FAA had *52* warnings about 9/11

[Guest Vitamin X]

Report: FAA Had 52 Pre-9/11 Warnings

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2001, about al-Qaida and its desire to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terror attacks.

 

The report by the 9/11 commission that investigated the suicide airliner attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon detailed 52 such warnings given to FAA leaders from April to Sept. 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

 

The commission report, written last August, said five security warnings mentioned al-Qaida's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation. However, none of the warnings pinpointed what would happen on Sept. 11.

 

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency received intelligence from other agencies, which it passed on to airlines and airports.

 

But, she said, ``We had no specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures.''

 

Brown also said the FAA was in the process of tightening security at the time of the attacks.

 

``We were spending $100 million a year to deploy explosive detection equipment at the airports,'' she said. The agency was also close to issuing a regulation that would have set higher standards for screeners and, for the first time, give it direct control over the screening work force.

 

Al Felzenberg, former spokesman for the 9/11 commission, which went out of business last summer, said the government had not completed a review of the 120-page report for declassification purposes until recently.

 

The unclassified version, first reported by The New York Times, was made available by the National Archives Thursday.

 

According to the report:

 

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

 

Of the FAA's 105 daily intelligence summaries between April 1, 2001 and Sept. 10, 2001, 52 mentioned Osama bin Laden, al Qaida, or both, ``mostly in regard to overseas threats.''

 

It notes that the FAA did not expand the use of in-flight air marshals or tighten 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.

 

A proposed rule to improve passenger screening and other security measures ordered by Congress in 1996 had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget and was still not in effect when the attacks occurred, according to the FAA.

 

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.

[NoCalMike 0]

...yet Condalizza Rice got a promotion!?!

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Not using hindsight. What's an air marshall going to do against armed terrorists who want to hijack the plane?

 

The problem that I think a lot of people forget is that 9-11 broke a lot of the trends in airplane terrorism.

[NoCalMike 0]

Not using hindsight. What's an air marshall going to do against armed terrorists who want to hijack the plane?

 

The problem that I think a lot of people forget is that 9-11 broke a lot of the trends in airplane terrorism.

They were armed with box cutters. An armed air marshall would shoot them dead.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Not using hindsight.  What's an air marshall going to do against armed terrorists who want to hijack the plane?

 

The problem that I think a lot of people forget is that 9-11 broke a lot of the trends in airplane terrorism.

They were armed with box cutters. An armed air marshall would shoot them dead.

Game, Set, Match.

[Vyce 0]

...yet Condalizza Rice got a promotion!?!

It notes that the FAA did not expand the use of in-flight air marshals or tighten 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.

 

A proposed rule to improve passenger screening and other security measures ordered by Congress in 1996 had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget and was still not in effect when the attacks occurred, according to the FAA.

 

Nice to see folks like NoCal are having selective memory lapses in their effort to, surprise! blame it all on Bush & co.

 

The ineptitude of the bureaucrats involved, as is indicated by the quote I pulled, had been going on for YEARS, long before Bush got in office. Please remember that the 9/11 commission wasn't too kind to the Clinton administration in its critiques either.

 

This story just reinforces what we already knew: that 9/11 was a monumental systematic failure of numerous governmental failures. There is a huge amount of blame to be spread around.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Not using hindsight.  What's an air marshall going to do against armed terrorists who want to hijack the plane?

 

The problem that I think a lot of people forget is that 9-11 broke a lot of the trends in airplane terrorism.

They were armed with box cutters. An armed air marshall would shoot them dead.

Your using that nasty thing called hindsight again. Terrorists weren't taking over planes with box cutters for the most part before 9-11.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

53rd times a charm..

[2GOLD 0]

Don't you run into a problem like cabin de-pressurization if a bullet goes though someone and hits a window?

 

Doesn't a small hole in the cabin risk bringing down the plane anyway?

[syxx2001 0]

Yea, something like that.

[NoCalMike 0]

...yet Condalizza Rice got a promotion!?!

It notes that the FAA did not expand the use of in-flight air marshals or tighten 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.

 

A proposed rule to improve passenger screening and other security measures ordered by Congress in 1996 had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget and was still not in effect when the attacks occurred, according to the FAA.

 

Nice to see folks like NoCal are having selective memory lapses in their effort to, surprise! blame it all on Bush & co.

 

The ineptitude of the bureaucrats involved, as is indicated by the quote I pulled, had been going on for YEARS, long before Bush got in office. Please remember that the 9/11 commission wasn't too kind to the Clinton administration in its critiques either.

 

This story just reinforces what we already knew: that 9/11 was a monumental systematic failure of numerous governmental failures. There is a huge amount of blame to be spread around.

I didn't say I was blaming it all on Bush and Co, but in case you forgot, Clinton is out of office, so you can't exactly demote him anymore. What you can do is look inside the current administration and hold some folks accountable, rather then give them greater responsibility and higher status.

[Guest Brian]

Don't you run into a problem like cabin de-pressurization if a bullet goes though someone and hits a window?

 

Doesn't a small hole in the cabin risk bringing down the plane anyway?

That's why you pistol whip 'em in the back of the head. Pistol whipping is so underrated.

[Guest cosbywasmurdered]

Don't you run into a problem like cabin de-pressurization if a bullet goes though someone and hits a window?

 

Doesn't a small hole in the cabin risk bringing down the plane anyway?

No. They tested that on Mythbusters (awesome show) and found that it's a myth.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Everyone seems to overlook this quote in their zeal to point fingers:

 

But, she said, "We had no specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures.''

 

Warnings and threats can only be acted upon and planned for if they are concrete.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Your using that nasty thing called hindsight again. Terrorists weren't taking over planes with box cutters for the most part before 9-11.

It doesn't matter. Air Marshalls shoot and kill hijackers if they have to, at risk to their own safety. It's even more embarassing that the 9/11 hijackers were armed with nothing more than box cutters and intimidation.

 

There's nothing different about the 9/11 plane hijackings that differed from any other plane hijacking, except that there was a series of them all tied into a terrorist attack. But plane for plane, it was your usual "we've taken over the plane, don't try anything" bit.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Condoleeza Rice, 3/22/04 Washington Post Op-Ed:

 

No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration

 

Richard Clarke, 1/25/01 memo for C. Rice:

 

We urgently need such a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network

 

 

Notice how he underlined "urgently" in order to get her attention.

 

In the memo, Clarke requested a meeting of a National Security Council committee to discuss tactics for combating Al-Qaeda.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

CLARKE IS A LIBERAL! HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING!!!!

 

[Justice 0]

Not using hindsight.  What's an air marshall going to do against armed terrorists who want to hijack the plane?

 

The problem that I think a lot of people forget is that 9-11 broke a lot of the trends in airplane terrorism.

They were armed with box cutters. An armed air marshall would shoot them dead.

Game, Set, Match.

With multiple targets in a small metal tube crowded with people? Even if the bullet didn't depressurize the cabin, there are too many hostages, targets, and other variables that would have made the point moot.

[Red Baron 0]

a few bullet holes and not even a 100 deaths would have happened or 3,000 with box cutter knives.

 

Something is not making sense here.

[Vern Gagne 0]

a few bullet holes and not even a 100 deaths would have happened or 3,000 with box cutter knives.

 

Something is not making sense here.

It makes sense. No one one the first 3 flights knew what the terrorists where going to do. They where told be quite, and no one gets hurt. Like Jobber said the typical of most hijackings. Not until Flight 93 did those men fight back agains the terrorist.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It's pretty honestly embarassing that a hundred people sit around and let 3 guys take over the plane. It wouldn't even been an issue if someone armed was on-board.

 

And Justice, if the guys have a bomb there's a very real chance everyone could go down in flames anyway. They aren't going to just sit, because the risk of not putting people at risk of crossfire is possibly a mid-air explosion or even worse a crash into a building.

[Justice 0]

It's pretty honestly embarassing that a hundred people sit around and let 3 guys take over the plane. It wouldn't even been an issue if someone armed was on-board.

Weren't they maced, and because of the self-defense classes they had taken hadn't they already made examples of a few people? They had no idea what was going to happen.

 

And Justice, if the guys have a bomb there's a very real chance everyone could go down in flames anyway. They aren't going to just sit, because the risk of not putting people at risk of crossfire is possibly a mid-air explosion or even worse a crash into a building.

 

First off, no way in hell is he going to fire a gun or risk a hostages life. I'll tell you that right now. I honestly don't think he would have done that.

 

Secondly, I just realized how fucking STUPID this topic is. NoCal bitches about having no Air Marshalls on these flights, but there was no information regarding any specifics for flights. Thousands upon thousands of flights take off every day in America: We aren't like Israel where our national flight carrier can have two Sky Marshalls on every plane. It simply isn't feasible. This entire line of thought that has sprung up is entirely inane.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's pretty honestly embarassing that a hundred people sit around and let 3 guys take over the plane. It wouldn't even been an issue if someone armed was on-board.

Actually, it wouldn't have been an issue if people hadn't been taught, for years, to give the terrorists what they want in those situations.

 

But, again, hindsight is always 20/20.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ha. Some pinhead brought this up on Neal Boortz's RIGHT WING RADIO show this morning and Neal shot his ass down. Funny stuff...

[Vyce 0]

It's pretty honestly embarassing that a hundred people sit around and let 3 guys take over the plane. It wouldn't even been an issue if someone armed was on-board.

Or if the majority of the people on that plane were black.

 

That much I learned from Michael Moore: the brothers, apparently, would have kicked the hijackers ass, but whitey was far too afraid to lift a finger.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Condoleeza Rice, 3/22/04 Washington Post Op-Ed:

 

No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration

 

Richard Clarke, 1/25/01 memo for C. Rice:

 

We urgently need such a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network

 

 

Notice how he underlined "urgently" in order to get her attention.

 

In the memo, Clarke requested a meeting of a National Security Council committee to discuss tactics for combating Al-Qaeda.

No point on making a thread about it now, but a news item about the memo.

[Guest Coffey]

No point in quoting an entire reply, including picture, just to reply with one sentence.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

Boy, you're a cock.

 

EDIT: Yep, this was just as pointless as anything else.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

No point in quoting an entire reply, including picture, just to reply with one sentence.

It was a news item, relevant to what he posted, which was a picture of the *memo* in question. It's more then just a picture dumbass.

 

Besides, you offered nothing to this thread at all, other than bitching. TROLL!~ BAN PLZ!~!11

 

Why do people hate on Clarke anyway? Because he was a part of the Clinton Administration? He seems to be a guy focused on terror, regardless of what letter the president might have beside his name.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Because he wrote a book, and thus, he's a liberal!