9/11 Commission Report

[jerseydevil]

I was just wondering if anyone else has gotten the 9/11 Commission Report

I purchased it at Barnes and Nobles the day it was released and initially skimmed through it. I am now reading it.

It is in narrative form - not legalese. So it's easy to read and very interesting. You can also download it - but I wanted the book.

This thread is to discuss what is in the 9/11 Commission report.

One thing I was surprised by are the number of phone calls which came from the hi-jacked planes. I knew there were several calls - but when they are laid out in the book - it shows just how many there were.

This is a call from Peter Hanson to his father Lee Hanson. Peter was on flight 175...

It's getting bad, Dad -- A stewardess was stabbed -- They seem to have knives and mace -- They said they have a bomb -- It's getting very bad on the plane -- Passengers are throwing up and getting sick -- The plane is making jerky movements -- I don't think the pilot is flying the plane -- I think we are going down -- I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building -- Don't worry, Dad -- If it happens, it'll be very fast -- My God, My God.

Lee Hanson heard a woman scream when the call abruptly ended, turned on the tv and saw his son's plane fly into the south tower. This is the plane that flew right over my house as it made it's turn to attack the Twin Towers.

[BeardofPants]

Christ, it's reading things like that, that make your hair stand on end.

[Tessar]

Ugh . No way I'm buying a book like that. That's awful .

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Ugh . No way I'm buying a book like that. That's awful .

But it happened - whether it's aweful or not. The book is mostly about how the intelligence worked and so forth. I think only the first chapter deals with the planes and only the first 11 pages or so deal with what was happening on the planes.

It is extremely interesting and if you want to know what happened on that day, what led up to that day -things concerning Bin Ladin, world terrorism and the responses of America - it is a VERY informative and important book to read.

[Nerdanel]

i'd read it if i could get it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

i'd read it if i could get it.

CNN has the full report which you can download for free - 9/11 commission full report. It's broken up into downloadable chapters. Although the report is over 600 pages - the narative part is only 428 pages.

[Nurvingiel]

That does sound interesting... maybe I'd download it if I had my own computer right now, but more likely, I'd buy the book (if this dinky town had a bookstore). (Two liquor stores and no bookstores... go figure. )

What did the book have to say about the role of the Bush administration?

[gimli7410]

what area of b.c. are you in nurvingiel?

about the book, it sounds interesting, i've read a couple excerpts of it. It would be kinda of interesting to see what procedures were taken while everyone was watching it.ill look around for it but probably wont buy it,probably just get it from the library

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What did the book have to say about the role of the Bush administration?

I have to get to that part. But I know it points out short comings from BOTH the Bush adminstration and the Clinton administration. Don't forget - Clinton had 8 years to deal with Al Qaeda - Bush had 8 months. There were many terrorist attacks from Al Qaeda during the Clinton adminstration and bin Ladin had already declared war on the US at that time.

[BeardofPants]

The main downfall was probably due to having the wrong sort of mentality in both administrations though - a "cold war" one, as opposed to a "terrorism" one (ie having to deal with splinter cells, and sleeper cells now, instead of one "evil" entity).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

The main downfall was probably due to having the wrong sort of mentality in both administrations though - a "cold war" one, as opposed to a "terrorism" one (ie having to deal with splinter cells, and sleeper cells now, instead of one "evil" entity).

yes - but Clinton during his administration was cutting back on CIA funding. When Bush took office - we didn't have the Middle Eastern speakers, we didn't have any spies in any of the key locations. We relied heavily on outside sources for the intelligence.

There were plenty of chances at dealing with Al Qaeda. The thing is it does mention the Sudan - that was where the world criticized Clinton for going after bin Ladin and bombing the factory. I haven't gotten to that part yet, other than the history of Al Qaeda in Sudan and his many buisinesses and factories he owned there - so not sure what it mentions about this yet. But I know that because of world opinion - he backed off.

But I do agree that Bush probably didn't think that Al Qaeda was as big of a threat either. I will have to read the whole report which I hope to get done by Tuesday.

[Artanis]

Thanks for the link to the PDFs JD. The news here have reported what is said in Key Findings and Key Recommendations with some elaboration, but I will try to read the full report too, if I'm able to manage.

[Nerdanel]

yes, thanks for the links JD

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I have to get to that part. But I know it points out short comings from BOTH the Bush adminstration and the Clinton administration. Don't forget - Clinton had 8 years to deal with Al Qaeda - Bush had 8 months. There were many terrorist attacks from Al Qaeda during the Clinton adminstration and bin Ladin had already declared war on the US at that time.

*ponders* Yes, the problem with terrorism certainly didn't arise only when Bush took office. I also think the foreign policies of Clinton, Bush, and previous administrations as well are also factors. I completely admit that I don't know a lot about their foreign policies, but I think that how you deal with all other countries affects how those which also have terrorists perceive you. And, the relationships with those particular countries would be extremely important.
As a side note, Kerry says he will handle homeland security better than Bush. What do you guys (Americans) think of his statement? Maybe this question is better suited to the Election thread... *wanders away*

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

*ponders* Yes, the problem with terrorism certainly didn't arise only when Bush took office. I also think the foreign policies of Clinton, Bush, and previous administrations as well are also factors. I completely admit that I don't know a lot about their foreign policies, but I think that how you deal with all other countries affects how those which also have terrorists perceive you. And, the relationships with those particular countries would be extremely important.

I would suggest you look at what Al Qaeda does and what their beliefs are. Their grievences against the US are just excuses. They will use anything to turn people against the west. We will not let Al Qaeda take over the oil of the Middle East, we will not let them make the entire world Muslim, we will not run anymore from the fight. Bin Ladin does NOT like the "decadent" and "godless" life style of the west.

I would also suggest reading chapter two of the report whihc goes over the history of Al Qaeda, their motives, their justifictions, their dealings (which is rather interesting - because it also mentions how both Iraq and Al Qaeda set up meetings to make deals) - The Foundation of the New Terrorism

As a side note, Kerry says he will handle homeland security better than Bush. What do you guys (Americans) think of his statement? Maybe this question is better suited to the Election thread... *wanders away*

Don't want to discuss the election here.

[Radagast]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

We will not let Al Qaeda take over the oil of the Middle East

Surely you accept that you have no authority over who takes over the oil of the Middle East?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Radagast

Surely you accept that you have no authority over who takes over the oil of the Middle East?

Oh- so you would allow Al Qaeda tio take over the countries of the Middle East and put the West into a strangle hold? OF COURSE we will fight to protect the life blood of the west - as would Europe. Give me a break.

Do you think we had AUTHORITY to stop Hitler?

[Radagast]

You must always go to extremes musn't you? Hitler is beside the point. I fully agree with you that the lifeline of the west must be preserved, my comment was meely warning that there is a infinetesimally fine line between safeguarding one's own interests and interfering in the domestic affairs of sovereign states.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Radagast

You must always go to extremes musn't you? Hitler is beside the point. I fully agree with you that the lifeline of the west must be preserved, my comment was meely warning that there is a infinetesimally fine line between safeguarding one's own interests and interfering in the domestic affairs of sovereign states.

Not if those sovereign nations are ASKING us to be there - such as Saudia Arabia - is it?

And Hitler isn't extreme - becuase you're statement indicated that we shouldn't be doing anything to protect the flow of oil in the middle east - as if if Al Qaeda was to take control of the oil fields - then oh well - it was their choice. Bin Ladin wants to recreate the world in the fundamentalist islam image - including the west.

[Radagast]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Not if those sovereign nations are ASKING us to be there - such as Saudia Arabia - is it?

And Hitler isn't extreme - becuase you're statement indicated that we shouldn't be doing anything to protect the flow of oil in the middle east - as if if Al Qaeda was to take control of the oil fields - then oh well - it was their choice. Bin Ladin wants to recreate the world in the fundamentalist islam image - including the west.

Ah, as Shakespeare would say, there's the rub, you say that I said we shouldn't be doing anything to protect the flow of oil in the middle east. I didn't, what I said was that we have no authority over whom it goes do. By all means, let us protect it, although we must acknowledge that we have no direct authority in its possibly transient ownership.