Yep - 9-11 attacks predicted in 1994

"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.

copertopkiller wrote:


One has to have a better idea than somewhere in NYC in the next 25
months. What would you have done? Be specific but take all the
screens you need.


And that is what one had. Now for a what I would have done commercial:

DON'T BE LIKE THESE GUYS

Bush entrusts Cheney to head the new Office of National

Preparedness,

a part of FEMA. This office is supposed to oversee a "national effort"
to

coordinate all federal programs for responding to domestic attacks.

Cheney

says to the press, "One of our biggest threats as a nation" may include

"a

terrorist organization overseas. We need to look at this whole area,
oftentimes referred to as homeland defense." [New York Times, 7/8/02]

Bush

adds, "I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security

Council

to review these efforts." Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's takes place
before 9/11. "Bush [doesn't] speak again publicly of the dangers of
terrorism before 9/11, except to promote a missile shield that had been

his

top military priority from the start." [Washington Post 1/20/02]

That is *not* an example of what should have been done nor what *you*
would have done. Answer the questions if you think you have the
answers. I think you would rather simply bitch about what someone else
did or didn't do and have no ideas of your own. If you do, you
apparently don't have the balls to put them out where they can be looked

at.


It sure is an example of what should have been done.

What part of "specific" did you fail to understand. What you gave were
common general platitudes that were mostly in place and probably would
not have stopped any specific attack. I am asking *specifically* what
would you have done to prevent 9/11 with the facts from the Aug 6, PDB?

Sarcastic as it may be
it shows just one example of action that was claimed to have been taken
(rightly so) yet after further scrutiny it was all hot air. It is just one
example of the PNAC Boys dropping the ball while putting their ideological
ways in front of the security for people they serve.

Periodically looking at briefings with general information and no
specifics will get you just what happened on 9/11.

Do you
still think nothing could have been done (as you've been told), no

measures


could have been taken to thwart this style of attack?

I would like to ask you just exactly would you have done if you had

been

president. Where would you have placed your troops? Where would you
have focused? What cities or buildings would you have tried to

protect?

How would you have known? And where do you get your resources from?


I wold not have placed troops anywhere. I would have placed Air Defense

on

high Alert. I would have activated more alert birds

For how long and which birds? You can't have them all activated at the
same time.


My you are very concerned with foolish details in hindsight.

Those aren't foolish details, mon ami. You are belching that 9/11 could
have been prevented. I am simply asking to put your butt on the line
with how you would have prevented 9/11 with the knowledge that was known
then.

Is there a
reason for this second set of questions?

See above.

I am simply providing you with some
actions I would have taken (and the current administration should have
taken) and you seem somewhat agitated. Is it because I have quickly shown
that things could have been done and obviously with a lower cost to America
people than the price tag so far?

Nope, you haven't shown any specific actions that would have prevented 9/11.

and placed them in close
proximity to known strategic targets. These would be symbols of America
which stand out and would be recognized around the world.

IOW, you would have had alert birds around the Black Hills, NYC, LA, St
Louis, etc.. Just how many birds do you think you have for standing
alert? If something had gone down, who would give the order to shoot
down an airliner? Would the pilot have done that? Remember you are
looking at what happened through the prism of Monday morning
quarterbacking. It is easy to look back after the paradym has changed
and the dust settled. It is not easy to make those decisions at the
time under the old hijacking paradym.


Addressing your second set of questions in order:

I think I've already explained with my previous statement of "placed them in
close
proximity to known strategic targets. These would be symbols of America
which stand out and would be recognized around the world." I don't know how
you conclude Black Hills or St. Louis from this statement?

I an asking you, you silly goose. What do you consider to be those
"...symbols of America which stand out and would be recognized around
the world?.." It's your frikkin' statement. Those places I named are
recognized around the world. What is your list?

The person who can authorize the downing of civilian AC:
"The significance of saying to a pilot that you are authorized to shoot down
a plane full of Americans is an order that had never been given before,"
Cheney said.

Yep, which would cause hesitation on the part of most pilots knowing
that the plane was full of innocent civilians. If you were the pilot,
would you have pulled that trigger?

"The president did give the order to shoot down a civilian plane if it was
not responding properly," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said.
"And it was authority requested through channels by [Defense] Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld. The vice president passed the request. The president said
'yes.'"

"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."

Becuase nothing was done as shown in my first example that had a big
sarcastic twist to it, the first highjacking which was known very quickly
was not able to be intercepted becuase ATC/FAA balked not understanding the
seriousness of the terrorist threat.

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

When the first airliner hit the WTC, everybody thought it was an
accident. It was not really known as a terrorist activity until later.
Look at the timing of the article you quoted. When the idea of
shooting one down occurred to anyone it was right after the Pentagon was
hit and over an hour since the first plane hit the WTC. What *specific*
actions would you have had put in place or authorized to prevent 9/11
after reading the Aug 6 PDB? I am not looking for general crap. This
was a specific hit on American soil and you and others are giving the
current administration hell for not preventing it. I am asking what
specific actions you would have taken on or done differently. No more
no less.

Anyone can sit here and state that our intelligence was out of date, not
specific enough, had no inter agency actions. Hell, I agree with all
that. That, however occurred over several administrations, not just
Shrub's. That is why I ask, with the history and paradym that was
present on August 6, what would have done differently that would have
prevented 9/11.

I would have called a mandatory meeting with all pertinent agency heads
about these warnings not just accept that they were being looked into

only

to go on vacation for a month.

How long would you have put off your vacation? Don't you think that if
something came up someone heading up one of your agencies could give you
a phone call? You are going to be in Texas. They do have phones and
other modern communication devices there.


Addressed in order:

It doesn't matter how long or if I called off my scheduled vacation. What
matters is that I implemented a strategy as previously stated to address
these attack issues and see them through to fruition.

You have shown no specifity on any of your comments. Do you know how
many birds were available on 9/11 and where they were? How many more
would you have activated, where and for how long? Would you have relied
on your senior cabinet and principals to take care of those details?

I think it is fair to say that being contacted is not an issue.

Then why are you critisizng Bush for doing exactly that? He went to
Crawford, TX. Of course, he was back at work on 9/11 at a school in
Florida.

I would have collected and disseminated this information to all the
pertinent agency's as a higher priority than the Military Industrial
Complexes Missile Defense Pipe dream.

That information *came* from those pertinent agencies and there were
restrictions placed on those agencies preventing them from sharing that
data. See Reno testimony.


Addressed in order:

There was no information disseminated becuase this meeting hadn't taken
place. Remember, this is what I would have done.

There was no sharing of that information between agencies. A claim that
there are 70 separate investigations going on doesn't really do squat
without detail of them. Nothing there is actionable. That non sharing
of information is not particular to Shrub's administration. It was the
way things were done over several administrations. Was it right? No,
but that is looking at through the eyes of post 9/11. It was good
enough on the 10th.

It has already been
determined that the Boosh Administration claimed that they did somethiing
similiar to this but after further scrutiny it turned out false. I again
refer you to the New York Times and Washingtpon Post quotes in my previous
reply that tracked down these statements and compared them with facts. They
did nothing.

Fine. That is a different issue from preventing a specific attack or
what you would have done to prevent a specific attack.

Reno has no idea about what had happened in the Boosh Administration
pertaining to this topic.

She damn well should. She is the one who "strengthened" that wall of
separation during her reign.

I would have requested that the Intelligence community use all that they
had
to help determine a clearer picture. This of course could have been done
by
monitoring the markets world wide.

Which markets, the stock markets? The banks?

They can do it in real-time yet they
all

must have been on coffee break or perhaps placing those options.Huh.

And just exactly what data would you have noticed? Do you think that
both presidents asked their intelligence agencies not to look at things
in real time? That they are not monitoring? That is how the data on
that memo got there in the first place.


Addressed in order:

Market Trends.

NO.

"that they are not monitoring?" I dont understand your question.

Stock market trends were not included on the Aug, 2001 PDB as far as I can
remember.

Then why did you mention the markets? Or did you mean Safeway or Circle K?

I would have made sure that anything that could be used as a weapon on

an AC

was banned.

How would have done that? Box cutters were legal to carry on aircraft
as were several other items that are not today. How would you get
Congress to change those laws in 30 days? You can't even get profiling
through today.


Place an Executive Order?

While profiling is against the law it still happens everyday in America just
as it happened prior to 9/11. The airlines are no different. All's that
needs to be done is show you also did the same to other ethnic groups and it
can't be claimed. You just stop others than those of young male Arabs and
any judge would throw it out of court.

Then why aren't they doing that today? They aren't. They are doing
random searches including 90 year old ladies who haven't hijacked any
aircraft in history. Those random checks also apply to middle eastern
males from 20 to 40 so they can't check all of them either. You also
haven't addressed box cutters which as I noted were perfectly legal to
carry on board prior to 9/11. Would you have stopped anything that
could be used as a weapon? How about shoe laces, pens, pencils,
anything pointed like laser pointers or simply metal ones? Prior to
9/11 no one though that a box cutter could bring down an aircraft.

I would have made sure that security around airports and
employees were to immediately report or confront suspicious people in

areas

where they shouldn't be.

You don't think that they were under those orders already? I do, its
just that in the day to day activities much of that simply slips through.


No, I don't think the Boosh Administration did too much about Arabs and
Hijackings and this was certainly not something they did.

Well, they couldn't really. Remember that nasty profiling thingy you
mentioned just above? How many people prior to 9/11 do you think would
go through what the average passenger puts up with today? How long do
you think it would have been before the liberals in DC were on every
talk show they could find decrying your tactics and blaming you for
going around them with EO. A day? Two days?

These guys had
obtained and used faked ID's and if that measure was taken then one of them
would have been questioned solely on being a stranger with proper ID.

How would you expect Joe Schlemiel at the airline gate would know that
the those were wrong IDs? That those weren't their real names? Hell,
our *intelligence* services did not know where 17 of the hijackers were.

After
two plus years there has been not one report of such an incident and I pay
attention to 9/11 reports.

So do most people.. Part if it is the "been there, done that already".
Airport security has been stepped up to a level that would not have
been possible prior to 9/11. If I was a terrorist, I would consider
that scenario over and done with. I would look at the other side of the
gate for my next attempt or I put a dirty bomb on a truck or in a cargo
hold of a freighter or on a train.

This includes people with proper passes to move
around airports.

Why would you find people with proper passes and credentials suspicious?

The previous reasons just given. Some had fake ID's to move around secure
parts of airports and had to be strange/new faces to somebody which includes
security.

Hmmmm, specifically which hijackers had flight line security passes?
They certainly didn't need them prior to 9/11.

I would have forced the airlines to beef up their cockpit doors.

Although

this would not have been started or completed before the highjackings it

was

at least a measure taken for future security.

That still isn't done and it is almost three years later. You had 30

days.

You wanted to know what measures I would have taken in contrast to what the
Boosh did.

Most of what you gave was simply general in nature, no specifity to
prevent 9/11. These last things would simply have taken too long and
would have been of no help on 9/11. Hell, in my opinion they should
have left arming the pilots up to the airlines like it was prior to 1986
and encouraged them to carry. A lot of things are possible in hindsight
that wouldn't have been prior to 9/11 nor even though of.

It is still a measure that if taken by Boosh he could say "look I
am not a total buffoon after all". If this action was taken it still
wouldn't show that at all.

Or those actions could have been taken by Clinton, he had some of the
same intelligence back in 1998.

I would have ordered to get
security in place.

What security? In what place? What would you have them do? Who should
they look at? Who should they stop?


Addressed, addressed, addressed, addressed and addressed.

Not really. You used profiling in one spot which is illegal. You
stated looking at people suspiciously who were cleared and had passes
for those areas.

I would have told the FAA to have there prople awake and working, not
socializing amoungst themselves when planes veer off course, drop the
transponder signal or stop communicating.

You are talking less than 45 minutes to figure things out in a

bureaucracy.

I will agree and disagree with you. I agree that there is a great
bureacracy.

Yep.

Although as I have previously mentioned if measures were
conveyed as important as they were, the ATC would not have waited 5 minutes
to notify other FL Control Centers and then another 15 minutes to notify
(according to them) NORAD.

Probably not, but for how long would have had everyone maintain that
footing? Particularly looking at how orange and red alerts are
basically ignored even now *after* 9/11.

This is a violation in SOP that call for immediate supervisory notification
with the FAA Highjack coordinator being that supervisor. When Payne
Sterwart's AC stopped responding it took ATC/FAA to notify the military of a
problem in 24 minutes and this was not a determined highjacking just a
errant private AC.

However the shoot down actions you quoted in the ABC news article
happened *after* the two strikes on the WTC and the Pentagon had been
hit and the closest fighters where in Detroit. The only one they had
any chance at was Flight 93 and in a few moments it was under the
Pennsylvania mud.


I would have had the FBI do their job so we wouldn't need to have them

and

the country embarrassed by agents bringing lawsuits on not being allowed

to

do their jobs becuase it wasn't a priority or that they were actually
obstructed and threatened if they persisted to follow up on these

towelhead

leads.

Gee...one...two...three.

You haven't answered a damn thing on the question. You have a bunch of
unsupported platitudes. You gave no specific actions. Most of your
actions centered on airlines which really weren't considered by either
administration until after 9/11.


Addressed in order:

I have answered your question thoroughly enough for any moron to understand
that even if Boosh took these positions he wouldn't be looking as foolishly
inept as he does.

If Shrub had taken almost any action he would not be looking at foolish
as he does today. That, of course, applies to several administrations.
It was on Bush's watch that the paradym changed.

Now if your're one of these morons

I doubt that either of us are morons......although I am sure about one.

who trumpet what they hear on soundbit
driven TV Programing who agree that measures were taken by shrieking policy
makers that they were implementing plans to attack Osama or Al Quaeda as a
diversion to hide no measures being taken to get to the bottom of and/or
attempt to thwart the 9/11 attack with all its warnings I can see how you
would label it unsupported platitudes.

Just understand that by you supplying or supporting this view that no matter
how much you wave, wrap yourself or your head in a flag you are not a
patriot and are failing your duties as the founding fathers envisioned.

You have no idea whether or not I am a patriot nor if I am failing my
duties as the founding fathers envisioned. I rather doubt they even
envisioned what my military duties were.

It's not to difficult if you are really concerned with your peoples
security. I am sorry your feeble mind actually need me to blaze through

a

common sense approach of what could have been done.

You haven't answered ****, bubba. You made a few general statements
with no specifics and most could not be accomplished in 30 days. You
did not show anything you would have done different to specifically stop
9/11 from happening.

Try again.


You need to loosen that flag from your head and let the blood flow again or
in your case just flow.

You need to learn to give specific answers when you are asked specific
questions after you attempt to affix specific blame on specific people.


--
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 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....

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....

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....

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:54:26 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


"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.

No, Bryan, you're the one who is mistaken.

From your response to my list of your misconceptions:

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....

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:54:02 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


This is a violation in SOP that call for immediate supervisory notification
with the FAA Highjack coordinator being that supervisor. When Payne
Sterwart's AC stopped responding it took ATC/FAA to notify the military of a
problem in 24 minutes and this was not a determined highjacking just a
errant private AC.

And it took NORAD another hour to intercept the aircraft. By that
standard, 9/11 was a wizzbang success.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:54:02 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


This is a violation in SOP that call for immediate supervisory
notification
with the FAA Highjack coordinator being that supervisor. When Payne
Sterwart's AC stopped responding it took ATC/FAA to notify the military
of a
problem in 24 minutes and this was not a determined highjacking just a
errant private AC.

And it took NORAD another hour to intercept the aircraft. By that
standard, 9/11 was a wizzbang success.

The point was it took ATC/FAA to notify the military of a problem in 24
minutes and this was not a determined highjacking just a errant private AC
during a time when threats of highjackings or AC as weapons weren't peaking.
You sniveling cock gurglar.

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

"copertopkiller" wrote in message .net...
"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.

Entirely possible. Does your response mean that you saw the message,
and consider it inadequate?

For reference, the message with the list is:

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