Yep - 9-11 attacks predicted in 1994

"copertopkiller" wrote

Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

There is an upper limit on the speed of an F-15 or F-16.
Otis ANGB - NYC or Langley AFB - Washington DC is a fixed distance.

You do the math.

Pete

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"copertopkiller" wrote

Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

There is an upper limit on the speed of an F-15 or F-16.
Otis ANGB - NYC or Langley AFB - Washington DC is a fixed distance.

You do the math.

Pete

Actually provide it for everyone. Supply the specifics and incorporate it
into your statement. I am very interested in what you will put forth.

"copertopkiller" wrote in message
et...

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"copertopkiller" wrote

Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

There is an upper limit on the speed of an F-15 or F-16.
Otis ANGB - NYC or Langley AFB - Washington DC is a fixed distance.

You do the math.

Pete

Actually provide it for everyone. Supply the specifics and incorporate it
into your statement. I am very interested in what you will put forth.

Naaa...you go ahead. You're the one making the claim that they should have
been successful.

The timelines for that morning are detailed and numerous. Feel free to use
any of the more reputable versions, along with USAF basing and force levels
on that morning, and pray tell us what 'armed AC' were available and able to
intercept, but did not.

Pete
please note the word 'reputable'

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"copertopkiller" wrote in message
et...

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"copertopkiller" wrote

Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

There is an upper limit on the speed of an F-15 or F-16.
Otis ANGB - NYC or Langley AFB - Washington DC is a fixed distance.

You do the math.

Pete

Actually provide it for everyone. Supply the specifics and incorporate
it
into your statement. I am very interested in what you will put forth.

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.

snicker
What a bunch of irrelevant hot air.



The timelines for that morning are detailed and numerous. Feel free to use
any of the more reputable versions, along with USAF basing and force
levels
on that morning, and pray tell us what 'armed AC' were available and able
to
intercept, but did not.


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?




Pete
please note the word 'reputable'

Please not the word "strawman".

I guess I set the bar too high for you.

"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.

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.

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

"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?

"copertopkiller" wrote

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.

Speed references for an F-15 or -16: www.fas.org
Distance from Otis ANGB, MA to NYC or Langley AFB, VA to Wash, DC :
www.mapquest.com

Have fun.

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 silence here is astounding.

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.

It is also 'widely known' that Elvis was sighted in 1995. Doesn't make it
true, though.

Pete
bye bye for now. I'm on vacation for a few days.

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?

snip

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?

Gee, Bryan, you just described yourself.

"Pete" wrote:


"copertopkiller" wrote in message
. net...

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"copertopkiller" wrote

Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

There is an upper limit on the speed of an F-15 or F-16.
Otis ANGB - NYC or Langley AFB - Washington DC is a fixed distance.

You do the math.

Pete

Actually provide it for everyone. Supply the specifics and incorporate it
into your statement. I am very interested in what you will put forth.

Naaa...you go ahead. You're the one making the claim that they should have
been successful.

The timelines for that morning are detailed and numerous. Feel free to use
any of the more reputable versions, along with USAF basing and force levels
on that morning, and pray tell us what 'armed AC' were available and able to
intercept, but did not.

Pete
please note the word 'reputable'


Yes, and don't forget to factor in all the different time
zones...hell, you might even be able to prove that the
interceptors should have been orbiting over NYC waiting for the
airliners to arrive...
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Pete" wrote:


"copertopkiller" wrote in message
. net...

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"copertopkiller" wrote

Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

There is an upper limit on the speed of an F-15 or F-16.
Otis ANGB - NYC or Langley AFB - Washington DC is a fixed distance.

You do the math.

Pete

Actually provide it for everyone. Supply the specifics and incorporate
it
into your statement. I am very interested in what you will put forth.

Naaa...you go ahead. You're the one making the claim that they should
have
been successful.

The timelines for that morning are detailed and numerous. Feel free to
use
any of the more reputable versions, along with USAF basing and force
levels
on that morning, and pray tell us what 'armed AC' were available and able
to
intercept, but did not.

Pete
please note the word 'reputable'


Yes, and don't forget to factor in all the different time
zones...hell, you might even be able to prove that the
interceptors should have been orbiting over NYC waiting for the
airliners to arrive...
--

-Gord.

Yes, and don't forget the timelines provided are contradictory, moron.
Furthermore why do I need to show you or anyone else what alert birds were
able to intercept from conflicting official timelines. Everybody knows not
one Alert AC performed an intercept.