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.

I think you have a point fozzy. Sad to say, pride wouldn't let some Americans (including those whose job it is to know) admit we had been "punched by a mouse". I think it is obvious we were more susceptible to clever mice at that time, being more concerned with defending against (paper) tigers.

I do suspect our military aggression in the Middle East has drawn some of the violence which might have been directed at our citizens to our soldiers. But I think more important has been the realization that mousetraps, seam sealing and crack repair are more effective ways to protect our home than adding bigger guns to an already huge collection.

Yes, exactly.

And all the attention paid to and speculation made on future attacks could be used as a smokescreen to hide the intelligence and operational failures pre-9/11. A number of questions still remain about NORAD's response to the air traffic control reports in real time on planes out of flight plan. NORAD has yet to explain its refusal to explain. This is only one of a list of unexplained events prior to or on the day of 9/11. The news media was hardly any help. They capitulated to the slew of so-called experts running out like ants from the nest with the official line on the event. These included counter-terrorism and security experts known to be in the Pentagon's back pocket and the so-called architect of the Twin Towers, interviewed on various news programs, a man who, it turns out, had only been connected to the project by working there briefly as a gopher during the planning stages and was in fact in college in California when it was being built.

In other words, there was plenty of mis- and disinformation to go around.

Put this against the backdrop of the Bush Administration's symbolic view of the world--the good white giant was suckerpunched by the evil cryptic Muslim horde--and you have the recipe for the counter-terrorist chop suey that we're working with today.

Any of you intellectuals ever ask some very simple questions like with Andrews Air Force Base only 10 minutes by car from the Pentagon why is it that the last airliner was able to crash into this building despite flying for two hours after the first plane hit.

Everyone knew that plane was headed for DC.

Why was it not shot down.

The Pentagon has it's own missle battery.

Many other unanswered questions exists.

I suspect our government's Conspiracy theory of 19 cavedwellers is bogus.

According to a 2007 New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

I cannot believe you recieved a check mark from the editor.

He must lack curiousity as well.

Why you wanna beat up on intellectuals?

You're right. NORAD has yet to account for its non-response to all the events.

In addition to the Pentagon's local defenses, there is still in place a system to scramble fighters out of Andrews. They're on a 24-hour ready basis. (In fact, there used to be a round the clock rotation of fighters out of Andrews surveilling the Washington skies. Don't know exactly why they discontinued it years ago.) Either somebody was asleep at the switch or we don't know what. We don't know what air traffic control at the center in Virginia was doing.

The bits of plane and the body parts near and in the Pentagon don't add up.

The bits of plane and body parts near the hole in Pennsylvania don't add up.

The flight recorder data on the Pentagon plane don't match the strike path.

The ways the Towers came down don't match the official explanation. And the collapse of Tower 7, which has never been investigated, and never can be, because the scrap is gone, could not possibly have come down by fire alone, unless the laws of physics are fantasies.

And on and on.

911 was definitely an inside job and the MSM ignores all these inconsistancies with the official story.

Noah is typical of the Corporate MSM. They push the Corporate lies.

Investigative Journalism is Dead on Arrival.

You hav to be brain dead not to know the Anthrax attacks and 911 were inside jobs.

Conspiracy theories assume rational behavior on the part of the conspirators.

In addition, they assume some measure of competence.

I'm not convinced the bozos in charge were smart enough to carry it off. They've certainly screwed up enough other things to bring their competence into question. Something is amiss, to be sure, but complicity is not necessarily part of it.

If you were so smart, you would be keeping your mouth shut.

Or learning to swim with lead fins.

Enough said.