Discuss
Printable View
I was just reading about that before I saw this. It's not surprising, really.
Yeah I wasnt very shocked.
Nothing new I'm surprised no one has talked about North Korea officially declaring they have made nukes and will not disarm them.
Whats the FAA?
the Federal Aviation Administration.They are in cahrge of all air traffic in the good ole USA.HQ is in oklahoma or i do know they have a big place in oklahoma in which i have been to.
Federal Airline Administration or something to that effect. edit - What lordblazer said.
And I'm less surprised about the nukes than this.
Wait...we're still talking about this? I thought the elections were already over.
Yeah, it's not suprising...nor is it suprising that this isn't mentioned until we've bombed the hell out of 2 countries and Bush has won his second term.
This doesn't surprise me at all. I personally believe that 9/11 was allowed to happen. Im not going to get into it right now, but this just reinforces my opinion about that.
Well Bush was handed a document during his cowboy fantasy in Texas entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America" or something as plainly titled as that.
they were expecting bombs and ransom demands. Al-Quida (probably spelled that wrong) is really good at thinking outside the box. One has great difficulty defending oneself against an attack that one is wholly unaware of the possibility for.
when those planes were hijacked, everybody onboard probably thought they would be ordered to land someplace and then demands would be made. Only the one that went down in pensylvania had anybody on board who accurately read the intentions of the hijackers.
the one tape where Bin Laden was talking to the Sheik guy and commenting about the effectiveness of the attack and how he was expecting only the floors above the strike to colapse based on previous events, remember that one? justification for the Afganistan invasion? well, I don't remember hearing anywhere of anybody flying planes into skyscrapers before.
It's kinda like when somebody's repeatedly punching you, and in all the fights you've ever had before with people just like this person, all they've ever done is punch when alluva sudden a kick comes outta nowhere. all your defensive strategies are based around punches. you've got nothing against kicks.
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.
yeah, i saw that. you have any idea how many of these things are going around at any given time? If we freaked out everytime we got word someone was going to attack something in america using a plane, the FAA would be doing full body cavity searches and sending people on flights naked. you have to balance out how LIKELY they thought it was that this was gonna actually happen, compared to the costs and infringment on passengers freedoms that would be made to try and bump security. You can't react to EVERY warning, or even systems of warnings like these here, they'd be to frequent and america would be even more paranoid than the nutjobs we are now. bad times that this one squeaked throuhg, but i can't blame to FAA for this type of thing.
With the amount and severity of these warnings, the FAA had no excuse to ignore them. They took no precautions what-so-ever. I could understand them not jumping at every one, but after 52 of them, they should have taken steps to try and prevent something from happening. Maybe it still would have happened, but at least they would have tried.
Yeah the FAA has no excuse for this.They killed all these people basicly by not taking Bin laden seriously. Bin Laden being the person with USA CIA training.Yeah I would've tighten air security.I wouldn't have minded having a cavity check if it mean t i got to live.I mean those poeple on the airplane who died during 9/11 wouldn;t have minded.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SocietyzAntidote
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix
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.
Already quoted them in this thread. If you have more questions, read the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix