-
I've never seen it, but you mean something along the lines of Black Sunday? Terrorism at the super bowl. -
Originally posted by pgrote+Apr 19 2004, 09:59 AM-->QUOTE (pgrote @ Apr 19 2004, 09:59 AM)
Nice edit of the Jared deal.Originally posted by dvyyyyyy@Apr 19 2004, 09:58 AM
Now, could something else terrible happen? Yep. Subways scare the crap out of me now.
(not Jared's restaurant, though I am not fond of those either)
Basically anywhere with a large number of people are of a concern. Malls, schools, etc.Leave a comment:
It would be hard to stop something like this. Barring the cockpit doors is a start.
As it stands though, I doubt it could happen again (assuming the cockpit doors are secured). No plane full of American passengers will allow a plane to be overrun by 3 guys with box-cutters (assuming that is all they had).
Now, could something else terrible happen? Yep. Subways scare the crap out of me now.
(not Jared's restaurant, though I am not fond of those either)Leave a comment:
No, I didn't miss that. What you missed was that the planes were not domestic, but foreign. That's a huge difference. A plane flying in from Paris vs. one taking off from Boston and crashing in NY.Originally posted by Trigfunctions@Apr 19 2004, 09:49 AM
They DID conduct exercises involving planes crashing into buildings. They ruled out the Pentagon scenario, but not other scenarios.
So this is the group we have running the nation's defense - they don't know what NORAD is doing? WHY NOT???
They are either lying or inept.
Again, I think you need to put this in perspective. Prior to 9/11 how many terrorists acts occurred on American soil in the prior 10 years? Out of those how many were caused by foreign parties?
You need to look at this in the context of the time.Leave a comment:
Good point.Originally posted by dvyyyyyy@Apr 19 2004, 09:45 AM
Still, even if someone told the powers that be at NORAD at precisely the moment of highjacking on 9/11, could anything have been done?
The one on the Pentagon perhaps, but the first 2?
I would be interested in this:
On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it "too unrealistic."
I think the first two were going to work no matter what. As soon as they were allowed on the plane it was over. It showed our inadequate security procedures at airports. Security problems that continue to today. All they have done is made air travel more annoying that anything.
Some people think the fourth plane was shot down. Go figure. It goes to show that there was enough time to do something about it.
That is the line I was drawn to as well. It really shows that almost no one even thought this was remotely possible. It does show, though, that some people conceived of it. This and the Minnesota's FBI agents notes demonstrate that very few actually thought it might happen.
Even though this happened in the former administration I can't blame them for not thinking about this as a possibility. We weren't geared towards look at things like this.Leave a comment:
pgrote - I'm sorry but I think you missed some things from the article:Originally posted by pgrote@Apr 19 2004, 09:44 AM
What does this have to do with Bush?
NORAD runs some scenarios under the former administration. The Pentagon, under the former administration, doesn't want to participate.
It's considered improbable it would ever happen, so no one pursues it.
To me it speaks to the unbelievable act. Even in the scenarios it was presumed the plans would be from a foreign country.
They DID conduct exercises involving planes crashing into buildings. They ruled out the Pentagon scenario, but not other scenarios.In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon (news - web sites) - but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.
Meanwhile, Bush and company are still saying that no one could possibly have predicted that planes would be slammed into buildings.
So this is the group we have running the nation's defense - they don't know what NORAD is doing? WHY NOT???
A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises.
They are either lying or inept.Leave a comment:
Still, even if someone told the powers that be at NORAD at precisely the moment of highjacking on 9/11, could anything have been done?Originally posted by pgrote@Apr 19 2004, 08:53 AM
In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
Wow. I've also maintained that hardly anyone every considered this and even fewer thought the buildings would fall that day. Hindsight is 20/20.In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon (news - web sites) - but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.
The one on the Pentagon perhaps, but the first 2?
I would be interested in this:
On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it "too unrealistic."
Leave a comment:
What does this have to do with Bush?
NORAD runs some scenarios under the former administration. The Pentagon, under the former administration, doesn't want to participate.
It's considered improbable it would ever happen, so no one pursues it.
To me it speaks to the unbelievable act. Even in the scenarios it was presumed the plans would be from a foreign country.Leave a comment:
Unbelievable. The Bush admin is either lying or inept. Four more years!
On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) that the White House didn't anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons.
On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it "too unrealistic."
President Bush (news - web sites) said at a news conference Tuesday, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."Leave a comment:
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
Wow. I've also maintained that hardly anyone every considered this and even fewer thought the buildings would fall that day. Hindsight is 20/20.In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon (news - web sites) - but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.Working...
Leave a comment: