PDA

View Full Version : The Path to 9-11 (lawsuit).



Weg Cory
09-12-2006, 03:43 PM
I am going to admit that I watched it. I also thought it was well done. Of course, how accurately it portrayed certain institutions and parties is an entirely different matter all together.

However, I found this very interesting.

American Airlines is contemplating filing the first lawsuit against the ABC movie (I say first, because I believe it will be a domino effect). They claim that in the scene where Atta checks in, and ABC shows a terrorist red flag go up and he is subsequently allowed to walk on without search, that the red flag never went off.

The 9-11 commision reports back up American Airlines version, citing that the actual terrorist flag came up on another leg of his travels and that wasn't on American.

Maybe this is just me, but a major question standing out in my head is, why did a terrorist flag come up on one airline, yet not on a beastly airline such as AA? Is AA saying that, in essence, they don't even flag these people? Are they not privvy to some FAA databases?

Couldn't this lawsuit be viewed as unfavorable to them?

I am sure it is more complicated than just my assesment, however, it struck me as "interesting."

http://adage.com/article?article_id=111801

justb
09-12-2006, 03:53 PM
this is the danger of doing a "docudrama" with 85% truth

PMC
09-12-2006, 04:23 PM
we had people calling at work to complain about ABC due to this.

Angel
09-12-2006, 06:09 PM
we had people calling at work to complain about ABC due to this.
work?

SirMoby
09-12-2006, 07:13 PM
Maybe this is just me, but a major question standing out in my head is, why did a terrorist flag come up on one airline, yet not on a beastly airline such as AA?
In the USA you only go through security once and he went through security in a small city in Maine. I believe it was US Airways and my understanding was that they followed the current procedures which was to hold the bags until the passenger boarded.

I was chatting with some pilot friends about this a few weeks ago. I'll ask more the next I see them.

EyesWideShut
09-12-2006, 10:53 PM
I was watching National Geographic yesterday and it featured the profile of the 9-11 hijackers -- from the time the idea was hatched until those terrorists got on the planes.

PMC
09-12-2006, 10:56 PM
work?

I work for Time Warner Cable of New York.

Jasun
09-12-2006, 11:24 PM
I think that the lawsuits aren't going to stop there.

Apparently it really misrepresents what the Clinton administration was doing and makes the Bush Administration look totally innocent and broadsided by the whole thing.

ronaldo
09-13-2006, 01:01 AM
Apparently it really misrepresents what the Clinton administration was doing and makes the Bush Administration look totally innocent and broadsided by the whole thing.
It didn't make the Clinton administration look very good, but it wasn't exactly flattering to the Bush adminstration either. Neither administration escaped criticism. The main culprits, according to the movie, were the intelligent branches of the US government...which certainly makes sense knowing what we know now. George Tenet probably got most of the heat in the movie.

Should Clinton have acted sooner? Probably. Should Bush have acknowledged the threat of Al Queda prior to Sept 4 (as portrayed in the movie)? Probably. But we all have the gift of hindsight. Something neither administration had.

I'll even go as far as saying that Bush HAS taken action, albeit after the fact. Forget the subsequent wars. Probably the most damning parts of the movie was the inability of the various agencies to share material, something that is now common knowledge. Bush has, or tried to, get the agencies working together. Prior to 9/11 noone seemed to feel there was anything wrong with US intelligence, so they didn't fix what didn't appear to be broken. When it became clear that it WAS broken, Bush tried to fix it.

If GWB is delusional enough to think he's going to leave a positive legacy behind, he's sorely mistaken. But people WILL probably look back over the years and say that the intelligence IS better because of his administration. Granted any other president probably would have done the exact same thing, but it was on his guard that it happened, and his guard that it was changed.