9/11 Timeline

[ChromeBoy 0]

I, like a lot of us, have been paying attention to the Terrorist warnings the U.S. had before 9/11 and it makes me wonder what we could have done to prevent it and it makes me angry that our country told us there was not any warning signals beforehand. The following is a summary of an article I read in Newsweek.
June 1994: A Pentagon-commissioned report concludes that religious terrorists could hijack commercial airliners and crash them into the Pentagon or the White House.
Dec. 1994: Algeria terrorists hijack an Air France jetliner, intending to crash it into the Eiffel Tower. A French Swat Team storms the grounded plane, foiling the plot.
Jan. 1995: Police in the Phillipines stumble upon a bomb factory run by Islamist terrorists. The arrested suspect reveals plans to crash a plane into the CIA building.
Sept. 1999: A Library of Congress report concludes that 'suicide bombers' could crash-land an aircraft...into the Pentagon, the...CIA or the White House.
Jan. - Sept. 2001: The FAA issues 15 memos to the aviation industry warning of possibly imminent hijackings of airliners inside the United States. At least two of the warnings name Osama Bin Laden as a suspect.
June 28, 2001: In a written briefing, CIA Director George Tenet warns national security adviser Condoleeza Rice that it is 'highly likely ' that a 'significant Al Qaeda attack' will take place 'in the near future'.
July 5, 2001: In a White House meeting, counterterrorism officials warn the FBI, FAA, INS and others that a major attack on the United States is coming soon.
July 10, 2001: The FBI's Phoenix office warns that an unusual number of middle eastern men are enrolling in U.S. flight schools and speculates they maybe part of an Osama Bin Laden plot. The report is sent to FBI headquarters, but officials put off taking actions.
Aug. 6, 2001: At his Crawford ranch, the president is told about possible attacks, including that bin Laden may hijack airplanes.
Aug. 17, 2001: Zacarias Moussaoui is arrested in Minnesota after suspicious flight - school trainers tip off the F.B.I. An agent warns Moussaoui may be planning to 'fly something into the World Trade Center.'
Sept. 17, 2001: FBI Director Robert Mueller tells reporters that 'there were no warning signals that I'm aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country'.

[freeflir29 0]

Well....if you have ever had any dealings in the intelligence analyzing business you would know that this is pretty standard. People that do intel analysis for a living seem like THE most paranoid people you have ever met. Sometimes they are right when everyone else stands around and says "You're nuts. That would never happen." Sometimes....as in this case....no one ever got the big picture together. Hindsight is 20/20 and thats never more true than in the intel business.
"Here I come to save the BOOBIES!"

[ADRNALN 0]

1986: Chuck Norris in Delta Force
And your point is?
Not flaming just wondering.

[kmcguffee 0]

I received threat warnings like this on a daily basis while in Saudi Arabia. The problem is that they are not specific enough to take action against. Before Sep 11 the FBI's hands were basically tied unless the hijacking was under way or had already occurred. I don't see that anything could have been done unless they had reliable and verifiable information detailing flight numbers, terrorist names with proof of his/her intent, or a specific target with the date and type of attack planned. If we reacted to every threat received we wouldn't have any resources left to do anything else. This blame game crap is just a political maneuver and a waste of time.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

[ChromeBoy 0]

Quote

And your point is?
Not flaming just wondering.

My thoughts is that there was enough evidence that something was going to occur and we had an option of heightening airport security to the point it is today prior to 9/11 but instead we waited to see what would happen. I hope next time there is major evidence that something like this can occur we are more prepared. That's all.

[pop 0]

You are absolutly right, and I agree with you 100%. Reacting to warning is a very unrealistic ordeal. It is impossible to prevent a terrorist attack unless it is known who, what, when and where. The warnings were so vague, that the only solution would have been to shut down all the air traffic for an uncertain mount of time. That's just unrealistic. And even if we did shut down all the air traffic, how do you stop suicide bombers. Nobody is to be blamed for what happened. I don't have a doubt in my mind that it will happen again. Al Queda are not the type of people to just stop. Look what's going on in Israel. Terrorist attacks have been going on for decades. And even though we have warnings now, there is nothing we can do about it unless we know who, what, when and where.
----------
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he doesn't exist!"

[Michele 1]

Hey, Chromie!
All the warnings in the world would have not succeeded unless there were details, confirmed information and so forth prior to the actual events.
The truth of how our system works is that there is a committee (bicameral as well as bipartisan), who gets briefings. All of these people had the same "warning"...and yet, all decided to do nothing about it (or, what I believe, they didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle). As stated in the Newsweek article, the warnings went way back...something on the order of 10 years or so. At the very least, the original bombing in 93 of the WTC was the alarm clock to us. We hit the snooze button, and went back to sleep....it is not one single person's blame, it is the entire system. Don't forget the INS who let the hijackers in, and approved them for extended visas after they had killed thousands of americans. And the local cops, who ticketed them, and let them go. I mean, if we are going to blame people, how about blaming everyone even peripherially involved in any part of the sequence?
Honestly, what could have been done with the information, unless it was stated "on 9/11, Al Queda will get into XX numbers of planes, and fly them into selected targets, such as the WTC and the Pentagon, perhaps the Sears Tower, or the Transamerica building". There is nothing we could have reasonably done, at least publicly
And even if we knew, specifically and exactly, what would be able to be done without people freaking out? How about preventing all Middle Eastern men from getting on airplanes - which is a consitutional violation...or maybe all American pilots would have to be re-vetted, to ascertain their political leanings - but what about those pilots from other countries? Could they have been questioned? And what about their constitutional rights? And how long would that take? See, all these things bring up problems which are in direct opposition to our Constitution, and our freedom as Americans.
In addition to the Consitutional conflicts, you can't shut down commerce - closing the WTC, grounding planes, etc. without creating a huge financial impact on this country, and indeed the world; that would be unfeasible, even had they been able to know the particulars and specifics (which, might I remind all reading this, were not known). And had the government actually shut down NYC amd WA DC, and nothing happened, what then? Still further, if the hijackers had decided to continue their attack, and the targets had been evacuated, that target is no longer as attractive, and they would have gone to Disneyworld, or a nuclear plant, or Mt. Rushmore, or whatever.
See, we are getting the alerts now, those nebulous, indistinct warnings that "something" may be coming, and we don't know what nor where it may come, and many people have problems with that. These are, likely, the same kind of warnings that were received in the decade before 9/11... People are complaining now about getting those warnings - they are not specific, they are fearmongering, etc.
When Moussoui was arrested in August, the FBI tried to get a search warrant for his hard drive...which was denied, from what I understand (although I am not sure about that - I could be incorrect). The information found on that computer subsequent to 9/11 may have been enough to solidify some of the alerts, and perhaps take measures to prevent the attack. But again, what measures to take?
And how about the confusion with the atc at the time? I mean, they are trained to deal with an emergency, but not 4 (and possibly more) hijackings at the same time, and to have them end as human guided bombs at effectively the same time - the confusion and panic must ahve been enormous.
No, I don't think there was a damned thing which could have been done under the systems in place then. We need to find out what's broken, and fix it, but to place blame now in hindsight and in retrospect seems a tad political and over-reactionary - and keep in mind that there is an election coming up - something like 150 days away.
There was lots of information, but none specific enough, to have prevented it...
Just my .02, though.
Ciels and Pinks-
Michele
If you really want to, you can seize the day; if you really want to, you can fly away...
~enya~

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

we had an option of heightening airport security to the point it is today prior to 9/11

Airlines would have shit that money from where? Do you really think Bush could have just strolled into Congress and ask for a couple hundred BILLION dollars for "Homeland Security" prior to 9/11? Yeah....that would have gone over like a fart in church.....
"Here I come to save the BOOBIES!"

[billvon 2,435]

>Reacting to warning is a very unrealistic ordeal. It is impossible to prevent a
> terrorist attack unless it is known who, what, when and where.
Well, we certainly seem to react to warnings now - perhaps we _did_ learn something from past mistakes.
>And even though we have warnings now, there is nothing we can do about it
> unless we know who, what, when and where.
I disagree. If we had stopped everyone with any sort of knife on 9/11 (which we are doing now) it would not have happened - even without knowing who, where or when. Would they have come up with some other plan? Probably. But in the game of terrorism and prevention we're playing now, it doesn't take much of an advantage to turn the tables in either direction.
Right now we're still not there in terms of airport security. We have a long way to go. But I think there will come a day when a lunatic wants to take over a plane - and cannot, due to our security. We _can_ do something about it.
-bill von

[billvon 2,435]

>Airlines would have shit that money from where?
The same place they shit money for TCAS, FDR's, emergency lighting systems etc. Airlines can afford to pay lots of money for stuff - they just cannot afford to pay it if another airline doesn't have to. It is a competitive business, but one with a lot of money available. If you require _everyone_ to spend the same amount on security, everyone's ticket prices go up and no one loses their advantage or market share.
-bill von

[SkyDolphin 0]

Well said, Michelle.
Rhonda

[kmcguffee 0]

Yeah Michelle! That is ummmm what I was uuummm going to say.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

[pop 0]

About the knife thing. I fly all the time for one reason or another. On flights where they serve you food, the knifes they give you are now plastic. However, the forks are still made of metal. Should they start preventing us from bringing pens and pencils as well?
How exactly are we reacting to warnings now? Yes we are telling the general public that there have been warnings, but how do they plan on stopping a suicide bomber if they don't know when or where he/she will strike? You are right, maybe one day we will be able to prevent some "lunatic" from getting on the plane, but we cannot prevent some of the other drastic measures that can be taken by terrorists.
----------
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he doesn't exist!"

[ChromeBoy 0]

Quote

how do they plan on stopping a suicide bomber if they don't know when or where he/she will strike?

I think it is funny that we decide we need to ensure cockpits are unaccessable NOW after all this happened instead of completing it beforehand. Look at how many hijackings have happened through the years and we have always "thought about it" and never "did it". That is a problem with a lot of things in the world today. A lot of people have great ideas but a minority of them ever follow through with them.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

everyone's ticket prices go up and no one loses their advantage or market share

True....but that's assuming the airlines wanted to do this. I think it's a pretty safe guess that they would fight it tooth and nail. I think it's also a pretty safe guess that airlines wield a fairly powerful political stick as well. So back to the point.....Bush would have been the messenger that was shot. I just don't think it would have been politically possible to undertake the same steps before the public was sufficiently motivated. Unfortunately, thats the facts.....
"Here I come to save the BOOBIES!"

[Gravitymaster 0]

I disagree. If we had stopped everyone with any sort of knife on 9/11 (which we are doing now) it would not have happened - even without knowing who, where or when.
*******************************************************************
This is 20/20 hindsite. If we had no specific information about where and when, how could anyone have predicted they would use box-cutters?

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

If we had no specific information about where and when, how could anyone have predicted they would use box-cutters?

I can go one better. How many people are stabbed to death in prisons every year? Do you think we should make people travel naked with no luggage. Maybe that would keep knives off airplanes. "Here I come to save the BOOBIES!"

[Muenkel 0]

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe 9/11 needed to happen to stop terrorism? Yeah, the governments knew these threats were out there. Something had to be done about them. Look at the heat the United States is taking for retaliating for what happened on 9/11. 9/11 was an ENORMOUS atrocity. At least we could now justify (well in some people's eyes) going after these bastards.
If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.
Chris

[flyhi 24]

Quote

Airlines can afford to pay lots of money for stuff - they just cannot afford to pay it if another airline doesn't have to. It is a competitive business, but one with a lot of money available.

I think we overestimate the margin in the airline industry. I believe it was Warren Buffet who said, "If I ever want to go broke, I'll buy another airline." If you don't know who he is, he is the head mucktymuck at Berkshire Hathaway. Very rich, but he was richer before he invested in an airline the last time.
I think we need to remember that we are looking at this in a vacuum. If you think the only intel that came in during that time was about airplanes and hijackings, you are wrong. In addition to all that intel, you can bet reports existed about maritime terrorists, terrorists sneaking in from the Great White North, as well as things we haven't even considered. The current "threat" is of terrorists renting an apartment in the heart of Big City, USA, filling it with explosives and setting a timer. How do you combat that? We'll probably figure that out six months after it happens.

My prediction: Watch U. S. Airways. It will be indicative of the state of the airlines. And if you haven't ridden on them yet, you better hurry if you want to.
flyhi

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe 9/11 needed to happen to stop terrorism?

Something like that wouldn't be the first time.......
"Here I come to save the BOOBIES!"

[billvon 2,435]

>True....but that's assuming the airlines wanted to do this. I think it's a pretty safe
> guess that they would fight it tooth and nail.
They fight everything tooth and nail. Yet we still have TCAS, FDR and CVR's, and mandatory flight crew duty time limits. All of those hurt profits, but the FAA/NTSB/government decided that safety came before profit
>Bush would have been the messenger that was shot.
Perhaps, but I keep hoping and praying that we have a president willing to do the right thing rather than the popular thing. We've seen the results of doing too little.
-bill von

[billvon 2,435]

>This is 20/20 hindsite. If we had no specific information about where and when,
> how could anyone have predicted they would use box-cutters?
Well, we don't know if the next terrorists will use a Glock or not, but that is a very poor reason for letting passengers carry guns on planes.
A box cutter is a knife. Prohibiting guns and knives of _all_ kinds would have prevented (or at least severely hindered) the terrorists that carried out 9/11. That's why we do it now. Is this hindsight? Of course. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong, or that we were any more right on 9/10 when we let people carry 4" knives on board aircraft. Let's hope the next time we use foresight to prevent a hijacking instead of using hindsight after the next one happens.
-bill von

[bmcd308 0]

Unfortunately, there is no real logical end to this argument.
[sarcastic mode on] There are people who are much more deadly with just their hands than most of the world is with a knife of any size. I don't think we should allow people with martial arts training to fly on commercial airlines. If a lunatic with martial arts training just decided to start breaking necks, it would cause chaos on the flight.
[sarcastic mode off]

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

The current "threat" is of terrorists renting an apartment in the heart of Big City, USA, filling it with explosives and setting a timer. How do you combat that?

At least this time they have issued the warning and landlords now have the opportunity to look for odd behaviour. At least they are attempting to warn people this time.
To those saying that it could not have been prevented. How do you know if they never tried?
Lastly, I am surprised that none of you are upset about being lied to about this. One administration lies about the president getting a blowjob and you guys are all over them. Yet another administration lies about not having warnings about airplanes flying into buildings........and all you say is: Well, we could not have done anything about it anyways..............
I don't get it........
SkyDekker
"We cannot do great things, only small things with great love" Mother Theresa

[kmcguffee 0]

I didn't realize anyone lied about the warnings? They said afterwards that they had no specific information beforehand that this was going to happen and that is the truth. The administration sent out a warning to the FAA but not the general public. The question in the media is did they do enough with the information that they had.
I think Clinton lied under oath about cheating on his wife which is something that I do not expect of my leaders. If you think it is fine and dandy then that is up to you. The Clinton Administration had most of the same information that the Bush Administration had therefore when I say we couldn't have done anything about the attacks I'm including Clinton's Administration also. I didn't realize this had become a Republican vs Democrat discussion.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."