Referring just to the Internet accounts of "Project Bojinka," the Muslim 'cells' in the Philippines not only posed a threat, but they were only detected by accident - officially.
Unfortunately, it is a serious mistake to separate the middle-eastern connection from the Oklahoma City bombing, as well. Worse, the coverup of that information is a crime in itself. Far worse is that once it was identified, there was no follow-up on the logical hunch that something was badly amiss.
According to McVeigh's accounts, he was lying about ever having been in the vicinity of the truck-bomb. His descriptions are too frequently physically impossible.
Going to the known actual dimensions (within reasonable tolerances), the Murrah Building crater says that the truck-bomb couldn't have contained the power which was claimed by the prosecution. Therefore, how does one account for the known damage to the Murrah building?
At some point, the scammed data had to have been known to the most ignorant of government employees and appropriate questions asked.
If one goes to history, it is necessary to ask, "Why were there no warnings in any of the bombings?" The reality is that there was plenty of intelligence available.
PLENTY!
Between overseas papers and the "60-Minutes" program on the Afghan terrorists, there is no excuse for not upgrading airport security and issuing warnings.
The entire U.S. government was aware that the airports were radically non-secure for years, yet, the FAA pandered to airline profits with impunity. There was nothing unknown at any government level that such was true. Bin Laden was handed an invitation, by the FAA in particular. There is no shortage of documentation on that statement.
Given the very recent Hart-Rudmann report in particular, America needs to ask Congress and the FAA, "How could you knowingly allow this to happen???"
It's necessary to go to the history that Congress changed the Federal Law, essentially relieving the FAA's responsibility for airline safety. Clinton's Presidential Executive Order 12866 made safety an option. The Order essentially said, "...if you can't establish cost-effectiveness, don't be costing the airlines money."
If human life is expendable, we're facing a minimum of 60 billion dollars in cost. NOW, is safety cost-effective?
For detailed examples as to how all this operates, go to -
Airline Safety ‘Net
- note the total absence of changes.
Magnitude of effectiveness aside, the attacks of 9-11-01 were forecast to the highest levels of government, complete with the methods to be used. There was no "surprise" in any of it.
I fear that it is also necessary to ask, "Is this another programmed "Pearl Harbor; another "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?"
Every American needs to pay close attention where the defense dollars are spent. If this is a replay of the Viet Nam War, the tax dollars will be headed to Texas holdings, with the full-funding of the super-expensive Osprey program as the first event.