![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Pete" wrote in message ... "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. Speed and distance that intercepts need to travel have nothing to do with procedures not being followed. This is a fact that you do not aseem to comprehend or be able to refute with data and/or by "reputable" cites. You were requested to supply the specifics and incorporate them into your statement anyway. You haven't and cannot be taken seriously. 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. I have made a claim that is widely known, moron. 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 If I was to use junk information, why would such a person as yourself who hasn't provided "reputable" information himself or even sufficiently classified what would be reputable be questioning anyone? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS : Boeing 747 for terror attacks !!!! | Bruno Beam | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | December 20th 04 12:46 AM |
on average 17 attacks on US forces a day | Jim | Military Aviation | 0 | October 15th 03 08:06 PM |
(Translated article) Saipan attacks by IJAAF, November 1944 | Gernot Hassenpflug | Military Aviation | 7 | October 8th 03 04:23 PM |
Bu$h Jr's Iran-Contra -- The Pentagone's Reign of Terror | PirateJohn | Military Aviation | 1 | September 6th 03 10:05 AM |
Records Show Hill, Air Force Officials Knew of Attacks | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 24th 03 11:58 PM |