ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The 9/11 Anniversary Will Once Again Be Upon Us and After 17 Years We Still Don't Have Answers to Outstanding Questions

Updated on April 24, 2018
bradmasterOCcal profile image

Worked at Western Digital running disk firmware projects. I live in S Cal just south of Los Angeles surrounded by millions of people

This is not a conspiracy theory

How pathetic was 911 for the most powerful and best military in the world could be so successfully attacked by 19 Muslim Terrorists. They ran their attack on a very small budget using the passenger planes they flew on as the weapon.

It is a FACT that there was zero resistance much less defense against the 911 attackers.The Article asks a serious question, where were the defenders of the United States. These government defense agencies over the years have received trillions of dollars for their existence, their technology, and their people.

  • Yet, on 911, they were not to be found.
  • So what is the answer that makes you feel warm and comfortable about the defenders of the United States, and then apply it to what happened on 911.

To answer this question, you don't even have to consider how the attackers got into the country, or how they got control of the four passenger liners. To make it even easier, you can even ignore the first tower hit.

From that point on, where were the defenders of the United States, and what was the president of the United States, the commander and chief of the US Armed Forces doing?

Where was NORAD? on 911

Has NORAD outlived its usefulness for protecting the US Homeland?

Where was the US Military

Why didn't president Bush, the Commander in Chief take control of the Chaos, direct some defense as the three planes were still in the air?

Trillions in taxes to protect the US, But on 911 there wasn't a dimes worth of protection to be found

Click thumbnail to view full-size

The anniversary of 911 is coming once again

It has been 16 plus years, and I still don't understand how the United States of America didn't have a single defense to protect the country.

  • The scope and size of the US Government increased slowly from the end of WWII, And it has grown even larger and increased its scope since 911.

  • Its HUGE size, and
  • well fed budgets, and
  • large and elite military
  • ---------------------- were no match for 19 terrorists.
  • These terrorists didn't spend hardly any money for their successful and unopposed assault on the most powerful nation in the world.
  • They outwitted the politicians, the military masters, and the named and unnamed three letter government agencies

Osama Bin Laden

  • It took almost nine and half years to track down Osama Bin Laden the one time Allie of the US against the Russian in Afghanistan, turned enemy of the United States.
  • This demonstrated the continued flaw in the government, coupled with failures in accomplishing closure in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • This continues today, only IRAQ has been squatted on by ISIS, and along with captured territory in Syria, they now have geography ISIL.
  • It was like they were continuations of the Vietnam era mentality of both the government and the people.

As in the Vietnam War,

  • the people of the United States were divided, and it didn't support the troops, and allowed the enemy to take advantage of the inner turmoil occurring in the US. Divide and conquer is the same effect that has happened since our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • The government and the people are divided, and that is ironic as we are the UNITED States of America.
  • As in Korea and Vietnam, the US lost their military gains from the negative feeling of the people that just wanted us to get out.
  • This latest negative feeling got us to abandon Iraq, and allowed the formation of a Terrorist State ISIS. It really doesn't matter whether it is ISIS or ISIL, as the terrorists exist.

It has always been the people in the military that have paid for the politics and the lack of support of the people. The military went in harms way for the US, and yet the Congress and the people didn't support them during the wars, and didn't care about them after they came back home.

911 Conspiracy Theory or Cover Up?

What don't we still know about 911, and could a captured alive Obama Bin Laden told us what really happened from his view point?

The United States government lost their bet that passenger planes wouldn't be used to crash into buildings.

The following are basically the facts that we know about the passenger planes used to attack the WTC and the Pentagon on 911. What could of happened is not reflected in the list, only the facts of what happendded are on the list.



There are many conspiracy theories, and myths about what happened on 911.

Conspiracy Theory is being used anytime that the US Government wants to hide something and or it hasn't been able to give factual or plausible answers to questions about an event.

Conspiracy is used to determine the Who was responsible but it is the What or the How that has to be answered.

  • We don't know Who was really responsible for the success of 911?
  • But as important we don't really know How three WTC buildings went down in free fall?
  • We don't know why there wasn't a forensic investigation on what was left of the building even to ensure protecting fires from taking down more iron skyscrapers.
  • We don't know what happened to the passengers or even the plane engines and other plane parts on the plane that crashed.
  • The same is true of the plane that hit the Pentagon.

To answer the how is not a conspiracy theory, it is an investigation process as when a passenger plane crashes somewhere. The FAA sends an investigative team to get answers.

The answers from 911 don't explain what or how it happened.

The facts however are clear on the result of the attack on 911. I am going to just mention the results that were verified

  1. Both World Trade Center towers were hit each by a large commercial passenger jet. World Trade Center Building 7 also went down the same way as buildings 1 and 2, although building 7 was not hit by anything.
  2. The Pentagon Building was damaged when something hit it.
  3. A passenger jet went down and crashed
  4. The US intelligence agencies and law enforcement in the nation didn’t find out about the hijackers or their weapons.
  5. No military fighter jets encountered these planes when they were in the air, and on their way to their destinations.
  6. President George W Bush was in Florida at a grade school at the time of the first attack, on the World Trade Center Building 1.
  7. President Bush remained at the school, even after he was notified of the first attack.
  8. The FAA manages the air traffic for the United Stats.
  9. NORAD defends the airspace in the United States
  10. There planned war games on the days before and after 911. On 911, the US and Canada armed and ready fighter jets and pilots that could in less than 15 minutes take off and defend 10 locations. There were two fighter jets per location. According to NORAD: Massachusetts (2 pairs), Virginia (2 pairs) and Florida (2 pairs), Canada(?), Alaska(?), the West Coast(?) and Texas(?). The information here is not detailed enough to add up correctly.
  11. These fighter jets locations were remnants of the cold war when the USSR would come from a distance.
  12. The logic for hijackers didn’t include any of the planes crashing into anything, they would as in the past choose a destination they wanted to have the hijacked plane land.
  13. The FAA notified NORAD of the two hijacked planes just minutes before AA11 hit the North Tower WTC.
  14. Two F15s from Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachussetts took of ten minutes before UA175 hit the South Tower WTC.
  15. A few minutes after the F15s took off AA77 broke its scheduled course, and the plane no longer had a transponder signal.
  16. It would be 45 minutes befoe AA77 would hit the Pentagon, and there would be no engagement of it by the military even though Andrews Air Force Base was only minutes away from the Pentagon.
  17. During those 45 minutes the FAA thought that about 11 planes might have been hijacked. Fighter jets were taking off unarmed with the possibility of ramming any hijacked passenger planes.
  18. The ramming would have needed presidential authorization, and president Bush didn’t give that order until after the Pentagon was hit. The F16s from Langley AF Base needed to have been launched sooner. The fighters didn’t One of the fighter jets was armed but, it was hundreds of miles from the Pentagonwhen it was hit by AA7. receive their scramble order until thirty minutes after AA75 made its departure from its schedules flight plan.
  19. NORAD never launched all available fighter jets
  20. The FAA didn’t oder all non military planes in the sky to land until twenty minutes after the Pentagon was hit.
  21. UA93 crashed landed in Pennsylvania three minutes later. At that time there were fighter jets circling over Washington DC waiting to see where that flight would head.
  22. The reason that Andrews was not a NORAD base, and that is why Langley AF Base in Virginia deployed the three fighter jets. Unfortunately, they headed in the wrong direction because of bad communications.
  23. There were no Alert Aircraft at Andrews Air Force Base. However, there was a controversy about that in the information. There was talk about two combat ready squadrons at Andrews, but they were not part of NORAD and didn’t get the order to go. Ready also doesn’t mean available in minutes. There is a difference between Combat Ready and Ready. Langley was Combat Ready, but Andrews was just Ready.
  24. Prior to 911 the Secret Service had requested alert aircraft for Andrews Air Force Base to protect the Capitol, but that never happened.
  25. Prior to 911 there were intelligence reports that Al Qaeda had plans to use private aircraft to crash into buildings, but these were thought to be not pertaining to the United States. Even though a private plane had gone down on the White House lawn.
  26. On 911 there were several war games going on under NORAD. The details of these games, which were halted after the 911 attack, are in controversy.

The bottom line is that the United States failed to protect the homeland on 911

The purpose of this hub is to remind us that we didn't really get the answers about why 911 was a success for 19 terrorists, while a failure for the entire United States of America and the 20 fighter jets that were on ready to protect it. On he surface, it seems like an even fight. 19 terrorists in 4 planes against 20 fighter jets across the country and Canada.

On September 10, 2001 what odds would you have given if someone posed the possibility of the US being successfully attacked by terrorists? Think of the sequence of events that had to occur for what happened to actually be allowed to happen

The terrorists came into the United States from Canada. They would have gotten their weapons, the thought is box cutters. That means two inspection points plus Customs. Four of the terrorists would have to hav a rudimentary knowledge of the aircraft to even navigate to their targets, and as we have seen from TV footage there was no second chance. They went right for the target and hit it perfectly. Especially the Pentagon because they could have hit the ground way before they got to the building. Traveling at hundreds of miles per hour that is pretty good for a first time flight.

  • Yet, we know that it happened, but isn't it incredible that the terrorists did better than the entire defense of the US? At any point along their trip from Canada to the planes they could have been caught. We see things like this on TV and Movies, but in real life it is amazng. There is no mention whether any of the flights had air marshals on them.

Isn't it strange that only the plane that went down in Pennsylvania had any passengers that called people on their cell phones. With a plane as large as these, how could five terrorists hold that many people at bay. At least one, possibly two had to be in the cockpit. Two or three with box cutters, holding 33 to 76 passengers. Also odd was that the load factors on these 767s and 757 passenger jets were very low, as they could have held about 175.

  • The point is that any of these logistics could have failed the attack, or at least some part of it. The plane that went down in Pennsylvania didn't reap much information. We still don't know what its target destination was because it didn't reach it

It seems to me that the Pentagon was not a real good target, as I said it was low profile and it would have been difficult for an inexperienced person to make it on the first try. I know that it did, but you still have to ask how?

  • The White House and the Capitol Building would have made a better target and it would have been more devastating to the country The White House would have been a small target, but a bigger payload.

Have we learned anything since 911 that would have shifted the US into being proactive? Having the TSA do more inspections is not proactive, it is reactive to the previous attack. There are so many soft targets in the US that planes are just one method of attack.

Even the airports are not secure. It was just a couple of years ago that a gunman was running a muck at LAX. If there had been several instead of one gunman, there would have been more than one person dead. Even before that the LAX International Terminal also had a single gunman running loose in it. So don't get a false sense of security that the TSA measures are really working and the reason why there haven't bee new attacks.

You can spin it anyway that you want to/ but the United States government failed to protect the country on 911.

It wasn't just one agency like the FAA or NORAD, it was every US agency that has to do with defending the sovereignty of the US. The US government has been protected from scrutiny of how it handles military matters by using the conspiracy theory defense. When the conspiracy theory is invoked, the credibility of attacks on the government are shunted to ground. When in fact he reason that there are conspiracy theories is because the explanation given by the government is inadequate to intelligently explain the incident, or it doesn't provide the necessary facts, or it simply doesn't make any sense.

This doesn't mean that all conspiracy theories are correct or even plausible, it just means that they are filling in for the missing explanation given by the government.

As the time runs the conspiracy theory lingers on, but the government story hasn't changed. The government lets the theory look ridiculous even if it might have been true.

Without any conspiracy theories that exist for the 911 attack, we factually state that the United States Defense didn't prevent or lessen any of the damage from the terrorist attack. Look through the facts listed above and it is clear that for whatever reason the defense of our air space was lacking.

  • The FAA,
  • NORAD,
  • Andrews Air Force Base,
  • President Bush,
  • Air National Guard,
  • FBI,
  • NSA,
  • TSA,
  • and others FAILED on 911.

There is a lot of similarity between the 911 attack, and the attack on Pearl Harbor n 1941.. There was no existing plan at the time of these attacks that predicted they were possible much less probable. Both attacks had intelligence information available to indicate an attack was imminent, but the decision makers didn't see it, or didn't react on it.

For all intents and purposes both attacks were executed to completion as if the United States was blind, deaf and dumb. The US was reactive in 1941, and asleep since the end of WWI. they had over twenty years to figure out what Japan and Germany were doing in the world. Germany was no surprise as they were already at war. Japan had already made war moves in China. The US was trying to sit this war out, or so they thought.

The same is true about 911. It was less than ten years before 911 that there was a bomb attack on the WTC. There were attacks on the US overseas, and although the attacks didn't included passenger jets, there was information scattered about the world that an inference or a supposition could have been made by the US Military.

We can only hope that the US government is now doing a better job of out thinking the terrorists instead of thinking that they will return to the same plan that worked before?

what has 911 done for the defense of the United Stat?

It has been over thirteen years since 911, and how much have we changed and how much have we learned that will better protect us?

Are we different today?

It took a decade after the first attempt on the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists. In the early 1990s, the terrorists bombed the WTC in an attempt to cause mass destruction. That attempt failed to do much damage.

The next attempt on the WTC buildings was a success on September 11, 2001. Why was this attack successful? The simple reason is that the United States doesn't act proactively when defending the homeland. No one in the government, at least not the decision makers had an idea that terrorists would be able to not only hijack four planes, but actually fly them into high value soft targets.

The US Government depends as in the case of 911, on shoring up the holes in the same system that the terrorists have already used, but the terrorist have been shown to be not only patient, but very creative in their terror plots.

In my opinion, the large commercial airports in this country as a vulnerable as ever.I would elaborate on how, but that would just give the wrong people the right ideas. What the TSA has done to improve the airport security is minimal. It costs a lot of money and it inconveniences the bulk of the passengers, but is it really protecting the country from terrorist attacks, I would say very little.

The United States didn't learn their lesson from the attack on Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941 because those same types of gaps in communications existed in both that attack and 911. And the former was when the World was already in a war.

The "War" that we started in 2004 with Afghanistan and Iraq while it is still ongoing, Has I believe had put the terrorists in a defensive mode on their own soil. That is any soli outside of the US that they can be terrorists.

This was a costly distraction for us in both financial, and lives. The terrorists are now getting bolder, and maybe in the near future they will try again to attack us where we live. And you probably believe that the invasion of our privacy by the US government is going to protect us from these terrorists. The real question is who is going to protect us from our own government?

Sadly, the only one that is reading this hub is the NSA. It is one thing to give up your constitutional right to privacy during a war, but there are no wars, at least wars signed off by the US Congress. The last such war was WWII.

The entire military defense system of the United States failed miserably on 911, while they may have patched the system that failed, smart terrorists are planning to find new holes that our defenders might not seem credible, as they did for 911. When the terrorists can claim land in foreign countries, things are looking stronger for them and weaker for us.

We probably have the smartest security people in the world, but unfortunately they work under mediocre old dogs that can't learn new tricks.


Do you think we need to know more about 911?

See results


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 days ago from Orange County California

      Updated article April 22, 2018


      Need Some Goals?

      Articles with these attributes typically get 300% more traffic.











      3318 words in this article

      Is your Hub evergreen? Evergreen Hubs can earn for months and years to come.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 4 months ago from Orange County California


      Thanks for commenting on this. It is a shame the so many people are clueless on this.

    • ptosis profile image

      ptosis 4 months ago from Arizona

      Crap. I hate agreeing with you but yeah ...

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 5 months ago from Orange County California

      Robert you have convinced me.

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 5 months ago

      The Pentagon was a completely different building from the WTC. They had completely different designs, materials, there was also the reality of only 4 stories above the impact site. There are many sites that explain the apparent inconsistencies. WTC 7 was on fire all day. The reality is there are always inconsistencies.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 5 months ago from Orange County California


      The fuel for conspiracies are facts that don't make sense, or facts that are missing. When a conspiracy theory goes to who were the conspirators and there is no direct proof than it is just an opinion.

      But the facts or lack their of concerning the Event in the theory cannot and shouldn't be thrown away with the Conspiracy Theory.

      These events have facts and they also are missing critical facts. Both the planes that hit the WTC had the same kind of fiery crash and both buildings fell down at the speed of gravity after a very short time. The plane that hit the Pentagon didn't have the same reaction, yet it was the same kind of plane and filled with even more fuel as they didn't fly very far. The plane that crashed on the ground also had a different type of crash and burn.

      There is a lack of consistency in these different crash sites.

      That is a fact, and it can't be dismissed by calling it a conspiracy theory.

      Calling something a conspiracy theory is not the same thing as a reason to dismiss it.

      BTW, WTC 7 was never hit by either plane and yet it fell just as if it was hit by one. Also, there has never been a steel skyscraper that has duplicated these three WTC building going down from a fire. And it has not occurred in the 16 years since 911. These once again are facts that were never given satisfactory answers. WTC 7 is not mentioned in the 911 report.

      It is a twist of logic to say that the answer to the Pentagon crash is the fact that there is damage to the building. But there are little to no facts to answer the questions leading up and past the crash.

      To this day, we have no idea who picked the targets and why. The White House and the Capitol building would certainly be better than the Pentagon and more crucial to the American people.

      Even the CIA building would be more appropriate because it is the CIA that actually gets on the ground and in the face of these "Terrorists".

      We might have had these answers from the source, Osama Bin Laden, but we had him executed.

      I have dealt with the Events and the facts that are available for it. I didn't broach any conspiracy theory. I asked how can these feats be explained using these facts. How could untrained terrorists execute these acts with such precision?

      Even the US military attempts to rescue the hostages in Iran when Carter was president. And the Obama led attack on OBL in Pakistan didn't go with such precision.

      Point is that calling something a conspiracy theory is not a valid answer to the type of questions that I have posed here.

      Symbolic Logic

      If P then Q

      where P = It rained and Q is the sidewalks got wet

      This cannot be reversed

      If Q then P

      Q is the sidewalks are wet

      P may or may not be the reason that the sidewalks are wet.

      This is similar to what you pose about the Pentagon Crash.

      There was no proper forensic air crash investigation for any of the crash sites. Look at all the laborious previous aircraft crash investigations and then compare it with 911.

      Separate and apart from the two towers from being hit by planes, the investigation of why these towers went down was not supported by forensic evidence. And the explanation of the 911 report doesn't give any answer to how WTC fell.

      Using your analogy, all three building fell in the same manner, so they should all have the same reason. Did they?

      The fact that three steel skyscrapers fell and no others in the world should be very important to prevent possible future collapses. Just like we upgrade for earthquakes we need to know what we should do for the existing steel skyscrapers.

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 5 months ago

      Interesting, but it doesn't change the fundamental fact that American 77 struck the Pentagon. As with any catastrophic event there are always reports that are way off the mark. Conspiracy theorists use these early reports to fuel their theories.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 5 months ago from Orange County California

      A Boeing 757, operated by American Airlines, took off from Washington Dulles International Airport at 8:20 a.m. At 8:54 it deviated from its assigned route and at 8:56 the transponder was switched off. The plane, under the control of hijackers, headed back toward Washington and descended. As it approached the Pentagon it performed a descending spiral to the right and finally dived toward the Pentagon while accelerating. It hit some light poles and other objects on the ground and then penetrated the west face of the building at 9:37:44,(1) or 9:37:46,(2) depending on source.

      Photo of smoking Pentagon after getting hit by American 77

      Various claims have been made about the attack on the Pentagon. Early claims included damage by a missile or a truck bomb.(3) However, as so many witnesses had reported seeing a large commercial aircraft approaching the Pentagon, these claims received little attention from the public. It was not until the data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) was received from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that serious consideration was given to alternative explanations of the damage. The data was received in two forms, following a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. One form could not be understood by inspection and the other, a readable comma-separated values (CSV) file, had some columns of data missing, a critical omission being radio height.(4) After considerable difficulty, assistance in interpreting the coded file was received and the result came into public hands.(5) Like the CSV file, it appeared to indicate that the flight terminated at a position which was too high to have struck the Pentagon in the described manner.

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 5 months ago

      There were airplane and body parts. There is a picture of a plane part and other explanations on a Popular Mechanics page:

      Granted its height isn't much, 75 feet, but the perimeter of the Pentagon is almost a mile so if a pilot could land, or crash land, a plane on a runway it's reasonable that pilot could strike the building. The black boxes were recovered, there's a picture of one of them on Wikipedia You may want to consider adding some of these pictures to your article.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 5 months ago from Orange County California


      So, I am confused. You say that it hit the ground first, and that slowed it down, yet it goes through 3 rings of the building. Does that explain why there were no airplane parts, including the engines, no black box, and no passengers bodies?

      My original point is that it would be very difficult to impossible for a novice non jet airliner pilot to hit the building in the first place and any speed but especially at high speed.


    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 5 months ago

      It was enough impact to go through 3 rings of the building.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 5 months ago from Orange County California


      Not having any real footage of the descent the best you could call it would be a skip, or kiss. Apparently it hit with such force as they couldn't find passengers or plane?

      Tell me what you really think... Thanks

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 5 months ago

      It actually hit the ground before striking the Pentagon. This dissipated some of its energy.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 5 months ago from Orange County California


      That is true but the "plane" was traveling at high speed and hitting the building first rather than the ground would be extremely difficult even for a veteran pilot.

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 5 months ago

      While the Pentagon is only 5 stories tall it takes up a lot of area and is clearly visible from the air.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 5 months ago from Orange County California

      To All

      I was recently watching a you tube on pilot views of NYC that would land at La Guardia. I watched the plane go up the Hudson River after going over the Statue of Liberty and I could see the Freedom Building where the Trade Center building were before 911.

      It became apparent that at the speed the planes hit the WTC 1 and 2 were going at cruising speed. Some people claim they were going in excess of design limits of the plane.

      In any case, these planes were coming in fast. Even the slightest deviation would have missed the building. Yet, they hit in the middle of the width of the building.

      The Pentagon hit was extremely difficult as it was not a tall building.

      The point is that forgetting conspiracies how reasonable were these three planes hitting their target?

      In the fourth plane they couldn't find any passengers, or the engines much less the black box that is supposed to be indestructible?

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 5 months ago

      You're welcome.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 5 months ago from Orange County California

      Thanks Robert. The sad fact is that for whatever reason the US defense system was nowhere to be found on 911.

      As for Tom Clancy, could he have done any worse on 911? :)

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 5 months ago

      One thing Tom Clancy admitted about his first novels was he always had everything in the military working right. After seeing some exercises he realized that isn't always the case. Often in the recent terrorist attacks all the warning signs were there but the terrorist(s) wasn't stopped. Keep in mind though a good number of terrorists were stopped before they carried out an attack. The thing is stopping 9 out of 10 attacks isn't good enough.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 5 months ago from Orange County California

      Would Tom Clancy had been better at protecting the US from a 911 attack?

      There are many conspiracy theories, and myths about what happened on 911.

      The facts however are clear on the result of the attack on 911. I mention in the above article, the results that were verified

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 21 months ago from Orange County California


      It is highly unlikely based on history that things will change for the better in defending the US at home.

      Thanks for your input.

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 21 months ago

      Yes, but I don't see things changing much anytime soon. Hopefully we are both wrong.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 21 months ago from Orange County California


      In your Pearl Harbor example, even an alert of the possibility would have had better results. The same is true of 911. The reason we have all the 3 ltr agencies is to at least raise alerts and defense. But, to have the results of 911 was just a repeat of Pearl Harbor, but the enemy didn't need an army, air force or a navy to make a successful attack on the most powerful country in the world, at that time.

      We have failed to win a war since 1898, and it is the failed reasoning of the politicians that make it happen. I won't go into the details here as I have already written a hub on it.

      My point is that politicians in Congress, and the Presidency have been making bad defense decisions for several decades. 911 was much like the Attack on Pearl Harbor as to the information know in the US intelligence and it didn't percolate up to where even an alert was issued.

      Since 1937, and especially 1939 the US knew that a repeat of WWI was brewing. And that it was only a matter of time before we were involved. FDR had been supplying England with supplies and weapons way before the Attack on Pearl Harbor.

      My point on that is the military should have been up and ready 24/7. It was no coincidence that Japan struck on early Sunday morning.

      The basic flaw in the US defense policy is being Reactive instead of Proactive. We didn't do anything about Airline Hijackings until the first hijacking. Then we didn't do enough, and the 911 flaw was the congress, and the military heads, just didn't think that 911 was a viable scenario.

      With the defense of the country as their job, it is not hindsight to show the flaw in rejecting the 911 scenario, but a failure of being reactive.

      Since 911 the Reactive mentality is still well and alive. This gives the terrorists the advantage. As in the 4th of July threat by ISIS that JFK, LAX and Heathrow was going to be a target. That is like throwing a fake jab and seeing the opponent flinch.

      Doing this enough times, puts the opponent into a false sense of security. Then out of no where comes the real punch.

      The entire military, and the 3 letter agencies that exist to protect us at home and abroad have hundreds of years of experience in the art of war. But they are controlled by politicians that only want to do something after the fact. They don't want to listen to the opinions of the military.

      Even as a reactive measure the failure to alert the defenders was the same thread in both the attack on Pearl Harbor and 911.

      A fighter ready Andrews Air Force Base could have defended the Capital. But, Andrews was apparently just an Air Taxi service for the politicians.

      What is the point of spending Billions and even Trillions on the Military and supporting agencies that are tasked with our defense, if they are useful only as reactive force.

      911 has cause us to flinch all the time, and that dulls the effectiveness of even a good defense. The TSA is really useless first from their low paying personnel to the lack of being armed in case of an attack.

      The perimeters of airports are not secure, and the people that have inside access to the airports are not really vetted properly. And they especially shouldn't be able to get around the security.

      A bomb in the waiting to get to security could be really effective for the terrorists, especially during peak holiday trips. But there are so many soft targets in the US that more proactive measures need to be taken.

      Please reread my hub and tell me where I am wrong.


    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 21 months ago

      Yes, the U.S. pretty much abandoned air defense of the continent in the decades before 9/11/01. Fort Hamilton in NY use to have surface to air missile batteries. In the '60s the attitude about homeland defense went to "why bother".

      To use Pearl Harbor as an example: Let's say we intercepted and decripted a message that stated there would be an air attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. One analyst could conclude it means what it says. Another analyst could conclude Pearl Harbor, 12/7 is just a code word for someplace and/or sometime else. Another analyst could conclude the Japanese are just planning an exercise with a pretend attack on Pearl Harbor. Another analyst says the message is just a test to see if we cracked their code so any reaction on our part would let the Japanese know we cracked their coded and possibly give them other valuable intelligence information.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 21 months ago from Orange County California


      That is the pat answer, hindsight. But, we spend 100s of billions of dollars on our security to have this kind of hindsight. The total defense of the US was suspended until after the 911 attacks ended.

      We needed a 24/7 military to guard the US. How can hindsight account for Andrews Air Force base not defending Washington DC. I would just be repeating what is already in the hub.

      But thank you for at least commenting on this important subject.

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 21 months ago

      The United States isn't alone when it comes to terrorist attacks. Attempts to foil these attacks have had mixed success. As with any intelligence failure in hindsight all the signs were there but the analysis of the information failed.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      Basically, the attack on Pearl Harbor reenacted itself on 911. The same mistakes and flaws in our country's defense is involved in both of these attacks.

      Both attacks were equally successful.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      The anniversary of 911 has come and gone, and no one cared to answer the question of this hub. Patriotism or Apathy?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      Just a few more days until the anniversary of 911, and still no one cares to comment.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      So no one cares about the answer, or they already have an answer that they like?

      I don't know the answer?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      Now this is really a reflection on how the average person allows the government to get away with no doing their responsibilities. At the same time the government has grown in size and scope, and the people seem to be asleep or doped up.

      Wake up!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      The comments capsule is now back, so now you can way in on Where Were the US Air Defenses on 911?