Yep - 9-11 attacks predicted in 1994

"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.

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"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.

snicker

Now that's incorporating!



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.

Listen kook, no highjacked AC was intercepted on 9/11.



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

You need one, moron

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.

wrote in message
...
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?

Listen up, loser. Provide the list (your alleged list) of misconceptions
surrounding 9/11 and FAA Procedures before you try to weasel out of it
sliding into another irrelevant regurgitated comedic screenplay of yours.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:49:44 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
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?

Listen up, loser. Provide the list (your alleged list) of misconceptions
surrounding 9/11 and FAA Procedures before you try to weasel out of it
sliding into another irrelevant regurgitated comedic screenplay of yours.

I already did if you had bothered to read it.

Now, I guess we add another question to the long list you can't
answer.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:49:44 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
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?

Listen up, loser. Provide the list (your alleged list) of misconceptions
surrounding 9/11 and FAA Procedures before you try to weasel out of it
sliding into another irrelevant regurgitated comedic screenplay of yours.

I already did if you had bothered to read it.

Now, I guess we add another question to the long list you can't
answer.

snicker

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

"copertopkiller" wrote in message . net...
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:49:44 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
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?

Listen up, loser. Provide the list (your alleged list) of misconceptions
surrounding 9/11 and FAA Procedures before you try to weasel out of it
sliding into another irrelevant regurgitated comedic screenplay of yours.

I already did if you had bothered to read it.

Now, I guess we add another question to the long list you can't
answer.

snicker

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

Well, there was a list provided in this thread, but perhaps you missed
the message. Look at:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....co m&rnum=61

"r_c_brown" wrote in message

Well, there was a list provided in this thread, but perhaps you missed
the message. Look at

You're mistaken.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:59:44 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:49:44 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
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?

Listen up, loser. Provide the list (your alleged list) of misconceptions
surrounding 9/11 and FAA Procedures before you try to weasel out of it
sliding into another irrelevant regurgitated comedic screenplay of yours.

I already did if you had bothered to read it.

Now, I guess we add another question to the long list you can't
answer.

snicker

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

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....