Yep - 9-11 attacks predicted in 1994

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:49:02 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:22:04 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:

Furthermore, if I was privy
to the Intel that was being received now claimed to not be actionable I
would have taken serious measures.

Like what, Bryan?

Like what you have been slapped in the face with before.

You haven't even come close to "slapping" me Bryan.

Can you explain why then with armed AC and AA bateries available none
where
successful or used at all?

There were no anti aircraft batteries available that day, Bryan.

Please provide some information.

Been there done that, Bryan. Go Google it.

And
armed aircraft were dispatched to follow the hijacked aircraft.


Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

Which has nothing to do with whether the procedures were followed.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:49:02 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:22:04 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:

Furthermore, if I was privy
to the Intel that was being received now claimed to not be actionable
I
would have taken serious measures.

Like what, Bryan?

Like what you have been slapped in the face with before.

You haven't even come close to "slapping" me Bryan.

snicker

Oh yes I have.



Can you explain why then with armed AC and AA bateries available none
where
successful or used at all?

There were no anti aircraft batteries available that day, Bryan.

Please provide some information.

Been there done that, Bryan. Go Google it.

snicker Man do you have issue's.



And
armed aircraft were dispatched to follow the hijacked aircraft.


Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

Which has nothing to do with whether the procedures were followed.

snicker

Procedure 1: a particular way of accomplishing something in a traditional or
established way.

You really are a doper.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:35:36 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


You haven't even come close to "slapping" me Bryan.

snicker

Oh yes I have.

Only in your little wet dreams.

Can you explain why then with armed AC and AA bateries available none
where
successful or used at all?

There were no anti aircraft batteries available that day, Bryan.

Please provide some information.

Been there done that, Bryan. Go Google it.

snicker Man do you have issue's.

Not as many as you do.

And
armed aircraft were dispatched to follow the hijacked aircraft.


Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

Which has nothing to do with whether the procedures were followed.

snicker

Procedure 1: a particular way of accomplishing something in a traditional or
established way.

And that guarantees success how, Bryan? If a heart surgeon follows
procedures and the patient still dies, what does that mean?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:35:36 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


You haven't even come close to "slapping" me Bryan.

snicker

Oh yes I have.

Only in your little wet dreams.

snicker


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

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:58:11 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:35:36 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


You haven't even come close to "slapping" me Bryan.

snicker

Oh yes I have.

Only in your little wet dreams.

snicker


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