REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Turns out Bush chose to do nothing to stop the attacks.

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Thursday, September 20, 2012 02:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3288
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, September 15, 2012 4:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-dea
f-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=2



"The Deafness Before the Storm

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance ...

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent” ...

... (but) neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.

(in response on June 29 the daily brief read) “The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden” ... Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence ...


And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties.

On July 1 the brief stated that the operation ... “will occur soon.”

(But Bush steadfastly ignored all the warnings.) Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place ...

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient ...

In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief."





And after months of warnings, then September 11 happened.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 15, 2012 5:26 PM

CHRISISALL


Really old news clarified a bit.
The guys on the ground know; the peeps at the top play games.
WE, THE PEOPLE pay the price for the difference.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 16, 2012 10:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Good one, Kiki; that is a case where the warnings were frequent and pretty specific, and went on for a LONG time from different parts of the government; the comparison with what happened in Libya doesn't stand, as far as I'm concerned. It's not the difference in loss of life, which someone snarked about somewhere; for me, the difference is in part that the loss of 3,000 lives, and the pain of that loss experienced by all those it affected, is quite different from the loss of let's say 20 lives (counting the Libyans who tried to stop the attack). There is also the fact that anyone in an embassy or whatever working in a country like Libya knows their life is in danger, whereas 9/11 slaughtered people who were just going to work and who hadn't put their lives on the line. There are many signs and warnings governments ignore, but 9/11 was so huge, and affected so many--in many ways the entire nation up to and beyond today--that the egregiousness of ignoring the warnings is s far bigger atrocity.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 17, 2012 3:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


So let's say you were President in August of 2001. You get a brief that Ben Laden's folks might want to hijack planes to force the release of al Qaeda prisoners. You also get a brief that some al Qaeda operatives in the U.S. may have planned an attack with explosives. This may happen soon.

What do you do?

To this point, every hijacking has been pretty much a hostage situation, and you have forces trained to deal with that just waiting for the word to go.

The last attack with explosives by al Qaeda, against the WTC in 1993, did minimal damage, and control of explosives and precursors has been increased since then and the Oklahoma city bombing.

Do you stop every middle-eastern looking person from getting on an airplane, or drag them off for a strip search? Civil libertarians would be all over you. Do you arrest every Semetic-looking guy buying fertilizer?

In the face of what are really pretty general threats (An airplane - maybe in the U.S., or maybe just a U.S. carrier or plane with a lot of U.S. passengers anywhere in the world - may be hijacked. A bomb may go off somewhere in the U.S.) what actions would you take? Aside from telling the security agencies that reported these threats to keep looking, what could you really do?

BTW, no explosives were used in the 9/11 attacks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 17, 2012 5:01 AM

CAVETROLL


The unintended consequence of 9/11 (NOT saying it was a good thing) is that there have been no hijackings since. Every passenger on every commercial airplane in the world now knows that their safety is in their own hands. Any attempt, even disruptive incidents, are now met with deadly force. And yes, a couple of guys forming a stomp circle around you is deadly force.


Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 17, 2012 3:09 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"To this point, every hijacking has been pretty much a hostage situation, and you have forces trained to deal with that just waiting for the word to go. ... What do you do?"

US Marshals on planes. Heightened alerts to airlines to prepare staff to respond. Special notification procedures to alert authorities. Locked cockpit doors. Yanno, common sense stuff.

And, you mean to admit to everyone here that you have not a freaking clue about what could have been done differently? Despite years, and in some cases decades, of anti-terrorist experience to draw from that exists around the globe? WOW. You must be really dumb.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 17, 2012 9:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
The last attack with explosives by al Qaeda, against the WTC in 1993, did minimal damage, and control of explosives and precursors has been increased since then and the Oklahoma city bombing.


Which wouldn't have helped a damn bit even in 1993 since the FBI *gave* them the fucking bomb.
And of course some large part of these terrorist stockpiles are stuff *WE* gave them to fuck up the Russians with, and I have no doubt at all the Russians have quietly foisted a bunch of stuff on them since while laughing up their sleeve at the irony.
-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"To this point, every hijacking has been pretty much a hostage situation, and you have forces trained to deal with that just waiting for the word to go. ... What do you do?"

US Marshals on planes. Heightened alerts to airlines to prepare staff to respond. Special notification procedures to alert authorities. Locked cockpit doors. Yanno, common sense stuff.



So you have to hire and train enough air marshals to be on all 25,000-some commercial flights daily, not to mention requiring all airlines to re-fit all their aircraft with cockpit security doors, and get this done in a couple of months. Dictators might be able to do that, but in this country, you'd have to convince a lot of people that it was worthwhile. Just convincing the airlines to give up the revenue for the 25,000 seats a day the marshals took up would be a struggle, and have all sorts of kickback.

Quote:

And, you mean to admit to everyone here that you have not a freaking clue about what could have been done differently? Despite years, and in some cases decades, of anti-terrorist experience to draw from that exists around the globe? WOW. You must be really dumb.


I'm smart enough to know that even the President can't just wave his magic wand and create air marshals and secured cockpits out of thin air.

I also know that the reports of possible al Qaeda actions are just one of many possible threat reports that the President and government get daily. Suppose the government took the actions you suggest for all of them? You think stuff like renditions and the Patriot Act are bad now? Would you like many more folks at Gitmo, or many more drone strikes?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:10 AM

STORYMARK


Short version: Because Geezer doesn't personally know what could have been done, it's okay that NOTHING was done.

Meanwhile, he'll continue to bitch about this embassy attack, and ignore that many more happened, with higher fatalities, under Bush.

But Obama!!!! Grrr!!

And that is his real "argument."


Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum


"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:59 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"So you have to hire and train enough air marshals ..."

Did I say AIR marshals? No. Just regular US marshals. Or police. Or let military personnel be armed when they fly. Press the FBI into service. Are you saying that of all the hundreds of thousands of police and military in this country NONE of them could have been used to help secure planes? Is that what you're really arguing? B/c that's just stupid. Like you.

"... not to mention requiring all airlines to re-fit all their aircraft with cockpit security doors ..."

A simple lock would have been nice, along with a procedure for crew to let the pilots know what was going on.

So, I see you have no answer to the other suggestions I made, like alerting the airlines to increased threat, creating special procedures for the pilots to use to alert people on the ground they were taken over.


But yeah, Story is right. You'll bitch and whine about how Bush was just helpless, HELPLESS in the face of an increased threat (that he didn't even pay attention to, in case you missed that) but OBAMA as master of the universe should have DONE SOMETHING different.


Whatever.

You're stupid, and I mean really stupid, partian hack not worth any more of my time.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:35 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)



C'mon, right-wing trolls like Geezer and Rappy are still 100% convinced that 9/11 was really Clinton's fault anyway. And the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 240-plus Marines? Yeah, that was Carter's fault.

Remember, nothing bad ever happens under Republican presidents. Mitt Romney says so. It's because we're so respected around the world when there's a businessman in the White House.

I mean, heck, I'll bet 9/11 was already planned and put into place before the 2000 election, just because the terrorists were sure Gore would be President and the U.S. would be vulnerable, and they'd have never even tried to pull off such a stunt if they'd known old Lone Wolf McQuaalude was going to be installed in the Oval Orifice instead.

[/sarcasm]



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:40 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"So you have to hire and train enough air marshals ..."

Did I say AIR marshals? No. Just regular US marshals. Or police. Or let military personnel be armed when they fly. Press the FBI into service. Are you saying that of all the hundreds of thousands of police and military in this country NONE of them could have been used to help secure planes? Is that what you're really arguing? B/c that's just stupid. Like you.

"... not to mention requiring all airlines to re-fit all their aircraft with cockpit security doors ..."

A simple lock would have been nice, along with a procedure for crew to let the pilots know what was going on.

So, I see you have no answer to the other suggestions I made, like alerting the airlines to increased threat, creating special procedures for the pilots to use to alert people on the ground they were taken over.


But yeah, Story is right. You'll bitch and whine about how Bush was just helpless, HELPLESS in the face of an increased threat (that he didn't even pay attention to, in case you missed that) but OBAMA as master of the universe should have DONE SOMETHING different.


Whatever.

You're stupid, and I mean really stupid, partian hack not worth any more of my time.




Hell, did nobody ever think to just warn THE PEOPLE - THE PASSENGERS - about the increased threat levels? As we've seen, 9/11 ended hijacking as a viable form of terrorism. Why? Because passengers won't comply any more. So if they'd been warned that some form of attack was likely, using airliners, then maybe they'd have been more alert. Hell, just the act of making such an announcement might screw the plans of the terrorists, since their element of surprise was gone.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:40 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
9/11 ended hijacking as a viable form of terrorism. Why? Because passengers won't comply any more.


Okay this is gonna sound less than friendly - but remember how I point out that in cooperating with a criminal who has offered violent threat to you, you are making the damn fool assumption that once you do so they will suddenly obey the legal and social conventions they've defied to become a criminal in the first place, and how IDIOTIC the so-called-logic behind that is ?

Well, there ya go, perfect example, right there - what did compliance get em ?

Compliance enables them, and Governments encourage compliance not out of any care for the victims, but because those who resist a criminal robbing or mistreating them on the street, might well begin to resist Government robbing them or mistreating them elsewhere.. can't have that, can we ?
Starts even earlier in most cases, as parents hesitate to teach their kids to resist aggression since that may well come back around into resistance to their own.

Which is WHY the assumption that one jackass with some level of force could control a collective of Anarchists - there *IS* no compliance, NO assumption on their behalf that the threat will not be carried through whether they comply or not, and thus zero incentive to cooperate.
Cavetroll mentions the instant stomp circle which would be the current reaction to attempted hijacking... now imagine that as an instant, spontaneous reaction to ANY coercion-by-threat-of-force, on a widespread social level, and you understand WHY the assumption above is laughable.

Just wanted to point that out.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:30 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"So you have to hire and train enough air marshals ..."

Did I say AIR marshals? No. Just regular US marshals.



There are only about 4,000 U.S. Marshals, and they have other things to do.

Quote:

Or police.


With no training about how to take down a highjacker. That'd be interesting. Also be interesting as to how the President orders local police to leave their communities unprotected and fly around the U.S. all the time.


Quote:

Or let military personnel be armed when they fly.


You'd have to change the laws first, since military personnel aren't generally allowed to do domestic law enforcement.


Quote:

Press the FBI into service.


And then who does what the FBI used to do while the FBI is riding around on planes?

Quote:

Are you saying that of all the hundreds of thousands of police and military in this country NONE of them could have been used to help secure planes? Is that what you're really arguing? B/c that's just stupid. Like you.


The Air marshals that do exist usually fly in teams of two or three. They go through extensive training on the specific task of taking down hijackers in an aircraft in flight. So to cover every commercial flight in the U.S. you'd need about 75,000 highly trained people, not just Barney Fifes with a gun. Actually, you'd probably need three times that many, since flights go on pretty much round the clock, and folks have to rest sometime, so you're looking at 225,000.

Assuming you could move these quarter million or so folks from Barney Fife to Jack Bauer, you'd have to consider how long you could keep them away from their original duties in Federal or local law enforcement, and the impact that'd have on other types of crime and mayhem.

I'll once again point out that you seem to think that the President can, apparently on a whim, reassign state and local police with no repercussions and no discussion with the local governments, violate - or at least stretch - the Posse Comitatus act by using military personnel to enforce civil law, provide very specialized training for 225,000 people, and come up with the money to pay for all this.

Quote:

"... not to mention requiring all airlines to re-fit all their aircraft with cockpit security doors ..."

A simple lock would have been nice, along with a procedure for crew to let the pilots know what was going on.


Cabin doors of the time were thin plastic (when they weren't just curtains), and wouldn't stand up to a good kick. And there have been intercoms in planes for years.

Quote:

So, I see you have no answer to the other suggestions I made, like alerting the airlines to increased threat, creating special procedures for the pilots to use to alert people on the ground they were taken over.


Because they're as misguided as all your suggestions.

So what would have been accomplished by alerting the airlines to increased threat? The airlines don't have sky marshals either. And once again, up to this time, hijackings usually ended in hostage situations, not suicide missions. Even the briefing Bush received suggested any al Qaeda-backed hijackings would be done to exchange hostages for jailed terrorists.


Oh, and lets not forget that briefing also warned of possible al Qaeda attacks with explosives.

So according to your plans, we'd probably need at least another quarter million folks trained in explosives detection and disposal to inspect every vehicle and shipment entering the U.S.


Well, you've solved the unemployment problem, anyway.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:38 AM

STORYMARK


Nice of Geezer to come along and prove my point. But I still did it with about 1/100th of the rambling.


Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum


"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:41 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Hell, did nobody ever think to just warn THE PEOPLE - THE PASSENGERS - about the increased threat levels? As we've seen, 9/11 ended hijacking as a viable form of terrorism. Why? Because passengers won't comply any more. So if they'd been warned that some form of attack was likely, using airliners, then maybe they'd have been more alert. Hell, just the act of making such an announcement might screw the plans of the terrorists, since their element of surprise was gone.




And once again.

Prior to 9/11, hijackings of aircraft in the U.S. were pretty low-risk events, with the passengers used as hostages for ransom, exchange, or political protest. procedures were in place for either negotiation or special unit attacks after the planes landed.

The briefing in the article Kiki cited mentioned a possibility of al Qaeda hijacking a plane to obtain hostages for a potential swap for jailed terrorists. This was the common practice, and contingency plans for a hijack/hostage situation were already in place.

Sure, we know NOW that passengers might be advised to act against hijackers, but pre-9/11, the advice was to not cause trouble and let the negotiators or Delta Force do their jobs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:46 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Nice of Geezer to come along and prove my point. But I still did it with about 1/100th of the rambling.



Okay, Story.

Let's hear what you'd do if you were President and had this briefing.

Al Qaeda may sometime in the future hijack U.S. planes to take hostages for exchange.

Al Qaeda may sometime in the future make attacks in the U.S. with explosives.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:59 AM

STORYMARK


See, Im not the one pretending to be an expert. Im merely pointing out the hypocrisy you display by constantly Obama for doing "nothing" while excusing Bush for the same - but with a FAR higher body count.

Just another in your long string of "Im not partisan - it's just that everything the GOP does rocks, and everything the Dems do is a crime against America" posts lately.


Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum


"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:54 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

And once again.

Prior to 9/11, hijackings of aircraft in the U.S. were pretty low-risk events, with the passengers used as hostages for ransom, exchange, or political protest. procedures were in place for either negotiation or special unit attacks after the planes landed.

The briefing in the article Kiki cited mentioned a possibility of al Qaeda hijacking a plane to obtain hostages for a potential swap for jailed terrorists. This was the common practice, and contingency plans for a hijack/hostage situation were already in place.

Sure, we know NOW that passengers might be advised to act against hijackers, but pre-9/11, the advice was to not cause trouble and let the negotiators or Delta Force do their jobs.




Prior to that briefing, U.S. intel had intercepts of plans for al-Qaeda to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings, so it wasn't as if that weren't a known possibility.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:20 AM

STORYMARK


No, no, no, Kwick! You don't get it! They couldn't have known! Being told doesn't count! And they couldn't have conceived of anything like that ever happening, even though it'd just been done on TV.

It was INCONCEIVABLE!



(I do believe that henceforth, this will be the face I see when I read a Geezer post)


Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum


"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:47 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Yup, Story. None of this is new information, either.

Geezer has just decided to bury his head in... well, someplace dark, and ignore any evidence which doesn't fit his preconceived ideas of what happened. His story lines up completely, remarkably enough, with the Bush admin's story. What are the odds of a completely nonpartisan person agreeing 100% with a story which has been shown repeatedly to be so full of holes that one could fly several airliners through it?

Quote:

9/11: THREATS ABOUT AIRPLANES AS WEAPONS PRIOR TO 9/11

By: Dr. Matthew Robinson
Associate Professor of Criminal Justice
Appalachian State University
robinsnmb@appstate.edu

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”

Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”

Further, Vice President Cheney advised Democrats in Congress to “be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions ... that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11.” He also said that any serious probe of 9/11 foreknowledge would be tantamount to “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”

So, read the following reports, all from major news agencies in the United States, and see if you think they are telling the truth (just don’t conduct any serious probe into this foreknowledge, or you might be considered the enemy!) Yes, many of the reports came before Bush became President, but the point is, he knew. Everyone in the White House and Congress knew.
What is really amazing is that people who were there and who had access to the information – in the White House and in the Congress – have provided strong evidence that the statements above are false. For example, White House Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke acknowledges that the CIA knew there were al Qaeda terrorists in the US, and the FBI knew there were Arabic people taking lessons at flight schools, including some asking strange questions about crashing planes. Clarke says “red lights and bells should have been going off. They had specific information about individual terrorists from which one could have deduced what was about to happen” (p. 237).
Clarke offers the following as evidence·

In 1995, Clarke asked the FAA to ground all US flights over the Pacific because of a terrorist threat against airliners. This “Bojinka Plot” was discovered by Philippine police responding to a fire in an apartment building in Manilla. This was a plan by al Qaeda to blow up 12 commercial airliners and 9/11 mastermind KSM.
In 1996, while preparing for the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, Clarke asked the Special Agent in Charge of the Atlanta FBI Field Office and the head of FAA security, “What if somebody blows up a 747 over the Olympic stadium, or even flies one into the stadium?” Admiral Cathal Flynn, head of FAA security, replied, “... we could ban aircraft from over the stadium during the events ...”. The FBI agent also added: “Don’t let them hijack an aircraft in the first place.” (pp. 106-107). The preparations made to prevent this kind of attack became the “Atlanta Rules.” These rules were used in several CSG designated “National Security Special Events.” Clarke says: “The Secret Service and Customs had teamed up in Atlanta to provide some rudimentary air defense against an aircraft flying into the Olympic Stadium. They did so again during the subsequent National Security Special Events and they agreed to create a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington.” The Treasury Department did not want to pay for the permanent air defense unit so it was not established (p. 131).
In 1996, President Clinton established new security mechanisms at the nation’s airports. They included not allowing passengers to board planes without a government issued photo ID that matched the name on the ticket, increases in random passenger and cargo searches, a temporary ban on parked cars near terminals, and temporary discontinuation of curbside check-in. Also Vice President Al Gore would head a Commission on Aviation Safety and Security that would recommend permanent changes to airport security. According to Richard Clarke this Commission “requested and got funding for programs involving baggage screening, carry on luggage checks, passenger profiling, screener training, research on aircraft hardening, and to hire more FAA security agents.” It did not “agree to recommend that the federal government assume the role of airport passenger and luggage screening ... It was clear even at the time that the Gore Commission had not been sufficiently ambitious about the job of airport security and passenger screening” (p. 130).

Further, former 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), asserts that President Bush’s statements and those of his Administration about the 9/11 attacks are inaccurate. Graham says: “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). These are all false!

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!].

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 (p. 81).

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

So, there it is. Tell me again how we did not see this coming and how President Bush and members of his Administration can honestly say they had no idea using commercial planes as missiles was even a possibility?!?




http://www.justiceblind.com/airplanes.html



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Geezer, Geezer, Geezer.

Yes, you can dart and dodge and weave all you want, but the truck is still going to flatten you.

Your arguments are nonsensical. The potential hijackers were identified as foreign. That puts the authority in the international sphere. In addition, re the posse comitatus: "Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute, even though it may be problematic for political reasons." Bush could have used the military, and the police, and US marshals, and the FBI - maybe even the CIA. But there you go again, complaining that there was nobody who could be used.

As for cockpit doors: "A cockpit or flight deck is the area, usually near the front of an aircraft, from which a pilot controls the aircraft. Most modern cockpits are enclosed, except on some small aircraft, and cockpits on large airliners are also physically separated from the cabin." Some small planes had curtains, larger ones which one would EXPECT would be of interest to a hijacker, had doors. But those doors didn't have even simple locks. And if those doors could be physically breached (an assertion you make with no proof), an extra barrier takes extra time, giving crew and pilots time to respond - IF they had been warned.

But the airlines WEREN'T warned. Not even cautioned. Not even once.

BTW - the responsibility for airline security before 9/11 rested not with the airlines, but with the FAA. I'll point out just this once that it was a federal agency, not private companies, that had the final say-so on security. And sure airlines whine every time the FAA tells them they have to, say, inspect the wiring harnesses that have been shown to short out, but in the end the FAA has the right to tell them what to do. Just so you know.

As for not warning anyone - including the public - do I have to remind you how MANY time Bush jiggered the threat level color code (OH NO! It's a redder shade of orange!) every time it was politically convenient? Certainly a bona fide threat that was REPEATEDLY warned about over MANY months deserved at least a mention. Ya' think?

But whatever.


You're as deluded as little rappy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:01 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
See, Im not the one pretending to be an expert. Im merely pointing out the hypocrisy you display by constantly Obama for doing "nothing" while excusing Bush for the same - but with a FAR higher body count.




Well, aside from me never saying anything about Obama doing "nothing" about the consulate attack...


So you're just making stuff up yet again.

Don't you get tired of being so wrong?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
The potential hijackers were identified as foreign. That puts the authority in the international sphere.



No. Not if they're committing a crime in the U.S. Besides, what's the difference? Your plan still requires a massive new security organization, regardless of where the potential hijackers are from.

Quote:

Bush could have used the military, and the police, and US marshals, and the FBI - maybe even the CIA. But there you go again, complaining that there was nobody who could be used.


Political reaction to putting armed military on domestic airline flights would have been massive, and probably would have required enabling legislation to provide the authority to do so. And you continue to ignore the issue of numbers (225,000), and training, and the drain on resources for domestic law enforcement while you have more than a quarter of the total law enforcement officers in the country (800,000 or so) riding around on planes.

BTW, since the al Qaeda threat briefing was on Aug. 06, 2001, you have to get all this done and in place in about a month, or you're too late.

Quote:

As for cockpit doors: "A cockpit or flight deck is the area, usually near the front of an aircraft, from which a pilot controls the aircraft. Most modern cockpits are enclosed, except on some small aircraft, and cockpits on large airliners are also physically separated from the cabin."


Yeah. Now. after security put in place after 9/11. I was flying a good bit prior to 9/11 and most of the doors I saw were pretty flimsy, and on regional planes were curtains.

Quote:

But the airlines WEREN'T warned. Not even cautioned. Not even once.


And what would the airlines do? Refuse to fly Arabic-looking folks? Hire and train 225,000 guards in a month? Airlines had procedures to deal with what were considered normal hijackings in the pre-9/11 world. What would they do extra?

Quote:

BTW - the responsibility for airline security before 9/11 rested not with the airlines, but with the FAA. I'll point out just this once that it was a federal agency, not private companies, that had the final say-so on security. And sure airlines whine every time the FAA tells them they have to, say, inspect the wiring harnesses that have been shown to short out, but in the end the FAA has the right to tell them what to do. Just so you know.


So what would you have the FAA tell them to do? It's back to the same thing. Where does all that trained manpower to guard each and every plane come from?

And next week when there's an intelligence brief that al Qaeda may be planting explosives, where do the bomb squads come from?

And then the week after that when the briefing says al Qaeda may be planning to poison reservoirs, where you gonna get all those reservoir guards?

And the anthrax brief.

And the sarin gas brief.

And the backpack nuke brief.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Prior to that briefing, U.S. intel had intercepts of plans for al-Qaeda to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings, so it wasn't as if that weren't a known possibility.



They also had intercepts of plans for hijackings as hostage situations and teams planting bombs. I'd bet they had intercepts of plans for poison gas attacks and possible nuke attacks as well.

It's easy, after the fact, to pick out a few bits of information out of the thousands (tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?) out there and say "Oh, it's so obvious".

And once again, what are you gonna do about such a general threat? Some plane or planes, somewhere in the world, some time. Kiki would have armed guards on every plane, apparently all the time. That might handle the hijacking, but what about the bombs, or the anthrax, or the sarin, or the nukes, or the rubber chickens?

Or we could go the other way and just detain all the middle-eastern looking people in the country until we could verify they were no threat. Is that your plan?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:41 AM

CHRISISALL


Geezer, please.
Just alerting folks on every plane to the need for heightened awareness might have been enough to foil the plan. Like a 'sippery when wet' sign allows you to control a possible skid better. Surprise was their biggest tool- take that away & it's a straight up fight.
Duh.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:53 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


It is nice to hear Geezer come right out and say that there's nothing more the Obama administration could have done in the days preceding the 9/11 anniversary, since nobody could have foreseen any viable threat...



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by CHRISISALL:
Geezer, please.
Just alerting folks on every plane to the need for heightened awareness might have been enough to foil the plan. Like a 'sippery when wet' sign allows you to control a possible skid better. Surprise was their biggest tool- take that away & it's a straight up fight.
Duh.



Yeah. I can imagine. "Hey everyone, before you fly, be aware that Islamic fundamentalists may try to take over your plane and hold you hostages to trade for their imprisoned friends."

I can imagine all the flights never leaving the gate because some passengers (or crew) wouldn't fly if any of "those people" were on board, and the perfectly innocent "arab-loking guys" who'd get jumped by some would-be Rambo when they got up to go to the bathroom. I can also imagine that after a few months of false alarms and lawsuits, awareness would go back down again.

The only reason this doesn't happen more now is that folks believe (rightly or wrongly) that the pre-flight security (which wasn't near as thorough in 2001) is gonna catch anyone armed with boxcutters and such.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:46 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
It is nice to hear Geezer come right out and say that there's nothing more the Obama administration could have done in the days preceding the 9/11 anniversary, since nobody could have foreseen any viable threat...



Could very well be.

Just like the Bush administration, the Obama administration had no idea that radical Muslims might plan actions around a specific date - choosing one at random, let's say, oh, September 11.

Just like Bush, they didn't know that actions by those radical Muslims were likely to occur - rather than on any airliner U.S. citizens might board - in specific places, like U.S. embassies and consulates in unstable Muslim countries.

Just like Bush, they weren't informed 48 hours in advance of plans to attack American missions around that specific random 9/11 date.

So, yeah, looks like the same scenario to me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Tue, November 5, 2024 21:53 - 4536 posts
With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Tue, November 5, 2024 18:25 - 68 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:35 - 4677 posts
Election fraud.
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:19 - 39 posts
Multiculturalism
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:16 - 53 posts
Funny Cartoon sparks Islamic Jihad !
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:12 - 248 posts
Elon Musk
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:57 - 32 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:55 - 40 posts
What kind of superpower could China be?
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:02 - 54 posts
End of the Democratic Party (not kidding)
Tue, November 5, 2024 14:18 - 56 posts
Disgruntled Tepublicans vow to move to Australia
Tue, November 5, 2024 13:53 - 76 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Tue, November 5, 2024 13:47 - 639 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL