Yep - 9-11 attacks predicted in 1994

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.

"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?

John P. wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in a message


How do we prevent these attacks in the future?


You don't.

Well, you can stop some, just not all.

Someone who is dedicated to task and willing to die cannot be
stopped (especially when there are 1,000 others just like him ready to try
again if he fails).

One someone who is dedicated can be stopped. It is when they become a
multiple and fanatical that they can't be stopped overall. You can stop
some.

The best you can do is take reasonable safety
precautions, act on what you can and live your life. ... just like you do
with your house - you lock the door at night, but you don't brick over the
doors and windows.

Yep, but you also do like I do and that is that someone coming in my
house without permission and having violence in mind is asking for 6
attendees. There is a number of souls that will make it. Not all of them.


--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell

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.

"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.

copertopkiller wrote:


1) Pat attention to the warnings of AC Highjackings AND Highjacked AC as
weapons into American Targets.

What warnings? Yes, there were AQ members 'learning' to fly but not to
land or take off. We had no specific targets or dates, so any action to
have been taken would have been of a very general nature.


What warnings? I can see you are either a moron or a shill. In either case
get yourself together. How many times will you trumpet that retarded
statement of 'we had no specific targets or dates..." as an excuse for NO
ACTION being taken?

And I replied with a question about what should have been done. We had
not specific targets or dates. It is easy for you sit there on your
fat, ignorant ass and scream "We shouda' done sumptin'". What
*exactly* would *you* have done? What areas? What airlines? What
resource? What buildings? Where?

An example for your "what warnings?" statement. One of many if you cared to
be informed. NOTE: it ain't on dat dare TeeeVeee

Of course not. It probably isn't in Snopes either.

David Schippers, noted conservative Chicago lawyer and the House Judiciary
Committee's chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial, claims two
days after 9/11 that he had tried to warn federal authorities about plans to
strike buildings in lower Manhattan. Schippers says, "I was trying to get
people to listen to me because I had heard that the terrorists had set up a
three-pronged attack:" an American airplane, the bombing of a federal
building in the heartland and a massive attack in lower Manhattan. He tries
contacting Attorney General John Ashcroft, the White House, and even the
House managers with whom he had worked, but nobody returns his phone calls.
"People thought I was crazy. What I was doing was I was calling everybody I
knew telling them that this has happened," he says. "I'm telling you the
more I see of the stuff that's coming out, if the FBI had even been awake
they would have seen it." He also claims to know of ignored warnings about
the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and evidence that Middle Easterners were
connected with that attack. [Indianapolis Star, 5/18/02] Other mainstream
sources have apparently shied away from Schippers' story, but he has added
details in an interview on the partisan Alex Jones Show. He claims that it
is FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota who first contact him and tell him
that a terrorist attack is going to occur in lower Manhattan. A group of
these agents now want to testify about what they know, but want legal
protection from government retribution. [Alex Jones Show 10/10/01]

ROFLMAO!!!! Wow, what a source. I am not denying that it could be
true, but I am not about to accept that without further verification.
Hell, I can call into talk shows and make statements. Ever listen to
Art Bell?

2) Brief FAA Officials of these non-actionable (cough) warnings and tell
them to not to scratch their heads at:

a) the first sign of trouble
b) when it is know to be highjacked


only to talk amongst themselves. Instead, clarify that they are to

expedite

FAA Procedures of intercept then contact The President. If the errant,
Highjacked AC would not follow intercept orders a decision could be made

to

take more drastic measures. It isn't that difficult.



Most didn't, since the first sign of trouble was at the time of the
hijackings.


Most didn't? Most didn't what, moron?

Read the ****ing thread, you moron. You were talking about what the FAA
officials should have done. I replied that most didn't [do any of those
things]. Sheeesh, you can't even follow your own thread.

If you're going to try and convince
yourself that you are in reality you will need to put up a better argument.

Wanna stop the kneejerk so we can discuss? Or not....your choice.

Excuse me, but until 9/11, the paradyme for hijacking was not to
interfere and obey what the hijackers were telling you to do. Until
9/11, hijacking was used as a method of simply flying somewhere that was
not on the the flight plan. Usually, the flight crew and passengers
were released or ended up unharmed. 9/11 changed that.


Can you cite one FAA procedure that specifically states this? No, you can't
because there is no such document.

Didn't say there was so go feed your own straw man. I stated what had
been happening prior to 9/11. Were you born on the 12th?

There are however quite a few procedures
that call for intercepts on errant, nordo, unidentified AC doing what they
will and other "emergency" situations that undoubtedly cover HJ's. None of
which were carried out expeditiously and was the opposite in fact.

I am probably more aware of those procedures than you are. Of course,
feel free to publish the procedures that you think cover resistance to
the hijackers other than to notify the ground, follow the lead of what
they tell you to do and percerve the safety of the passengers. That
safety was rarely in doubt prior to 9/11.

Furthermore, you'd be wrong. The G8 Summit just prior was not to let HJ'ed
AC do as they will.

Which I am sure that all the pilots and airline officials that you know
attended.

Nope,. but you have to have planes in the air. You can't really shoot a
missile at it (a new idea after 9/11) over a city and you don't know
until it occurs, just what city.


Huh! And you are claiming that these alert birds and HJ AC just appear where
they are in position to crash into their target or in the case of intercepts
where the highjacked AC are going to attack?

Do you know how few birds there were on alert on 9/11? Do you know who
had to give the order for those birds to shoot down an airliner?

You know how foolish you are sounding? Highjacked over Northern Mass and
then in a blink of an eye, like a UFO, appear crashing into its target in
NYC with no chance to attempt to turn it away from the metropolis and
downing it as a last resort for not following intercepted procedures.

Those procedures weren't in place prior to 9/11.

Yes as
a last resort, before it came close enough to inflict horrific damage and
casualties in NYC. An intercept is air superiority.



Now this applies to all the AC that day especially FL 77.

None of the planes involved in 9/11 were shot down, you moron. Not even
FL 77. The passengers on the flight that crashed in PA were on their
way to a violent death in a building until one or more of them found out
what was going on with other aircraft. Until that point, there was no
resistance to where the plane was going.



--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell

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?