How Much Prior Warning to 9/11 was there? Too much.

50% of F.A.A security alerts from 4/01 to 9/10/01 had Al Qaeda or Bin Laden in them

Published on February 10, 2005 By sqrrldrw In Democrat

We all remember that great scene on C-Span when Condi testified to the title of the August 10, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing to the 9/11 Comission (Bin Laden Determined to Attack in U.S.). Now it turns out the F.A.A. received numerous warnings that a hijacking with the planes being used as weapons was possible and even the method the terrorists would use. This was such an issue the F.A.A. apparently made a training CD ROM on it, and fifty percent of the F.A.A.'s security briefings from April 2001 until Sept 10, 2001 dealt in some way with Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.

Also disturbing is the fact that "Aviation officials amassed so much information about the growing threat posed by terrorists that they conducted classified briefings in mid-2001 for security officials at 19 of the nation's busiest airports to warn of the threat posed in particular by Mr. bin Laden, the report said."

Was anyone out there doing their job? Is this the idea of "provide for the common defense" as outlined in the preamble to the Constitution.

The link to the article is below.
Enjoy,

sqrrldrw

Comments

ParaTed2k

on Feb 10, 2005

As long as you lefties are backing the sick Professor of hate, Ward Churchill and his lies, I've heard all I need to know about the left and 9/11. And please, spare me any of your swill about what is "constitutional" when the left's idea of "constitutional" is taxpayer money going to pay that completely braindead waste of human flesh.

You all just bore me too death!!!

sqrrldrw

on Feb 10, 2005

ParaTed2k,

First off, "bore me too death!!!" should be "bore me to death!!!" Not a big deal, but it'll make you look better if you can spell, write, edit, correctly, right?

Also we're not here to spare you "any of your swill." This is a place of open discussion and you're choosing to comment here just as much as anyone else. If it upsets you as much as you seem to be letting it, I suggest you seek professional guidance. Remember, being on the blog is a choice you make, everyone may not agree with you, so take a deep breath and relax ... remember, you don't have to read or comment on articles that are going to dangerously raise your blood pressure ...

Breath deep, think if you really need to respond or not. Questioning one's gov't isn't against the law. In fact, it's a right protected by our Constitution (freedom of speech). If you don't like that, maybe you shouldn't be on the blog. Or perhaps you'd be happier in a totalitarian regime where you won't deal with different viewpoints. Either way, relax and think about it.

Have a nice day!

sqrrldrw

drmiler

on Feb 10, 2005

And I would suggest that *you* seek education, as you seem to be sadly lacking in that department.
And BTW....have a rotten day.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 10, 2005

First off, "bore me too death!!!" should be "bore me to death!!!" Not a big deal, but it'll make you look better if you can spell, write, edit, correctly, right?

Pooint Takeon!!! ;~D

Breath deep, think if you really need to respond or not. Questioning one's gov't isn't against the law. In fact, it's a right protected by our Constitution (freedom of speech). If you don't like that, maybe you shouldn't be on the blog. Or perhaps you'd be happier in a totalitarian regime where you won't deal with different viewpoints. Either way, relax and think about it.

Did I ever question your Constitutional rights? Did I even question your Blog rights? I don't think so.

Of course it is your right to question the government. It is also my right to respond as I see fit. If you want to align yourself with loony educated idiots like Moore, Prof. Churchill and a million other conspiracy nutcases, then my advice to you is, relax, adjust the aluminum foil lining in your hat and always remember....

(<<>><<>>) We Are Watching.... always (<<>><<>>)

Have a day!

thatoneguyinslc

on Feb 10, 2005

Damn miler, that's harsh.

Ted, How does Professor Idiot (Churchill) factor into the original post? Spin spin spin Ted...And irrelevant as well.

The point of the matter is that the US government ignored or disregarded the threat for years. It wasn't just the current administration. For years Washington used hindsight when it came to airline security.

Unfortunately, it took the deaths of almost 3,000 people to open their eyes.

couchman

on Feb 10, 2005

The point of the matter is that the US government ignored or disregarded the threat for years. It wasn't just the current administration. For years Washington used hindsight when it came to airline security.

In my opinion, when you say this you are leaving out one very large group of individuals to which I feel contributed over the last 30 odd years of inaction towards global terrorism.....that group is the American public as a whole.

Constant bitching by the public who apply civilian attitudes, laws, ethics, etc. to military, security and intellegence matters is a road that leads nowhere. Terrorism has been a problem in this country long before 9-11,most notably during the late 60's early 70's with the anti-war/anti-gov./anti-soldier crowd. But other forms of terrorism have been operating for quite some time, i.e. eco-terrorists.

Some methods that might and I say might have prevented 9-11 would have been racial profiling at airports, tighter restrictions on visa's (student or otherwise), unshakling the hands of our intelligence agencies, assaination of potential enemies(illegal till recently). But because too many decided to play both foreign policy and national security with schoolboy rules (the 73' Church hearings on intellegence, the Toricelli bill to name a few) that led to opening ourselves up to a possible attack. It would be easy for me to blame the dems for a majority of the mess...they did control both the house and senate prior to 96' but thats too easy. It's time the American public stepped up to the plate and accepted a large portion of the responsibility for 9-11 as well... after all we were all rather complacent goverment and public for quite some time.

Daiwa

on Feb 10, 2005

One aspect of our pre-9/11 vulnerability that has just been swept aside as if it were never so is the deliberate policy of building communication barriers between various agencies of the Federal government, so as to avoid infringing on individual rights, certainly a noble notion in the abstract. The FBI was forbidden from sharing certain information with the CIA & vice-versa, thanks to conscious policies implemented in response to perceived excesses of zeal in certain operations and adherence to the doctrine of strict separation of domestic and foreign security functions. Worked great, didn't it?

What were the permitted channels for communication and permitted content of exchange between the FBI & the FAA prior to 9/11? I actually don't know. But any research like this is helpful if used as the basis for improving our security, as opposed to trashing the poor suckers who happened to be working within the constraints of the rules then in place. This also points out the obvious, what we didn't know then that we do know now: we were less secure & vigilant than we should have been. Hindsight is seldom less than perfect. No one should be smug about it.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!