9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings...Bush admin withheld report until AFTER the election!!

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time.

Hwo do you make the leap from "reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda" to warnings? The report specifically states:

The report, like previous commission documents, finds no evidence that the government had specific warning of a domestic attack and says that the aviation industry considered the hijacking threat to be more worrisome overseas.

And they did nothing?

A spokeswoman for the F.A.A., the agency that bears the brunt of the commission's criticism, said Wednesday that the agency was well aware of the threat posed by terrorists before Sept. 11 and took substantive steps to counter it, including the expanded use of explosives detection units.

She added: "After 9/11, the F.A..A. and the entire aviation community took bold steps to improve aviation security, such as fortifying cockpit doors on 6,000 airplanes, and those steps took hundreds of millions of dollars to implement."

And another -10 deducted for not seeing how ignorant you were the first time you were called on it.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks

Information may have been available, not pulled together or fully understood; 20/20 hindsight works great.

What would have you wanted/expected the FAA to do, ground the complete airline system indefinately.

The object of the 9/11 commission was to understand what the problem was and come arouind with solutions to correct, not apportion blame. It tried to turn it into a partisan issue multiple times.

52 Warnings given to the FAA you would think they would set at the very least the medal detectors on high and deny any weapons (even nail clippers) to be take on airplanes. If it tipped their hand, so what.

The point is, there WAS information given to this administration. Like the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief:
Title: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States"

And how the administration handled that information:
Rice: "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States."

The FAA and the administration did not want to cause more delays and bring further financial hardships on the airlines, so they did nothing. They made a bad decision, and cost the lives of 3000+ people plus all the economic loss.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Genx87

it's not so much that this info may or may not have been the intel that stopped the attacks it's that it was purposely held to help with Bush's reellection. this is the kind of secretive BS that makes me very leary of this admin. I'm predicting now there will be a lot thigns released once Bush is out that will make people realize how sh!tty of a president he was.

How? Nobody had enough intel to do much of anything with. If you can point me to information that said even sept 11th then Ill give you a cookie.

From reading this article the only thing in the classified files are detailed information on how the FAA worked. Whoopie do!
We already know they failed to protect the public. What else can you possibly dig up?

It's almost like you aren't even responding to what I said so I'm not sure how to respond to what you just said. Clarify what you mean and I'll give you a response. I didn't say this intel would have necessarily have stopped the attacks so I'm not sure where you are going with this....

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time.

Hwo do you make the leap from "reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda" to warnings? The report specifically states:

The report, like previous commission documents, finds no evidence that the government had specific warning of a domestic attack and says that the aviation industry considered the hijacking threat to be more worrisome overseas.

And they did nothing?

A spokeswoman for the F.A.A., the agency that bears the brunt of the commission's criticism, said Wednesday that the agency was well aware of the threat posed by terrorists before Sept. 11 and took substantive steps to counter it, including the expanded use of explosives detection units.

She added: "After 9/11, the F.A..A. and the entire aviation community took bold steps to improve aviation security, such as fortifying cockpit doors on 6,000 airplanes, and those steps took hundreds of millions of dollars to implement."

And another -10 deducted for not seeing how ignorant you were the first time you were called on it.

Did they or did they not prevent the attacks of 9/11. That's what SHOULD have been done, given the amount of info they were getting.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time.

Hwo do you make the leap from "reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda" to warnings? The report specifically states:

August 6th Presidential Daily Brief: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States"

The report, like previous commission documents, finds no evidence that the government had specific warning of a domestic attack and says that the aviation industry considered the hijacking threat to be more worrisome overseas.

First I agree they did not have specific information about the attack (like time of day and which flights), but honestly do you think they EVER have that good of intel? It?s call imagination.

And they did nothing?

FAA up until 9/11 thought it was perfectly permissible to allow four-inch knife blades aboard. I would call that not doing enough

A spokeswoman for the F.A.A., the agency that bears the brunt of the commission's criticism, said Wednesday that the agency was well aware of the threat posed by terrorists before Sept. 11 and took substantive steps to counter it, including the expanded use of explosives detection units.

I though all baggage was screened for explosives...humm

She added: "After 9/11, the F.A..A. and the entire aviation community took bold steps to improve aviation security, such as fortifying cockpit doors on 6,000 airplanes, and those steps took hundreds of millions of dollars to implement."

And another -10 deducted for not seeing how ignorant you were the first time you were called on it.

[/b]

Look it's not all that hard to connect the dots. We had the information and we did not act on it, and look where it got us. The real enemy of the US is our own arrogance to believe that it won't happen here.

 

[NeoV]

my biggest problem with this is this part:

The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months

While trying to blame Bush for 'allowing' 9/11 to happen is certainly a reach, would some level of admitting responsibility kill them?

You right-wingers can make fun of Richard Clarke all you want, and Dick Cheney (who should have been thrown out of office when he said Richard Clarke was 'out of the loop' - he WAS the loop dumb ass) can make ignorant statements about him, but at least he had the balls to apologize in a public forum for lettting this country down.

I've yet to hear anything remotely like this from Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, etc....all I hear from them is spin and misleading statements.

TLC - your liberal side is showing again - oops, no it's not - it never has in fact - but how can you completely dismiss 52 different warnings in the months prior to 9/11, then say "They did do something, look at all the things they did, the money they spent...".....after 9/11? Where is the sense in that?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time.

Hwo do you make the leap from "reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda" to warnings? The report specifically states:

The report, like previous commission documents, finds no evidence that the government had specific warning of a domestic attack and says that the aviation industry considered the hijacking threat to be more worrisome overseas.

And they did nothing?

A spokeswoman for the F.A.A., the agency that bears the brunt of the commission's criticism, said Wednesday that the agency was well aware of the threat posed by terrorists before Sept. 11 and took substantive steps to counter it, including the expanded use of explosives detection units.

She added: "After 9/11, the F.A..A. and the entire aviation community took bold steps to improve aviation security, such as fortifying cockpit doors on 6,000 airplanes, and those steps took hundreds of millions of dollars to implement."

And another -10 deducted for not seeing how ignorant you were the first time you were called on it.

Did they or did they not prevent the attacks of 9/11. That's what SHOULD have been done, given the amount of info they were getting.

Stop backpedaling now. You claimed nothing was done. Changes were implemented.

As well, the report specifically states (and I'll post it once again since it didn't sink in the first time):

"The report, like previous commission documents, finds no evidence that the government had specific warning of a domestic attack and says that the aviation industry considered the hijacking threat to be more worrisome overseas."

The intel that was provided was about as specific as the local police telling you there's a good chance that your house might get robbed, then telling you they might use a car, or maybe not, and they might have weapons, or maybe not. So you make a few security changes, like better locks, and the robbers end up stealing your car and crashing it into your house.

Obviously it would be your fault for not putting two and two together and knowing those robbers were going to steal your car and crash it into your home, right? Gee, they warned you. You didn't prevent it.

:roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: NeoV
my biggest problem with this is this part:

The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months

While trying to blame Bush for 'allowing' 9/11 to happen is certainly a reach, would some level of admitting responsibility kill them?

You right-wingers can make fun of Richard Clarke all you want, and Dick Cheney (who should have been thrown out of office when he said Richard Clarke was 'out of the loop' - he WAS the loop dumb ass) can make ignorant statements about him, but at least he had the balls to apologize in a public forum for lettting this country down.

I've yet to hear anything remotely like this from Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, etc....all I hear from them is spin and misleading statements.

TLC - your liberal side is showing again - oops, no it's not - it never has in fact - but how can you completely dismiss 52 different warnings in the months prior to 9/11, then say "They did do something, look at all the things they did, the money they spent...".....after 9/11? Where is the sense in that?

But...but...but...no specifics were given. There were no actual dates or flight numbers given. Whatever was the Bush admin and the FAA to do?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NeoV
my biggest problem with this is this part:

The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months

While trying to blame Bush for 'allowing' 9/11 to happen is certainly a reach, would some level of admitting responsibility kill them?

You right-wingers can make fun of Richard Clarke all you want, and Dick Cheney (who should have been thrown out of office when he said Richard Clarke was 'out of the loop' - he WAS the loop dumb ass) can make ignorant statements about him, but at least he had the balls to apologize in a public forum for lettting this country down.

I've yet to hear anything remotely like this from Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, etc....all I hear from them is spin and misleading statements.

TLC - your liberal side is showing again - oops, no it's not - it never has in fact - but how can you completely dismiss 52 different warnings in the months prior to 9/11, then say "They did do something, look at all the things they did, the money they spent...".....after 9/11? Where is the sense in that?

But...but...but...no specifics were given. There were no actual dates or flight numbers given. Whatever was the Bush admin and the FAA to do?

Hey conjur. AQ may be preparing to attack the place where you live sometime in the future. It could be a dirty bomb or a more conventional type of bomb, or it might be a chemical attack - maybe through the water system. Or maybe it'll just be a bunch of suicide bombers who will attack en mass. We really don't know for sure, because a lot of intel is out there suggesting a multitude of possibilities, and has been for some time.

Well, now that you have the specifics please be prepared. You have been warned, and if you fail to protect your town from attack it'll be all your fault.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
But...but...but...no specifics were given. There were no actual dates or flight numbers given. Whatever was the Bush admin and the FAA to do?

Hey conjur. AQ may be preparing to attack the place where you live sometime in the future. It could be a dirty bomb or a more conventional type of bomb, or it might be a chemical attack - maybe through the water system. Or maybe it'll just be a bunch of suicide bombers who will attack en mass. We really don't know for sure, because a lot of intel is out there suggesting a multitude of possibilities, and has been for some time.

Well, now that you have the specifics please be prepared. You have been warned, and if you fail to protect your town from attack it'll be all your fault.

Hmm...where are the 52 reports pointing to such attacks?



<crickets>

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
But...but...but...no specifics were given. There were no actual dates or flight numbers given. Whatever was the Bush admin and the FAA to do?

Hey conjur. AQ may be preparing to attack the place where you live sometime in the future. It could be a dirty bomb or a more conventional type of bomb, or it might be a chemical attack - maybe through the water system. Or maybe it'll just be a bunch of suicide bombers who will attack en mass. We really don't know for sure, because a lot of intel is out there suggesting a multitude of possibilities, and has been for some time.

Well, now that you have the specifics please be prepared. You have been warned, and if you fail to protect your town from attack it'll be all your fault.

Hmm...where are the 52 reports pointing to such attacks?



<crickets>

They must be out there. After all, we are recruiting new al Qaeda members by the truckload, right?

Be afraid, be very afraid.

 

[BBond]

52 warnings from April 2001 through September 10, 2001 and where was the rhinestone cowboy?

On vacation.

You people defending this abortion of a president should be ashamed of yourselves.

Liars, each and every one of you, supporting the liar-in-chief.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
52 warnings from April 2001 through September 10, 2001 and where was the rhinestone cowboy?

On vacation.

You people defending this abortion of a president should be ashamed of yourselves.

Liars, each and every one of you, supporting the liar-in-chief.

When you have to resort to distorted, hyperbolic posts like this then you are no better than a liar yourself, you make no point, and you lose credibility; if you ever had any to begin with.

 

[Steeplerot]

But, but, If I had seat numbers (of the hijackers) I would have done something -con0do-sleezo rice

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
But, but, If I had seat numbers (of the hijackers) I would have done something -con0do-sleezo rice

I'm sure you would have smacked them upside the head with your tire chain.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
But, but, If I had seat numbers (of the hijackers) I would have done something -con0do-sleezo rice

I'm sure you would have smacked them upside the head with your tire chain.

And for once you would be right TLC,
I would have kicked the ass of someone with a boxcutter before I and my fellow passangers went down you can be sure of that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
But, but, If I had seat numbers (of the hijackers) I would have done something -con0do-sleezo rice

I'm sure you would have smacked them upside the head with your tire chain.

And for once you would be right TLC,
I would have kicked the ass of someone with a boxcutter before I and my fellow passangers went down you can be sure of that.

Sure. That's easy to claim while posting from the depths of your well-stocked bunker.

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole 9/11 scenario occurred because Al Qaeda found a huge security loophole, and exploited it. Apparently, some people in the FAA and the Intelligence community had the wherewithall to recognize the possibilities, but somehow weren't able to convince their superiors to take action. So figure out who those people are, fire their bosses, promote 'em...

I really don't blame the Admin for 9/11, other than in the sense that their apparent complacency about al qaeda at the time had a tendency to filter down into the ranks. Nothing in the previous admin would have thwarted the attack, either.

OTOH, the fearmongering, transferrance, exploitation, obfuscation and secrecy about the whole thing speak directly to the fundamental dishonesty of the admin, holding back the release of this report being merely one of many such acts of partisan depravity.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BBond
52 warnings from April 2001 through September 10, 2001 and where was the rhinestone cowboy?

On vacation.

You people defending this abortion of a president should be ashamed of yourselves.

Liars, each and every one of you, supporting the liar-in-chief.

Ah, there's the bob we all grew to love...:laugh:

CsG

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
But, but, If I had seat numbers (of the hijackers) I would have done something -con0do-sleezo rice

I'm sure you would have smacked them upside the head with your tire chain.

And for once you would be right TLC,
I would have kicked the ass of someone with a boxcutter before I and my fellow passangers went down you can be sure of that.

Sure. That's easy to claim while posting from the depths of your well-stocked bunker.

Last time I looked at my license it did not say D. Cheney

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
But, but, If I had seat numbers (of the hijackers) I would have done something -con0do-sleezo rice

I'm sure you would have smacked them upside the head with your tire chain.

And for once you would be right TLC,
I would have kicked the ass of someone with a boxcutter before I and my fellow passangers went down you can be sure of that.

Sure. That's easy to claim while posting from the depths of your well-stocked bunker.

Last time I looked at my license it did not say D. Cheney

:laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
But, but, If I had seat numbers (of the hijackers) I would have done something -con0do-sleezo rice

I'm sure you would have smacked them upside the head with your tire chain.

And for once you would be right TLC,
I would have kicked the ass of someone with a boxcutter before I and my fellow passangers went down you can be sure of that.

Sure. That's easy to claim while posting from the depths of your well-stocked bunker.

Last time I looked at my license it did not say D. Cheney

I'd expect it would be spelled "T. Chain"ey in your case.

 

[automaton20]

My 2 cents... the bush administration has a disgusting reputation... Bush and his cronies bought the 2000 election from DBT...Bush lied in his state of the union address to rally support for the war in Iraq... and many other deplorable actions.. the fact that he and his adminisatration were unable to react to a threat that was posed is no suprise to me.... I personally believe that anyone who has the tenacity to appear on national television and reccomend that we vote for issue 1 "defense of marriage" is just an a**

 

[imported_Aelius]

FAA and the airlines were warned of possible attacks at some point with specifics of the possible way in which the attacks may occur. +20 points
Changes were made prior to the event. +10 points
The changes made were exactly like bandaiding a crumbling dam. -20 points
Fundamentals of anti terrorist procedures were put on the backburner in favor of other priorities. -20 points
No attempt was made to "actively" search for terrorists that were warned may be involved at any of the airports. -20 points
Failed to prevent attack due to incompetence in leadership. -50 points

Grade: F

 

[her209]

So why was this information redacted? Something to hide? I can see if its due to "national security" reasons, but its clearly not the case here.