Saturday, November 25, 2006

USAToday: "Ex-employee says FAA was warned before 9/11"

[...] The team repeatedly warned the FAA of the potential for security breaches and hijackings but was told to cover up its findings, Dzakovic says.

Eventually, the FAA began notifying airports in advance when the Red Team would be doing its undercover testing, Dzakovic says. He and other Red Team members approached the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General, the General Accounting Office and members of Congress about the FAA's alleged misconduct regarding the Red Team's aviation security tests. No one did anything, he says.

Then came 9/11.

"Immediately (after 9/11), numerous government officials from FAA as well as other government agencies made defensive statements such as, 'How could we have known this was going to happen?' " Dzakovic testified later before the 9/11 Commission. "The truth is, they did know." [ ... ]

TSA spokesman Darrin Kayser would not comment on Dzakovic's allegations that he was retaliated against for being a whistle-blower.

- full text here.

13 comments:

  1. abbass11:00 AM

    great germane article, but i personally find the translator's case to be more interesting and crucial.

    The only 'evidence' i've seen that may be referred to as primary source has consisted of purported Al Qaeda video recordings and 'manuals' disseminated as evidence by U.S. agencies, and I've always found the translations astoundingly fourth-rate, if not downright scandalously misinformative.

    i never knew whether to laugh or be furious...

    as for the thinking and words ascribed to the official perpetrators of AQ acts worldwide, i honestly don't know how lenin and his asskissers automatically take them to be real.. i'd imagine the first place you'll go to find clues about a perpetrator's personality is his immediate family, genuine friends, etc. and such filmed or serious print interviews are rare if not completely unavailable..

    One of the few reporters who has had extensive contact with UBL is Taysir Allouni of Al Jazeera, and he has been deemed an Al Qa'eda terrorist by a ridiculously unjust Federal Spanish judge.

    Allouni is under house arrest now because of poor health.

    It's simply astounding that most people in the anglophone countries buy into a hollywood storyline fabricated by whoever. It's more astounding that people refuse or are too scared to ask the serious questions. (And I mean the majority ..)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11:09 AM

    Could someone point out where in the USA Today article it says anything about the FAA being warned about 911?

    I somehow doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. abbass11:25 AM

    anonymous:

    the point is that the FAA were very aware of extremely lax security and controls at U.S. international airports and therefore aware also that its airports may be used as potential launch points for attacks within the U.S.

    Why would the FAA deliberately neglect the findings of the special task force assigned to test security and controls?

    Why would they retaliate against a whistle blower?

    Why not dot discuss this more openly in public, and why open discussion so late, 5 years after the fact..

    ReplyDelete
  4. abbass: "i'd imagine the first place you'll go to find clues about a perpetrator's personality is his immediate family, genuine friends, etc. and such filmed or serious print interviews are rare if not completely unavailable.."

    That is an excellent point. How many people can even *name* one of the 19 alleged hijackers, besides - of course - Evil Atta? (Chosen as monster-in-chief because of that unprepossessing photo.)

    Five years on, where are all the fascinating news features entitled: "Waleed al-Shehri: His Family Speaks Out"? Or: "Khalid al-Midhar: The Making of a Monster"? Nowhere. Nobody's interested. Why not? Surely it would help in the War on Terror if we could find out what makes these Evil Monsters tick? Surely this would be interesting and *useful* information?

    There is presumably a good reason why none of the families, friends, teachers, etc. are ever interviewed. (Evil Atta's uni tutor was interviewed on German TV - and that man's description of Atta was of someone remarkably un-evil.)

    The whole thing is such an utterly transparent fraud.

    P.S. I was in a very sunny mood all day, and had actually resolved to strike that comment about Lenin (and his Tombsters) from the top of this post. No point in being unnecessarily rude, I thought...

    Then I looked at those threads on the Tomb and saw the latest shameful, evaisive, mean-spirited rubbish they're still spouting today. Meaders. ITN. JohnG. The usual suspects.

    So stuff them. They are shits and fakes and fools and timewasters and moral cowards and de facto supporters of warmongers' lies. Stuff them. They are beneath contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Talking of translators, have you seen this?:

    http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006/01/inventing-osama-lies-damned-lies-and.html

    Two independent native-Arabic translators and a Professor of Oriental and African Studies at the University of Hamburg tell us that the White Hous's translation is a deliberate manipulation. That it purports to prove OBL's guilt and yet does nothing of the sort. That numerous words have been inserted and invented and mistranslated.

    No one on British or German TV has ever repeated that simple experiment. No one has ever reported the Germans' findings.

    Why not?

    I have met the two German TV reporters who made that programme and who arranged those independent translations. They are veteran investigative journalists with an excellent reputation. And the tale of the lengths they had to go to, even to *acquire* that original-Arabic tape from the White House... well, that is a very black comedy in itself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "No one on British or German TV..."

    Typo.

    Should read: "No one on British or US TV..."

    ReplyDelete
  7. "i honestly don't know how lenin and his asskissers automatically take them to be real.. i"

    abbass, I think what you say about hollywood is the jey. They don't really "take them to be real", they "buy" them, they are satisfied with them, in a kind of entertainment sense: they say, yes I can take these elements and fashion a good critique I like, that I consider a good marxist analysis, and that is what matters. all that matters. Some almost confess to this - you can't doubt x or y because that hurts your argument, or could be twisted by an opponent or whatever. it almost always comes down to this - rhetorical strategies. there as an argument there about whether in capitalism working men are able to exploit their wives as labour. vicious checkist said 'don't say that because believing that is bad for class solidarity'. It did not mlatter to her whether it was true or not. This is the point of view offered the spectator by television; you are told you are volunteer pr, you are always an advertiser, always selling something, and what you think and say should be what is miost advantageous for your sales pitch and that is all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. the thrust of the whole thing is this hideous objectification; they talk of "political islam" as if they were nerdy expert entymologists talking about bugs. completely dehumanising. You just have to think about one of these stories for five minutes and imagine yourself in one of these guy's places and that the story is not psychologically (or politically, or logistically) plausible emerges. that there must be more (and less) is starkly evident. then all the stories are uniform, as if Alqaedaman is just the same guy in every story. They speak unhesitatingly about "the profile" drawn by "academic studies of Political islam". Sure there are things that make people susceptible to certain kinds of seductions - skinheads, buddhism, gambling - but "the profile"? they wouldn't even dare assert "the profile" of the Gestapo in such narrow terms, and insist that each Gestapo member's personaliyy was simply reducible to the elements of "the profile". its one thing to look for commonality, things in common, but this goes to another step or reducing people to the elements of "the profile" as if they were mere zombielike embodiments of its aspects.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Some almost confess to this - you can't doubt x or y because that hurts your argument, or could be twisted by an opponent or whatever. "

    Exactly. You Too Can Learn The Secrets Of Effective Salesmanship. Become unattackable. VC (and many others there) is always addressing these pep talks (or dressing-downs) to some imaginary trainee in some imaginary marketing department.

    My dad always said he didn't trust anyone who was trying to sell him something. And the really dismal thing about the Vicious Chekist Sales Strategy is that it's entirely immune to any evidence that the product is not selling well at all. And the customer (as gull to be flattered and cozened and reassured) is presumed to be even more timorous and underinformed than she is.

    - By the way, colonel: it's a nice gesture, but please don't exile yourself from LT just out of solidarity. The really encouraging thing was how many people (you and paul especially) kept on countering their incessant evasions and distractions and insults. I learned a lot from it, and so presumably did many others who were just reading and not commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. yeah i was surprised to see VC saying the fascists convicted for bologna were innocent and framed up to protect anarchists. but then, apparently this is an advatageous talking point for the selling of warnings against "sectarianism" (anarchists). though if anarchists could get to the point of influence with the italian judiciary where the courts are framing ultra right ministers and intelligence agents for their crimes, i would think VC's whole worldview would need adjustment....

    worth remembering that it was the exposure of the spanish government's lies about who was responsible for the madrid bombings that resulted in the public forcing spain to withdraw from iraq. what is curious about the american case is the government's lies about who was responsible (the one's even the tombers agree on - except meaders evidently - about sadam hussein's involvement) had two layers. So actually people could be sceptics about the gov's explanation while accept it, just dividing it into two parts. like those steering wheels on baby carseats; babies feel like they are driving.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "it's a nice gesture, but please don't exile yourself from LT just out of solidarity"

    i exaggerated a little; actually i am always sorry after i comment there. I really did want to talk about the balkans; this is important, it is neglected history, it is very much a part of the current policy, it debunks the false antagonism between 'neocons' and the 'deep state' but also reveals that there is a significant difference which should always be acknowledged between "Congress" and "The US"; we should give up "the US" but the divison isn" neo-cons vs other people, it is between the continuous power block of ruling class, military and secret services - those involved in Iran contra for example - and the legislature as a body, which cannot merely serve the interest of the former, regardless of public opinion, though more and more it can.

    i don't like this view that coups don't matter, that there is no difference between the Lavalas admin and the Latortue junta. It is not the difference bteween capitalism and socialism of course, but that there is no difference is an insane assertion. And the same with the post 911 and the Pre 911 Bush regimes. It may not be different to VC, but it is surely different for Muslims accused of terrorism. now they can't even get a lawyer. But of course, there are so many al Qaeda plotters out there - ten thousand! - chances are everyone picked up did something -"is no boyscout", "is no saint", or whatever. its like witch trials; you are allowed to say someone particular isn't a witch, but not that this presence of the devil is exaggerated surely and possibly imaginary.

    ReplyDelete
  12. abbass12:47 AM

    qlipoth:

    great link about the translations, thanks i hadn't seen that one before.

    le colonel:

    they talk of "political islam" as if they were nerdy expert entymologists talking about bugs.

    exactly, i couldn't have said that better, and that's exactly how i feel about those intricate discussions they have over there..

    then I wonder if they have ever met an "Islamist" type--islamist, for want of a better word--not necessarily extremist, outside of Britain (or America).

    for example, I have several cousins with beards and 'the look' of let's call it the 'orthodox muslim'.. but it would be very hard to characterize their beliefs, let alone to try and figure out where they really stand politically.

    those discussions you are referring to are just too pretentious to be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete