"copertopkiller" wrote

Naaa...you go ahead. You're the one making the claim that they should
have
been successful.

I did not introduce speeds and distance into this tread, you did. So if
you
care to be taken seriously that your introduction has any pertinent
validity
into my disscussion of procedures not being followed I suggest you do so.

Speed & distance has *everything* to do with aerial intercepts. If you
cannot understand that basic fact, there is no help for you.

Your earlier question of "Can you explain why then with armed AC and AA
bateries available none where successful or used at all?" would seem to
point to something 'sinister'.

They were not successful in intercepting the hijacked AC
Why?
Either they did not a) launch early enough, or b) fly fast enough
Why not?

That is the question...
Was it some grand design conspiracy in the
identification/authorization/launch/intercept process?
Or was it considered to be a standard hijacking? (In which case alert jets
were not always launched)


The timelines are differing and numerous, moron. Furthermore why do I need
to show you or anyone else what alert birds were able to intercept when
everybody knows none did?

If none did, and that is what they were supposed to do....then why didn't
they?
You're the one making the claim. Fess up, son.

please note the word 'reputable'

Please not the word "strawman".

I insert the word reputable, because a grand conspiracy theorist such as
yourself would be prone to use junk information, such as "they WERE notified
hours before, but bushman told them not to launch until it was too late"

Pete