Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: FAA was warned about 9-11

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146947,00.html]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146947,00.html[/url]

    [quote][b][b]Report: FAA Warned About Hijacking Pre-9/11 [/b]
    Thursday, February 10, 2005

    NEW YORK — Federal Aviation Administration (search) officials received 52 warnings prior to Sept. 11, 2001, from their own security experts about potential Al Qaeda (search) attacks, including some that mentioned airline hijackings or suicide attacks.

    A previously undisclosed report by the 9/11 commission that investigated the hijack attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon detailed warnings given to FAA leaders from April to Sept. 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Usama bin Laden (search).

    The commission report, written last August, said five security warnings mentioned Al Qaeda's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation.

    The Times said that a classified version and a partially declassified version of the 120-page report were given to the National Archives (search) two weeks ago. The Times story cited the declassified version of the document.

    Al Felzenberg, former spokesman for the 9/11 commission, which went out of business last summer, said the government had not completed review of the report for declassification purposes until recently. He said the Justice Department delivered the two versions of the document to the Archives.

    An Archives spokeswoman said the unclassified version of the document was not yet available Wednesday night.

    Highlights from the commission report:

    Aviation officials were "lulled into a false sense of security" and "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures."

    It takes the FAA to task for not expanding the use of in-flight air marshals or tightening airport screening for weapons. It said FAA officials were more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays and easing air carriers' financial problems than thwarting a terrorist attack.

    Information in this report was available to members of the 9/11 commission when they issued their public report last summer. That report itself contained criticisms of FAA operations.

    [/b][/quote]

    the FAA had warning after warning... so much for the statement that "no one knew."

    also maybe we can stop absolving bush of all blame and putting 100% blame on Clinton's administration -

    last i checked the FAA is a gov't organization and it's boss is accountable to the current President... not the former President.

    the truth is that Clinton is to blame but so is Bush. His job is to protect the country and he didn't.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    1,337
    Post Thanks / Like
    As you stated, they're both to blame. And maybe a weakness of our democracy is that a tragedy MUST take place before such an expensive infrastructure (whose success -no matter how great-can never be measured) can be put in place.

    Would/should a President PERMIT such tragedies to occur to promote a program for the greater good? We're all accusing Bush of that....so why don't we ask the question?

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    Actuallly..if you like, I can post at least five article that are more then four years old which show how Al Gore- then in charge of airport security- sold out to the industry and made menial attempts from '98-2000 to fix the problems they knew of after the airline industry gave huge contributions to their campaign...here's a sample from a 9/6/2000 Tony Blakely piece in the Washington Times:

    [b]Press Ignores Gore Scandal [/b]

    Al Gore is about to have woman troubles: No, not that kind. Her name is Victoria Cummock. She alleges that Mr. Gore was in bed, not with a woman, but with the airline industry he was entrusted to investigate when TWA Flight 800 went down. In June last year she won a little-noted decision in the D.C. Court of Appeals that keeps her search for truth alive. The search continues, and Mr. Gore is about to learn that Mrs. Cummock is not a woman with whom to be trifled.

    What brings her case to mind is the maxim of Washington journalism that if a politician champions a particular value, he deserves to be measured by that standard himself. So, when I see Mr. Gore repeatedly assume the heroic pose on behalf of the little guy against the powerful special interests, my thoughts turn to Victoria Cummock. Here's why.

    In 1996, in the aftermath of the crash of TWA Flight 800, President Clinton personally called Mrs. Cummock to ask her to serve as a commissioner on The White House Commission on Aviation Safety, created to investigate the crash. He also appointed Mr. Gore to be its chairman. She was chosen because her husband had been killed in the Pan Am 103/Lockerbie crash. Since then, she had become a leading passenger-rights advocate, and Mr. Clinton had assured her he sincerely wanted to develop new, tough counter-terrorism procedures. He instructed Mr. Gore to make recommendations within 45 days.

    The Gore Commission produced a tough preliminary report, and at a Sept. 9, 1996, press conference Mr. Gore publicly asserted the need for those changes. And then, all hell broke loose — but for Mr. Gore, not for the terrorists. "Within ten days, the whole [airline] industry jumped all over Al Gore," Mrs. Cummock reported. On Sept. 19, Mr. Gore sent a letter to airline lobbyist Carol Hallett, promising that the commission's findings would not cause the airlines any loss of revenue. The next day the Democratic National Committee received a $40,000 contribution from TWA. In the next two weeks Northwest, United and American Airlines donated $55,000 more.

    In the following two months (leading up to the November 1996 presidential elections) American Airlines donated a quarter of a million dollars to the Democrats. United Airlines donated $100,000 to the DNC. Northwestern upped its anty to $53,000. In all, Mr. Gore and the Democrats collected almost half a million dollars between the election and the day — two months before — that Mr. Gore assured the airlines his commission wouldn't cost them any money.

    At the time, White House spokesperson Ginny Terzano refused either to confirm or deny that Mr. Gore personally solicited the airline contributions. But that is not what got Victoria Cummock's dander up.

    In January 1997, Mr. Gore's staff circulated a draft final report that eliminated all security measures from their findings. Not only Mrs. Cummock, but CIA Director and fellow Commissioner John Deutch complained. So Mr. Gore pulled back the draft. In February Mr. Gore finally came up with the classic Washington ploy. The final report called for sensible new procedures that would cost the airlines millions of dollars: 450 high tech bomb detectors, more training for airport security, criminal background checks for security personnel, increased canine patrols. But Victoria Cummock noticed one thing was missing — there was no timetable to accomplish these requirements. She informed the vice president that without timetables, the report was "toothless" and she couldn't support it, but instead would file a dissent.

    It was a classic Washington victory. The policy wonks got their proposals noticed, the airlines got their bottom line protected and Mr. Gore got his party the money. The only losers were the passengers, who got no increased security from terrorism. So, when Mr. Gore actually had a chance to fight, rather than talk about, the powerful special interests on behalf of the little guy, he turned his money-stuffed coat and protected the interests that bought him.

    In an open meeting on Feb. 12, Mr. Gore stated that he would leave room in the final report for Victoria Cummock's dissent. A few minutes later at the White House, as Mr. Gore presented the final report to President Clinton, the vice president announced that the report was unanimous. Both of those Gore lies are on video tape. NBC's Dateline has the tapes.

    And so Mrs. Cummock went to court. Not on behalf of some conspiracy theory, but on the right to see commission files that were denied her and the right to file a dissent. She only wanted the commission's own findings to be enforced. After winning in the D.C. Court of Appeals last year, she is slowly gaining discovery of the commission's secret files.

    She has already found one interesting document in the secret commission files: A letter to Mr. Gore from his now famous convicted felon fund-raiser Maria Hsia. In that note she talks about the successful fund-raiser at the Buddhist Temple and asks the vice president for help in getting government funding for her to be part of the Project Citizenship initiative. Now, however did that note end up in the secret Gore Commission files? More to come.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here's another- UPI from 9/23/2001

    [b]The Cost of Life
    By Jon Loose and Connie Hair[/b]

    Hindsight is always 20/20. You see causes and proactive avenues that could have altered the outcome. Sometimes these ignored actions are discounted as unreasonable. Other times, you point your finger at a deserved party.

    In the wake of the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, the most compelling raison d'être is that we failed to take our own advice. More specifically, the weaknesses in airport security were largely identified a number of years ago.

    In July of 1996, in the wake of the crash of TWA flight 800, President Clinton convened the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security by executive order 13015 to take place on August 22, 1996. He gave the commission 45 days to “study matters involving aviation safety and security, including air traffic control and to develop a strategy to improve aviation safety and security, both domestically and internationally,” then present their conclusions. He named Vice President Al Gore to head the commission. By special invitation of the President, Victoria Cummock was named to the commission. Ms. Cummock lost her husband in the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scottland some eight years prior. According to Newsday, Cummock held the reputation at the time of “the airlines’ most tenacious foe.”

    Five years prior to September 11, 2001, Gore held a press conference to announce the commission’s preliminary report that promised, “to take the strongest measures possible to reduce the risk of terrorism and sabotage to airline passengers and crews.” Gore further stated that their upcoming proposed measures will, “be put into place quickly and effectively and will help ensure that airline travel remains as safe as possible for all travelers.” A solid and factual preliminary report backed up Gore’s comments.

    Ten days later, just prior to the 1996 election, Gore penned a letter to airline lobbyist Carol Hallett, promising that the commission's findings would not cause the airlines any loss of revenue. The very next day the Democratic National Committee received a check in the amount of $40,000 from TWA. Over the next two weeks Northwest, United and American Airlines donated $55,000 more.

    In the next two months the Democratic National Committee pocketed over $250,000 from American Airlines. United Airlines threw in an additional $100,000. Northwest Airlines added $53,000. That’s a grand total of over half a million dollars. According to the Washington Times, Whitehouse Spokesman, Ginny Terzano gave no denial when asked whether Al Gore solicited these airline donations personally.

    Contributory advice and suggestions were being sought and incorporated into the draft(s) of the report by all sides of the aisle and divisions of government including intelligence agencies, transportation agencies and military personnel. The draft final form was presented to the 21 participating commissioners in January of 1997. According to the Washington Times, a significant number of security measures were removed from the proposed final draft of the report.

    Victoria Cummock and CIA Director John Deutch were resolute in their opposition to the “softball” report. Gore was given no choice but to pull back the report. Reinstalled were sensible new procedures that would cost the airlines millions of dollars.

    · Conduct airport vulnerability assessments and develop action plans
    · Require criminal background checks and FBI fingerprint checks for all screeners, and all airport and airline employees with access to secure areas
    · Deploy existing technology
    · Signifi cantly expand the use of bomb-sniffing dogs
    · Complement technology with automated passenger profiling
    · Certify screening companies and improve screener performance
    · Aggressively test existing security systems
    · Use the Customs Service to enhance security
    · Give properly cleared airline and airport security personnel access to the classified information they need to know
    · Begin implementation of full bag-passenger match · Providing more compassionate and effective assistance to families of victims
    · Improve passenger manifests
    · Significantly increase the number of FBI agents assigned to counter-terrorism investigations, to improve intelligence, and to crisis response
    · Provide anti-terrorism assistance in the form of airport security training to countries where there are airports served by airlines flying to the US

    The security measures were in the final recommendation report. However, the implementation timetable was nowhere to be found.

    In February of 1997, Victoria Cummock called the report “toothless.” She informed Gore that unless specific implementation dates were added in the report she would file a dissent, because the airline industry would not have to do anything until such measures were mandated.

    On February 12, 1997, an open meeting was held on the commission’s final report. Gore made a point to inform Ms. Cummock that he would leave room for her dissent to the final report. NBC Dateline caught these comments on videotape. Also on videotape was Mr. Gore presenting the final report to President Clinton minutes later and pronouncing that the report had unanimous consent. But it didn’t.

    Victoria Cummock filed suit claiming that Gore pressured her to abandon her call for counter-terrorist measures, the right to see commission files of which she was denied, and the right to file her 42-page dissent. It was her ambition to see the commission’s findings presented accurately within the final report. Gore painted Cummock, who had lost her husband in a terrorist act, as a disgruntled commissioner.

    In mid 1999 Ms. Cummock won her case in the D.C. Court of Appeals. In the long drawn out and impeded discovery process a memo was discovered from a CIA staffer, specializing in psychological profiling. According to The American Spectator, the memo stated that Cummock could be "kept in line if she believes progress could be made" but "could become a major problem."

    On September 11, 2001, those ultimately responsible for the destruction of thousands of precious lives were the terrorists who pulled the knives and steered the planes.

    But playing politics and intentionally ignoring obvious safety and security voids in an industry that has been a target of terrorists for over thirty years is unconscionable.

    Now the airlines are paying the price. We all are.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    uh yeah that's great, too bad Gore wasn't in office from Apr 2001 to Spet 10 2001 when the FAA received [b]52 warnings.[/b]

    sorry bro but playing the "clinton was a jackass/gore was a jackass" card means nothing - these guys were to blame but [b]SO WAS BUSH[/b]

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 10 2005, 12:58 PM
    [b] uh yeah that's great, too bad Gore wasn't in office from Apr 2001 to Spet 10 2001 when the FAA received [b]52 warnings.[/b]

    sorry bro but playing the "clinton was a jackass/gore was a jackass" card means nothing - these guys were to blame but [b]SO WAS BUSH[/b] [/b][/quote]
    i know "bro"...let's compare eight years in office to seven months.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 10 2005, 01:01 PM
    [b] i know "bro"...let's compare eight years in office to seven months. [/b][/quote]
    the point of this is that there is no reason to compare any term to any other term.

    52 warnings to the FAA happened under Bush
    9-11 happened under Bush

    The buck stops with the President, not the former President.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Feb 10 2005, 01:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Feb 10 2005, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 10 2005, 01:01 PM
    [b] i know "bro"...let&#39;s compare eight years in office to seven months. [/b][/quote]
    the point of this is that there is no reason to compare any term to any other term.

    52 warnings to the FAA happened under Bush
    9-11 happened under Bush

    The buck stops with the President, not the former President. [/b][/quote]
    Of course like the last GOP President to take over for a dim- Ronald Reagan- there was a sh&#33;t mess to clean up.

    clinton was like the guy moving out of a house whose foundation was crumbling. He puts a new coat of paint on the outside and tells the incoming tenant, "there....good as new".

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    assuming what you say is correct (for the sake of argument) and Clinton left this country in shamble -

    [b]what did Bush do from Jan to Sept 2001 to correct the situation?[/b]

    the answer is nothing - he took as much vacation as humanly possible and worked on repealing clear-cutting laws for the logging industry - for damn sure he didn&#39;t care about or do a damn thing about the threat of terrorism.

    im sorry but you can&#39;t blame Clinton and obsolve Bush of ANY responsibility. We shouldn&#39;t even be talking about Clinton - it was Bush&#39;s show at the time and it&#39;s still Bush&#39;s show. the FAA got 52 warnings that summer, not the summer of 1997.

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is PLENTY of BLAME to spread around, to EVERYONE who has been in power over the last 20-30 years (the "Terrorism Era").

    Sadly, it seems the favored passtime in the USA is bickering over who is MORE at fault, when they should be working to actually FIX the problems at the heart of Terrorism, i.e. better security, immigration policies and most of all, international manipulation and relations (spporting evil dictators when convenient, especially in the Muslim world).

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 10 2005, 01:26 PM
    [b] assuming what you say is correct (for the sake of argument) and Clinton left this country in shamble -

    [b]what did Bush do from Jan to Sept 2001 to correct the situation?[/b]

    the answer is nothing - he took as much vacation as humanly possible and worked on repealing clear-cutting laws for the logging industry - for damn sure he didn&#39;t care about or do a damn thing about the threat of terrorism.

    [/b][/quote]
    another reason why libs are finished...they never learn and continue to take their cues from the likes of michael moore-on. Hey bit- see my silly signature- maybe if your party took it to heart they wouldn&#39;t be so downtrodden.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    461
    Post Thanks / Like
    I really belive that the Bush adminstration knew about 9/11 and did nothing. Think about all that has happened since then, War on Terror, War on Iraq talks of Wars on other countries, if these attacks had not happened, I dont think to many Americans would have been so supportive of Bush going into war for no reasons, only speculation, but by these attacks happening so early on in Bushs presidency, it really set the stage for what he was going to do over the next 8 years, and I just cant forget so early on in the days after 9/11 the White House kept saying Saddam Husseins name and how there was a meeting in Vienna between Mohammed Attah(the ringleader of 9/11) and some Iraqi officials, I always thougt it was weird how the White House knew that information right away, and why they kept saying it....

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JetsMetsIsles[/i]@Feb 10 2005, 01:45 PM
    [b] I really belive that the Bush adminstration knew about 9/11 and did nothing. Think about all that has happened since then, War on Terror, War on Iraq talks of Wars on other countries, if these attacks had not happened, I dont think to many Americans would have been so supportive of Bush going into war for no reasons, only speculation, but by these attacks happening so early on in Bushs presidency, it really set the stage for what he was going to do over the next 8 years, and I just cant forget so early on in the days after 9/11 the White House kept saying Saddam Husseins name and how there was a meeting in Vienna between Mohammed Attah(the ringleader of 9/11) and some Iraqi officials, I always thougt it was weird how the White House knew that information right away, and why they kept saying it.... [/b][/quote]
    as opposed to clinton who knew the taliban was recruiting and training terrorists four years in Afgahnistan, did nothing time after time after Al Queada attacked Americans and American interests overseas, did nothing even after OBL declared war on America five different times after masterminding terrorist attacks against the US. Never mind turning a blind eye to the N Koreans giving them tons of oil while they developed nuclear weapons...yeh, I can see how valid your theory is and how it stands up......

    even funnier is all the reasons you mention happened within the two yeara after 9-11 yet he was still elected and please- spare us your pathetic liberal "Bush stole the 2004 election" conspiracies.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]I really belive that the Bush adminstration knew about 9/11 and did nothing. Think about all that has happened since then, War on Terror, War on Iraq talks of Wars on other countries, if these attacks had not happened, I dont think to many Americans would have been so supportive of Bush going into war for no reasons, only speculation, but by these attacks happening so early on in Bushs presidency, it really set the stage for what he was going to do over the next 8 years, and I just cant forget so early on in the days after 9/11 the White House kept saying Saddam Husseins name and how there was a meeting in Vienna between Mohammed Attah(the ringleader of 9/11) and some Iraqi officials, I always thougt it was weird how the White House knew that information right away, and why they kept saying it....[/b][/quote]

    I think there is plenty of blame to go around--Bush and previous administrations. But, honestly, I don&#39;t believe any of these people really give 2 &#036;hits about the welfare of 97% of the American public....

    In that way, I&#39;m a lot like JI poster [b]Jerry K[/b].

    Every one here knows border issues are my main political interest--whether posters here like it or not.

    In a way, this story looks a lot like stories regarding the potential threat of "suitcase" bombs crossing the border. We now it&#39;s full well possible, but Bush refuses to do a damn thing about it, due to political reasons. Matter of fact, the idea of a "dirty bomb&#39; going off in Tucson or Houston, seems much more likely than the idea that 19 ME&#39;s could Hi-jack 4 planes and down both Twin Towers.


    Last summer (2004), Texas congressmen Henry Bonilla and Sylvestre Reyes begged Bush to clamp down on border violators, when hundreds of Middle easterners were being found in Sout Texas. They got real scared, when a Al Qaida member snuck in through Mexico then tried to get a job as a military cook in McAllen, Texas (his intent was to poison troops).


    Something had to be radically wrong or dangerous, because Bonilla and Reyes always wanted no Border Patrol, now they wanted more?

    The threat was clear-- [url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40730]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=40730[/url]

    Now, due to these concerns, Bush asked for [b]10,000 more Border agents[/b] and got it...Last week, with no one looking, Bush slashed that 10,000 BP agents by 99% (will only hire 200 new agents), meaning there will be fewer agents than pre 9/11...


    Point?

    Bush nows the threat is there, but he, obviously, doesn&#39;t care. Or puts corporate or political leanings before the safety of the American people :rolleyes:

    [b]Here&#39;s what Bush figures[/b]:

    1) A "dirty bomb&#39; is very unlikely to cross the border, so why care?

    2) Even if a bomb does make it to the U.S (as Reyes and Bonilla fear) and affects 1,000&#39;s of American&#39;s lives, why should he care? 9-11 was the best thing that happened to him politically, so another attack might only help his lust to go into Iran or elsewhere.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 10 2005, 01:31 PM
    [b] Hey bit- see my silly signature- maybe if your party took it to heart they wouldn&#39;t be so downtrodden. [/b][/quote]
    two points - 1) i do not have a party 2) i keep all signatures and avatars OFF

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    Geez, if your title is factually incorrect why should anyone read further?

    The article says that only &#39;some&#39; of the 52 warnings included information about hijackings or suicide attacks(pretty unspecific).

    Some could be 2 or 51.

    Go smoke a bone and whine about not getting enough opportunity.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Piper[/i]@Feb 10 2005, 06:28 PM
    [b] Some could be 2 or 51.
    [/b][/quote]
    for the sake of argument,

    [b]2 warnings is 1 more than would have been necessary for the US Gov&#39;t to prevent 9-11.[/b]

    Bush probably didn&#39;t know beforehand but the FAA did... also the NY Stock Exchange did as evidenced by all the short sells of UAL and others in the days prior.

    Someone with alot more investment capital than Bin Ladin knew something crazy was going to happen on 9-11.

    It probably wasn&#39;t Bush... but that&#39;s not exactly a good thing either&#33;

    ps- Piper i don&#39;t complain about opportunity - i complain alot but never about a lack of opportunity. America is the land of opportunity.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JetsMetsIsles[/i]@Feb 10 2005, 03:45 PM
    [b] I really belive that the Bush adminstration knew about 9/11 and did nothing. Think about all that has happened since then, War on Terror, War on Iraq talks of Wars on other countries, if these attacks had not happened, I dont think to many Americans would have been so supportive of Bush going into war for no reasons, only speculation, but by these attacks happening so early on in Bushs presidency, it really set the stage for what he was going to do over the next 8 years, and I just cant forget so early on in the days after 9/11 the White House kept saying Saddam Husseins name and how there was a meeting in Vienna between Mohammed Attah(the ringleader of 9/11) and some Iraqi officials, I always thougt it was weird how the White House knew that information right away, and why they kept saying it.... [/b][/quote]
    They didn&#39;t know about 9/11 before hand.

    Its the same situation as the supposed earpiece in bush&#39;s ear during the debates.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Feb 10 2005, 08:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Feb 10 2005, 08:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Piper[/i]@Feb 10 2005, 06:28 PM
    [b] Some could be 2 or 51.
    [/b][/quote]
    for the sake of argument,

    [b]2 warnings is 1 more than would have been necessary for the US Gov&#39;t to prevent 9-11.[/b]

    Bush probably didn&#39;t know beforehand but the FAA did... also the NY Stock Exchange did as evidenced by all the short sells of UAL and others in the days prior.

    Someone with alot more investment capital than Bin Ladin knew something crazy was going to happen on 9-11.

    It probably wasn&#39;t Bush... but that&#39;s not exactly a good thing either&#33;

    ps- Piper i don&#39;t complain about opportunity - i complain alot but never about a lack of opportunity. America is the land of opportunity. [/b][/quote]
    Do you think these &#39;warnings&#39; come with a magical treasure map with a gold &#39;X&#39; on them? What would you have the FAA do. close every airport everytime they receive a warning that mentions suicide bombers?

    As for the Stock Exchange, do you have any idea how many times there has been a run on &#39;short orders&#39; related to airlines in the last 10 years? Since different airlines have flirted with bankruptcy over that time the answer is alot.

    And this threat has existed for over thirty years. should every airport get shut down everytime?

    And since I actually work for a living and don&#39;t have time to do a deep dive on your posts, I won&#39;t look for the &#39;I have an education but can&#39;t succeed because of the big evil corporations&#39; posts I thought I remembered you posting.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Piper[/i]@Feb 11 2005, 06:33 AM
    [b] And since I actually work for a living and don&#39;t have time to do a deep dive on your posts, I won&#39;t look for the &#39;I have an education but can&#39;t succeed because of the big evil corporations&#39; posts I thought I remembered you posting. [/b][/quote]
    go looking buddy i dare you
    &#39;
    most likely your alcohol addled brain imagined those posts.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us