FAA Warned about increased hi-jacking - but not about specific threat

Monday Morning Quarterbacking meets Chicken Little in this Newsday report:

"If they knew about it, why the hell didn't they do something?" said Elaine Moccia of Hauppauge, whose husband, Frank, died in Tower Two.

The problem is, they didn't know about the specific threat! Had there been a precedent, I'd have a different opinion. The WTC bombing in 1993 is not relevant to hi-jacking planes and using them as weapons. In fact, the story reports:

"The commission was clear on one point: It found no evidence that the FAA had any information that terrorists planned to hijack airplanes in the United States and use them as weapons."

The report's main findings (listed below) give clarity to what went wrong - but don't suggest that anything more could have been done in the environment this tragedy took place. If you think civil libertarians are upset about the Patriot Act, think about how loud they'd have screamed if the FAA had tried to impose higher screening practices based on unsupported evidence. Were we complacent? Yes. Was it intentional or criminal? No. That's how tragedies occur.

Red flags in the report:

• In the months before Sept. 11, the FAA issued 52 intelligence reports that mentioned Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Five mentioned hijacking.
• "False sense of security." After a decade without a hijacking, officials were more concerned with congestion, delays and airline financial woes.
• It was unthinkable. Officials largely assumed that a terror attack would take place overseas.
• Communication breakdown. Two Sept. 11 hijackers were on a government terrorist watchlist, but the FAA was not privy to that information.
• Loose rules. Small knives, such as ones used by the hijackers, were not explicitly banned aboard aircraft.
• Spotty security. Airport screeners often failed to hand-search carry-on luggage, reducing the chance of finding a well-hidden banned item.