BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:56 AM

The oil based economy's not the reason that isn't happening right, now, Carol. I just don't think the underlying reasons are going to change just because we reduce our standard of living while shifting to different energy sources.

Isn't the reason what isn't happening right now? The end of terrorism? I think it's a very big part of the reason. The biggest part of it. But you're right. Our predatory capitalism isn't confined only to the petroleum part ot the economy. I would suggest that predatory capitalism, in whatever form it comes, does not help the bottom 90 percent of people. Only the top 10 percent of people benefit from this practice. The rest pay the hidden costs, and do the most suffering because of the repercussions of this way of doing things.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 12:01 PM

"Yes, but apparently a lot of other actions against the US were prevented during this time, presumably using the same intelligence gathering/sharing systems."

Oh, agreed. They stopped lots of stuff they knew to look for, mostly things that didn't require as much cooperation or imagination. For instance, in the case of the Millenium bomb plot it only took one attentive border guard. No special intelligence work was required, just one low level civil servant being curious enough to search the guy's car. That guy deserves a promotion, a raise and a reward (though knowing my luck, the guy who replaces him at the check point won't be as curious).

Don't take this wrong, but if Ben Laden were more like "Pretty Boy" Floyd, the FBI would have caught him long ago. Ben Laden's a new thing and, regretably, large, complex institutions change slowly.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 12:11 PM

Al Qaeda was an army and should be attacked like an army, not a criminal group.

What does that actually mean? Whether you call it an army or a criminal group it operates in small groups, acting it would appear with a great deal of independence. If "arrmy" mesans something you can hoe to meet and defeat in battle, that is not the tight word to use for Al Qaeda.

It relies on the timeworn guerrilla principle of taking advantage of natural cover - more especially natural human cover, of not being readily distinguishable from the rest of the population. It also depends on having potentially some degreee of support from people who are open, in some degree, to being sympathetic to its aims.

A major factor in developing and holding on to that kind of sympathy, and translating it, where necessary, into active support, is the impact of overkill by its opponents on the population in which the potential sympathisers live.

I imagine that the operatives in organisations like the CIA know this kind of stuff. However, if so, they don't seem to have had much success in getting the message across to the people in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 12:15 PM

"Al Qaeda was an army and should be attacked like an army, not a criminal group.

What does that actually mean?"

I'm not sure I know. I caught a few minutes of the Commission investigation on TV yesterday and apparently Kerrey was in a reflective mood because he was saying this instead of asking questions of the FBI guy before the Commission. Maybe he'll explain what he means in the report.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 01:15 PM

I said this in another thread and Ill repeat it here,
you can spread the blame for not preventing 9/11, but the IRaq
venture is Bushs own idea, and plan from the start.

and yet every step of the way the Bush admin. has been wrong,
there were no wmds, they werent greeted as liberators,
remember Wolfowitz saying that SHinsekis troop estimates for holding Iraq were WILDLY inaccurate.. right.

(not enough to prevent the widespread looting and destruction following the collapse)
if they have enough troops why are they asking other countries to send in more? what does it matter what passport they have?
(in fact yesterday they announced they will be sending more)

the plan is to hand over power June 30th, and when Paul Bremer was asked the other day to whom they will hand it over? he said "Thats a good question". (bad answer as far as Im concerned)

why is it June 30th? the only reason is timing for the next US election.
and they will stay as long as necessary? it will have to be years.
its time to fire the idiot chicken hawks like Rumsfeld and WOlfowitz,
the top brass in the pentagon is hated by the uniforms anyway.
they havent a clue what to do next. ANd the problem with BUsh is that whenever theres any opposition he just digs in his heels.

after 9/11 the much of the world sided with the US, all of that goodwill has been squandered by BUSH,

the Bush administration believes the US has the power to do it alone,
yet at the same time they ask the UN and other nations to participate in reconstruction but are not willing to hand over any power.

with incredibly stupid timing they send Powell around trying to get the Europeans to forgive Iraqi debts, at the same time announcing reconstruction contracts will only go to US and (coalition of 'willing')

whoever inherits the mess in November knows the US will have to stay for a long time, and it will need to do it with the help of other nations and the UN to have any real legitimacy.

its time to build a real coalition but no one in the white House except Powell is any good at that.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 01:29 PM

"They stopped lots of stuff they knew to look for, mostly things that didn't require as much cooperation or imagination"

I don't think you can make such a generalised sweeping statement like that, Strick.
They stopped all that lot of other stuff by joining dots as well, I would imagine.

I don't doubt for one minute that Bush is doing more to get his house in order these days, than what was the case pre 9/11, but has anything really changed as far as the perceived threat is concerned? If the imagination was already there to envisage all sorts of other kinds of threats, short of getting attacked by aliens, I mean how much imagination does it take, and how much of it do we allow our leaders and their advisors to be lacking in, before we start calling them total buffoons?

'The Buck Stops Here' That's what Truman had the guts to accept as being one of the perks of his job. Encapsulated in those four words is an ready admission of the frailties of being in Government; the acknowledgement as it were, that to err is human. But whose responsibility is it ultimately?
9/11 happened on George W. Bush's watch, Strick. His subsequent crusade, so aptly called 'The War On Terror' was as naive as it's catchy title is... 'catchy', I suppose. It might be difficult for you to imagine how utterly pretentious and arrogant that kind of a declaration sounds to people who really know the futility of making such statements, but believe me, when I first heard those words uttered, I shook my head in disbelief.

Bush's crowd didn't join up the dots in the 200 odd days leading up to September 11, that much we know.
If they had a 'painting by numbers' book, would they have done any better, I wonder?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:06 PM

Jim McCallan - 14 Apr 04 - 01:29 PM

<<"They stopped lots of stuff they knew to look for, mostly things that didn't require as much cooperation or imagination"

I don't think you can make such a generalised sweeping statement like that, Strick.
They stopped all that lot of other stuff by joining dots as well, I would imagine.>>

Hi Jim,

Do you remember the Iraqi "Super Gun" affair? Do you remeber who spotted it? And how it was spotted?

If not I'll refresh your memory.

The "Super Gun" saga was a little scheme of Saddam's to obtain a low cost way of lobbing fairly large lumps of artillery from a site in western Iraq into Israel. He hired a Canadian Gerald Bull to design and construct it. The barrel for this gun came in sections and had to be made of quite an exotic steel machined to amazingly tight tolerances. The Iraqi oil ministry ordered it as being required for oil field/oil refinery use. Churchill's the steel makers were contracted to manufacture and machine these pipes. All considered to be above board everthing appeared to be in order, nobody suspected a thing.

Being made in Sheffield the port these "pipe sections" were sent to was Immingham on the Humber. One of HM's Customs and Excise Officers at Immingham had a look at these "pipe sections" then had a good look at the accompanying paper work and blew the whistle. Pity for Saddam and his boys, if they'd sent those pipes damn near anywhere else they, more like-as-not, would have got away with it. The Custom's Officer was familiar with supplies and pipe work destined for refinery and offshore use, as around that time quite a bit of it was passing through Immingham. Purely by happen-chance, he took one look at the Iraqi consignment and recognised that whatever purpose these pipe sections were going to be used for, the oil and gas industry was not it. No alerts, no major threat warnings, no special briefings - just a guy doing his job.

That story somewhat similar to that of the US border Guard?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:16 PM

Here we go again...

"I was refering to what Bob Kerrey said Bob Kerrey should have done, not what the US understood"

No Strick, you definately said "It's fair to say Kerrey doesn't think the US understood what kind of threat Al Qaeda was during the Clinton administration."

By reflecting on your writings in these threads, I can see why quite a lot of the verbal bumf that is coming out of the White House these days finds good homes in some peoples' consciousness.
I'm sorry to have to remark this, Strick, but between the gaps in what you are saying, you could fly a couple of aeroplanes.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:21 PM

I remember the incident well, Teribus. He joined a few dots, fair play to him.

Would that his (and the border guard's) bosses were as job orientated.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 03:05 PM

Frankly, 9/11 is over, and no one can say definitely whether or not it could have been prevented. There seem to be equally good arguments for and against the case for prevention.

There do seem to have been some odd moves, however, and further information is always good. Tomorrow night (04/15) on an American in-depth news analysis show called "Frontline," they are presenting a program about an FBI agent named O'Neill, who was the leading expert on al Qaeda, and who was let go by the FBI apparently in the summer of 2001. It's being presented by PBS, and I am definitely going to watch it. There is a vaguely rotten smell that continues to hover around 9/11, and perhaps this programme will provide some answers.

More Details

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:13 PM

""I was refering to what Bob Kerrey said Bob Kerrey should have done, not what the US understood"

My bad. Bob Kerrey was speaking about what he himself in his role as a policy maker on intelligence during the Clinton administration thought was wrong. He did seem to imply that he thought it was a flaw in the entire Adminstration's view of the issue.

In the time between our posts I forgot how I phrased my first point and took your post to imply what was "understood" by the US which might have included almost anything whether it was universally understood or understood by one field agent but never brought to anyone else's attention. That doesn't change what I meant, but I can see how my confusion made it hard to follow.

As I said, I'm sure they stopped a lot of plots that they could recognized because they dealt with them before. I'm equally sure they would have been surprised by something new, as history has shown happens over and over. They didn't even remotely stop the Cole attack, for instance.

Just heard the present director of the FBI giving his testimony and it illustrates my point in a different way. He said that prior to 9/11 he had been thinking of all of this in a legal sense, the way he did when he was a prosecutor. Get enough evidence against the terrorists, get an indictment and bring them to trial. After 9/11 he thinks in terms of bringing the information to the attention of policy makers so that steps can be taken. I assumed he meant increasing the security alert for one thing, but I also assumed he meant assasinating the terrorist(s) involved if appropriate. (At least the assasination of Ben Laden's been explored by the Commission ad nauseum, so I assume that's in.) That change in attitude, the diffence in thinking before and after a major event, is what I've been talking about.

While I understand the change in attitude, I'm not sure I like it, particularly that assasination part. Who's to say who is or isn't a terrorist? Can you assasinate them even if they're in the US?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:33 PM

Actually I'd have thought that, if the American government is going to start killing people it thinks might be hostile, it should start with its own - there's a better case to be argued arguing that it has some over-riding right of life and death over its own citizens, as against the rest of us.

Any suggestion that it should for some reason be less problematic killing citizens of other countries with whom the USA is not at war should be strenuously resisted.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:38 PM

"Any suggestion that it should for some reason be less problematic killing citizens of other countries with whom the USA is not at war should be strenuously resisted."

I haven't listened to everything that's been said by the Commission, but that's the kind of thing I believe they think should have been done to prevent 9/11, kill Ben Laden and as many Al Qaeda as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Peace
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:50 PM

When you sleep with the Devil, you shouldn't be surprised to have the Devil's children.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 05:03 PM

"Actually I'd have thought that, if the American government is going to start killing people it thinks might be hostile, it should start with its own - there's a better case to be argued arguing that it has some over-riding right of life and death over its own citizens, as against the rest of us."

On reflection, maybe it's a case of no representation with out taxation?

Actually, I hope I'm wrong. It's just the way all the talk of covert actions and overt attacks (cruise missles) strikes me. Part of it is as Tenet described it earlier today where the FBI is constrained by the Constitution in domestic affairs, the CIA isn't in international affairs. Not too surprising since the same is said of MI6.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:00 PM

Petr - What makes you think Powell is so good at building coalition? Powell has a long history of abusing his power.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:02 PM

actually hes the only guy I could think of in this administration
with any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:29 PM

He's sensible enough to want a whole lot of power. He's been setting himself up as a hero for a very long time. We haven't seen the last of him, either. He's just waiting for the opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:36 PM

It's hard to say, dianavan. He certainly won't be running for national office anytime soon. I've heard that his wife really isn't into politics and she' have to be for him to be successful.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:44 PM

An interesting essay on Unanswered Questions about 9-11.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:53 PM

An even more interesting article in Newsweek.

What the PDB Didn't Say

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:53 PM

No wonder, Strick! He's probably still trying to explain Anita (was that her name?)

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 12:23 PM

Powell is the one who convinced George Bush to try to build a UN coalition rather than going it alone on Iraq last year.

by the way.. by this time in their terms Both Clinton and George H. Bush each had 72 live press conferences. George W had 11. (according to CNN)

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Kim C
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 12:32 PM

If Bush had said on August 11, we're going to go capture Osama bin Laden because we have evidence he's planning an imminent terrorist attack here in a month, there would have been a huge outcry against such a preemptive strike. People would have resisted it. They would have said he was out of his mind, and just doing it for political gain - just like with the Iraq war.

Maybe in theory, 9/11 could have been prevented. Maybe Pearl Harbor could have been prevented. Maybe monkeys will fly out my butt.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 12:39 PM

Kim:

I dunno much about monkeys (or your butt, which I am sure is very nice) but I don't think they fly.

On the other hand, both 9-11 and Pearl were catastrophes that could have been derailed before they occurred with just a few changes in the unfolding scenario -- for example, if the PResident pro tem had been staying up late in the Oval OFfice instead of vacationing in Crawford. Or if certain cables warning of Japanese intent had beens een and acted on in a timely fashion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 01:04 PM

The crucial thing, that would have averted what happened on September 11th, would have been if passengers and crew had been aware that hijacking now meant something competletely different, and that the rules of how to deal with a mid-air crises were now stood on their head.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 01:52 PM

"Or if certain cables warning of Japanese intent had beens een and acted on in a timely fashion"

Seen what? Acted on how? I've read the decoded Japanese cables, the key intelligence passed between Washington and Pearl and the orders issued all around during the lead up to the attack. They don't say anything tangible. Everyone one knew something was up, but not what. The possibility of an attack on Pearl was considered briefly but dismissed locally. Washington actually advised brass at Pearl to expect a Japanese attack on bases further southeast and ordered them to put their few patrol planes, the only chance they had of detecting the attack in advance, patroling in that direction, not to the north where the attack actually came from.

I'll see if I relocate a website that posts facimiles of these documents so you can see for yourself. Pearl Harbor might have been prevented if FDR wasn't so intent on getting into WWII and had pursued a less aggressive policy towards both Japan and Germany, but it couldn't have been prevented militarily short of some major good luck for the US or bad luck for the Japanese.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 05:48 PM

there was an observation outpost that spotted the Japanese planes coming in, reported it and was told 'dont worry about it, theyre ours'
p
plus keeping most of the pacific fleet in port and thus vulnerable isnt necessarily the best planning either.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 06:06 PM

"there was an observation outpost that spotted the Japanese planes coming in, reported it and was told 'dont worry about it, theyre ours'
p
plus keeping most of the pacific fleet in port and thus vulnerable isnt necessarily the best planning either."

That observation post was on Hawaii itself its warning would have made about 35 minutes difference, not enough time to matter given how long it would have taken to scramble and adequate number of interceptors or get the fleet moving since Pearl was not on alert and not considered a target. They really were expecting a fleet of B-17s. The radar being used at the time was considered experimental and couldn't tell the difference between less than a couple of dozen bombers and roughly 350 Japanese attack planes.

According the source I have, fleets around the world are in port 80-90% of the time. They wear out when they're out of port too much and battleships in particular were too expensive to keep moving too often or too long. The dispatches I saw showed the Japanese had intelligence indicating the battleships were in port and that the carriers were out. I've visited Pearl like a lot of tourists. It's easy to pick out which ships are in port from a good distance from the base without being noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 02:22 AM

Interesting articlefrom yesterday's Guardian

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: ard mhacha
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 12:43 PM

Nice one Jim,Do we laugh or do we cry, what a man.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 12:45 PM

Thanks for the interesting article, Jim. As Drucker says, some leaders are readers and some are listeners. For Drucker, either style can be effective, it's more a matter of understanding what your boss needs so you can present it to him in a way he can understand.

In my case, I'm a listener. That's funny given how much I read, but it's the truth. I've seen more people get into trouble reading reports than I can say. I prefer to look the briefer in the eye and see if he believes what he's saying, if there's anything left out of what's on paper. The thing I like about Clinton's style is that he asked questions. What I would like most to know about Bush's briefings, particularly the Aug 6th briefing, is what questions he asked. He should have probed the nature of the evidence for the assertions and the nature of the investigations that were supposed to be ongoing. He should have asked if any of the information suggested that something was going to happen soon. If the briefer couldn't say, what was being done to find out. If the briefer couldn't sya because he didn't have first hand knowledge, I'd insist he get back to me.

In the case of the Aug 6th briefing, even if I had completely trusted the briefer and what the people working for him were duing (at some level you have, they're the experts and you're not - if you can't you should replace the Director of the CIA), I would still have wanted to know if he thought the situtation was under control, what else could be or needed to be done, and what did he need me to do, provide more resources, knock down barriers, whatever. Unfortunately, we don't know what questions Bush asked, do we?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 12:51 PM

according to cnn.
by this time in their terms of office both Clinton and George H Bush
had 72 press conferences, George W had 11

Im not surprised he doesnt read his pdbs but has them read to him.

whether 911 could have been prevented is past history and can be
blamed on a whole number of people and circumstances but the Iraq venture is George W.'s own project.

and how many things have they been wrong about, aside from the obvious twisted and exaggerated notion of imminent wmd threat, and encouraginag an unsubstantiated link to 911 in the publics mind.

(wolfowitz & rumsfelds own 'wildly' inaccurate troop requirement
to establish security in post invasion Iraq.

Cheneys and wolfowitz's 'wildly' incorrect assumption they would be greeted as liberators.

disbanding the Iraqi army - thus creating a cadre of idle, embittered and armed young men.

when Paul Bremer was asked the other day - who they will hand over power to on June 30th he said 'thats a good question' - bad answer.

-

Heres what Ret. Marine Gen. Zinni has to say
(the full article is here)
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040416-9999-7m16zinni.html

Not even Zinni's resumé could shield him from the accusations that followed.

"I've been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things," said Zinni, 60. The problems in Iraq are being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide security.

Zinni said the United States must now rely on the U.N. to pull its "chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq."

"We're betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war," Zinni said. "Now we're back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost."

Several things have to happen to get Iraq back on course, whether the U.N. decides to step in or not, Zinni said.

Improving security for American forces and the Iraqi people is at the top of the list followed closely by helping the working class with economic projects.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 02:44 PM

"whether 911 could have been prevented is past history"

And wouldn't they love it if we just put it behind us and moved on.
Sorry, not going to happen. I have said before that "the buck stops here" and that's what should be said. If he really believes that he and his staff had no inkling that 9/11 was in the works then he should have no problem saying exactly that. We're all human, even him, despite what some people think(LOL), and we all make mistakes.

He is running for re-election as a "War President" (his own words).
Since tht is his "claim to fame" and the reason to re-elect him then we, as good citizens of the USA involved in our democracy, need to examine how the war is going. It's good points, bad points, reasons for going, reasons for staying, etc.

He is running for re-election on the "strengths" that he has as compared to the strengths of his opponent on the issue of security. Once again it behooves us to examine the who, what, where, why and hows of the attack and the strategies employed afterward for combatting terrorism in this country.

True patriots and truly good military personnel do not just blindly follow orders and ignore what they are seeing around them or what they know to be true.

I stand by my assesment of the strategy to blame the previous administration. Wag the dog, wag the dog, wag the dog. That is all we heard from the loyal opposition. And with the intelligence that netted us 1 milk factory and a Chinese Embassy (as well as an empty terrorist camp), I don't think Clinton can be held responsible for not "Killing him when he had the chance".

Strick, I like to read the brief and hear the brief. I to like to look in the eyes of the person briefing me. Unfortunately when you have seen a prediliction in your boss not to want to hear views that oppose his (and Bush has fired quite a few that weren't wearing their prescribed rose colored glasses)and you like your job and need the money to pay for things, like the rest of us, you tell him what he wants to hear.

As far as the current administration paying strong attention to terrorism prior to 9/11, the Pres. made it perfectly clear that his priority was for the "Star Wars" missile defense system. Something that had lain rather dormant after the fall of the Soviet Union. Last time I checked no terrorist organization has ever used a missile (of the type that this system would detect and defend against) in any terrorist attacks.

I myself, upon hearing that Al Quiada was looking to hit a target in NY City and/or Washington would have imediately thought of the World Trade Center that an attempt had already been made on.

Again, there is enough blame to go round, but it happened on HIS watch, and up until that time and since, this administration has been more secretive than any I have previously experienced. Is it any wonder why the FBI/CIA/ etc. would play it the same way and not talk to each other?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 04:03 PM

Interesting Frontline last night.

I remember reading THIS article while waiting in my dentist's office a couple years ago.

Looks like an interesting line-up on NOW, with Bill Moyers this evening. Check your local listings.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 04:05 PM

whether 911 could have been prevented is past history

And those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That's why history is an important academic subject, and why we keep historical records.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 04:17 PM

...of course, a lot of what is taught as "history" is really propaganda, but I'd say that's one of the reasons we're so deeply up to our nostrils in ca-ca right now, and getting deeper all the time...

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 04:48 PM

Don:

We saw "Frontline last night, too. The page you linked to does not make an important point obvious.

John O'Neill of the FBI was apparantly the most informed person (not counting Bin Laden) about the impending attack by Al Qaeda and was very frustrated by the fact that his superiors wouldn't listen to him. He was so frustrated that he left the FBI and took a new job as head of security for the trade towers.

In spite of all of his knowledge, he died in the attack. If the most informed person in the U.S. couldn't prevent his own death, how could we expect anyone in the government to have prevented the attack?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 06:10 PM

Bev and Jerry, I thought that was made clear in the New Yorker article I linked to. Also, there are links on the Frontline page that you can click on.

O'Neill ran smack into a bureaucracy composed of self-serving sycophants who just wanted to put in their time and draw their retirement without making waves, and here was O'Neill, yelling "Look out!" and rocking the boat. He was doing the job the taxpayers were paying him to do while the rest of them were busy trying to protect their pensions.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 06:53 PM

"Is it any wonder why the FBI/CIA/ etc. would play it the same way and not talk to each other?"

Chief, if it were for the ample evidence that these organizations did not suddenly stop talking to each other and have been like that for years, I might agree. In reality, it's a continum that changed gradually, sometime for the better, sometimes for worse, over many, many years.

"I myself, upon hearing that Al Quiada was looking to hit a target in NY City and/or Washington would have imediately thought of the World Trade Center that an attempt had already been made on."

Odd, when I hear someone's scoping out federal buildings as the PDB described, I think of Oklahoma City. Nothing in it would have put me in mind of using airplanes as missles. Truck bombs, which didn't work against the WTC the first time, but not airplanes. I understand a few people thought of that, but even the ones who did never described how they would defend a whole city like New York, espeically not over extended periods of time.

"Strick, I like to read the brief and hear the brief. I to like to look in the eyes of the person briefing me. Unfortunately when you have seen a prediliction in your boss not to want to hear views that oppose his (and Bush has fired quite a few that weren't wearing their prescribed rose colored glasses)and you like your job and need the money to pay for things, like the rest of us, you tell him what he wants to hear."

Neither of us have any information on how that briefing took place or why so much information was left out of the PDB, do we?

"And with the intelligence that netted us 1 milk factory and a Chinese Embassy (as well as an empty terrorist camp), I don't think Clinton can be held responsible for not 'Killing him when he had the chance'."

You forgot the aspirin factory. I'm not willing to blame the Clinton administration, either. I just don't see how not making radical improvements in policy and intelligence gathering and analysis immediately after coming to power warrants blame, either. On Bush's watch, yes, blame? Look to Ben Laden.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 07:00 PM

I don't think anyone, including the terrorists, could have imagined that those big skyscrapers would collapse just like that.

Even leaving terrorists out of it, there is always the possibility of a civil airline crashing into a building, and the public had always been told that buildings like that were so tough they could withstand anything like that.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 07:25 PM

"Even leaving terrorists out of it, there is always the possibility of a civil airline crashing into a building, and the public had always been told that buildings like that were so tough they could withstand anything like that."

Sure. Have you seen the photos of the B-25 bomber that crashed into the Empire State building?

Empire State Building Crash

Architects thought they had actually improved building design to survive larger planes. They just didn't anticipate all that fuel burning and melting a handfull of beams necessary to keeping the builds up.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 07:53 PM

Those are the kinds of "improvements" that ensure that, when it comes to technology, I'm extremely conservative. I don't trust change, and I don't trust "experts".

Quite how anyone could imagine a huge aeroplane crashing into a building, and discount the possibility of it having a load of fuel to burn up, is a bit hard to understand. And once you imagine that, you know that "a handful of beams" are not going to be sufficient.

There were reports that the extent of the damage completely astonished people in the terrorist network. They'd probably seen that photo from 1945.

I wonder how many other "improvements" like that are waiting to surprise us all?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 08:05 PM

Not all surprises are bad. Back in 1970 a "super" F5 tornado 1 1/2 miles wide hit Lubbock, Texas. Wiped out lots of downtown, but one building survived despite being hit hard. They had to resink the elevator shafts because the building, while perfectly serviceable, was no longer square. Won awards for being tornado resistant, though no one thought it was that special before then.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 08:07 PM

actually they did design for aircrashes into buildings, except the planes got a lot bigger since the wtc was designed.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 08:50 PM

Now a rational society would tie those kind of things together.

That would have been a good reason to refuse to allow the planes to get that big. And since buildings like that are built with a view to staying up for a long time, it's necessary to take into account future technology, such as bigger planes, when building them, and allowing them to be built.

In fact the Twin Towers design was finally approved in 1966, when construction started; the first Boeing 757 was ordered in 1978. That's not a long time in the life of a building - I am sure that any aeronautic expert in 1966 would have been able to predict that, within the lifetime of the Twin Towers, planes as big as that and bigger could be anticipated. That would imply that if a building like that was to be built, it would have to be able to withstand that kind of collision. (And I'm not suggesting that they would need to have been thinking in terms of terrorism, but rather of accidents, which do happen).

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 07:06 PM

"... Afghanistan? Yeah, I feel safer. Al Qaeda lost a major base of operations and isn't nearly as effective as it would have been if we hadn't gone in

They may have lost a major base of operations, Strick, but I would doubt that the citizens of Madrid would agree with you that they are anyhow less effective. It is nice that you feel safer though, but remember that there is a world outside your window, that is decidedly unsafer because of some of the policies of those various administrations you reckon I'm intent on blaming when their strategies don't work.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 12:09 AM

There is of course, another angle to all of this.

The much publicised PDB was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". Condi Rice has called this a 'historical document', although the title suggests it more to be prophetic one (unless you read 'Determined' as implying the past tense); one containing evidence from various sources, to support it being titled thus.
Considering that George W. may not have read this document at the time, and that the Bush administration's view (as testified to by Dr. Rice) was that they considered Bin Laden's determination to strike in the US, as 'old news' somehow, indicates to me at least, not so much a non-joining-of-dots excercise, as a disturbing oversight with regard to something as serious, and as fundamental as National Security.
To claim that nowhere was it mentioned that planes would be used as weapons and flown into buildings on September 11, is far from the point. To suggest that they would needed to have that kind of information in black and white is a preposterous assertion, and to offer it as some sort of an excuse, is not so much a reflection on the Intelligence services, as on the people who are charged with interpreting that intelligence.

Further up the thread a bit, Teribus reminded us of the diligence of a Customs official in uncovering the 'Super Gun' affair, and Strick told of the perceptive border guard who foiled the Millenium bomb plot.
Nobody had told those people what to expect when they clocked into work that day; they were just 'doing their job'. A job, incidentally, that would have been in extreme jeopardy were it to be suggested they had been inattentive in any way, if the items concerned had have evaded detection at that point. If your mind is on your job, you look for everything. If you are someone with appropriate authority, you tighten airport security, and employ a few more G men. And most of all, you keep on top of the situation. This is not what is known as 20/20 hindsight. It is common-sense. And if it hadn't been an ongoing policy of successive US administrations, well then, none of them had their eyes on the ball, and they all are truly to blame.

But the person in ultimate charge at the minute is George W. Bush. He was very much in charge on August 6th 2001, also. This man, however, delegates much of what he does, which presumably affords him the luxury of being able to conduct the little he does actually seem to assume responsiblity for, from a more relaxed location; the Ranch, being a place in point, and he comes across as being all brawn and little brain in his public utterances. A person like George W. Bush is used to getting his own way (a quality to be admired, perhaps, in a benevolent leader), but if you couple that with the almost megalomaniacal picture, previously entirely credible people have painted of him, one would be forgiven for expressing the old adage that there is no smoke without fire.

I was relieved to see, though, that he got John Negroponte's name right when he introduced him to the press as the new Ambassador to Iraq, recently. In a recent Q/A session, he called his present representative there, Jerry (Gerry?) Bremer. It is this lackadaisicalness as far as attention to detail is concerned that worries me, frankly. His Reaganesque-reminiscent short term memory faculty never ceases to depress me, and if his selective inarticulateness is anything to go by, his being lost for words at such important times gives one the impression of someone who is more making it up as he goes along, than of someone with a long-term plan in mind.
The contention that he is, and has been on top of things since the beginning of his Presidency, doesn't hold much water, in my opinion. Too many

'revelations' have been made, for my liking, which point to gross incompetancy with respect to his leadership skills, and there are, at present, too many evaded questions still hanging in mid-air. Too much beating around the bush.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 03:47 AM

"Further up the thread a bit, Teribus reminded us of the diligence of a Customs official in uncovering the 'Super Gun' affair, and Strick told of the perceptive border guard who foiled the Millenium bomb plot.
Nobody had told those people what to expect when they clocked into work that day; they were just 'doing their job'. A job, incidentally, that would have been in extreme jeopardy were it to be suggested they had been inattentive in any way, if the items concerned had have evaded detection at that point. If your mind is on your job, you look for everything. If you are someone with appropriate authority, you tighten airport security, and employ a few more G men. And most of all, you keep on top of the situation. This is not what is known as 20/20 hindsight. It is common-sense. And if it hadn't been an ongoing policy of successive US administrations, well then, none of them had their eyes on the ball, and they all are truly to blame."

I have quoted the above passage from Jim McCallan's posting. A rather interesting point was made regarding airport security procedures in the US was reported in an article in a UK newspaper yesterday. It has to do with a long standing directive aimed not at combating terror, or increasing airport/aircraft security, but to avoid possible accusations of "racial profiling". Apparently, as reported if there are say 200 people waiting to go through security checks prior to boarding an aircraft, security staff are only allowed to question, in what is described as second stage security checks, two people of "arabic" appearance. Which means that with this rule in place, the attacks would still have succeeded (five hijackers for each aircraft). That rule, as reported, is still in place to this day. Possibly because to rescind it would be viewed as too great an attack on one's civil liberties, one's human rights. That to me is strange, taking into account the threat warnings - I'd have questioned them all, still would question them all today.

As to prevention. One measure that could be put in place to ensure that no such attack as 9/11 could ever be repeated is to actually programme civilian aircraft as cruise missiles in the following manner. The flight programme of every aircraft is modified so that in the event of an attempted hijack situation the pilot/co-pilot activates a control on the aircraft's automatic pilot which cannot be over-ridden, alternatively this could be activated from the ground. The aircraft is then programmed to fly a course clear of all air-lanes and centres of population to a military air-field for a fully automatic "hands-off" landing. As aircraft proceed on their journeys the programme is updated to alter which air base the aircraft will be diverted to. The technology exists to do this, has done for years (BEA conducted it's first fully automatic take-off and landing flights back in the 1960's).

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 09:44 AM

"They may have lost a major base of operations, Strick, but I would doubt that the citizens of Madrid would agree with you that they are anyhow less effective."

Jim, before those bases were destroyed, al Qaeda was turning out more trained recruits per year than the FBI and CIA combined. That's not happening anymore. Some of those trainees are dead or in prison, but most are out there some where. I don't think Afghanistan had anything to do with the Madrid attack or the attack the US can expect just prior to our election.

"The much publicised PDB was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". Condi Rice has called this a 'historical document', although the title suggests it more to be prophetic one (unless you read 'Determined' as implying the past tense)..."

Jim, reread the briefing and try to see it with pre-9/11 eyes. With the possible exception of the items which the briefing says were unconfirmed and what we now know was a misleading overstatement of the FBI investigations underway, there's nothing in that briefing that would have been news two or three years earlier. Ben Laden wants to attack the US (again) and is considering hijacking planes or using bombs. Period. Duh.