FAA Had 52 Warnings

Hindsight is twenty twenty. You're talking about national security, in a country that frankly, a good percent of the world despises. yeah, 52 warnings sounds like a freaking ton. A MOUNTAIN of evidence you could say. But in the vast scale of national security it's a drop in the bucket of thousands of warnings that never came true. and it's not like security was lax before hand. Judging by my local airport, we've always had cops running around constantly, and metal detectors every three feet.

You're also neglecting the fact that this stuff would have happened regardless. If someone is intent on doing something to this scale, it WILL get done. They could have planted al-quida in the airport staff to sneak weapons in, etc. It's a nasty thing that happened, and perhaps they could have gone nuts over it and padlocked everything that snail could crawl through, but i seriously doubt it would have made a difference.

That link brought me to an article about population inflation. Oh well, I can guess what it said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SocietyzAntidote

Hindsight is twenty twenty. You're talking about national security, in a country that frankly, a good percent of the world despises. yeah, 52 warnings sounds like a freaking ton. A MOUNTAIN of evidence you could say. But in the vast scale of national security it's a drop in the bucket of thousands of warnings that never came true. and it's not like security was lax before hand. Judging by my local airport, we've always had cops running around constantly, and metal detectors every three feet.

You're also neglecting the fact that this stuff would have happened regardless. If someone is intent on doing something to this scale, it WILL get done. They could have planted al-quida in the airport staff to sneak weapons in, etc. It's a nasty thing that happened, and perhaps they could have gone nuts over it and padlocked everything that snail could crawl through, but i seriously doubt it would have made a difference.

---

Exactly, in Behavioral Science, it's called Hindsight Biased. You are all looking at this with the knowledge of 9-11. The right decision now seems crystal clear because we know what the outcome was. It wasn't so obvious to them at the time. Like was said before, they cannot react to everything. And who's to say that they haven't stopped thousands of terrorist attacks before with their security? We can never know what could have happened.

On another note, everyone should read "Through Our Enemies Eyes." It is written by an ex-CIA agent who spent a lot of time with bin Laden personally. His book was done and about to be published right before the 9-11 attacks. He basically predicted that bin Laden was up to something big, but didn't know exactly what. That's the problem. The government knew that bin Laden was a threat, but they couldn't have done anything about it because they didn't know how, when, or where he was going to strike. And they couldn't go out and attack them because then everyone would have screamed that it was a preemptive attack and therefore illegal.

I never said it wouldnt have prevented it, and no amount of excuses will make it okay that they ignored the warnings. They did nothing. Period. That's wrong, no matter what excuses are made. I dont even care that it resulted in 9/11. I care that they ignored serious warnings to keep from inconviencing anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix

I dont even care that it resulted in 9/11. I care that they ignored serious warnings to keep from inconviencing anyone.

---

Exactly. Looking back at the result isn't why we should be upset. We should be upset because they let so many warnings go unanswered.

Isn't it better to give someone the benefit of the doubt and believe what they're telling you, and maybe end up looking like a sucker for believing them when it was just a lie or mistake, than ignoring what they tell you and let something horrible happen? Better safe than sorry, really.

Well said.

What I'm saying is that I would have been satisfied if, after these warnings, security had been tightened. Would that have prevented 9/11? Maybe not. Would it have done any good? Maybe not. But it would have shown that they cared. The warnings were not specific save that they targetted airlines. Obviously they cant prevent much with that, but a simple tightening of security would have shown responsibility and care.

It's like saying "Something is wrong with one of the planes. We dont know what it is, we dont know when it will effect the plane, or what it will do to the plane. We dont even know which plane it is." well, you can try and look at the planes, have the mechanics look them over. Maybe it wont do any good. Maybe they cant find the problem. Maybe it'll clog things up and never do a damn bit of good. But it's a thousand times better than saying "Well we dont know what, when, where, or how, so screw it." and ignoring a potentially deadly problem. The plane could crash either way, even after being checked out. But I'd certainly have at least a bit of consolation that they tried, instead of ignoring the problem, a problem that can easily result in death.

Not having read the article, what exactly did it say the FAA did after they got the warnings? Isn't it possible that the media could have exaggerated it to make it seem like they didn't do anything. Who knows, maybe they did beef up certain aspects of security? I know we here go up in Force Protection alert all the time, and not everybody knows why, and rarely any civilians know that security has increased. They could have tightened security within their staff, or something else that would be unnoticeable to us on the outside, therefore bringing us to the conclusion that they did nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix

However, the FAA has the warnings, and these are the important things about the articles.

"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.'' "

"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. "

That is the problem. If you cant predict your enemy's attacks, then you do your best to cover your ass. No one tried to cover their asses in this. These planes should not have been hijacked, and perhaps would not have if warnings were heeded and security was tightened.

---

Already quoted them in this thread. If you have more questions, read the article.