Moderated Legitimate 9/11 Questions

[T.A.M.]

Ok, so before you all get your knickers in a knot, I have not suddenly lost my mind and converted to trutherism.

This thread was inspired by the need/desire to find some common ground with at least a small part of those who question the events of 9/11.

There is a misconception that all debunkers are steadfast Bush/Cheney apologists/supporters, hellbent on defending them on all things 9/11. This is simply not true. I for one (and I know of many more here) have several questions concerning not only the attacks, but also the national (USA) and international politics around them. I also have many questions about who knew what, and what they knew, in the weeks and months leading up to the attacks. Who didn't want to know. Who should have known. I also have some concerns about the politics of the 9/11 commission, and what influence this may have had on who got the blame, and how much (or lack there of) blame they were allocated...

So with the above in mind, here are a few questions I have. Please feel free to either (A) educate me on the answers and/or (B) add in your own questions.

Please note, this is not a place for MIHOP questions, however, i think we can TOLERATE some LIHOP angles if presented well.

------------

1. Did John Ashcroft's expressed request to "not hear any more about Al Qaeda" amount to gross negligence, incompetence, or simply poor judgment leading up to 9/11?

2. Did Zelikow prevent the provision of any piece of evidence that might have placed proper blame for not preventing the attacks on any element of the USG? If so, who do you feel he was protecting?

3. Do documents exist implicating elements of Saudi and Pakistani Intelligence in supporting, or at the very least, turning a blind eye to the 9/11 plot and plotters?

4. Were there any international agencies that had some form of warning, or inside information that might have helped? If so, what agencies, what did they know, and what proof do we have of this?

TAM

 

[Alt+F4]

5. Where did the money for the operation come from?

 

[T.A.M.]

5. Where did the money for the operation come from?

A very good question, interlinked to mine on the Saudi/Pakistani Connection. The commission was vague in this area. I do, to a degree, understand their rationale (that no one single source was responsible, neither with enough influence to be singled out), but I am not satisfied with it.

TAM

 

[BigAl]

Ok, so before you all get your knickers in a knot, I have not suddenly lost my mind and converted to trutherism.

This thread was inspired by the need/desire to find some common ground with at least a small part of those who question the events of 9/11.

There is a misconception that all debunkers are steadfast Bush/Cheney apologists/supporters, hellbent on defending them on all things 9/11. This is simply not true. I for one (and I know of many more here) have several questions concerning not only the attacks, but also the national (USA) and international politics around them. I also have many questions about who knew what, and what they knew, in the weeks and months leading up to the attacks. Who didn't want to know. Who should have known. I also have some concerns about the politics of the 9/11 commission, and what influence this may have had on who got the blame, and how much (or lack there of) blame they were allocated...

So with the above in mind, here are a few questions I have. Please feel free to either (A) educate me on the answers and/or (B) add in your own questions.

Please note, this is not a place for MIHOP questions, however, i think we can TOLERATE some LIHOP angles if presented well.

------------

1. Did John Ashcroft's expressed request to "not hear any more about Al Qaeda" amount to gross negligence, incompetence, or simply poor judgment leading up to 9/11?

2. Did Zelikow prevent the provision of any piece of evidence that might have placed proper blame for not preventing the attacks on any element of the USG? If so, who do you feel he was protecting?

3. Do documents exist implicating elements of Saudi and Pakistani Intelligence in supporting, or at the very least, turning a blind eye to the 9/11 plot and plotters?

4. Were there any international agencies that had some form of warning, or inside information that might have helped? If so, what agencies, what did they know, and what proof do we have of this?

TAM

I could probably contribute to all 4 categories but thing would change the basic story.

For (4), there were so many warnings (50+) in the spring and summer of about some attack planning that I have to assume that come of the warnings fit your criteria. As documented in the 9/11 Commission report, the Bush administration was asleep at the switch for these warnings and the lead agency, the FBI, was working 12 cases that if combined would allow law enforcement to disrupt or block the hijackings. The FBI was organizationally and by corporate culture incapable of preventing crime, only catching crooks after the fact. (Source: Spying Blind Amy Zegart . )

Note that the Commission that the Twoofers love to hate supports their allegation of malfeasance in the Bush administration.

The Commission report compares Clinton's response for the warnings leading to to Y2K and the Bush activities between January 2001 and Sept 10, 2001. The Clinton response was robust. The Bush actions, not so much. Nothing but some "lets have a meeting" memos.


At a local level, the accountability for the radios gets no press. Even before 9/11, I knew a retired FDNY communications engineer that said a well known mayor and occasional presidential candidate should be in prison for the selection of the contract for the radio system on his watch.

 

[Baylor]

Thank you for starting thread this T.A.M. The trolling on this subforum is ridiculous. Now that chillzero's gone, I think Darat should consider closing it if things don't start improving.

As for the O.P. my biggest question is:

How were the hijackers able to breach the cockpit and why didn't the airlines and the FAA do more to prevent it?

If all 50 passengers on a flight wanted to breach the cockpit door, they should not be able to do so.

 

[T.A.M.]

ULR:

I, of course, have no practical knowledge of rules/regulations/precautions wrt airline cockpit intrusions, however, I would say we need to examine the history of cockpit intrusions in the past.

Is there a history of cockpit intrusion, and if so for what purpose? Was it a common phenomenon, or something that was so rare as to not warrant any practical changes?

A good question...Do you think in a post 9/11 world, that the airlines have sufficiently addressed this issue?

TAM

 

[MarkyX]

Why was there a character assassination campaign towards Richard Clarke shortly after his testimony?

 

[T.A.M.]

Why was there a character assassination campaign towards Richard Clarke shortly after his testimony?

Well because he made Condi, and many others look bad. He provided proof, in his testimony, that the higher ups had been warned, many times, but seemed disinterested, to say the least.

TAM

 

[Pinch]

For (4), there were so many warnings (50+) in the spring and summer of about some attack planning that I have to assume that come of the warnings fit your criteria. As documented in the 9/11 Commission report, the Bush administration was asleep at the switch for these warnings and the lead agency, the FBI, was working 12 cases that if combined would allow law enforcement to disrupt or block the hijackings.

I'm not sure I'd subscribe to that - i.e. "asleep at the switch". If any administration had to act on every single threat that comes through its intelligence channels, whether HUMINT, ELINT, SIGINT, etc or any combination thereof, the intelligence agencies would never have enough people nor hours in a day. How do you balance out the actionable intelligence from the crap? Remember, as well, and please don't take this as a joke, but we had just come out of 8 years of Clinton's downgrading the capabilities of ALL the intelligence agencies and organizations (having been in the military all the years of the Clinton administration I can more than vouch for that). I think it amounted more to a "Perfect Storm" of events - poor intelligence, missed opportunities, lackadaisical attitudes, complacency, an eager and willing-to-die enemy and a security infrastructure (including airline security and border security) that had really, really sunk down to a depth that almost invited such terrorism - all coming together at an most inopportune time for the US.world.

Good thread, T.A.M.

 

[BigAl]

ULR:

I, of course, have no practical knowledge of rules/regulations/precautions wrt airline cockpit intrusions, however, I would say we need to examine the history of cockpit intrusions in the past.

Is there a history of cockpit intrusion, and if so for what purpose? Was it a common phenomenon, or something that was so rare as to not warrant any practical changes?

A good question...Do you think in a post 9/11 world, that the airlines have sufficiently addressed this issue?

TAM

After the 1993 bombing, Clinton finded two bipartisan commissions on future terrorism. One of them was about aviation security and was delivered at th end of the Clinton administration. It recommended locking cockpit doors. The industry fought it and the FAA waffled.

NEW TOPIC: Properly studied and learned from, the BCCI case would have prevented much of the bad things that have happened since 1990.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Credit_and_Commerce_International

 

[Thunder]

i am trying my best, but I can't think of any really good questions about 9-11.

though, how about:

-can we see all the photographs of the recovered pieces of the plane at Shanksville?

and thats about it.

 

[Baylor]

ULR:

I, of course, have no practical knowledge of rules/regulations/precautions wrt airline cockpit intrusions, however, I would say we need to examine the history of cockpit intrusions in the past.

Is there a history of cockpit intrusion, and if so for what purpose? Was it a common phenomenon, or something that was so rare as to not warrant any practical changes?

A good question...Do you think in a post 9/11 world, that the airlines have sufficiently addressed this issue?

TAM

Yes, there were some attempts of cockpit intrustion before 9/11. One on Southwest when one man attempted to breach the door but was subdued and killed by passengers. I don't know exactly what a 767 cockpit door looked like before 9/11 but I'm sure they weren't too hard to breach. Boeing should've made the cockpit impenetrable.

And I don't think airlines have sufficiently addressed the issue. I think if there's another attempt at a hijacking, they're gonna rely on the passengers rathern than their own brilliant safety measures.

 

[T.A.M.]

i am trying my best, but I can't think of any really good questions about 9-11.

though, how about:

-can we see all the photographs of the recovered pieces of the plane at Shanksville?

and thats about it.

Come on Parky, really? You think all the questions have been answered?

As for the photos of the parts at shanksville, I am unsure whether you are serious or not. I think that is the way a lot of the truthers would want it, and even a step further they would want to be taken to the hanger to examine the parts themselves.

TAM

 

[BigAl]

I'm not sure I'd subscribe to that - i.e. "asleep at the switch". If any administration had to act on every single threat that comes through its intelligence channels, whether HUMINT, ELINT, SIGINT, etc or any combination thereof, the intelligence agencies would never have enough people nor hours in a day.

I highly recommend reading Spying Blind. It's like citing the Pentagon Firefighter book to Ultima1, there is far far too much information to type here.

Also, read the Commission report (chapter 6) that shows what Clinton and Bush did or didn't do to make sure that all agencies were away to the warnings that the other agencies were seeing and folowwing up on.

the NSA had an "It's my ball" thing going and refused to share. If they had shared in the summer '01, things might have worked out different but that's a little what-if-ish. IMO, the FBI all by itself could have capture most of the perps of 9/11 while they were still alive. Convictions might have been problematical but that's my point, FBI culture is all about convictions, not prevention.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, there were some attempts of cockpit intrustion before 9/11. One on Southwest when one man attempted to breach the door but was subdued and killed by passengers. I don't know exactly what a 767 cockpit door looked like before 9/11 but I'm sure they weren't too hard to breach. Boeing should've made the cockpit impenetrable.

And I don't think airlines have sufficiently addressed the issue. I think if there's another attempt at a hijacking, they're gonna rely on the passengers rathern than their own brilliant safety measures.

OT:

They killed the guy? really? I never heard of the case. Got a link, or something I can read on it? That is horrible.

TAM

 

[Baylor]

Exactly 13 months prior to 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#Incidents_and_accidents

 

[T.A.M.]

I highly recommend reading Spying Blind. It's like citing the Pentagon Firefighter book to Ultima1, there is far far too much information to type here.

Also, read the Commission report (chapter 6) that shows what Clinton and Bush did or didn't do to make sure that all agencies were away to the warnings that the other agencies were seeing and folowwing up on.

the NSA had an "It's my ball" thing going and refused to share. If they had shared in the summer '01, things might have worked out different but that's a little what-if-ish. IMO, the FBI all by itself could have capture most of the perps of 9/11 while they were still alive. Convictions might have been problematical but that's my point, FBI culture is all about convictions, not prevention.

The Shenon Book, "Commission" has a paragraph or two in it concerning this, and the opinion is identical to your comment. Prior to 9/11, agents placed on counterterrorism, and al-qaeda were openly mocked by their colleagues, and treated like "The guy you send to get coffee". It was all about captures and convictions, rather than prevention.

TAM

 

[Reheat]

I, of course, have no practical knowledge of rules/regulations/precautions wrt airline cockpit intrusions, however, I would say we need to examine the history of cockpit intrusions in the past.

Is there a history of cockpit intrusion, and if so for what purpose? Was it a common phenomenon, or something that was so rare as to not warrant any practical changes?

A good question...Do you think in a post 9/11 world, that the airlines have sufficiently addressed this issue?

TAM

No, there is no significant history of cockpit intrusion. Some aircraft in use at the time could not be easily modified to be secure. More importantly, there was no impetus to do this in the first place.

Airlines traditionally resist FAA mandated modifications for monetary reasons, unless it is something that would also cause problems with their Unions or something that might be considered a "no brainer".

Even with a secure cockpit who is to say the hijackers may have killed or threatened to kill a Flight Attendant who might have denied them entry into the cockpit. All sorts of scenarios are possible where even a secure cockpit might have done no good.

Even if there had been a decision to beef up cockpits in the summer of 2001 when the intelligence reports were coming in, it would not have happened in time to prevent 9/11.

Today, not only are cockpits more secure, but there is a WHOLE different mindset regarding someones' entry into the cockpit. Quite frankly, I don't think today's passengers would sit idly while someone tried to hijack an aircraft.

A reminder to everyone. In order to examine these issue that have been brought up you also have to put yourself into the pre-9/11 mindset. There was a prevailing arrogant mindset that the US was invulnerable to attack and this was not just within the Bush Administration, it was a prevailing attitude among most Americans. As has been stated over and over again, the threats received were not ignored, they were misinterpreted. It was the general attitude that the threat would be directed toward International assets, not in the US.

It was a surprise attack and if anyone is to blame we all are.....

 

[T.A.M.]

Exactly 13 months prior to 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#Incidents_and_accidents

Wow...either they used an awful lot of force, or the man must have had an underlying condition. Sad...in many ways.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

A reminder to everyone. In order to examine these issue that have been brought up you also have to put yourself into the pre-9/11 mindset. There was a prevailing arrogant mindset that the US was invulnerable to attack and this was not just within the Bush Administration, it was a prevailing attitude among most Americans. As has been stated over and over again, the threats received were not ignored, they were misinterpreted. It was the general attitude that the threat would be directed toward International assets, not in the US.

It was a surprise attack and if anyone is to blame we all are.....

QFT.

20/20 hindsight makes it all to easy to find fault. That said, it is also the only way to determine not only culpability, but to improve.

TAM