Part of the problem is that along with the explosions of planes hitting the Twin Towers there was an explosion of the number of "experts" on terrorism, and even the long term experts were operating very short on intelligence. Thus, people without real knowledge (either psuedo-experts or 'real' experts who still can't operate without data/intel) were throwing out predictions that had more to do with "group think" and CYA (cover your a**) than any actual analysis.

Most of these groups made what I used to be heard called "donkey tails" when I worked in the "community." A "donkey tail" was a report akin to the tail in a game of "pin the tail on the donkey." Put a map of the world on a wall, close your eyes and randomly stick a pin in it. Then predict that some "key event" will happen there or near there. You will almost always be right. Akin to the "small world problem" (like 'six degrees of seperation') once *something* happens you can always 'pin' it to something else (or some other region) in only a few steps --- as a result your analysis can in retrospect be made to look positively genius. At least to most people who don't do that kind of thing for a living. Like congressional budget masters or the general public.

The more fuzzy you are, the more likely your prediction will be "correct." Parse a sentence like "An attack" "is likely" "within the continental United States" "in the future." (I recall seeing that reported in the paper). This is what intelligence agencies do when they don't really know what is going on - or are intentionally trying to skew debate for political/bureacratic reasons.

Why weren't there more attacks? Now we know that Al Qaida was never as large or well organized as we feared in those first instants. They could not stand up to the pressure put on them once they had set themselves apart from dozens of other 'would be' organizations. They succeeded in one briliantly audacious plan and folded like a "one trick pony". However, as I recall an old general once saying "Never admit you got punched by a mouse." If a major attack were carried out, then naturally it HAD to be from an enormous powerful foe who was poised to strike again, and even worse. Once again, in an absence of 'hard data' intelligence tends to reflect the producer's mentality more than 'reality.' If we were a superpower with vast military powers and an incredible intelligence operation -- then think of how powerful/secretive/capable some group must be to carry off such an attack! The possibility that we were "sucker punched" in a vulnerable spot by some 'run of the mill' fundamentalist group would not have sold well in those early days.

The absence of further attacks makes one wonder --- Is there really a huge "Muslim threat" of such attacks in the future? You'd think about 1/4 of the world's population could have come up with some kind of good 'follow up' by now. "We" (to use the royal we) based many of our early predictions on a supposed 'rising tide' of "Islamic Fundamentalism" that was hell-bent on killing us in our beds and going to heaven for virgins. Perhaps this is another of the fundamental assumptions that we made incorrectly in the heat of the moment.