Skip to main content

The 9-11 Commission writes a report detailing security lapses in the runup to 9-11.
In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission [...]

The report takes the F.A.A. to task for failing to pursue domestic security measures that could conceivably have altered the events of Sept. 11, 2001, like toughening airport screening procedures for weapons or expanding the use of on-flight air marshals. The report, completed last August, said officials appeared more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays, and easing airlines' financial woes than deterring a terrorist attack.

The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months, officials said, much to the frustration of former commission members who say it provides a critical understanding of the failures of the civil aviation system. The administration provided both the classified report and a declassified, 120-page version to the National Archives two weeks ago and, even with heavy redactions in some areas, the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it.

Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time.

I wonder why the report's release was delayed for five months...

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:06 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  because five months ago... (none)
    Bush was running for election on his firmness with terrorists.

    Kos may be too tasteful to call it politically-motivated burial, but i'm not.

    ...teaching pigs to fly sing...

    by Leggy Starlitz on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:02:45 AM PST

    •  Duh. (none)
      We knew about this back before the election.

      Of course he was going to stall anything that would hurt his re-election chances.

      Can we do this up right, Gannon-style?

      And for god's sake, can we get any reporters on our side?

      The New Deal is dead. We're getting the Raw Deal, instead.

      by Ghidra99 on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:08:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gannonized (none)
        "9/11 commission leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. security. You've said you're going to reach out to these people. How are you going to work with people who seem not to have divorced themselves from reality?"
      •  We don't need no stinking reporters (none)
        the report has been released to the public.  it's available only on paper and only at NARA in D.C.  Direct call:  202-501-5320 [line will be busy for days].  No date for web post. [  ]

        Cost:  .50/page = $60 for 120 pages.  

      •   can we get any reporters on our side? (none)
        I do not think democracy mandates reporters to be on the 'left' or 'right' side of the issues, nor I'd think democrats need to emulate Fox News' very subjective and one sided reporting.

        We just need an independent media that provides us with the facts.


      •  Didn't the LA Times... (none)
        ... publish something regarding this report before the election? I remember something about them possibly having to file an FOIA request to get it because the government was not forthcoming about releasing it to the public at the time. I don't have time right now at work to research this, maybe someone here will remember reading this also.

        I also remember thinking at the time, that this would be too big for the administration to squelch... but they did. Silly me.



        by highacidity on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 12:12:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  now you know why they set up the commission (none)
      that paid off all the 9/11 families and discouraged lawsuits so fervently.9/11 was no suprise and the 9/11 commission was a whitewash.

      This guy is no longer my state senator Don't get mad ,get local

      by ctkeith on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:21:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  But bush (3.25)
    never got a blow job... Clinton was far worse.


    --jamie "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson

    by jamie ahmad on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:04:13 AM PST

    •  If a president has to prove ... (none)
      his manliness, I would infintely prefer that he gets a blow job rather than starts a war.
      •  Just Shows Yer Poor Reasoning (none)

        If President gets a BJ, only his joint gets oiled.

        If he starts a war, on the other hand, we all get oil.  And Poppy's Carlyle Group, and Rummy's Bechtel, and Dick's Halliburton all make zillions.

        Looks like war is much better than sex, I mean from their point of view.

        "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

        by proudtinfoilhat on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:30:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I Wonder... (none)
      ...if George and Laura still get it on..
      •  I heard... (none)
        George gets his blow jobs from

        How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison. - Al Gore

        by Aguas de Marco on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:17:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't Want to Go There (none)
        I don't like what this does to my imagination.
      •  Don't know if this is true, but it sure is funny (none)

        Thursday, January 27, 2005

        I'm in trouble with the Secretary of State. Yes, thats right. I've made fun of her in public by singing some ribald songs about her relationship with President Shrub. Who can forget her classic Freudian slip when she let slip out during and interview calling Dubya , "Her husband" Well she actually called me on the phone asking me very nicely not to mention to the media that we are related. She's already confirmed so i don't understand why it matters now. Who would ever figure out anyway that I'm a not so distant relative of Condi, even though we do look a little alike. But now that she has formally asked me to distance my family connection, I'm going to start talking about it non-stop. Up until now I've been rather nice about it, and black drag queens are rarely nice.

        So here it is, la familia "T" for all the world to know: Condolezi Rice is my cousin, and actually she's my first cousin. Until she got involved with the president she was basically a non sexual dyke. Wound too tight and way too brittle, more so than any brittle blonde i know. Thats why she's remained a lesbian virgen, but she is definitely bumping bush with Mr. Dub. Who I've heard from reliable sources doesn't have a very large penis but does have a giant mushroom headed knob. Both Diane "I Am a Man" Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were too lenient with Condi during the senate hearings, at least Babs challenged her, but not enough for it to count.

      •  Sure They Do! (none)

        Oh, wait, you mean with each other?

        But I think when W says "Don't forget Poland," he's thinking of his Yale roomie and rumoured Special Friend, Victor Ashe -- formerly, a regular visitor to the White House, who was appointed Ambassador to Poland (thus getting him out of the country during election season)!

        OK, maybe I'm wrong -- but W was a cheerleader, for chrissakes.

        "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

        by proudtinfoilhat on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:28:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why in the world did this get troll rated? (n/m) (none)

      Orwell is spinning in his grave

      by tlh lib on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:36:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If released several months later (none)
    The documents will be no longer current.  What do you call that?  Let's see, I believe that would be historical documents.

    He has oil. He tried to kill my daddy.

    by kensa on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:04:17 AM PST

  •  52 intelligence reports?!? (none)
    Fifty two?

    Fuckers. I could scream.

    This machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender.

    by RabidChild on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:04:30 AM PST

    •  The Administration Got Over 40 Notices (none)
      According to the earlier part of the report, "There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20 to September 10, 2001, that related to Bin Ladin."

      Most people don't realize that there were so many separate Osama warnings in the Presidential Daily Briefings.

      Spread it around.

    •  Imagine (none)
      how you'd feel if your loved one died that day...

      We're all just ants to these megalomaniacs.

  •  Please update post when you find out... (none)
    "...I wonder why the report's release was delayed for five months... "

    I would be most interested to learn official reasoning as well...

  •  52 Warnings (4.00)
    52 Warnings  52 Warnings  52 Warnings

    52 Warnings  52 Warnings  52 Warnings

    52 Warnings  52 Warnings  52 Warnings

    52 Warnings  52 Warnings  52 Warnings

    52 Warnings  52 Warnings  52 Warnings

    Ok...start up your LTE engines, and deluge the MSM. Start email forwrds to send to your entire email list. So what you can...make this the mantra.


    In the midst of life we are in debt, etc.

    by ablington on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:06:51 AM PST

    •  52 Warnings from WHOM?! (4.00)

       Someone on another thread asked this question.  It needs to get asked and asked and asked again!

       WHO WARNED THE F.A.A.???!!!

       The CIA?  The FBI?  Who?

       And, in tandem with the August 6, 2001, PDB, wtf is with Rice's "historical document" lie now, now that  we have this perspective, too?



      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." T.J.

      by BenGoshi on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:16:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not the question (none)
        Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time.

        The question is, if the FAA's own security had all this warning, why didn't the Bush administration (according to them) have the same kind of warning?  Also, if the 9/11 Commission was so scathing of the FAA, why weren't they as scathing of this Administration?

        •  1/2 the Question Answered. (none)

           First, thanks for that.

           Second, exactly what is the FAA's "Security Branch" ?  Do you know?  I don't.

           Is the FAA's "Security Branch" an office of intel officers who get phone-in "tips"?  If so, were all 52 reported warnings phone-in tips?  Were they traced?  Did these officers try to discover who the warnings were coming from and, if so, try to link the tipster to the terrorists?  Was the FBI or CIA called in to assist?  When?  By whom?  Were reports made?  If so, to whom were the reports sent?  When?  What follow-up was done?  Whose responsibility was it to head up an investigation, i.e., to follow-up and, if necessary, seek assistance from the FBI, CIA or NSA?  Who within the FAA makes the decisions to report such matters to other branches and / or seek their assistance, or, at least, guidance?

           All of the above is based on the scenario of just "phone-in" tips to an office.

           What if this "Security Branch" also receives reports FROM THE FBI or CIA???  What if this "Security Branch" passes on FBI- or CIA-generated "reports" to its (the "Security Branch's") higher-ups and FAA Admin decision-makers?  Does it "cc" other branches of Gov't?  What is the protocol?  What was the protocol during the Summer of 2001?  If the warnings were not FBI- or CIA-generated information, the what are the reasons for the FAA and its "Security Branch" NOT reporting these 52+ warnings to the FBI or CIA?  

           These are but a FRACTION of the questions -- just on the "lower end" of this thing -- that any (cough, gag, hack) "journalist" should be asking NOW!

           And I haven't even gotten into "What did Rice and Bush know and when did they know it" questions...


          "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." T.J.

          by BenGoshi on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:39:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah, now, there you go again (none)
            asking for those pesky specifics.  LOL.

            I believe this is one of the reasons the 9/11 Commission recommended having one person head up all these different intelligence organizations.  If I remember correctly, I think they said there are around 15 or 16 individual intelligence organizations.  The FAA must be one of them.  So, they could have their own people who got this information and gave it with the FAA, but  the FAA may never have shared it with anyone else (I'm just speculating here), just like the FBI and CIA never shared their info with each other.  What a mess.  Scary part is, I don't think it will ever be any better than it is now.  No one in charge of any of these groups wants to give up control.  Hell, has Bush even nominated anyone to take on this new position, recommended by the Commission?  I think he's just stalling and hoping everyone will forget he was forced to agree to most of the Commission's recommendations.

            •  The Abomination of it All . . . (none)

               In any, fairly "vanilla," routine, run-of-the-mill car accident case that ends up in litigation, you can be sure that the deposition each driver will last from 1-3 hours, plus or minus.  Was the light red or yellow?  How fast were you going?  Were you on any medication?  What  do you remember doing immediately before the accident occured?  Where did your car come to a rest?  Did you black out at any time?  What was the first thing you remember saying to the other driver?  Did you call the paramedics, or did someone else?  Do you know who called the ambulance?  . . .  Note that each one of those questions has at least a dozen follow-up questions, depending on the answer and that we haven't even gotten to the driver's driving history or "damages" (injuries, damage to the car, etc.). . .  And that's a pretty simple car accident.

               That each 9.11 Whitewash Commission Member had, what?, 15 minutes (???!!!!!) to ask questions of the likes of Rice and Bush in THE matter that shook America to its core and literally changed history like few other events in the past few thousand years is the pinnicle, the capstone, the highest-of-the-high tragi-comedies of all of our lives.


              "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." T.J.

              by BenGoshi on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:23:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I empathize with your indignation, Ben Goshi (none)
                and all I can say for consolation is that we will have to wait until Bush's term of office (his imperialistic grip on power) is over to get near the truth of 9/11. A new administration will declassify documents. (Bush admin has broken records with their fetish for classifying things.) Then Frontline will do an indepth PBS documentary on the catastrophe and the incompetence that allowed it to happen. Then Oliver Stone will make a movie and books will be written, or vice versa. While all this goes on, Bush will be happily cutting brush in Crawford and sharing BBQ's with Rove.

                Look how long it took for some truths to emerge about President John F. Kennedy's assassination. That Jim Garrison summation speech sure rings true today.

                To thine own self be true - W.S.

                by Agathena on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:20:17 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Traffic Court (none)
                  We witnessed a minor accident and while in traffic court a speeder contesting his ticket, questioned two police officers on their background and on their experience/training in photo-radar for 30 minutes!

                  strange days...

                  To thine own self be true - W.S.

                  by Agathena on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:27:19 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  30 minute cross examination . . . (none)

                     But, see, that was about something important, as opposed to getting to the bottom of the serial screw-ups that led to 9.11.  Now, are we clear?


                    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." T.J.

                    by BenGoshi on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:09:00 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  From today's NYT (4.00)
                To the Editor:

                The only thing more surreal than the fact that the Bush administration did not use available intelligence to save lives on 9/11 but did use incorrect intelligence to take innocent lives in the Iraq war would be that the American people have not held the Bush administration accountable for that.

                Scott Rose
                New York, Feb. 10, 2005

      •  Good question (none)
        do not know about each of the warnings but you can doodle 9/11 warnings and come up with a number, surely.  Hosni Mabarak stated that he had personally warned the administration within a week of the attack.  Mossad sent at least 3 warnings, the last one by a real human.
        It would take some time, but many warnings can (or could have been) traced. A Christian Science Monitor article mentioned warnings from at least 11 countries. That article was printed shortly after the Commission had adjourned.
        These warnings are no surprise.  The citizens who keep watch have known this since shortly after 9/11. It's just one of the crazy-making news coverups by the MSM.
        •  Agree completely about the MSM... (none)

           This is no "conspiracy" in the traditional, "smoke-filled room" sense of the word.  It's just the MSM Whores being lazy, having a narrative (Bush works 'hard' so whatchagonna do?  Condi plays the piano and "speaks Russian fluently" -- though no one's ever actually having a lengthy, in depth conversation in Russian), and not appreciating a bunch on "non-professionals" on the Internets telling them how to do their jobs!  The nerve!

           A conspiracy in plain sight, as it were.


          "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." T.J.

          by BenGoshi on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 03:22:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Doodle!!!? (none)
        some typos are a giggle.
  •  LIHOP (4.00)
    This adds credibility to the let-it-happen-on-purpose theories. We know PNAC called for a "new Pearl Harbor" as far back as 1996. We know the Bush Administration has been implementing the PNAC playbook. We know they've used 9/11 as an excuse to push all kinds of things, including the PATRIOT Act which was written prior to 9/11.

    Until we see the truth about what actually happened, the theory that they "stood down" on security efforts to allow a terrorist act to occur is as plausible as anything else. Ask yourself why Bush acted like a stunned animal in that classroom. Could it be the terrorist act they were waiting for was more severe than they expected? Prior to 9/11 the worst act of terrorism in the US was the "Christian terrorist" Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people.

    •  FInally ... (1.00)
      A post that at least tiptoes towards unpleasant questions. Did they know? Did they participate? Did they plan? One cannot escape the fact, fact, that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to be caused by an airliner. You can dance around it all you like, ignore it, wish it away, but that fact remains. It will not go away. That hole could not have been caused by an airliner with a 150 foot wing span. And airliners do not evaporate. (The queasiness you might feel in your gut as you read this is caused by the need to avoid being out of step. It is the force of conformism. It runs stron within all of us.)
      •  Okay, that's far enough... (2.66)
        One cannot escape the fact, fact, that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to be caused by an airliner. You can dance around it all you like, ignore it, wish it away, but that fact remains. It will not go away. That hole could not have been caused by an airliner with a 150 foot wing span. And airliners do not evaporate.

        I watched the damned 757 fly into the side of the building.

        I'm sick an tired of people telling me that I didn't see what I saw; that I didn't smell the sickening stench of burning Jet-A, steel, stone, wood, aluminum and flesh for three days until they put the fire out; that the Jews/Arabs/Israelis/CIA/USSS/DoD/KKK/etc. conspired with PNAC/NeoCons/NeoLibs/GOP/DNC/etc. to perpetrate the heinous, murderous acts of 9/11.

        The fact is that the Bush Administration downplayed the threat of islamic terrorism; they preferred to risk lives rather than profit margins; they ignored inconvenient warnings and they were unprepared to respond; ~25 men planned for 5 years to hijack 4-6 airliners and use them as missiles; lax airline security and visa policies that coddle Saudi Arabia helped them enter the country and board 4 airliners with relatively simple weapons. The rest is history.

        Oh, and if you don't want to take me at my word about seeing AA Flight 77 slam into the side of the Pentagon, ¼ mile from my apartment, you can read this:

        A voice of objective reason in the partisan sea of the U.S. National Security community.

        by mustang dvs on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:28:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  recently (none)
          a small commuter jet in Teeterboro, NJ skidded off the runway during takeoff, and crashed in a nearby building. Please google the web to find the photos. I have seen the photos of the Pentagon crash and have real difficulty understanding how a plane that large could have done so little damage. I take your word that you saw this happen, but here's what I want to ask:
          a) did you get enough of a view of the plane to see if anything was attached to it
          b) are you sure it was a 757
          c) do you think it's possible the plane did crash but that either it or the Pentago were loaded with explosives?
          d) how do you explain the fact that this plane was not shot down and that it left very little debris on the lawn or damage in the building?

          I am not doubting your claim; I'm just wondering if there might be other factors to help me undertsand these things. I remain agnostic (neutral) on this issue, but am curious.

          •  Okay... (none)
            Okay, I'll take it step by step:

            The plane that rolled into the warehouse in Teterboro, NJ was a Canadair CL-600, which has a V<sub>r</sub> of 140kts (takeoff speed in nominal conditions). Now, due to the fact that there is evidence that the pilots had locked up the brakes 1,000 feet before the end of the runway and engaged the thrust reversers, the plane was not traveling that fast when it impacted the warehouse, after running off the airport property and across a highway (assume at least 4,000-5,000 feet traveled since takeoff was aborted).

            The 757-200 that flew into the side of the Pentagon was traveling at somewhere between 450-500kts when it impacted the E-ring of wedge 1.

            CL-600 Challenger 600 maximum takeoff weight (MTOW): 40,000lbs
            757-200 MTOW: 225,000lbs

            Impact Structure
            The CL-600 impacted a traditional unreinforced brick-and-mortar wall, with results similar to what you'd expect if a car impacted at about 45mph. Theoretically, the structure would have failed sequentially, spreading the impact force out along a short period of time (tenths of a second).

            The 757 impacted a heavily-reinforced stone, steel and concrete structure designed to withstand a moderate bomb blast. Functionally, except in portions of the aircraft of extreme density (engines, landing gear, APUs) the deccelerative force of the impact would have occurred instantaneously  (millionths of seconds, at most).

            Now, I'm not going to do the math, but bear in mind that F=M(A) and that while the forces on the Pentagon and the aircraft were equal, the 757 had a significantly more fragile structure and less mass than the stone building. (Also bear in mind that other than the obvious damage - the collapse of the E-ring, the fire and the holes - the structural damage to the Pentagon was so significant that the entirety of wedge 1 was demolished and rebuilt.)

            Other points
            A) I'm not sure what you'd expect to see attached to an airliner, but no, all I saw was a Boeing 757 painted in American Airlines colors, zoom at extremely low altitude over Washington Boulevard (VA-27) and impact the side of the Pentagon;

            B) I'm an aviation buff -- there are only three Boeing jets with long fuselages and twin engines (757, 767, 777). If it wasn't a 757, then it was one of their larger jetliners. (And yes, you can differentiate a Boeing from a twinjet Airbus, mainly by the shape of the nose and the outline of the vertical tail.)

            C) No, I don't think there were any conventional explosives used. It wasn't a massive explosion -- it was a fireball. Yes, there's a difference. The impact resulted in immediate ignition of the jet fuel that had been turned into a vapor by the disintegration of the aircraft. Though it might have looked spectacularly powerful, there was relatively little concussive force associated with it. (The E-ring collapse occurred later in the day, due to the ensuing fires that burned until September 14th.)

            D) Had the 757 been "shot down" it wouldn't have flown horizontally into the Pentagon. Furthermore, the two F-16's from Langley AFB didn't arrive until about 10 minutes after the impact (trust me, I remember that -- the sound of another pair of jet engines being throttled all the way up made everyone freeze in their tracks in terror until we saw that it was two USAF fighters.)

            The lack of debris on the "lawn" was mainly due to the fact that the plane impacted the building and not the ground in front of it. The Pentagon is much bigger than it appears -- the windows are deceptively large -- keep in mind that the building is 921ft on a side and nearly 80ft tall. It's a much easier target to hit than one would suspect, especially given the fact that pre-9/11, it was largely surrounded by flat, open spaces.

            A voice of objective reason in the partisan sea of the U.S. National Security community.

            by mustang dvs on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:28:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  thanks (none)
              for your comments. All good points. Was not aware you were an aviation buff from your original post, and it's clear you've thought about this before, which is good. I am not being snarky here, so one last question: have you also looked into the other issues around 9/11, particularly the WTC collapse? Just curious. I really am one of those people who has no agenda on this, but am open to learning more. Your post has dissuaded me from many of the Pentagon things I've read, but then again I'm not an expert. But thanks for this.
              •  No problem... (none)
                Gnat -- I've never made a point of detailing a whole lot of my personal life on the web. It's more or less an attempt to keep my personal political opinions separate from my professional life, in effect making harder for anyone to allege that my professional judgments are in any way influenced by my personal views (they're not, but people will stop at practically nothing to discredit you, even if you're right, if you happen to take a stance that opposes their interests).

                As for the WTC collapse -- I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. I've seen the engineering recreations on the Discovery Channel/TLC and PBS' Nova, as well as the extensive reports in The New York Times.  All of the data seemed pretty kosher to me -- the heat from the fires causing the trusses to bow, shifting the weight of the upper floors disproportionately to the outer walls, which were already bearing more than their design load due to the damaged sections. Once one or two of the floors above the damage gave way, the entire structure pancaked rapidly, collapsing first on the outside and then the center core. (Basically, the design revolution that made the WTC possible: a load-bearing outer structure was its Achilles heel when it was damaged and on fire.)

                A voice of objective reason in the partisan sea of the U.S. National Security community.

                by mustang dvs on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:20:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  aluminium (none)

   lightweight. It is the main construction material of aircraft. It has very little impact energy. The Pentagon, by contrast, is a building built by the military, with self-protection in mind (that's why the most sensitive stuff happens in the middle-most ring).

            Particularly, aircraft wings aren't solid blocks - they're hollow. This is where the fuel tanks are. They have very little momentum, and don't punch holes in solid walls very well. The main momentum, the stuff that could punch through a building wall, would be in the main body, the fuselage. The hole in the Pentagon wall was about the size I'd expect from an airliner fuselage.

            As to why there was so little visible debris, try this experiment. Try this next time you're camping and have an empty aluminium can (many beverages are sold in cans of this type). Place the empty can in the fire. Notice what happens after a couple minutes. Melts, doesn't it? Notice how much smaller the melted aluminium appears; there are no more air spaces in it.

            Now note that a wood fire is cooler than a jet fuel fire. I'd guess that the aluminium melted pretty quickly that day.

            I'm not saying it couldn't have happened the way you describe (hoax, bomb truck, etc). I'm saying the evidence you've cited, and the evidence I've seen, doesn't support this view; it does nothing at all to exclude the likelihood that it was indeed exactly what thousands of people say they saw. A little skeptical thought is a good thing, but try to learn where the brake pedal is before you drive that mental car.

            "Why, a child of five could figure this out! Someone fetch me a child of five." -Groucho Marx

            by kiwifruit on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:30:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  raygungnu (none)
          raygungnu, why did you mark my comment a Troll?

          I'm just curious...

          A voice of objective reason in the partisan sea of the U.S. National Security community.

          by mustang dvs on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:24:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  A conspiracy theory (none)
          is nothing more than something that contradicts official truth. People are afraid of them because they make one stand out in a crowd. Ridicule follows. People work hard to keep their opinions reasonable, nondisagreeable, and in step with the crowd. People who spout conspiracy theories generally have little to lose. People who march in the parade often have alot to lose. Some people just like to run with the crowd. Ah Humans - what a sorry lot we are. Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the facts and circumstances surrounding 9/11. We'll know more over time, but to think that we got a full explanation, and that we got it within days of the event (including the names of the perps!) from people who couldn't find the anthrax man is absurd. More to learn. Experts are as much afraid of ridicule as anyone. More to learn.
      •  Oh please (none)
        Thousands of people saw the plane hit the Pentagon that day.  Stop it with this "the hole was too small for an airliner" crap.

        Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

        by bogdanmi on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:30:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  oh please (none)
          the gov would never lie.

          Whenever someone is too dismissive of something like this, my radar goes up: let's be open-minded, it's for the good of the country. If you want to argue with facts, do so, but there are a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11: for instance millions of people saw the planes hit the WTC but that does not mean the planes caused the buildings to fall (or WTC 7 to fall, not even struck).  

          •  Umm, wait. (none)
            No, the impact of the planes did not cause the towers to collapse immediately. According to what I have read and seen, the fire from the jet fuel that was on the planes weakened the structure which then collapsed.

            It reminds me of an old WWII movie where they blow a dam. They set the charges and when it went off, everyone but the demolitions expert thought it was a failure who said "wait for it". After a period of time, the dam burst, from the water pressure on a weakened structure.

            I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. -Voltaire

            by baracon on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:07:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  a lot of very intelligent (none)
              people have raised questions that the jet fuel could have actually melted the steel, and furthermore have raised questions about the one bulding WTC 7 that was not hit all but nevertheless collapsed neatly on its own footprint. Additionally, there was a seismograph reading just as the planes struck that indicates the buildings were in fact detonated upon impact. Marvin Bush was head of security. 9/10 had major suspicious trades (put options on United, etc). Mayor Brown of SF received a phone call 8 hours prior to the attack warning him not to fly to SF. Ashcroft begins flying a private jet a few months prior. On 9/11 Goss and Graham are meeting with head of Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) who was reported as having wired $100k to Atta himself. Atta trained at a known CIA flight school, and likely at a military flight school. These were professional pilots, particularly the one into the Pentagon. No names of the terrorists on the flight manifests. Atta's girlfriend claims he spoke numerous languages, had a pilot's license prior to arriving in the US. I could go on and on and on, unfortunately, and this is just what I remember of all I've read. And gues what? I'm still AGNOSTIC but I know that there are a lot of unanswered questions. A lot.
              •  I was in downtown DC that day (none)
                You can go on and on with your government conspiracy theories.  I will not dispute them.

                However, anyone who thinks that something else happened at the Pentagon other than AA 77 hitting it is a complete and utter nutjob.

                Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

                by bogdanmi on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:43:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I have no (none)
                  conspiracy theories.
                  None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

                  Unlike Bush, I am not a nutjob.

                  Remeber, the government claims 9/11 WAS A CONSPIRACY.

                  All I have is questions. That is all I have:

                  1) Who flew the plane so well into the Pentagon
                  that it may (may!) have been an experienced pilot?

                  1. If one is going to bother to fly a plane into the Pentagon, why fly into the one section that was under repair?
                  2. You were in DC. You saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Do you know for a FACT what kind of plane and which plane? Just asking.
                  3. Why so little debris, no fuselage, etc?
                  4. The Pentagon is protected airspace; they had even planned before for a plane crash into the Pentagon. How come this plane was not shot down or at least shot at? Just asking.
                  •  Didn't see the impact (none)
                    You were in DC. You saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Do you know for a FACT what kind of plane and which plane? Just asking.

                    Nope, didn't see the impact.  Saw the smoke cloud as I ran (yes ran!) to meet my wife on the National Mall of all places.  A good scary 15-20 minutes where we thought other planes were inbound.

                    You're really getting off topic here.

                    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

                    by bogdanmi on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 12:37:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  NIST investigation (none)
                a lot of very intelligent people have raised questions that the jet fuel could have actually melted the steel,
                Not to let facts get in the way of this discussion, but you might want to download and read the NIST investigation reports on these subjects.  The American Society of Civil Engineers has a similar page.  Their findings are fully consistent with everything I have experienced in industrial engineering and construction, and consistent with the experience of a good friend who is an insurance company lawyer.

                Hey, but let's stay "open minded".


                •  Why (none)
                  do you put "open minded" in quotation marks?

                  Thanks for the link. Does it discuss the WTC 7 building (that's the 47 story building that was not hit by any plane but nevertheless collapsed)? Again, hard as this may be for you to believe, I have no agenda and have not made up my mind, but it does seem just a wee bit curious that a building that big would collapse without being hit, but presumably only from fire. That's all.

                  •  I put "open minded" in quotes (none)
                    I put "open minded" in quotes because there is tons of solid information available with very little effort that lays these conspiracy theories to rest in detail.

                    Here for example is one of the WTC 7 reports available on the web.  Due to the location of the building the exact sequence of events will never be known, but it is clear that pretty much every tenant in that building was maintaing their own emergency diesel generator and their own fuel tank, and that there were more than 75,000 gallons of diesel fuel in various locations around the building.  A rain of girders from WTC 1 and 2 hit WTC 7 during the collapse - it doesn't take much imagination to figure out what happened next.

                    The American Society of Civil Engineers' WTC page lists numerous organizations which have contributed to these investigations; go to their sites, search on WTC, download the PDFs, and start reading.


                    •  perhaps perhaps (none)
                      but I know from the JFK thing and a lot more that one can often find good arguments on either side of these types of things. You seem to say that all the 9/11 arguments are flimsy, but the problem is that 9/11 was not exactly your typical disaster scenario: so if it was faulty construction or diesel fuel tanks then perhaps these guys knew they were hitting something that would react this way. I have actually been to the links you site; I'm not a civil engineer, and I do not intend to make this my life's hobby. My final question, again no snark: is there any aspect of what you've seen that raises any doubts at all? Anything, no matter how small?
                      •  Why say you that? (none)
                        You seem to say that all the 9/11 arguments are flimsy, but the problem is that 9/11 was not exactly your typical disaster scenario:
                        9/11 was exactly like every disaster I have been involved in (some fairly big ones) or read about - a very messy, very confusing set of circumstances involving human failure, mechanical failure, and what we now know of as systems failure in a bewildering combination of cascading collapse - figurative and literal.

                        If you want a less emotionally charged example (today anyway) read some accounts of the Titanic disaster:  start with Walter Lord's, then read the US Senate investigation and the British Maritime Commission investigation.  There were 3000 opportunites to avert that failure and to mitigate it once it had started, yet all of them were missed.

                        Nothing that I have read in any of the WTC reports contradicts what I have seen in my heavy industrial engineering experience.


                        •  when was the last time (none)
                          two large commercial aircraft were flown directly into two of the tallest skyscrapers in the world? 9/11 was a unique disaster in many ways, not least of which that two buildings meant to withstand plane crashes collapsed (and collapsed remarkably evenly upon their "footprints") and a third building not hit also collapsed.

                          If you can find a similar scenario (Titanic hardly qualifies) to 9/11, please let us know.

                          •  asdf (none)
                            Your knowledge of large-scale engineering and construction, and the history of disasters, would seem to be a bit sub-optimal.  

                            There is no documented evidence that the WTC I and II buildings were "designed" to withstand an airliner crash.  When Jane Jacobs' anti-WTC protest group ran an ad claiming that an airliner strike was a possiblity in 1969, the architect gave an offhand remark that the building could handle it, but neither he nor the engineering authority ever did any calculations to that effect.

                            The collapse mechanism of WTC I and II was predicted exactly in an interview I read with an engineer from Controlled Demolitions in 1994 or so.  He predicted that when the time came to dismantle buildings of that type they would be imploded as that would be the only cost-effective method, and that contrary to what one would think intuitively that they would fall straight down.  Simple energy balance and inertia calculations confirm this.

                            The point of my previous comments was, how do systems react under stress/disaster situations, and was 9/11 unique in this regard?  The Titanic accident killed 1500 vs. 3200 at WTC, and was a systems failure that wasn't fully understood until samples of the hull were analyzed with 1990s techniques.  But that doesn't matter as any example I give you will claim is not equivalent.


      •  Is this garbage still floating around? (none)
        One cannot escape the fact, fact, that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to be caused by an airliner. You can dance around it all you like, ignore it, wish it away, but that fact remains. It will not go away. That hole could not have been caused by an airliner with a 150 foot wing span.
        The damage to the Pentagon was perfectly consistent with dozens of high speed crashes of large airliners as documented (with photos) in the Air Disasters series.  An airliner is very similar in design to an egg - try crushing an egg in the palm of your hand.  Then tap it on a sharp edge.  Where did the big strong egg go?

        I really wish you guys would give this up.


    •  I am still in denial about or struggling with (none)
      the possibility that even these scumbags could be low enough to let 9/11 happen on purpose. That's quite a bombshell and I'd have to see more evidence before I could believe that.

      Still, the PNAC document certainly raises a suspicion. And this additional information on the 52 Al Qaida warnings doesn't make it look any better.

      What keeps running through my mind, and this is complete, unscientific conjecture, is that if they did know (or just strongly suspect) that an Al Qaida attack was imminent, it might finally explain why Bush didn't get up right away from that classroom.

      And, as you said, perhpas his stunned response was not because an attack happened, but because it was unexpectedly severe.

    •  Sadly, my tinfoil hat is fitting better (none)

      I'm a New Yorker.  I work about 6 blocks away from the attack.  I was gazing at the first tower burn when the second plane flew overhead.  I turned my head, afraid to watch the impact.  I'll never forget that sound.  

      In the weeks and months following 9/11, I rejected completely the notion that our government could have allowed this to happen.  I was willing to accept negligence as an explanation, but nothing more sinister than that.  It was simply too horrible to imagine.  

      I've fought with conspiracy-minded friends and relatives about this.  Sure, I'd argue, Bush is an idiot, but allowing something like this to happen could only be the work of the most evil force our nation has ever confronted.  After watching these thugs do severe damage to everything this republic is supposed to stand for, I think I'm actually more comfortable believing that they were complicit in their refusal to prevent this.  

      As you say, this may very well have been more severe than they expected, hence the Presidential pause in the classroom.  But I'm pretty committed to the idea that they wanted a wartime president, and all of the powers and popularity that it would bestow.


      "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us." - former Texas Governor Miriam Ferguson, on barring foreign language teaching

      by JT88 on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:18:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your report is very moving (none)
        I can't accept prior knowledge on the part of the Bush admin. Their attention as we know was on missile defense. Their determination was to be anything but Clintonesque. They may not have cared about terrorist warnings, presuming that they were aware of them but they could not have known that 9/11 was about to happen.

        The fact that they have exploited and profited politically from the effects of 9/11 to the nth degree does prove prior knowledge and collusion.

        To thine own self be true - W.S.

        by Agathena on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:36:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Freudian slip (none)
          I meant DOES NOT PROVE.

          Further to the above comment. If the administration had paid attention to the 52 warnings, yes they would have known 9/11 was about to happen.

          To thine own self be true - W.S.

          by Agathena on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:39:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did the administration recieve the 52 warnings? (none)
            It comes back to who knew what and when.

            I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. -Voltaire

            by baracon on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:10:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Depends what you mean by 'receive' (none)
              We receive a lot of mail, but some of it goes into the recycling bin, unread.

              They were not paying attention in spite of warnings from the previous administration and from foreign governments. They didn't even heed the warnings to watch for warnings.

              To thine own self be true - W.S.

              by Agathena on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:15:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Why Let It Happen? (none)
      Bin Laden said it himself: Al-Qaeda didn't expect it to be so successful (successful catastrophe?).  I'm sure the neocons didn't either.  I remember seeing the picture of the plane that flew into the Empire State Building in the 40's.  Dramatic, but not a huge loss of life.  Everyone "knew" that the WTC towers were built to withstand a plane...OK, a 707, but still.  The Bushies could allow planes to hit the WTC towers, dramatic, not huge loss of life, but get exactly what they wanted: an excuse to launch against Iraq.
      •  Go Back and Watch (none)

        the supposed "Osama Boasting of 9-11" video if it's online somewhere.

        The actor playing "Osama" looked very little like Osama to me.

        "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

        by proudtinfoilhat on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:25:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  How long are we supposed to just... (none)
    How long are we supposed to just take this crap?

    How long?

    I'm really becoming dissolutioned.  

    Between an utter farce of a "free press", and now the fact that our administration cares so little for the people they don't even think we deserve the truth...

    Where do we go from here?

    •  "dissolutioned" I like that. (none)
      Yeah, what to do? Make loud noises ...

      Disillusioned? Not I.

      I'll wish that upon the enchanted Bushoisie.

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:18:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Because then (none)
    We couldn't handle the truth - Strauss.
  •  At the Dark Heart of Neo-Conism (none)

      At the Dark Heart of Neo-Conism is this:

                  Cronies Before Party  

                  Party Before Country

      All power, all efforts are always bent in the direction of keeping to these iron doctrines.  Certainly compromises are occassionally made (think of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact) and a step may be taken back with the goal of using that to later take two steps forward, but the Rule remains in place and the Oligarchs, Plutocrats and Theocrats who form the Core of this Effing Sinister Cancer on the face of American (and the World) always, ALWAYS keep their dream of total Domination in their sites.  Always.

     To take this stuff for granted, or to pretend that it's simply not the case, or imagine the threat to be overblown is to act as a helpmate for Neo-Conism.



    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." T.J.

    by BenGoshi on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:11:27 AM PST

  •  Further Confirmation... (none)
    ... of what we all knew already: the Bush Administration was at best asleep at the wheel regarding terrorism, and at worst allowed an attack to occur so they could fulfill their PNAC goals. They had warning after warning after warning and did nothing.

    And yesterday there was this headline:

    (CNN) -- Nearly two-thirds of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the war on terrorism, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday.


    "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government" - Teddy Roosevelt

    by mrboma on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:11:59 AM PST

    •  Now, remember (4.00)
      we have to take the Gallup Poll with a grain of salt, since it seems they invariably quetion more republicans than democrats.  After reading the stats on some of the polls they did during the election, I can't really take their polls seriously.
  •  What a surprise (4.00)
    Golly gee, imagine that something that may have been damaging to Bush, etc comes out now, when it makes no difference.

    Can't wait for the CIA report.  Wait, with Goss the head of that, if we do get it, it will probably have several names blacked out.

    Also, on the report on the oil-for-food scandal, I am sure we will eventually find out the names of the US companies that were involved. Like in 2020 or something.

    My only surprise is that this didn't come out on a Friday.

    This is an administration that is in many ways sociopathic in personality.  The only thing that matters is its retaining of power, and the common man be damned.

    I personally hope that noone is actually accused of anything until after the Deomcrat (whomever it may be) takes office in 2009.

    Darn, I just remembered, Bush can pardon people for crimes not yet specified.  Although he can't pardon himself.

    Bush, so incompetent, he can't even do the wrong things right.

    by JAPA21 on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:12:18 AM PST

    •  investigations (none)
      but if by some weird and fortuitous turn of events the dems could take back the senate in 06--- i know, i know this is a long shot--the investigations could start in 07 and be going full tilt for the 08 elections...
    •  I Kinda Expected . . . (none)

      . . . this would come out on, say, Good Friday, about 5 PM.

      I guess whoever botched the schedule will (in the famous phrase of Hauptsturmfuehrer Karl Rove) "be FUCKED like they've never been FUCKED before"!

      Maybe they'll get a ride in Rummy's little white jet to some foreign land, where they can be interrogated properly.

      Why aren't these motherfuckers in jail?

      "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

      by proudtinfoilhat on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:55:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  9-11 Commission (none)
    so all that time we all spent watching the hearings, listening to condi talk about how no one could have ever imagined...blah,blah...seeing that smuck guiliani promote himself...all this was a big waste of time...the bushies were about getting ronnie's star wars scam back up and running full tilt and were simply abdicating their anti-terrorism responsibilities before the attack...and the airlines and faa were all about the $$ bottom line...well at least there is no more reason to debate whether or not bushco could have prevented the huge loss of life, obviously they could have...
  •  I Agree With Salon (none)
    ...when they say that the release of this info coincides with Condi being nominated for Sec. of State.

    They didn't want to give the "impugners" more ammo.

  •  Just in time (none)
    for confirmations to get over with...Condi can't look good in all this.
  •  Gannon's role (none)
    Any chance Olberman or somebody else can ring up questions "Jeff Gannon" asked on this topic?
  •  doesn't anyone catch the blame-shifting here? (4.00)
    this excerpt blames AVIATION OFFICIALS for not doing anything.  subtlely, but clearly.

    No matter how cynical you become ... you can never keep up.

    by LegalSpice on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:15:23 AM PST

    •  as in (none)
      they're saying it was not Bush who was at fault, it was "those bobos at FAA" or wherever.

      No matter how cynical you become ... you can never keep up.

      by LegalSpice on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:22:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's the FAA's fault! (none)
      The famed FAA intelligence-gathering unit really fell down on this one...oops, that's right, they don't have one.  Geez...go out on the street, ask the first ten people you see what their take is on this.  Three will look at you blankly, three will say the FAA really screwed up and four will say, "Clinton got a blowjob".  

      Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

      by Barbara Morrill on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:36:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You don't go to war with the FAA you want... (none)
      You go to war with the FAA you have.
    •  Right. (none)
      I noticed that, too.

      Where did the FAA get their warnings from? Can I presume that they also warned the government? Since when is the FAA responsible with national security?

      I am a reform Democrat.

      by thinkdouble on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:02:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  and, in regard to blame-shifting... (none)
      this excerpt blames AVIATION OFFICIALS for not doing anything.  subtlely, but clearly.

      Note who the Secretary of Transportation was at the time: Norm Mineta, a Democrat. How soon will it be before we hear the right-wing echo machine use this to further the meme of "you can't trust Democrats with national security"?

  •  THESE PEOPLE (none)
    These people continually say they LOVE their country. What a BUNCH OF BULLSHIT. They continually show over and OVER again that they are more devoted to whats best for their party then what is best for the country. In this case, like many times before, is just plain simple truth put forth to the citizens of this country.

     Love their country? BULLSHIT

  •  Old news, nothing to see here ... (none)
    ...Americans, move along, the Michael Jackson trial is just around the corner, real news.
    •  Yes, Politics Must Compete With Entertainment (none)
      This has always been true, but now -- in our media-saturated culture that increasing demands instant gratification -- this has become a crisis.

      I've been thinking over the past few weeks that political blogs, being so durned ADDICTIVE, have a wonderful entertainment value as well as instructional, motivational, and (as we now see) investigative value, and I really think we are seeing the birth of a new "virtual" force in politics.  

      So, yes, we must face unflinchingly the fact that the Average Joe will tune out on 9/11 revelations in favor of the salacious details of the Michael Jackson trial (and the breathless anticipation of wondering whether Geraldo Rivera will REALLY shave his mustache if MJ is convicted), and then keep moving FORWARD!

      Fuzzy only works for pets.

      by NotFuzzy on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:35:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If I had a daughter (none)
      I'd be keeping her locked up in the house for a while. It's about time for a missing white girl with new reports every twenty minutes about how there's nothing new to report.
  •  I had a student in one of my classes (none)
    who was killed in the attack.

    I live close to NYC. Parents of childrens' schoolmates died in the attack.

    What to say to them when the wound is ripped open again like this?

    When those who were supposed to protect you betrayed you? Either by their incompetence or complicity. Or both.

    I've been pulling off the charade of pretending to be neighborly with those who support Bush.

    After the Gannon high - hey! maybe we can do something - this is so utterly depressing.

    I think I want to live in a hut in the woods.

    •  asdf (none)
      you hit the nail on the head -- I posted at the same time as you. I guess I'm so angry and sad and literally weeping at my desk because it rips that wound open again. For all of us, not just NYers (I'm on 17th st as I write).
    •  people have been saying (none)
      the 9/11 commision was a whitewash for some time.

      Read the book

      9/11 Commission: Ommisions and Ditortions by David Ray Griffin

      and do some research on the web.

      And never ever again use the phrase "conspiracy" as a negative: they sold us a "conspiracy theory" immediately after 9/11: that 19 guys with boxcutters were responsible. The Pentagaon "attack" is the most suspicious: it's the most protected airspace IN THE WORLD.

  •  I'm sorry (none)
    this just makes me cry. i'm so angry and sad. what monsters these people are.
  •  kos- Don't forget N. Korea! (none)

    "It's better to realize you're a swan than to live life as a disgruntled duck."

    by Mumon on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:29:32 AM PST

  •  Impeccable timing... (none)
    I would be too tinfoily to admit the curious timing of this relative to PropaGannon...
  •  What's a redaction? (none)
    It is not in my office dictionary. I think it means rewrite or a cut, but I'm not sure.
  •  Truth and accountability (none)

    As a New Yorker, I say the only "healing" balm is one part TRUTH plus one part ACCOUNTABILITY.

    Until all of the perpetrators are brough to justice, there cannot be any genuine healing.  We can be narcotized, sedated, I guess, which is what has happened until now, but only real justice can fix this.

    "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

    by proudtinfoilhat on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:34:41 AM PST

    •  Very, very well said. (none)
      I am 44 and remember Watergate. What happened was ugly, but in the end, the truth came out and there was a reckoning of accountability. Only then, were we free to move on.

      This must happen again. With Bush. It starts today. Now. With us: Democrats. With us: bloggers. We must gather the facts and demand, in every way, a reckoning of responsibility. And, no, Mr. Rove, we won't be silenced by "you don't love America, you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy when you criticize Bush."

      Only when the people who failed us, lied to us, are identified, held to justice, are out of office, possibly in jail, will the souls of those who died on 9/11 rest in peace. They deserve that. The dead need us to do that for them. The widows and orphans, the greiving parents, the people who are now ill from cleaning up Ground Zero.

      We must do this. It's on our souls if we do not.

      •  Not sure Watergate (none)
        reckoning or truth ever occurred: the truth may have been much more explosive than just a botched burglary and Nixon paranoia. Consider:

        a) on the Nixon tapes Nixon is heard referring to E. Howard's Hunt presence at Watergate as potentially dredging up all that "Bay of Pigs" stuff, and Haldeman interpreted that Nixon meant by Bay of Pigs the "JFK assassination stuff" (Hunt may have been involved, and if you want to read a really infuriating interview read the on ethat Slate did with Hunt last October)
        b) on the Nixon tapes Nixon refers to the Warren Commission as a hoax (or fraud, exact words are on the web somewhere)
        c) Nixon was in Dallas for a PepsiCola meeting the day JFK was killed, and gave three contradictory alibis on his whereabouts and timing of his return flight to NYC that day.
        d) The Riggs Bank recenly paid $16 million in an investigation into its CIA ties, and especially the payemnts made to Pinochet during Nixon's tenure

        So there may be MUCH more about Watergate that was revealed.

  •  Mohammed Atta (none)
    used his credit card in his own name to purchase airline tickets. All the FAA had to do was to get all US Airlines to red flag all credit card holders on the suspect list.

    Credit card companies have no problem red flagging credit cards that are lost or stolen.

    To thine own self be true - W.S.

    by Agathena on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:41:26 AM PST

    •  Much easier than that (none)
      The reason the pilots gave up the cockpit was because that was standard procedure based on the assumption that highjackers would redirect the airplane, land, and make demands using the passengers and crew as hostages. If the FAA had simply notified pilots that highjackers were likely to commandeer the aircraft and commit suicide crashing it, and advising them to lock the cockpit door and defend it, the whole plot would have been foiled. One letter of advice, that's alll it would have taken.

      Pithecanthropus "If I pay a man enough money to buy my car, he'll buy my car." Henry Ford

      by johnmorris on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:30:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, but screening to prevent (none)
        terrorists from getting on the planes in the first place is much better. It would not have been that difficult. Suspects who were on the FBI watch list were allowed to board airplanes! That's incredible to me.

        To thine own self be true - W.S.

        by Agathena on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:03:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Last Year I Wrote a Letter to WaPo (4.00)
    It wasn't printed, of course, but I'm thinking I should dust it off,u pdate it with this new information, and try again, or maybe find an alternative forum.  Or maybe you all can steal as much of it as you want for your own uses in writing letters to editors or to congressmen.  As the footer says: "steal what you want."  

    Washington Post
    1150 15th Street, N.w.
    Washington, D.C.  10071

    Dear Editor:

        Here is what everyone one now knows, quoting from your April 12, 2004 front page article entitled "Memo Not Specific Enough, Bush Says": As of August 6, 2004, Bush was informed "that the FBI had information that al Qaeda operatives had been in the United States for years, that they might be planning a hijacking in the United States and targeting a building in Lower Manhattan, that the FBI had 70 investigations underway related to bin Laden, and that a caller to a U.S. embassy in May 2001 said a group of bin Laden supporters were in the United States planning attacks with explosives."  Bush says this warning was insufficiently "specific" to warrant any action, and that he relied on "the responsibility of the FBI and the CIA to investigate any threats" and report back to him.  

        Is this the reaction we want from a leader after reading a memo entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S."?  Imagine this -- instead of just being "satisfied that some of the matters were being looked into" by the FBI and the CIA, and that they would report any "actionable intelligence" to him, what if Bush had said:

        "Something is clearly brewing and we need to find out what it is.  I want the FBI and the CIA to make this a top priority.  I want them to coordinate with the NSA and for everyone to share information.  I want the FAA and the INS alerted, and I want information gathered from all the 70 field teams working on Al Qaeda and from any CIA operative or FBI field office that has dealt with Al Qaeda issues or potential hijacking threats over the past two years."

        If that had been the presidential directive, maybe the FBI would have figured out that Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, two of the hijackers aboard the plane that hit the Pentagon, and who had already come to the attention of NSA, were already in the country, and that Alhazmi was taking flight lessons in San Diego, as reported in the Post's 4/4/04 article entitled "9/11 Panel to Examine Agencies' Failure to Share Intelligence ".  If so, maybe the San Diego FBI agent who subsequently told the joint House-Senate intelligence committee: "I'm sure we could have located them and we could have done it within a few days," would have been ordered to do so.

        Maybe the "Phoenix Memo", written by an FBI agent in Arizona on July 10, 2001, about possible al Qaeda agents taking flight training, wouldn't have been lost in the bureaucracy,  as reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence website (September 24, 2002, supplemented October 17,2002), but would have become a focal point for urgent investigation.  

        Maybe the fact that Zacarias Moussaoui had been arrested in Minnesota after behaving suspiciously at a flight training school would have rung alarm bells.  And maybe FBI headquarters would have taken seriously an August 18th memorandum from the Minneapolis FBI office, stating that, based on Moussaoui's "possession of weapons and his preparation through physical training for violent confrontation," Minneapolis had reason to believe that Moussaoui, al-Attas "and others yet unknown" were conspiring to seize control of an airplane, or a follow-up email stating: "[It's] imperative that the [U.S. Secret Service] be apprised of this threat potential indicated by the evidence... If [Moussaoui] seizes an aircraft flying from Heathrow to NYC, it will have the fuel on board to reach DC." Senate Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02.

        Maybe the two Arabic messages intercepted by  the NSA on September 10, 2001, stating "The match is about to begin" and "Tomorrow is zero hour", as reported by Reuters on September 9, 2002, would have been translated prior to September 12, 2001.

        And maybe all this information, in connection with all the other investigations that would certainly have been undertaken if an appropriate Presidential directive had been undertaken since August 6, 2001, would have tipped the scales in warning us of the "specific threat" to the World Trade Center.  At a minimum, even more general threat information, if relayed appropriately to the FAA, might have led to security alerts that would have prompted some airport personnel to pay more attention to at least one of the nineteen passengers bent on destruction that day.

        In sum, if Bush had made Al Qaeda a priority as of August 6, 2001, maybe someone would have connected Moussaoui, the Phoenix memo, the possible presence of two of the hijackers in the United States, and the flood of warnings about possible terrorist attacks during the summer of 2001.  Maybe it would have made a difference - all the difference.  

        Shouldn't we have expected our leader to have made the search for such clues a critical priority on August 6, 2001, rather than spending the rest of the summer in Texas?       


    Re-reading this now, I have to say I'm struck with the last paragraph re: the FAA.  

    "NotFuzzy for President!"

    Fuzzy only works for pets.

    by NotFuzzy on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:46:08 AM PST

  •  Democrats on the 9/11 Commission (none)
    ...are among the enablers of this monstrosity.  Why didn't any of them step forward before the election and leak this?  Heck, why didn't some Republican with a conscience (if such still exist) step forward? As I commented on a diary about this earlier this morning, where's our Daniel Ellsburg?

    As George Bernard Shaw put it, "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." Or in this case no better than our policy elites deserve. I'd like to think we deserve better elites (or perhaps just less powerful ones?).

    Start doing the things you think should be done, and start being what you think society should become. -Adam Michnik.

    by GreenSooner on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:48:45 AM PST

    •  Grrr....mental block.... (none)
      That's Daniel Ellsberg.  I don't know why I keep misspelling his name!

      Start doing the things you think should be done, and start being what you think society should become. -Adam Michnik.

      by GreenSooner on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:49:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There are now (none)
    almost 300 comments on this thread

    and almost 70 here: soon we will have 500 comments on dailykos about this latest revelation that an until-now classified report details how at least 52 warnings were issued prior to 9/11 that were systematically ignored. And that's not even mentioning all the other information linked to and discussed in many of these posts that all point to the same thing: that the official explanation of
    9/11, as outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report (and published by WW Norton), is at best seriously flawed and incomplete, if not downright disengenuous.


    Sorry for the all caps, but you know, like most of the posters here, I'm pissed.

    •  Waxman and Maloney are asking for hearings (none)

      The Honorable Tom Davis
      Committee on Government Reform
      U.S. House of Representatives
      Washington, DC 20515

      Dear Mr. Chairman:       

      We are writing to request that our Committee hold hearings to investigate two extremely serious questions raised by an article that appeared in this morning's New York Times.  The first question is whether the Administration misused the classification process to withhold, for political reasons, official 9/11 Commission staff findings detailing how federal aviation officials received multiple intelligence reports warning of airline hijackings and suicide attacks before September 11.  The second question relates to the veracity of statements, briefings, and testimony by then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding this issue.


      •  awesome (none)
        thanks for this. I now have the pdf next to the many pdfs I have of Conyers' letters regarding Ohio votergate. My sincere hope is that the 9/11 questions raised in the Waxman and Maloney letter lead to something much bigger: a genuine investigation, complete with mainstream news attention. I know that the prospects of this seem dim, but one never knows.
  •  Bush would rather... (none)
    Deafeat a Democrat at home than a Baathist abroad.  

    I expand on this notion in Good Will Goes Nowhere in a Zero-Sum Game

  •  Well... (none)
    ...too bad no one 'found' this until after the election.

    I'll be blogging on the subject soon on The New Democrat

    Envision the future. Visit The New Democrat -

    by demburns on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:33:03 AM PST

  •  And hey (none)
    whatever happened to that Senate report on the admin's use of intelligence?  You remember, the one that was supposed to be released after the election?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site