The purpose of terrorism is to induce fear, as opposed to inflicting physical damage. Thus, terrorists are rarely concerned with collateral damage. The Muslim 'cells' in the Philippines made it easy to operate. However, there was no collateral damage available which would be meaningful to the USA.
It is folly to separate the middle-eastern connection from the Oklahoma City bombing. 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?
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.
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 establishe 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 toa 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.
Sure, what I meant by my "collateral damage" remark was that they would want as much damage as possible. Elsewhere I've read they meant to blow all these airliners up at the same time, which would probably maximize the terror impact. If those airplanes were full it would be a lot of people too.