Could have 9/11 been prevented?

[Jacey]

Their ultimate destination unknown? Um........doesn't matter, that's why they can track them.........

 

[Gunny]

Their ultimate destination unknown? Um........doesn't matter, that's why they can track them.........

If the destination is unkown the intent is unkown thus the United States Armed Forces would not scramble fighter jets to take down Civilian Aircraft.

Now, this action can be taken due to the unprecedented attack on 09-11.

 

[Jacey]

If the destination is unkown the intent is unkown thus the United States Armed Forces would not scramble fighter jets to take down Civilian Aircraft.

Then why did the FAA, NORAD and the military all have emergency procedures with which to do just that?

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Two of the 9/11 hijackers received U.S. student visas 6 months after 9/11 despite being...

a) infamous terrorists
b) dead

I think that is something to keep in mind as we discuss if our government did everything it could to prevent 9/11.

 

[joevberry3]

I think they did do everything they knew to do. For the most part they didnt know this was about to happen.
Yeah, im sure they had warnings, but not to the extent of 9/11.

And im sure the same people against the war in Iraq would have bombarded Bush even worse than this if he had attacked someone PRIOR to 9/11.
We also have to remember Bush was only in office for a few months, there was but so much he could do in that short span anyhow. There couldnt be but so many talks in that short time.
We should have done something back in 93 after the first Trade Center blast instead of just talking...
Joe

 

[ThePhoenix]

Yes. South Korea had in place a system whereby any deviation from flight path or unauthorized airborne object could be shotdown within 5 minutes. Both planes deviated for longer then five minutes. Thus, if we put the same system in place here as we did there then there wouldn't have been an attack. Also superior intelligence could have also prevented the attack. Additionally anchored fire-proofing on the structural supports would have saved the towers.

 

[MegaDude]

Of course 9/11 could've been prevented, the government planned it.

Welcome to the New World Order.

 

[SDSUMarcus01]

I think they did do everything they knew to do. For the most part they didnt know this was about to happen.
Yeah, im sure they had warnings, but not to the extent of 9/11.

And im sure the same people against the war in Iraq would have bombarded Bush even worse than this if he had attacked someone PRIOR to 9/11.
We also have to remember Bush was only in office for a few months, there was but so much he could do in that short span anyhow. There couldnt be but so many talks in that short time.
We should have done something back in 93 after the first Trade Center blast instead of just talking...
Joe

Going after Afghanistan was perfectly understandable. Going after Iraq was not... and I do not like the slippery methods that the administration used to try and tie Iraq to 9/11...

Honestly, that's my only real problem with Bush... the war with Iraq.

 

[daidhaid]

Yes. South Korea had in place a system whereby any deviation from flight path or unauthorized airborne object could be shotdown within 5 minutes. Both planes deviated for longer then five minutes. Thus, if we put the same system in place here as we did there then there wouldn't have been an attack. Also superior intelligence could have also prevented the attack. Additionally anchored fire-proofing on the structural supports would have saved the towers.

a secure bulkhead door would have helped a lot.

telling all airborne pilots that the first tower was hit might have provoked stiff resistance on more flights

air marshals, armed pilots, a policy of resistance to hijacks,
stoping illegal immigrants from all nations, catching visa overstays, speedy deportments of violaters undesirable or illegal immigrants or visitors, bureaucrats and politicians who paid attention and heeded warnings like "Bin Laden is Determined to Attack Inside America"
we might have been lucky.

 

[Blessed75]

Could 9/11 been prevented? If you think so, how?

Personally, NO - I don't think so but I'm not God so I can't be for sure.

 

[joevberry3]

a secure bulkhead door would have helped a lot.

telling all airborne pilots that the first tower was hit might have provoked stiff resistance on more flights

air marshals, armed pilots, a policy of resistance to hijacks,
stoping illegal immigrants from all nations, catching visa overstays, speedy deportments of violaters undesirable or illegal immigrants or visitors, bureaucrats and politicians who paid attention and heeded warnings like "Bin Laden is Determined to Attack Inside America"
we might have been lucky.

Can you imagine the hard time Bush, Clinton or any president would have had trying to do the above before 9/11?

 

[Doctrine1st]

Who's job is it to collect info in regards to our National Security anyway?

 

[ThePhoenix]

a secure bulkhead door would have helped a lot.

A secure bulkhead door would have certain unfortunate results if it was in any way airtight, or strong. Namely, in the event of explosive decompression the plane would pop in half. So they present their own engineering problem. The rest were good ideas.

 

[Borealis]

Your joking, right? Are you suggesting that Bush was hopeless to prevent the attacks because he was afraid of a lawsuit from the ACLU?

"Well partners! We've got word of evil terra-ists plotting an attack against us, but boy-howdy that ACLU has got us beat!"

I wouldn't be surprised that you stopped reading my post at that point. Perhaps I should have made my point more clear for you.

Hindsight is wonderful, but it automatically biases one's view on any event. Could Pearl Harbor have been prevented? Sure, if Roosevelt knew in advance that the Japanese were planning to bomb the hell out of the Pacific Fleet. But he didn't. Intelligence knew something was going to happen, but they didn't know where or when. Sound familiar? And that's AFTER the American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes! Yet they still didn't know exactly what the Japanese were planning. With Pearl Harbor they had a wee bit of warning, when the Japanese diplomats packed up their stuff and hauled their butts out of Washington. There was no such warning for 9/11.

Today we can look back at Pearl Harbor and say, 'sure, they should have figured it out, because the Japanese were pressured by their code of honor to avenge the insults of America.' The problem with that is that in 1941, America didn't have much of a notion about what the Japanese code of honor meant. Bushido was not a buzzword back then, and A Book of Five Rings wasn't a business best-seller. Today, we know more about the culture and why they did what they did. But 1941 is not today.

The same applies to Sept. 11, 2001. We can look back and say, 'sure, they should have figured it out, because Islamic fundamentalists were pressured by their faith to pursue this Jihad against America for its support of Israel and its interference in the Islamic dictatorships of the Middle East.' Arresting twenty Muslim men on September 10th would have been a public relations disaster. Today we can look at that and say, 'they should have done something.' But what? Arresting them for being in the United States? Taking piloting lessons? Being on welfare? What? They hadn't done anything to be arrested for, and just saying 'they were planning a terrorist action' would have been met with scoffs of derision and cries of racism. Don't bother denying it, because it's exactly what the Democrats would have said, the ACLU would have charged, and the press would have reported. They would have all demanded proof. What proof was there? No weapons, no bombs, no guns, just the Koran and some airline tickets, if they'd even bought them yet. The left-wing would have had a field day with that.

What could have been done to stop them? Better information exchanges between intelligence and law enforcement? Sorry, that was illegal until the Patriot Act. The law was put in place in the 1970s. Whether it was Nixon, Ford or Carter who enacted it I don't know; someone here will. But it was in effect up until the Patriot Act changed it. Now, many people here hate the Patriot Act, but would you keep that part of it if you knew it would prevent terrorism? Would you allow the FBI and the CIA to exchange information on suspected, or even known terrorists?

How about keeping them off the planes that morning? Well, sorry, can't do that, that's racial profiling, and the results would have been exactly the same as the previous scenario. And if you don't believe that, look at the widespread denouncing of ANY potential risk of racial profiling even after nineteen Muslim men had flown airplanes into public buildings. As a result, little old ladies were being frisked for knitting needles while Muslim men were being treated with kid gloves to avoid 'offending' them. Again, don't bother denying it, because that did in fact happen. Imagine what would have been said about the Bush Administration had they ordered profiling BEFORE 9/11. 'Pre-emptive racism!' would have been the rallying cry of the left. You know it, I know it, and everyone reading this knows it.

Bush didn't allow the attacks to happen; no sane president would. Stalin might have, as would Hitler (Krystalnacht comes to mind, although my spelling of it is probably atrocious). But saying that Bush is responsible for allowing 9/11 is no different than blaming Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor.

But of course, the Democrats on this board will disagree with me. Fine; you're entitled to your opinion, however biased it may be. I'm trying to be objective on this issue. I would be saying the same thing if Gore had been President and the Republicans were using the same tactics on him. Mind you, I'd likely be going after him on how he handled the post-9/11 situation, but not the 'before.'

Sometimes a lesson can't be properly learned without getting spanked, hard. America got brutally spanked on 9/11. Learn the lessons well, please. The future of the entire world depends on that.

 

[joevberry3]

I wouldn't be surprised that you stopped reading my post at that point. Perhaps I should have made my point more clear for you.

Hindsight is wonderful, but it automatically biases one's view on any event. Could Pearl Harbor have been prevented? Sure, if Roosevelt knew in advance that the Japanese were planning to bomb the hell out of the Pacific Fleet. But he didn't. Intelligence knew something was going to happen, but they didn't know where or when. Sound familiar? And that's AFTER the American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes! Yet they still didn't know exactly what the Japanese were planning. With Pearl Harbor they had a wee bit of warning, when the Japanese diplomats packed up their stuff and hauled their butts out of Washington. There was no such warning for 9/11.

Today we can look back at Pearl Harbor and say, 'sure, they should have figured it out, because the Japanese were pressured by their code of honor to avenge the insults of America.' The problem with that is that in 1941, America didn't have much of a notion about what the Japanese code of honor meant. Bushido was not a buzzword back then, and A Book of Five Rings wasn't a business best-seller. Today, we know more about the culture and why they did what they did. But 1941 is not today.

The same applies to Sept. 11, 2001. We can look back and say, 'sure, they should have figured it out, because Islamic fundamentalists were pressured by their faith to pursue this Jihad against America for its support of Israel and its interference in the Islamic dictatorships of the Middle East.' Arresting twenty Muslim men on September 10th would have been a public relations disaster. Today we can look at that and say, 'they should have done something.' But what? Arresting them for being in the United States? Taking piloting lessons? Being on welfare? What? They hadn't done anything to be arrested for, and just saying 'they were planning a terrorist action' would have been met with scoffs of derision and cries of racism. Don't bother denying it, because it's exactly what the Democrats would have said, the ACLU would have charged, and the press would have reported. They would have all demanded proof. What proof was there? No weapons, no bombs, no guns, just the Koran and some airline tickets, if they'd even bought them yet. The left-wing would have had a field day with that.

What could have been done to stop them? Better information exchanges between intelligence and law enforcement? Sorry, that was illegal until the Patriot Act. The law was put in place in the 1970s. Whether it was Nixon, Ford or Carter who enacted it I don't know; someone here will. But it was in effect up until the Patriot Act changed it. Now, many people here hate the Patriot Act, but would you keep that part of it if you knew it would prevent terrorism? Would you allow the FBI and the CIA to exchange information on suspected, or even known terrorists?

How about keeping them off the planes that morning? Well, sorry, can't do that, that's racial profiling, and the results would have been exactly the same as the previous scenario. And if you don't believe that, look at the widespread denouncing of ANY potential risk of racial profiling even after nineteen Muslim men had flown airplanes into public buildings. As a result, little old ladies were being frisked for knitting needles while Muslim men were being treated with kid gloves to avoid 'offending' them. Again, don't bother denying it, because that did in fact happen. Imagine what would have been said about the Bush Administration had they ordered profiling BEFORE 9/11. 'Pre-emptive racism!' would have been the rallying cry of the left. You know it, I know it, and everyone reading this knows it.

Bush didn't allow the attacks to happen; no sane president would. Stalin might have, as would Hitler (Krystalnacht comes to mind, although my spelling of it is probably atrocious). But saying that Bush is responsible for allowing 9/11 is no different than blaming Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor.

But of course, the Democrats on this board will disagree with me. Fine; you're entitled to your opinion, however biased it may be. I'm trying to be objective on this issue. I would be saying the same thing if Gore had been President and the Republicans were using the same tactics on him. Mind you, I'd likely be going after him on how he handled the post-9/11 situation, but not the 'before.'

Sometimes a lesson can't be properly learned without getting spanked, hard. America got brutally spanked on 9/11. Learn the lessons well, please. The future of the entire world depends on that.

Brother I agree with you 100%! To bad most democrats wont agree, not cause they dont agree with you personally but cause of the fact that they dont WANT to admit the truth.

 

[joevberry3]

I have often wondered about Christians, Politics, and God. If a Christian Democrat refuses to acknowledge(or Republican) the truth and will lie for their party, does it count as a lie? Will we be judged for lying for our fav party?
Just something to ponder..Now I await the smart remarks...lol

 

[Mϋzikdϋde]

Could 9/11 been prevented? If you think so, how?

We could take it off the calendar and go straight from 9/10 to 9/12. That way it'll never happen again.
(kiddin joe )
If it wasn't WTC or the pehtagon it would have been something else some other time. When you antagonize the world there will be reprisal.

 

[Gunny]

Then why did the FAA, NORAD and the military all have emergency procedures with which to do just that?

Well, obviously you have the intel that would have prevented that horrific day.

Congragulations, fellow Jarhead.

 

[Gunny]

Of course 9/11 could've been prevented, the government planned it.

Welcome to the New World Order.

If that day was not so horrific in nature your statement might be possibly viewed as an attempt of questionable humor.

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

What could have been done to stop them? Better information exchanges between intelligence and law enforcement? Sorry, that was illegal until the Patriot Act.

100%, absolute garbage. Our intellegence and policing agencies have been working together for decades.

How about keeping them off the planes that morning? Well, sorry, can't do that, that's racial profiling

14 of the 9/11 terrorists were already known to the FBI prior to 9/11. The only kind of profiling that was necessary would be against known terrorists.

... and the results would have been exactly the same as the previous scenario.

<snipped ranting about how "the left" wouldn't allow Bush's to racially profile, making 9/11 possible>

Can you show me one shread of evidence that the Bush team actually tried or suggested profiling to bar passengers from comerical flights before 9/11?

Bush didn't allow the attacks to happen; no sane president would.

At least we agree on something. Of course Bush didn't allow the attacks to happen, he just didn't take the threat of terrorism seriously. And we all got burned on that.

Sometimes a lesson can't be properly learned without getting spanked, hard. America got brutally spanked on 9/11. Learn the lessons well, please. The future of the entire world depends on that.

Yeah, we got spanked, and then two of the 9/11 terrorists were awarded student visas 6 months after the terrorist attacks. They were even delivered to the flight school the terrorists trained at.

How about that, huh?