BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 01 May 04 - 07:35 PM

" I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but not with the same 'Well that's just the way it is' kind of complacency."

Excuse? Complacency? No, understanding. You try your best and you look hard at your failures to try to understand them. You can't assume you're never going to fail again. Even when we try to avoid the old mistakes, they have a wonderful way of showing up in new clothes.

9/11 was preventable the way my first marriage was -- all the clues were there for anyone looking backward.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 01 May 04 - 01:07 AM

Actually there is a hell of alot more we could be doing to secure our nation without imposing extreme measures on our citizens. Unfortunately it comes down to the bottom line. No-one wants to spend the money on it. Spending the tax money is fine but don't ask us to fund our own security (even though we profit from being more secure).

I pointed out gaps in security years ago (sorry I have to be vague, no idea who may read from this site) to a business. You'd have thought they'd want to take care of them to protect their property and products from thieves and vandals. It would at least have saved them some insurance money. No they wouldn't do it. Too much money up front with too little return in the immediate quarters.

In more ways than one we're at the mercy of our own businessmen.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 07:06 PM

"Then suddenly you get the Discovery (Challenger?) disaster or the Twin Towers because we become so used to minimizing the more far fetched risks, we don't recognize when they become real and present.

You can excuse absolutely anything with that remark, Strick, if you put your mind to it.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but not with the same "Well that's just the way it is" kind of complacency.
It is relevant, however, that the 'systemic flaws' the Columbia Accident Investigation Board found, prior to the STS-107 accident, were not which".. one would expect to see [in] an organization if it were trying to change its culture./i>".

If nothing was learned from the Challenger, it was the fault of those people whose responsibility it was to learn those kind of lessons. Where was the hindsight, then?

Columbia could have been prevented, 9/11 could have been prevented, and sharp border guards are always an asset.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 05:31 PM

"In 2001 a television show called "The Lone Gunmen", a short lived spinoff from "The X-Files" had as an episode a government plot involving flying a computer controlled airliner full of people into one of the twin towers. It has a pilot's eye view of the approaching towers at night, and at the last minute our hero takes control and is just able to clear them."

Shame it had such crappy ratings.

It's not just a lack of imagination, you know. I realize as a boss that part of my job is to keep the people who work for me from getting too carried away with concern for outlandish risks. Some people see problems everywhere and can let their imaginations keep them from accomplishing things; they become too timid and fearful. It's a good thing to keep people focused on the goals and moderating a few primary risks. Then suddenly you get the Discovery disaster or the Twin Towers because we become so used to minimizing the more far fetched risks, we don't recognize when they become real and present.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 05:04 PM

I have more than once thought of Thomas Friedman's observation that the scale of the attacks on 9/11 were due to a lack of imagination. OUR imagination.

I think it's pretty clear that, as George Bush was quoted, he didn't have OBL as a top priority. From what I've heard and read, however, the FBI were hardly at the top of their game and did overlook some real danger signs.

In 2001 a television show called "The Lone Gunmen", a short lived spinoff from "The X-Files" had as an episode a government plot involving flying a computer controlled airliner full of people into one of the twin towers. It has a pilot's eye view of the approaching towers at night, and at the last minute our hero takes control and is just able to clear them.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 04:40 PM

The question was a rhetorical one, Strick... Of course the vista is just as imposing. But the defeatist nature of your last statement, and the acceptance you have of this state of affairs,is worrying, Strick.
It provides all the excuse we need to go into another country and sell the idea to the Nation that this is going to make thimgs safer.

I've said it before, $86 billion would have gone a long way if spent revamping Internal Security, instead.
The fact that it was not even contemplated at the beginning of the Bush Presidency, is a question of assignation of priorities, IMO, and in this respect, also, 9/11 could have had a chance of being prevented.

That $86 bn. is only the tip of the iceberg, you know. When was the last time any Government put in a realistic tender for anything? (that question was also rhetorical, incidentally). The longer this goes on over in the 'Axis of Evil' (because the job is far from over, remember), the more drain it will be on the American economy.

If America pulls its troops out of Iraq, as it will someday do, will everybody remember that Iran and Syria were also on the next-to-liberate-list, and wonder where all those plans went?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 03:50 PM

"And 'focusing' attention on the Twin Towers (and every other tall building) would have been any easier?"

Far from it. Frankingly, I'm convinced it's not completely possible to protect against every threat, not without doing things that make the Patriot Act look liberal. It's not that drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and the like tell us our security is lax, they tell us it can't be done. You do have to focus on the likely threats and put more emphasis on human intelligence at the likely source of any threat. Better security at our borders is the second line of defense at best and a relatively weak one at that. The bad news is, much as we've learned with people determined to assasinate presidents, if someone wants to attack us badly enough, they'll find a way.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 03:49 PM

Nobody paid any attention to John O'Neill. And nobody is still paying any attention to John O'Neill.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 03:28 PM

"I agree, Jim, but those points are so far reaching and the variety of threats so great they defy the word "focus". We've been so successful with illegal immigration and drug smuggling through the years, after all."

And 'focusing' attention on the Twin Towers (and every other tall building) would have been any easier?

It's the 'eggs in one basket' bit that's flawed, IMO. If we know how effective we are in drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and the like, we never needed a 9/11 to remind us that our security was lax.

Going into Iraq was like taking eggs from one badly in need of repair basket, and tryng to force them back into the chicken.

Well that's the way I have been reading it, anyway.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 03:13 PM

"The vast majority of attention-focusing would serve a much better purpose at the country's air and sea ports, border crossings, etc."

I agree, Jim, but those points are so far reaching and the variety of threats so great they defy the word "focus". We've been so successful with illegal immigration and drug smuggling through the years, after all.

Besides, whats to keep us safe from the garden variety domestic terrorist or a foreign one that's already here? Al Qaeda isn't producing well trained new ones, but who knows who might be living next to you.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 03:01 PM

"I wouldn't have put all my eggs in one basket and focused all my attention on the Twin Towers"

I should hope not, Strick. The vast majority of attention-focusing would serve a much better purpose at the country's air and sea ports, border crossings, etc.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 02:54 PM

"To go to the UN is a joke"

You haven't been watching the news, recently, Larry K.

Bush can't go it alone..... like he promised he could
He needs help... like he said he didn't.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 02:25 PM

"Strick, I would have thought WTC in New York because it was tried before and the terrorists are out to cause as much death and destruction as well as hitting our "monuments" to ourselves and a center of agreat deal of world wide monitary action.

Because they tried using a truck bomb before I would have thought that they would most likely try something else (while also making sure the precautions in place to prevent that from happening again were still functioning."

Fair enough, Chief. After the August 6th PDB, I might have been thinking something completely different since it has people apparently scoping out the Federal buildings in Manhattan. I would have thought of OKC and wondered if they were looking for softer targets with tried and true methods.

Even if I decided they could use airplanes, I wouldn't have put all my eggs in one basket and focused all my attention on the Twin Towers. A likely target, yes, but so are thousands of others (we thought the building I was in on 9/11 was a natural target, too) including the Pentagon and the White House. Damned hard to protect all the possible targets for more than a week with the methods Dick Clarke proposed, much less the 6-7 weeks we had from the first alert to the actual even. In some other universe, they got it and protected the Twin Towers, only they gave up just be for the actual attack and lost them anyway.

No offense, but from my read of what little has come out of the Commission hearings so far, there wasn't much to throw out from the last administration.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 02:10 PM

Strick, I would have thought WTC in New York because it was tried before and the terrorists are out to cause as much death and destruction as well as hitting our "monuments" to ourselves and a center of agreat deal of world wide monitary action.

Because they tried using a truck bomb before I would have thought that they would most likely try something else (while also making sure the precautions in place to prevent that from happening again were still functioning.

Would I have thought they'd crash a jet liner into the building?
The G-8 conference and the eiffel tower plot both pointed in that direction and it had been envisioned by Tom Clancy some years ago as well in one of his books. Standing on Bolling AFB across the Potomac River from the Ronald Reagan International Airport I remarked to my friend (some twenty years ago after the air florida disaster) that it could happen again and hit anything in DC and could be done intentionally without anybody being able to prevent it (of course I don't have anyone to verify that).

I think that if they had connected the dots that someone would have been bright enough to think "hey, they're gonna crash one into somethin'.

Actually on the morning of Sept. 11th when our watchstander told us about the incident my immediate thought was that it was a terorist attack because after the crash of the bomber into the Empire State Building, it has been illegal to fly planes over New York City.

Yeah, the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA have all been playing their cards very close to their chests for quite along time. I didn't mean to say that they hadn't been, but rather that with the way that the administration seems to have slammed the door on the "public's right to know" that it didn't engender any reason to stop playing that way. Of course if they didn't protect their own turf someone might have further cut their budgets. After all why do we need so many intelligence agencies? The military is very much like this as well (with the Air Force leading the way).

No I don't know what went on that day at the morning brief, just applying my own experiences.

Not "blaming" Bush. Just applying an old military maxim that says if it happens on your watch, you're responsible. It also does seem that the incoming administration threw out anything from the old administration.

Bin Laden is to blame for 9/11 of course. But there is a long line of American involvement that presages 9/11. And like many of our other dealings with "revolutionaries" and questionable persons it came back to bite us hard.

Oh when will we ever learn?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 10:37 AM

Of course 9/11 could have been prevented.
Pearl Harbor could also have been prevented
Hitler could also have been prevented

Hindsight is 20/20.    The question is how to prevent further terrorism.

One thing I have learned in life is that it can always get worse.   After the World Trade Center attack in 1993 we said that was the worst.   Than we had Oklahoma city.   That was the worst.   Than we had 9/11.   Will we look back one day after a terrorist sets off a dirty bomb and kills millions and say that 9/11 wasn't the worst?

To say that we are not effective in fighting terrorism is not correct.    Here are the facts from the US State Department.

2001    346 terrorists attacks world wide
2002    198 terrorists attacks world wide
2003    190 terrorists attacks world wide
This is the fewist terrorist attacks in 20 years.

To go to the UN is a joke.   With the oil for food scandals we now know why France, Russia and the UN were supporting Sadaam.   Read the Dick Morris column this week.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 09:25 AM

Good heavens, no, but you couldn't count too heavily on good luck to prevent it either. What isn't true is that any of the Clinton administration "actions" lead directly to preventing the Millennium attack. Clarke likes to portray what happened is that the administration was in Washington "shaking the trees" to get vital intel and the attack was prevented. What seems clear is that the administration was busy shaking trees and not finding anything while this lady was out doing her job and saving their bacon.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 01:32 AM

... and 9/11 was just 'bad luck'?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 01:22 AM

"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)."

Foiling millennium attack was mostly luck

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 07:03 PM

Well don't fucking read it then

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: el ted
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 10:32 AM

Boring.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 04:31 PM

Clarke says the US set up point defenses against air attack for 5-6 events starting with the Atlanta Olympics. These involved things like a guy or two with a Stinger missle on a tall building near the specific site being protected and an increased level of air defense alert. It was expensive (notice they quit flying jets over NY after a few weeks?) and hardly fool proof and was never carried out too long or to protect more than a few buildings within a city. Clarke had suggested setting up protection for the White House and Congress. He admits that wouldn't have helped the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. Too many buildings in the US for that kind of point defense to protect everything.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 04:06 PM

George Bush contradicted himself at the Press conference,
by saying no one could have predicted hijacked planes crashing into buildings, but in fact George had attended the Genoa G8 conference in July 2001 and was specifically warned about that very threat.
(I remember hearing on the news at the time that they were setting up antiaircraft defense systems)
can read it all at misleader.org

Bush Contradicts Self At His Own Press Conference


During last night's prime time press conference, President Bush once again claimed that "there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings"1. But just minutes later at the same press conference the president proved he was not telling the truth.

Specifically, Bush said the reason he supposedly requested intelligence briefings before 9/11 "had to do with the Genoa G-8 conference I was going to attend" in 2001. Bush was referring to the fact that, prior to that conference, he was warned that "Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill him and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the summit" meetings2.

His statement that "the prior government" had not taken precautions against terrorists using planes as weapons is also contradicted by the facts. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that under President Clinton, "the federal government had on several earlier occasions taken elaborate, secret measures to protect special events from just such an attack"3 after receiving intelligence warnings4.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 07:00 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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)