badasses on the planet. After a while, we started to believe that image (adulation, praise, having everyone look to you every time there's a problem in the world, and that sort of thing will do that to a person). We began to think that no one would challenge our position as the dominant country on the planet, and we grew complacent. Arrogance and complacence are a deadly combination when it comes to security, SD. You ask me if certain security measures might not have prevented 9/11, and my answer is, they absolutely might have, HAD WE HAD THE MENTAL MINDSET TO CARRY THEM OUT. You ask me if we sat on intel and did nothing with security measures to prevent 9/11; my answer is, yes, we did, but once again, our mindset at the time made us incapable of recognizing the threat that existed.

I am honestly at a loss as to why this is so difficult for truthers to understand, I really am. You approach this as though the intelligence community should have interpreted everything from the mindset of 9/11 having already happened, despite KNOWING that the majority of the American people, IC included, were so shocked and appalled that something like this had happened that it's pretty clear they couldn't conceive of it happening prior to it happening. Heck, most of the rest of the FREE WORLD reacted that way; they couldn't believe it happened to us, of all people. Explain to me how we were supposed to be prescient when our own leaders admit to being arrogantly sure that terrorism wasn't that big of a threat prior to 9/11, much to our detriment?

As to the specificity of the warnings; I still maintain that they were not as specific as you all seem to think, and I have asked that question of many people within the IC, and they all agree with me. Do they regret that they didn't spot the patterns? Absolutely they do! They live with this EVERY DAY, that they essentially let nearly 3,000 American citizens die through their own arrogance. We were lemmings, SD, merrily running over the cliff despite the sign that said "DANGER AHEAD". But to suggest, as many truthers do (not saying you are as I don't know what theory you espouse) that we DELIBERATELY sat back and either let nearly three thousand of our own citizens die, or actively PLANNED their deaths, well, THAT, to me, is the more reprehensible action, and is completely indefensible.

I'm a bit confused by this whole "assigning blame and consequences" thing you seem to be on about. Since when was there a legal precedent for someone admitting a mistake and then having someone say, "you admitted that you made a mistake, therefore you are responsible for the deaths of these people"? I'm not a lawyer, but maybe someone on here who is can explain that to you better; I'd suggest you ask LashL if there is a legal precedent for charging someone on the basis of a MISTAKE they made (unless it was a mistake where they admitted they deliberately caused whatever the crime was). As far as I know, there is not. People make mistakes EVERY DAY, a lot with serious consequences, that aren't charged with crimes; why must this be different? And aren't the changes being made within the IC PROOF that the mistakes have been acknowledged and we are TRYING to change things so something like 9/11 doesn't happen again? In essence, we've already tried and convicted ourselves, and now we're carrying out our sentence. Everyone in the IC is in the business of public service and ensuring the safety of the American people. Who would you suggest is at fault for 9/11 then? You can't put an entire community of people on trial, so who do we blame? The leaders? The analysts? The policymakers? Who? Tell me who you think we should blame for this, 'cause I gotta tell you, whoever you think they are, they probably already blame themselves and are doing everything in their power to ensure it won't happen again. They've LEARNED from their mistake, in other words, now let them atone in the way they can. Ultimately, the person at fault for 9/11 is not in this country. Yes, in a way, we let it happen, but we didn't put the idea in Osama's head; Khalid Sheik Mohammed did, and then Osama ran with it. We've got KSM at least, so you've got one of the culprits. Why not focus your attention on what you think we should sentence him to, instead of trying to blame the adminstration or the IC for their mistakes.

[Swing Dangler]

What would you like me to say, SD? That we chose the wrong course of action? Fine, consider it said. We. Chose. The. Wrong. Course. Of. Action. That is a risk accepted by everyone in any position of authority within the government, military, or intelligence community, and it happens a lot more often than you might know. Just look at the war in Iraq, for God's sake.

Do you understand the concept of arrogance at all? Do you understand that, prior to 9/11, we considered ourselves invincible and immune from attack in our own country FROM FOREIGN SOURCES? And that to some extent, we still do? No one is disputing the OKC bombings, but remember, Tim McVeigh was an American; not an Islamic extremist. And even taking into account that there were attempted attacks from outside sources prior to 9/11, we didn't consider them spectacular; more of a nuisance, since so little consequence resulted from them. I would be the first to admit that losing even one person to a foreign or domestic terrorism attack is going too far, but I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone who lived through that day in 2001, not someone from prior to that event who would likely say, as long as the majority are safe, what do I care if a few people die? That's an oversimplification of the stance they likely held, but I trust you take my meaning; basically, no one considered the relatively small attacks prior to 9/11 of much consequence.

Look at it from this perspective. Prior to 9/11, the last major attack on our soil from an overseas entity was Pearl Harbor. We then went on to so thoroughly spank the Germans and the Japanese that in the process we established this image of ourselves in the rest of the world's eyes as the biggest badasses on the planet. After a while, we started to believe that image (adulation, praise, having everyone look to you every time there's a problem in the world, and that sort of thing will do that to a person). We began to think that no one would challenge our position as the dominant country on the planet, and we grew complacent. Arrogance and complacence are a deadly combination when it comes to security, SD. You ask me if certain security measures might not have prevented 9/11, and my answer is, they absolutely might have, HAD WE HAD THE MENTAL MINDSET TO CARRY THEM OUT. You ask me if we sat on intel and did nothing with security measures to prevent 9/11; my answer is, yes, we did, but once again, our mindset at the time made us incapable of recognizing the threat that existed.

I am honestly at a loss as to why this is so difficult for truthers to understand, I really am. You approach this as though the intelligence community should have interpreted everything from the mindset of 9/11 having already happened, despite KNOWING that the majority of the American people, IC included, were so shocked and appalled that something like this had happened that it's pretty clear they couldn't conceive of it happening prior to it happening. Heck, most of the rest of the FREE WORLD reacted that way; they couldn't believe it happened to us, of all people. Explain to me how we were supposed to be prescient when our own leaders admit to being arrogantly sure that terrorism wasn't that big of a threat prior to 9/11, much to our detriment?

As to the specificity of the warnings; I still maintain that they were not as specific as you all seem to think, and I have asked that question of many people within the IC, and they all agree with me. Do they regret that they didn't spot the patterns? Absolutely they do! They live with this EVERY DAY, that they essentially let nearly 3,000 American citizens die through their own arrogance. We were lemmings, SD, merrily running over the cliff despite the sign that said "DANGER AHEAD". But to suggest, as many truthers do (not saying you are as I don't know what theory you espouse) that we DELIBERATELY sat back and either let nearly three thousand of our own citizens die, or actively PLANNED their deaths, well, THAT, to me, is the more reprehensible action, and is completely indefensible.

I'm a bit confused by this whole "assigning blame and consequences" thing you seem to be on about. Since when was there a legal precedent for someone admitting a mistake and then having someone say, "you admitted that you made a mistake, therefore you are responsible for the deaths of these people"? I'm not a lawyer, but maybe someone on here who is can explain that to you better; I'd suggest you ask LashL if there is a legal precedent for charging someone on the basis of a MISTAKE they made (unless it was a mistake where they admitted they deliberately caused whatever the crime was). As far as I know, there is not. People make mistakes EVERY DAY, a lot with serious consequences, that aren't charged with crimes; why must this be different? And aren't the changes being made within the IC PROOF that the mistakes have been acknowledged and we are TRYING to change things so something like 9/11 doesn't happen again? In essence, we've already tried and convicted ourselves, and now we're carrying out our sentence. Everyone in the IC is in the business of public service and ensuring the safety of the American people. Who would you suggest is at fault for 9/11 then? You can't put an entire community of people on trial, so who do we blame? The leaders? The analysts? The policymakers? Who? Tell me who you think we should blame for this, 'cause I gotta tell you, whoever you think they are, they probably already blame themselves and are doing everything in their power to ensure it won't happen again. They've LEARNED from their mistake, in other words, now let them atone in the way they can. Ultimately, the person at fault for 9/11 is not in this country. Yes, in a way, we let it happen, but we didn't put the idea in Osama's head; Khalid Sheik Mohammed did, and then Osama ran with it. We've got KSM at least, so you've got one of the culprits. Why not focus your attention on what you think we should sentence him to, instead of trying to blame the adminstration or the IC for their mistakes.

Sabrina, I don't think truthers blame the IC at all. In fact, I think after 6 years later it appears more and more the IC was exactly right with their warnings to the Administration. I think that it boils down to is the Administration had all of these warnings from the IC but did nothing to upgrade security at the nations airports, issue warnings, or be proactive in their approach. This leads many to believe in LIHOP and worse yet, MIHOP.

Generally when people fail at their job, they are held accountable for their actions and reprimanded or outright fired. I understand this admin has no sense of accountably, which lends even greater support to LIHOP theories.
The FAA apparently received the warnings and acted. The IC apparently received the warning and acted. The only group left who received the warnings and failed to act is the administration. Personally, if I were to cast a stone, it would begin with Condi Rice and travel on up to the President. They received the warnings and failed to act. Trust me, I'm not attacking the IC at all as the warnings they received were acted upon as per their job and mission statement.

On a side note, are you able to discuss what part of the IC you are involved in? As a student of National Security affairs over the last 20 years, the whole IC fascinates me.

[Sabrina]

I currently work for a private contracting firm that has contracts with most of the main intel agencies; I am also a 35D (All Source Intelligence Officer) in the US Army Reserves, and am the tactical intelligence officer for my unit.

[Sabrina]

And while I understand what you're saying, SD, I do have to disagree with you. There's a report issued by the government in one of the posts in this thread (mjd posted it) that states one of the findings is the intelligence given to the policymakers was neither specific nor detailed enough to allow them to make fully informed decisions. I don't recall the post number, but I'll see if I can locate the link. If that is true, then obviously the administration had SOME of what they needed, but not all of it. I doubt there's a single person within the DoD, administration, or IC that doesn't feel at least somewhat responsible for the events of 9/11, but to place blame when what is needed is action is useless and only hinders security, in my humble opinion.

ETA: Here's the link: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

[Swing Dangler]

No, they are not specific and do not all mention inside the US and most do not even mention the US

Lots of them are untrue and unsubstantiated and pure speculation

Again, you do not understand what specific is

July–August 2000 – “Atlanta Rules” used to protect against airplane attack for Republican Convention in Philadelphia and Democratic Convention in New York.

...you were saying?:mgduh

[Swing Dangler]

And while I understand what you're saying, SD, I do have to disagree with you. There's a report issued by the government in one of the posts in this thread (mjd posted it) that states one of the findings is the intelligence given to the policymakers was neither specific nor detailed enough to allow them to make fully informed decisions. I don't recall the post number, but I'll see if I can locate the link. If that is true, then obviously the administration had SOME of what they needed, but not all of it. I doubt there's a single person within the DoD, administration, or IC that doesn't feel at least somewhat responsible for the events of 9/11, but to place blame when what is needed is action is useless and only hinders security, in my humble opinion.

ETA: Here's the link: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

We can agree to disagree I suppose. I think Senator Bob Graham who held the highest Democratic position on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and who organized and co-chaired the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (House-Senate Congressional Inquiry), would disagree with you as well when he discussed the President's inaccurate statements:
“The first was that it was a surprise, a bolt from the blue. The second was that no one could have imagined such an attack carried out in such a manner. The third, that since no one could have envisaged the use of commercial aircraft as a weapon of mass destruction, no one could be held accountable. The forth was that for all of the devastation, the attack was basically quite simple, requiring nineteen people and a sum of money estimated between $175,000 and $250,000" (p. 112).

In fact, the threats were many, and we knew it was coming ... Graham says there were at least 12 instances in which intelligence found information outlining terrorist plans to use airplanes as weapons, there were at least 12 instances in which the plot could have been interdicted but mistakes by individual people assured it did not happen (and yet not a single person has been held accountable for their failures), and the plot was very complex and resilient. In fact, as Graham notes: “I find a pattern of substantial logistical, personnel, and kills development and financial support consistent with what the President was told in his fateful August 6 briefing. I further suspect that the pattern of such support was more pervasive than is currently known or acknowledged” (p. 113). Graham also says this structure of support was maintained by a nation-state [and no he does not say it was Iraq!].

[funk de fino]

July–August 2000 – “Atlanta Rules” used to protect against airplane attack for Republican Convention in Philadelphia and Democratic Convention in New York.

...you were saying?:mgduh

Again, read what i said

You have posted exactly..em..one from that huge list if yours

we were talking specific, tell me what that means to you

All of the following accounts are documented and can be found within the mainstream media

MSM??

real source please for the claim above, then show me the rest of the specific multiple attacks

i think you also do not know what :mgduh means

[Belz...]

What would you like me to say, SD? That we chose the wrong course of action? Fine, consider it said. We. Chose. The. Wrong. Course. Of. Action. That is a risk accepted by everyone in any position of authority within the government, military, or intelligence community, and it happens a lot more often than you might know. Just look at the war in Iraq, for God's sake.

Do you understand the concept of arrogance at all? Do you understand that, prior to 9/11, we considered ourselves invincible and immune from attack in our own country FROM FOREIGN SOURCES? And that to some extent, we still do? No one is disputing the OKC bombings, but remember, Tim McVeigh was an American; not an Islamic extremist. And even taking into account that there were attempted attacks from outside sources prior to 9/11, we didn't consider them spectacular; more of a nuisance, since so little consequence resulted from them. I would be the first to admit that losing even one person to a foreign or domestic terrorism attack is going too far, but I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone who lived through that day in 2001, not someone from prior to that event who would likely say, as long as the majority are safe, what do I care if a few people die? That's an oversimplification of the stance they likely held, but I trust you take my meaning; basically, no one considered the relatively small attacks prior to 9/11 of much consequence.

Look at it from this perspective. Prior to 9/11, the last major attack on our soil from an overseas entity was Pearl Harbor. We then went on to so thoroughly spank the Germans and the Japanese that in the process we established this image of ourselves in the rest of the world's eyes as the biggest badasses on the planet. After a while, we started to believe that image (adulation, praise, having everyone look to you every time there's a problem in the world, and that sort of thing will do that to a person). We began to think that no one would challenge our position as the dominant country on the planet, and we grew complacent. Arrogance and complacence are a deadly combination when it comes to security, SD. You ask me if certain security measures might not have prevented 9/11, and my answer is, they absolutely might have, HAD WE HAD THE MENTAL MINDSET TO CARRY THEM OUT. You ask me if we sat on intel and did nothing with security measures to prevent 9/11; my answer is, yes, we did, but once again, our mindset at the time made us incapable of recognizing the threat that existed.

I am honestly at a loss as to why this is so difficult for truthers to understand, I really am. You approach this as though the intelligence community should have interpreted everything from the mindset of 9/11 having already happened, despite KNOWING that the majority of the American people, IC included, were so shocked and appalled that something like this had happened that it's pretty clear they couldn't conceive of it happening prior to it happening. Heck, most of the rest of the FREE WORLD reacted that way; they couldn't believe it happened to us, of all people. Explain to me how we were supposed to be prescient when our own leaders admit to being arrogantly sure that terrorism wasn't that big of a threat prior to 9/11, much to our detriment?

As to the specificity of the warnings; I still maintain that they were not as specific as you all seem to think, and I have asked that question of many people within the IC, and they all agree with me. Do they regret that they didn't spot the patterns? Absolutely they do! They live with this EVERY DAY, that they essentially let nearly 3,000 American citizens die through their own arrogance. We were lemmings, SD, merrily running over the cliff despite the sign that said "DANGER AHEAD". But to suggest, as many truthers do (not saying you are as I don't know what theory you espouse) that we DELIBERATELY sat back and either let nearly three thousand of our own citizens die, or actively PLANNED their deaths, well, THAT, to me, is the more reprehensible action, and is completely indefensible.

I'm a bit confused by this whole "assigning blame and consequences" thing you seem to be on about. Since when was there a legal precedent for someone admitting a mistake and then having someone say, "you admitted that you made a mistake, therefore you are responsible for the deaths of these people"? I'm not a lawyer, but maybe someone on here who is can explain that to you better; I'd suggest you ask LashL if there is a legal precedent for charging someone on the basis of a MISTAKE they made (unless it was a mistake where they admitted they deliberately caused whatever the crime was). As far as I know, there is not. People make mistakes EVERY DAY, a lot with serious consequences, that aren't charged with crimes; why must this be different? And aren't the changes being made within the IC PROOF that the mistakes have been acknowledged and we are TRYING to change things so something like 9/11 doesn't happen again? In essence, we've already tried and convicted ourselves, and now we're carrying out our sentence. Everyone in the IC is in the business of public service and ensuring the safety of the American people. Who would you suggest is at fault for 9/11 then? You can't put an entire community of people on trial, so who do we blame? The leaders? The analysts? The policymakers? Who? Tell me who you think we should blame for this, 'cause I gotta tell you, whoever you think they are, they probably already blame themselves and are doing everything in their power to ensure it won't happen again. They've LEARNED from their mistake, in other words, now let them atone in the way they can. Ultimately, the person at fault for 9/11 is not in this country. Yes, in a way, we let it happen, but we didn't put the idea in Osama's head; Khalid Sheik Mohammed did, and then Osama ran with it. We've got KSM at least, so you've got one of the culprits. Why not focus your attention on what you think we should sentence him to, instead of trying to blame the adminstration or the IC for their mistakes.

Wow. That's a lot of words. ;)

Seriously, nice posts since you began your run, here.

I am also a 35D

Again, Belz... must refrain from immature comments...

[Swing Dangler]

Again, read what i said

You have posted exactly..em..one from that huge list if yours

we were talking specific, tell me what that means to you



MSM??

real source please for the claim above, then show me the rest of the specific multiple attacks

i think you also do not know what :mgduh means

Sorry, but I'm not going to encourage laziness on your part.
You are right, you did state not "all" of them gave specific warnings. But enough of them did in my opinion to call for increased security measures at airports.
Specific to me includes hijackers using planes against the continental United States.
My point is years prior to 9/11 and in the months leading up to 9/11, they prepared for attacks against targets in the U.S. using airplanes as weapons.

[Sabrina]

SD: All right then, we agree to disagree, but I would like to note that I don't entirely disagree with Graham; I just don't think things were as specific and detailed as he seems to be intimating. There's a lot more that goes into something like this that neither of us have seen.

Belz: *thwap* Mind OUT of the gutter, young man! :D

[Swing Dangler]

SD: All right then, we agree to disagree, but I would like to note that I don't entirely disagree with Graham; I just don't think things were as specific and detailed as he seems to be intimating. There's a lot more that goes into something like this that neither of us have seen.

Belz: *thwap* Mind OUT of the gutter, young man! :D

I guess if anyone would know, it would be a Committee member and a Co-Chair.

BTW, I forgot to thank you for serving this great country of ours. I only wish you had better leadership from the Commander-In-Chief.

[SpitfireIX]

. . . I am also a 35D . . .


Sigh. I knew someone was going to comment on that. :rolleyes:

[SpitfireIX]

Belz: *thwap* Mind OUT of the gutter, young man! :D


Bad Belz, bad! :hit:

[Sabrina]

Question though. The Committee member and Co-chair gets the finished product, after the analysts and report writers are through with it. If the analysts and report writers all say that the items weren't that specific, I have to wonder why the committee member would. Just a thought.

And you're welcome for the service; it's one of the better decisions I've made in my life, in my opinion (although my mother might disagree).

[funk de fino]

Sorry, but I'm not going to encourage laziness on your part.
You are right, you did state not "all" of them gave specific warnings. But enough of them did in my opinion to call for increased security measures at airports.
Specific to me includes hijackers using planes against the continental United States. My point is years prior to 9/11 and in the months leading up to 9/11, they prepared for attacks against targets in the U.S. using airplanes as weapons.

And exactly how many of those warnings are in your posts and how specific are they? I count about 6 up to August 2001 and none of them are specific threats they are "vague" and "suggestions" and "uncorroborated" and "speculation"

If you are going to post info like this you must link it to sources not one site with a load of claims

And "they" = Who?

Also a lot of those quotes are false and misleading and I am sure this is not what you intended

[Swing Dangler]

And exactly how many of those warnings are in your posts and how specific are they? I count about 6 up to August 2001 and none of them are specific threats they are "vague" and "suggestions" and "uncorroborated" and "speculation"

If you are going to post info like this you must link it to sources not one site with a load of claims

And "they" = Who?

Also a lot of those quotes are false and misleading and I am sure this is not what you intended

I don't have to do anything per your request, thank you. But because you insist on being lazy, you can start here (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_time line_key_warnings) to verify each claim.

What quotes are false and misleading?

Who are "they"? Now this is a valid question. The Administration.

[Swing Dangler]

Is this a specific enough warning?

September 1999: US Report Predicts Spectacular Attack on Washington
Edit event

A report prepared for US intelligence titled the “Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism” is completed. It states, “Al-Qaeda’s expected retaliation for the US cruise missile attack… could take several forms of terrorist attack in the nation’s capital. Al-Qaeda could detonate a Chechen-type building-buster bomb at a federal building. Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaeda’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House. Whatever form an attack may take, bin Laden will most likely retaliate in a spectacular way.” The report is by the National Intelligence Council, which advises the president and US intelligence on emerging threats.[Associated Press, 4/18/2002]

[HyJinX]

What should have been done, in your opinion, Swing?

[lapman]

SD, where does it say airliners on that statement? Remember, the original plan was to hijack airliners and blow them up.

[Billdave2]

It is important to remember that hindsight is 20/20. It is easy to go back through all the intelligence that was gathered and separate the wheat from the chaff. Of coarse it all is plain as day now, prior to 9/11, not so much.

[BillyRayValentine]

Is this a specific enough warning?

The "specific" warning you cite was from a report published more than a year before Bush was elected. And this was evidence of his malfeasance/complicity?

Sorry, you lost me.

[funk de fino]

I don't have to do anything per your request, thank you. But because you insist on being lazy, you can start here (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_time line_key_warnings) to verify each claim.

What quotes are false and misleading?

Who are "they"? Now this is a valid question. The Administration.

The very first one on that page is misleading, the Paris one

I'll let you figure out why and research it porperly or do you want me to do it before you get a chance to change your tune?

also

they prepared for attacks against targets in the U.S. using airplanes as weapons.


they = administration??????

what are you on about??

[funk de fino]

Is this a specific enough warning?

September 1999: US Report Predicts Spectacular Attack on Washington
Edit event

A report prepared for US intelligence titled the “Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism” is completed. It states, “Al-Qaeda’s expected retaliation for the US cruise missile attack… could take several forms of terrorist attack in the nation’s capital. Al-Qaeda could detonate a Chechen-type building-buster bomb at a federal building. Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaeda’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House. Whatever form an attack may take, bin Laden will most likely retaliate in a spectacular way.” The report is by the National Intelligence Council, which advises the president and US intelligence on emerging threats.[Associated Press, 4/18/2002]

Ok all the bolded parts show why it is not specific

No mention of hijack

No mention of commercial airliner

No mention of WTC

No mention of New York

Mentions HE (not used 911)

Mentions CIA (not hit 911)

Mentions White House (not hit 911)

Mentions "several forms"

Mentions "whatever form"

Not really specific at all is it?

More so with hindsight though eh? Luxury we have now

[Belz...]

Belz: *thwap* Mind OUT of the gutter, young man! :D

Sorry. Stupid hormones.

Bad Belz, bad!

Like YOU hadn't thought of it.

[Belz...]

September 1999: US Report Predicts Spectacular Attack on Washington

Also in September 1999, the moon leaves Earth's orbit.

Oh, sorry. Wrong show.

[Swing Dangler]

What should have been done, in your opinion, Swing?

Well first, I think there should have been immediate upgrades to airport security including those measures we have in place today.
Second, armed air marshals should have been placed on all flights.
Pilots should have went through mandatory firearm training and allowed to be armed with weapons.
The security measures recommended by The final report of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (D) and Warren Rudman (R) should have been implemented. You will find that some of those were recommended...by the 9/11 Commission.
Public warnings so private citizens could make informed decisions should have been issued in a timely fashion.

That is just a start I guess.

BillDave Read through the various timelines and you can see the dates of the publications.

The "specific" warning you cite was from a report published more than a year before Bush was elected. And this was evidence of his malfeasance/complicity?
Yes it was a year, however, I think Sabrina will agree that the entire IC is not shoved through a revolving door after an election.

Have a wonderful evening folks!

[HyJinX]

Why only airports? Why not also bus stations, train stations, extra police on the streets and in high profile places that attract masses of people, etc. The warnings you speak of mentioned a lot of scenarios...why focus solely on airports?

[Swing Dangler]

Ok all the bolded parts show why it is not specific

No mention of hijack

No mention of commercial airliner

No mention of WTC

No mention of New York

Mentions HE (not used 911)

Mentions CIA (not hit 911)

Mentions White House (not hit 911)

Mentions "several forms"

Mentions "whatever form"

Not really specific at all is it?

More so with hindsight though eh? Luxury we have now

Oh so what you are looking for is:
Exact names of hijackers, when they are planning on pulling off the event, times and dates of when the hijack will be made, the airliners that are going to be used, the exact time when the plane is to be hijacked, when the transponder would be turned off, when the turn of the plane would be executed, the type of box cutter used, the flight number of each plane, the exact location of each targets impact, the exact time of impact, what they might do if intercepted, etc, etc.

I guess you have no problem with the Administration's performance leading up to 9/11 then, correct? You find no one at fault for the failures, correct?
I will also assume that you do not work in the criminal investigation field as well.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Sorry, I have a higher standard of accountability for our nation's leaders than you do.

[Sabrina]

SD, I just got finished speaking with a gentleman who was part of the FAA's intelligence watch section when 9/11 happened, and before. I put to him the question regarding what he felt about the intelligence prior to 9/11, and also about the preventive measures you've mentioned. Both times he said that what you propose was not feasible at the time. He said that the intel he himself saw (and bear in mind, he'd get all the intel relating to the airliners, since he was in the FAA at the time) did not contain anything specific enough to warrant the cautionary measures you mention, and also points out that, at the time of 9/11, the FAA only REGULATED airport security; ultimately it was the responsibility of the AIRLINES to provide the security, and all security was done by hired contractors, so the measures would have to be agreed to by the airlines before they got implemented. The airlines would likely have not agreed to those measures on the strength of the vague warnings received by the IC.

[funk de fino]

Oh so what you are looking for is:
Exact names of hijackers, when they are planning on pulling off the event, times and dates of when the hijack will be made, the airliners that are going to be used, the exact time when the plane is to be hijacked, when the transponder would be turned off, when the turn of the plane would be executed, the type of box cutter used, the flight number of each plane, the exact location of each targets impact, the exact time of impact, what they might do if intercepted, etc, etc.

I guess you have no problem with the Administration's performance leading up to 9/11 then, correct? You find no one at fault for the failures, correct?
I will also assume that you do not work in the criminal investigation field as well.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Sorry, I have a higher standard of accountability for our nation's leaders than you do.

Sorry mate, if you are going to say lots of specific warnings then there has to be lots of specific warnings. Try googling the definition of specific, it was you who used it not me. As an ex military I know what is deemed specific enough to raise a threat level that would account for the kinds of actions you would liked to have seen and those aren't them

Not my nation or my leaders thankfully, but I do have a problem with it, but again that is with hindsight

Arrogance led them to put all the emphasis on an attack outside the US, this was the main issue IMO

[WildCat]

Sorry, but I'm not going to encourage laziness on your part.
Troofers always do this - they won't link to actual storys from the source, and then barrage you with a million "facts" that have no source linked. It's likely SD just copied and pasted it from somewhere else, and SD probably doesn't even know the source himself.

Could you just link to the one source you find most compelling to your case SD?

[WildCat]

July–August 2000 – “Atlanta Rules” used to protect against airplane attack for Republican Convention in Philadelphia and Democratic Convention in New York.

...you were saying?:mgduh
Are you seriously going to compare guarding a convention center from attack with keeping the entire United States (if not the entire world) safe from an attack by plane?

[WildCat]

Well first, I think there should have been immediate upgrades to airport security including those measures we have in place today.
Second, armed air marshals should have been placed on all flights.
Pilots should have went through mandatory firearm training and allowed to be armed with weapons.
The security measures recommended by The final report of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (D) and Warren Rudman (R) should have been implemented. You will find that some of those were recommended...by the 9/11 Commission.
Public warnings so private citizens could make informed decisions should have been issued in a timely fashion.

That is just a start I guess.
Guess what SD, we are getting more threats every single day about a wide variety of attacks. What in your opinion should be done today to counter these threats? Should we ground all commercial aircraft, for example? Ban all truck traffic in cities? Outlaw parking garages inside highrises?

[BillyRayValentine]

Yes it was a year, however, I think Sabrina will agree that the entire IC is not shoved through a revolving door after an election.

I think Sabrina will also agree that I neither said nor implied anything about "the entire IC (being) shoved through a revolving door after an election". That's called building a strawman.

At issue is whether there were "specific", actionable warnings that Bush ignored. You say yes, and cite an example from 1999.

Sorry, but it's ridiculous to claim that this report should have suddenly been considered "actionable" in 2001. (Not to mention that it's "specifics" clearly had to do with explosives-laden small planes; no mention of crashing hijacked airliners.)

[WildCat]

At issue is whether there were "specific", actionable warnings that Bush ignored. You say yes, and cite an example from 1999.
I've seen troofers who think that Clinton was in on it too. In fact, the whole government is except for Ron Paul.

[JonnyFive]

I've seen troofers who think that Clinton was in on it too. In fact, the whole government is except for Ron Paul.

What is it with them and Ron Paul? Every one of the anti-Fed conspiracy guys I talk to loves Ron Paul.

[WildCat]

What is it with them and Ron Paul? Every one of the anti-Fed conspiracy guys I talk to loves Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the only member of Congress nutty enough to be anti-Fed, so therefore he is the only member of government who's not a made man in the NWO.

[mjd1982]

Ok all the bolded parts show why it is not specific

No mention of hijack

No mention of commercial airliner

No mention of WTC

No mention of New York

Mentions HE (not used 911)

Mentions CIA (not hit 911)

Mentions White House (not hit 911)

Mentions "several forms"

Mentions "whatever form"

Not really specific at all is it?

More so with hindsight though eh? Luxury we have now
I think that this post is perfectly symptomatic of the leading propensity of OTers when it comes to dealing with what are unbelievably simple issues. Muddy the issue. Because the administration did not know (supposedly) that 2 Utd and 2 AAplanes were going to be hijacked from the speciific airports, 2 flown into the TT's, 1 into the Pentagon, and 1 wherever, that therefore they couldnt have done anything about it. Because things are always 20-20 in hindsight, eh?

As I have said before, the sensible will come to sensible conclusions; the stupid people will go on endangering the sensible, and themselves.

[mjd1982]

Oh so what you are looking for is:
Exact names of hijackers, when they are planning on pulling off the event, times and dates of when the hijack will be made, the airliners that are going to be used, the exact time when the plane is to be hijacked, when the transponder would be turned off, when the turn of the plane would be executed, the type of box cutter used, the flight number of each plane, the exact location of each targets impact, the exact time of impact, what they might do if intercepted, etc, etc.

I guess you have no problem with the Administration's performance leading up to 9/11 then, correct? You find no one at fault for the failures, correct?
I will also assume that you do not work in the criminal investigation field as well.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Sorry, I have a higher standard of accountability for our nation's leaders than you do.
That last sentence makes my point well.

[HyJinX]

As I have said before, the sensible will come to sensible conclusions; the stupid people will go on endangering the sensible, and themselves.

You should be more careful then. We don't want you to endanger yourself.

[WildCat]

As I have said before, the sensible will come to sensible conclusions; the stupid people will go on endangering the sensible, and themselves.
And sensible people understand that because the :ninja knew in advance that hijacked airplanes would be flown into the WTC towers, :ninja were able to figure out exactly how the towers would collapse and exactly where the damage and fires would be in WTC 7. WTC 7 was important because that is where the :ninja kept their sooper-sekrit plans they needed to destroy, and the best way to destroy sooper-sekrit documents and hard drives is to incinerate them or smash them with a sledge hammer demolish the building. So since :ninja knew where the damage and fires would be, :ninja planted the bombs necessary to demolish the building ahead of time. :ninja also informed the FDNY of their sooper-sekrit plan so they could warn people away from WTC 7 before the bombs asploded.

It's really quite simple, intelligent people can figure it out.

Yes, the above narrative is what mjd1982 really believes.

[twinstead]

As usual, and as a last resort, Swing Dangler decides to accuse everybody who disagrees with him of believing the government can do no wrong, and refusing to hold them accountable for anything. Yea. That just MUST be it, right? I mean any idiot can see 911 was an inside job and CD brought down the towers.

Kind of like when mjd calls everybody who disagrees with him a sheep.

Do either of you have any different material?

[Parsman]

As usual, and as a last resort, Swing Dangler decides to accuse everybody who disagrees with him of believing the government can do no wrong, and refusing to hold them accountable for anything. Yea. That just MUST be it, right? I mean any idiot can see 911 was an inside job and CD brought down the towers.

Kind of like when mjd calls everybody who disagrees with him a sheep.

Do either of you have any different material?

Different material... hmmmm

"A No-planer, a CDer and a Space Beamer walk into a bar...."

:D

[funk de fino]

I think that this post is perfectly symptomatic of the leading propensity of OTers when it comes to dealing with what are unbelievably simple issues. Muddy the issue. Because the administration did not know (supposedly) that 2 Utd and 2 AAplanes were going to be hijacked from the speciific airports, 2 flown into the TT's, 1 into the Pentagon, and 1 wherever, that therefore they couldnt have done anything about it. Because things are always 20-20 in hindsight, eh?

As I have said before, the sensible will come to sensible conclusions; the stupid people will go on endangering the sensible, and themselves.

At least you never called me an American this time

I am not muddying anything. He claimed there were lots of specific warnings of multiple attacks in the US using planes as weapons, the one claim he does give me is not specific, if you are going to make a claim you have to back it up. Also this was how long before 911?

Try reading posts before shooting your bolt next time

And yes, things amazingly all become much clearer with hindsight, like the fact that you claimed Iraq had the second largest oil reserves in the world.

Now, with hindsight, you know you are wrong.

[westprog]

Why only airports? Why not also bus stations, train stations, extra police on the streets and in high profile places that attract masses of people, etc. The warnings you speak of mentioned a lot of scenarios...why focus solely on airports?

Because one man with a plane can do more damage than with anything else. I doubt whether the WTC could have been brought down with a bus, and certainly not a train.

[Belz...]

I think that this post is perfectly symptomatic of the leading propensity of OTers when it comes to dealing with what are unbelievably simple issues. Muddy the issue.

Unbelievable simple ? Only someone with a very poor grasp of reality would call "simple" something that would involve thousands of people.

Because the administration did not know (supposedly) that 2 Utd and 2 AAplanes were going to be hijacked from the speciific airports, 2 flown into the TT's, 1 into the Pentagon, and 1 wherever, that therefore they couldnt have done anything about it. Because things are always 20-20 in hindsight, eh?

Right.

[SpitfireIX]

Like YOU hadn't thought of it.


Duh. Of course I thought of it, but I was too polite to say it. :)

[Swing Dangler]

SD, I just got finished speaking with a gentleman who was part of the FAA's intelligence watch section when 9/11 happened, and before. I put to him the question regarding what he felt about the intelligence prior to 9/11, and also about the preventive measures you've mentioned. Both times he said that what you propose was not feasible at the time. He said that the intel he himself saw (and bear in mind, he'd get all the intel relating to the airliners, since he was in the FAA at the time) did not contain anything specific enough to warrant the cautionary measures you mention, and also points out that, at the time of 9/11, the FAA only REGULATED airport security; ultimately it was the responsibility of the AIRLINES to provide the security, and all security was done by hired contractors, so the measures would have to be agreed to by the airlines before they got implemented. The airlines would likely have not agreed to those measures on the strength of the vague warnings received by the IC.

In your opinion, should the finger of blame be pointed at the airlines then? If so we can reach at least a partial agreement on that issue.

If you can, ask your source on his opinion as to why the FAA lied to the 9/11 Commission.

muddy the issue. Because the administration did not know (supposedly) that 2 Utd and 2 AAplanes were going to be hijacked from the speciific airports, 2 flown into the TT's, 1 into the Pentagon, and 1 wherever, that therefore they couldnt have done anything about it. Because things are always 20-20 in hindsight, eh?
Apparently the IC had enough sense to prepare for aircraft flying into their respective buildings didn't they? The "Atlantic Rules" were put into place, weren't they? It appears the IC and those responsible for implementing the "Atlantic Rules" were using foresight and were proactive in their measures.

I think Sabrina will also agree that I neither said nor implied anything about "the entire IC (being) shoved through a revolving door after an election". That's called building a strawman.
Is that so? Why then did you point out the year in the warning when it was clearly stated?

As usual, and as a last resort, Swing Dangler decides to accuse everybody who disagrees with him of believing the government can do no wrong, and refusing to hold them accountable for anything.
Not at all. I stated I expect accountability out of our nations leader's and apparently many people do not. The "no one to blame" theory is simply a reflection of our society from the individual to the Administration. "It's not my fault" isn't an excuse for a failure of in the National Security complex at least not in my opinion. Remember Pearl Harbor? At least someone was blamed and held accountable for that failure, but no one on 9/11. And to many of you that is ok? So be it. Who will not be blamed when the next attack occurs?

[Sabrina]

In your opinion, should the finger of blame be pointed at the airlines then? If so we can reach at least a partial agreement on that issue.

If you can, ask your source on his opinion as to why the FAA lied to the 9/11 Commission.

Source for that last statement?

In all honesty, SD, I find the idea of "placing blame" for such a tremendous incident extremely odd. Unless human nature has changed drastically since I last looked, we don't usually place criminal blame on people if they make mistakes. Especially if the individual in question realizes the mistake and takes actions to correct it so it hopefully won't occur again. That's the major difference between a mistake and a calculated action, as I understand it; one is done deliberately, and one is done by accident. However, if I were forced to place blame, I would place the majority (i.e. about 75%) on Al-Qa'ida, followed by equal parts of the remaining blame on the administration, the airlines, the intelligence agencies, and the American people in general (normally I just blame Al Qa'ida, but I do recognize that it is at least partially due to the actions of the United States as a whole that they were able to carry it out at all). As an explanation for why I would put part of the blame on the American people, at least part of the reason why the airliners would likely not have implemented tougher security measures is because the American people at the time would likely have protested the need, citing the major inconvenience it would have caused them, and also pointing out that nothing had happened yet, so why did tougher measures need to be implemented? The vague warnings we had received would most likely not have been enough to convince the American people that the aggravation we're currently experiencing at the airports these days would have been worth it then. Now, we've had the problem happen, and most people, while they are aggravated by the procedures at the airport, at least recognize the necessity, BECAUSE 9/11 HAPPENED.

The gentleman I was speaking with yesterday gave a great example of that; during a previous war (I'm afraid I've forgotten the war he mentioned, but it might have been WWII), after two submarines sank due to, in retrospect, obvious weaknesses in the structure, measures were taken to reinforce the remaining submarines so as to prevent such an occurrence from happening again. No one said BEFORE those two submarines sank, "hey, there might be this problem with the submarines; maybe we should implement measures to prevent them sinking"; it had to happen first. It's a sad but true fact that historically we have had to have things HAPPEN first before we take actions to prevent them.

[Swing Dangler]

At least you never called me an American this time

I am not muddying anything. He claimed there were lots of specific warnings of multiple attacks in the US using planes as weapons, the one claim he does give me is not specific, if you are going to make a claim you have to back it up. Also this was how long before 911?

Try reading posts before shooting your bolt next time

And yes, things amazingly all become much clearer with hindsight, like the fact that you claimed Iraq had the second largest oil reserves in the world.

Now, with hindsight, you know you are wrong.

We have different definitions of 'specific' of course. The timeline entry below is pretty clear and at the time was foresight.

Source for that last statement?

In all honesty, SD, I find the idea of "placing blame" for such a tremendous incident extremely odd. Unless human nature has changed drastically since I last looked, we don't usually place criminal blame on people if they make mistakes. Especially if the individual in question realizes the mistake and takes actions to correct it so it hopefully won't occur again. That's the major difference between a mistake and a calculated action, as I understand it; one is done deliberately, and one is done by accident. However, if I were forced to place blame, I would place the majority (i.e. about 75%) on Al-Qa'ida, followed by equal parts of the remaining blame on the administration, the airlines, the intelligence agencies, and the American people in general (normally I just blame Al Qa'ida, but I do recognize that it is at least partially due to the actions of the United States as a whole that they were able to carry it out at all). As an explanation for why I would put part of the blame on the American people, at least part of the reason why the airliners would likely not have implemented tougher security measures is because the American people at the time would likely have protested the need, citing the major inconvenience it would have caused them, and also pointing out that nothing had happened yet, so why did tougher measures need to be implemented? The vague warnings we had received would most likely not have been enough to convince the American people that the aggravation we're currently experiencing at the airports these days would have been worth it then. Now, we've had the problem happen, and most people, while they are aggravated by the procedures at the airport, at least recognize the necessity, BECAUSE 9/11 HAPPENED.

The gentleman I was speaking with yesterday gave a great example of that; during a previous war (I'm afraid I've forgotten the war he mentioned, but it might have been WWII), after two submarines sank due to, in retrospect, obvious weaknesses in the structure, measures were taken to reinforce the remaining submarines so as to prevent such an occurrence from happening again. No one said BEFORE those two submarines sank, "hey, there might be this problem with the submarines; maybe we should implement measures to prevent them sinking"; it had to happen first. It's a sad but true fact that historically we have had to have things HAPPEN first before we take actions to prevent them.

Source for last quote: Without Precedent review (http://www.collegenews.org/x5990.xml)
"The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel's chairmen say in a new book," notes an Associated Press account of Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html)
Senator Dayton's Transcript: Here (http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/dayton_911truth.htm)
Yeah I know its a site that people hate, but it was only hosted there.
You can also Google FAA lies to the 9/11 Commission.

Here is another timeline of the FAA and prior warnings from MSM outlets.
Coopertive Research (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=FAA&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go#events) Unfortunately the FAA ignored or refused to implement tighter security measures as requested by counter-terrorism officials.


One of the most relevant parts on this issue:

July 10, 2001: CIA Director Gives Urgent Warning to White House of Imminent, Multiple, Simultaneous Al-Qaeda Attacks, Possibly Within US
Edit event

CIA Director Tenet finds the briefing Cofer Black just gave him (see July 10, 2001) so alarming that he calls National Security Adviser Rice from his car as he heads to the White House and says he needs to see her right away, even though he has regular weekly meetings with her. [Washington Post, 10/1/2006] Tenet, Black, and an unnamed third CIA official brief Rice on the latest intelligence. Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke are also present. [McClatchy Newspapers, 10/2/2006] According to a later account in the Washington Post, they told her, “First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself. Black emphasized that this amounted to a strategic warning, meaning the problem was so serious that it required an overall plan and strategy. Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment—covert, military, whatever—to thwart bin Laden. The United States had human and technical sources, and all the intelligence was consistent…” However, “Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off.” They leave the meeting frustrated, seeing little prospect for immediate action. Tenet and Black will both later recall the meeting as the starkest warning they gave the White House on al-Qaeda before 9/11 and one that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks if Rice had acted on it (see July 10, 2001) and conveyed their urgency to President Bush (Tenet was briefing Bush on a daily basis at this time, but he will later claim that Rice had a much better rapport with Bush). Black will say, “The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.” [Woodward, 2006, pp. 80; Washington Post, 10/1/2006] Clarke will recall in 2006 that Rice focused on the possible threat to President Bush at an upcoming summit meeting in Genoa, Italy (see June 13, 2001 and July 20-22, 2001). Rice and Bush had already been briefed about the Genoa warning by this time (see July 5, 2001). Rice also promised to quickly schedule a high-level White House meeting on al-Qaeda. However, that meeting does not take place until September 4, 2001 (see September 4, 2001). [McClatchy Newspapers, 10/2/2006] Rice also directs that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft be given the same briefing (see July 11-17, 2001). There will be a brief description of the meeting in a Time magazine article in 2002 that goes largely unnoticed at the time: “In mid-July, Tenet sat down for a special meeting with Rice and aides. ‘George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack,’ says an official; another, who was present at the meeting, says Tenet broke out a huge wall chart… with dozens of threats. Tenet couldn’t rule out a domestic attack but thought it more likely that al-Qaeda would strike overseas.” [Time, 8/4/2002] Tenet will privately brief the 9/11 Commission about the meeting in early 2004 (see January 28, 2004). According to a transcript of his briefing, he tells Rice there could be an al-Qaeda attack in weeks or perhaps months, that there would be multiple and simultaneous attacks causing major human casualties, and that the focus would be US targets, facilities, or interests. As Time reported, Tenet says the intelligence focuses on an overseas attack, but a domestic attack could not be ruled out. [Washington Post, 10/3/2006] However, this meeting will go unmentioned by the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission and commission members will later deny they were told about it. After the transcript is shared with reporters, the commission members will reverse their denials (see September 30-October 3, 2006). Rice will also deny the meeting took place, only to reverse her position as well (see October 1-2, 2006).

[Cuddles]

I guess we can agree to disagree.

I don't agree to that.

[Sabrina]

I think this is where we're going to have to agree to disagree again, SD; because I don't agree with what you SEEM to be implying, namely that the administration made the calculated decision to ignore "clear warnings" of something happening. Given the number of people I've talked to in the IC about this, I just don't see how you can get specific warnings at all out of what was available then, except in retrospect.

That being said, I'll have to ask about the FAA thing, but given that I know how much people in the government and the IC try to cover their butts, I'd have to say it's a simple case of CYA in that instance that backfired. No one likes to look incompetent, and it was a gamble that didn't pay off, much like NORAD's gamble didn't when the tapes came out and their timeline was revealed to be off. I doubt he'll know WHY the FAA misrepresented themselves, but I'd bet you good money that was their motivation. They're a federal agency, responsible for the aviation in this country; they were probably frightened out of their wits that the populace would be calling for their heads since such a spectacular failure of their duties happened. Self-preservation certainly isn't the most noble of ideals, but as it's human nature, I think it's understandable. That's not to say I condone it, and I would think someone should at least look into WHY they did it, but that is what internal reviews are for.

[funk de fino]

We have different definitions of 'specific' of course.

Specific - Adjective - Clearly, fully, and sometimes emphatically expressed: categorical, clear, clear-cut, decided, definite, explicit, express, positive, precise, unambiguous, unequivocal.

Now what is your definition when used as an adjective?


CIA Director Tenet finds the briefing Cofer Black just gave him (see July 10, 2001) so alarming that he calls National Security Adviser Rice from his car as he heads to the White House and says he needs to see her right away, even though he has regular weekly meetings with her. [Washington Post, 10/1/2006] Tenet, Black, and an unnamed third CIA official brief Rice on the latest intelligence. Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke are also present. [McClatchy Newspapers, 10/2/2006] According to a later account in the Washington Post, they told her, “First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself. Black emphasized that this amounted to a strategic warning, meaning the problem was so serious that it required an overall plan and strategy. Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment—covert, military, whatever—to thwart bin Laden. The United States had human and technical sources, and all the intelligence was consistent…” However, “Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off.” They leave the meeting frustrated, seeing little prospect for immediate action. Tenet and Black will both later recall the meeting as the starkest warning they gave the White House on al-Qaeda before 9/11 and one that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks if Rice had acted on it (see July 10, 2001) and conveyed their urgency to President Bush (Tenet was briefing Bush on a daily basis at this time, but he will later claim that Rice had a much better rapport with Bush). Black will say, “The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.” [Woodward, 2006, pp. 80; Washington Post, 10/1/2006] Clarke will recall in 2006 that Rice focused on the possible threat to President Bush at an upcoming summit meeting in Genoa, Italy (see June 13, 2001 and July 20-22, 2001). Rice and Bush had already been briefed about the Genoa warning by this time (see July 5, 2001). Rice also promised to quickly schedule a high-level White House meeting on al-Qaeda. However, that meeting does not take place until September 4, 2001 (see September 4, 2001). [McClatchy Newspapers, 10/2/2006] Rice also directs that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft be given the same briefing (see July 11-17, 2001). There will be a brief description of the meeting in a Time magazine article in 2002 that goes largely unnoticed at the time: “In mid-July, Tenet sat down for a special meeting with Rice and aides. ‘George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack,’ says an official; another, who was present at the meeting, says Tenet broke out a huge wall chart… with dozens of threats. Tenet couldn’t rule out a domestic attack but thought it more likely that al-Qaeda would strike overseas.” [Time, 8/4/2002] Tenet will privately brief the 9/11 Commission about the meeting in early 2004 (see January 28, 2004). According to a transcript of his briefing, he tells Rice there could be an al-Qaeda attack in weeks or perhaps months, that there would be multiple and simultaneous attacks causing major human casualties, and that the focus would be US targets, facilities, or interests. As Time reported, Tenet says the intelligence focuses on an overseas attack, but a domestic attack could not be ruled out. [Washington Post, 10/3/2006] However, this meeting will go unmentioned by the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission and commission members will later deny they were told about it. After the transcript is shared with reporters, the commission members will reverse their denials (see September 30-October 3, 2006). Rice will also deny the meeting took place, only to reverse her position as well (see October 1-2, 2006).

I have seen transcripts from tenet where it does not ever mention targets inside the US when relating to this threat. Quoting from sources such as those does you no favours.

Also you quotes are still full of falsehoods, you never went back to the Air France one, why is that?

[funk de fino]

I do believe that the tapes that proved the FAA had been making untrue statments to the commission also proved they had done nothing wrong on the day?

[nicepants]

As usual, and as a last resort, Swing Dangler decides to accuse everybody who disagrees with him of believing the government can do no wrong, and refusing to hold them accountable for anything. Yea. That just MUST be it, right? I mean any idiot can see 911 was an inside job and CD brought down the towers.

Kind of like when mjd calls everybody who disagrees with him a sheep.

Do either of you have any different material?

Would that make twoofers goats? Since they'll eat up any junk that someone feeds them....

[Sabrina]

It may also be that the FAA and NORAD people who were doing the TESTIFYING were just given bad information and were embarrassed to admit it.

Hey, it's possible. :D

[lapman]

SD, hindsight is a wonderful thing. The fact is that no one person, group, department, etc is to blame. It all came down to a lack of proper procedures, and the lack of following the existing procedures. Add to that arrogance and interdepartmental mistrust. Instead of going on a witch hunt and/of finding some sacrificial lambs, the government decided to revamp procedures for handling intelligence. Did they go too far, yes. However it was better than sitting around pointing fingers, wasting money on trials, etc.

As far as your recommendations:
Well first, I think there should have been immediate upgrades to airport security including those measures we have in place today.
Second, armed air marshals should have been placed on all flights.
Pilots should have went through mandatory firearm training and allowed to be armed with weapons.
The security measures recommended by The final report of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (D) and Warren Rudman (R) should have been implemented. You will find that some of those were recommended...by the 9/11 Commission.
Public warnings so private citizens could make informed decisions should have been issued in a timely fashion.

There is no way the American public would have stood for it. People complain now about the security measures. What makes you thing the public would have accepted it before 9/11? Because there was a threat? Please. If they had, you would be on here claiming that the government was being too controlling and taking away rights. The ACLU would have had multiples over it.

Since the hijackers claimed that they had a bomb on board, the marshals would have been useless.

The doors would have been deemed too expensive.

The gun training for pilots is now being questioned. So why would you think it would have been accepted before 9/11? What makes you think that they would have had time to reach their guns? The pilots weren't able to put out a mayday or change their transponders to 7500.

As far as the public warnings, how long do you thing it would have taking before people started ignoring them? Why would anybody take a warning that was given 2 years ago any thought today? You're not being realistic.

Before 9/11, how may multiple plane hijacking occurred in the US? In the world?
Before 9/11, how may hijackings ended with the airplane being run into a building?

[Sabrina]

Before 9/11, how many hijackings resulted in wholesale death?
Before 9/11, how many hijackings had EVERYONE on the flights die?

As I understand it, there was one; TWA 800, as they believe it was blown up. There was a plane hijacked in France where they managed to capture the hijackers and found multiple explosives on board, leading them to believe the hijackers intended to blow the plane up over Paris and "rain down death and destruction" over a major metro area.

One thing I forgot to mention about the gentleman I spoke with yesterday; he said that the majority of analysts prior to 9/11, when they thought of planes being associated with destruction, thought that the planes would be used in that manner; i.e. blowing them up over major cities to cause as much havoc as possible. Virtually none of them thought it was possible the planes themselves would be turned into weapons, at least of the ones he spoke to. I think that's fairly telling.

[funk de fino]

There was a plane hijacked in France where they managed to capture the hijackers and found multiple explosives on board, leading them to believe the hijackers intended to blow the plane up over Paris and "rain down death and destruction" over a major metro area.

Not quite the correct story.

It was hijacked before it took off from Algiers.

It was hijacked by islamic extremists dressed as policemen (no connections to Al Qieda BTW)

It flew to France where it was diverted to marseille instead of going to paris.

It was stormed in marseille and all hijackers killed.

there was dynamite found in the plane but it had not been wired for detonation.

At no time did the hijackers make any threats of using the plane as a weapon and it was only pure speculation by the authorities that referenced this possibility.

[funk de fino]

TWA800 was not blown up and funnily enough it was a french idiot who started this CT

There was a Malaysian airliner that was apparently hijacked and then crashed killing all onboard

[Sabrina]

Crud, I messed up the number of the flight; I apologize. My source and I were talking about hijackings and flight issues and he mentioned TWA 800 along with this other flight that I'm now drawing a blank on, and I confused the two of them together. My apologies.

[Belz...]

Before 9/11, how many hijackings resulted in wholesale death?
Before 9/11, how many hijackings had EVERYONE on the flights die?

As I understand it, there was one; TWA 800, as they believe it was blown up. There was a plane hijacked in France where they managed to capture the hijackers and found multiple explosives on board, leading them to believe the hijackers intended to blow the plane up over Paris and "rain down death and destruction" over a major metro area.

One thing I forgot to mention about the gentleman I spoke with yesterday; he said that the majority of analysts prior to 9/11, when they thought of planes being associated with destruction, thought that the planes would be used in that manner; i.e. blowing them up over major cities to cause as much havoc as possible. Virtually none of them thought it was possible the planes themselves would be turned into weapons, at least of the ones he spoke to. I think that's fairly telling.

Sabrina, may I ask in what field you work ? Just curious.

[HyJinX]

Sabrina, may I ask in what field you work ? Just curious.

Seductive fashion would be my guess.

[Swing Dangler]

Before 9/11, how many hijackings resulted in wholesale death?
Before 9/11, how many hijackings had EVERYONE on the flights die?

As I understand it, there was one; TWA 800, as they believe it was blown up. There was a plane hijacked in France where they managed to capture the hijackers and found multiple explosives on board, leading them to believe the hijackers intended to blow the plane up over Paris and "rain down death and destruction" over a major metro area.

One thing I forgot to mention about the gentleman I spoke with yesterday; he said that the majority of analysts prior to 9/11, when they thought of planes being associated with destruction, thought that the planes would be used in that manner; i.e. blowing them up over major cities to cause as much havoc as possible. Virtually none of them thought it was possible the planes themselves would be turned into weapons, at least of the ones he spoke to. I think that's fairly telling.

Here are a couple more planes and hijack incidents where pilots and some times all passengers were killed:

1977: German commandos storm a Lufthansa airliner in Mogadishu, Somalia, after a five-day stand-off during which Palestinian guerrillas have killed the plane's pilot; three hijackers die in the raid, while 86 hostages are freed

Japanese hijacker held after killing pilot
November 10, 2000
CBC News
A computer-game fan who wanted to try the real thing hijacked a Japanese jumbo jet Friday, stabbed the pilot to death in mid-air and seized control of the airliner before being overpowered by crew members, police and media said.
9/1/83Flight 007 (Boeing 747-230B)

I hate using Wiki, but you can read about more pilot deaths at the hands of hijackers here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Kor...s_and_accidents

There is no way the American public would have stood for it. People complain now about the security measures. What makes you thing the public would have accepted it before 9/11?
Before 9/11 there wasn't the tool of fear and terrorism over and over again repeated by the media and confirmed by the meaningless colorful threat level alert. No way the public would stand for it? Yeah, like the American public stands for anything anymore. People would have to live with it and deal with it like we do now. At least then it would have been proactive instead of reactive. I can respect leaders more if they choose to proactive instead of reactive.

Instead of going on a witch hunt and/of finding some sacrificial lambs,
A witch hunt and lambs? This is about people who failed miserably at their jobs resulting in 3000+ more deaths. So please stop apologizing and blaming no one for failure. That is the most ridiculous excuse I've ever heard.

I have seen transcripts from tenet where it does not ever mention targets inside the US when relating to this threat. Quoting from sources such as those does you no favours.
“Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off.” They leave the meeting frustrated, seeing little prospect for immediate action. Tenet and Black will both later recall the meeting as the starkest warning they gave the White House on al-Qaeda before 9/11 and one that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks if Rice had acted on it (see July 10, 2001) and conveyed their urgency to President Bush (Tenet was briefing Bush on a daily basis at this time, but he will later claim that Rice had a much better rapport with Bush)

Dodge noted. Lets see, potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks. Is that not specific enough?

LapmanSD, hindsight is a wonderful thing. It sure is. Being proactive to ever increasing threat levels is an even better thing wouldn't you agree?As far as the public warnings, how long do you thing it would have taking before people started ignoring them?
Tell me, what happens to someone who ignores the security checkpoints at airports and tries to the board the plane? I've never seen it happen, have you? It can't be a positive experience considering the security measures they take now.
What makes you think that they would have had time to reach their guns? . The training I suggested, does that ring a bell? That of course depends on where the guns are located. However, your slipping into hypothetical details to maintain the "nobody to blame" game.
You have tried to counter preventative measures.Stop thinking like an apologist and think like a security expert.
Acceptance of heightened security comes from the government responding and being proactive to the hijack warnings and the increasing threat levels. Come on be more realistic. Why are you attempting to show how all of the preventive measures might have been defeated or worse useless? Sure they all could have been defeated by the terrorists, but at least if they were it was truly the hijacker's defeating the measures instead of the hijackers succeeding due to lack of appropriate measures.
Since the hijackers claimed that they had a bomb on board, the marshals would have been useless. LOL. Ok. And the move to put marshalls on planes now is useless as well?
Hmm a gunshot wound to the head is useless against a 'claim' eh?
BTW, do you have a source for that claim and if they did have a bomb how the hell did that get through security?

As far as the public warnings, how long do you thing it would have taking before people started ignoring them? Why would anybody take a warning that was given 2 years ago any thought today? You're not being realistic.
Your using the American attitude today to determine how they would have reacted 6 or 7 years ago, correct? The attitude today is the way it is because of the numerous "misstatements" and "falsehoods" provided by the administration. Subtract all of the scandals, lies, and misstatements, of this administration and IMHO the American public would have the opposite response of your suggestion. Proactive versus reactive generally has a greater acceptance imho.
If they had, you would be on here claiming that the government was being too controlling and taking away rights.
Ahh the Nostradamus factor. If they did, and 9/11 would have been prevented, I wouldn't be on here.
And would it have been worth it if 9/11 was prevented? Never mind, I know the answer.

Before 9/11, how may hijackings ended with the airplane being run into a building?
It doesn't matter the number considering the training the IC was going through to respond to a plane hitting their respective building.
Sabrina
Virtually none of them thought it was possible the planes themselves would be turned into weapons, at least of the ones he spoke to. I think that's fairly telling.
I understand your qualifying your statement based upon the "ones he spoke to" but that doesn't match up with the training and drills for planes crashing into their respective IC buildings and the warnings provided by the counter-intel czar.

[Sabrina]

As I told SD a page or so ago, I work for a private contractor that has numerous contracts with the main intel agencies, so I'm around individuals on a daily basis that have both a lot of experience in intel and little experience in intel (the noobs versus the oldtimers, essentially). I don't personally handle the intel myself (although I'm working toward that eventually; I want to be a counterterrorism analyst), but the majority of the people around me do, and don't mind it when I ask questions. I am also a 1LT in the Army Reserves, MOS 35D (mind out of the gutter, Belz!), which is All Source Intelligence, and I am the tactical intelligence officer for my unit. I'll have six years in the Army on February 3rd, 2008, four years of which was active duty (I'm on an eight year contract).

[Sabrina]

One agency that I know of planned an exercise for a plane being deliberately crashed into their building, the NRO. I'm not sure of their motivation for that exercise, but one exercise does not a credible example make. Yes, the Pentagon had that MASCAL exercise, but bearing in mind that the main runway for Reagan International Airport IS on a line with the Pentagon, I think they were smart to plan for an accidental crash of an airliner, and it helped with 9/11 later. The MASCAL exercise was for an ACCIDENTAL crash, not a deliberate one, and since, as I've said, Reagan International's runway was more or less on a line with them, it was simply prudent planning.

[Swing Dangler]

One agency that I know of planned an exercise for a plane being deliberately crashed into their building, the NRO. I'm not sure of their motivation for that exercise, but one exercise does not a credible example make. Yes, the Pentagon had that MASCAL exercise, but bearing in mind that the main runway for Reagan International Airport IS on a line with the Pentagon, I think they were smart to plan for an accidental crash of an airliner, and it helped with 9/11 later. The MASCAL exercise was for an ACCIDENTAL crash, not a deliberate one, and since, as I've said, Reagan International's runway was more or less on a line with them, it was simply prudent planning.

So the motivation of the pilot determines preparedness? We planned for an accident not on purpose crash? I don't follow the logic.

If I'm not mistaken the NRO was a joint creation between the CIA and Air Force correct? The NRO also draws personnels from both agencies if I'm not mistaken. Would it be safe to assume they in whatever manner would be aware of the exercise?
The NRO's motivation for practicing a plane crashing into their HQ? Perhaps all of those warnings warning from the IC is a sufficient answer. However, they state it has nothing to do with terrorism.
Luckily for the terrorists it happened to be on 9/11 where personnel in charge of this aspect of the IC would be concerned with a drill until they canceled the exercise.

[lapman]

Here are a couple more planes and hijack incidents where pilots and some times all passengers were killed:

1977: German commandos storm a Lufthansa airliner in Mogadishu, Somalia, after a five-day stand-off during which Palestinian guerrillas have killed the plane's pilot; three hijackers die in the raid, while 86 hostages are freed

Japanese hijacker held after killing pilot
November 10, 2000
CBC News
A computer-game fan who wanted to try the real thing hijacked a Japanese jumbo jet Friday, stabbed the pilot to death in mid-air and seized control of the airliner before being overpowered by crew members, police and media said.
9/1/83Flight 007 (Boeing 747-230B)

I hate using Wiki, but you can read about more pilot deaths at the hands of hijackers here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Kor...s_and_accidents
Not a single one of them were flown into buildings. According to wiki, there were only 4 US aircraft hijacked. Only one was by a foreign national. One was going to be uses to run into a building by a disgruntled employee.

Before 9/11 there wasn't the tool of fear and terrorism over and over again repeated by the media and confirmed by the meaningless colorful threat level alert. No way the public would stand for it? Yeah, like the American public stands for anything anymore. People would have to live with it and deal with it like we do now.You couldn't be more wrong. The American public tolerates it now because there is a reason for it. A few threats would not be viewed as a reason since hijacking was not looked on as a credible threat.
At least then it would have been proactive instead of reactive. I can respect leaders more if they choose to proactive instead of reactive. Though true, most people would not look at it that way. Especially over time.


Instead of going on a witch hunt and/of finding some sacrificial lambs,
A witch hunt and lambs? This is about people who failed miserably at their jobs resulting in 3000+ more deaths. So please stop apologizing and blaming no one for failure. That is the most ridiculous excuse I've ever heard.
Wrong. This is about a system that failed miserably. It's about letting arrogance and interdepartmental mistrust get in the way of following procedure.

Lapman It sure is. Being proactive to ever increasing threat levels is an even better thing wouldn't you agree?Yes I would agree. However most people don't see it that way when it causes inconvenience or costs them money.

Tell me, what happens to someone who ignores the security checkpoints at airports and tries to the board the plane? I've never seen it happen, have you? It can't be a positive experience considering the security measures they take now.Security checkpoints are not published threats. Try an apples to apples comparison. How much to you pay attention to the security threat level now compared to 5 years ago.

The training I suggested, does that ring a bell? That of course depends on where the guns are located. However, your slipping into hypothetical details to maintain the "nobody to blame" game. Wrong again. Like I said before, they couldn't even get a mayday out. What makes you thing they could have reached their guns, aimed and shot the hijackers in that cramped space. Have you ever been in a cockpit? Space is not a luxury. And any training the pilots had would have been dealt with by the training the hijackers went through.
You have tried to counter preventative measures.Stop thinking like an apologist and think like a security expert. Yet people still get on board airliners without even going through the checkpoints.
Acceptance of heightened security comes from the government responding and being proactive to the hijack warnings and the increasing threat levels. Come on be more realistic. Why are you attempting to show how all of the preventive measures might have been defeated or worse useless? Sure they all could have been defeated by the terrorists, but at least if they were it was truly the hijacker's defeating the measures instead of the hijackers succeeding due to lack of appropriate measures. Though true, the key phrase is that the hijackers would have succeeded. The only possible difference would be flight 93 if the sky marshal was also trained in removing people from the cockpit.

LOL. Ok. And the move to put marshalls on planes now is useless as well?
Hmm a gunshot wound to the head is useless against a 'claim' eh?
BTW, do you have a source for that claim and if they did have a bomb how the hell did that get through security? I never said that they had a bomb, only that they claimed to have a bomb. How would the marshal know if they were bluffing? Would the sky marshal risk the lives of everyone? Remember, the hijackers didn't announce that they were going to fly the planes into buildings.

Your using the American attitude today to determine how they would have reacted 6 or 7 years ago, correct? The attitude today is the way it is because of the numerous "misstatements" and "falsehoods" provided by the administration. Subtract all of the scandals, lies, and misstatements, of this administration and IMHO the American public would have the opposite response of your suggestion. Proactive versus reactive generally has a greater acceptance imho.It may be your opinion, but it not based on any facts. The fact is that people then as now do not want to be inconvenienced for what they would perceive as a bogus reason. Remember, there hadn't been a hijacking of an American airliner by a foreigner in over 25 years.

Ahh the Nostradamus factor. If they did, and 9/11 would have been prevented, I wouldn't be on here.
And would it have been worth it if 9/11 was prevented? Never mind, I know the answer.
Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing. If 9/11 was prevented, we wouldn't know about it except for maybe a single evening's news broadcast which would have been forgotten within a week.

It doesn't matter the number considering the training the IC was going through to respond to a plane hitting their respective building.
Nice duck. Try actually answering the question.

I understand your qualifying your statement based upon the "ones he spoke to" but that doesn't match up with the training and drills for planes crashing into their respective IC buildings and the warnings provided by the counter-intel czar.Provide proof of this training including how often it was done. What was the basis of the airplanes crashing into the buildings?

[mjd1982]

Source for that last statement?

In all honesty, SD, I find the idea of "placing blame" for such a tremendous incident extremely odd. Unless human nature has changed drastically since I last looked, we don't usually place criminal blame on people if they make mistakes. Especially if the individual in question realizes the mistake and takes actions to correct it so it hopefully won't occur again. That's the major difference between a mistake and a calculated action, as I understand it; one is done deliberately, and one is done by accident. However, if I were forced to place blame, I would place the majority (i.e. about 75%) on Al-Qa'ida, followed by equal parts of the remaining blame on the administration, the airlines, the intelligence agencies, and the American people in general (normally I just blame Al Qa'ida, but I do recognize that it is at least partially due to the actions of the United States as a whole that they were able to carry it out at all). As an explanation for why I would put part of the blame on the American people, at least part of the reason why the airliners would likely not have implemented tougher security measures is because the American people at the time would likely have protested the need, citing the major inconvenience it would have caused them, and also pointing out that nothing had happened yet, so why did tougher measures need to be implemented? The vague warnings we had received would most likely not have been enough to convince the American people that the aggravation we're currently experiencing at the airports these days would have been worth it then. Now, we've had the problem happen, and most people, while they are aggravated by the procedures at the airport, at least recognize the necessity, BECAUSE 9/11 HAPPENED.

The gentleman I was speaking with yesterday gave a great example of that; during a previous war (I'm afraid I've forgotten the war he mentioned, but it might have been WWII), after two submarines sank due to, in retrospect, obvious weaknesses in the structure, measures were taken to reinforce the remaining submarines so as to prevent such an occurrence from happening again. No one said BEFORE those two submarines sank, "hey, there might be this problem with the submarines; maybe we should implement measures to prevent them sinking"; it had to happen first. It's a sad but true fact that historically we have had to have things HAPPEN first before we take actions to prevent them.
Placing blame for screw ups is precisely what should be done, and what is done. If people mess up to the extent that others lose money, get endangered, die, or whatever, in any circumstance, blame gets apportioned, and measures get taken. This is very, very simple.

[mjd1982]

Seductive fashion would be my guess.
Sorry, wasnt it CTers who are typed as geeky kids who dont get out much and have never tucked in with a woman?

[HyJinX]

That's right. I'm married and my wife is a sex therapist. Lucky me.

How's that JUGGS magazine subscription coming along? And the value of your stock in Kleenex?

[Sabrina]

Placing blame for screw ups is precisely what should be done, and what is done. If people mess up to the extent that others lose money, get endangered, die, or whatever, in any circumstance, blame gets apportioned, and measures get taken. This is very, very simple.

And?

Measures HAVE been taken. Security has been implemented. Reports have shown where mistakes were made in the IC. Recommendations by the 9/11 Commission report are currently being implemented throughout the IC. The IC has accepted blame. So have the airlines. So have the people in charge of security. We have since prevented several terrorist plots. Obviously what we're doing is working, at least to some extent. Why are you STILL trying to assign blame when it's already been assigned and measures are being taken to prevent future occurrences?

[mjd1982]

There is a pretty clear issue here- since all terrorist attacks, and indeed most crimes, have an element of novelty about them, to use the argument that since no one had ever committed this sort of crime before, thus no one could ever stop it, is to suggest that no one will ever be able to stop any sort of crime, since they all have elements of novelty to them. This is clearly loopy, and reflectiveof the worst kind of denial/delusion.

[beachnut]

So the motivation of the pilot determines preparedness? We planned for an accident not on purpose crash? I don't follow the logic.

If I'm not mistaken the NRO was a joint creation between the CIA and Air Force correct? The NRO also draws personnels from both agencies if I'm not mistaken. Would it be safe to assume they in whatever manner would be aware of the exercise?
The NRO's motivation for practicing a plane crashing into their HQ? Perhaps all of those warnings warning from the IC is a sufficient answer. However, they state it has nothing to do with terrorism.
Luckily for the terrorists it happened to be on 9/11 where personnel in charge of this aspect of the IC would be concerned with a drill until they canceled the exercise.
Random talk. And your point? You have no point and not a thing that relates to 9/11. You do not even research your own junk. You keep asking stupid questions. You need to do the research if you want to make a point. You need to come up with the stuff, not make up idiot questions and keep dishing out endless piles of bs.

The Pentagon is next to an airport, one of the biggest problems could be a lost plane landing hits the pentagon at 180 mph. Why are you unable to figure out the simple stuff. You have no point, or any thing to support 9/11 truth. You are now showing how poorly you researched the event and how little knowledge you bring to every post.

[Unsecured Coins]

my wife is a sex therapist.

You lucky motherf....

[beachnut]

There is a pretty clear issue here- since all terrorist attacks, and indeed most crimes, have an element of novelty about them, to use the argument that since no one had ever committed this sort of crime before, thus no one could ever stop it, is to suggest that no one will ever be able to stop any sort of crime, since they all have elements of novelty to them. This is clearly loopy, and reflectiveof the worst kind of denial/delusion.
We did stop 25 percent. Darn, your idea is already in the bit bucket. Your record is still perfect.

Wow, you have never been surprised when someone cut you throat. The terrorist found a weakness, and they used it. They have now used up that method for killing people. Now the pilots will land if you start killing people and you will die.

Where were you telling us all the terrorist were going to kill pilots and take planes into buildings. Is this all you fault?

[HyJinX]

You lucky motherf....

Yeah....I'm the only guy I know that loves it when his wife decides to bring her work home with her.

BA DA BUM.

Don't laugh...it's an industry joke that's said probably 100 times a day. I'm a little ashamed I said it here.

[BillyRayValentine]

There is a pretty clear issue here- since all terrorist attacks, and indeed most crimes, have an element of novelty about them, to use the argument that since no one had ever committed this sort of crime before, thus no one could ever stop it, is to suggest that no one will ever be able to stop any sort of crime, since they all have elements of novelty to them. This is clearly loopy, and reflectiveof the worst kind of denial/delusion.

Consider yourself Stundie-nominated.

What absolute drivel.

[Unsecured Coins]

Yeah....I'm the only guy I know that loves it when his wife decides to bring her work home with her.

BA DA BUM.

Don't laugh...it's an industry joke that's said probably 100 times a day. I'm a little ashamed I said it here.

I'd be mortified that she'd be using you in a case study without your consent. That'd scare the bejesus out of me, at least

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=lapman;2901286]Not a single one of them were flown into buildings. According to wiki, there were only 4 US aircraft hijacked. Only one was by a foreign national. One was going to be uses to run into a building by a disgruntled employee.
Here were the questions:
"Before 9/11, how many hijackings resulted in wholesale death?
Before 9/11, how many hijackings had EVERYONE on the flights die?"
Therefore impact with buildings to these two questions are irrelevant.

You couldn't be more wrong. The American public tolerates it now because there is a reason for it. A few threats would not be viewed as a reason since hijacking was not looked on as a credible threat.
See the historical record as hijackings as a credible threat. Your using hindsight to justify your statement when it is sheer speculation that I noted as opinion. However, the warnings to the Administration were extremely credible.

Though true, most people would not look at it that way. Especially over time.
Wrong. This is about a system that failed miserably. It's about letting arrogance and interdepartmental mistrust get in the way of following procedure.
Oh so people aren't involved in the system. Are you trying to blame inanimate objects for the failure? Go back and study the historical record leading up to 9/11 and the response of the Bush Administration's to the numerous IC warnings. I posted the response by Tenet below. Have you read that?

As far as the public warnings, how long do you thing it would have taking before people started ignoring them?
Good question. Compare public warnings to preventive measures at airports and on airlines. People can and do ignore warnings, but they can't ignore proactive measures put into place by respective agencies.


Wrong again. Like I said before, they couldn't even get a mayday out. What makes you thing they could have reached their guns, aimed and shot the hijackers in that cramped space. Have you ever been in a cockpit? Space is not a luxury. And any training the pilots had would have been dealt with by the training the hijackers went through.
Yes, I've been in the cockpit of many types of planes. So a box cutter beats a gun in a fight now? The cockpit had how many pilots and co pilots? The walkway into the cockpit to my recollection is large enough to accommodate 1 person of average size. It would appear to me that multiple pilots with access to firearms beats one terrorist with a box cutter.

Yet people still get on board airliners without even going through the checkpoints.Source?
I've flown numerous time since 9/11 and all passengers had to go through the checkpoints in my experience.

Though true, the key phrase is that the hijackers would have succeeded. The only possible difference would be flight 93 if the sky marshal was also trained in removing people from the cockpit.
I never said that they had a bomb, only that they claimed to have a bomb. How would the marshal know if they were bluffing? Would the sky marshal risk the lives of everyone? .
Perhaps a study of Sky Marshal training would be the best source to the answer. They do carry guns correct? The intent of course is to use force. I don't see the problem.
The fact is that people then as now do not want to be inconvenienced for what they would perceive as a bogus reason.

A
Remember, there hadn't been a hijacking of an American airliner by a foreigner in over 25 years.
Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Yes and not taking action based upon numerous warnings is a terrible thing.

If 9/11 was prevented, we wouldn't know about it except for maybe a single evening's news broadcast which would have been forgotten within a week. How I would have loved to hear about it that way.

Provide proof of this training including how often it was done.
I did in an earlier post. NORAD practiced hijacking drills on a yearly bases as part of their training.
Sabrina mentioned training of planes crashing into buildings as well. What does the training on the ground by the IC with their respective structures have to do with proactive measures taken by the administration for the benefit of the American public specifically with airport security?

Remember, there hadn't been a hijacking of an American airliner by a foreigner in over 25 years. But the system was blinking red in the run up to 9/11, the warnings were there, however,....Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off.” They leave the meeting frustrated, seeing little prospect for immediate action. Tenet and Black will both later recall the meeting as the starkest warning they gave the White House on al-Qaeda before 9/11 and one that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks if Rice had acted on it (see July 10, 2001) and conveyed their urgency to President Bush (Tenet was briefing Bush on a daily basis at this time, but he will later claim that Rice had a much better rapport with Bush).

What was done by the Bush Administration? Nothing.

I guess we will agree to disagree however the historical record favors my position of accountability for those responsible for running the "system" that failed. And it appears based upon the assessment of the DIC that 9/11 could have been prevented if the Administration would have been proactive with their policy instead of "brushing" off those sounding the alarm.

[HyJinX]

I'd be mortified that she'd be using you in a case study without your consent. That'd scare the bejesus out of me, at least

Just as long as the word "giggle" isn't strewn throughout.

[WildCat]

And sensible people understand that because the :ninja knew in advance that hijacked airplanes would be flown into the WTC towers, :ninja were able to figure out exactly how the towers would collapse and exactly where the damage and fires would be in WTC 7. WTC 7 was important because that is where the :ninja kept their sooper-sekrit plans they needed to destroy, and the best way to destroy sooper-sekrit documents and hard drives is to incinerate them or smash them with a sledge hammer demolish the building. So since :ninja knew where the damage and fires would be, :ninja planted the bombs necessary to demolish the building ahead of time. :ninja also informed the FDNY of their sooper-sekrit plan so they could warn people away from WTC 7 before the bombs asploded.
mjd1982, is the above an acurate depiction of your beliefs regarding WTC 7?

[Lyte Trip]

One agency that I know of planned an exercise for a plane being deliberately crashed into their building, the NRO. I'm not sure of their motivation for that exercise, but one exercise does not a credible example make. Yes, the Pentagon had that MASCAL exercise, but bearing in mind that the main runway for Reagan International Airport IS on a line with the Pentagon, I think they were smart to plan for an accidental crash of an airliner, and it helped with 9/11 later. The MASCAL exercise was for an ACCIDENTAL crash, not a deliberate one, and since, as I've said, Reagan International's runway was more or less on a line with them, it was simply prudent planning.

Um, are you sure about that? Apparently there was a drill proposed where a plane hijacked by terrorists would be crashed into the Pentagon.


Pentagon crash 'too unrealistic'

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | April 14, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Five months before Sept. 11, 2001, the officers responsible for defending American airspace wanted to test their ability to prevent a hijacked airliner from being crashed into the Pentagon, but the scenario was rejected by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as impractical, a Joint Chiefs spokesman confirmed yesterday.




The disclosure was made after a government watchdog group released a leaked e-mail from a former official at the North American Air Defense Command. In the message, the official told colleagues a week after the attacks that in April 2001 NORAD requested that war games run by the Joint Chiefs include an ''event having a terrorist group hijack a commercial airline . . . and fly it into the Pentagon."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/14/pentagon_crash_too_unrealistic/

[Unsecured Coins]

Just as long as the word "giggle" isn't strewn throughout.

perish the thought

[Myron Proudfoot]

while the NRO is not as close to Dulles as the Pentagon is to National, it is near enough to Dulles (and along a possible flight path?) so that an exercise involving an accidential crash would make sense.

And yes, NRO has a lot of employees originally from CIA, Air Force and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (former NIMA) it now has a lot of its own employees as well. and is not just CIA or Air Force in another guide.

[funk de fino]

Before 9/11, how many hijackings resulted in wholesale death?
Before 9/11, how many hijackings had EVERYONE on the flights die?


Here are a couple more planes and hijack incidents where pilots and some times all passengers were killed:

1977: German commandos storm a Lufthansa airliner in Mogadishu, Somalia, after a five-day stand-off during which Palestinian guerrillas have killed the plane's pilot; three hijackers die in the raid, while 86 hostages are freed

Japanese hijacker held after killing pilot
November 10, 2000
CBC News
A computer-game fan who wanted to try the real thing hijacked a Japanese jumbo jet Friday, stabbed the pilot to death in mid-air and seized control of the airliner before being overpowered by crew members, police and media said.
9/1/83Flight 007 (Boeing 747-230B)


read the two posts and see where it pertains to wholesale and everyone?? where does it say all passengers were killed?

do you speak english as a first language because i am beginning to wonder

[funk de fino]

There is a pretty clear issue here- since all terrorist attacks, and indeed most crimes, have an element of novelty about them, to use the argument that since no one had ever committed this sort of crime before, thus no one could ever stop it, is to suggest that no one will ever be able to stop any sort of crime, since they all have elements of novelty to them. This is clearly loopy, and reflectiveof the worst kind of denial/delusion.

ha ha , absolute gibberish, best one yet

[lapman]

[QUOTE]
Here were the questions:
"Before 9/11, how many hijackings resulted in wholesale death?
Before 9/11, how many hijackings had EVERYONE on the flights die?"
Therefore impact with buildings to these two questions are irrelevant.
Ok, my bad. So answer my questions.


See the historical record as hijackings as a credible threat. Your using hindsight to justify your statement when it is sheer speculation that I noted as opinion. However, the warnings to the Administration were extremely credible.
Not even close. Since it was over 25 years since the one time a foreign national hijacked an aircraft, the threat was not credible.

Oh so people aren't involved in the system. Are you trying to blame inanimate objects for the failure? Go back and study the historical record leading up to 9/11 and the response of the Bush Administration's to the numerous IC warnings. I posted the response by Tenet below. Have you read that?
So they are supposed to fire everyone involved and completely gut the IC and all other departments that were involved? How does that accomplish anything?

Good question. Compare public warnings to preventive measures at airports and on airlines. People can and do ignore warnings, but they can't ignore proactive measures put into place by respective agencies.
Then there are lawsuits and outcries calling for the end of it.


Yes, I've been in the cockpit of many types of planes. So a box cutter beats a gun in a fight now? The cockpit had how many pilots and co pilots? The walkway into the cockpit to my recollection is large enough to accommodate 1 person of average size. It would appear to me that multiple pilots with access to firearms beats one terrorist with a box cutter.
You really don't do your research, do you, there were more than one hijackers in the cockpit. And someone can come up behind you and slit your throat with a boxcutter considerably faster than you can recognize the danger, pull your weapon, aim and shoot a moving target. Keeping in mind that you just don't fire your weapon without making sure it doesn't puncture the skin of the aircraft at 30k feet.
Source?
http://securitysolutions.com/news/security_woman_gets_past/index.html
A woman passed through security screening at New York's LaGuardia Airport with a stun gun and knife in her purse -- but later discovered the mistake herself and alerted authorities. The woman realized she was carrying the items after a short layover in Detroit and on her way to Denver.


Perhaps a study of Sky Marshal training would be the best source to the answer. They do carry guns correct? The intent of course is to use force. I don't see the problem.
Except that you just don't fire a weapon at 30,000 feet without being assured that it will hit and not go through the skin of the aircraft. One other thing, if they not only say that there is a bomb on board and that they are only going back to the airport with their demands, what reason would the sky marshal have to risk the lives of the passengers if they are currently safe?
Remember, there hadn't been a hijacking of an American airliner by a foreigner in over 25 years.

Yes and not taking action based upon numerous warnings is a terrible thing.Except when they aren't credible warning based on the past. Have you research how many hijack warning there were prior to 1998?

How I would have loved to hear about it that way.No argument here. I'm sure everyone would agree with you.


I did in an earlier post. NORAD practiced hijacking drills on a yearly bases as part of their training.source?
Sabrina mentioned training of planes crashing into buildings as well. What does the training on the ground by the IC with their respective structures have to do with proactive measures taken by the administration for the benefit of the American public specifically with airport security?
Nothing.
But the system was blinking red in the run up to 9/11, the warnings were there, however,....Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off.” They leave the meeting frustrated, seeing little prospect for immediate action. Tenet and Black will both later recall the meeting as the starkest warning they gave the White House on al-Qaeda before 9/11 and one that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks if Rice had acted on it (see July 10, 2001) and conveyed their urgency to President Bush (Tenet was briefing Bush on a daily basis at this time, but he will later claim that Rice had a much better rapport with Bush).Potentially stopped is not absolutely stopped. As Sabrina has pointed out, there were no actionable warnings.

What was done by the Bush Administration? Nothing.So the 70 investigations was nothing? The pressure the Bush admin was putting on the Taliban to hand over OBL was nothing?

I guess we will agree to disagree however the historical record favors my position of accountability for those responsible for running the "system" that failed. And it appears based upon the assessment of the DIC that 9/11 could have been prevented if the Administration would have been proactive with their policy instead of "brushing" off those sounding the alarm.There is no guarantee that 9/11 could have been prevented even with today's security. There is always a way around it if you look long enough and are determined enough. However, if it happened again, our response would be quite different.

[Jennie C.]

You find yourself at a crossroads. Down one road simply leads you in a circle, arguing the same points over and over again. Down another path lies a different fate, and one that seems preferable to the circular path.

To go down the circular path go to post #416 or #493.

To take the preferable path, go to post #710 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2695040&postcount=710)

I'm doing one of my long reads to an earlier thread things, and met this post on page 18.

MJD is still harping on his interpretation of the PNAC doc (please tell me it gets better). And all I can think of is:

"You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike."

[mjd1982]

We did stop 25 percent. Darn, your idea is already in the bit bucket. Your record is still perfect.

Wow, you have never been surprised when someone cut you throat. The terrorist found a weakness, and they used it. They have now used up that method for killing people. Now the pilots will land if you start killing people and you will die.

Where were you telling us all the terrorist were going to kill pilots and take planes into buildings. Is this all you fault?
???

Can someone get this dude a translator please.

[8den]

???

Can someone get this dude a translator please.

Sure beachnut is speaking rational english, as soon as we can translate his coherant rational points into the batcrap loco version of english you use, we'll get right on it.

[Brainache]

???

Can someone get this dude a translator please.

I'll have a go for you mjd: (apologies to Beachnut if I missed anything)

"25% of the hijacked aircraft on 9/11 were prevented from reaching their target. You are wrong about everything.

The attack on the pilots by the terrorists caught them by surprise and was very effective. Next time they will have to try something different because measures have been put in place to prevent such attacks in future.

If this type of attack was so obvious, why didn't you warn everyone before 9/11? Are you in on it? I don't really believe that you are in on it, this is just my way of pointing out that hindsight is 20/20."

[Belz...]

As I told SD a page or so ago, I work for a private contractor that has numerous contracts with the main intel agencies, so I'm around individuals on a daily basis that have both a lot of experience in intel and little experience in intel (the noobs versus the oldtimers, essentially). I don't personally handle the intel myself (although I'm working toward that eventually; I want to be a counterterrorism analyst), but the majority of the people around me do, and don't mind it when I ask questions.

Very cool. That makes you automatically a member of the NWO!!!

I am also a 1LT in the Army Reserves, MOS 35D (mind out of the gutter, Belz!)

Mmmmmm....

[Belz...]

Placing blame for screw ups is precisely what should be done, and what is done. If people mess up to the extent that others lose money, get endangered, die, or whatever, in any circumstance, blame gets apportioned, and measures get taken. This is very, very simple.

I thought usually the point is to SOLVE the problem rather than place blame. Kids place blame.

[Belz...]

There is a pretty clear issue here- since all terrorist attacks, and indeed most crimes, have an element of novelty about them, to use the argument that since no one had ever committed this sort of crime before, thus no one could ever stop it, is to suggest that no one will ever be able to stop any sort of crime, since they all have elements of novelty to them. This is clearly loopy, and reflectiveof the worst kind of denial/delusion.

Mjd, when you don't know what the opponent is going to do, do you admit that it is that much more difficult to stop him ?

[Swing Dangler]

source?
Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1192226,00.html) for NORAD practicing hijacks. Interview with NORAD historian, Dr. Fuller: here (http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/Dr_Thomas_Fuller_NORAD_013107.mp3)

Potentially stopped is not absolutely stopped. As Sabrina has pointed out, there were no actionable warnings.
It is not an issue of absolute preventions, the point is Tenet gave them enough information that was apparently sat on as Rice brushed him off. That information he feels may have prevented 9/11 if it were acted upon.

So the 70 investigations was nothing? The pressure the Bush admin was putting on the Taliban to hand over OBL was nothing?
You left out what the Bush admin did at home with increased security at airports. Oh wait, they did nothing with that issue didn't they?


There is no guarantee that 9/11 could have been prevented even with today's security.
True. But at least greater security measures in place to make it more difficult for another 9/11 to take place. On 9/11 those measures were not in place do in large part to the inaction of the Bush Administration.

[lapman]

Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1192226,00.html) for NORAD practicing hijacks. Interview with NORAD historian, Dr. Fuller: here (http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/Dr_Thomas_Fuller_NORAD_013107.mp3)
Your first link does give some great insights like
Five months before the September 11 attacks, US military planners suggested a war game to practice a response to a terrorist attack using a commercial airliner flown into the Pentagon, but senior officers rejected the scenario as "too unrealistic".
"Before September 11, Norad regularly exercised its response to possible hijacks, but never with the intent of lethal engagement, because planes were normally landed safely by their pilots and the hijackers would begin negotiations. Emphasis mine. Just because somebody thought of the possibility does not mean that they took it seriously.


It is not an issue of absolute preventions, the point is Tenet gave them enough information that was apparently sat on as Rice brushed him off. That information he feels may have prevented 9/11 if it were acted upon.
There is that possibility that it may have. However, what justification would there be to prepare for an attack that was thought to be unbelievable?

You left out what the Bush admin did at home with increased security at airports. Oh wait, they did nothing with that issue didn't they?
Again, you ignore the security measures that were already in place (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_3.pdf).

True. But at least greater security measures in place to make it more difficult for another 9/11 to take place. On 9/11 those measures were not in place do in large part to the inaction of the Bush Administration.Again, there would have to be justification for the greater security measures beyond what was in place since the threat was made.

[Sabrina]

SD, do you understand the meaning of "actionable intelligence"? It is intelligence that can be acted upon, and every intel person I have spoken to, as well as numerous others whose opinions are available in countless articles and statements, have all said that the intelligence was there, it just was not ACTIONABLE. The intel that Tenet gave Rice WAS NOT ACTIONABLE. They NEEDED MORE INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME. How much clearer can I make this? Yes, in hindsight, we can look back at what Tenet gave Rice and realize that it applied to the 9/11 situation, but at the time there was no serious indication of something that needed to be acted on.

And incidentally, hijackings WERE viewed as a "credible threat", but as the vast majority of hijackings were done with the purpose of some political or monetary gain and the majority of the people on board survived, the idea of suicide hijacking was almost unheard of. The only way people thought it might happen was via blowing the aircraft up in midair, not flying the planes into buildings. The type of hijacking seen on 9/11 actually coined the term "suicide hijacking", not anything else; prior to 9/11 it was considered extremely unlikely, as the majority of hijackers wanted HOSTAGES to negotiate with up until that day. This was an extremely unique situation, and you acting like we should have been able to accurately predict the future makes me feel like the entire IC should be able to qualify for Randi's million dollar challenge. Which we'd fail, because we ARE NOT PRESCIENT. Period. End of story.

[Swing Dangler]

Your first link does give some great insights like

Emphasis mine. Just because somebody thought of the possibility does not mean that they took it seriously.
True, however, the links was the source for NORAD's practice of hijackings.

There is that possibility that it may have. However, what justification would there be to prepare for an attack that was thought to be unbelievable?
Again, you ignore the security measures that were already in place (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_3.pdf).
Again, there would have to be justification for the greater security measures beyond what was in place since the threat was made.
What was ignored was the recommendations that were suggested by the final report of the U.S. Commission on National Security 21st Century. Some of these same suggestions were offered up by the 9/11 Commission as well.
Please reexamine the warnings and security suggestions on the time line link I provided earlier and that is what could have been done but was not for whatever reason. If it were so unbelievable, why were the Atlantic rules put into place? How does that explain other preparations by the IC in response to a plane used as a weapon either on purpose or accident? Again, the motivation for such event is not an excuse.


Placing blame for screw ups is precisely what should be done, and what is done. If people mess up to the extent that others lose money, get endangered, die, or whatever, in any circumstance, blame gets apportioned, and measures get taken. This is very, very simple.
I couldn't agree more. This is expected in the private sector and in numerous fields in the public sector, but why should this expectation be any different for failures on 9/11? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Katrina result in blame being placed and actions taken for those responsible for that failure?

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again, there were no procedures or training for such an event. Just because a person or two thought of the possibility does not mean that the whole system was prepared.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

[Digest]

why was the fact that NORAD was or had in the past conducted practice in simulated training excercises proof that 9/11 was committed by Bush and Co. ?

Norad in fact all military branches andmost countries conduct these training simulations - Heck when I was serving my country we had them every 2 weeks.

I hear that stupid mp3 of the scope in NORAD asking if this is real world or exercise ...Who wouldnt have asked that - Something like this had never happened - even with training for something similar - that actual realization of this being a real event happening right now would cause you pause.

so anyway as i am joining this discussion late please forgive me if i missed it what does NORAD training have to do with the 9-11 coverup?

[Swing Dangler]

SD, do you understand the meaning of "actionable intelligence"? It is intelligence that can be acted upon, and every intel person I have spoken to, as well as numerous others whose opinions are available in countless articles and statements, have all said that the intelligence was there, it just was not ACTIONABLE. The intel that Tenet gave Rice WAS NOT ACTIONABLE. They NEEDED MORE INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME. How much clearer can I make this? Yes, in hindsight, we can look back at what Tenet gave Rice and realize that it applied to the 9/11 situation, but at the time there was no serious indication of something that needed to be acted on.

And incidentally, hijackings WERE viewed as a "credible threat", but as the vast majority of hijackings were done with the purpose of some political or monetary gain and the majority of the people on board survived, the idea of suicide hijacking was almost unheard of. The only way people thought it might happen was via blowing the aircraft up in midair, not flying the planes into buildings. The type of hijacking seen on 9/11 actually coined the term "suicide hijacking", not anything else; prior to 9/11 it was considered extremely unlikely, as the majority of hijackers wanted HOSTAGES to negotiate with up until that day. This was an extremely unique situation, and you acting like we should have been able to accurately predict the future makes me feel like the entire IC should be able to qualify for Randi's million dollar challenge. Which we'd fail, because we ARE NOT PRESCIENT. Period. End of story.

End of story? This isn't a "place the blame at the IC" from my point of view. The IC did exactly what it is tasked to do. Inform the President. The buck stops at the White House door.

Who Knew? The unanswered questions of 9/11
September 3, 2003

"CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden’s intent to use hijacked planes as missiles. That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated Press’s John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools—a warning that went unheeded."
Source (http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=340_0_1_0_C)
Bush's 9-11 Secrets
The Government Received Warnings of Bin Laden's Plans to Attack New York and D.C.
by James Ridgeway
July 31st, 2003 1:00 PM
"In September 1998, the obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it."

"In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas."

"In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statue of Liberty was specifically mentioned, as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans."
Source (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0332,mondo4,45990,6.html)

Spy Agencies Had Pre-9/11 Threats on U.S. Soil
September 17, 2002

"U.S. intelligence agencies picked up threats of attacks inside the United States and of using airplanes as weapons during the spring and summer before last year's Sept. 11 attacks, but were more focused on the possibility of an assault overseas, a congressional source said on Tuesday."
Source
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&ncid)


Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes


Terrorism crisis - Observer special

Jason Burke and Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday May 19, 2002
The Observer

George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday.
Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,718312,00.html)
And this one for Lapman:Again, you ignore the security measures that were already in place.
Commission warned Bush
But White House [I]passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense department-ordered commission on domestic terrorism.
Source (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/index.html)

End of story? I think not. End of accountability? Definitely.

[Jonnyclueless]

As President Clinton said, they would receive 100s of such threats every single day and there was simply no way what so ever to determine which ones were likely and which ones weren't. If I told you that there might be a murder in the US, would you be able to stop it?

[lapman]

True, however, the links was the source for NORAD's practice of hijackings.
Again, none of those exercises called for aircraft being run into buildings.

What was ignored was the recommendations that were suggested by the final report of the U.S. Commission on National Security 21st Century. Some of these same suggestions were offered up by the 9/11 Commission as well.Again, a justification that the American public would accept needed to be made. No such justification existed to go beyond the security measures that were already in place.

Please reexamine the warnings and security suggestions on the time line link I provided earlier and that is what could have been done but was not for whatever reason.
That's easy to say sitting at your computer. When you are the one who has to take the brunt of the complaints, then the decision is much harder.
If it were so unbelievable, why were the Atlantic rules put into place? How does that explain other preparations by the IC in response to a plane used as a weapon either on purpose or accident? Again, the motivation for such event is not an excuse.

The Atlantic rules affected a small number people for a short time. Just because one department decided to run one exercise based on that inconceivable event is not proof of anything. Running exercises for an accidental crash when you are near an airport is simply being smart. To say that it's proof of foreknowledge is just plain stupid.
I couldn't agree more. This is expected in the private sector and in numerous fields in the public sector, but why should this expectation be any different for failures on 9/11? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Katrina result in blame being placed and actions taken for those responsible for that failure?
Katrina pointed to a few people that were directly responsible. The head of FEMA resigned on his own accord, yet others didn't. Because the intel passed through many hands, who is really to blame? How many people are supposed to be held accountable and punished? What is that punishment supposed to be and how would it make a difference?

[Swing Dangler]

As President Clinton said, they would receive 100s of such threats every single day and there was simply no way what so ever to determine which ones were likely and which ones weren't. If I told you that there might be a murder in the US, would you be able to stop it?
Nope. But if a commission passed several recommendations to combat domestic terrorism some similar to the 9/11 Commission's recommendations would you follow them?
If the IC gave you specific warnings about OBL using hijacked planes in high profile targets and in cities like NYC and DC, would you do anything about it?
If the DCI gave you threat assessments that he thought might a large scale attack from occurring would you brush him off or be proactive in trying to prevent them?

[funk de fino]

If the IC gave you specific warnings about OBL using hijacked planes in high profile targets and in cities like NYC and DC, would you do anything about it?

If the DCI gave you threat assessments that he thought might a large scale attack from occurring would you brush him off or be proactive in trying to prevent them?

1. read the 911 comission report on the lead up to the attacks and show me the "specific" warnings that bush was given that summer? the august 6th PDB is the first one to specifically focus on UBL and attacks in the US, does it mention using hijacked airliners as missiles to fly into buildings?

2. they were proactive that summer, operations involving 20 other countries were launched to crakdown on AQ cells, there were 70 operations ongoing that summer, unfortunately most of them were focused on attacks outside the US because that is where the most specific threats were referring to, compare the amount of assessments that mention attacks within the US to the amount that mention outside the US that summer, that is why it was missed there was far more and more specific intel to say the attacks were going to happen outside the US on US interests

have you read the section about this in the 911 commission report or do you just read the media reporting of it?

[Swing Dangler]

Do I read the Commission's Report? Sure I do. Do I read other sources? Sure I do. More importantly, did you read the Co-Chair's own book about the report and their comments about it? I hope so which has led me to other sources...such as...

Britain warned US to expect September 11 al-Qaeda hijackings
May 19, 2002

"Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism."
http://www.sundayherald.com/24822

[funk de fino]

Do I read the Commission's Report? Sure I do. Do I read other sources? Sure I do. More importantly, did you read the Co-Chair's own book about the report and their comments about it? I hope so which has led me to other sources...such as...

Sure I did, why not post some of them here again and we can see the cherry picking in full effect for the thousandth time on here

What does the 911 commission say about where they thought the attack was coming from and what they did to counter it?

Britain warned US to expect September 11 al-Qaeda hijackings
May 19, 2002

"Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism."
http://www.sundayherald.com/24822

Nothing on that page about 911, try again, paper from my country though.

And could this month before 911 be part of the PDB from August the 6th, does it say anything about airliners used as weapon? Come on man its in the report

Did Tony phone Bush personally?

[funk de fino]

What do you think would have happened if they had fitted strengthend doors prior to 911 and could it have been done to all airliners between August 6th and Sept 11th?

[SpitfireIX]

<snip>

Who Knew? The unanswered questions of 9/11
September 3, 2003

"CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden’s intent to use hijacked planes as missiles. . . .


We interrupt this conspiracist fantasy to bring you the truth. From a CBS News online story (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/attack/main509294.shtml) dated May 17,2002:

CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin says the warning was in a document called the President's Daily Brief, which is considered to be the single most important document that the U.S. intelligence community turns out. The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings.[emphasis added]


As is typical for a conspiracist, you merely parrot uncritically the claims of other conspiracists, without bothering to verify them.

That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated Press’s John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools—a warning that went unheeded."
Source (http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=340_0_1_0_C)
Bush's 9-11 Secrets


Possibly damaging to the FBI--how is this directly damaging to President Bush?

The Government Received Warnings of Bin Laden's Plans to Attack New York and D.C.
by James Ridgeway
July 31st, 2003 1:00 PM
"In September 1998, the obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it."

"In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas."

"In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statue of Liberty was specifically mentioned, as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans."
Source (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0332,mondo4,45990,6.html)



Please explain, in as much detail as you can, the specific steps that Bill Clinton and his senior policymakers took to address these warnings.

Spy Agencies Had Pre-9/11 Threats on U.S. Soil
September 17, 2002

"U.S. intelligence agencies picked up threats of attacks inside the United States and of using airplanes as weapons during the spring and summer before last year's Sept. 11 attacks, but were more focused on the possibility of an assault overseas, a congressional source said on Tuesday."
Source
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&ncid)


What part of "[they] were more focused on the possibility of an assault overseas" do you not understand?

Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes


Terrorism crisis - Observer special

Jason Burke and Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday May 19, 2002
The Observer

George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday.
Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,718312,00.html)


Again, no actionable intelligence, no indication of where or when, and no suggestion of using hijacked airliners as guided missiles.

Commission warned Bush
But White House [I]passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense department-ordered commission on domestic terrorism.
Source (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/index.html)


From the same article:

But in May, Bush announced his plan almost as if the Hart-Rudman Commission never existed, as if it hadn't spent millions of dollars, "consulting with experts, visiting 25 countries worldwide, really deliberating long and hard," as Hart describes it. Bush said in a statement that "numerous federal departments and agencies have programs to deal with the consequences of a potential use of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon in the United States. But to maximize their effectiveness, these efforts need to be seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive." That, according to the president, should be done through FEMA, headed by Allbaugh, formerly Bush's gubernatorial chief of staff.

Bush also directed Cheney -- a man with a full plate, including supervision of the administration's energy plans and its dealings with Congress -- to supervise the development of a national counter-terrorism plan. Bush announced that Cheney and Allbaugh would review the issues and have recommendations for him by Oct. 1. The commission's report was seemingly put on the shelf.


Bush wanted to have his own commission study the issue before acting; that was certainly a reasonable course of action, even if some might think it mistaken in hindsight.

Further:

Neither Hart nor Rudman claim that their recommendations, if enacted, would have necessarily prevented Tuesday's tragedy. "Had they adopted every recommendation we had put forward at that time I don't think it would have changed what happened," Rudman says. "There wasn't enough time to enact everything. But certainly I would hope they pay more attention now."

"Could this have been prevented?" Hart asks. "The answer is, 'We'll never know.' Possibly not." It was a struggle to convince President Clinton of the need for such a commission, Hart says. He urged Clinton to address this problem in '94 and '95, but Clinton didn't act until 1998, prompted by politics. "He saw Gingrich was about to do it, so he moved to collaborate," Hart says. "Seven years had gone by since the end of the Cold War. It could have been much sooner."[emphasis added]

So Clinton took three years to agree to even start such a commission. Had he accepted the suggestion when first made, he could easily have had its recommendations implemented before he left office.

End of story? I think not. End of accountability? Definitely.

So, of course, you'll be assigning the lion's share of blame to Bill Clinton; by your logic and the evidence you've presented, he bears far greater responsibility that George W. Bush.

[Corsair 115]

Just because somebody thought of the possibility does not mean that they took it seriously.Exactly.

Look no further than Apollo 13 for an example. When the crippled CM was to make a course correction on its return towards Earth, a highly unusual method of orienting the spacecraft for the burn was used. The method had been created as a response to a "what if" situation before Apollo 8, but had not been incorporated into the flight manuals since the scenario which required it was deemed to be extremely unlikely (everyone at NASA thought that any failure severe enough to cripple the CM would almost certainly kill the crew outright).

[mjd1982]

As President Clinton said, they would receive 100s of such threats every single day and there was simply no way what so ever to determine which ones were likely and which ones weren't. If I told you that there might be a murder in the US, would you be able to stop it?
Of course not. But by this logic, no attack is preventable, since there are so many intel warnings every day. This is clearly nonsense. The facts are very simple:
- According to Tenet, the main man who would know this stuff, the terror threat was unprecedented. He was running around with his hair on fire, and an FBI source said the warnings had never been so bad.
- Clarke makes very explicit, that despite all these warnings, the admin didnt give a toss. Again, he is someone who woudl know more than you, me, or Sabrina's m8ys. And his version of events is very very clear. He gets demoted, and then all warnings get inexplicably ignored, to the extent that 911 was a failing of the administrative apparatus.

These are people who know. And as we all know, their are too many more to mention. Their verdict is unanimous. Dont argue with it.

[mjd1982]

Oh, just to add Bremers comments:

"What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then say, 'OMG, shouldnt we be organised to deal with this?'"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

[Drudgewire]

- Clarke makes very explicit, that despite all these warnings, the admin didnt give a toss. Again, he is someone who woudl know more than you, me, or Sabrina's m8ys.

You mean this Richard Clarke?

"Debunking 9/11 Myths" is a reliable and rational answer to the many fanciful conspiracy theories about 9/11. Despite the fact that the myths are fictitious, many have caught on with those who do not trust the government to tell the truth anymore. Fortunately, the government is is not sufficiently competent to pull off such conspiracies and too leaky to keep them secret. What happened on 9/11 has well been established by the 9/11 Commission. What did not happen has now been explained by Popular Mechanics."
Richard A. Clarke, former national security advisor, author of Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror

The guy who wrote VERY FIRST WORDS OF TEXT ON THE INSIDE COVER OF "DEBUNKING 9/11 MYTHS: WHY CONSPIRACY THEORIES CAN'T STAND UP TO THE FACTS (AN IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION BY POPULAR MECHANICS)."

THAT Richard Clarke? :p

[Drudgewire]

Three posts by mjd in other threads since I asked. Gee, I hope I'm not thinking of the wrong guy. :blush:

[MIKILLINI]

Three posts by mjd in other threads since I asked. Gee, I hope I'm not thinking of the wrong guy. :blush:

D-Wire, Richard A Clarke seems to be the same guy I'm thinking of. Just a thought though; MjD wouldn't be Mike Dukakis, would it?

Nah...This guy I was thinking of...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Michael_Dukakis.jpg

Is Michael S Dukakis. MSD.

[DGM]

MIKILLINI:
I'm from Massachusetts, Please don't ever post him again.

[SpitfireIX]

Three posts by mjd in other threads since I asked. Gee, I hope I'm not thinking of the wrong guy. :blush:


Clarke's opinion isn't propitious to MJD's conspiracy theory.

[dudalb]

"What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then say, 'OMG, shouldnt we be organised to deal with this?'"

You will be surprised how often that is exactly the way things work..in Government in particular.

[Drudgewire]

Clarke's opinion isn't propitious to MJD's conspiracy theory.
Hmmm... maybe he was quoting Arthur Clarke then. :)

[MIKILLINI]

MIKILLINI:
I'm from Massachusetts, Please don't ever post him again.

I'll have you know, I didn't vote for him. Especially that photo-op during his campaign when he rode in a tank. Talk about things that contrasted. Speaking of contrasts; What Mjd believes to be the truth and what is the real truth, that's textbook definition of contrast.

[Belz...]

Of course not. But by this logic, no attack is preventable, since there are so many intel warnings every day. This is clearly nonsense.

Indeed. It is nonsense. Because what you've "forgotten" is that warnings with clear indications can lead to preventing the incident.

"A man named X will hijack plane #Y in NYC in two days. Intercept him."

"A man will hijack a plane sometime soon."

See the difference ?

[mjd1982]

You mean this Richard Clarke?



The guy who wrote VERY FIRST WORDS OF TEXT ON THE INSIDE COVER OF "DEBUNKING 9/11 MYTHS: WHY CONSPIRACY THEORIES CAN'T STAND UP TO THE FACTS (AN IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION BY POPULAR MECHANICS)."

THAT Richard Clarke? :p
What he thinks of the conspiracy theory is of little relevance. His area of expertise is intel. This is also our point if discussion. His opinion is unanimous. As was Tenet. As was Bremer. As was John O Neill. There's nothing more to be said on this, it couldnt be clearer.

[Swing Dangler]

Nothing on that page about 911, try again, paper from my country though.


Thats what I thought. Move the goal posts. Should I start looking for the date, exact time, as well as the brand of underwear the terrorists were wearing to prove my point?

[Swing Dangler]

Indeed. It is nonsense. Because what you've "forgotten" is that warnings with clear indications can lead to preventing the incident.

"A man named X will hijack plane #Y in NYC in two days. Intercept him."

"A man will hijack a plane sometime soon."

See the difference ?

You left out what should have happened...
"Thank you for the warnings. Here is what we will do to be proactive and try to stop or at least hinder the hijackers....."
and what did happen....

"Thank you for the warnings. Now back off Bin Laden and don't bother me I'm going on vacation and thinking of ways to attack Iraq."

[funk de fino]

Thats what I thought. Move the goal posts. Should I start looking for the date, exact time, as well as the brand of underwear the terrorists were wearing to prove my point?

You provided a source that had nothing on the page??

if you link to a source it should have your information on it?

[Drudgewire]

What he thinks of the conspiracy theory is of little relevance.

Again, he is someone who woudl know more than you, me, or Sabrina's m8ys.

:boxedin:

[Sabrina]

I should probably point this out for future reference... the people in charge of the IC? They don't do the analysis; they just report it. Therefore, in actuality, the leaders of the IC know somewhat LESS than the lower ranking analysts.

Just a thought.

[Swing Dangler]

Of course not. But by this logic, no attack is preventable, since there are so many intel warnings every day. This is clearly nonsense. The facts are very simple:
- According to Tenet, the main man who would know this stuff, the terror threat was unprecedented. He was running around with his hair on fire, and an FBI source said the warnings had never been so bad.
- Clarke makes very explicit, that despite all these warnings, the admin didnt give a toss. Again, he is someone who woudl know more than you, me, or Sabrina's m8ys. And his version of events is very very clear. He gets demoted, and then all warnings get inexplicably ignored, to the extent that 911 was a failing of the administrative apparatus.

These are people who know. And as we all know, their are too many more to mention. Their verdict is unanimous. Dont argue with it.

I completely agree. No need to apologize for the Administration as it is unwarranted.

[twinstead]

So, where there real threats of attacks by terrorists, the administration chose to ignore them and they happened, or were there no threats because terrorism isn't as bad as the administration made it out to be, and the administration felt the need to stage 911?

ETA: It appears that you want to show evidence that there was a good possibility that terrorists would do exactly what we claim they did on 911 in order to prove it was an inside job.

In that case, you are arguing LIHOP. That's fine, but why all this CD argument then? Why not just say the official story is correct, but the attacks could have been stopped?

[Belz...]

You left out what should have happened...
"Thank you for the warnings. Here is what we will do to be proactive and try to stop or at least hinder the hijackers....."
and what did happen....

"Thank you for the warnings. Now back off Bin Laden and don't bother me I'm going on vacation and thinking of ways to attack Iraq."

I see you are not the kind of person looking for an honest debate.

1) "A man named X will hijack plane #Y in NYC in two days. Intercept him."

2) "A man will hijack a plane sometime soon."

HOW THE HELL can you act on number 2 ?

[funk de fino]

What do you think would have happened if they had fitted strengthend doors prior to 911 and could it have been done to all airliners between August 6th and Sept 11th?

For SwingDangler

Just in case you missed it or are ignoring it?


Also


Thats what I thought. Move the goal posts. Should I start looking for the date, exact time, as well as the brand of underwear the terrorists were wearing to prove my point?
You provided a source that had nothing on the page??

if you link to a source it should have your information on it?

Again, I never moved the goalposts, you gave a link that links to nothing?

[Swing Dangler]

I see you are not the kind of person looking for an honest debate.

1) "A man named X will hijack plane #Y in NYC in two days. Intercept him."

2) "A man will hijack a plane sometime soon."

HOW THE HELL can you act on number 2 ?

One your using a very simplistic argument that relies upon 1 very vague and general warning. You must consider the historical time line of warnings including their details, statements from the IC to the Administration, etc, etc. There was nothing as vague as number 2 as you seem to suggest.

Honest debate is great. But lets keep it honest, as number 2 is not honest when compared to the historical record and the reality of the warnings.

[DavidJames]

Honest debate is great. But lets keep it honest, as number 2 is not honest when compared to the historical record and the reality of the warnings.
Ok – then please quote those items from the “historical record” which provides names, dates and places.

[Drudgewire]

Honest debate is great. But lets keep it honest

and what did happen....

"Thank you for the warnings. Now back off Bin Laden and don't bother me I'm going on vacation and thinking of ways to attack Iraq."
So you have a source for that quote then? :p

[Billdave2]

One your using a very simplistic argument that relies upon 1 very vague and general warning. You must consider the historical time line of warnings including their details, statements from the IC to the Administration, etc, etc. There was nothing as vague as number 2 as you seem to suggest.

Honest debate is great. But lets keep it honest, as number 2 is not honest when compared to the historical record and the reality of the warnings.

You are right SD, this example is not the same as the actual warnings. It is actually MORE actionable than the actual warnings. It gives you a number of people involved (one), a definate action (plane hijack) and a time frame (soon). The warnings that the IC had were no where nearly as informative as this example.

[Belz...]

One your using a very simplistic argument that relies upon 1 very vague and general warning. You must consider the historical time line of warnings including their details, statements from the IC to the Administration, etc, etc. There was nothing as vague as number 2 as you seem to suggest.

Honest debate is great. But lets keep it honest, as number 2 is not honest when compared to the historical record and the reality of the warnings.

Uh-huh. Dodge noted.

And while you're dodging, why don't you NOT provide any of those specific warnings ?

[MSgtWeiss]

I should probably point this out for future reference... the people in charge of the IC? They don't do the analysis; they just report it. Therefore, in actuality, the leaders of the IC know somewhat LESS than the lower ranking analysts.

Just a thought.

There is much truth to that; however, the further down the analysis chain you go, the less of the "big picture" is seen by that analyst. While there is some cross-pollination & feedback at every analysis level, it has to be limited in many ways. This is an inherent drawback of any security system, but unavoidable if some secrets are simply too critical to be widely passed around.

As the mountain of mostly-useless crud gets weeded and analyzed, going up the chain, it's still stove-piped to some extent until it gets to a point where someone looks at the open-source material, electronic intercepts, recce platform stuff, and material from covert sources -- plus the track record of the individual sources -- and makes an overall judgment. Sometimes the DCI makes the call, but in cases like Tenet, who had zero real experience in the intel world, he has to rely on the real spooks who are in a position to evaluate the covert sources.

One of the things that confuses the civilians, and especially the conspiracy groupies, is their failure to understand that some otherwise-unidentified "warning" is pure codswallop unless you know a LOT about it -- something that will seldom happen for open publication. It is not even easy for intelligence professionals, many of whom think that their personal favorite "source" is the next Penkovsky, to have a clear view of their own analysis.

Even assuming that some of these nebulous pre-911 "warnings" actually had some merit (and I have yet to see a clear example), none were specific enough to be considered "actionable" except in the broadest sense. The community had been warning for decades that cockpit doors should be hardened, but the idiots who own the airlines dragged their feet and basically did nothing. Should the FAA have simply ordered it? In hindsight, yes -- but the blood in the aisles of Congress over these "Gestapo tactics" would have delayed things equally long anyhow.

Dealing with intel issues is so bloody complex that I'm reluctant to even begin ... but since I've opened my mouth already, let me make one statement that should be obvious:

911 was going to happen, period, and absolutely nothing would have stopped it. The most that could have been accomplished was to change the specific form of attack. Our airline security was nearly nonexistent, so al-Qaeda took that easy route. If we'd hardened the procedures to the point they are now, another flashy operation would have been mounted, very possibly with far worse consequences. 3000 dead is a pretty easy figure to achieve, and the only reason the WTC & Pentagon targets were chosen is for their flashy photo-ops and propaganda value. And anyone who thinks they can't put another airliner into a skyscraper tomorrow simply doesn't understand how things work, and has no imagination whatsoever. The new rules ONLY lessen the chances that airline passengers will die in a terrorist attack; they do nothing whatsoever to stop planes from hitting buildings ... or power plants ... or stadiums full of football or baseball fans. Or far scarier scenarios that could easily result in the deaths of millions.

The most useful outcome from 9-11 would have been to allow American Airlines and United Airlines to go totally bankrupt and not bail out their massive liability -- this would have forced the remaining airlines to actually do real security improvements instead of the fig-leaf nonsense that actually has taken place. Not one taxpayer dollar should have been spent on survivor benefits, and allowing the government to dictate cockpit security procedures only guarantees that they won't work. A ten-year-old could write effective ones, but no government agency works at that high a level.

Classifying 9-11 as an "intelligence failure" is an easy shot, but a cheap one nonetheless. Is any successful terrorist attack a failure of the IC? Is anything less than 100% a failure? As long as we live in a society that is this open and unfettered by regulation, we'd better get used to the idea that we are going to be attacked. We don't even seem to be willing to take the easy, cheap steps to regulate our borders effectively, for fear of offending the Mexican government, the ACLU, or La Raza zealots -- yet we'll spend billions keeping boxcutters and nail files out of airplanes ... though I could board any airliner tomorrow with makeshift throat-cutters that work just as well as boxcutters, and not a peep would be heard from these airport security zombies.

In fairness, I should point out that I spent 20+ years in the intelligence community. I know the warts and weaknesses all too well, and there are plenty of them, though the most serious ones originate from Congressional interference and incompetence. I've been happily retired from the business now almost as long as I was in it, though I probably still maintain enough connections to be considered a bona fide NWO operative and government shill. I just wish my shill paychecks would start soon.

[Sabrina]

Belated welcome to the forum, MSgtWeiss, and thank you for offering another perspective to the debate!

[Unsecured Coins]

yeah... I kinda wanna stick around to see mjd put his other foot in his mouth over this one.

[tsire]

The big question I have for anyone who thinks the attacks could have been prevented is this:

Aside from grounding all air traffic and imposing martial law, how can you be completely sure that they wont be able to act out on a terrorist attack? And even if they did do that, whats to stop the terrorists from doing it another day?

[Corsair 115]

Our airline security was nearly nonexistent, so al-Qaeda took that easy route. Certainly it was for domestic flights, which is what the 9/11 flights all were. International flights into the U.S. were a little better, security-wise.

And anyone who thinks they can't put another airliner into a skyscraper tomorrow simply doesn't understand how things work, and has no imagination whatsoever. The new rules ONLY lessen the chances that airline passengers will die in a terrorist attack; they do nothing whatsoever to stop planes from hitting buildings ... or power plants ... or stadiums full of football or baseball fans. On the one hand I agree, it's still possible, but on the other hand I'd say the chances are much lower than they were prior to 9/11. I can't ever see passengers on a flight letting anyone other than the pilots take over the cockpit — they'll fight before they let that happen, because they know what it means if they don't.

[Swing Dangler]

911 was going to happen, period, and absolutely nothing would have stopped it.

On what basis can you dispute the Director of Central Intelligence?

[lapman]

On what basis can you dispute the Director of Central Intelligence?
When did the DCI state that 9/11 absolutely would have been stopped before it happened?

[funk de fino]

On what basis can you dispute the Director of Central Intelligence?

you're owe me a link from an earlier post

just to show theres no hard feelings heres one for you and everyone else who is interested

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/staff_statement_3.pdf

[Swing Dangler]

When did the DCI state that 9/11 absolutely would have been stopped before it happened?

Absolutely? No he didn't state that. But his statement disproves this statement: 911 was going to happen, period, and absolutely nothing would have stopped it.

[Swing Dangler]

The big question I have for anyone who thinks the attacks could have been prevented is this:

Aside from grounding all air traffic and imposing martial law, how can you be completely sure that they wont be able to act out on a terrorist attack? And even if they did do that, whats to stop the terrorists from doing it another day?

You bring up an excellent point. There probably isn't a fail proof way to prevent the attack or future attacks. Lets see what those in the know thought at the time:

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will later suggest that 9/11 might have been stopped “if [National Security Adviser] Rice and the president had acted personally, gotten involved, shaken the trees, gotten the Cabinet members involved when they had ample warning in June and July and August that something was about to happen.… [Rice] said that the president received 40 warnings face to face from the director of central intelligence that a major al-Qaeda attack was going to take place and she admitted that the president did not have a meeting on the subject, did not convene the Cabinet. She admitted that she didn’t convene the Cabinet. And as some of the [9/11 Commissioners] pointed out, this was in marked contrast to the way the government operated in December of 1999, when it had similar information and it successfully thwarted attacks.” [ABC News, 4/8/2004]

Again, another expert states that 9/11 might have been stopped if top administration officials would have heeded the warnings. And no one wants to hold the Administration accountable. Unbelievable.

To add fuel to the fire:
But the congressional report states that "from at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons."
Source:Baltimore Sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/nationworld/bal-te.rice29jul29,0,2620591.story?coll=bal-business-headlines)

[lapman]

Key words "might have."

[Parsman]

Old saying but a true one - all those who seek to protect us need to be lucky all the time; terrorists only need to be lucky once.

[tsire]

It might have been stopped, but at what cost? As this thread has pointed out many times, these warnings are common. The United States has no direct warning as to what exactly was going to happen.

Its really easy to sit here and point fingers and say "well I would have done ...". Sure, in hindsight, a lot of changes could have been made. Its easier now to piece it all together now that we know for sure what was going to happen. But guaranteed there was conflicting information, should they have acted out on every lead? Dont you think that would have been overkill and strenuous?

And again, these measures would need to be permanent, because what would stop the terrorists from just doing it after the increased security had been lifted. These attacks werent planned overnight, they took years of planning, Im sure they would have been willing to wait a few days/weeks/months to do them if need be.

[lapman]

SD, what extra precautions do you take every time the threat level is raised?

[Dave Rogers]

How many successful attacks did the IRA carry out in the UK in the 80's and 90's?

How many of these came at a time when the British government was fully expecting that the IRA was planning terrorist attacks on the UK, and had in place major measures to try to prevent them?

(Answer to question 2: all but the first one.)

Dave

[Unsecured Coins]

personally, I grab my string, duct tape, plastic wrap and PSP while this song plays in my head
u5Snehl2bAk

[Swing Dangler]

It might have been stopped, but at what cost? As this thread has pointed out many times, these warnings are common. The United States has no direct warning as to what exactly was going to happen.


What cost do you place on 3000+ lives and the foreign policy decisions as a result?

Can you define direct warnings?
I can provide numerous warnings as provided by foreign intel. Why the U.S. intel community ignored them is beyond my understanding.

SD, what extra precautions do you take every time the threat level is raised?
This of course is irrelevant as I'm not in charge of airline security or the safety and security of the general public. On a personal note, I prepare myself for the added security measures that were put into place after 9/11.

I think if you study the record, the IC did everything it could within its power to alert and warn the Administration. I do have a problem when people try to place the blame on the IC unless it is for ignoring the foreign intelligence warnings. Even the FAA sent out warnings to the airline industry.
All you have to do is read what the Administration did and didn't do with all of these warnings.

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will later suggest that 9/11 might have been stopped “if [National Security Adviser] Rice and the president had acted personally, gotten involved, shaken the trees, gotten the Cabinet members involved when they had ample warning in June and July and August that something was about to happen.

mjd1982I think it is time to move on to the next step mjd, as it is plainly clear the Administration did virtually nothing to prevent the attacks nor did they heed the warnings of the Intelligence Community.

[DGM]

I think if you study the record, the IC did everything it could within its power to alert and warn the Administration. I do have a problem when people try to place the blame on the IC unless it is for ignoring the foreign intelligence warnings. Even the FAA sent out warnings to the airline industry.
All you have to do is read what the Administration did and didn't do with all of these warnings.

Swing:
You have a problem with the IC blaming themself?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20378187/

[Swing Dangler]

Swing:
You have a problem with the IC blaming themself?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20378187/

Alerting and warning the administration is one issue.
Preventing the attacks are another.

I wonder what orders the President could have given the CIA in order to prevent the attacks? Pure speculation of course on my part.

Thank you for the article however, I will update my research!!

It does make you wonder why Tenet received the Medal of Honor after 9/11 and after the Iraq fiasco.

[DGM]

Alerting and warning the administration is one issue.
Preventing the attacks are another.

I wonder what orders the President could have given the CIA in order to prevent the attacks? Pure speculation of course on my part.

Thank you for the article however, I will update my research!!

It does make you wonder why Tenet received the Medal of Honor after 9/11 and after the Iraq fiasco.
Your welcome;
Read the whole report (it's on a PDF in that link)
The problems it outlines goes back long before Bush took office.

[johnny karate]

Another thing to consider is that attacks like 9/11 are not planned in a vacuum. They are planned with the explicit purpose of exploiting known security weaknesses (e.g. bringing boxcutters onto an airplane).

[Unsecured Coins]

It does make you wonder why Tenet received the Medal of Honor after 9/11 and after the Iraq fiasco.


oh, show me this one, i HAVE to see you back this one up. MJD said William Rodriquez was awarded that very medal too. Question - Did he recieve the Army, Navy, or Air Force Medal of Honor?

[JimBenArm]

oh, show me this one, i HAVE to see you back this one up. MJD said William Rodriquez was awarded that very medal too. Question - Did he recieve the Army, Navy, or Air Force Medal of Honor?
Yeah, I want to see that, too.

[tsire]

What cost do you place on 3000+ lives and the foreign policy decisions as a result?

Can you define direct warnings?
I can provide numerous warnings as provided by foreign intel. Why the U.S. intel community ignored them is beyond my understanding.

I already addressed this. How do you stop this attack other the grounding all air traffic permanently? Is that a viable solution?

ETA: Determined people will always make an attack happen.

[Billdave2]

What cost do you place on 3000+ lives and the foreign policy decisions as a result?

Can you define direct warnings?
I can provide numerous warnings as provided by foreign intel. Why the U.S. intel community ignored them is beyond my understanding.

This of course is irrelevant as I'm not in charge of airline security or the safety and security of the general public. On a personal note, I prepare myself for the added security measures that were put into place after 9/11.

I think if you study the record, the IC did everything it could within its power to alert and warn the Administration. I do have a problem when people try to place the blame on the IC unless it is for ignoring the foreign intelligence warnings. Even the FAA sent out warnings to the airline industry.
All you have to do is read what the Administration did and didn't do with all of these warnings.

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will later suggest that 9/11 might have been stopped “if [National Security Adviser] Rice and the president had acted personally, gotten involved, shaken the trees, gotten the Cabinet members involved when they had ample warning in June and July and August that something was about to happen.

I think it is time to move on to the next step mjd, as it is plainly clear the Administration did virtually nothing to prevent the attacks nor did they heed the warnings of the Intelligence Community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

Why is this concept so hard for some people to understand? Yes there were some warnings that in hindsight clearly reflect what the terrorists had planned, but they were scattered in amongst a host of other warnings. A blind man can go back now and say "look here is the warning that was important!", but at the time there was no way to separate the "real" warnings from the chatter.

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy

[funk de fino]

Alerting and warning the administration is one issue.
Preventing the attacks are another.

I wonder what orders the President could have given the CIA in order to prevent the attacks? Pure speculation of course on my part.

Thank you for the article however, I will update my research!!

It does make you wonder why Tenet received the Medal of Honor after 9/11 and after the Iraq fiasco.

Why dont you read the 911 commission, it tells you what operations were put in place that summer to disupt AQ, it also states 20 other countries were involved?

Have you actually read it all, because if you have you are being dishonest again?

[Swing Dangler]

Why dont you read the 911 commission, it tells you what operations were put in place that summer to disupt AQ, it also states 20 other countries were involved?

Have you actually read it all, because if you have you are being dishonest again?

Notice, I said CIA, not FBI. Are you referring to the FBI's operations or are you trying to paint me as being dishonest?

[Swing Dangler]

I already addressed this. How do you stop this attack other the grounding all air traffic permanently? Is that a viable solution?

ETA: Determined people will always make an attack happen.

Well for a start, the Admin. could have put into place the recommendations by the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Some of the same recommendations they proposed were found in the 9/11 Commission report.

[Unsecured Coins]

now, get to talking about Tenet getting the Medal Of Honor.

[mjd1982]

It might have been stopped, but at what cost? As this thread has pointed out many times, these warnings are common. The United States has no direct warning as to what exactly was going to happen.

Its really easy to sit here and point fingers and say "well I would have done ...". Sure, in hindsight, a lot of changes could have been made. Its easier now to piece it all together now that we know for sure what was going to happen. But guaranteed there was conflicting information, should they have acted out on every lead? Dont you think that would have been overkill and strenuous?

And again, these measures would need to be permanent, because what would stop the terrorists from just doing it after the increased security had been lifted. These attacks werent planned overnight, they took years of planning, Im sure they would have been willing to wait a few days/weeks/months to do them if need be.
Its even easier to sit here and say "They couldnt have done anything, they get loads of warnings". I have said this time and again- the point isnt that if they had done something, there would for 100% sure never have been a 911. No one is saying that. The point is that they had an unprecedented set of warnings, within a very clear spectrum, over and over again. They did nothing, every single time.

[mjd1982]

How many successful attacks did the IRA carry out in the UK in the 80's and 90's?

How many of these came at a time when the British government was fully expecting that the IRA was planning terrorist attacks on the UK, and had in place major measures to try to prevent them?

(Answer to question 2: all but the first one.)

Dave
Same point! (over and over again!!!)

[mjd1982]

now, get to talking about Tenet getting the Medal Of Honor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet#Awarded_the_Presidential_Medal_of_Fre edom

Medal of freedom

[Unsecured Coins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet#Awarded_the_Presidential_Medal_of_Fre edom

Medal of freedom


Well, now, that's not the same thing, is it? He said Medal of Honor, show me... MEDAL OF HONOR.

[funk de fino]

Notice, I said CIA, not FBI. Are you referring to the FBI's operations or are you trying to paint me as being dishonest?

Does the FBI carry out operation overseas?

Are you saying nothing was done to counter AQ to try and prevent attacks in anyway that summer?

[HyJinX]

Well, now, that's not the same thing, is it? He said Medal of Honor, show me... MEDAL OF HONOR.

He probably meant "molten" medal of honor.

[Unsecured Coins]

He probably meant "molten" medal of honor.

We'll never fully understand without the Richard Dawson effect!!

[HyJinX]

Word. *sigh*

[lapman]

Its even easier to sit here and say "They couldnt have done anything, they get loads of warnings". I have said this time and again- the point isnt that if they had done something, there would for 100% sure never have been a 911. No one is saying that. The point is that they had an unprecedented set of warnings, within a very clear spectrum, over and over again. They did nothing, every single time.There goes mj with his "unprecedented set of warnings" again. It has been proved to the opposite time and time again, but because Tenet said it while pimping his book somehow makes it true. So far, neither you or SD has come up with anything the American public would have accepted as far as security measures. The public accepts them now because they are justified in the publics eye.

[Belz...]

What cost do you place on 3000+ lives and the foreign policy decisions as a result?

Can you define direct warnings?

Say, Swing, do you have ANYTHING except arguments from hindsight ?

[funk de fino]

Its even easier to sit here and say "They couldnt have done anything, they get loads of warnings". I have said this time and again- the point isnt that if they had done something, there would for 100% sure never have been a 911. No one is saying that. The point is that they had an unprecedented set of warnings, within a very clear spectrum, over and over again. They did nothing, every single time.

Liar again

[lapman]

This of course is irrelevant as I'm not in charge of airline security or the safety and security of the general public. On a personal note, I prepare myself for the added security measures that were put into place after 9/11.

It's perfectly relevant. I was asking what you personally would do. Do you take the elevated threat level seriously?

[mjd1982]

There goes mj with his "unprecedented set of warnings" again. It has been proved to the opposite time and time again, but because Tenet said it while pimping his book somehow makes it true. So far, neither you or SD has come up with anything the American public would have accepted as far as security measures. The public accepts them now because they are justified in the publics eye.
Lol, oh boy, we must be in d'uh bunking happy hour. It was part of Armitage's testimony to the House and Senate select commitees on intel, as well as in a18/9/2002 Congressional report and also in Tenet's book. So were they all lying???

Its a big conspiracy!

[WildCat]

Lol, oh boy, we must be in d'uh bunking happy hour. It was part of Armitage's testimony to the House and Senate select commitees on intel, as well as in a18/9/2002 Congressional report and also in Tenet's book. So were they all lying???

Its a big conspiracy!
So all this stuff is on the public record and only the truthers with their almost super-human intelligence (as shown by their many articles published in scientific journals) have figured out that this obviously points to 911 INSIDEJOB!!!11111!!?

[Belz...]

So were they all lying???

Why is it that CTers only see that possibility ?

[Swing Dangler]

It's perfectly relevant. I was asking what you personally would do. Do you take the elevated threat level seriously?

Yes. Should I not take it seriously?

So far, neither you or SD has come up with anything the American public would have accepted as far as security measures.
Aren't you using a little hindsight to make this comment?
Here is a scenario for you:
A public address by the President in the months leading up to 9/11-
"Ladies and Gentlement it has come to my administration's attention through the excellent work of the Intelligence Community that OBL and Al-Q have been in preparation to commit a mass casualty terrorist attack on American soil using passenger airlines as instruments of destruction. My senior cabinet officials along with the FAA and the airline industry will be putting into place the following security measures to ensure the safety and security of air travel. . (insert measures here that have been recommended by the Joint Terrorism Task force prior to 9/11, security experts, FAA, and the airline industry). These measures may inconvenience you at worst but rest assured as your President I place the security and safety of the American people as my highest priority. While these measures are being instituted at airports and on airlines across the country, the FBI at home and the CIA abroad are working around the clock to bring these terrorists who mean us harm to justice. We will not falter and we will not fail nor will we be held captive by the fear that terrorists try to impose upon us."

The talking heads and pundits heap lavish praise upon the President for being a proactive President at work and not on an extended vacation. The odds are of course that 9/11 is prevented and the terrorists with box cutters are prevented from boarding the plane as they are arrested at the security checkpoints. If they do make it on the plane, air marshals are there to prevent any deaths, reinforced cockpit doors have already been installed, and
armed pilots await any terrorists that make it past the first three measures. Or perhaps the terrorists are apprehended by the FBI as Sibel Edmonds and her cohorts are not stymied or hampered by their superiors.

But instead we get a President that takes an extended vacation while him and his administration ignore numerous warnings, FBI superiors that hamper field agents in their investigation, and 9/11.


Notice, I said CIA, not FBI. Are you referring to the FBI's operations or are you trying to paint me as being dishonest?
Does the FBI carry out operation overseas?

Are you saying nothing was done to counter AQ to try and prevent attacks in anyway that summer?

Can you answer a question without a question?

[Unsecured Coins]

Can you show me where Tenet was awarded the Medal Of Honor?

[funk de fino]

Can you answer a question without a question?

I just followed your lead sunshine

Are you denying that operations were started that summer in an attempt to disrupt AQ?

by the CIA?

You brought the FBI into it not me

[Swing Dangler]

Say, Swing, do you have ANYTHING except arguments from hindsight ?

Just the historical record and facts Belz.
I suppose we could argue the future but what fun is that?


Can you show me where Tenet was awarded the Medal Of Honor?
I think it was in the video game of the same name. Sorry, Medal of Freedom.;)

[Swing Dangler]

I just followed your lead sunshine

Are you denying that operations were started that summer in an attempt to disrupt AQ?

by the CIA?

You brought the FBI into it not me

No, I'm not denying that. Will you accept that the administration did nothing to bolster airline security leading up to 9/11?

[Unsecured Coins]

I think it was in the video game of the same name. Sorry, Medal of Freedom.;)

Suggestion - put a little more effort into that research thing.

[funk de fino]

as for post # 3239

"hey man they are turning this place into a police state, they are taking away our rights and civil liberties

there will be death camps next"

and on, and on, and on...................

You think the people who think 911 was created in order to usher in a police state would not have objected to these infringments after an address by GWB about scary arabs who might hijack planes?

"false flag warnings dudes........."

[funk de fino]

No, I'm not denying that. Will you accept that the administration did nothing to bolster airline security leading up to 9/11?

Will you accept at that time it was FAA responsibilty and they had warnings?

[funk de fino]

I wonder what orders the President could have given the CIA in order to prevent the attacks? Pure speculation of course on my part.


You could have read the 911 Commission to see what orders were given to the CIA that summer?

You know, the operations against AQ?

The ones that some members of the TM deny took place even though they are there in black and white in the report.

[Billdave2]

Yes. Should I not take it seriously?


Aren't you using a little hindsight to make this comment?
Here is a scenario for you:
A public address by the President in the months leading up to 9/11-
"Ladies and Gentlement it has come to my administration's attention through the excellent work of the Intelligence Community that OBL and Al-Q have been in preparation to commit a mass casualty terrorist attack on American soil using passenger airlines as instruments of destruction. My senior cabinet officials along with the FAA and the airline industry will be putting into place the following security measures to ensure the safety and security of air travel. . (insert measures here that have been recommended by the Joint Terrorism Task force prior to 9/11, security experts, FAA, and the airline industry). These measures may inconvenience you at worst but rest assured as your President I place the security and safety of the American people as my highest priority. While these measures are being instituted at airports and on airlines across the country, the FBI at home and the CIA abroad are working around the clock to bring these terrorists who mean us harm to justice. We will not falter and we will not fail nor will we be held captive by the fear that terrorists try to impose upon us."

The talking heads and pundits heap lavish praise upon the President for being a proactive President at work and not on an extended vacation. The odds are of course that 9/11 is prevented and the terrorists with box cutters are prevented from boarding the plane as they are arrested at the security checkpoints. If they do make it on the plane, air marshals are there to prevent any deaths, reinforced cockpit doors have already been installed, and
armed pilots await any terrorists that make it past the first three measures. Or perhaps the terrorists are apprehended by the FBI as Sibel Edmonds and her cohorts are not stymied or hampered by their superiors.

But instead we get a President that takes an extended vacation while him and his administration ignore numerous warnings, FBI superiors that hamper field agents in their investigation, and 9/11.




Can you answer a question without a question?

Please provide evidence that there was any inteligence reports that showed this. There were reports that they might use planes as weapons, and there were reports that they might hijack planes, but none of these reports said they would combine the two or that they would be in the US. You are using hindsight again to make mopre out the reports than was known at the time.

Did you read the links above about Hindsight bias and the historian's fallacy?

[Belz...]

Just the historical record and facts Belz.

I'll take that as a "no".

[Swing Dangler]

Please provide evidence that there was any inteligence reports that showed this. There were reports that they might use planes as weapons, and there were reports that they might hijack planes, but none of these reports said they would combine the two or that they would be in the US. You are using hindsight again to make mopre out the reports than was known at the time.



Proactive versus reactive has nothing to do with hindsight. The fact is the President was not proactive.

You really want me to address planes as weapons without a hijacking?

Planes as weapons source here (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0601german#a0601german)

Here is a start...

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
Edit event

German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain’s intelligence agency, and Israel’s Mossad that Middle Eastern militants are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols, which stand out.” A later article quotes unnamed German intelligence sources who state the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
Edit event

Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah’s men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message gets through it is passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message states that a major attack, code named “The Big Wedding,” is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. “When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations.” The Christian Science Monitor will call the story “confidently authenticated” even though Jordan has backed away from it. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/2002] In late July 2001, the king of Jordan will offer the US to send two battalions of Jordanian special forces to Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda havens there (see July 24, 2001).

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
Edit event

Russian President Vladimir Putin warns the US that suicide pilots are training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/2002] The head of Russian intelligence also later states, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/2001] A Russian newspaper on September 12, 2001, will claim, “Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” Interestingly, the article will claim that at least two of the militants were Muslim radicals from Uzbekistan. [Izvestia, 9/12/2001]

Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning on July 16, 2001 (see July 16, 2001), was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is said to reach President Bush. [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of ‘Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines’
Edit event

Three men from either Pakistan or Afghanistan living in the Cayman Islands are briefly arrested in June 2001 for discussing hijacking attacks in New York City (see June 4, 2001). On this day, a Cayman Islands radio station receives an unsigned letter claiming these same three men are agents of bin Laden. The anonymous author warns that they “are organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines.” The letter is forwarded to a Cayman government official but no action is taken until after 9/11. When the Cayman government notifies the US is unknown. Many criminals and/or businesses use the Cayman Islands as a safe, no tax, no-questions-asked haven to keep their money. The author of the letter will meet with the FBI shortly after 9/11, and will claim his information was a “premonition of sorts.” The three men will later be arrested. What has happened to them since their arrest is unclear. [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]