Yep - 9-11 attacks predicted in 1994

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:00:12 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:22:26 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


And what measures should have been taken, Bryan?

I know you have selective memory. Do try to refresh your recollection.

To the best of my recollection, you've never answered the question,
Bryan.

snicker

Loosen the flag around your head some. Now do you remember?

Hint: it has to do with FAA Regulations and NORAD

If you've answered it before, then you should have no trouble doing so
again. But since you never answered it, except for sputtering that
"they" should have done something, you can't.

Not true. I will not becuase you more than else have been hammered with this
argument.

Not really, Bryan. You've never come close to laying a glove on me.

Now you want to make it seem like we haven't been down this road
before which is simply untrue.

No, Bryan, we've been down the road, you just haven't ever answered
the question.

Now I seem to remember very recently you making some kind of statement that
the FAA Procedures that are referred to are not what people claim they are.
I of course asked you to list these misconceptions and am still waiting for
you or anybody else to do so.

Been there, done that, Bryan. Go consult Google.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:00:12 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:22:26 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


And what measures should have been taken, Bryan?

I know you have selective memory. Do try to refresh your
recollection.

To the best of my recollection, you've never answered the question,
Bryan.

snicker

Loosen the flag around your head some. Now do you remember?

Hint: it has to do with FAA Regulations and NORAD

If you've answered it before, then you should have no trouble doing so
again. But since you never answered it, except for sputtering that
"they" should have done something, you can't.

Not true. I will not becuase you more than else have been hammered with
this
argument.

Not really, Bryan. You've never come close to laying a glove on me.

Yeah, thats difficult to do from behind PC's although I was not thinking
physically but argumentively. It was about FAA Procedures which you claim
myself and others have misconceptions about. You know the procedures brought
up. Why don't you list the misconceptions? poorboy

Now you want to make it seem like we haven't been down this road
before which is simply untrue.

No, Bryan, we've been down the road, you just haven't ever answered
the question.

snicker

Now I seem to remember very recently you making some kind of statement
that
the FAA Procedures that are referred to are not what people claim they
are.
I of course asked you to list these misconceptions and am still waiting
for
you or anybody else to do so.

Been there, done that, Bryan. Go consult Google.

Go consult a whore you half of fag.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:51:19 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Not true. I will not becuase you more than else have been hammered with
this
argument.

Not really, Bryan. You've never come close to laying a glove on me.

Yeah, thats difficult to do from behind PC's although I was not thinking
physically but argumentively. It was about FAA Procedures which you claim
myself and others have misconceptions about. You know the procedures brought
up. Why don't you list the misconceptions? poorboy

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.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:51:19 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Not true. I will not becuase you more than else have been hammered
with
this
argument.

Not really, Bryan. You've never come close to laying a glove on me.

Yeah, thats difficult to do from behind PC's although I was not thinking
physically but argumentively. It was about FAA Procedures which you claim
myself and others have misconceptions about. You know the procedures
brought
up. Why don't you list the misconceptions? poorboy

Not in any particular order:



Oh my. This is a list of misconceptions about FAA Procedures? Let me have a
look.


--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.

snicker
Lame excuses provided by NORAD and other spokesman parroted by yourself.
Whether they were looking outward or inward still doesn't provide any
insight as to the misconceptions of FAA procedures. If you continue making
this claim you will need to provide the actual FAA Ptrocedure that was in
question.

Broken down further for morons: Whether NORAD was looking offshore provides
no insight about alleged FAA Procedural misconceptions. I am tickled you
think so.

By the way, since you are providing a refutation of "NORAD could already see
a good part of America" can you be specific as to what % of America NORAD
could actually see? snicker

Can you state where on the map of the USA where NORAD actually lost its
vision? Be sure to include when they are working with FAA radars.




"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"

snicker

You have really helped the misconceptions here. What percentage of these
writen procedure contain in them this "it is routine procedure" It doesn't
matter if it does or not when it was widely reported by people in the know
that this was the case.




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."


Are you suggesting this is a FAA Procedural misconception? Please list the
procedure itself. Furthermore, Rudman would be wrong about not having alert
birds available.




Yet another:

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

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

Oh my, there is one of the examples I just made claim about above. There it
is folks. It was a routine action performed by fighter AC.

snicker


Response:

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

snicker

Well folks it really is time for you to stand up and say I'm not gonna take
it anymore. Your government will not protect you if your on a Commercial
Flight and you have gone off course.

In my best Donald Rumsfeld impression: Why? I can't really tell you. Things
don't always make sense. I suppose sometimes they do protect commercial AC
and then, sometimes they don't. It's a tricky situation these AC that veer
off course.

SNYDER continues...


"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.

No in fact he didn't deny that they routinely intercept civilian AC. He said
they scramble routinely on what they consider potential threats to and from
any AC. He then made an excuse for these not being intercepted becuase they
were (not threats) normal, scheduled, commercial flights on approved paths
and they only had 10 mins to the 1st attack.

The thing is that they were known to be highjacked, veering off flight paths
and incommunicado. Where is the FAA Procedural misconception you say you
cleared up?

snicker


"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?

Another FAA Procedural misconception explained!



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.

You are a dope. Those words read as "At the time the military can
provide...".
It goes onto explain the procedures that will happen "at the time" between
the NMCC and other party's involved. It does not mean "If the military can
provide" as you claim.

snicker



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.

You dope, this is an firefighting service link from Australia. You really
are helping out with these misconceptions.



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. "

This inclusion makes everything clear. Apparently I was correct in stating
that a scramble doesn't require alert birds after all. Thanks for helping
out with the misconceptions.

snicker


And some of his all time greatest misconceptions:

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

I am sure you enjoy taking a snippet of a larger argument of mine so you can
attempt to spin it. Heres that gist of itt:

If AC aren't intercepted then they cannot possibly take charge of the
situation by attempting to divert the errent AC to a place deemed suitable
or safer by the USG. If the "evil doers" thought that they could do whatever
they wanted they could have been shot down.

"This was a very difficult, difficult proposition," Cheney said. "If we'd
had been able to intercept the planes before they hit the World Trade
Center, would we? And the answer was absolutely yes."

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNew...moments_3.html

You haven't shown one misconception above even foolishly providing one of
your own while you attempted.

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. FAA
Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during the intercept.



"Following procedures guarantees a successful outcome."

Wouldn't doctors like this to be true?

snicker A doctor has a patient that can't breathe because of an
obstruction. The known procedure to ensure a successful resolution would be
to quickly clear this by way of removal or by creating another pathway for
supplying oxygen before the patient suffocates. Following procedures quickly
guarantees a successful outcome.

Using your analogy with the patient who had an obstruction would be true if
the patient had already expired by suffocation. Therefore the above stated
procedures do not guarantee a successful outcome. If the patient had already
expired the only cutting would be performed by a coroner.

I'll repeat again:
If AC aren't intercepted then they cannot possibly take charge of the
situation by attempting to divert the errent AC to a place deemed suitable
or safer by the USG. If the "evil doers" thought that they could do whatever
they wanted they could have been shot down.




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

I wish you would have supplied the full exchange of how it got to this point
moron. What FAA Procedural Misconception is this clearing up? As usual you
throw quite a bit of crap up and shriek.



Which is just nonsense.

Who had taken charge? It would be simple to make a very good argument that
since nobody was apparently protecting American Civilians that were
indirectly involved in this attack (not on the HJ'ed AC) and after the
previous incidents that day it was the correct thing to do. It could always
be covered up for all you cock gurglars with a wink and nod.


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:

There has been no list here or posted anywhere else that I've seen that you
or anybody else has provided about FAA Procedures misconceptions.



Here, I'll spell it out for you.
1.a. Intercepts by military aircraft of hijacked civilian airliners
were not required on 9/11.

When you read Section 7-1-1 as a complete moron yes. As already explained
above those words read as "At the time the military can provide". It goes
onto explain the procedures that will happen "at the time" between the NMCC
and other party's involved. It does not mean "If the military can provide"
as you claim.




b. Emergencies did not require the intercept of civilian airliners
by military aircraft.

Your refute: And NO WHERE in that regulation does it say "It is routine
procedure to scramble fighters when planes deviate from course". Seems you
are confused about what you are clearing up and are yourself experiencing a
misconception, again.



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.

Interesting. http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-6
Clearly states after a AC is Highjacked supervisory personnel should be
contacted immediately yet the FAA highjack coordinator, the ultimate
supervisory personnel for this situation wasn't. What was the amount of time
that passed before doing so?

Furthermore, since transponders were turned off the positive flight
following objective was not going to be able to be completed with another
civilian AC that had it's own flight path and schedule to follow which also
lacked the needed manuverabiltiy to get a visual of the incominicato
highjacked AC without putting those passangers at risk. Therefore a
intercept was even needed for all these symptoms minus the "determined or
confirmed highjack".

With the FAA being repeatedly told of possible highjackings and now having a
confirmed one on its hands under the previously stated circumstances make
your only argument or misconception explanation which if I recollect
correctly has involved d. (if aircraft are dispatched to escort...) invalid
at best. This is not following FAA Procedures nor is it a misconception.


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.


This is true, moron. But as I mentioned somewhere else in these threads the
Highjacked AC couldn't just appear over NYC from over Massachusetts in a
blink of an eye. There was time for it to be intercepted if procedures were
followed as I just explained above. Then and only then the remaining
intercept procedures that tell the intercepted AC that it has been just
that, intercepted, could be performed and show that the AC was in fact very
hostile as it screamed towards a very populated area which raised more
safety concerns.

If orders were not followed by the intercepted AC at this point it could
have been downed over a less populated area. I refer you back to Dick "I'm a
tough *******" Cheney"s statement earlier in this post. I understand that
panty wearing ****s like yourself couldn't make the tough decision to down
it. Let one Highjacked AC do what it wants over American Airspace and you
bring future trouble into the equation.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:43:05 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:51:19 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Not true. I will not becuase you more than else have been hammered
with
this
argument.

Not really, Bryan. You've never come close to laying a glove on me.

Yeah, thats difficult to do from behind PC's although I was not thinking
physically but argumentively. It was about FAA Procedures which you claim
myself and others have misconceptions about. You know the procedures
brought
up. Why don't you list the misconceptions? poorboy

Not in any particular order:

Oh my. This is a list of misconceptions about FAA Procedures?

Actually it's a list of your misconceptions, but it includes some of
your misconceptions about FAA procedures.

--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.

snicker

And Bryan proceeds to "answer" me. But as usual, he snips some of my
answers, and twists the remaining words to his own bizarre meanings.
But there is one interesting place that he slipped up:

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....

That "NORAD did it!" has been around for a while. See
http://www.danford.net/norad.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org