Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sig who wrote (128763)	4/8/2004 10:44:39 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

About Sept 11 and connecting the dots. 911 could not be defended against and here are some reasons: Assume an FBI agent got the information first hand from OBL- the horses mouth himself- on October 10. In an intercepted speech or tape. ... If you're going to make something up, why don't you at least try something that bears some semblance to reality. Destroying the terrorists will be the most effective measure. Get real. jttmab

To: Sig who wrote (128763)	4/8/2004 11:54:38 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

But if the 4 separate crews were not aware of what the other crews we planning,we would have had to know the total number of highjackers and capture all 20. You are making the same mistake Rice made...we couldn't do anything because we did not have specific details. What does she want...the flight number and the hyjacker's name? There is a LOT we could have done to prevent the attack without specific details. How many of the attacks would have been successful if all the planes had hardened cockpit doors? If we can't do anything to protect ourselves without specific info as to their plans why have we made all the changes to airline security? Why do we inspect luggage on flights without specific threats?? Should we leave the doors unlocked without a specific threat?