Yep - 9-11 attacks predicted in 1994

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:22:04 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:

Furthermore, if I was privy
to the Intel that was being received now claimed to not be actionable I
would have taken serious measures.

Like what, Bryan?

Like what you have been slapped in the face with before.


Can you explain why then with armed AC and AA bateries available none
where
successful or used at all?

There were no anti aircraft batteries available that day, Bryan.

Please provide some information.

And
armed aircraft were dispatched to follow the hijacked aircraft.


Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:08:33 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:47:03 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Said the moron who thinks the exact target, day and time needs to be
known
before measures can be taken. And lets be very clear about this. No
measures
where taken. I don't care if Dick Clarkes Policy's weren't implemented.
It
doesn't matter if Condi said that they were working on a strategy to hit
AL
Queda. These are two different things. What did your government do, the
Booshies, what did they do to defend America on 9/11

And what exactly should they have done, Bryan? Shoot down the
airliners? Wasn't that one of the answers you gave before?

Nice! Now everyone could see you are quite the pathetic liar. You just
claimed something about not having recollections of FAA Procedures
discussions with me.

Yep it was you - here's an example:

From: agent86x )
Subject: Conspiracy Crusader Doubts Official 9/11 Version
View: Complete Thread (78 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Date: 2003-05-16 17:56:57 PST

On Fri, 16 May 2003 05:12:42 GMT, "Coppertop Killer"
wrote:

"Coppertop Killer" wrote in message
. net...
"agent86x" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 May 2003 04:02:36 GMT, "Coppertop Killer"
wrote:

snip

Yes, you should also note FAA Procedure 7-1-1:

7-1-1. PURPOSE

The FAA hijack coordinator (the Director or his designate of the FAA
Office of Civil Aviation Security) on duty at Washington headquarters
will request the military to provide an escort aircraft for a
confirmed hijacked aircraft to:

a. Assure positive flight following.

b. Report unusual observances.

c. Aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.

Now what exactly would following this procedure have done to prevent
the events of 9/11?

Ugh you tell me how it WOULD NOT prevent the events of 9/11.

So a military jet following Flight 11 and Flight 175 would have
stopped them from crashing into the WTC? How exactly would they have
prevented it?

Lets stay right here on FAA Procedures not being followed for the moment,
then I will allow you to go off on the CIC tangent.

You will allow? What a laugh. But it was you who brought up being
CIC.

You make reference to
7-1-1 as if it is an end all to the discussion as a refute.

You're the one fond of misinterpreting the FAA regs.

7-1-1 simply states what and why it should be done.

Exactly.

This procedure would be effective
only if ATC services prescribed by the FAA were followed. They are located
here... http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/index.htm

Effective at what? What is there in any of these regulations that
would have prevented 9/11?

Chapter 10 has clear procedures on this. 10-1-1 states the following:
c. If the words "Mayday" or "Pan-Pan" are not used and you are in doubt that
a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as
though it were an emergency.

And as we've been through many times before, an emergency is not cause
to scramble aircraft.

d. Because of the infinite variety of possible emergency situations,
specific procedures cannot be prescribed. However, when you believe an
emergency exists or is imminent, select and pursue a course of action which
appears to be most appropriate under the circumstances and which most nearly
conforms to the instructions in this manual.

Which is what they did.

When Payne's jet went errant the ATC tried to communicate with the pilots
six times within a 4.5 min. period before following the prescribed
procedures mentioned above.

Try again, Bryan. The last full transmission from Stewart's plane was
at 9:27 EDT. The first unresponsive call from the ATC was at 9:33
EDT. (reference:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/aberdeen/...esentation.htm). They
did try to contact the plane for the next 4.5 minutes, but NORAD was
not notified until around 10:08 EDT.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/...t/stewfs14.htm
"But after 9:44, the crew did not respond to radio calls. Within 24
minutes, the Federal Aviation Administration had asked the Air Force
for help in tracking the jet."

This ATC action was for a small private jet in a
much less populated air traffic corridor than the N. East.

And the Stewart plane wasn't actually intercepted until 9:52 CDT
(10:52 EDT), over an hour after it was first determined to be
unresponsive.

However, FL11
being highjacked @ 8:14am (not communicating, even on emergency frequencies,
transponder lost, pilot started to hit the talk-back button, which enabled
Boston ATC to hear what is being said in the cockpit) yet according to NORAD
they aren't notified for another 27 mins @ 8:40.

Which is about the same response time as the Stewart plane.

This is a clear violation of FAA Procedures if you believe NORAD is not covering its ass in their
timeline.

Which procedure would that be, Bryan? As has been pointed out to you
before, and I quote:

" '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 there was no provision
to shoot down civilian airliners, or don't you know what the word
"escort" means?"

So back to the question that you never address. How would following
the FAA procedures on 9/11 have stopped the WTC attacks?

Now back to your questions:

So a military jet following Flight 11 and Flight 175 would have
stopped them from crashing into the WTC?

Not unless it followed its escort procedures for the errant aircraft to
follow it. Remember that 7-1-1 states in part a. Assure positive flight
following. Positive meaning formally laid down or imposed.

How exactly would they have prevented it?

By acting on FAA guidelines as prescribed. Once it was determined that the
Highjackers weren't going to agree with any positive flight following it
could only mean one thing. With all the warnings received from our allies of
what was about to come it was a no-brainer. Don't believe the politics
played on top D.C. officials not knowing or Rumsfeld statement to Russert
of "why scramble fighters if you don't have orders to shoot the errant craft
down.

You really haven't a clue as to the meaning of "positive flight
following", do you? That aside, you advocate shooting down a civilian
airliner in every case just because it doesn't turn when it's told to
turn?

Just for your education, 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.

Now, Bryan, exactly how does a hijacker "agree with any positive
flight following"?

snip

And "escort" doesn't mean shooting down a civilian airliner that has
been hijacked.

Yeah you are getting brighter all the time.

So your point is?

You figure it out.

Actually, I'm obviously a little dense. Why don't you explain it?

NOTE to agent86... A scramble doesn't require the birds to be on alert
status.

It does if you can read and understand English:

Yeah sure...cite it then! I just showed you that it doesn't, get over it,
admit you were wrong, move on and continue to expose your own foolishness.

You've shown no such thing.

5. A swift takeoff of military aircraft in response to an alert or
attack.

Oh yes the above is your dictionary definition...very convincing against the
FAA's own web page which states otherwise.

Oh, really? As a followup:
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. "

Now what exactly were you saying about the FAA regs stating
otherwise?

You just admitted that the word "scramble" isn't used in the cited FAA
regs. There was no requirement for a scramble takeoff to escort a
hijacked aircraft.

I never stated that. What I stated was that an escort, whether it was
scrambled or not, didn't need to be an alert bird by FAA's own Web site.
This is something you still want to believe, you're wrong.

Oh, really?

"From: Coppertop Killer )
Subject: Conspiracy Crusader Doubts Official 9/11 Version
Date: 2003-05-13 19:30:52 PST

But actually, Chapter 7. ESCORT OF HIJACKED AIRCRAFT, doesn't even
use the term "scramble".


Right"

Tell you what, Bryan, cite where the word scramble is used in Chapter
7. ESCORT OF HIJACKED AIRCRAFT of the FAA regs.

Then you can explain how the FAA regs provide for an escort to have
been in the air in time to have intercepted the WTC planes.

snip

And what would you expect the CIC to do in this case?


Be CIC, put the photo op on hold, regain air security all the while having
contact with the proper command posts and so as to make tough decisions.

Exactly what decisions had to be made between 9:00 AM and 9:20 on
9/11? And air superiority against what? Civilian airliners?

I don't have a clue as to where you are going here, care to elaborate?

You don't have a clue about a lot of things.

At
9:00 AM, there was no indication of any more hijackings and the
President had no knowledge of any. Flight 77 had just been taken over
and there was no indication of its intent. Flight 93 was still some
30 minutes from being hijacked.

FL 175 had been Highjacked @ 8:43, NORAD admits this, NEADS had their
headsets linked to Boston FL Control, NORAD knew instantly.

And where exactly did I bring up Flight 175?

Flight 77 and FL 175 Both were errant at 9 AM.

Except no one knew that Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:00 AM, least
of all the President.

I expect the CIC to be just that, not some littlephoto op whore when he was aware of this type of incident.

You still haven't answered the question about what you expect the CIC
to have done.

It may be good enough for you but it wasn't acceptable for the country now was it.

And your basis for that conclusion is?

Even if your little theories about preattack intelligence were true,
don't you think two hijackings and attacks against the WTC would have
more than fulfilled the prediction?

They are true, it was three known highjacks at 9 AM though.

Hardly. Flight 77 had just been taken over and it was "lost" in the
system for some 25 minutes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...32597-2001Nov2

One struck the WTC, the other just about to strike the WTC and the third headed towards
D.C. Fulfilled predictions, business as usual, no need to do anything MR. President.

So how exactly was the President to know that there were to be one,
two, three or four hijackings based on the preattack intelligence?

***end quote***

Helping you continue in your false memory lapse, your
argument was that there are no procedures for shooting down AC and that
wasn't ever my point.

So what is your point?

My point was that since FAA Procedures weren't followed,

Which you have yet to demonstrate.

no interceptors
were anywhere near a position to determine if this last resort was necessary
or deemed appropriate by some tough decision maker in the US Government.

Which has nothing to do with whether procedures were followed.

Remember me saying that tough decisions are made in the US Government on a
daily basis on this scale.

So you would have ordered the shootdown of a civilian airliner before
any overt act of aggression occurred? And you would have done so over
the metropolitan area of New York City risking additional damage and
loss of life as the aircraft crashed who knows where? You've made
your point abundently clear, Bryan.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:00:12 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:22:26 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


And what measures should have been taken, Bryan?

I know you have selective memory. Do try to refresh your recollection.

To the best of my recollection, you've never answered the question,
Bryan.

snicker

Loosen the flag around your head some. Now do you remember?

Hint: it has to do with FAA Regulations and NORAD

If you've answered it before, then you should have no trouble doing so
again. But since you never answered it, except for sputtering that
"they" should have done something, you can't.

Not true. I will not becuase you more than else have been hammered with this
argument.

Not really, Bryan. You've never come close to laying a glove on me.

Now you want to make it seem like we haven't been down this road
before which is simply untrue.

No, Bryan, we've been down the road, you just haven't ever answered
the question.

Now I seem to remember very recently you making some kind of statement that
the FAA Procedures that are referred to are not what people claim they are.
I of course asked you to list these misconceptions and am still waiting for
you or anybody else to do so.

Been there, done that, Bryan. Go consult Google.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:49:02 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:42:21 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:51:28 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


So now we're down to just an "indication of a 9/11 style attack? I
thought your position was that the government knew when, where, how
and by whom.

snicker

Well, is that your position or not?

snicker
You really need to ask again? Like I said, you are not a bright bulb.

And you have so much trouble with simple questions.

No, I have trouble with stupid questions.

I was being nice and not calling you stuipd, But I'm glad you agree
with me.

Stupid becuase they have been
answered many times.

Yes, they have. You just don't like the answers.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:49:02 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:22:04 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:

Furthermore, if I was privy
to the Intel that was being received now claimed to not be actionable I
would have taken serious measures.

Like what, Bryan?

Like what you have been slapped in the face with before.

You haven't even come close to "slapping" me Bryan.

Can you explain why then with armed AC and AA bateries available none
where
successful or used at all?

There were no anti aircraft batteries available that day, Bryan.

Please provide some information.

Been there done that, Bryan. Go Google it.

And
armed aircraft were dispatched to follow the hijacked aircraft.


Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

Which has nothing to do with whether the procedures were followed.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:08:33 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:47:03 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


Said the moron who thinks the exact target, day and time needs to be
known
before measures can be taken. And lets be very clear about this. No
measures
where taken. I don't care if Dick Clarkes Policy's weren't
implemented.
It
doesn't matter if Condi said that they were working on a strategy to
hit
AL
Queda. These are two different things. What did your government do,
the
Booshies, what did they do to defend America on 9/11

And what exactly should they have done, Bryan? Shoot down the
airliners? Wasn't that one of the answers you gave before?

Nice! Now everyone could see you are quite the pathetic liar. You just
claimed something about not having recollections of FAA Procedures
discussions with me.

Yep it was you - here's an example:

There's no need for an example I am quite aware of this exchange. You are
the one that questioned this exchange. snicker


Now where is the part where you list the misconceptions on the FAA
Procedures not being followed?

"copertopkiller" wrote

Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

There is an upper limit on the speed of an F-15 or F-16.
Otis ANGB - NYC or Langley AFB - Washington DC is a fixed distance.

You do the math.

Pete

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:49:02 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:22:04 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:

Furthermore, if I was privy
to the Intel that was being received now claimed to not be actionable
I
would have taken serious measures.

Like what, Bryan?

Like what you have been slapped in the face with before.

You haven't even come close to "slapping" me Bryan.

snicker

Oh yes I have.



Can you explain why then with armed AC and AA bateries available none
where
successful or used at all?

There were no anti aircraft batteries available that day, Bryan.

Please provide some information.

Been there done that, Bryan. Go Google it.

snicker Man do you have issue's.



And
armed aircraft were dispatched to follow the hijacked aircraft.


Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

Which has nothing to do with whether the procedures were followed.

snicker

Procedure 1: a particular way of accomplishing something in a traditional or
established way.

You really are a doper.

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"copertopkiller" wrote

Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.

There is an upper limit on the speed of an F-15 or F-16.
Otis ANGB - NYC or Langley AFB - Washington DC is a fixed distance.

You do the math.

Pete

Actually provide it for everyone. Supply the specifics and incorporate it
into your statement. I am very interested in what you will put forth.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:49:02 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:42:21 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:51:28 GMT, "copertopkiller"
wrote:


So now we're down to just an "indication of a 9/11 style attack?
I
thought your position was that the government knew when, where,
how
and by whom.

snicker

Well, is that your position or not?

snicker
You really need to ask again? Like I said, you are not a bright bulb.

And you have so much trouble with simple questions.

No, I have trouble with stupid questions.

I was being nice and not calling you stuipd, But I'm glad you agree
with me.

What?

Stupid becuase they have been
answered many times.

Yes, they have. You just don't like the answers.

Actually I was speaking of the repetitious answers I gave to your stupid
circle jerk questions. Ghuh.


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