Yep - 9-11 attacks predicted in 1994

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:44:19 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


By the way. Where is that list of misconceptions of FAA Procedures?

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.

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:

--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:


Seems you are another moron who thinks the exact target, day and time
needs
to be known before measures can be taken.
In most cases, to stop a specific attack that is correct.

Lets forget about most cases and stay specific of this attack, Mort.

I'm not Mort, but I am the one you replied to.


OK then, this is the place where you stay specific of this attack. Are you
another moron who thinks the exact target, day and time need to be known for
measures to be taken?

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.

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?


How do you not answer the question? 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?

Answer the questions, Copper top. Don't dance and weave. What exactly
would you have done? What areas? What resource would you have used?
For how long?

I'm sure my reply to your response will answer the questions that you asked
inplace of responding to the question. Wow!

I'm sure that you have enough courage to sit there and say something
should have been done, but you don't have the balls to put yourself on
that line and say precisely what *you* would have done.


--
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 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 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

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.

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...
copertopkiller wrote:


Seems you are another moron who thinks the exact target, day and time
needs
to be known before measures can be taken.
In most cases, to stop a specific attack that is correct.

Lets forget about most cases and stay specific of this attack, Mort.

I'm not Mort, but I am the one you replied to.


OK then, this is the place where you stay specific of this attack. Are
you
another moron who thinks the exact target, day and time need to be known
for
measures to be taken?

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]




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 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.

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.

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.

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. They can do it in real-time yet they all
must have been on coffee break or perhaps placing those options.Huh.

I would have made sure that anything that could be used as a weapon on an AC
was banned. 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. This includes people with proper passes to move
around airports.

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. I would have ordered to get
security in place.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:10:15 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


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 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.

And how long would you have had these birds on alert, Bryan? A month?
A year? Forever? The terrorists had all the time in the world to
carry out their plot.

And how many strategic targets would you have covered? 10? 50? 100?
What do you consider a strategic target? A city? A nuclear power
plant? A nuclear weapons plant? How many strategic targets are there
in your universe?

"copertopkiller" wrote in message
et...

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...
copertopkiller wrote:


Seems you are another moron who thinks the exact target, day and
time
needs
to be known before measures can be taken.
In most cases, to stop a specific attack that is correct.

Lets forget about most cases and stay specific of this attack, Mort.

I'm not Mort, but I am the one you replied to.


OK then, this is the place where you stay specific of this attack. Are
you
another moron who thinks the exact target, day and time need to be
known
for
measures to be taken?

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]

Please note the dates of your articles: 7/8/02 and 1/20/02....now tell us
how comments made then in any manner were a factor on 9/11/2001?