digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

FAA Warned 52 Times Before 9/11

cnn.com — The FAA's security branch generated 105 so-called daily summaries between April 1 and September 10, 2001, the report said. Fifty-two of those summaries mentioned bin Laden or al Qaeda, and five discussed hijacking "as a capability al Qaeda was training for or possessed." With 52 warnings, why [wasn't security increased] in 2001?

show profanity settings
expand all
  • gooddaysunshine, on 10/12/2007, -9/+41you mean like this?
    http://video.google.com/url?docid=7797944525480443766&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=Norman+Minetta&vidurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DbDfdOwt2v3Y&usg=AL29H21GvddVSUmAdQaEt3BnYZ-czjRfmA
    • readthis, on 10/12/2007, -31/+77I think it is pretty obvious why every division of government and military sworn to protect us ignored all warnings--either:

      1. Those in high positions told to them to stand down, look the other way, ignore it or dismiss it

      or

      2. People failed, systems failed, leaders failed and the military failed. In that case investigations would have been conducted at every level. Hundreds of people would have lost their jobs.

      Criminals promise immunity to co-conspirators and use people and the media to cover up their crimes. The innocent, caught off guard investigate every possible angle to find out what went wrong and to fix it. Nobody lost their job so you be the judge--was it #1 or #2?

    • MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -20/+69This is when the "they let it happen" Pearl Harbor theory gets some credibility.
    • dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -19/+58"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

      a year after this statement 911 happened
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

      Former members include prominent members of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, including George W.Bush, Karl Rove, Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.
    • crillbilly, on 10/12/2007, -58/+16http://maddox.xmission.com

      You people have called me a "sheep" before, but I'd rather be a sheep than a mouth breather.

      Stand up.
      Walk out of Starbucks.
      Shave your peach fuzz goatee.
      Pull head out of ass.

      There, just a short list of some things you can do to not be complete idiots. And if any of you asshats say "You're just blinded by the truth", ill say, "You are just blinded by fact that your existence is so pathetic you have to latch onto inane ideas to feel justified."

      Choke on a Boca.
    • primehifi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38pffffft everyone knows the fifty third time's the charm.
    • mehss, on 10/12/2007, -63/+7HOLY ***** MAN IT'S ALL A ***** CONSPIRACY

      IT'S THE ZIONIST JEWS, THE FAA IS CONTROLLED BY JEWS!

      BUSH LIED TRILLIONS DIED!
    • JimV, on 10/12/2007, -24/+16@readthis

      Or option 3:

      ***** happens.
    • JimV, on 10/12/2007, -18/+20It doesn't really matter how many warning there were, if none of them were specific enough to give a time or a place. If they had beefed up security in order to stop all this (like that have done today) there would have been much similar fallout about "losing our liberties" and such.
    • R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -18/+16Hindsight is a bitch eh?
    • DeejayLupo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23The two above comments are right on. At any given time pre- and post-9/11 there's been a huge stream of intelligence, much of it credible, all of it pointing to a large variety of different threats.

      The fact is, unless we get something specific enough to act upon, we can't respond to every piece of intelligence directly.

    • SkippyDoorknob, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14If it was the "they let it happen" or the giant conspiracy then the FAA would not have issued the warnings in the first place (since they would have to be part of the conspiracy for the conspiracy to hold together).
    • TheG2, on 10/12/2007, -20/+12@tinfoil hat brigade

      Do you realize just how much intelligence information the US gets every damn day regarding an attack? It's almost infinite. You know what isn't infinite? Our resources to pursue the intelligence everytime. Sure the FAA was warned, but how many times had hijackers crashed into a build? Probably a number close to 0. How many hijacking attempts ended with a landing and a helicopter? I'm guessing in the realm of 85% with most of them ending with the hijackers dead or in jail.

      Its the same reason no one really attacked the hijackers on the first two planes. Most people from the 60's and onward know that a huge number of hijackings ended peacefully, why would you risk your life making a stand when the odds were strongly in your favor you were going to land safely and let the government/police/military figure it out?

      You can go on and on about a government conspiracy, but until you realize how the government and world works, the general population isn't going to take you seriously. Government isn't perfect, but its a hell of a lot better than the alternatives. (In most cases*).
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -15/+12I'd be curious to know how many warnings on any given day that the FAA is given. I'm betting it's a lot.

      It's easy to look back on things and say, "Wha! You were warned fifty twelve times!!11 how could you ignore it?!" My guess is they could ignore it, because they usually ignored it and nothing happened, but this time, it bit them in the ass.
    • jhaitas, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16did anyone think to look at how many warnings there were in 2000 or 1999? or even before that?

      the media only releases the information that is convenient to their story... it is entirely possible that there were more warnings in the years prior - especially considering the fact that you'd be looking at the whole year rather than jan. 1 - sept. 11

      digg me down if you want. the media has used 9/11 to generate ratings.
    • sandus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3@jhaitas:"the media has used 9/11 to generate ratings."

      Considering that this 2-year-old story generated more than 400 diggs in a little over an hour...
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@jhaitas

      Then security should have been tougher even earlier don't you think?
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"This is when the "they let it happen" Pearl Harbor theory gets some credibility."
      It already had that credibility. It's been known for a long time that there were clear warnings
    • rossmcd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13"...the media has used 9/11 to generate ratings."

      Just as the Bush administration has used it to gain votes. Code orange! Code red! "if you ________, the terrorists will have won!" etc etc, ad nauseum
    • Disastermaster1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12160 members of Bin Laden family flown out of our country after 9/11.http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_3664.shtml
    • NearlyHeadless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"I don't. I propose that the Fed.Gov put up a $1B tax-free no-questions-asked, 2x if alive, bounty on his head. Or _allow_ a private effort to the same effect."

      Well, there's a $25 million bounty. I don't really know that you would get any better results for $1B
      http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Oct/08-591969.html
    • Theoxenmooving, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"160 members of Bin Laden family flown out of our country after 9/11.http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_3664.shtml"

      Call me when they flew out BEFORE 9/11
    • returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Because 9/11 was allowed to happen by this government to get us into Iraq. No conspiracy, just the obvious reality.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+69/11 didn't get us into Iraq. It derailed the administrations on-going attempt at starting a war with Iraq, and got the US into AFGHANISTAN.
      That's one of a mountain of evidence suggesting that no, 9/11 was not staged, and not allowed to happen, and yes, ***** does happen all on its own.
      The truther movement simply ignores the mountains of evidence, and concentrates on minute details they have a hard time believing, even when those details are known to be plausible - like that fire can bring down a skyscraper.
      And the bin Ladens were flown out so they wouldn't risk being lynched. The family is huge, and mostly innocent.
    • Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@ junkyard

      Afghanistan was just a stepping stone.

      Your thinking about the next move. They are thinking 3 moves ahead.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So that puts the total since 1993 at well over 10,000 times the government was warned
      Way to go Dems! Way to go Repubs!
      YOU BOTH SUCK!
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Guess who else warned . . everyone
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXJRg4Vh0kc
    • MrEguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There are those who say the "inside job theory can't be right" because it would require so many conspirators that "someone would talk" and the government is too incompetent to accomplish such a complex task ... yet they're willing to believe that it was pulled off flawlessly by 19 "religious fanatics" ?

      Definition of a "conspiracy theory":
      Nineteen amateur pilots who could barely fly single-engine Cessnas, lead by a cave-dwelling Muslim on kidney dialysis, commandeer four commercial jumbo-jets with box-cutters and fly them into US targets with pin-point accuracy while the entire US military stands-down for over an hour. Three concrete and steel buildings are pulverized and melted, collapsing into their own footprints at free-fall speed, defying the laws of physics.

      Many people avoid acknowledging and examining the truth about 9/11, because IF they did, the moral imperative to DO something about it would be undeniable.

      “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” --George Orwell
  • stallion4, on 10/12/2007, -22/+22 Debunking Popular Mechanics series: The "Real NORAD" Tapes

    "This is a rough cut of a series on "Debunking Popular Mechanics". The 911 book they released was researched by "suspicious characters" and just added to the controversy and questions that already sourround 911. This is an attempt to try and set the record straight with facts. It will prove that NORAD was not the "bumbbling idiots" that Popular Mechanics would like to portray them as........ www.pumpitout.com -- recorded for historical accuracy 013007"

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=696954944242794813
    • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7PAthetic. Seriously Debunking facts with bluffs.
    • TheG2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"rough cut" aka "editorial bias"
  • dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -25/+28Alex Jones predicted 911 two months before it happened.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1222445722544874066&q=alex+jones+predicts+911&hl=en
    Called for people to call the press and the white house to stop these attacks. If only more people had listened.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -21/+7How about this: incompetence?
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -23/+8Sounds like a messiah complex to me dukeeey.
    • dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -11/+37http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

      Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US

      Did they need any clearer warnings ? Seriously.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -13/+36"Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US

      Did they need any clearer warnings ? Seriously."

      Bin Laden is still determined to strike in US

      Is that a clear enough warning? What do you propose the govt. do about it?
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -15/+26"What do you propose the govt. do about it?"

      I don't. I propose that the Fed.Gov put up a $1B tax-free no-questions-asked, 2x if alive, bounty on his head. Or _allow_ a private effort to the same effect.

      Then, if delivered alive, they hold a very public trial presenting evidence by both sides.

      You see, "terrorism" is just another name for a criminal act. Treat it as such.

      Going to war against entire countries for the actions of a few individuals is no less a criminal act than the original attack.

    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -14/+24"You see, "terrorism" is just another name for a criminal act. Treat it as such.

      Going to war against entire countries for the actions of a few individuals is no less a criminal act than the original attack."

      Al Qaeda would still be freely operating in a Taliban controlled Afghanistan, if this sort of thinking prevailed.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14I wonder how many "misses" Alex Jones has had... predictions that didn't pan out. Ahh those memorable hits... and those forgettable misses....
    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7I wonder how many more submissions dukeeeeey is going to spam Alex Jones' crap on before he gets his account banned.

      Also, in the article it stated that none of the warnings were specific enough for action to be taken. They weren't expecting terrorists to actually fly the planes. Even if they'd have beefed up security, it would've probably been to prevent a bomb being detonated aboard a craft during flight. Nothing would've stopped them from hijacking and flying the planes, unless they'd attempted it before. This "why didn't they see it coming" crap is just *****.
    • ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"Alex Jones predicted 911 two months before it happened."

      Did Sylvia Brown predict it, too?
    • stanleyford, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4"You see, "terrorism" is just another name for a criminal act. Treat it as such.
      Going to war against entire countries for the actions of a few individuals is no less a criminal act than the original attack."

      While it is true that terrorism is a crime, saying it is no different than other crimes and that it should be handled by law enforcement (as you imply) is overly simplistic and impractical:

      1. It ignores the difference in degree between acts normally called crime and those called terrorism. Murder is a crime; fraud is a crime; willfully murdering scores, hundreds, or even thousands of people in order to instill fear in an entire populace far surpasses other crimes in heinousness and scope. Murderers are criminals; terrorists are "hostis humani generis"--enemies of all mankind. They should be treated as such.

      2. It ignores the fact that terrorism can have a large affect on international relations, a nation's security and economy, and that it constitutes a casus belli when employed by a hostile nation as a tool of statecraft. Terrorists are capable of literally changing the entire world, while those who commit acts we ordinarily consider criminal are not. A nation which treats terrorism as merely a matter for law enforcement is a nation which gravely underestimates the danger posed by terrorism.

      3. It is impractical. For years, the United States treated terrorism as a law enforcement matter, and was completely unsuccessful at defeating organized, state-sponsored terrorists. There is no indication that a continuation of this policy would have been any more successful.
    • muchachoburacho, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@ stanleyford

      "Murder is a crime; fraud is a crime; willfully murdering scores, hundreds, or even thousands of people in order to instill fear in an entire populace far surpasses other crimes in heinousness and scope."

      Then what should we do about the Bush Admin?
  • fober, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7Oh thank goodness.

    I thought this was another article about 9/11.
  • killrbeez, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21shhh.. don't tell Rosie O'Donnell about this
  • Wonkanobi, on 10/12/2007, -15/+13Anytime any of the ignoramuses at FauxNews blames 9/11 on anyone or anything other than this administration, we should allowed, nay, legally required, to forceably slap them in the face with this 9/11 commission report.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18"Anytime any of the ignoramuses at FauxNews blames 9/11 on anyone or anything other than this administration, we should allowed, nay, legally required, to forceably slap them in the face with this 9/11 commission report"

      I tend to blame Islamic terrorists for 9/11.

      Faux sounds nothing like Fox, BTW
  • SLuM, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26Why are people digging him down? Alex Jones did predict 9/11 around june-july. He even said they would strike at the WTC but everyone ignored him because he was deemed as a conspiracy theorist.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18"because he was deemed as a conspiracy theorist."

      Alex Jones _is_ a conspiracy theorist. But what he's trying to address isn't some hidden conspiracy, the "Blueprint for a New American Century" is wide open for anyone to see.

      A conspiracy undertaken in full public view is, well, astounding. People must have their fingers in their ears and eyes closed not to know it's happening.

      Like the "black helicopter" conspiracy theorists. When the black helicopters were finally photographed carrying American troops "practicing" urban attacks on unsuspecting American cities, the officials who had previously pointed their fingers and said "Ignore that conspiracy nut" just pretended they knew about it all along.

    • jayhawks71, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13Oh, he predicted WTC, well gee, pretty good considering recent history. I wonder how many threats are received against Sears Tower in Chicago. Is it still standing?

      What other predictions has Alex Jones made for the future, so we can test them all and see how good his hit rate is. If it gets too good, perhaps someone should check into Alex Jones's connections, you think? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?
    • notdarkyet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7i am not entirely sure but i think he predicted the universal id a while back too...
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4No he didn't. He claimed that the government was going to stage a major terrorist attack as an excuse to implement martial law. I bet you can find someone claiming that today as well. Or in 1996. Or whenever. Eventually there will be a major terrorist attack.
    • Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5he also claimed they would use planes...
  • jragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I flew from Stockholm to Seattle (with a stop somewhere) on September 2nd and security was *crazy*.

    I remember the American couple in front of me making a big fuss about the delay, and how there was no reason for security to be ratcheted so high. I remember the person assisting them continuing to help them with pursed lips.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Interesting quote from article
    ""I asked him,'what would you have liked to have known about this plot that was known to our intelligence agencies prior to 9/11?' Ben-Veniste said. "And he said, 'we never knew the hijackers could fly the plane.' ""
  • Vinadetta, on 10/12/2007, -24/+259-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!

    The truth will come out, and those responsible will be held accountable!!!
    • gharding, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23It's probably done by the same people that killed JFK! Two birds with one stone! We'll get 'em!
    • TylerLavite, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14@ vinadetta

      you are right my friend! the truth will one day come out and the families and the Jersey girls and every one will know what really happened. people say that when we say 911 was an inside job we hurt the families.. well the families believe it to!
  • venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12Why wasn't security stepped up? Because Clinton beleived it to be a credible threat and therefore the Bush administration arrogantly assumed it wasn't.
    • ronito, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8I was just about to say, "In before someone says, 'B..b...but CLINTON!!'"

      Honestly before someone says it. Someone warns you 52 times you're not going saying, "The guy here before me didn't think it was important." as an excuse.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11So you want every single threat and repeated threats to have us pouring money, people and time into each one of them? You people are nuts.
    • Wargalas, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12You do realize that Clinton saw it as a credible threat and then, when we knew for absolute certainty where he was, Clinton let him go for financial reasons right?

      http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2007/01/bin-laden-allowed-to-escape-for.html

      Wargalas
    • Wargalas, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5You do realize that Clinton saw it as a credible threat and then, when we knew for absolute certainty where he was, Clinton let him go for financial reasons right?

      http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2007/01/bin-laden-allowed-to-escape-for.html

      Wargalas
    • TSorenson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14@ Wargalas

      Not only is that blogspam, but it's completely biased, not backed up blogspam. No sources are named, there are deliberate attacks on Democrats within the blog, and the only "confirmation" that's made is at the very end when ONE person is named.
    • Wargalas, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@TSorenson

      I think the head of the CIA Bin Laden unit and the fact that Travis (the author of the article) shows a time line about major world events that anyone can look up and he provides sources is pretty damning. What's the matter? Pissed that Clinton was found to betray the American people by letting a known threat go free for a lousy $6 billion dollar deal? Pissed that Clinton knowingly lied to the American public by saying that "he did everything he could and took advantage of every opportunity we had" and allowed 3,000 of them to die? You can call it blog spam, but you're full of *****.
    • Wargalas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@TSorenson

      You blatantly accuse Travis of not naming sources and then admit a sentence later that he names a source. You call it ONE person, I call it the most important person. This guy was head of the unit at the CIA which was supposed to get Bin Laden. He's the one with the most direct knowledge of these events.

      How is it biased when all of these are complete facts? Bill Clinton let 3,000 of your countrymen die because of a $6 billion dollar deal. Bill Clinton knew Bin Laden was a threat, we knew where he was and we had visual confirmation that it was indeed Bin Laden. However, Bill Clinton gave the order to stand down. That is an indisputable fact. If you want to take that article as a rip on Democrats, go ahead. I say you have a guilty conscience about it being a rip on Democrats. He asks Democrats a question, he doesn't accuse them of anything. He asks them for equal outrage against Clinton for not taking seriously the threat against this country like they do against Bush. So how is that a rip on Democrats? I'd love to hear your response.

      Wargalas
  • hebleb, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5This article proves it wasn't an inside job.
  • dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33indeed
    when you see just how many warnings there were before 911 happened
    you'll see why Alex Jones was able to make such an accurate prediction

    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings

    warnings such as
    June 29, 2001: Surveillance Indicates Al-Qaeda Will Attack Genoa Summit With More Than One Plane
    Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
    June 30, 2001: White House Warned ‘Bin Laden Planning High-Profile Attacks’
    June 30-July 1, 2001: New York Times Reporter Told Al-Qaeda Is ‘Planning Something So Big the US Will Have to Respond,’ but Fails to Publish Warning
    July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
    July 2001: CIA Learns Impending Attack Widely Known in Afghanistan
    July-Late August 2001: Clinton Impeachment Lawyer Tries to Warn about al-Qaeda Attack on Lower Manhattan
    July-August 2001: Translator Alleges FBI Agent Is Deliberately Deceived Regarding Skyscraper Warning
    July 1, 2001: Senators Warn of Al-Qaeda Attack Within Three Months
    July 5, 2001: Genoa Planes as Weapons Threat Helps Inspire Bush to Ask For Famous August 2001 Briefing
    July 5, 2001: Ashcroft Is Warned of Imminent, Multiple Attacks from Al-Qaeda
    July 6, 2001: CIA Warns Upcoming Al-Qaeda Attack Will Be ‘Spectacular’ and Different
    July 6, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice to Warn Agencies to Prepare for 3 to 5 Simultaneous Attacks; No Apparent Response
    July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil
    July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning that Unusual Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona

    etc ..............................

    No warnings ? ha.
  • iamnos, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19For all you people who haven't read the article, here's a couple quotes you should read before slapping on your tinfoil hat and screaming conspiracy:

    Fifty-two of those summaries mentioned bin Laden or al Qaeda, and five discussed hijacking "as a capability al Qaeda was training for or possessed."
    Two summaries cited suicide operations, "but not connected to a threat in aviation," the report said.

    So, 105 reports, 5 mention hijacking. Nothing about suicide operations and hijackings. So these reports DID NOT suggest the type of attacks used on 9/11.

    Another quote:
    "The commission found no evidence that the FAA knew what al Qaeda was plotting"

    • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7So what type of attach is supposed to happen with a plane? Drop bombs? I think it's fairly reasonable that "attack with a highjacked plane" means suicide attack which is exactly what the did on 9/11.
    • Antialias, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7whiskeymb,

      The kind of attack that every plane hijacking before 9/11 was. That means either killing passengers, blowing up the plane, or asking for ransom money.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Given the fact that suicide bombing and martyrdom is commonplace with Muslim extremists, I think it would have been fairly reasonable to assume they might use aircraft (or any other vehicle/weapon) in the same way.
  • weprin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5/sigh
  • scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13With thousands of flights a day and just a general report of malaise there isn't much to do. It is so much easier to say "I told you so" after the fact. Easy to do quote mining and point to specific quotes. lame story.
  • sheptard, on 10/12/2007, -18/+12Bush let it happen, He wanted an excuse to 'secure' a foot hold in the middle east, and the rest we know.

    IMPEACH BUSH!

    love,
    Canada
    • bigbchew, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4cough cough....sorry, if you're trying to represent Canada I feel I should too.
  • catchneyez, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14"With 52 warnings, why [wasn't security increased] in 2001?"

    I hate to say it, but when have you ever learned from a mistake that hasn't happened yet? Has anyone? That's just how the world works. If we were to start trying to enforce these crazy security measures before 9/11, do you think anyone would have been happy? Airport security would probably be scrutinized everyday on the news just like gas prices are today.

    Cause and Effect . . . not Possibility and Effect . . . that's just how things work.
    • jboeke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So do you keep your doors unlocked when you hear on the news that a killer is at large in your neighborhood, then?
  • kevinmumaw, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Yes, and the FAA has likely been warned 360 more times since 9/11. It is very common to issue warnings without specific threat assessments. I have to give this story two yawns and an eye roll.
    • hattriq27, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I couldn't even muster the eye roll
  • i4mt3hwin, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9The only thing that pisses me off about the whole ordeal is how people question the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Practically the same people who gave evidence of the 9/11 attack prior to it also submitted evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush choose to ignore 9/11 attacks (which I admit is bad) but choose to act on the WMD's. You people should make up your minds.
  • jayhawks71, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16The problem here is one of hindsight bias. Typically, retrospective views fail to consider a number of factors. For one, they are likely to receive/come across MANY threats. How many threats did they discover that were not carried out AND did not receive a special response (heightened security). Probably quite a lot. This is a signal-detection task.

    Then, the task is to identify the "credible" threat, a task that is going to have a failure rate. In hindsight, a credible threat is easy to identify if something has been carried out. It was clearly CREDIBLE if it happened.

    Finally, what about base rate information. What proportion of threats result in an attack being carried out? The answer is simply a very small number. If they responded with heightened security, further elimination of freedoms, and pouring billions into dealing with all the threats, the terrorists win. Terrorism is about a mindset. The acts of terrorism are about scaring people and getting governments to overreact, which they typically do (Patriot Act anyone?). Everyone freaking out about something (the odds of being harmed in a terrorist attack is tiny) leads to the restrictions of freedom (hassle) and rights. Another of their goals is to bankrupt our economy, and pouring money into chasing every threat moves us toward that end. Tensions in the middle east are, in part, responsible for the price we pay for gas, even though we have, historically paid much less than the rest of the world.

    Anyway, this is hindsight bias at its finest. They "should've seen it coming" and "should've reacted differently" is easy once we know the outcome. If there had been no 9-11 after these "threats" we wouldn't be complaining about government failures, yet there are plenty of these threats that did not receive a response, nor did they result in a terrorist attack.
    • tekz0r, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Yes but just like Mr. Scooter Libby did, someone should take the blame for this error in foresight. And who better than the nitwit we call our president and his army of yes-men staffers?
    • jboeke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No, we certainly wouldn't want anybody in seats of power that have any FORESIGHT.

      Yes. Foresight is possible. Just ask Scott Ritter.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter
  • FRANKeB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Well I wouldn't have taken any of the warnings from April 1st seriously, but the rest....
  • IceSabre, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10If all government agencies took every call seriously.... they would either have to raise taxes 200% to cover the costs of hiring enough people to track down every "tip" or they would have each investigator look into 200 cases a day. We all know raising taxes that much won't fly and the case load would be so much that they could never possibly fully check into anything, real or not.

    It's like 1000 people all yelling out the code to defuse a bomb at the same time... then complaining later that the bomb went off even though somebody yelled the correct code.

    They investigate what they can based on probabilities... and as anybody can tell you the variables that go into computing probabilty vastly affect the outcome. You just have to work with what you got and hope.

    How many attempts has the government stopped? For one it is usually not as "exciting" or "newsworthy" and two, they don't really want to publish vunerabilities. "Hey look we stopped a bomber today at XYZ that if he had succeeded would've shut the whole southern power grid down!"
    • thoolou, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@Icesabre

      "...they don't really want to publish vunerabilities."

      You obviously don't read the New York Times... ;)
    • jboeke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"They investigate what they can based on probabilities"

      52/105 = 49.5%

      If the weatherman told me there was a 49.5% chance of rain, I'd bring my umbrella.
  • polym3, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7All one has to witness is how the neocons and Bush attempted to take over America with laws and lies and any intelligent person can see why there was no action taken to prevent 9/11. The terror expert Richard Clarke advised the Bush administration, on coming to power, that the most important issue was Al Quida. His concern was ignored. If one just accepts what the media spouts and what the Bushies say, then forget it, no one can convince you!
    Viet Nam never had to happen. The research is available. Just do it!
    Now America is mired in the Middle East with very little chance of winning no matter what the politicians believe! Yes, we could have won in Viet Nam if America had of paved over the whole country as some had wanted to do.
    American politicians never took the time to understand what the leaders of Viet Nam really wanted. Research the real events leading up to the war.
    Now politicians have not looked at the issues underpinning the conflicts in the Middle East and it is more than just Israel against the Arab Muslim.
    Besides, you who are so sure that we should be in Iraq should join the military and go fight. You think you are too old. Well, National Guard soldiers as old as 60 are being killed leaving families fatherless and motherless. If they survive and are injured they come home to a veterans system that if dysfunctional and unable to care for the injured Veteran.
  • lulzfactory, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6argh...

    why do people always assume these attacks could have been prevented? it seems like a legitimate discussion of whether or not the attacks could have been prevented never really takes place. i admit i don't know enough about the details of the attack, airport security, or the politics involved to participate in that conversation, but you have to take these reports with a grain of salt. this is somewhat intriguing, but we should be asking questions other than who's to blame. what could have been done to prevent the attacks, *without the advantage of hindsight*? would increased security have prevented the attacks? mitigated the severity? what exactly does "increased security" entail?
    • redmyse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There is a Christian theologian named David Ray Griffin who has investigated this issue quit a bit and has a video where he discusses all the major myths about 9/11 and presents documented facts about the myths. He doesn't present any theories and he doesn't approach it from a religious point of view, just factual.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413&q=david+ray+griffin
    • generalinterest, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yeah, but he's a christian and from what I 've read here on DIGG and over at KOS, all christians are violent frothing killers who want to make me pray.
  • EonZ, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7It feels like we're living in the V for Vendetta story...where's V?
  • Yukimi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11this damn article is over 2 years old...
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9No story's too old to be reported on Digg if it bashes Republicans.
  • RealHyperX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Hindsight is always clear.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You really think so? You believe that you know more about the Bible and the time it was written than the people who wrote it?
  • bentl1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Due to Clinton, the transmittal of information was prevented. His oral sex in the Oval office made 9/11 possible. In his zeal to keep his lies secret, he had the communications between law enforcement agencies halted. So whatever info was available to prevent 9/11, was put aside. So thanks to "Our Dear Leader" Clinton, more than 3,000 people sacrificed themselves to hide another of his criminal actions. The Democratic Party was fully aware of what he was doing and is fully complicit. Odd that Bush haters never put the blame where it factually belongs: on Clinton and his supporters. He murdered almost a hundred people in Waco, allowed 9/11 to happen, has almost 150 mysterious deaths to some of his closest friends, took illegal money from the Chinese government, had countless military deaths to hide his criminal actions in various countries that had absolutely nothing to do with the security of the U.S., entered office with almost no money and left office a multi-millionaire, pardoned criminals for pay, perjured himself and was dis-barred, was a serial adulterer ... and the list is almost endless. This is exactly the kind of man who sell-out his country for his own gain. So when people asked why 9/11 happened, the only two things to know are: Osama and Clinton. An interesting thought for the future: Ms. Clinton as President and Osama's still alive ... will they work together again?
    Only an idiot wouldn't be afraid. Who do you think the terrorists would vote for if they could? Clinton or a Republican?
    • alittlebitmore, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8idiot
    • Burrito, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"Who do you think the terrorists would vote for if they could?"

      Your insane Clinton rambling aside, Bush's Iraq blunder has made terrorism a thriving business again with new recruits joining daily to come kill Americans. I'm gonna say they'd vote for Bush because no one will work harder to tarnish America's image as a good superpower and put American lives at risk for personal pride.
    • crzdmn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@alittlebitmor
      i second that....

      This guy is a complete idiot.
    • HigherLogic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I think it's so idiotic that it might be sarcasm...
  • bernieg1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11First we hear that Bush is an idiot who can't tie his own shoelaces, now the same voices are telling us that Bush orchestrated the greatest demolition in the world, duped 19 Arabs into taking the fall, made Bin Laden taunt us into attacking Afghanistan, convinced the entire free world (even the French) that Saddam had WMDs, and is the greatest dictator the world has ever seen. Rosie O'Donnel says we have lost all our freedoms all the while 99.999% of Americans go about their business not even realizing that they are slaves to Bush's whims. For an idiot Bush is sure a mad genius. I had no idea I was no longer free.
    • geoff1210, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4i wish those liberals would make up their minds... the conspiracy line? or the bush is stupid line? or the bush is a king line. really, he can't be a stupid evil genius king (or dictator)....
    • jboeke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Bush = Stupid
      Rove = Smart

      Bush Administration = Pure Evil
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The main reason I hate Truthers is because they derail any discussion wrt legitimate criticism against the administration with their insane conspiracy. That, and the fact that they're idiots who purposely ignore the mountains of evidence contradicting their pet theory, instead opting to latch on to tiny details, which they obsess about endlessly.
    • jboeke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@junkyard

      Tiny details... like... maybe.... Physics?

      http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Yeah, that's one of a mountain of nice examples of how Truthers ignore actual evidence to focus on details they have a hard time believing - EVEN when those details are known to be plausible. The "free fall" thing has been debunked over and over - and in any case, how do truthers really think it would work? By detonating explosives _in exact sequence_ _on every floor_?

      Next up: fire can't weaken steel girders! followed by Attas passport! followed by Dancing Israelis In The Street!
  • Burrito, on 10/12/2007, -4/+252? 52! Booster Gold is responsible for 9/11!
  • tekz0r, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Here's a simple solution:

    Stop being assholes to the rest of the world and maybe the rest of the world won't hate us enough to attack.

    OR

    Stop buying all those patents for alternative fuel solutions *cough exxon* and squelching any progress in moving us away from our "oil addiction" -- this way we can say good bye to the middle east, and go back to the way things used to be ... only better. (as in long before the skull and bones society was created at yale in the early 1900's and formed connections with the Saudi royal family-- but I digress. "speculation" only gets your ass dugg down)
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@tekzor

      "Stop being assholes to the rest of the world and maybe the rest of the world won't hate us enough to attack."

      I didn't realize that "being an *****" was an act of war that justified the murdering of 3,000 innocent civilians (plus the hundreds dead in the 7 previous Al Qaeda attacks on US interests). If a nation-state (which Al Qaeda is not) has a grievance that is justifiable by war, then it should declare war on us and not commit war crimes while doing so. (Of course you wouldn't know this, Tekzor, because you have such a simple mind, but intentionally targeting diplomats and civilians is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. So much for US being the assholes...)

      "Stop buying all those patents for alternative fuel solutions *cough exxon* and squelching any progress in moving us away from our "oil addiction".

      You're right -- speculation is what lazy and stupid people do. This is why your opinions cannot be taken seriously. Below is the link to search patents. I challenge you to find support for your ridiculous speculation.

      http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
    • thoolou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@ secondguesser

      That post was sublime...
  • badfishmedia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6This is ridiculous. It tells you they had warnings about it, but it doesn't tell you how they had warnings about 10,000 other possible security breaches that never happened. 9/11 took everyone by surprise. Hindsight is 20/20.
    • ericdano, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Seriously. Does anyone really REMEMBER what flying was like before 2001? I do. It was laxed. Big time. No one thought of an American flight being hijacked. That only happens over there. Not here.

      I'm sure we will see all the memos about the asteroid that will hit us and cause great destruction. People will blame whomever is president then as well.......
  • Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I wonder how many Diggs this story would have gotten on Feb. 11, 2005 -- which is the day that CNN published it. Oh, wait, that's BD - Before Digg.
  • KingVegas702, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1ONLY 52 TIMES? Jeez what are people thinking? thats just not nearly not enough.
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Out of perhaps thousands of threats each year? I hope you're not a gambling man, King Vegas.
    • jboeke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@secondguesser

      52/105 = 49.5% chance of terror

      I hope you ARE a gambling man. Poker at my place!
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Only 105 terrorist threats per year? Mosey on down to the section titled "Patterns of Global Terrorism". Not only were there more than 105 terrorist threats a year for the past 10 years, but there were actually more than 200 actual ATTACKS per year.

      http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror.htm

      I don't know where you're manufacturing your statistics, but you've got a quality control problem.
  • crzdmn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Being a new yorker and knowing that there are thousands of threats handled and processed each week why can't anyone just drop this. Do you really want to live in a country that takes each and every one of those threats as legit? Could you imagine what that would be like? No civil liberties, no travel, nothing the country would come to a stop.

    Now lets look at this and apply some intelligence to it. If there are 100 terrorist threats each week per year that is 5200 threats, if 1 comes true that means there is a .019% chance of the threat they are looking at happening. That means if on this scale 9/11 was mentioned 52 times you could almost say you had a 1% chance of that threat happening. Now use thousands a week and can you guess why they didn't think terrorists were going to perform a coordinated attacking involving multiple simultaneous airplane hijackings? Don't be dumb now, it's not that hard to realize.

    Get off their backs people, since then we've tried preventing terrorism by limiting public freedoms and civil libererties, something this country was founded on, we've stopped zero terrorist attacks (that the gov't is willing to prove were going to happen), invaded Iraq and murdered just as many innocent civilians as the terrorists have if not more.

    And one more thing, 9/11 is nothing compared to the years of terrorism and damage done in many other countries, so stop whining and crying like little girls.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Let me guess. You would vote for Giuliani, the same guy who went along with shipping the debris that could be analyzed and the remains of victims and firefighters as if it was landfill.
  • polym3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4bentl1; You can't prove any thing you wrote. It is either opinion or babble by those who would blame anyone but Bush. It was a Democratic president, Truman, who said "The Buck stops Here". Bush has blamed everyone but himself and his administration for the mess the United states is in today because of his incompetence. While governor of Texas he almost bankrupted the state. He avoided the Viet Nam war because of who he was and really didn't fulfill the requirements of service in the Texas Air National Guard. I served in Viet Nam and missed the Ia Drang valley battle by two weeks. Most of the politicians who planned the foray into the Middle East are chicken hawks. They didn't serve in the military. Most found a way to avoid Viet Nam. If they didn't serve they have no right to put soldiers into battle until they can show the war is just and for a legitimate reason. That would include Lyndon Johnson, Clinton, Bush and any other politician who doesn't know the horror of war. Sherman, in the Civil War, Dwight D. Eisenhower and other great leaders understand that "War is Hell". America must return to a culture that understands that no American soldier will ever face combat unless all the truth is known, all politics is taken from any discussion, and no corporation is allowed to profit from the war. Only then will America really "support the troops" Until then BRING THEM HOME NOW!
  • kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5What more could have been done?
    WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON
    WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON
    WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON
    WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON
    WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON
    WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON
    WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON
    WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON
    WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BILL CLINTON
  • jsffive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Why didn't the government do something about it?

    How about, because at that time the government was being run by a bunch of lazy neo-cons... they were expecting someone ELSE to do the work.

    Nothing's changed.
    • dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Because 911 was an inside job !
      wake up ...............................................

  • gazwilwah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Alex Jones predicted 911 two months before it happened."

    Ha! Nick Rockefeller predicted it a YEAR before It happened. He also predicted the war on terror.

    Funny how the police, the media etc.. have all decided not to investigate Aaron Russo's claims.
  • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The dude got an extremely high Civilian Award.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta#Secretary_of_Transportation
    Bottom of paragraph.
  • spawnfree, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7is it so hard to believe?
    both bin laden and Saddam work(ed) for the CIA.
    there is plenty of evidence to tie them together if you look around.
    and if you don't think the bush family are up to the neck with the CIA then you need to read more.
    The CIA have everything they need to set up something like 9/11,
    and all the agents working in government have to do is let it happen.

    W. Bush was 'upset' by the Hussein hanging, and with good reason.
    The organization he works for let that happen to one of its own, and it could happen to him if needed. He knows he is working for a very evil organization.
  • gazwilwah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Bush senior used to be In the CIA as did Cheney.
  • generalinterest, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3IF the reports had been acted on, all of you Moonbats would have been on a page similar to this one complaining about your rights being threatened. Face it, you just like to bitch and complain, no matter what happens. Grow the ***** up!
  • Blooooo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4In case it hasn't been said enough, hindsight is 20/20.

    Would you have known this in the airline's shoes?
  • nitrojunky24, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I have a good example of how broken the system really is I'm on a green card with a Swedish passport and live in the alright well when I got my new card they didn't say anything about sending the old card to them they just punched holes in it. well then there was a pol change so when I went through customs last time they told me I needed to return to some office in Texas so I did with certified mail got the thing back saying the received it. guess what? The next time I flew same exact thing happened got stopped was told never returned the old green card and I tell them I did mail it back!! will government ever become efficient? get caught in customs each time isn't only really annoying but a little nerve raking as well. one year some stupid computer kept flagging us for some extra identify potential risk search thing which was really annoying and completely useless thank god they killed that program! whoever wrote that program deserves to be fired!
    • generalinterest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The gov't is so efficent, let's put it in charge of healthcare!
  • DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The bigger an organization gets, the stupider and slower it gets. Though it's easy to point at a politician or a government agency that failed to address the threat, just remember that 19 Muslims killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11--not Clinton, not Bush, not the FAA, not the military. And after 9/11, millions of Muslims celebrated while America and the civilized world wept.

    Before you're a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, etc., remember that we're all Americans first and foremost.
  • CarpeFishem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5What was anyone supposed to do about it?

    Did we know what planes were going to be hijacked? No! Therefore, we should have stopped 9/11 by shutting down every flight in the country.

    Did we know when the hijack was going to take place? No! Therefor, we should have stopped 9/11 by shutting down every flight in the country indefinitely.
    • jboeke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2In light of an unprecedented number of warnings, was there an effort to beef up the Federal Air Marshal program? No! Therefore, Bush wanted his "New Pearl Harbor" to happen.
    • CarpeFishem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah, I bet people like you would have just LOOOOVED Pres. Bush telling the nation "We're going to put more men with guns on planes, because we fear for your safety," in a pre-9/11 world.
  • Disastermaster1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6And remember that 160 members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of our country after 9/11.http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_3664.shtml
  • yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6They were also warned 1000 times about stuff that never happened.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.