Yep - 9-11 attacks predicted in 1994

"Morton Davis" wrote in message
news:rQmec.17090$rg5.38791@attbi_s52...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:51:28 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


So now we're down to just an "indication of a 9/11 style attack? I
thought your position was that the government knew when, where, how
and by whom.

snicker

Well, is that your position or not?



It's "position" is: hands over eyes so he can truley say he can't see
reality.

-*MORT*-

Said the moron who thinks the exact target, day and time needs to be known
before measures can be taken. And lets be very clear about this. No measures
where taken. I don't care if Dick Clarkes Policy's weren't implemented. It
doesn't matter if Condi said that they were working on a strategy to hit AL
Queda. These are two different things. What did your government do, the
Booshies, what did they do to defend America on 9/11

That's as preposterous as it can get. You dopers should expect more from
your government than we didn't know when, where or how...bwahahahah

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:47:03 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Said the moron who thinks the exact target, day and time needs to be known
before measures can be taken. And lets be very clear about this. No measures
where taken. I don't care if Dick Clarkes Policy's weren't implemented. It
doesn't matter if Condi said that they were working on a strategy to hit AL
Queda. These are two different things. What did your government do, the
Booshies, what did they do to defend America on 9/11

And what exactly should they have done, Bryan? Shoot down the
airliners? Wasn't that one of the answers you gave before?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:47:03 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Said the moron who thinks the exact target, day and time needs to be
known
before measures can be taken. And lets be very clear about this. No
measures
where taken. I don't care if Dick Clarkes Policy's weren't implemented.
It
doesn't matter if Condi said that they were working on a strategy to hit
AL
Queda. These are two different things. What did your government do, the
Booshies, what did they do to defend America on 9/11

And what exactly should they have done, Bryan? Shoot down the
airliners? Wasn't that one of the answers you gave before?

Nice! Now everyone could see you are quite the pathetic liar. You just
claimed something about not having recollections of FAA Procedures
discussions with me. Helping you continue in your false memory lapse, your
argument was that there are no procedures for shooting down AC and that
wasn't ever my point.

My point was that since FAA Procedures weren't followed, no interceptors
were anywhere near a position to determine if this last resort was necessary
or deemed appropriate by some tough decision maker in the US Government.
Remember me saying that tough decisions are made in the US Government on a
daily basis on this scale.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:08:33 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:47:03 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Said the moron who thinks the exact target, day and time needs to be
known
before measures can be taken. And lets be very clear about this. No
measures
where taken. I don't care if Dick Clarkes Policy's weren't implemented.
It
doesn't matter if Condi said that they were working on a strategy to hit
AL
Queda. These are two different things. What did your government do, the
Booshies, what did they do to defend America on 9/11

And what exactly should they have done, Bryan? Shoot down the
airliners? Wasn't that one of the answers you gave before?

Nice! Now everyone could see you are quite the pathetic liar. You just
claimed something about not having recollections of FAA Procedures
discussions with me.

Yep it was you - here's an example:

From: agent86x )
Subject: Conspiracy Crusader Doubts Official 9/11 Version
View: Complete Thread (78 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Date: 2003-05-16 17:56:57 PST

On Fri, 16 May 2003 05:12:42 GMT, "Coppertop Killer"
wrote:

"Coppertop Killer" wrote in message
. net...
"agent86x" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 May 2003 04:02:36 GMT, "Coppertop Killer"
wrote:

snip

Yes, you should also note FAA Procedure 7-1-1:

7-1-1. PURPOSE

The FAA hijack coordinator (the Director or his designate of the FAA
Office of Civil Aviation Security) on duty at Washington headquarters
will request the military to provide an escort aircraft for a
confirmed hijacked aircraft to:

a. Assure positive flight following.

b. Report unusual observances.

c. Aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.

Now what exactly would following this procedure have done to prevent
the events of 9/11?

Ugh you tell me how it WOULD NOT prevent the events of 9/11.

So a military jet following Flight 11 and Flight 175 would have
stopped them from crashing into the WTC? How exactly would they have
prevented it?

Lets stay right here on FAA Procedures not being followed for the moment,
then I will allow you to go off on the CIC tangent.

You will allow? What a laugh. But it was you who brought up being
CIC.

You make reference to
7-1-1 as if it is an end all to the discussion as a refute.

You're the one fond of misinterpreting the FAA regs.

7-1-1 simply states what and why it should be done.

Exactly.

This procedure would be effective
only if ATC services prescribed by the FAA were followed. They are located
here... http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/index.htm

Effective at what? What is there in any of these regulations that
would have prevented 9/11?

Chapter 10 has clear procedures on this. 10-1-1 states the following:
c. If the words "Mayday" or "Pan-Pan" are not used and you are in doubt that
a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as
though it were an emergency.

And as we've been through many times before, an emergency is not cause
to scramble aircraft.

d. Because of the infinite variety of possible emergency situations,
specific procedures cannot be prescribed. However, when you believe an
emergency exists or is imminent, select and pursue a course of action which
appears to be most appropriate under the circumstances and which most nearly
conforms to the instructions in this manual.

Which is what they did.

When Payne's jet went errant the ATC tried to communicate with the pilots
six times within a 4.5 min. period before following the prescribed
procedures mentioned above.

Try again, Bryan. The last full transmission from Stewart's plane was
at 9:27 EDT. The first unresponsive call from the ATC was at 9:33
EDT. (reference:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/aberdeen/...esentation.htm). They
did try to contact the plane for the next 4.5 minutes, but NORAD was
not notified until around 10:08 EDT.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/...t/stewfs14.htm
"But after 9:44, the crew did not respond to radio calls. Within 24
minutes, the Federal Aviation Administration had asked the Air Force
for help in tracking the jet."

This ATC action was for a small private jet in a
much less populated air traffic corridor than the N. East.

And the Stewart plane wasn't actually intercepted until 9:52 CDT
(10:52 EDT), over an hour after it was first determined to be
unresponsive.

However, FL11
being highjacked @ 8:14am (not communicating, even on emergency frequencies,
transponder lost, pilot started to hit the talk-back button, which enabled
Boston ATC to hear what is being said in the cockpit) yet according to NORAD
they aren't notified for another 27 mins @ 8:40.

Which is about the same response time as the Stewart plane.

This is a clear violation of FAA Procedures if you believe NORAD is not covering its ass in their
timeline.

Which procedure would that be, Bryan? As has been pointed out to you
before, and I quote:

" '7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE

The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by
direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC).
Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action.
However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort
aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort
mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will
advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of
the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then
authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military
unit. When a NORAD resource is tasked, FAA will coordinate through
the appropriate SOCC/ROCC. '

Escort had to be requested by the FAA. Note the words "When the
military can provide escort aircraft", which can only mean that it was
not a requirement that they be provided. And there was no provision
to shoot down civilian airliners, or don't you know what the word
"escort" means?"

So back to the question that you never address. How would following
the FAA procedures on 9/11 have stopped the WTC attacks?

Now back to your questions:

So a military jet following Flight 11 and Flight 175 would have
stopped them from crashing into the WTC?

Not unless it followed its escort procedures for the errant aircraft to
follow it. Remember that 7-1-1 states in part a. Assure positive flight
following. Positive meaning formally laid down or imposed.

How exactly would they have prevented it?

By acting on FAA guidelines as prescribed. Once it was determined that the
Highjackers weren't going to agree with any positive flight following it
could only mean one thing. With all the warnings received from our allies of
what was about to come it was a no-brainer. Don't believe the politics
played on top D.C. officials not knowing or Rumsfeld statement to Russert
of "why scramble fighters if you don't have orders to shoot the errant craft
down.

You really haven't a clue as to the meaning of "positive flight
following", do you? That aside, you advocate shooting down a civilian
airliner in every case just because it doesn't turn when it's told to
turn?

Just for your education, here's a definition of "positive flight
following":
http://www.bushfire.nsw.gov.au/pdf_files/Av_sops_17.pdf.

Positive flight following is the knowledge of the aircraft's position,
and its condition at all times.

Now, Bryan, exactly how does a hijacker "agree with any positive
flight following"?

snip

And "escort" doesn't mean shooting down a civilian airliner that has
been hijacked.

Yeah you are getting brighter all the time.

So your point is?

You figure it out.

Actually, I'm obviously a little dense. Why don't you explain it?

NOTE to agent86... A scramble doesn't require the birds to be on alert
status.

It does if you can read and understand English:

Yeah sure...cite it then! I just showed you that it doesn't, get over it,
admit you were wrong, move on and continue to expose your own foolishness.

You've shown no such thing.

5. A swift takeoff of military aircraft in response to an alert or
attack.

Oh yes the above is your dictionary definition...very convincing against the
FAA's own web page which states otherwise.

Oh, really? As a followup:
Order 7610.4J, Special Military Operations, Section 1.3.2

http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch1/mil0103.2.html#1-3-2
"Scramble. Departure of an aircraft training for or for the purpose of
participating in an air defense mission.

Scramble Order. A command and authorization for flight requiring time,
of not more than 5 minutes, to become airborne. "

Now what exactly were you saying about the FAA regs stating
otherwise?

You just admitted that the word "scramble" isn't used in the cited FAA
regs. There was no requirement for a scramble takeoff to escort a
hijacked aircraft.

I never stated that. What I stated was that an escort, whether it was
scrambled or not, didn't need to be an alert bird by FAA's own Web site.
This is something you still want to believe, you're wrong.

Oh, really?

"From: Coppertop Killer )
Subject: Conspiracy Crusader Doubts Official 9/11 Version
Date: 2003-05-13 19:30:52 PST

But actually, Chapter 7. ESCORT OF HIJACKED AIRCRAFT, doesn't even
use the term "scramble".


Right"

Tell you what, Bryan, cite where the word scramble is used in Chapter
7. ESCORT OF HIJACKED AIRCRAFT of the FAA regs.

Then you can explain how the FAA regs provide for an escort to have
been in the air in time to have intercepted the WTC planes.

snip

And what would you expect the CIC to do in this case?


Be CIC, put the photo op on hold, regain air security all the while having
contact with the proper command posts and so as to make tough decisions.

Exactly what decisions had to be made between 9:00 AM and 9:20 on
9/11? And air superiority against what? Civilian airliners?

I don't have a clue as to where you are going here, care to elaborate?

You don't have a clue about a lot of things.

At
9:00 AM, there was no indication of any more hijackings and the
President had no knowledge of any. Flight 77 had just been taken over
and there was no indication of its intent. Flight 93 was still some
30 minutes from being hijacked.

FL 175 had been Highjacked @ 8:43, NORAD admits this, NEADS had their
headsets linked to Boston FL Control, NORAD knew instantly.

And where exactly did I bring up Flight 175?

Flight 77 and FL 175 Both were errant at 9 AM.

Except no one knew that Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:00 AM, least
of all the President.

I expect the CIC to be just that, not some littlephoto op whore when he was aware of this type of incident.

You still haven't answered the question about what you expect the CIC
to have done.

It may be good enough for you but it wasn't acceptable for the country now was it.

And your basis for that conclusion is?

Even if your little theories about preattack intelligence were true,
don't you think two hijackings and attacks against the WTC would have
more than fulfilled the prediction?

They are true, it was three known highjacks at 9 AM though.

Hardly. Flight 77 had just been taken over and it was "lost" in the
system for some 25 minutes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...32597-2001Nov2

One struck the WTC, the other just about to strike the WTC and the third headed towards
D.C. Fulfilled predictions, business as usual, no need to do anything MR. President.

So how exactly was the President to know that there were to be one,
two, three or four hijackings based on the preattack intelligence?

***end quote***

Helping you continue in your false memory lapse, your
argument was that there are no procedures for shooting down AC and that
wasn't ever my point.

So what is your point?

My point was that since FAA Procedures weren't followed,

Which you have yet to demonstrate.

no interceptors
were anywhere near a position to determine if this last resort was necessary
or deemed appropriate by some tough decision maker in the US Government.

Which has nothing to do with whether procedures were followed.

Remember me saying that tough decisions are made in the US Government on a
daily basis on this scale.

So you would have ordered the shootdown of a civilian airliner before
any overt act of aggression occurred? And you would have done so over
the metropolitan area of New York City risking additional damage and
loss of life as the aircraft crashed who knows where? You've made
your point abundently clear, Bryan.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:08:33 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:47:03 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Said the moron who thinks the exact target, day and time needs to be
known
before measures can be taken. And lets be very clear about this. No
measures
where taken. I don't care if Dick Clarkes Policy's weren't
implemented.
It
doesn't matter if Condi said that they were working on a strategy to
hit
AL
Queda. These are two different things. What did your government do,
the
Booshies, what did they do to defend America on 9/11

And what exactly should they have done, Bryan? Shoot down the
airliners? Wasn't that one of the answers you gave before?

Nice! Now everyone could see you are quite the pathetic liar. You just
claimed something about not having recollections of FAA Procedures
discussions with me.

Yep it was you - here's an example:

There's no need for an example I am quite aware of this exchange. You are
the one that questioned this exchange. snicker


Now where is the part where you list the misconceptions on the FAA
Procedures not being followed?

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:27:59 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:

Yep it was you - here's an example:

There's no need for an example I am quite aware of this exchange. You are
the one that questioned this exchange. snicker

I didn't question the exchange. You just didn't prove your point.

Now where is the part where you list the misconceptions on the FAA
Procedures not being followed?

Not in any particular order:

--Bryan, in a thread titled " JDAM BAM! 9/11 Hot DAMN!":

NORAD could already see a good part of America.


Which was refuted:

Actually they didn't.

http://www.stratnet.ucalgary.ca/elea...ings/today.htm

" Because of the ongoing terrorist threat, NORAD changed its mission
and the way it operates. Prior to September 11th, all of NORAD's
attention was focused outside the borders of Canada and the United
States. Little thought was given to the possibility of a serious
security threat emerging from inside Canadian or US borders. After
September 11th, NORAD's mission has changed to include monitoring US
and Canadian airspace. NORAD has integrated with the US Federal
Aviation Administration by placing an FAA employee inside NORAD and
giving NORAD immediate access to FAA information. In Canada, military
officers are now stationed at most of the major air traffic control
centres and have been working with NAV Canada, Canada's air traffic
control organization. The US has also used AWACS (Airborne Warning and
Control Systems) aircraft to provide a fuller surveillance picture
than is available from ground-based radars. NORAD fighters have done
more routine patrols of North American airspace. "

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb2002/...rad_print.html

"On Sept. 11, NORAD was unaware that a problem existed until the
Federal Aviation Administration, the civilian agency in charge of US
air traffic, notified the command. For some time, the FAA had been the
lead agency for handling events of "air piracy." NORAD and the FAA had
a cooperative arrangement that left control of domestic airspace in
the hands of the FAA. Domestic airliners were considered "friendly by
origin," said a NORAD spokesman.

In the wake of the attacks, NORAD has been closely monitoring all
potential threats both inside and outside of US borders. Each day
military detection and tracking systems designed to watch for bombers
and missiles monitor 7,000 aircraft approaching the United States.

NORAD officials said the command does not have constant access to the
"interior" radar displays used by the FAA and said this is a potential
area of improvement. In fact, the command is now working to achieve a
more comprehensive level of vigilance that will not require reliance
on the FAA for help monitoring domestic air traffic, Pennie said.

"We need better connectivity" to guarantee access to domestic air
traffic information generated by the FAA and its Canadian counterpart,
he said.

Civilian air traffic radars are separate from NORAD's "fence" of
radars focused on external threats, Pennie explained. The rationale
for this arrangement was that not only were Sept. 11-style hijackings
not expected, but the Cold War mind-set was that "once a bomber got
that far [past the NORAD fence] ... things were pretty bad."

Unfortunately, Pennie reported, NORAD "simply can't connect all the
radars" and create an all-inclusive radar monitoring facility. The
technology simply does not exist to do this, and building an all-new
radar system from the ground up would be time consuming and
prohibitively expensive.

For the time being, "working closely with the air traffic authorities"
in the United States and Canada "is the way to go," Pennie said."



--Bryan in the same thread:

"An aircraft that deviates from pre-flight coordinates does constitute
an emergency and is the main reason an escort or intercept is
required. Your implying that becuase your thought process isn't
specifically in written form it is untrue. The following item is why
you are a foolish shill.
http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html"

And the answer to that misconception is:

And NO WHERE in that regulation does it say "It is routine procedure
to scramble fighters when planes deviate from course"


Yet another:

"But we did have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles sitting
on runways ready to intercept."

Former senator Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire, a Korean War veteran
and national security expert, said it would have been "very
unrealistic" to expect the military to have interceded successfully on
Tuesday.

"This country is not on a wartime footing," Rudman said. "We don't
have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles sitting on runways
in this country. We just don't do that anymore. We did back during the
'70s, the '60s, along the coast, being concerned about Russian
intrusion, but to expect American fighter aircraft to intercept
commercial airliners, who knows where, is totally unrealistic and
makes no sense at all."


Yet another:

"It is routine procedure to scramble fighters when planes deviate from
course

Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept
aircraft."

Response:

Not civilian aircraft flying within the United States, he didn't. In
fact he specifically denied it.

"We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a
potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled
commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10
minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not
enough notice," said Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for
NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo.

"This is an unprecedented event, unfortunately, and we're just going
to have to adjust accordingly," Snyder said."

If they did it routinely, what adjustment was needed?

Yet another:

Hijacked aircraft must be intercepted.

Yet the FAA Regulations state:

" '7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE

The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by
direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC).
Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action.
However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort
aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort
mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will
advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of
the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then
authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military
unit. When a NORAD resource is tasked, FAA will coordinate through
the appropriate SOCC/ROCC. "

Escort had to be requested by the FAA. Note the words "When the
military can provide escort aircraft", which can only mean that it was
not a requirement that they be provided.

And another:

Positive flight following means that the hijacked aircraft will follow
the escort aircraft's instructions.

here's a definition of "positive flight following":
http://www.bushfire.nsw.gov.au/pdf_files/Av_sops_17.pdf.

Positive flight following is the knowledge of the aircraft's position,
and its condition at all times.

And another:

A scramble doesn't require the birds to be on alert status.

Order 7610.4J, Special Military Operations, Section 1.3.2

http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch1/mil0103.2.html#1-3-2
"Scramble. Departure of an aircraft training for or for the purpose of
participating in an air defense mission.

Scramble Order. A command and authorization for flight requiring time,
of not more than 5 minutes, to become airborne. "

And some of his all time greatest misconceptions:

"Following FAA regulations would have prevented 9/11."

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?

"Following procedures guarantees a successful outcome."

Wouldn't doctors like this to be true?

"The pilots of the interceptor aircraft would've or should've taken it
on themselves to shoot down the hijacked airliners."

Which is just nonsense.

The list can go on and on.

I summed it all up in a post on 5/20/2003. It's in Google, it can be
retrieved:

Here, I'll spell it out for you.
1.a. Intercepts by military aircraft of hijacked civilian airliners
were not required on 9/11.
b. Emergencies did not require the intercept of civilian airliners
by military aircraft.
c. Interception in these cases, when done, were to accomplish
three things:
-Positive flight following - meaning the military pilots were
to maintain visual contact with the target.
-Report unusual observances - Pretty self explanatory.
-Aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency - Also pretty
self explanatory.
2. Procedures were followed on 9/11. The ATC controllers determined
that there was a hijacking, advised the FAA Hijack Controller, who
notified NORAD and requested a military escort. NORAD made the
decision to dispatch military aircraft. Aircraft were ordered aloft
from the nearest alert bases (Otis and subsequently, Langley). And as
you have pointed out, this was a "routine" event.
3. Even if those aircraft had made it to New York City before the
planes hit the WTC, there was no reasonable action that they could
have taken, given the information and the orders that the pilots had
available to them, that would have prevented the crashes into the WTC.