PDA

View Full Version : Classified 9/11 Report Exposes Multiple Attack Warnings



DLR'sCock
02-10-2005, 08:37 PM
9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings about Hijackings
By Eric Lichtblau
The New York Times

Thursday 10 February 2005

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 - 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.

But aviation officials were "lulled into a false sense of security," and "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures," the commission report concluded.

The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

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.

Five of the intelligence reports specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings, the report said. Two mentioned suicide operations, although not connected to aviation, the report said.

A spokeswoman for the F.A.A., the agency that bears the brunt of the commission's criticism, said Wednesday that the agency was well aware of the threat posed by terrorists before Sept. 11 and took substantive steps to counter it, including the expanded use of explosives detection units.

"We had a lot of information about threats," said the spokeswoman, Laura J. Brown. "But we didn't have specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures."

She added: "After 9/11, the F.A..A. and the entire aviation community took bold steps to improve aviation security, such as fortifying cockpit doors on 6,000 airplanes, and those steps took hundreds of millions of dollars to implement."

The report, like previous commission documents, finds no evidence that the government had specific warning of a domestic attack and says that the aviation industry considered the hijacking threat to be more worrisome overseas.

"The fact that the civil aviation system seems to have been lulled into a false sense of security is striking not only because of what happened on 9/11 but also in light of the intelligence assessments, including those conducted by the F.A.A.'s own security branch, that raised alarms about the growing terrorist threat to civil aviation throughout the 1990's and into the new century," the report said.

In its previous findings, including a final report last July that became a best-selling book, the 9/11 commission detailed the harrowing events aboard the four hijacked flights that crashed on Sept. 11 and the communications problems between civil aviation and military officials that hampered the response. But the new report goes further in revealing the scope and depth of intelligence collected by federal aviation officials about the threat of a terrorist attack.

The F.A.A. "had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon," and in 2001 it distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking, the report said. Previous commission documents have quoted the CD's reassurance that "fortunately, we have no indication that any group is currently thinking in that direction."

Aviation officials amassed so much information about the growing threat posed by terrorists that they conducted classified briefings in mid-2001 for security officials at 19 of the nation's busiest airports to warn of the threat posed in particular by Mr. bin Laden, the report said.

Still, the 9/11 commission concluded that aviation officials did not direct adequate resources or attention to the problem.

"Throughout 2001, the senior leadership of the F.A.A. was focused on congestion and delays within the system and the ever-present issue of safety, but they were not as focused on security," the report said.

The F.A.A. did not see a need to increase the air marshal ranks because hijackings were seen as an overseas threat, and one aviation official told the commission said that airlines did not want to give up revenues by providing free seats to marshals.

The F.A.A. also made no concerted effort to expand their list of terror suspects, which included a dozen names on Sept. 11, the report said. The former head of the F.A.A.'s civil aviation security branch said he was not aware of the government's main watch list, called Tipoff, which included the names of two hijackers who were living in the San Diego area, the report said.

Nor was there evidence that a senior F.A.A. working group on security had ever met in 2001 to discuss "the high threat period that summer," the report said.

Jane F. Garvey, the F.A.A. administrator at the time, told the commission "that she was aware of the heightened threat during the summer of 2001," the report said. But several other senior agency officials "were basically unaware of the threat," as were senior airline operations officials and veteran pilots, the report said.

The classified version of the commission report quotes extensively from circulars prepared by the F.A.A. about the threat of terrorism, but many of those references have been blacked out in the declassified version, officials said.

Several former commissioners and staff members said they were upset and disappointed by the administration's refusal to release the full report publicly.

"Our intention was to make as much information available to the public as soon as possible," said Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Sept. 11 commission member.

FORD
02-10-2005, 08:48 PM
The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

This statement alone proves the gross negligence - AT THE VERY LEAST - of the BCE and the Guiliani administration in NYC.

They told people in the second tower to go back to their desks after the first plane hit. That they were in no danger.

They KNEW otherwise. They are murderers just as surely as the bastards flying the planes were.

ELVIS
02-10-2005, 09:05 PM
Dupe

Plus, nobody cares...

Nickdfresh
02-10-2005, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Dupe

Plus, nobody cares...

Well you do speak for "Nobody."

LoungeMachine
02-10-2005, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Dupe

Plus, nobody cares...

Same could be said for 90% of your threads:rolleyes:

BigBadBrian
02-10-2005, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Same could be said for 90% of your threads:rolleyes:

Dupe. Close it up, ELVIS. :gulp:

LoungeMachine
02-10-2005, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Dupe. Close it up, ELVIS. :gulp:


and your 11 Iran threads while your at it.:rolleyes:

That is IF there's enough light for you to see your keyboard down there:D

Nickdfresh
02-10-2005, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
and your 11 Iran threads while your at it.:rolleyes:

That is IF there's enough light for you to see your keyboard down there:D

So dark he can't see the words on the screen? lol Maybe he has an abacus with broadband.:D

diamondD
02-10-2005, 10:18 PM
Spring of 2001 is 2 months into the Bush Administration. Anyone else with a brain want to claim that FORD or his ilk would claim that it didn't have anything to do with the administration before?

LoungeMachine
02-11-2005, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
Spring of 2001 is 2 months into the Bush Administration. Anyone else with a brain want to claim that FORD or his ilk would claim that it didn't have anything to do with the administration before?

Oh just say it.

you know you want to.


It's all Clinton's fault, right?:rolleyes:


sheep. The other white meat.

ELVIS
02-11-2005, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So dark he can't see the words on the screen?

I don't use a screen...:D

LoungeMachine
02-11-2005, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
I don't use a screen...:D

Hey, while you're here...

Can I get God's email from you.

I have some suggestions for him:D

BigBadBrian
02-11-2005, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
Spring of 2001 is 2 months into the Bush Administration. Anyone else with a brain want to claim that FORD or his ilk would claim that it didn't have anything to do with the administration before?

They'll never admit that. Never. :gulp:

LoungeMachine
02-11-2005, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
Spring of 2001 is 2 months into the Bush Administration. Anyone else with a brain want to claim that FORD or his ilk would claim that it didn't have anything to do with the administration before?

Do tell.......

At just what point in the Bush administration are you willing to start accepting responsibility?

2 weeks?
2 months?
2 years?
2 terms?

Fucking hilarious considering neither the Administration, nor it's shills here, have ever aceepted any responsibility/blame for anything:rolleyes:


The Teflon Administration:mad:

Nickdfresh
02-11-2005, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
Spring of 2001 is 2 months into the Bush Administration. Anyone else with a brain want to claim that FORD or his ilk would claim that it didn't have anything to do with the administration before?

As Penn & Teller would say, BULLSHIT! Can you say COVERUP??!:


http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/10/911commission.faa.ap/index.html

9/11 commission: FAA had al Qaeda warnings
Report's post-election release date questioned
Thursday, February 10, 2005 Posted: 10:51 PM EST (0351 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to September 11, 2001, about al Qaeda and its desire to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terror attacks.

The report by the 9/11 commission detailed 52 such warnings given to FAA leaders from April to September 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

The commission report, written last August, said five security warnings mentioned al Qaeda's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation. However, none of the warnings pinpointed what would happen on September 11.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown on Thursday said the agency received intelligence from other agencies, which it passed on to airlines and airports.

But, she said, "We had no specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures."

Brown also said the FAA was in the process of tightening security at the time of the attacks.

"We were spending $100 million a year to deploy explosive detection equipment at the airports," she said. The agency was also close to issuing a regulation that would have set higher standards for screeners and, for the first time, give it direct control over the screening work force.

Questions about timing
Al Felzenberg, former spokesman for the 9/11 commission, which went out of business last summer, said the government had not completed a review of the 120-page report for declassification purposes until recently.

Carol Ashley of Rockville Centre, New York, whose daughter died in the attacks, said the report should have been released sooner.

"I'm just appalled that this was withheld for five months. That contributes to the idea that the government knew something and didn't act, it contributes to the conspiracy theories out there. We need to rebut those with the actual facts, but we need the facts to do that," she said.

California Rep. Henry Waxman, ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, asked for a hearing on whether the Bush administration played politics with the report's release. The letter, also signed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, said the committee should probe whether the report was delayed until after the November elections and the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

The unclassified version, first reported by The New York Times, was made available by the National Archives Thursday.

Specific findings
According to the report:


Aviation officials were "lulled into a false sense of security" and "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures."


Of the FAA's 105 daily intelligence summaries between April 1, 2001 and September 10, 2001, 52 mentioned bin Laden, al Qaeda, or both, "mostly in regard to overseas threats."


The FAA did not expand the use of in-flight air marshals or tighten airport screening for weapons. It said FAA officials were more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays and easing air carriers' financial problems than thwarting a terrorist attack.


A proposed rule to improve passenger screening and other security measures ordered by Congress in 1996 had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget and was still not in effect when the attacks occurred, according to the FAA.

Information in this report was available to members of the 9/11 commission when they issued their public report last summer. That report itself contained criticisms of FAA operations.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Nickdfresh
02-11-2005, 06:09 PM
Guess who didn't want an investigation into 9/11?:rolleyes:

LoungeMachine
02-11-2005, 06:12 PM
And once he caved, he said he wouldnt testify
and wouldnt let Condi


When he flip flopped and HAD to testify, he NEEDED to bring uncle Dick with him

AND THIS FUCKING MORON GOT RE ELECTED???????

Nickdfresh
02-11-2005, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
And once he caved, he said he wouldnt testify
and wouldnt let Condi


When he flip flopped and HAD to testify, he NEEDED to bring uncle Dick with him

AND THIS FUCKING MORON GOT RE ELECTED???????

And people still cover for this shitbag here....But, but but Clinton....Slick Willy could've...but Bill....What-the FUCK-ever!

LoungeMachine
02-11-2005, 06:22 PM
Hence my "where's Cathedral" thread.

BBB and E are just lemmings

BigBadBrian
02-13-2005, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Hence my "where's Cathedral" thread.

BBB and E are just lemmings

You're just a FORD or knuckleboner wannabe. They give a good debate...you do not. Phil theStalker is funny...you are not. Nick is controversial...you are not. Any questions?

Case closed. :gulp:

ELVIS
02-13-2005, 09:07 AM
LostMachine is also very self righteous and mean spirited...

LoungeMachine
02-13-2005, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
LostMachine is also very self righteous and mean spirited...

Poor baby,

Need a tissue?

I'm self righteous and mean spirited?

That's fucking classic coming from you:rolleyes:

LoungeMachine
02-13-2005, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You're just a FORD or knuckleboner wannabe. They give a good debate...you do not. Phil theStalker is funny...you are not. Nick is controversial...you are not. Any questions?

Case closed. :gulp:


Imagine my disappointment, Brie :rolleyes:

Funny how you give me no cred, yet respond to EVERY post of mine:D

I enjoy watching you cons twist in the wind. You're getting more desperate as the days go by, trying to find a shred of truth from this administration to defend.

I'll continue to enjoy your squirming, Brie :p

LoungeMachine
02-13-2005, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
. Any questions?



Yeah,

are you still miffed at Nick and I for making fun of your mail order bride?:D

You can sure dish the insults, but seem to be pretty thin skinned.

Or are just hurt that we called you the scrubs, and wanted the REAL neocon A-Team to come to the table?


Poor Brie.



:rolleyes:

Nickdfresh
02-13-2005, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You're just a FORD or knuckleboner wannabe. They give a good debate...you do not. Phil theStalker is funny...you are not. Nick is controversial...you are not. Any questions?

Case closed. :gulp:

I'm "controversial" and Rustoffa is CUNTroversial!:D

Lounge is one of the best posters here though and you guys know it!

LoungeMachine
02-13-2005, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'm "controversial" and Rustoffa is CUNTroversial!:D

Lounge is one of the best posters here though and you guys know it!

Thanks Nick.

S.O.P. for the neocon right. "Marginalize and smear, those you fear"

Brie even ends up calling himself out:D

He forgets who he even quotes/responds to.:rolleyes:


I think you hit a nerve with the Mail order Bride callout. Either that or Mrs. Brie peed in his Cheerios this morning.


BTW, I love rustoffa's takes
:D

BigBadBrian
02-13-2005, 04:12 PM
I post from BBB just got 5 from the LIBS....

....I just spanked their ass and they know it.

4 from that Idiot-In-Chief LostMoron.

:gulp:

Nickdfresh
02-13-2005, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I post from BBB just got 5 from the LIBS....

....I just spanked their ass and they know it.

4 from that Idiot-In-Chief LostMoron.

:gulp:

Are you drunk today Brian?

BigBadBrian
02-13-2005, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Are you drunk today Brian?

:D

You got me on a typo. Good for Nick. :)

Sub an "A" for that "I"

And yes, I'm drinking some:



http://www.chandon.com/assets/images/wines/product_blancdenoirs_img.jpg

LoungeMachine
02-13-2005, 05:27 PM
Brie is on a mission.......

Poor thing...

Nickdfresh
02-13-2005, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
:D

You got me on a typo. Good for Nick. :)

Sub an "A" for that "I"

And yes, I'm drinking some:



http://www.chandon.com/assets/images/wines/product_blancdenoirs_img.jpg

Nothing wrong with that, I think the only think I'll be throwing back tonight is some Irish creme and Nyquil.

Nickdfresh
02-14-2005, 06:02 PM
Bump!

ODShowtime
02-14-2005, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You're just a FORD or knuckleboner wannabe. They give a good debate...you do not. Phil theStalker is funny...you are not. Nick is controversial...you are not. Any questions?

Case closed. :gulp:

You know, you can take that 'I want to debate but the libs can't' bullshit and shove it up your ass. I've posted hundreds and hundreds of rational points and you've had nothing to say other than "Fag" this or "pussy" that.

I love to rip people a new one, and I love to come to and understanding with people from the other side.

I've specifically called you out and you had nothing to say. So forget about this we can't debate bullshit. I'm here every day, ready to be relatively civil and ready to hand it to you.

Nickdfresh
06-10-2005, 04:27 PM
Bump part II

Nickdfresh
09-20-2006, 10:56 PM
Bump!

LoungeMachine
09-21-2006, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Bump!


You on a necro-jihad?????

:D