On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:59:44 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:49:44 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:16:30 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


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

Speed and distance that intercepts need to travel have nothing to do
with
procedures not being followed.

So where in the procedures does it specify how fast the fighters
should travel to intercept a hijacked civilian airliner? If it isn't
specified, then how can you conclude that following the procedures
would have prevented 9/11?

Listen up, loser. Provide the list (your alleged list) of misconceptions
surrounding 9/11 and FAA Procedures before you try to weasel out of it
sliding into another irrelevant regurgitated comedic screenplay of yours.

I already did if you had bothered to read it.

Now, I guess we add another question to the long list you can't
answer.

snicker

Agent86's Listed FAA Misconceptions (was... ) this thread.

And there is this jewel in that posting:

FAA regulations were followed.
"FAA regulations require NORAD to scramble aircraft in the event of a
hijacking or an emergency."

There are no such regulations. How can FAA regulations require NORAD
to do anything?

True: FAA regulations do not specifically tell NORAD to scramble AC.

So, Bryan, it comes down to this. You claim that if procedures had
been followed on 9/11, the outcome would have been different. Now you
flat out say that there aren't any regulations that require NORAD to
scramble aircraft.... Hoisted on your own petard....