NY: 'It's escalating big, big time'

[wdlove]

CNN) -- Aviation and military officials testified before the 9/11 commission on Thursday, detailing the communications and actions taken on September 11, 2001 as hijackers commandeered four planes.

The following is a timeline developed from their report and previously reported information. All times are ET.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/17/911.timeline/index.html

 

[rainman::|:|]

it still does not explain why president bush did absolutely nothing for several minutes afterwards, instead continuing to read a book to a child at a press conference. That's the part of the timeline that i'm really curious about...

paul

 

[patrick0brien]

it still does not explain why president bush did absolutely nothing for several minutes afterwards, instead continuing to read a book to a child at a press conference. That's the part of the timeline that i'm really curious about...

paul

-paulwhannel

Well waitasec, let's provide a little managerial perspective. The last thing a manager - well a good one - will do, is act upon incomplete information.

If I were in his place, I would have done the same thing - business as usual until I learned something I considered actionable - ergo information complete enough to know it was time to get the h*** out of there.

 

[saxman]

it still does not explain why president bush did absolutely nothing for several minutes afterwards, instead continuing to read a book to a child at a press conference. That's the part of the timeline that i'm really curious about...

paul

So you would rather him jump up and run out of the room in a panic? That would be a good confidence builder for the nation. He was on TV and in front of children; he remained calmer than I would have been.

Bottom line is this: no one was ready for this and no one could have been ready. Many people dropped the ball. If Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, Gore, Nader, Kerry, etc. were in the white house, the attacks would still have happened. Yes, we had warning, but the market wouldn't bear the actions that needed to be taken before hand. Think of the public outcry if all flights were grounded without an attack? Or if we invaded Afghanistan before we were attacked?

And anyone who thinks these people will think better of us if we had a different President, think again. These people hate our way of life, not just our politicians. They see all Americans as rich, spoiled and "godless." No matter what happens in November, suicide bombers will continue and these radical people will continue to hate us and use any means to hurt us or our interests. They see no difference in Republican or Democrat.

 

[KingSleaze]

So you would rather him jump up and run out of the room in a panic? That would be a good confidence builder for the nation. He was on TV and in front of children; he remained calmer than I would have been.

Bottom line is this: no one was ready for this and no one could have been ready. Many people dropped the ball.

And anyone who thinks these people will think better of us if we had a different President, think again. These people hate our way of life, not just our politicians. They see all Americans as rich, spoiled and "godless." No matter what happens in November, suicide bombers will continue and these radical people will continue to hate us and use any means to hurt us or our interests. They see no difference in Republican or Democrat.

Close. Having lived in middle eastern nations for several years, it's NOT Americans that they hate, it's America that is hated-for what it stands for.

 

[JesseJames]

There is something about fundamentalism in any organization that seems to transmogrify into some kind of hard-line intolerance and perhaps an over-sensitivity to criticism.
I think fundamentalism in itself is good. The word 'fundamental' means a concentration on the good basics. But people just tend it use it for their own diabolical desires. For example, control of behavior and thought; which we all know can lead to extremely dangerous things.
BE WARY OF ANYONE WHO ESPOUSES SOME FORM OF FUNDAMENTALISM.

 

[patrick0brien]

BE WARY OF ANYONE WHO ESPOUSES SOME FORM OF FUNDAMENTALISM.

-JesseJames

Well said. However, If you'll forgive me, I'd like to adjust that a bit.

"Be wary of those with minds closed to different possibilities and perspectives"

Mac users experience this on a daily basis.

 

[rueyeet]

it still does not explain why president bush did absolutely nothing for several minutes afterwards, instead continuing to read a book to a child at a press conference. That's the part of the timeline that i'm really curious about...

paul

From reading the timeline I got the distinct impression that the first plane had already crashed before anyone even really comprehended that there were multiple hijackings, and even as things progressed, no one really had complete enough information for decision-making. As much of an atrocity as Sept. 11th was, it was undeniably creative. The protocols of response to a hijacking were geared towards single incidents where the perpetrators would be making demands, allowing much, much more reaction time.

I'm just as eager to vote against Bush as anyone else who didn't vote for him the first time....but I really don't think anything he said or did in those few minutes would have changed much. The information simply wasn't available to enough of the right people in the right places at the right time for a truly coordinated response.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

From reading the timeline I got the distinct impression that the first plane had already crashed before anyone even really comprehended that there were multiple hijackings, and even as things progressed, no one really had complete enough information for decision-making. As much of an atrocity as Sept. 11th was, it was undeniably creative. The protocols of response to a hijacking were geared towards single incidents where the perpetrators would be making demands, allowing much, much more reaction time.

I am not sure there was much of anything to have been done to stop this. Tighter security on boarding, changes in the air defense posture. The problem is that all of the security threats from the past 50 years worked to open these holes. Cold war air threats were always external pushing the fighters to the perimeter.

Terrorists either blew up the plane with a bomb, typically in the luggage, or took over the plane with guns and held hostages until their demands were met and then flew off to Cuba. When they took over the plane the hostages were typically released unharmed with the exception of anyone who fought back. There were hours and days to respond. There wasn't even much done until they found out who they were dealing with.

Its been said dozens of times. 9/11 was a trick you get away with exactly once.

Responding too quickly could have resulted in destroying the wrong planes and killing innocents.

 

[patrick0brien]

-All

Hindsight's 20/20 folks. I'd say let's work the problem and spend less effort with reprisals of the past.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

-All

Hindsight's 20/20 folks. I'd say let's work the problem and spend less effort with reprisals of the past.

I have the solution. Everyone flies naked trussed up like hannibal lecter. Luggage goes on a separate plane or just stays.(Like you actually expect to get it when you arrive anyway)

 

[Fukui]

I have the solution. Everyone flies naked trussed up like hannibal lecter.

Well, even if everyone is naked, they still need to do ACS...

 

[Kethoticus]

Wow. I'm impressed.

Tense subject matter, and no arguing. Usually arguing occurs so much more easily in these fora than when people are face to face. I think this is great.

Personally, I'm not sure what to think. But I do have an opinion (which seems to change from week to week depending on the info I most recently read). The Bush WH did not know about all this until the damage was done. Is this a war about oil? Possibly. But I doubt the president allowed this to happen just to get his hands on some oil fields. Could he be taking advantage of the situation? Of course. But I support our efforts in the region regardless, as long as the gist of our intent is just. And here's why (among other reasons I'm not interested in explaining right now).

If the main focus of this is about oil, it may be more on the terrorists' side. I heard some news commentary this afternoon that pointed to an idea that had never occurred to me: the terrorists want control of ME oil. Why? So they can charge ridiculous prices for it, crippling the west (Osama already accuses the US of robbing Saudi Arabia, as we pay only 10% per barrel what he thinks we should be paying). Why else? Because such extortion would finance their own military endeavors. They grow stronger, we grow weaker. They become the pre-eminent global power.

It's about power. Not about financial greed. Not about American imperialism (whatever that is). Not about Allah using his "faithful" murderers to execute judgement on us non-muslims. It's about power. Folks, it's WWII all over again. Only this time, we have a decentralized enemy, and this enemy may acquire weapons Hitler or Mussolini or Hirohito only dreamed of.

Vote for whom you want. But I'm voting for the candidate the terrorists want least to see elected this November.

 

[mymemory]

These people hate our way of life, not just our politicians. They see all Americans as rich, spoiled and "godless." No matter what happens in November, suicide bombers will continue and these radical people will continue to hate us and use any means to hurt us or our interests. They see no difference in Republican or Democrat.

No dude, they see yourself (as the rest of the world does) as propotent, arrogant and selfish. Just a little example: why the US call themselves "americans"? so, what the Venezuelans are?

America is just one continent for the rest of the world but JUST in the US geography you consider America as 3 different continents, I wonder based of what. Just to start with.

Your government is working so hard in making you so proud of your country that you, without noticing, heritage an arrogant behaviour. It si your fault? no. But some other countries just want to be in peace and then the big globalization monster start to take over in a selfish manner.

You are here and you do not tell, but outside your frontiers things are very different.

I do not support any radical group but is not what you know, is what you do not know what your government is doing out side. Some one got pissed and this time was a crazy organization with a lot of power like Al Qaeda.

 

[hmmfe]

No dude, they see yourself (as the rest of the world does) as propotent, arrogant and selfish. Just a little example: why the US call themselves "americans"? so, what the Venezuelans are?

Maybe it is because we have "America" in the name of our country? If I am forced to change - I really like the ring of "I am a Unitedian." As far as Venezuelans, I'd imagine they'd call themselves Venezuelans or perhaps South Americans. But, I guess calling themselves South Americans would be arrogant. After all, "so, what the Brazilians are?"

America is just one continent for the rest of the world but JUST in the US geography you consider America as 3 different continents, I wonder based of what. Just to start with.

So what is that singular continent's name - NoSo America? Just polled several arrogant Americans and the survey says the three continents are North America, South America and Fred. Based on what you say? Based on every American's inalienable right to occupy, destroy and rename any country or continent we like.

 

[TMay]

layers of imcompetence

-paulwhannel

Well waitasec, let's provide a little managerial perspective. The last thing a manager - well a good one - will do, is act upon incomplete information.

If I were in his place, I would have done the same thing - business as usual until I learned something I considered actionable - ergo information complete enough to know it was time to get the h*** out of there.

From the President on down, through the FAA, NORAD,
American Airlines, SecDef, Chairman of the Joint Chief of staff, almost everybody was involved in an incorrect, delayed response or was entirely ;out of the loop. The only folks that should get any plaudits for this are the flight crews, some of the FAA airspace control folks, and a very few airline support personnel at American Airlines and United. Business as usual? I would hope not, but I fear that not much has changed.

This happened over an extended period of time, not a few mere minutes, and almost all of those in charge, including the President, acted incompetently, as the details are beginning to demonstrate.

Considering the many warnings in the spring and summer ("hair on fire" was how some of the intelligence folks noted the intel), the fact that our air defense system was not effective in any way in preventing even the Pentagon crash that happened much later in the timeline demonstrates an entire system failure.

And as a matter of fact, it isn't necessarily true that this would have happened under a different administration, and we will certainly never know that. Either way, one would have expected a number of people to be fired over this and none were. The fact that the administration put so much effort into preventing the 9-11 commission from convening, and the restrictions on the same, says much about the administrations desire to CYA while simultaneously touting what great defenders of America they are.

It is one thing to accept that there was such chaos that nothing could be done. It is another to rewrite history to make the President look the hero, when, he was in fact, almost totally out of the command loop for that morning, whether by diposition or faulty communication. Heads should have rolled. Maybe it is not too late.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/18/sept_11_panel_portrays_a_chaotic_us_response/

http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage2.asp

 

[logicat2001]

"Vote for whom you want. But I'm voting for the candidate the terrorists want least to see elected this November."



what!? And who exactly is that? Did you ask them??

Oh. You mean voting for the candidate the terrorists want least to see elected this November according to some BS marketing campaign promoted by one of the candidates?

Oh. I see.

Follow the leader...

 

[biw314]

The only folks that should get any plaudits for this are the flight crews...

[/url]

Really the opposite was true. The one decision that could have prevented the whole thing was the decision to open the cockpit door(s).

 

[Kethoticus]

"Vote for whom you want. But I'm voting for the candidate the terrorists want least to see elected this November."



what!? And who exactly is that? Did you ask them??

Oh. You mean voting for the candidate the terrorists want least to see elected this November according to some BS marketing campaign promoted by one of the candidates?

Oh. I see.

Follow the leader...

Oh c'mon bro, wake up.

It doesn't take much in the way of common sense to determine which of our three likeliest presidential candidates the terrorists would least like to see re-elected.

Do you honestly think that they're more worried about Kerry or Nader than Bush? C'mon. Who do YOU think is more likely to pursue these psychos aggressively, irregardless of world opinion? Who is more likely to take on a softer, more pacifistic approach? Or who is more likely to kiss French behind and try to make the rest of the world like us before we fight to protect ourselves? If you're having trouble distinguishing our illustrious candidates' intents, just listen to their own speeches and check out their own voting records. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. You don't need to "ask" these demonic psychos in the Middle East anything.

It all comes down to which approach you think will be more effective. Will the pacifist approach work? The "let's cooperate with the UN and make nice with the French" approach? Or the "we're fighting to keep ourselves from being destroyed so we'll do whatever it takes" approach?

For me, it's like someone broke into my house and is threatening me. They've already shot my dog. I'm NOT going to bargain, back off, or beg for mercy. Nor am I going to look for approval from my neighbors before I act to defend my wife and kids. I'm putting a cap in that man's head before he does any more damage to my household.

Now which presidential candidate do you think fits that description the most?

 

[TMay]

woke up

Oh c'mon bro, wake up.

It doesn't take much in the way of common sense to determine which of our three likeliest presidential candidates the terrorists would least like to see re-elected.

Do you honestly think that they're more worried about Kerry or Nader than Bush? C'mon. Who do YOU think is more likely to pursue these psychos aggressively, irregardless of world opinion? Who is more likely to take on a softer, more pacifistic approach? Or who is more likely to kiss French behind and try to make the rest of the world like us before we fight to protect ourselves? If you're having trouble distinguishing our illustrious candidates' intents, just listen to their own speeches and check out their own voting records. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. You don't need to "ask" these demonic psychos in the Middle East anything.

It all comes down to which approach you think will be more effective. Will the pacifist approach work? The "let's cooperate with the UN and make nice with the French" approach? Or the "we're fighting to keep ourselves from being destroyed so we'll do whatever it takes" approach?

For me, it's like someone broke into my house and is threatening me. They've already shot my dog. I'm NOT going to bargain, back off, or beg for mercy. Nor am I going to look for approval from my neighbors before I act to defend my wife and kids. I'm putting a cap in that man's head before he does any more damage to my household.

Now which presidential candidate do you think fits that description the
most?

this story speaks for me about who the terrorists want in power
(short answer: the incumbent)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1242639,00.html

 

[nicorojas]

For me, it's like someone broke into my house and is threatening me. They've already shot my dog. I'm NOT going to bargain, back off, or beg for mercy. Nor am I going to look for approval from my neighbors before I act to defend my wife and kids. I'm putting a cap in that man's head before he does any more damage to my household.

For me, the bush administration it's like someone broke into my house and is threatening me. They've already shot my dog. So, instead of focusing on who is threatening me, I just go out and shoot one of my neighborgs because I do not like him, and destroy his house, then I tell my children that they were friends and that he was the one who let him in on my house (which later I'm proved lying).

I don't think that have anything to do with the french people.

 

[Kethoticus]

Wow...

...I'm not sure what to say to all this.

As for the Guardian story, I've heard many more "experts" saying that what's going is actually quite different from what "Anonymous" says. Plus, this is the Guardian, notoriously anti-American. So I'll take this for what it's worth.

I am aware though of Osama's intent to start WWIII between the West and Islamic worlds. But if we don't fight, we'll lose. But of course we hafta do it carefully, tho, to keep it from erupting into WWIII. Sure, I'm aware of this and it does worry me. We're treading on dangerous ground right now and this can teeter in either direction. But leaving Iraq now would be even more disastrous. We've got to stay now and guide the country toward stability.

As for Bush breaking into my house... He did not knock down the Twin Towers. Maybe he shot your dog, but he didn't shoot mine. This certainly applies to Afghanistan. Does it apply to Iraq? This is more debateable, and I've already heard every argument coming from every side of the fence. I don't think anyone really knows the entire story except the president, and therefore no one here, myself included, can speak authoritatively. I can only hope that history will vindicate my country and president. And I can only go in the direction that seems most likely to bring success and hope I was right.

 

[cl0r0x70]

Oh c'mon bro, wake up.

Do you honestly think that they're more worried about Kerry or Nader than Bush? C'mon. Who do YOU think is more likely to pursue these psychos aggressively, irregardless of world opinion? Who is more likely to take on a softer, more pacifistic approach? Or who is more likely to kiss French behind and try to make the rest of the world like us before we fight to protect ourselves? If you're having trouble distinguishing our illustrious candidates' intents, just listen to their own speeches and check out their own voting records. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. You don't need to "ask" these demonic psychos in the Middle East anything.

Iraq was a gift to Al Qaeda. Because of this misguided -- even traitorous -- use of American lives in a questionable cause, bin Laden has thousands of dead babies he can use to trumpet his cause. Every orphan we create is a potential terrorist.

Does anybody really think that some dude in Saudi Arabia wakes up one morning, decides he hates the freedom and religion of some guy in Iowa, and then vows to sacrifice HIS LIFE to taking that farmer down?!? Until America realizes why these people -- much of the world -- hates us, we will never win.

We are entering an age where the difference between Soldier and Civilian is non-existent. There are no uniforms. The front line is here and now. Time to figure out what you believe in, and to start realizing the crimes being committed in your name around the world, because they are going to come back to us.

 

[CAM]

Does anybody really think that some dude in Saudi Arabia wakes up one morning, decides he hates the freedom and religion of some guy in Iowa, and then vows to sacrifice HIS LIFE to taking that farmer down?!? Until America realizes why these people -- much of the world -- hates us, we will never win.

We are entering an age where the difference between Soldier and Civilian is non-existent. There are no uniforms. The front line is here and now. Time to figure out what you believe in, and to start realizing the crimes being committed in your name around the world, because they are going to come back to us.

So, what crimes are we committing exactly? I hear people say things like this, but they never go into detail. Are we talking about Iraq? Support for Israel? Foreign military bases? Trade issues? Bad music and movies? Government sponsored assasinations? Collaboration with space aliens? All of the above?

 

[tristan]

CIA dropped the ball

I saw Clinton on sixty minutes last night, and he mentioned the US embassy bombings, and his subsequent attempt to kill Osama by firing cruise missiles at one of his training camps. And he wasn't there - the CIA gave Clinton bad information.

From what I've gathered, Clinton gave the order to the CIA to kill Osama back in 1998, if not earlier. That means that the CIA's been trying to get this guy for SIX YEARS, and for the last two years, we've had the run of Afghanistan, and the support of Pakistan. Why can't they do it?

I don't generally like republican politics, but I do think Bush has had the right attitude - you're with us or against us, and we don't have to ask the UN's permission to defend America. The trouble is that he has way too much faith in the CIA, and they can't seem to get anything right nowadays. With Tenet gone, maybe things will improve, but I have a feeling that it's going to take a lot more than that to reform the CIA.