Yep - 9-11 attacks predicted in 1994

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? Let me have a
look.


--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
Lame excuses provided by NORAD and other spokesman parroted by yourself.
Whether they were looking outward or inward still doesn't provide any
insight as to the misconceptions of FAA procedures. If you continue making
this claim you will need to provide the actual FAA Ptrocedure that was in
question.

Broken down further for morons: Whether NORAD was looking offshore provides
no insight about alleged FAA Procedural misconceptions. I am tickled you
think so.

By the way, since you are providing a refutation of "NORAD could already see
a good part of America" can you be specific as to what % of America NORAD
could actually see? snicker

Can you state where on the map of the USA where NORAD actually lost its
vision? Be sure to include when they are working with FAA radars.




"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"

snicker

You have really helped the misconceptions here. What percentage of these
writen procedure contain in them this "it is routine procedure" It doesn't
matter if it does or not when it was widely reported by people in the know
that this was the case.




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."


Are you suggesting this is a FAA Procedural misconception? Please list the
procedure itself. Furthermore, Rudman would be wrong about not having alert
birds available.




Yet another:

"It is routine procedure to scramble fighters when planes deviate from
course

Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept
aircraft."

Oh my, there is one of the examples I just made claim about above. There it
is folks. It was a routine action performed by fighter AC.

snicker


Response:

Not civilian aircraft flying within the United States, he didn't. In
fact he specifically denied it.

snicker

Well folks it really is time for you to stand up and say I'm not gonna take
it anymore. Your government will not protect you if your on a Commercial
Flight and you have gone off course.

In my best Donald Rumsfeld impression: Why? I can't really tell you. Things
don't always make sense. I suppose sometimes they do protect commercial AC
and then, sometimes they don't. It's a tricky situation these AC that veer
off course.

SNYDER continues...


"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.

No in fact he didn't deny that they routinely intercept civilian AC. He said
they scramble routinely on what they consider potential threats to and from
any AC. He then made an excuse for these not being intercepted becuase they
were (not threats) normal, scheduled, commercial flights on approved paths
and they only had 10 mins to the 1st attack.

The thing is that they were known to be highjacked, veering off flight paths
and incommunicado. Where is the FAA Procedural misconception you say you
cleared up?

snicker


"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?

Another FAA Procedural misconception explained!



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.

You are a dope. Those words read as "At the time the military can
provide...".
It goes onto explain the procedures that will happen "at the time" between
the NMCC and other party's involved. It does not mean "If the military can
provide" as you claim.

snicker



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.

You dope, this is an firefighting service link from Australia. You really
are helping out with these misconceptions.



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. "

This inclusion makes everything clear. Apparently I was correct in stating
that a scramble doesn't require alert birds after all. Thanks for helping
out with the misconceptions.

snicker


And some of his all time greatest misconceptions:

"Following FAA regulations would have prevented 9/11."

I am sure you enjoy taking a snippet of a larger argument of mine so you can
attempt to spin it. Heres that gist of itt:

If AC aren't intercepted then they cannot possibly take charge of the
situation by attempting to divert the errent AC to a place deemed suitable
or safer by the USG. If the "evil doers" thought that they could do whatever
they wanted they could have been shot down.

"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."

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

You haven't shown one misconception above even foolishly providing one of
your own while you attempted.

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. FAA
Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during the intercept.



"Following procedures guarantees a successful outcome."

Wouldn't doctors like this to be true?

snicker A doctor has a patient that can't breathe because of an
obstruction. The known procedure to ensure a successful resolution would be
to quickly clear this by way of removal or by creating another pathway for
supplying oxygen before the patient suffocates. Following procedures quickly
guarantees a successful outcome.

Using your analogy with the patient who had an obstruction would be true if
the patient had already expired by suffocation. Therefore the above stated
procedures do not guarantee a successful outcome. If the patient had already
expired the only cutting would be performed by a coroner.

I'll repeat again:
If AC aren't intercepted then they cannot possibly take charge of the
situation by attempting to divert the errent AC to a place deemed suitable
or safer by the USG. If the "evil doers" thought that they could do whatever
they wanted they could have been shot down.




"The pilots of the interceptor aircraft would've or should've taken it
on themselves to shoot down the hijacked airliners."

I wish you would have supplied the full exchange of how it got to this point
moron. What FAA Procedural Misconception is this clearing up? As usual you
throw quite a bit of crap up and shriek.



Which is just nonsense.

Who had taken charge? It would be simple to make a very good argument that
since nobody was apparently protecting American Civilians that were
indirectly involved in this attack (not on the HJ'ed AC) and after the
previous incidents that day it was the correct thing to do. It could always
be covered up for all you cock gurglars with a wink and nod.


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:

There has been no list here or posted anywhere else that I've seen that you
or anybody else has provided about FAA Procedures misconceptions.



Here, I'll spell it out for you.
1.a. Intercepts by military aircraft of hijacked civilian airliners
were not required on 9/11.

When you read Section 7-1-1 as a complete moron yes. As already explained
above those words read as "At the time the military can provide". It goes
onto explain the procedures that will happen "at the time" between the NMCC
and other party's involved. It does not mean "If the military can provide"
as you claim.




b. Emergencies did not require the intercept of civilian airliners
by military aircraft.

Your refute: And NO WHERE in that regulation does it say "It is routine
procedure to scramble fighters when planes deviate from course". Seems you
are confused about what you are clearing up and are yourself experiencing a
misconception, again.



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.

Interesting. http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-6
Clearly states after a AC is Highjacked supervisory personnel should be
contacted immediately yet the FAA highjack coordinator, the ultimate
supervisory personnel for this situation wasn't. What was the amount of time
that passed before doing so?

Furthermore, since transponders were turned off the positive flight
following objective was not going to be able to be completed with another
civilian AC that had it's own flight path and schedule to follow which also
lacked the needed manuverabiltiy to get a visual of the incominicato
highjacked AC without putting those passangers at risk. Therefore a
intercept was even needed for all these symptoms minus the "determined or
confirmed highjack".

With the FAA being repeatedly told of possible highjackings and now having a
confirmed one on its hands under the previously stated circumstances make
your only argument or misconception explanation which if I recollect
correctly has involved d. (if aircraft are dispatched to escort...) invalid
at best. This is not following FAA Procedures nor is it a misconception.


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.


This is true, moron. But as I mentioned somewhere else in these threads the
Highjacked AC couldn't just appear over NYC from over Massachusetts in a
blink of an eye. There was time for it to be intercepted if procedures were
followed as I just explained above. Then and only then the remaining
intercept procedures that tell the intercepted AC that it has been just
that, intercepted, could be performed and show that the AC was in fact very
hostile as it screamed towards a very populated area which raised more
safety concerns.

If orders were not followed by the intercepted AC at this point it could
have been downed over a less populated area. I refer you back to Dick "I'm a
tough *******" Cheney"s statement earlier in this post. I understand that
panty wearing ****s like yourself couldn't make the tough decision to down
it. Let one Highjacked AC do what it wants over American Airspace and you
bring future trouble into the equation.

"Scout" wrote in message
...

"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?

Lets get a dialog. What do these articles state or show?

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... )

"copertopkiller" wrote in message
et...

"Scout" wrote in message
...

"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?

Lets get a dialog. What do these articles state or show?

That you're behind the times?

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.

"Scout" wrote in message
...

"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?


copertopkiller believcs in the "Way-Back" machine?

-*MORT*-

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This includes people with proper passes to move
around airports.

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

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.

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?

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 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.

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.


--
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

"Scout" wrote in message
...

"copertopkiller" wrote in message
et...

"Scout" wrote in message
...

"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?

Lets get a dialog. What do these articles state or show?

That you're behind the times?


More like he beieves information can be distributed retroactively.

-*MORT*-

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


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. Is there a
reason for this second set of questions? 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?





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?

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.

"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


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.

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




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. 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.

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




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.

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.



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.



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




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.





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. 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.



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.


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. 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.

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.


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.

Now if your're one of these morons 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.



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.

"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