(some of) What They Knew (page 2)

SixofNine

Do you honestly think that the airline industry--and the public--would have put up with being put on high alert for two months, in the pre-9/11 world?

I think that when you know that Al Queda is looking to use airplanes against America, you don't give the airlines or the public any choice for godsake! Explain the dangers, and people, most people anyway, will take those dangers seriously. This happened toooooooooooooo fucking easily for the terrorist. You may not be able to plan for the Spanish inquisition, but you sure as hell can conceptualize the 9/11 modus operandi, and if you can't, you probably don't need to be in charge of keeping the country safe.

High alert Schmigh alert, lol. 2 months?? It's just the way we do plane travel now, and it could have been being implemented before. As I said, strong cockpit doors and a strong directive to pilots, and 9/11 does not happen. That doesn't affect the public much, if at all. A ban on carry-on of knives etc, and 9/11 probably doesn't happen, or isn't nearly as successful.

So the terrorist in training at the flight schools slipped thru the FBI chain of command w/o making it to the people who knew to be looking for terrorist and airplanes in the same space...... imagine how much less likely that would be too happen if the public, including the people taking flight lessons with potential terrorist were aware of the threat. Or heck, leave the public out of it, what if the NSA had the FBI chief and the CIA chief in the same room every day, grilling them on what knowledge each had about threats to America? There was good reason to be doing that, givin the level and intensity of threats.

First and formost, the problem needed high level attention, and the people at high-levels were focused on things they considered more important than Al Queda and religious extremist terrorism. Even after 9/11, they chose to split their attention, and our resources, between fighting terrorism and their pet-project from day one, Iraq.

Pork Chop

This is all inuendo and conjecture. Typical lefftist BS.

Gopher

On July 5, 2001, according to a recent Washington Post article, the White House called together officials from a dozen federal agencies to give them a warning.
"Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon," the officials were told by the government's top counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke. Clarke considered the threat sufficiently important to direct every counterintelligence office to cancel vacations and get ready for immediate action, the Post reported.

THIS is innuendo, conjecture and leftist BS? I think it's factual reporting.

The supporters of the current American administration would rather see this buried.

It's becoming clear: the administration didn't take steps which COULD have helped prevent the 9/11 tragedy.

I used to like GW Bush.

Euphemism

High alert Schmigh alert, lol. 2 months?? It's just the way we do plane travel now,

And how much belly-aching was there about it, even despite the fact that everyone knew it was necessary?

I just ran across this in the NYT:

In 1997 a commission led by Vice President Al Gore recommended steps to tighten airline security, including tougher screening of passengers and stronger locks on cockpit doors. Civil libertarians and the airline industry resisted.

SixofNine

And how much belly-aching was there about it, even despite the fact that everyone knew it was necessary?

I'm not sure I see your point? Belly aching vs 3000 lives, seems like a pretty easy choice to me (I know it's not, but that is part of the whole point of insisting on leadership). For that matter, I don't think there's been any belly aching about cockpit doors. Would there have been any "belly aching" about a directive to pilots? Also, if strong cockpit doors were a good idea in 97, then they were a great idea in 2000 and an absolutely necessary step in 2001. And there certainly weren't any civil liberty questions about stengthening cockpit doors, just people (big industry) resistant to change and spending money.

And one more time, I just have to emphasise, if people are told the dangers, the reasons why, then while some may belly-ache, most will be supportive. It's not as if we had a reasonable choice now is it? If the airline safety stuff could be slammed into place post 9/11, then most of it, the stuff that is most likely to work, could have been phased in, or slammed in for that matter, pre 9/11. Mostly what it took, and what it got, post 9/11, was leadership and attention.

Simon

They can put air marshals on planes now ... why couldn't they do it then if they knew there was a threat?

It seems "saving themselves" (not putting themselves at any risk) was the absolute minimum that they could do and all that they did.

SixofNine

Oh look, more of what they knew.

"We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001" A former FBI translator told the 9/11 commission that the bureau had detailed information well before Sept. 11, 2001, that terrorists were likely to attack the U.S. with airplanes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

March 26, 2004 |

A former FBI wiretap translator with top-secret security clearance, who has been called "very credible" by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon she recently testified to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States that the FBI had detailed information prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted.

Referring to the Homeland Security Department's color-coded warnings instituted in the wake of 9/11, the former translator, Sibel Edmonds, told Salon, "We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available." Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."

Edmonds' charge comes when the Bush White House is trying to fend off former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's testimony that it did not take serious measures to combat the threat of Islamic terrorism, and al-Qaida specifically, in the months leading up to 9/11.

xjw_b12

Talesin. The CBC's Fifth Estate also did a program, dealing with "conspiracy" theories. While a lot of the material that was covered looked like total hogwash, there were some troubling issues and inconsistancies that to date have not been addressed nor answered.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/65720/1.ashx

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html

blacksheep

All of Europe was remiss in not recognizing and preventing the rise of Hitler. Millions of people were murdered mercilessly. They should have been able to know this guy was trouble.

And then there's Madrid. Certainly the knew terrorism existed in their nation. How in the world could they NOT provide more public transit protection? I think they need to open an investigation immeidately to determine who was at fault for not seeing the terrorist threat.

blacksheep

"Had we in the press been on our toes, we might have realized that if flying commercial posed a threat to John Ashcroft, it also posed a threat to the population at large.

But the CBSNews.com story was largely ignored. CBS ran it once, briefly. A number of CBS affiliates repeated the story, even more briefly. That was it. As near as I can tell, no other major news outlet ran the story of a danger to commercial air travel so severe that our attorney general was told to stay away from it. "

This one of the most assine, hysterical conspiracy theory posited yet. So, flying commerical post a threat to our attorney general, according to the FBI. So, by that we make the giant leap to Rumseld, the FBI, Bush, Condi Rice, basically EVERYONE knew planes could be used as weapons by terrorists.

So, by your rationale, why did they single out Rumsfeld to avoid commericial planes. If such terror threat was known, you'd think all the FBI guys, their families, basically EVERYONE they knew and wanted to protect would be avoiding commericial air flights. Why not check THEIR records...see how many people in US Intel avoided, and had their friends & family avoid air travel. Funny the article doesn't mention THAT.

Honestly, the conspiracy theories against Bush are becoming ridiculous. I cannot believe people cannot see through this desperate partisan attempt. Yes, the info was "largely overlooked." Because it's simply wacko.

(some of) What They Knew

Share this