Liberal Forum

And reflect on the pool of the 25 years of aftermath..

The equation  looks worse today to me..

 

JohnnyYou » Today, 4:45 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 4:45 am

And reflect on the pool of the 25 years of aftermath..

The equation  looks worse today to me..

That slogan left the Democrat chant when they elected a Mayor that lost an uncle on one of the planes.

RebelGator » 42 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

42 minutes ago

That slogan left the Democrat chant when they elected a Mayor that lost an uncle on one of the planes.

The most disturbing evidence of unheeded warnings was the Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The report warned that Osama bin Laden was taking actions “consistent with preparations for hijacking or other types of attacks.” Bush, who received the report at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, took no action.

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

RebelGator » 47 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

47 minutes ago

That slogan left the Democrat chant when they elected a Mayor that lost an uncle on one of the planes.

The most disturbing evidence of unheeded warnings was the Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The report warned that Osama bin Laden was taking actions “consistent with preparations for hijacking or other types of attacks.” Bush, who received the report at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, took no action.

 

It certainly did. Now for context:

What Was Missing

• No Specifics: The memo did not name specific targets, attack dates, or flight numbers.

• No Mention of Weapons: It did not warn that commercial airplanes would be used as guided missiles.

• Historical Context: Officials later testified that much of the intelligence cited was generalized, strategic, or based on older reporting from the late 1990s rather than a clear blueprint for an imminent domestic operation.

Historical Background

• Prior Warnings: Intelligence officials had tracked al-Qaeda's interest in aviation and aircraft hijackings for years, including a 1998 briefing prepared for President Bill Clinton regarding potential plane hijackings to free imprisoned extremists.

• Commission Findings: The 9/11 Commission examined the August 6 brief to understand how U.S. agencies processed threat information during the summer of 2001, concluding it was a generalized warning that lacked actionable particulars.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.  
 

Huey » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

It certainly did. Now for context:

What Was Missing

Tiny,

C'mon...

You don't want to go here, either.

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

Tiny,

C'mon...

You don't want to go here, either.

if you wanted to go there you would do it, instead of talking about it.

As the saying goes, just do it.

Huey » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

if you wanted to go there you would do it, instead of talking about it.

As the saying goes, just do it.

Tiny,

Post your sources of information from 2002-2009...
 

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Tiny,

Post your sources of information from 2002-2009...
 


 

Looks like you are all talk.

You can't post what I got wrong concerning the PDB in question.
 
 

Blackvegetable » 33 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

33 minutes ago

The most disturbing evidence of unheeded warnings was the Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The report warned that Osama bin Laden was taking actions “consistent with preparations for hijacking or other types of attacks.” Bush, who received the report at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, took no action.

 

AI Overview
The August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" warned President George W. Bush of al-Qaeda's generalized intent and capability to launch domestic attacks, though it contained no tactical details about the September 11 attacks.

Core Details

• Context: The briefing was prepared by the CIA at President Bush's request during his vacation in Crawford, Texas, following a series of generalized threat reports over the summer of 2001.

• Content: It focused on historical background, noting that Osama bin Laden wanted to "bring the fight to America" and citing past plots from the 1990s.

• Specifics: It mentioned uncorroborated or generalized information, including a call to a UAE embassy regarding potential explosives and surveillance of a federal building in New York, both of which the FBI later found unlinked to the 9/11 plot.

• What it Omitted: The document contained no mention of hijacking plans, specific dates, target locations, or the use of commercial airplanes as weapons.

• Aftermath and Declassification
• Declassification: The Bush administration declassified the PDB on April 10, 2004, following intense public questioning and testimony during the 9/11 Commission hearings regarding what the White House knew prior to the attacks. [1]
• Controversy: Critics argued the striking title should have provoked a higher state of emergency, while administration officials maintained it offered strategic warning and context rather than actionable intelligence.

Blackvegetable » 38 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

38 minutes ago

The most disturbing evidence of unheeded warnings was the Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The report warned that Osama bin Laden was taking actions “consistent with preparations for hijacking or other types of attacks.” Bush, who received the report at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, took no action.

 

AI Overview
Yes, the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief mentioned the possibility of hijackings, but it did not discuss using airplanes as suicide weapons. [1]

Key Details from the Memo

• Traditional Hijackings: The briefing noted that the FBI detected patterns of suspicious activity in the U.S. that might relate to traditional hijacking plots. [1, 2]

• Hostage Demands: Officials stated that the reference focused on traditional hijacking scenarios—such as taking over a plane with passengers to demand the release of imprisoned operatives.

• No Weapon Warning: The memo did not contain any intelligence or warning about hijacking planes to crash them into buildings. [1, 2]

• Analytical Nature: The document served as a general historical overview of Osama bin Laden's past threats and desire to strike the U.S., rather than a specific warning of an imminent attack. [1, 2, 3]

Huey » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

19 minutes ago

Looks like you 

Answer the question. 

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Answer the question. 

 

My sources are not the issue.  My posts are.  You made this statement:

Tiny,

C'mon...

You don't want to go here, either.

I am waiting for you to go there.  Demanding sources is not going there.  It is the cowards way out.  Now make your case or take your L, Puss. 

Huey » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

My sources are not the issue. .

Answer the question and then we can decide....

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Answer the question and then we can decide....

 

Remember what I told you yesterday about questions. I made my point without questions.  Prove me wrong or take the L

Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Remember what I told you yesterday about questions. I made my point without questions.  Prove me wrong or take the L

:rofl:  

you cried

"I'm a ******!"

I made my point without questions

you are incapable of so doing.

Now answer the question and I will proceed to make mine.

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

 

you cried

"I'm a ******!"


you are incapable of so doing.

Now answer the question and I will proceed to make mine.

 

My work is done here.  You got nuttin' but talk.  
 

Huey » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

My work is done here.  You got nuttin' but talk.

Assuming that work is soiling yourself, coward..

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

Assuming that work is soiling yourself, coward..

 

Waiting for you to go there.  My sources back then are not relevant.  What is relevant is the Aug 6th  2001 briefing was historical in nature, reflecting on threats mostly from the Clinton era, with no specifics on using planes as weapons.

Waiting on you to refute that.  

Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Waiting for you to go there.  My sources back then are not relevant.  

They very much are...

There will be massive gaps in your knowledge, which will require remediation. That involves you accepting objective facts.

That is a fruitless endeavor.

If you tell me on what **** sources you relied at the time, I'll quickly be able to figure out what you don't know.

This is less because I'm a genius and almost entirely because you're a moron.

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

They very much are...

There will be massive gaps in your knowledge, which will require remediation. That involves you accepting objective facts.

That is a fruitless endeavor.

If you tell me on what **** sources you relied at the time, I'll quickly be able to figure out what you don't know.

This is less because I'm a genius and almost entirely because you're a moron.

 

Bye!

You can't refute what I posted.  Run along, ******.