posted
On Saturday, the UK Guardian published an article by Micheal Meacher, who recently resigned as Tony Blair's minister of the environment. Meacher poses a number of very hard questions regarding Bush's war on terrorism. His most damning accusation is
quote:All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
I first heard this question raised in the Canadian press this summer. It sounds like a the kind of crazy conspiracy theory usually I usually dismiss as shear paranoia. But the more I think about it, the more I am disturbed. Why weren't fighter jets scrambled to intercept the hijacked plans on 9/11/2001? I can find only two possible answers -- gross negligence or willfull collusion. Why aren't the US people asking this question?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There might be a third option, depending on how you define collusion. They might have just said "well this is surprising... might as well use it to our advantage." So not actually in league with the suicide bombers, but just going with the flow.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fighter planes were scrambled. Working in D.C. on 9/11, I saw them all day long.
In addition, the plane brought down in Pennsylvania was being tailed by a fighter jet (I believe). No word on whether it was a bomb inside or the fighter jet that took it out, or some other disaster. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Planes were not scrambled in DC until after the plan flew into the pentagon. According to the joint US/Canada air defense plan they should have been scrambled 1 hour and 20 minutes before that when it was first suspected that planes had been hijacked. Why the delay?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are interested, this seems to be where he got his information. Or if not, they seem to have gotten their information from the same place.
I'm still going through it and right now, I'm curious about whether or not someone was shot. I thought they had box cutters. How did they shoot someone? And, when a flight attendent called and talked for 25 minutes (until the plane crashed) why did the only tape the first 4 minutes of the call, and why won't the government release it?
I need to check this information out. And I'm only up to 8:21!
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Did anyone know that the plane that hit the Pentagon had been hijacked? Any way you answer this question leads to serious security implications. . .
Hindsight is 20/20-- but at the time, could you have imagined being able to stop all flights all over the country within a 2 hour window?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
You know, it's not that I believe any of this hook, line and sinker, but the fact that I actually believe it is something that could have been done by our government just makes me sick. I mean, what kind of government is okay with the thought that more than even a small percentage of it's citizens and a larger percentage worldwide think that it could do something like this?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, while there are some obvious gaps, the discrepancies in the timelines are normal in the confusion of emergiencies. The one thing that the article seems particularly critical of are the fighter jets not getting their fast enough. It does not talk about the chain of command that the message actually went through to give the command to the fighter pilots. That chain of command could have easily taken longer than 18 minutes and I'm suprised it was that fast. I would guess that the pilots got the change of direction orders and showed up in the minimum amount of time, once those orders were given.
posted
BannaOJ, It is not the the discrepancies in the timelines that I find disturbing. No matter which version of the timeline you believe, it is clear that the established rules for air defense were not followed.
It would be interesting to see the timelines involved in the 67 cases in which fighter jets were sent to investigate abnormalities during the first half of 2001. What kind of time lag was normal between when air traffic control lost radio contact with a plane and NORAD scrambled fighters. Was the response on 9/11 typical (indicating a generally high level of incompetence) or was 9/11 an exception.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I've worked for the government before, and so has my baby brother, and the idea that there would be enough intelligence, coordination, cleverness, secrecy, or planning ability to pull off any the various consipiracies attributed to the government is just far less likely in my mind than any amount of stupidity, denseness, and inability to respond to an emergent situation.
I don't buy the Pearl Harbor thing either. It rings very very false to me.
<laughs> Does that count as cynicism or idealism? I'm really not sure. I don't believe in assigning horribly evil motives to people based on circumstantial evidence. Idealism, I guess.
[ September 08, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we agree in general Rabbit, I don't think I said it quite right. Basically I think we would both like to know how often the procedures were not followed in the past. If they were nothing but paper tigers that were routinely ignored or if they were ever followed.
I would bet that that tape exists with the other 20 minutes of phone conversation and that we probably won't hear it for at least 50 years. Not even because it says anything incriminating, but because they can withold it from the public. It also would likely be a very heartwrenching thing to hear and perhaps our collective emotions are still too raw. (Though playing it might be a useful thing to rally more war cries.)
Things that don't bother me are the things like everyone remembering slightly different events about what happened with Dubya on the actual day.
Rumsfeld may have known as he was giving that address but I think he's a sneaky b*st*rd who wouldn't tell his president something even if he should. Particularly because even though I currently think he is a scumbag, he's got with twice as much intelligence both in his cranium and human resources as his hoplessly naive simplistic employer, the President, who I truly think in spite of it all, means well, even if he is making a shlocky mess of things.
posted
The delay in launching fighters can be attributed to the fact that there were 2 to 3 planes at any one time being hijacked. The people in charge were probably confused, seeking clarification about which plane was really being hijacked.
After all, nobody hijacks multiple planes. The ods of that happening are far smaller than the odds of someone getting the planes confused.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll have to dig into this. If it holds water, it could be bad news for Bush. I don't believe Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11. I surely hope not. It reminds me of a joke a reviewer wrote about a JFK conspiracy book, IIRC: "According to the author, the assination plot was so widespread in the government it's a wonder that JFK himself wasn't involved." The original was better, too bad it was pre-internet, I'll never remember who the reviewer was.
ak, the Pearl Harbor foreknowledge theory does have a lot of facts behind it. We had broken many of the Japanese naval codes and at a minimum we knew they had very high levels of naval activity. Yet the Pacific Fleet had no security alerts. Also, we broke the diplomatic code they used to communicate with the Japanese ambassador to the US, and we decrypted and translated their declaration of war before their ambassador delivered it to us.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good Lord. Is anyone reading that 9/11 timeline?
Remember that Bush is at an elementary school when he learns of the second plane.
quote: (9:01 a.m.) Bush later makes the following statement: "And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.' But I was whisked off there - I didn't have much time to think about it." [CNN, 12/4/01] He has repeated the story on other occasions. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] However, it has been noted that Bush doesn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] A Boston Herald article later says, "Think about that. Bush's remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit - which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit." The article points out that Bush had told the story more than once, and asks, " How could the commander-in-chief have seen the plane fly into the first building - as it happened?" [Boston Herald, 10/22/02]
posted
Kayla, this is called "confabulation". Sadly, our memories are not nearly as accurate as we think they are. Bits and pieces can be jogged loose and remembered as happening at inappropriate times, and things we imagine or even dream happening are sometimes laid down as fact. Could Bush be lying? Sure, he could. He could also be remembering anything from what he actually said when he finally did see the video to remembering an old filmstrip the class was coincidentally showing at the time.
posted
deep in the American psyche is a desire for explanation. Preferable to think it might have been a conspiracy (which is typically an 'elitist' position in the end...some people know something etc.) - more comforting than the alternative - stupid moves by stupid people or greedy moves by greedy people - either way
It's coming down around our ears !
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maccabus, that would be one thing, but he repeated the story at least three times. And the last time was a couple of months after a newspaper pointed out the fact that he couldn't have seen what he said because the tape wasn't released till the following day.
montverdi, if our air traffic control system, disaster alert system, the pentagon, the leaders of our country, NORAD, the fighter jets and everyone else who was involved in that debacle of "they didn't tell us," "yes, we did" "we sent the jets without orders, that's how fast they were up," "they can be in NYC in 10 minutes" "it took them 19 minutes," are as unbelievable incompetent/unlucky/ignorant and this makes them look, then we should all be thanking God on a daily basis that we are still alive and be living in underground bunkers.
Apparently, 300 billion a year doesn't buy what it used to. Who knew that it could take 12 minutes (if you believe the latest time NORAD claims it knew about the hijacking) to get a couple of airplanes up. And why, in a plane that can travel at 1500 mph (and was reported by NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold was going 1100-1200 mph and should have reached the target in 10 minutes) did it take them 19 minutes? Did they stop for donuts on the way?
I find it hard to believe that the "world's greatest military power" could be so unbelievably incompetent. The the leader of the free world so ignorant. That the most expensive agencies and the most sophisticated equipment produced that result. So, yeah, maybe I prefer to think of it as a conspiracy. Cause I'm having an incredibly difficult time fathoming why over half the country would still re-elect Bush!
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have any of you ever tried to conduct a GCI (ground controlled intercept)? it's not a simple process.
Yes these planes can achieve speeds of 1500 mph in clean mode. In intercepts, you typically have ordinance. This slows you down significantly. It is also at a specific altitude. Different altitudes vary performance levels greatly,and it also takes time to get to the altitude in question. Atmospeheric conditions like temperature, pressure, and humidity, all have a tremndous effect on the relative speed capabilities of aircraft.
Add that the target is, itself, moving at 500 mph and this adds to the difficulty. The Jet stream may or may not have been a factor... I am ignorant of which way it was blowing and at what altitude, but it could have been a significant hindrance as well.
Finally, I should note that it will be a LONG time before any Air Force fighter jets are ever scrambled from Andrews as they aren't stationed there. (There may be Maryland air guard units there, but they do not sit alert AFAIK).
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the pilot, who said he was "I was in full-blower all the way," didn't manage to get there for 19 minutes. Remember, NORAD in-charge guy said they could be there in 10 minutes. Was he lying? (They can go up to 1875 mph, by the way. Apparently, they were only going about 600 mph.) Oh, and they took off from Otis AFB in Maryland.
quote: The minute Flight 175 hits the south tower, F-15 pilot Maj. Daniel Nash says that clear visibility allows him to see smoke pour out of Manhattan, even though NORAD says he is 71 miles away. However, he says he can't recall actually being told of the Flight 11 hit. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02] He isn't told about the danger of Flight 175 until after it too has crashed and he is 60 miles away.
This is my favorite though.
quote:The pilot of the other fighter, Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, says that after Flight 175 has crashed, "at that point they [say] the second aircraft just hit the World Trade Center. That was news to me. I thought we were still chasing American 11."
The second pilot didn't even know that what they were going after. He was still under the assumption that they were going after Flight 11, which crashed as they were taking off!
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: find it hard to believe that the "world's greatest military power" could be so unbelievably incompetent. The the leader of the free world so ignorant. That the most expensive agencies and the most sophisticated equipment produced that result.
But Kayla, this is exactly the reason. We were "the world's greatest military power"...we had "the most expensive agencies and the most sophisticated equipment"...our leader is "the leader of the free world". So we were sitting around congratulating ourselves and were caught with our pants down.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then, it makes perfect sense then that we attack Iraq and re-elect the guy in charge when our pants were down. I feel much better now. Thanks.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Brigadier General Montague Winfield, commander of the NMCC, the Pentagon's emergency response center, later says, "When the second aircraft flew into the second tower, it was at that point that we realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was dealing with were in fact a part of a coordinated terrorist attack on the United States."
Wow, it took them that long to figure that out? Three hijackings and only one plane into a building apparently didn't set off any warning bells for them. But three hijackings and two planes into buildings. . . well, that clinched it.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the US government is stupid or shortsighted and corrupt enough to participate in "willful collusion" with terrorists. I do not even think that they could have considered this.
Perhaps the defences were slack, like you said, perhaps America's bubble of satisfaction was too solid, perhaps the information moved too slowly. I do not think that anyone, unless they were amazingly and disgustingly stupid and corrupt (and we're talking complete lack of morals, patriocy and empathy (is that a word?) which doesn't come often) would do that.
I may be wrong, but if I am, I'm packing up this whole "life on earth" thing and heading to the moon because if someone that corrupt and idiotic and fake (even the most terrible leaders in the world fight of foreign attacks) I am giving up on humanity.
EDIT: I see some people know a darn sight more than I do about this subject and made a decent arguement against "willful collusion". Read theirs, because mine is just opinion.
posted
I find the fact that the "Project for the New American Century" specifically said that without a "Pearl Harbor" type event, the plan wouldn't get off the ground chilling. How convient for them that year later, there was just such an attack.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, your own quotes explain the issue adequately enough: how is the guy supposed to intercept planes if he isn't even clear on what he is supposed to be doing.
I think you are forgetting the level of surprise this attack achieved...
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are forgetting that three planes had been hijacked and one had crashed into the WTC. Yet NORAD apparently had a pilot lallygagging into NYC with no apparent objective. I guess they were in the mood for some Gray's hot dogs?
You know, I don't care how of a surprise the attack was. We spend over 300 billion (now 400) on the military. What exactly are we prepared for? What kind of attack, other than a sneak attack, does the only superpower in the world expect? Do you really think that Barbados is one day going to wake up and declare war on the US? And, after all the previous attacks by al-qaeda, and the warnings that something big was in the works, it was hubris on the US's part to be this surprised.
Oh, and for the 20/20 hindsight people, it won't work with me. I've always been in the "what the hell are you doing" camp when it comes to competency of leaders and security. I actually felt better after 9/11 (in a perverse way) because the rest of the country finally realized how vunerable we were. I wish those old threads were still around.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, it happens quite often that soldiers aren't informed of what their objectives are exactly. That fact doesn't have anything to do with a president or anyone else. It's a standard problem in the military. Nobody wants to give the lowly fighter pilot all the information. He doesn't need to know it, in their opinion, he just needs to get where they tell him to. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy, it's simply a fact of military life.
BTW, Im not sticking up for Bush, I dislike him as much as the next guy, I'm just pointing out that that specific complaint can't really be layed at any one person's doorstep.
posted
Considering the following undisputed facts:
1. The Bush administration had detailed plans for the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq months to years before 9/11.
2. Prior to 9/11, key figures in the Bush administration had publicly stated that they were unlikely to gain support for these military actions without a "Pearl Harbor".
3. The Bush administration has used 9/11 to garner support for domestic and foreign policy agendas which had been highly unpopular prior to the attacks.
At best, one must conclude that Bush and his appointees are political opportunitist who got very lucky and have now managed to turn a national tragedy into a political mandate for their long held right wing agenda.
But when you combine those facts with the following.
1. The Bush administration was warned prior to 9/11 by no less than 11 countries.
2. The CIA had briefed Bush personally warning of a Bin Laden plot to crash planes into buildings.
3. The FBI and CIA had open investigation on several of the 9/11 hijackers before the fact.
4. There were warnings indicating that Sept. 11 was a likely date for the terrorist attacks.
5. Bush and members of his administration have repeatedly lied about their knowledge of events and attempted to prevent thorough investigation of the US intelligence "failure" and to prevent the public release of information from the investigation.
6. Rules in the US air defense plan were not followed on the morning of 9/11.
It gets harder and harder to believe that "luck" was involved. While many of the facts about the mishandling of the 9/11 case are perfectly consistent with old-fashioned bungling and incompetence—albeit incredible bungling and staggering incompetence, when you look at the whole picture it gets harder and harder to believe that it was all just an accident that all these error happened.
[ September 08, 2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1. The Bush administration had detailed plans for the invasion of Iraq months to years before 9/11.
Years? I didn't know Bush had been in control of the country for years. Unless you are counting his father's presidency? He obviously had plans for a war with Iraq. Haha.
I'm not trying to disprove you, I actually just consider Bush and Co. to be political opportunists, but watch the wording when he hadn't even been in office for years.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chade, While it is true that military leaders rarely find it necessary to explain their orders, I think it is unlikely that they would send fighter pilots to intercept a plane without telling them what plane they were supposed to intercept.
I wish BlackFox were here, he could probably give us some insight on that issue.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't find it all that unlikely really. When I was in the military that sort of thing happened quite often. Obviously not in a situation that important. But if it happened during unimportant manuevers then I would assume the same mentality would carry over to an emergency situation like that.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: FEBRUARY 2001 Testifying before Congress, CIA Director George Tenet says "Osama bin Laden and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat" to U.S. security.
"As we have increased security around government and military facilities, terrorists are seeking out 'softer' targets that provide opportunities for mass casualties," Tenet said.
quote: JULY 1, 2001 Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Richard Shelby, both members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, appear on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer", and warn of potential attacks by Osama bin Laden. "One of the things that has begun to concern me very much as to whether we really have our house in order, intelligence staff have told me that there is a major probability of a terrorist incident within the next three months," Feinstein said.
quote:SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 A CIA plan to strike at al Qaeda in Afghanistan, including support for the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, is given to the White House. Sen. Dianne Feinstein asks for a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney. The California Democrat is told that Cheney's staff would need six months to prepare for a meeting.
The National Security Agency intercepts two communications from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia. "Tomorrow is zero hour," says one. "The match begins tomorrow," says the other. The messages are not translated until September 12.
Yup, lucky sons of bitches. Their plan couldn't have gone better if they'd, well, planned it themselves.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chade, Yes years! Go to the website for the Project for the New American Century and you can read documents from this think tank dating back to 1997. Founding members of this group include Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, Jeb Bush, and many other key players in the Bush administration.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: In September 2000, the PNAC updated and refined Cheney's original version into a new report entitled: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century" calling for unprecedented hikes in military spending, American military bases in Central Asia and Middle East, toppling of non-complying regimes, abrogation of international treaties, control of the world's energy sources, militarization of outer space, total control of cyberspace, and the willingness to use nuclear weapons to achieve "American" goals. This plan by the neo-conservative or neo-con think tank, PNAC, shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power and says the U.S. for decades has sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security, revealing that a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure a regime change was planned even before Bush took power in January, 2001. The lengthy blueprint for U.S. global domination can be accessed at http://cryptome.org/rad.htm.
posted
Actually, David, I think they're reasonable questions that are being asked. Would you prefer that no one asked questions, that the government was never examined or analysed, that there wasn't a plurality of opinion?
posted
Yunno. I think Dubya wanted 9/11 to happen. That's why he didn't scramble the fighters. And he did it because Dick Cheney secretly wanted to help his ex-company by destroying Irag and then rebuilding it in his image.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. I suppose I would be far more interested in hearing your thoughts on the issues being raised. *wink wink* *nudge nuge*
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
E.G., I think the US had gotten lazy and self-assured... no one truly thought we'd ever be attacked, not really. The idea was brought up, we were warned, but like adolescents for whom everything other than their own transient pleasures and problems seems incredible remote and unlikely, we never quite understood that the behemoth could be made to tremble.
No conspiracies. Just arrogance.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:E.G., I think the US had gotten lazy and self-assured... no one truly thought we'd ever be attacked, not really. The idea was brought up, we were warned, but like adolescents for whom everything other than their own transient pleasures and problems seems incredible remote and unlikely, we never quite understood that the behemoth could be made to tremble.
No conspiracies. Just arrogance.
Yes, David. When your usual ad hominem dismissal of the facts presented is rejected, instead reduce the country to a caricature of a pot-smoking, arrogant teenager who was too busy dozing to see the fist coming at his face.
posted
Well why not? The tragedy of 9/11 was felt throughout the western world. But Americans at the time really did seem stunned that it could actually happen to them.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
quote: 6. Rules in the US air defense plan were not followed on the morning of 9/11.
Were the rules not followed? If not, why not? Even if they were not followed, I find it far easier to believe that arrogance, complacencey and incompetence were involved than a cynical conspiracy. The Defense Department has been defending America overseas for over 50 years, it is the keystone of our strategy that it's better to fight an enemy far from your borders. I think al-Quada found a weak spot in our defenses and attacked. It's what terrorists do, after all. They are not strong enough to attack militarily so they use various terror tactics. What surprised me was that 3 out of 4 planes hijacked sucessfully hit targets.
I think many on this thread have underestimated panic and confusion that occurred the morning of 9/11. I am not surprised that the attack was sucessful, only that all 4 planes were sucessfully hijacked and 3 found their targets.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, I think there's a few more important threads to the case than that. You're right - it is really important to grasp what happened on the morning of 9/11. However, when you're talking about minutes of delay that could, no doubt, be accounted for by an incompetent officer or two on duty, it probably isn't that surprising that the scramble didn't go like clockwork.
I am more interested in the lead-up to the 9/11, particularly the issues relating to notification of intelligence alerts, etc.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: think the US had gotten lazy and self-assured... no one truly thought we'd ever be attacked, not really. The idea was brought up, we were warned, but like adolescents for whom everything other than their own transient pleasures and problems seems incredible remote and unlikely, we never quite understood that the behemoth could be made to tremble.
But in fact al Qaida had managed to attack the United States on US soil before when they planted a bomb in the garage of the WTC. They had bombed US embassies in africa and attacked a US ship. Your assessment might be valid for the average America but the President of the US, the National Security Council, the CIA, the FBI and the department of defense aren't your average Joe on the street. It is their job to take such threats seriously. Given the full series of successful terrorist attacks carried out against American targets in the half dozen years prior to 9/11, if the people in charge of National Security were as complacent as you suggest, they are guilty of gross negligence.
[ September 09, 2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
The original was better, too bad it was pre-internet, I'll never remember who the reviewer was.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
