That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
millions of americans were aware of this threat.

<Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
...
> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.

I never got past the uranium heat shield in that one.

Bwahahahahahahaha

<Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
...
> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> millions of americans were aware of this threat.

Holy ****!!! Pui that ******* in jail, you stupid bitch! Don't you understand
just how dangerous Tom Clancy is? How much is he paying you, anyway?

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:

> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> millions of americans were aware of this threat.

Perhaps she never read the book.


SMH

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote in message >...
> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> millions of americans were aware of this threat.


Why do people even listen to that ditz (I mean Condi, not that
LBMHBF).

She's clearly an airhead. I don't know if she's continually lying or
merely perpetually stupid. It's CLEAR that such events were proposed
and examined, an Egyptian plane, as I recall, was hijacked for
specifically this purpose (crashing it into a structure) before 9/11,
and the White House/Capitol area had drills for such eventualities (of
course they NEVER worked, look at the guy that crashed a plane into
the White House in 1994.

Of course there is the Lone Gunmen "Pilot" episode which aired on
March 4th, of 2001 which actually had a terrorist plot to fly a
hijacked passenger plane into the World Trade Center (which ironically
aired in Australia on September 11th, by their time just before the
attacks in NYC).

In article >,
(Tim) wrote:

> It's CLEAR that such events were proposed
> and examined, an Egyptian plane, as I recall, was hijacked for
> specifically this purpose (crashing it into a structure) before 9/11,
> and the White House/Capitol area had drills for such eventualities (of
> course they NEVER worked, look at the guy that crashed a plane into
> the White House in 1994.

Not to mention that some guys tried to blow the WTC up back in 1993.

It's a shame that the US administration at the time never got around to
actually catching the guys behind the plot. And, oddly enough, the guy
who's out there complaining loudly about how the Bush administration
didn't eliminate al-Qaeda in eight months hadn't bothered to seriously
go after them in the previous eight *years*... but he had cyberterrorism
to chase after.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

<Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
...
> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> millions of americans were aware of this threat.

So by your reasoning the US should be preparing for war with Japan, since
Clancy wrote a book where evil Japanese industrialists try to attack the US.
Or a zillion other possibilities someone has written in some spy novel.

tim gueguen 101867

<Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
...
> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> millions of americans were aware of this threat.

Oh, my god. It's RAD's (rec.autos.driving) resident troll, now invading a
newsgroup near you.

Hey, Millie/Judy/POA/LBMHBF, you do realize that the the book was a WORK OF
FICTION?

Vee-One

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:

> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.

It was about *one* disgruntled pilot for a Japanese airline.

> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> millions of americans were aware of this threat.

But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
to put too many preventative measures in place.


--
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 23 Mar 2004 10:07:57 -0800, (Tim) wrote:

>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote in message >...
>> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
>> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
>> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
>> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
>> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
>> millions of americans were aware of this threat.
>
>

>Of course there is the Lone Gunmen "Pilot" episode which aired on
>March 4th, of 2001 which actually had a terrorist plot to fly a
>hijacked passenger plane into the World Trade Center (which ironically
>aired in Australia on September 11th, by their time just before the
>attacks in NYC).

Interesting - i wasn't aware of that. Anyway - rice is a total moron
to think she can get away with that crap .

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:27:08 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> (Tim) wrote:
>
>> It's CLEAR that such events were proposed
>> and examined, an Egyptian plane, as I recall, was hijacked for
>> specifically this purpose (crashing it into a structure) before 9/11,
>> and the White House/Capitol area had drills for such eventualities (of
>> course they NEVER worked, look at the guy that crashed a plane into
>> the White House in 1994.
>
>Not to mention that some guys tried to blow the WTC up back in 1993.
>
>It's a shame that the US administration at the time never got around to
>actually catching the guys behind the plot. And, oddly enough, the guy
>who's out there complaining loudly about how the Bush administration
>didn't eliminate al-Qaeda in eight months hadn't bothered to seriously
>go after them in the previous eight *years*... but he had cyberterrorism
>to chase after.

Clinton went after bin laden and every time he did you repugs scoffed
at him for blowing up aspirin factories and wagging the dog,

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:51:03 GMT, "tim gueguen" >
wrote:

>
><Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
...
>> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
>> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
>> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
>> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
>> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
>> millions of americans were aware of this threat.
>
>So by your reasoning the US should be preparing for war with Japan, since
>Clancy wrote a book where evil Japanese industrialists try to attack the US.
>Or a zillion other possibilities someone has written in some spy novel.
>
>tim gueguen 101867
>

Take a course in elementary logic and get back to us. Thank you.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:42:46 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
> wrote:

>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>
>> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
>> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
>
>It was about *one* disgruntled pilot for a Japanese airline.
>
>> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
>> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
>> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
>> millions of americans were aware of this threat.
>
>But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
>to put too many preventative measures in place.

That's not the point, you illogical loony. My complaint is with condi
saying that no one had ever imagined the idea of flying fuel-laden
jets into buildings. That was a shameless lie by condi.

<Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:51:03 GMT, "tim gueguen" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
> ...
> >> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> >> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> >> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> >> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> >> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> >> millions of americans were aware of this threat.
> >
> >So by your reasoning the US should be preparing for war with Japan, since
> >Clancy wrote a book where evil Japanese industrialists try to attack the
US.
> >Or a zillion other possibilities someone has written in some spy novel.
> >
> >tim gueguen 101867
> >
>
> Take a course in elementary logic and get back to us. Thank you.
>
Look in the mirror and you'll have the right target.

tim gueguen 101867

"Vee-One" > wrote in message
news:AY38c.4172$oH2.3193@lakeread01...
>
> <Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
> ...
> > That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> > about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> > Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> > want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> > one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> > millions of americans were aware of this threat.
>
> Oh, my god. It's RAD's (rec.autos.driving) resident troll, now invading a
> newsgroup near you.
>
> Hey, Millie/Judy/POA/LBMHBF, you do realize that the the book was a WORK
OF
> FICTION?
>
> Vee-One
>
>
So is Millie/Judy/POA/LBMHBF/

-*MORT*-

<Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:27:08 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (Tim) wrote:
> >
> >> It's CLEAR that such events were proposed
> >> and examined, an Egyptian plane, as I recall, was hijacked for
> >> specifically this purpose (crashing it into a structure) before 9/11,
> >> and the White House/Capitol area had drills for such eventualities (of
> >> course they NEVER worked, look at the guy that crashed a plane into
> >> the White House in 1994.
> >
> >Not to mention that some guys tried to blow the WTC up back in 1993.
> >
> >It's a shame that the US administration at the time never got around to
> >actually catching the guys behind the plot. And, oddly enough, the guy
> >who's out there complaining loudly about how the Bush administration
> >didn't eliminate al-Qaeda in eight months hadn't bothered to seriously
> >go after them in the previous eight *years*... but he had cyberterrorism
> >to chase after.
>
> Clinton went after bin laden

Why, did he get confused by the clothes?

<Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:42:46 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
> > wrote:
>
> >Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> >
> >> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> >> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> >
> >It was about *one* disgruntled pilot for a Japanese airline.
> >
> >> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> >> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> >> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> >> millions of americans were aware of this threat.
> >
> >But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
> >to put too many preventative measures in place.
>
> That's not the point, you illogical loony. My complaint is with condi
> saying that no one had ever imagined the idea of flying fuel-laden
> jets into buildings. That was a shameless lie by condi.

She was referring to reality, a condition with which you are not familiar. BTW,
I know of a plot to ram the Earth with a Galaxy Class Starship travelling at
lightspeed. Defend or die!

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:42:46 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
> wrote:

>But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
>to put too many preventative measures in place.

How about increase airport security. Oh! Bush brother was in charge
and..

In article >,
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
>That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
>about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
>Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
>want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
>one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
>millions of americans were aware of this threat.

But that's fiction. Reality is even better;

One of the people that planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was
captured a couple of years later in the Philippines with a laptop. On
the laptop were plans to capture as many as 12 jumbos and crash them
into buildings, all at once.

These people thought the 1993 bomb was powerfull enough to take down
one of the WTC towers. It made a crater inside, the size of a
building, 6 floors high. Some people realized that one signature of AQ
is returning to complete failed attacks. The happened on the Cole
attack, and I beleive, on some Embassy bombings.

IMHO the airlines are the people that allowed 9/11 to happen. For
years the FAA had been asking the airlines to put locks on the cockpit
door, like the Israelies do. The airlines lobbied like crazy to be
allowed to "study it". And the never did it. Of course the Bad Guys
would try something else, but the wouldn't be able to take control of
a jumbo. The FBI/CIA/FAA culture that prevented the sharing of
information help. So did that fact that as of Spring 01 Ashcroft didn't
have terrorist on his list of the 7 highest priority issues, and that
Bush slashed the FBI terrorism budget buy a billiion in the summer of
01.

All of this was reported in the public press before 9/11/01.
I bet It wasn't reported on Fox Cable News.

One thing I haven't figured out is how Israeli pilots take a ****.






--
Al Dykes
-----------

"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
> >That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> >about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> >Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> >want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> >one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> >millions of americans were aware of this threat.
>
> But that's fiction. Reality is even better;
>
> One of the people that planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was
> captured a couple of years later in the Philippines with a laptop. On
> the laptop were plans to capture as many as 12 jumbos and crash them
> into buildings, all at once.
>
> These people thought the 1993 bomb was powerfull enough to take down
> one of the WTC towers. It made a crater inside, the size of a
> building, 6 floors high. Some people realized that one signature of AQ
> is returning to complete failed attacks. The happened on the Cole
> attack, and I beleive, on some Embassy bombings.
>
> IMHO the airlines are the people that allowed 9/11 to happen. For
> years the FAA had been asking the airlines to put locks on the cockpit
> door, like the Israelies do. The airlines lobbied like crazy to be
> allowed to "study it". And the never did it. Of course the Bad Guys
> would try something else, but the wouldn't be able to take control of
> a jumbo.


Just not true... Before 911 if a hijack had taken place
,even with locked doors , the pilots would have open the doors
when a couple of attendents had their necks cut. Hind sight
is always wonderful but before 911 every pilot would have
fiqured on a normal hijack and taking of the plane. Open the doors
and fly the plane to where ever they wished was the rule and had
happened many times in the past.

Someone said that looking at an evet after the fact is like
looking out a clean rear view mirror... But at the time, your looking
at events through a dirty windshield in a fog with no lights....


>The FBI/CIA/FAA culture that prevented the sharing of
> information help. So did that fact that as of Spring 01 Ashcroft didn't
> have terrorist on his list of the 7 highest priority issues, and that
> Bush slashed the FBI terrorism budget buy a billiion in the summer of
> 01.
>
> All of this was reported in the public press before 9/11/01.
> I bet It wasn't reported on Fox Cable News.
>
> One thing I haven't figured out is how Israeli pilots take a ****.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Al Dykes
> -----------
>
>

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:27:08 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
(Tim) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's CLEAR that such events were proposed
>>>and examined, an Egyptian plane, as I recall, was hijacked for
>>>specifically this purpose (crashing it into a structure) before 9/11,
>>>and the White House/Capitol area had drills for such eventualities (of
>>>course they NEVER worked, look at the guy that crashed a plane into
>>>the White House in 1994.
>>
>>Not to mention that some guys tried to blow the WTC up back in 1993.
>>
>>It's a shame that the US administration at the time never got around to
>>actually catching the guys behind the plot. And, oddly enough, the guy
>>who's out there complaining loudly about how the Bush administration
>>didn't eliminate al-Qaeda in eight months hadn't bothered to seriously
>>go after them in the previous eight *years*... but he had cyberterrorism
>>to chase after.
>
>
> Clinton went after bin laden and every time he did you repugs scoffed
> at him for blowing up aspirin factories and wagging the dog,
>
That is all he accomplished.

--
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

wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:42:46 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
>>to put too many preventative measures in place.
>
>
> How about increase airport security. Oh! Bush brother was in charge
> and..

Did you miss the word 'how'? Apparently you did. You should learn to
read *with* comprehension. It makes everything clearer.

--
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

Al Dykes wrote:

> In article >,
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
>
>>That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
>>about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
>>Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
>>want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
>>one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
>>millions of americans were aware of this threat.
>
>
> But that's fiction. Reality is even better;
>
> One of the people that planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was
> captured a couple of years later in the Philippines with a laptop. On
> the laptop were plans to capture as many as 12 jumbos and crash them
> into buildings, all at once.
>
> These people thought the 1993 bomb was powerfull enough to take down
> one of the WTC towers. It made a crater inside, the size of a
> building, 6 floors high. Some people realized that one signature of AQ
> is returning to complete failed attacks. The happened on the Cole
> attack, and I beleive, on some Embassy bombings.
>
> IMHO the airlines are the people that allowed 9/11 to happen. For
> years the FAA had been asking the airlines to put locks on the cockpit
> door, like the Israelies do.

They also prohibited guns in the cockpit since 1986.



--
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

>
> "Al Dykes" > wrote in message
> ...

>
> >The FBI/CIA/FAA culture that prevented the sharing of
> > information help. So did that fact that as of Spring 01 Ashcroft didn't
> > have terrorist on his list of the 7 highest priority issues, and that
> > Bush slashed the FBI terrorism budget buy a billiion in the summer of
> > 01.
> >
> > All of this was reported in the public press before 9/11/01.
> > I bet It wasn't reported on Fox Cable News.

Actually, what Fox is reporting today is a bit different from your take on
the issue. Interestingly enough, the same Mr. Clark who has been lately
trashing the current administration for its alleged lack of attention to AQ
before 9-11 was singing quite a different tune in August 2002, when he was
tape recorded by reporters saying:

"...there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton
administration to the Bush administration. Second point is that the Clinton
administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998... And
in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the
existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had
not been decided on in a couple of years. And the third point is the Bush
administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One,
vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert
action findings, which we've now made public to some extent. And the point
is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the
lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration
decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had
been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. So, point
five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh,
decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton
strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action,
five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. The sixth point, the newly-appointed
deputies - and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office
until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of
the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were
endorsing, and sending out to the principals. Over the course of the
summer - last point - they developed implementation details, the principals
met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed
the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the
policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy
on the Northern Alliance assistance. And then changed the strategy from one
of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had
been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.
That is in fact the timeline."

Followed by specific questions addressed to Mr. Clark that included:
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything
that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these
decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert
action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against
Al Qaeda - did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that
a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next
budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then
went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is
the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When
President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve
this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD
from one of rollback to one of elimination.

How different all of this is from what Clark has been saying of late. You
are concerned over an alleged major decrease to the FBI "terrorism budget"
(and your cite for that is...? Ignoring the fact that by that time all of
the the money in the world added to that budget would not have stopped 9-11
from happening...), while Clark acknowledges that the folks at the pointy
end of the spear were in line to get a five-fold increase in their
supporting funding, and that the Bush administration had as Clark put it at
the time, "When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies
and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that
changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination."

I've had my share of beefs with "FauxNews", but this time they have hit the
nail on the head, and they have it on tape to prove it. Mr. Clark's
"background" comments are coming back to prove him to be what some
administration sources have indeed labled him over the last few days--a man
disgruntled over his failure to secure a promotion he thought he deserved,
and who has let that animosity turn him into an out-and-out liar in regards
to his latest comments.

Brooks

In article >,
Paul Mays > wrote:
>
>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
>> >That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
>> >about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
>> >Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
>> >want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
>> >one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
>> >millions of americans were aware of this threat.
>>
>> But that's fiction. Reality is even better;
>>
>> One of the people that planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was
>> captured a couple of years later in the Philippines with a laptop. On
>> the laptop were plans to capture as many as 12 jumbos and crash them
>> into buildings, all at once.
>>
>> These people thought the 1993 bomb was powerfull enough to take down
>> one of the WTC towers. It made a crater inside, the size of a
>> building, 6 floors high. Some people realized that one signature of AQ
>> is returning to complete failed attacks. The happened on the Cole
>> attack, and I beleive, on some Embassy bombings.
>>
>> IMHO the airlines are the people that allowed 9/11 to happen. For
>> years the FAA had been asking the airlines to put locks on the cockpit
>> door, like the Israelies do. The airlines lobbied like crazy to be
>> allowed to "study it". And the never did it. Of course the Bad Guys
>> would try something else, but the wouldn't be able to take control of
>> a jumbo.
>
>
>Just not true... Before 911 if a hijack had taken place
>,even with locked doors , the pilots would have open the doors
>when a couple of attendents had their necks cut. Hind sight
>is always wonderful but before 911 every pilot would have
>fiqured on a normal hijack and taking of the plane. Open the doors
>and fly the plane to where ever they wished was the rule and had
>happened many times in the past.

I wonder what training Israeli pilots are given. I bet they are told
to never open the door. And frankly, as a pilot, if suddenly the Stu's
stopped responding to calls on the PA system, or worse, I heard
screams, I'd _NEVER_ open the door. I'd declare an emergancy and head
for the nearest runway. That sounds like a no brainer. There are
grim scenarios here, but ex-military pilots are used to that. And
others can be trained.

>
>Someone said that looking at an evet after the fact is like
>looking out a clean rear view mirror... But at the time, your looking
>at events through a dirty windshield in a fog with no lights....
>
>
>>The FBI/CIA/FAA culture that prevented the sharing of
>> information help. So did that fact that as of Spring 01 Ashcroft didn't
>> have terrorist on his list of the 7 highest priority issues, and that
>> Bush slashed the FBI terrorism budget buy a billiion in the summer of
>> 01.
>>
>> All of this was reported in the public press before 9/11/01.
>> I bet It wasn't reported on Fox Cable News.
>>
>> One thing I haven't figured out is how Israeli pilots take a ****.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Al Dykes
>> -----------
>>
>>
>
>


--
Al Dykes
-----------

"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Paul Mays > wrote:
> >
> >"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
> >> >That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> >> >about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> >> >Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> >> >want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> >> >one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> >> >millions of americans were aware of this threat.
> >>
> >> But that's fiction. Reality is even better;
> >>
> >> One of the people that planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was
> >> captured a couple of years later in the Philippines with a laptop. On
> >> the laptop were plans to capture as many as 12 jumbos and crash them
> >> into buildings, all at once.
> >>
> >> These people thought the 1993 bomb was powerfull enough to take down
> >> one of the WTC towers. It made a crater inside, the size of a
> >> building, 6 floors high. Some people realized that one signature of AQ
> >> is returning to complete failed attacks. The happened on the Cole
> >> attack, and I beleive, on some Embassy bombings.
> >>
> >> IMHO the airlines are the people that allowed 9/11 to happen. For
> >> years the FAA had been asking the airlines to put locks on the cockpit
> >> door, like the Israelies do. The airlines lobbied like crazy to be
> >> allowed to "study it". And the never did it. Of course the Bad Guys
> >> would try something else, but the wouldn't be able to take control of
> >> a jumbo.
> >
> >
> >Just not true... Before 911 if a hijack had taken place
> >,even with locked doors , the pilots would have open the doors
> >when a couple of attendents had their necks cut. Hind sight
> >is always wonderful but before 911 every pilot would have
> >fiqured on a normal hijack and taking of the plane. Open the doors
> >and fly the plane to where ever they wished was the rule and had
> >happened many times in the past.
>
> I wonder what training Israeli pilots are given. I bet they are told
> to never open the door. And frankly, as a pilot, if suddenly the Stu's
> stopped responding to calls on the PA system, or worse, I heard
> screams, I'd _NEVER_ open the door. I'd declare an emergancy and head
> for the nearest runway. That sounds like a no brainer. There are
> grim scenarios here, but ex-military pilots are used to that. And
> others can be trained.
>

All the pilot has to do is go into an aggressive drive and play with the
cabin pressure.
Every one would be unconscious faster than they could say hello.

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

Clarke is just cashing in by selling books to weak minded liberals. I don't
really blame him for spinning for dollars.

"D.A. Tsenuf" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Al Dykes" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Paul Mays > wrote:
> > >
> > >"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> In article >,
> > >> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
> > >> >That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> > >> >about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> > >> >Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> > >> >want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> > >> >one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> > >> >millions of americans were aware of this threat.
> > >>
> > >> But that's fiction. Reality is even better;
> > >>
> > >> One of the people that planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
was
> > >> captured a couple of years later in the Philippines with a laptop.
On
> > >> the laptop were plans to capture as many as 12 jumbos and crash them
> > >> into buildings, all at once.
> > >>
> > >> These people thought the 1993 bomb was powerfull enough to take down
> > >> one of the WTC towers. It made a crater inside, the size of a
> > >> building, 6 floors high. Some people realized that one signature of
AQ
> > >> is returning to complete failed attacks. The happened on the Cole
> > >> attack, and I beleive, on some Embassy bombings.
> > >>
> > >> IMHO the airlines are the people that allowed 9/11 to happen. For
> > >> years the FAA had been asking the airlines to put locks on the
cockpit
> > >> door, like the Israelies do. The airlines lobbied like crazy to be
> > >> allowed to "study it". And the never did it. Of course the Bad Guys
> > >> would try something else, but the wouldn't be able to take control of
> > >> a jumbo.
> > >
> > >
> > >Just not true... Before 911 if a hijack had taken place
> > >,even with locked doors , the pilots would have open the doors
> > >when a couple of attendents had their necks cut. Hind sight
> > >is always wonderful but before 911 every pilot would have
> > >fiqured on a normal hijack and taking of the plane. Open the doors
> > >and fly the plane to where ever they wished was the rule and had
> > >happened many times in the past.
> >
> > I wonder what training Israeli pilots are given. I bet they are told
> > to never open the door. And frankly, as a pilot, if suddenly the Stu's
> > stopped responding to calls on the PA system, or worse, I heard
> > screams, I'd _NEVER_ open the door. I'd declare an emergancy and head
> > for the nearest runway. That sounds like a no brainer. There are
> > grim scenarios here, but ex-military pilots are used to that. And
> > others can be trained.
> >
>
> All the pilot has to do is go into an aggressive drive and play with the
> cabin pressure.
> Every one would be unconscious faster than they could say hello.
>
>
And someone dies as a resultr and their family becomes the airline's new
owners.

-*MORT*-

"Morton Davis" > wrote in message
news:exK8c.92788$1p.1403425@attbi_s54...
>
> "D.A. Tsenuf" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Al Dykes" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > Paul Mays > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> In article >,
> > > >> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
> > > >> >That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of
Honor"
> > > >> >about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol
Building.
> > > >> >Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> > > >> >want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that
no
> > > >> >one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> > > >> >millions of americans were aware of this threat.
> > > >>
> > > >> But that's fiction. Reality is even better;
> > > >>
> > > >> One of the people that planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
> was
> > > >> captured a couple of years later in the Philippines with a laptop.
> On
> > > >> the laptop were plans to capture as many as 12 jumbos and crash
them
> > > >> into buildings, all at once.
> > > >>
> > > >> These people thought the 1993 bomb was powerfull enough to take
down
> > > >> one of the WTC towers. It made a crater inside, the size of a
> > > >> building, 6 floors high. Some people realized that one signature of
> AQ
> > > >> is returning to complete failed attacks. The happened on the Cole
> > > >> attack, and I beleive, on some Embassy bombings.
> > > >>
> > > >> IMHO the airlines are the people that allowed 9/11 to happen. For
> > > >> years the FAA had been asking the airlines to put locks on the
> cockpit
> > > >> door, like the Israelies do. The airlines lobbied like crazy to be
> > > >> allowed to "study it". And the never did it. Of course the Bad Guys
> > > >> would try something else, but the wouldn't be able to take control
of
> > > >> a jumbo.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Just not true... Before 911 if a hijack had taken place
> > > >,even with locked doors , the pilots would have open the doors
> > > >when a couple of attendents had their necks cut. Hind sight
> > > >is always wonderful but before 911 every pilot would have
> > > >fiqured on a normal hijack and taking of the plane. Open the doors
> > > >and fly the plane to where ever they wished was the rule and had
> > > >happened many times in the past.
> > >
> > > I wonder what training Israeli pilots are given. I bet they are told
> > > to never open the door. And frankly, as a pilot, if suddenly the Stu's
> > > stopped responding to calls on the PA system, or worse, I heard
> > > screams, I'd _NEVER_ open the door. I'd declare an emergancy and head
> > > for the nearest runway. That sounds like a no brainer. There are
> > > grim scenarios here, but ex-military pilots are used to that. And
> > > others can be trained.
> > >
> >
> > All the pilot has to do is go into an aggressive drive and play with the
> > cabin pressure.
> > Every one would be unconscious faster than they could say hello.
> >
> >
> And someone dies as a resultr and their family becomes the airline's new
> owners.
>
> -*MORT*-
>
>


Nah..
All bets are off if there is a hijacking.

****, why didn't President Clinton stop them then?

BVlech

"David E. Powell" wrote:
>
> ****, why didn't President Clinton stop them then?
>
> BVlech

He was too busy having sex with fat women.




--
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"

"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido,
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> millions of americans were aware of this threat.

Back in the copy-cat days of the late 60s', I recall hearing that a
plane was hi-jacked and circled Detroit for several hours, while the
person who had taken over the plane threatended to crash it into the
downtown buildings unless his demands were met...

RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>
> > That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> > about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
>
> It was about *one* disgruntled pilot for a Japanese airline.

Quantity over quality, the American national sport.

> > Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> > want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> > one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> > millions of americans were aware of this threat.
>
> But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
> to put too many preventative measures in place.

But it makes it easy to stand down normal security measures and allow
your attack fighters to fly at a fraction of their normal speed before
reaching the scene.

<sniff, sniff>

M.

Yardpilot wrote:
>
> <Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:42:46 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> > >
> > >> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> > >> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> > >
> > >It was about *one* disgruntled pilot for a Japanese airline.
> > >
> > >> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> > >> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> > >> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> > >> millions of americans were aware of this threat.
> > >
> > >But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
> > >to put too many preventative measures in place.
> >
> > That's not the point, you illogical loony. My complaint is with condi
> > saying that no one had ever imagined the idea of flying fuel-laden
> > jets into buildings. That was a shameless lie by condi.
>
> She was referring to reality, a condition with which you are not familiar. BTW,
> I know of a plot to ram the Earth with a Galaxy Class Starship travelling at
> lightspeed. Defend or die!

The concept makes the reality.

Have you learnt nothing in your short life?

M.

RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:42:46 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
> >>to put too many preventative measures in place.
> >
> >
> > How about increase airport security. Oh! Bush brother was in charge
> > and..
>
> Did you miss the word 'how'? Apparently you did. You should learn to
> read *with* comprehension. It makes everything clearer.

It appears you missed the word "how" too.

They were informed by German intelligence and Mossad of the likely form
of the attack, so your "how" escape route goes out the window.

M.

Al Dykes wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
> >That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> >about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> >Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> >want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> >one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> >millions of americans were aware of this threat.
>
> But that's fiction. Reality is even better;
>
> One of the people that planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was
> captured a couple of years later in the Philippines with a laptop. On
> the laptop were plans to capture as many as 12 jumbos and crash them
> into buildings, all at once.
>
> These people thought the 1993 bomb was powerfull enough to take down
> one of the WTC towers. It made a crater inside, the size of a
> building, 6 floors high. Some people realized that one signature of AQ
> is returning to complete failed attacks. The happened on the Cole
> attack, and I beleive, on some Embassy bombings.
>
> IMHO the airlines are the people that allowed 9/11 to happen. For
> years the FAA had been asking the airlines to put locks on the cockpit
> door, like the Israelies do. <snip>

Yes, but if you do that, then the highjackers can't get in to stop the
pilots disabling the remote flying capability that's flying the plane
towards the building, can they?

After all, none of the highjackers could fly a 767 Widebody. Not one.
Simulators don't cut it.

What did you think they were there for? Wakey- wakey!

HTH

M.

"Michael O'Niell" > wrote in message
...
> Yardpilot wrote:
> >
> > <Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:42:46 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> > > >> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> > > >
> > > >It was about *one* disgruntled pilot for a Japanese airline.
> > > >
> > > >> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> > > >> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> > > >> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> > > >> millions of americans were aware of this threat.
> > > >
> > > >But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
> > > >to put too many preventative measures in place.
> > >
> > > That's not the point, you illogical loony. My complaint is with condi
> > > saying that no one had ever imagined the idea of flying fuel-laden
> > > jets into buildings. That was a shameless lie by condi.
> >
> > She was referring to reality, a condition with which you are not familiar.
BTW,
> > I know of a plot to ram the Earth with a Galaxy Class Starship travelling at
> > lightspeed. Defend or die!
>
> The concept makes the reality.

Evidently your "reality" is transient and mutable.

>
> Have you learnt nothing in your short life?

Rather than learn nothing, I have chosen to learn much.

"Michael O'Niell" > wrote in message
...
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> >
> > Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> >
> > > That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> > > about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> >
> > It was about *one* disgruntled pilot for a Japanese airline.
>
> Quantity over quality, the American national sport.
>
> > > Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> > > want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> > > one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> > > millions of americans were aware of this threat.
> >
> > But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
> > to put too many preventative measures in place.
>
> But it makes it easy to stand down normal security measures and allow
> your attack fighters to fly at a fraction of their normal speed before
> reaching the scene.
>
> <sniff, sniff>
>
Crying over your loss of sanity? Odds are, you never had is, nor sentience.
In that respect, you could be Kerry's running mate.

-*MORT*-

In article >,
Michael O'Niell > wrote:

> Al Dykes wrote:

> > IMHO the airlines are the people that allowed 9/11 to happen. For
> > years the FAA had been asking the airlines to put locks on the cockpit
> > door, like the Israelies do. <snip>

Both the airlines and FAA are to blame; armed pilots could have stopped
9-11 cold.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Nick Hull wrote:
> In article >,
> Michael O'Niell > wrote:
>
>> Al Dykes wrote:
>
>>> IMHO the airlines are the people that allowed 9/11 to happen. For
>>> years the FAA had been asking the airlines to put locks on the cockpit
>>> door, like the Israelies do. <snip>
>
> Both the airlines and FAA are to blame; armed pilots could have stopped
> 9-11 cold.

The FAA asked? Whatever happened to mandatory regulations? Out of fashion for
the FAA? If they thought it was needed, they could have ordered it, along with
the myriad of other mundane things they order the aviation community to comply
with.

George Z.

"Michael O'Niell" > wrote in message
...
> Yardpilot wrote:
> >
> > <Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:42:46 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> > > >> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> > > >
> > > >It was about *one* disgruntled pilot for a Japanese airline.
> > > >
> > > >> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> > > >> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> > > >> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> > > >> millions of americans were aware of this threat.
> > > >
> > > >But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little
difficult
> > > >to put too many preventative measures in place.
> > >
> > > That's not the point, you illogical loony. My complaint is with condi
> > > saying that no one had ever imagined the idea of flying fuel-laden
> > > jets into buildings. That was a shameless lie by condi.
> >
> > She was referring to reality, a condition with which you are not
familiar. BTW,
> > I know of a plot to ram the Earth with a Galaxy Class Starship
travelling at
> > lightspeed. Defend or die!
>
> The concept makes the reality.
>
> Have you learnt nothing in your short life?
>
>
He, and I, are likely older than you. There were a multitude of
possiblities, far above what could be prepared for with any seriousness. We
knew, for example, that Al Qaeda had an affinity for blowing up buildings.
Do you have any concept of the complex nature of air traffic over America on
a daily basis? there are thousands of aircraft in the air at any given
moment.

Looking at the devistating effect of shutting down the airways for a short
period after 9-11, can you honestly state that adversely affecting air
traffic prior to 9-11 based on a heightened probability that something MIGHT
happen somewhere in the USA at some unknown date, to some unknown target,
would have been greeted well by Americans?

Basically, you're easy chair quarterbacking with obscured hindsight driven
ny erroneous information proffered by people with an agenda to grind.

-*MORT*-

------------------------------------------------------

L'an mil neuf cent nonante neuf sept mois,
Du ciel viendra un grand Roi d'effrayeur:
Ressusciter le grand Roi d'Angolmois,
Avant après Mars regner par bonheur.


In the year 1999, in the sept month,
from the sky will come the great King of Terror,
bringing back to life the great King of the Mongols.
Before and after, Mars to reign by good fortune.

--------------------------------------------------------

Since we have been warned since 1522
Why did George Washington take actions
to stop the 9/11 attacks! Or Ol' Abe ..

But no.. with the above warning not one
President in the past 220 years took direct actions
to protect our people from the 9/11 attacks..

It's a scandle I tell you....

"> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
> to put too many preventative measures in place.

<snicker>
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with
the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating
within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack
using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The
Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a
gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets
privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of
specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target
information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them
everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay.
These are things that are documented. These things can be established very
easily."



<FCC Edit> Bush that piece of <FCC Edit> liar and those around him setting
his policy's on National Security and the WOT. The fairytale is over!

"copertopkiller" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> > But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
> > to put too many preventative measures in place.
>
> <snicker>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514
>
> Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session
with
> the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating
> within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack
> using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The
> Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained
a
> gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets
> privilege".

"State secrets privilege"??! Oh, boy--another alt-whacko type uncloaks...
*Plonk*

Brooks

>
> She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of
> specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target
> information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them
> everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay.
> These are things that are documented. These things can be established very
> easily."
>
>
>
> <FCC Edit> Bush that piece of <FCC Edit> liar and those around him setting
> his policy's on National Security and the WOT. The fairytale is over!
>
>

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "copertopkiller" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > "> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> > > But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little
difficult
> > > to put too many preventative measures in place.
> >
> > <snicker>
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514
> >
> > Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session
> with
> > the commission's investigators providing information that was
circulating
> > within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an
attack
> > using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place.
The
> > Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has
obtained
> a
> > gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets
> > privilege".
>
> "State secrets privilege"??! Oh, boy--another alt-whacko type uncloaks...
> *Plonk*
>
> Brooks

Plonk your head against a wall: Check a federal Judges Ruling in 1996. It
was a hazardous waste lawsuit about/at Groom Lake, which is in appeals as
of, now.

Another uninformed idiot who knows no facts.

"Morton Davis" > wrote in message
news:0Zdcc.190762$Cb.1728265@attbi_s51...
>
> "Michael O'Niell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yardpilot wrote:
> > >
> > > <Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:42:46 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> > > > >> about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> > > > >
> > > > >It was about *one* disgruntled pilot for a Japanese airline.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> > > > >> want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> > > > >> one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> > > > >> millions of americans were aware of this threat.
> > > > >
> > > > >But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little
> difficult
> > > > >to put too many preventative measures in place.
> > > >
> > > > That's not the point, you illogical loony. My complaint is with condi
> > > > saying that no one had ever imagined the idea of flying fuel-laden
> > > > jets into buildings. That was a shameless lie by condi.
> > >
> > > She was referring to reality, a condition with which you are not
> familiar. BTW,
> > > I know of a plot to ram the Earth with a Galaxy Class Starship
> travelling at
> > > lightspeed. Defend or die!
> >
> > The concept makes the reality.
> >
> > Have you learnt nothing in your short life?
> >
> >
> He, and I, are likely older than you. There were a multitude of
> possiblities, far above what could be prepared for with any seriousness. We
> knew, for example, that Al Qaeda had an affinity for blowing up buildings.
> Do you have any concept of the complex nature of air traffic over America on
> a daily basis? there are thousands of aircraft in the air at any given
> moment.
>
> Looking at the devistating effect of shutting down the airways for a short
> period after 9-11, can you honestly state that adversely affecting air
> traffic prior to 9-11 based on a heightened probability that something MIGHT
> happen somewhere in the USA at some unknown date, to some unknown target,
> would have been greeted well by Americans?
>
> Basically, you're easy chair quarterbacking with obscured hindsight driven
> ny erroneous information proffered by people with an agenda to grind.

Yup. "Well they SHOULDA..." seems to be one of the current catch phrases.
Evidently they think a great deal of Bush, and expected him to do in eight
months what Clinton didn't do in eight years.

"copertopkiller" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "copertopkiller" > wrote in message
> > et...
> > >
> > > "> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> > > > But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little
> difficult
> > > > to put too many preventative measures in place.
> > >
> > > <snicker>
> > > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514
> > >
> > > Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session
> > with
> > > the commission's investigators providing information that was
> circulating
> > > within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an
> attack
> > > using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place.
> The
> > > Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has
> obtained
> > a
> > > gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets
> > > privilege".
> >
> > "State secrets privilege"??! Oh, boy--another alt-whacko type
uncloaks...
> > *Plonk*
> >
> > Brooks
>
> Plonk your head against a wall: Check a federal Judges Ruling in 1996. It
> was a hazardous waste lawsuit about/at Groom Lake, which is in appeals as
> of, now.
>
> Another uninformed idiot who knows no facts.

Your unsubstantiated bull**** does not constitute fact.

-*MORT*-
>
>

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Nick Hull wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Michael O'Niell > wrote:
> >
> >> Al Dykes wrote:
> >
> >>> IMHO the airlines are the people that allowed 9/11 to happen. For
> >>> years the FAA had been asking the airlines to put locks on the cockpit
> >>> door, like the Israelies do. <snip>
> >
> > Both the airlines and FAA are to blame; armed pilots could have stopped
> > 9-11 cold.
>
> The FAA asked? Whatever happened to mandatory regulations? Out of fashion
for
> the FAA? If they thought it was needed, they could have ordered it, along
with
> the myriad of other mundane things they order the aviation community to comply
> with.

They ordered pilots NOT to carry guns. Many once did. In fact, some airlines
used to issue them. They aren't known for the sanity of the orders they issue.

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:22:10 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:

>
>"> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> > But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
> > to put too many preventative measures in place.
>
><snicker>
>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514
>
>Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with
>the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating
>within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack
>using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The
>Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a
>gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets
>privilege".
>
>She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of
>specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target
>information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them
>everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay.
>These are things that are documented. These things can be established very
>easily."

And the piece concludes:

"It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims."

In article >, Michael O'Niell
> wrote:

> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> >
> > Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> >
> > > That's when tom clancy published his popular novel "Debt of Honor"
> > > about terrorists flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol Building.
> >
> > It was about *one* disgruntled pilot for a Japanese airline.
>
> Quantity over quality, the American national sport.
>
> > > Now you know why condoleeza rice and others in the bush gang don't
> > > want to testify to the 9-11 panel. Condi told us after 9-11 that no
> > > one could have imagined such a thing could happen!!!! Sheeiiiit -
> > > millions of americans were aware of this threat.
> >
> > But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little difficult
> > to put too many preventative measures in place.
>
> But it makes it easy to stand down normal security measures and allow
> your attack fighters to fly at a fraction of their normal speed before
> reaching the scene.
>
The fighters were at normal speed. Until one gets to supercruise
aircraft like the F-22, or special cases like the SR-71 or Concorde,
even fighters can go supersonic for short bursts.

I live about four miles from the Pentagon, and the crash on 9/11 shook
my windows. My guess was that fighters, at full military power but not
in afterburner, were overhead within two minutes. Given where the plane
took off from and the distance to Washington DC, I'm amazed that the
reaction was that fast.

In many respects, if the plane was going to hit a populated building, it
hit at one of the best possible spots -- newly reinforced, not fully
occupied, and many of the occupants having experience and training to
react immediately and appropriately.

Let's say a fighter had caught up with it, and was authorized to fire.
That won't disintegrate the plane. Where is it going to come down? It
very well might have gone into much more densely populated areas.
Traditional air-to-air, or most surface to air, missiles simply don't
have the energy to break a low-flying aircraft into small pieces. A
kinetic energy weapon like CIWS, or a large warhead (e.g., Maverick)
might do better, but once that aircraft is over a city and in terrorist
hands, there are going to be casualties on the ground. The only chance
for avoiding mass casualties would have been just enough luck to have it
come down in a nearby body of water.

"Morton Davis" > wrote in message
news:xOlcc.189684$1p.2199553@attbi_s54...
>
> "copertopkiller" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "copertopkiller" > wrote in message
> > > et...
> > > >
> > > > "> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> > > > > But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little
> > difficult
> > > > > to put too many preventative measures in place.
> > > >
> > > > <snicker>
> > > > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514
> > > >
> > > > Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed
session
> > > with
> > > > the commission's investigators providing information that was
> > circulating
> > > > within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an
> > attack
> > > > using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in
place.
> > The
> > > > Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has
> > obtained
> > > a
> > > > gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets
> > > > privilege".
> > >
> > > "State secrets privilege"??! Oh, boy--another alt-whacko type
> uncloaks...
> > > *Plonk*
> > >
> > > Brooks
> >
> > Plonk your head against a wall: Check a federal Judges Ruling in 1996.
It
> > was a hazardous waste lawsuit about/at Groom Lake, which is in appeals
as
> > of, now.
> >
> > Another uninformed idiot who knows no facts.
>
> Your unsubstantiated bull**** does not constitute fact.
>
> -*MORT*-

OK, there it is then....* MORT* says so.

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:22:10 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> > > But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little
difficult
> > > to put too many preventative measures in place.
> >
> ><snicker>
> >http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514
> >
> >Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session
with
> >the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating
> >within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack
> >using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The
> >Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has
obtained a
> >gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets
> >privilege".
> >
> >She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of
> >specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target
> >information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave
them
> >everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay.
> >These are things that are documented. These things can be established
very
> >easily."
>
> And the piece concludes:
>
> "It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims."

No, it concludes with this:
It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some
senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public
with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption
within the FBI's translation department.

You are not a bright bulbed. The commission has already verified it if you
had ben paying attention. This is one of the reasons Mr. Kean has stated it
(9/11) could have been prevented. But of course you want all to believe she
is just another liar.

"copertopkiller" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Morton Davis" > wrote in message
> news:xOlcc.189684$1p.2199553@attbi_s54...
> >
> > "copertopkiller" > wrote in message
> > et...
> > >
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "copertopkiller" > wrote in message
> > > > et...
> > > > >
> > > > > "> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> > > > > > But they didn't know when or where or how. Makes it a little
> > > difficult
> > > > > > to put too many preventative measures in place.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snicker>
> > > > >
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514
> > > > >
> > > > > Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed
> session
> > > > with
> > > > > the commission's investigators providing information that was
> > > circulating
> > > > > within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an
> > > attack
> > > > > using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in
> place.
> > > The
> > > > > Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has
> > > obtained
> > > > a
> > > > > gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state
secrets
> > > > > privilege".
> > > >
> > > > "State secrets privilege"??! Oh, boy--another alt-whacko type
> > uncloaks...
> > > > *Plonk*
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > >
> > > Plonk your head against a wall: Check a federal Judges Ruling in 1996.
> It
> > > was a hazardous waste lawsuit about/at Groom Lake, which is in
appeals
> as
> > > of, now.
> > >
> > > Another uninformed idiot who knows no facts.
> >
> > Your unsubstantiated bull**** does not constitute fact.
> >
> > -*MORT*-
>
> OK, there it is then....* MORT* says so.
>
>
What -*MORT*- says is <plonk>

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:21:26 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:


>> "It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims."
>
>No, it concludes with this:
>It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some
>senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public
>with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption
>within the FBI's translation department.
>
>You are not a bright bulbed.

Brighter than you, Bryan.

>The commission has already verified it if you
>had ben paying attention.

It can't be verified but the commission has already verified it?
Who's the dim bulb here?

>This is one of the reasons Mr. Kean has stated it
>(9/11) could have been prevented. But of course you want all to believe she
>is just another liar.

Since she wasn't hired until 9/13/2001, and then only as an
interpreter, it is somewhat difficult to believe that she knew what
was going on before that time. But then you'll grasp at any straw.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:21:26 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:


>> "It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims."
>
>No, it concludes with this:
>It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some
>senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public
>with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption
>within the FBI's translation department.
>
>You are not a bright bulbed.

Brighter than you, Bryan.

>The commission has already verified it if you
>had ben paying attention.

It can't be verified but the commission has already verified it?
Who's the dim bulb here?

>This is one of the reasons Mr. Kean has stated it
>(9/11) could have been prevented. But of course you want all to believe she
>is just another liar.

Since she wasn't hired until 9/13/2001, and then only as an
interpreter, it is somewhat difficult to believe that she knew what
was going on before that time. But then you'll grasp at any straw.

Sorry about the duplicate post, but I pushed the wrong button before I
was through. Now tell us Bryan, if Ms. Edmonds testified before the
commission, how come the commission has no record of it on their
website?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:21:26 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> "It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims."
> >
> >No, it concludes with this:
> >It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However,
some
> >senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went
public
> >with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption
> >within the FBI's translation department.
> >
> >You are not a bright bulbed.
>
> Brighter than you, Bryan.

Oh yeah, my brother can beat your father up. <snicker>

>
> >The commission has already verified it if you
> >had ben paying attention.
>
> It can't be verified but the commission has already verified it?
> Who's the dim bulb here?

You must not have been paying attention to the unprecedented statements
prior to the final release of report.


>
> >This is one of the reasons Mr. Kean has stated it
> >(9/11) could have been prevented. But of course you want all to believe
she
> >is just another liar.
>
> Since she wasn't hired until 9/13/2001, and then only as an
> interpreter, it is somewhat difficult to believe that she knew what
> was going on before that time. But then you'll grasp at any straw.

Silly, you are. Is she the only translator working for the feds or is she
the only
one who has come forward? Adam?

----- Original Message -----
From: >
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.guns,rec.aviation.military,talk.poli tics.mideast,alt.conspirac
y
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Yep - 9-11 attacks predicted in 1994


> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:21:26 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> "It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims."
> >
> >No, it concludes with this:
> >It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However,
some
> >senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went
public
> >with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption
> >within the FBI's translation department.
> >
> >You are not a bright bulbed.
>
> Brighter than you, Bryan.
>
> >The commission has already verified it if you
> >had ben paying attention.
>
> It can't be verified but the commission has already verified it?
> Who's the dim bulb here?
>
> >This is one of the reasons Mr. Kean has stated it
> >(9/11) could have been prevented. But of course you want all to believe
she
> >is just another liar.
>
> Since she wasn't hired until 9/13/2001, and then only as an
> interpreter, it is somewhat difficult to believe that she knew what
> was going on before that time. But then you'll grasp at any straw.
>
> Sorry about the duplicate post, but I pushed the wrong button before I
> was through.

Like I said, you're not a bright bulb.


Now tell us Bryan, if Ms. Edmonds testified before the
> commission, how come the commission has no record of it on their
> website?
>
> http://www.9-11commission.gov/

It doesn't have anyone listed unless they were at public appearances, moron.
Like I said, you're not a bright bulb.

"Morton Davis" > wrote in message
news:8LHcc.207294$po.1038445@attbi_s52...
>
> "copertopkiller" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > > >
> > > > Another uninformed idiot who knows no facts.
> > >
> > > Your unsubstantiated bull**** does not constitute fact.
> > >
> > > -*MORT*-
> >
> > OK, there it is then....* MORT* says so.
> >
> >
> What -*MORT*- says is <plonk>
>
>

What *MORT* says doesn't make it so...after all he did
say the exact same thing 12 hours prior to this time. *MORT*
simply no credibility.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:26:39 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:


>Now tell us Bryan, if Ms. Edmonds testified before the
>> commission, how come the commission has no record of it on their
>> website?
>>
>> http://www.9-11commission.gov/
>
>It doesn't have anyone listed unless they were at public appearances, moron.
>Like I said, you're not a bright bulb.

So how does one confirm that she "testified"? BTW, the article you
provided says she was hired on September 13, 2001. An article on Tom
Flocco's site says it was December 2001. And apparently some of her
information comes from intercepts that were translated AFTER 9/11.
And the question remains, if she wasn't working in the spring of 2001,
how does she know what she claims?

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:10:51 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:


>> Since she wasn't hired until 9/13/2001, and then only as an
>> interpreter, it is somewhat difficult to believe that she knew what
>> was going on before that time. But then you'll grasp at any straw.
>
>Silly, you are. Is she the only translator working for the feds or is she
>the only
>one who has come forward? Adam?

Why don't you answer the question, Bryan? Or are you claiming that
she is reporting second hand information? That she has no personal
knowledge of events in the spring of 2001? I believe that the legal
term for that is heresay, isn't it?

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:26:39 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Now tell us Bryan, if Ms. Edmonds testified before the
> >> commission, how come the commission has no record of it on their
> >> website?
> >>
> >> http://www.9-11commission.gov/
> >
> >It doesn't have anyone listed unless they were at public appearances,
moron.
> >Like I said, you're not a bright bulb.
>
> So how does one confirm that she "testified"?

Maybe someone else can help you with your stupidity.


BTW, the article you
> provided says she was hired on September 13, 2001.


And this somehow proves your preposterous statement backing that there was
no indication of a 9/11 style attack true?


An article on Tom
> Flocco's site says it was December 2001.

What else does Mr. Flocco reveal?

And apparently some of her
> information comes from intercepts that were translated AFTER 9/11.
> And the question remains, if she wasn't working in the spring of 2001,
> how does she know what she claims?

Her 200 or so co-working translators? Such a dim bulb you are, adam.

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:10:51 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> Since she wasn't hired until 9/13/2001, and then only as an
> >> interpreter, it is somewhat difficult to believe that she knew what
> >> was going on before that time. But then you'll grasp at any straw.
> >
> >Silly, you are. Is she the only translator working for the feds or is she
> >the only
> >one who has come forward? Adam?
>
> Why don't you answer the question, Bryan?

Better brush up on your reading. You ask a question that is already answered
in the Independent.co.uk article.

Or are you claiming that
> she is reporting second hand information? That she has no personal
> knowledge of events in the spring of 2001? I believe that the legal
> term for that is heresay, isn't it?

<snicker>

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:06:10 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:10:51 GMT, "copertopkiller"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Since she wasn't hired until 9/13/2001, and then only as an
>> >> interpreter, it is somewhat difficult to believe that she knew what
>> >> was going on before that time. But then you'll grasp at any straw.
>> >
>> >Silly, you are. Is she the only translator working for the feds or is she
>> >the only
>> >one who has come forward? Adam?
>>
>> Why don't you answer the question, Bryan?
>
>Better brush up on your reading. You ask a question that is already answered
>in the Independent.co.uk article.

Really?

>Or are you claiming that
>> she is reporting second hand information? That she has no personal
>> knowledge of events in the spring of 2001? I believe that the legal
>> term for that is heresay, isn't it?
>
><snicker>

Yep, Bryan, it's the gospel truth if you believe it, and it's a lie if
it doesn't coincide with your version of reality. Isn't that how it
works?

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:02:27 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:26:39 GMT, "copertopkiller"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Now tell us Bryan, if Ms. Edmonds testified before the
>> >> commission, how come the commission has no record of it on their
>> >> website?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.9-11commission.gov/
>> >
>> >It doesn't have anyone listed unless they were at public appearances,
>moron.
>> >Like I said, you're not a bright bulb.
>>
>> So how does one confirm that she "testified"?
>
>Maybe someone else can help you with your stupidity.

Well, you've never been much help. But then, it isn't my stupidity
that is in question.

>BTW, the article you
>> provided says she was hired on September 13, 2001.
>
>And this somehow proves your preposterous statement backing that there was
>no indication of a 9/11 style attack true?

Anytime you want to explain how she knew about the inner working of
the Bureau in the time before she was hired, other than reporting
rumors from around the water cooler, please go right ahead.

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:06:10 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:10:51 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Since she wasn't hired until 9/13/2001, and then only as an
> >> >> interpreter, it is somewhat difficult to believe that she knew what
> >> >> was going on before that time. But then you'll grasp at any straw.
> >> >
> >> >Silly, you are. Is she the only translator working for the feds or is
she
> >> >the only
> >> >one who has come forward? Adam?
> >>
> >> Why don't you answer the question, Bryan?
> >
> >Better brush up on your reading. You ask a question that is already
answered
> >in the Independent.co.uk article.
>
> Really?

Yes, doofus.

>
> >Or are you claiming that
> >> she is reporting second hand information? That she has no personal
> >> knowledge of events in the spring of 2001? I believe that the legal
> >> term for that is heresay, isn't it?
> >
> ><snicker>
>
> Yep, Bryan, it's the gospel truth if you believe it, and it's a lie if
> it doesn't coincide with your version of reality. Isn't that how it
> works?

Again I refer you to the Independent.co.uk article and ask you to rephrase
or retract your feeble question?

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:02:27 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:26:39 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Now tell us Bryan, if Ms. Edmonds testified before the
> >> >> commission, how come the commission has no record of it on their
> >> >> website?
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.9-11commission.gov/
> >> >
> >> >It doesn't have anyone listed unless they were at public appearances,
> >moron.
> >> >Like I said, you're not a bright bulb.
> >>
> >> So how does one confirm that she "testified"?
> >
> >Maybe someone else can help you with your stupidity.
>
> Well, you've never been much help. But then, it isn't my stupidity
> that is in question.

Hmm. I'll give you some slack here. It is your stupid question?

>
> >BTW, the article you
> >> provided says she was hired on September 13, 2001.
> >
> >And this somehow proves your preposterous statement backing that there
was
> >no indication of a 9/11 style attack true?
>
> Anytime you want to explain how she knew about the inner working of
> the Bureau in the time before she was hired, other than reporting
> rumors from around the water cooler, please go right ahead.

<snicker>

Claiming the FBI changed things right before she arrived is what needs to be
shown. It can't and will not because it didn't. Now, how does all this prove
your preposterous statement backing that there was no indication of a 9/11
style attack true?

Not a bright bulb, Adam.

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:22:45 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:


>
>Claiming the FBI changed things right before she arrived is what needs to be
>shown. It can't and will not because it didn't. Now, how does all this prove
>your preposterous statement backing that there was no indication of a 9/11
>style attack true?

Uh, Bryan, we were talking about what Ms. Edmonds alledged, not
something that I said.

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:18:52 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:


>> >Or are you claiming that
>> >> she is reporting second hand information? That she has no personal
>> >> knowledge of events in the spring of 2001? I believe that the legal
>> >> term for that is heresay, isn't it?
>> >
>> ><snicker>
>>
>> Yep, Bryan, it's the gospel truth if you believe it, and it's a lie if
>> it doesn't coincide with your version of reality. Isn't that how it
>> works?
>
>Again I refer you to the Independent.co.uk article and ask you to rephrase
>or retract your feeble question?

What is it in the article that demonstrates that Ms. Edmonds is not
repeating heresay? What is it that demonstrates her first hand
knowledge of what she is "reporting"?

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:22:45 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Claiming the FBI changed things right before she arrived is what needs to
be
> >shown. It can't and will not because it didn't. Now, how does all this
prove
> >your preposterous statement backing that there was no indication of a
9/11
> >style attack true?
>
> Uh, Bryan, we were talking about what Ms. Edmonds alledged, not
> something that I said.
>
Seems someone needs to look at a map. America is one big place. The best I
can gather from the 9/11 commission hearings is that there were vague
warnings that an attack MIGHT happen SOMEWHERE in the USA SOMETIME, SOMEHOW,
SOMEWAY, by SOMEBODY.

-*MORT*-

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:22:45 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Claiming the FBI changed things right before she arrived is what needs to
be
> >shown. It can't and will not because it didn't. Now, how does all this
prove
> >your preposterous statement backing that there was no indication of a
9/11
> >style attack true?
>
> Uh, Bryan, we were talking about what Ms. Edmonds alledged, not
> something that I said.

Doper, learn to read. Learn to comrehend. This Ms. Edmonds article was
posted exactly for that reason.


>

"Morton Davis" > wrote in message
news:s7Kdc.2995$rg5.29227@attbi_s52...
> Seems someone needs to look at a map. America is one big place. The best I
> can gather from the 9/11 commission hearings is that there were vague
> warnings that an attack MIGHT happen SOMEWHERE in the USA SOMETIME,
SOMEHOW,
> SOMEWAY, by SOMEBODY.
>
> -*MORT*-

Seems you are another moron who thinks the exact target, day and time needs
to be known before measures can be taken.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:30:13 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:22:45 GMT, "copertopkiller"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Claiming the FBI changed things right before she arrived is what needs to
>be
>> >shown. It can't and will not because it didn't. Now, how does all this
>prove
>> >your preposterous statement backing that there was no indication of a
>9/11
>> >style attack true?
>>
>> Uh, Bryan, we were talking about what Ms. Edmonds alledged, not
>> something that I said.
>
>Doper, learn to read. Learn to comrehend. This Ms. Edmonds article was
>posted exactly for that reason.

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.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:38:53 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:

>
>"Morton Davis" > wrote in message
>news:s7Kdc.2995$rg5.29227@attbi_s52...
>> Seems someone needs to look at a map. America is one big place. The best I
>> can gather from the 9/11 commission hearings is that there were vague
>> warnings that an attack MIGHT happen SOMEWHERE in the USA SOMETIME,
>SOMEHOW,
>> SOMEWAY, by SOMEBODY.
>>
>> -*MORT*-
>
>Seems you are another moron who thinks the exact target, day and time needs
>to be known before measures can be taken.

And what measures should have been taken, Bryan?

copertopkiller wrote:

> "Morton Davis" > wrote in message
> news:s7Kdc.2995$rg5.29227@attbi_s52...
>
>>Seems someone needs to look at a map. America is one big place. The best I
>>can gather from the 9/11 commission hearings is that there were vague
>>warnings that an attack MIGHT happen SOMEWHERE in the USA SOMETIME,
>
> SOMEHOW,
>
>>SOMEWAY, by SOMEBODY.
>>
>>-*MORT*-
>
>
> 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.



--
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

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:30:13 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:22:45 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Claiming the FBI changed things right before she arrived is what needs
to
> >be
> >> >shown. It can't and will not because it didn't. Now, how does all this
> >prove
> >> >your preposterous statement backing that there was no indication of a
> >9/11
> >> >style attack true?
> >>
> >> Uh, Bryan, we were talking about what Ms. Edmonds alledged, not
> >> something that I said.
> >
> >Doper, learn to read. Learn to comrehend. This Ms. Edmonds article was
> >posted exactly for that reason.
>
> 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>

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:38:53 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Morton Davis" > wrote in message
> >news:s7Kdc.2995$rg5.29227@attbi_s52...
> >> Seems someone needs to look at a map. America is one big place. The
best I
> >> can gather from the 9/11 commission hearings is that there were vague
> >> warnings that an attack MIGHT happen SOMEWHERE in the USA SOMETIME,
> >SOMEHOW,
> >> SOMEWAY, by SOMEBODY.
> >>
> >> -*MORT*-
> >
> >Seems you are another moron who thinks the exact target, day and time
needs
> >to be known before measures can be taken.
>
> And what measures should have been taken, Bryan?

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

"RD (The Sandman)" > wrote in message
...
> copertopkiller wrote:
>
> > "Morton Davis" > wrote in message
> > news:s7Kdc.2995$rg5.29227@attbi_s52...
> >
> >>Seems someone needs to look at a map. America is one big place. The best
I
> >>can gather from the 9/11 commission hearings is that there were vague
> >>warnings that an attack MIGHT happen SOMEWHERE in the USA SOMETIME,
> >
> > SOMEHOW,
> >
> >>SOMEWAY, by SOMEBODY.
> >>
> >>-*MORT*-
> >
> >
> > 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. 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?

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?

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:51:29 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.

> 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?
>
>

It's "position" is: hands over eyes so he can truley say he can't see
reality.

-*MORT*-

"copertopkiller" > wrote in a message

> Seems you are another moron who thinks the exact target, day and time
needs
> to be known before measures can be taken.

OK. What would you propose might have been done with this information that
might have stopped the 9/11 attacks?

Let me help you out a little here:
When I was in the Navy, ships would often do training exercises with the
SEAL teams. They would notify us that they were going to attack the ship on
a given date between certain hours (usually about a 4 hour window). During
the planned time, we would station extra people on watch all over the ship &
the pier. We never once stopped them from succeeding. You looked for divers
or mini subs and they came in on mini helos. They came up the pier in a
Krispy Kreme donut truck. They created diversions in two areas and entered
via a third. They came in high speed boats with weapons blazing, or they
silently climed the side of the ship right under your feet.

When someone is dedicated to completing their task and dying is not a
concern, there isn't a thing you can do to stop them.

What would you propose?

"copertopkiller" > wrote in a message

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

Sure.

We could have arrested all the terrorists in the U.S. and thwarted the
attack on 9/11 (in which case they'd have activated sleeper cells or sent
others in through Canada or Mexico and 9/11 would have happened on 10/12
instead)

We could have grounded all flights that day (so we'd remember 9/12 or 9/13
instead)

Anything you can think of would *delay* the attacks on 9/11... but how would
you *stop* them?

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:51:29 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

"John P." > wrote in message
news:%enec.14862$wP1.34802@attbi_s54...
> "copertopkiller" > wrote in a message
>
> > Lets forget about most cases and stay specific of this attack, Mort. 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?
>
> Sure.
>
> We could have arrested all the terrorists in the U.S. and thwarted the
> attack on 9/11 (in which case they'd have activated sleeper cells or sent
> others in through Canada or Mexico and 9/11 would have happened on 10/12
> instead)

Pshycic?
>
> We could have grounded all flights that day (so we'd remember 9/12 or 9/13
> instead)
>
> Anything you can think of would *delay* the attacks on 9/11... but how
would
> you *stop* them?

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

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

a) the first sign of trouble

b) when it is know to be highjacked

only to talk amongst themselves. Instead, clarify that they are to expedite
FAA Procedures of intercept then contact The President. If the errant,
Highjacked AC would not follow intercept orders a decision could be made to
take more drastic measures. It isn't that difficult.

After all there was all kinds of information about planes as weapons.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html

> 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.

"Morton Davis" > wrote in message
news:rQmec.17090$rg5.38791@attbi_s52...
>
> > 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?
> >
> >
>
> It's "position" is: hands over eyes so he can truley say he can't see
> reality.
>
> -*MORT*-

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

That's as preposterous as it can get. You dopers should expect more from
your government than we didn't know when, where or how...bwahahahah

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:38:53 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Morton Davis" > wrote in message
> >news:s7Kdc.2995$rg5.29227@attbi_s52...
> >> Seems someone needs to look at a map. America is one big place. The
best I
> >> can gather from the 9/11 commission hearings is that there were vague
> >> warnings that an attack MIGHT happen SOMEWHERE in the USA SOMETIME,
> >SOMEHOW,
> >> SOMEWAY, by SOMEBODY.
> >>
> >> -*MORT*-
> >
> >Seems you are another moron who thinks the exact target, day and time
needs
> >to be known before measures can be taken.
>
> And what measures should have been taken, Bryan?


He has no idea.. but it should have been something! Damnit!

But how much ya wana bet that he gets all tense and turns red
because of the new rules put in place to attempt to stop the
next attack. And would have been just jumping up and down
if Bush would have tried to pass the patriot act before 9/11..
I would also bet that if Bush would have suggested that the FBI
and the CIA gather files, and collaborate on anti American activities
of Islamic groups that have made threats , he would have blown
out a heart valve... before 9/11....

"copertopkiller" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" > wrote in message
> ...
> > copertopkiller wrote:
> >
> > > "Morton Davis" > wrote in message
> > > news:s7Kdc.2995$rg5.29227@attbi_s52...
> > >
> > >>Seems someone needs to look at a map. America is one big place. The
best
> I
> > >>can gather from the 9/11 commission hearings is that there were vague
> > >>warnings that an attack MIGHT happen SOMEWHERE in the USA SOMETIME,
> > >
> > > SOMEHOW,
> > >
> > >>SOMEWAY, by SOMEBODY.
> > >>
> > >>-*MORT*-
> > >
> > >
> > > 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. 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?

Yes something could have been done.. But what would have been your position
before 9/11 if you heard on the News that there was a non specific threat
so we were placing armed troops in airports and transportation centers and
allowing the FBI to exchange files on people with the CIA and other agencies
of the government and allowing air and wire taps of nation wide
communications.
Along with placing a couple hundred armed attack aircraft and various AA
batteries
around the country and maybe in your neighborhood... You would be required
to
have your shoes searched and your flights delayed because the airports were
going
to search your stuff using security people. If you fly you would expect a
major
cost increase to provide for replacing doors and your pilots are to allow a
hijacker to kill you instead of doing as the hijackers demand.

I think your views on the actions taken since 9/11 to prevent the next
attack
are an indication as to what they would have been before 9/11

"John P." > wrote in message
news:8bnec.17200$rg5.39168@attbi_s52...
> "copertopkiller" > wrote in a message
>
> > Seems you are another moron who thinks the exact target, day and time
> needs
> > to be known before measures can be taken.
>
> OK. What would you propose might have been done with this information that
> might have stopped the 9/11 attacks?
>
> Let me help you out a little here:
> When I was in the Navy, ships would often do training exercises with the
> SEAL teams. They would notify us that they were going to attack the ship
on
> a given date between certain hours (usually about a 4 hour window). During
> the planned time, we would station extra people on watch all over the ship
&
> the pier. We never once stopped them from succeeding. You looked for
divers
> or mini subs and they came in on mini helos. They came up the pier in a
> Krispy Kreme donut truck. They created diversions in two areas and entered
> via a third. They came in high speed boats with weapons blazing, or they
> silently climed the side of the ship right under your feet.
>
> When someone is dedicated to completing their task and dying is not a
> concern, there isn't a thing you can do to stop them.
>
> What would you propose?
>
>


You are pointing out the way the left have approached this since
the beginning... Not one of the lefts talking heads I have heard have
put forth a even semi lucid plan that would have prevented 9/11
or a plan to prevent the next 9/11.. or to stop any of the groups
aligned against us.. But they yell and scream that the plan we
are following is Bad, bad, bad....
Its the " I don't know what to do but DamNit! do sumthin!!! and do it
Fast! Don't wait to figure out if it does more harm than good...." kinda
mind set that annoys the hell outa me....

"Paul Mays" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> You are pointing out the way the left have approached this since
> the beginning... Not one of the lefts talking heads I have heard have
> put forth a even semi lucid plan that would have prevented 9/11
> or a plan to prevent the next 9/11.. or to stop any of the groups
> aligned against us.. But they yell and scream that the plan we
> are following is Bad, bad, bad....
> Its the " I don't know what to do but DamNit! do sumthin!!! and do it
> Fast! Don't wait to figure out if it does more harm than good...." kinda
> mind set that annoys the hell outa me....

The lunatic left has the taken the simultaneous positions that B.J. Clinton
made terrorism this top priority, while he virtually ignored it; that
George W. Bush should have prevented Nine Eleven, and that Bush has done too
much in reaction to the events of Nine Eleven. The lunatic left can no
more see straight that Ted Kennedy can see his own belt buckle with the
benefit of a mirror.

David

"Paul Mays" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:38:53 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Morton Davis" > wrote in message
> > >news:s7Kdc.2995$rg5.29227@attbi_s52...
> > >> Seems someone needs to look at a map. America is one big place. The
> best I
> > >> can gather from the 9/11 commission hearings is that there were vague
> > >> warnings that an attack MIGHT happen SOMEWHERE in the USA SOMETIME,
> > >SOMEHOW,
> > >> SOMEWAY, by SOMEBODY.
> > >>
> > >> -*MORT*-
> > >
> > >Seems you are another moron who thinks the exact target, day and time
> needs
> > >to be known before measures can be taken.
> >
> > And what measures should have been taken, Bryan?
>
>
> He has no idea.. but it should have been something! Damnit!

Do some research before offering your input.

>
> But how much ya wana bet that he gets all tense and turns red
> because of the new rules put in place to attempt to stop the
> next attack.

Make bets if you'd like, you already have shown your ignorance.

And would have been just jumping up and down
> if Bush would have tried to pass the patriot act before 9/11..
> I would also bet that if Bush would have suggested that the FBI
> and the CIA gather files, and collaborate on anti American activities
> of Islamic groups that have made threats , he would have blown
> out a heart valve... before 9/11....

I gather you think all these things were necessary "before 9/11". Your
simply a foolish lamb who hasn't a clue of the situation.

"Paul Mays" > wrote in message
...
>
> "copertopkiller" > wrote in message
> t...
> >


> Yes something could have been done.. But what would have been your
position
> before 9/11 if you heard on the News that there was a non specific threat
> so we were placing armed troops in airports and transportation centers and
> allowing the FBI to exchange files on people with the CIA and other
agencies
> of the government and allowing air and wire taps of nation wide
> communications.

My your argument is feeble. Asking what I could have done as a citizen from
information gathered on the news is laughable. Furthermore, if I was privy
to the Intel that was being received now claimed to not be actionable I
would have taken serious measures. This is the opposite from the Boosh and
his PNAC Booshies.

You cannot argue this. Everyone of the Booshies have spoke about policy
being formed or modified to be comprehensive or tweeked to be just that. The
fact is that these policy's had or have nothing to do with preventing an
attack on the homeland. They were not strategic plans to thwart an attack.

> Along with placing a couple hundred armed attack aircraft and various AA
batteries
> around the country and maybe in your neighborhood... You would be
required to
> have your shoes searched and your flights delayed because the airports
were going
> to search your stuff using security people.

Can you explain why then with armed AC and AA bateries available none where
successful or used at all? Hell, there was even more armed AC that specific
day. Coincidently two government exercises where being held this day. One a
joint venture between the CIA and NRO and the other a semi-annual excercise
by NORAD.



If you fly you would expect a major
> cost increase to provide for replacing doors and your pilots are to allow
a
> hijacker to kill you instead of doing as the hijackers demand.

Oh well the cost of flying goes up, just like taxes. A terrorist could slit
my throat in Anywhere, USA to attempt to get demands met. But we know from
the latest actions in Iraq, that taking hostages with the threat of killing
them or even doing so doesn't get demands met. They stopped meeting demands
by these types for quite awhile now.

>
> I think your views on the actions taken since 9/11 to prevent the next
attack
> are an indication as to what they would have been before 9/11

Bet the house!

"David Lentz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Mays" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > You are pointing out the way the left have approached this since
> > the beginning... Not one of the lefts talking heads I have heard have
> > put forth a even semi lucid plan that would have prevented 9/11
> > or a plan to prevent the next 9/11.. or to stop any of the groups
> > aligned against us.. But they yell and scream that the plan we
> > are following is Bad, bad, bad....
> > Its the " I don't know what to do but DamNit! do sumthin!!! and do it
> > Fast! Don't wait to figure out if it does more harm than good...." kinda
> > mind set that annoys the hell outa me....
>
> The lunatic left has the taken the simultaneous positions that B.J.
Clinton
> made terrorism this top priority, while he virtually ignored it; that
> George W. Bush should have prevented Nine Eleven, and that Bush has done
too
> much in reaction to the events of Nine Eleven. The lunatic left can no
> more see straight that Ted Kennedy can see his own belt buckle with the
> benefit of a mirror.
>
> David

Your left right pro-wrestling match is irrelevant.


>
>

copertopkiller wrote:

> "RD (The Sandman)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>copertopkiller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Morton Davis" > wrote in message
>>>news:s7Kdc.2995$rg5.29227@attbi_s52...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Seems someone needs to look at a map. America is one big place. The best
>
> I
>
>>>>can gather from the 9/11 commission hearings is that there were vague
>>>>warnings that an attack MIGHT happen SOMEWHERE in the USA SOMETIME,
>>>
>>>SOMEHOW,
>>>
>>>
>>>>SOMEWAY, by SOMEBODY.
>>>>
>>>>-*MORT*-
>>>
>>>
>>>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.


> 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?


--
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

John P. wrote:

> "copertopkiller" > wrote in a message
>
>
>>Lets forget about most cases and stay specific of this attack, Mort. 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?
>
>
> Sure.
>
> We could have arrested all the terrorists in the U.S.

We didn't know where they were.


> and thwarted the
> attack on 9/11 (in which case they'd have activated sleeper cells or sent
> others in through Canada or Mexico and 9/11 would have happened on 10/12
> instead)
>
> We could have grounded all flights that day (so we'd remember 9/12 or 9/13
> instead)

If we assumed that 9/11 *was* the day. We didn't. So how long would
you ground commercial flights for? A day, a month, a year? Even if
you assume we knew that it was going to be aircraft, why did we think it
had to be commercial aircraft? Remember all the pieces hadn't been put
together prior to 9/11.

> Anything you can think of would *delay* the attacks on 9/11... but how would
> you *stop* them?

I agree. I don't know too many folks can blame the government for not
stopping those particular attacks. We can blame the government for lack
of intelligence sharing, lack of cooperation amongst agencies, and for
no overall or central oversight. Those are recommendations and fixes
that should come out of this committee. How do we prevent these attacks
in the future?


--
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

copertopkiller wrote:

> "John P." > wrote in message
> news:%enec.14862$wP1.34802@attbi_s54...
>
>>"copertopkiller" > wrote in a message
>>
>>
>>>Lets forget about most cases and stay specific of this attack, Mort. 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?
>>
>>Sure.
>>
>>We could have arrested all the terrorists in the U.S. and thwarted the
>>attack on 9/11 (in which case they'd have activated sleeper cells or sent
>>others in through Canada or Mexico and 9/11 would have happened on 10/12
>>instead)
>
>
> Pshycic?
>
>>We could have grounded all flights that day (so we'd remember 9/12 or 9/13
>>instead)
>>
>>Anything you can think of would *delay* the attacks on 9/11... but how
>
> would
>
>>you *stop* them?
>
>
> 1) Pat attention to the warnings of AC Highjackings AND Highjacked AC as
> weapons into American Targets.

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

> 2) Brief FAA Officials of these non-actionable (cough) warnings and tell
> them to not to scratch their heads at:
>
> a) the first sign of trouble

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

> b) when it is know to be highjacked

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

> only to talk amongst themselves. Instead, clarify that they are to expedite
> FAA Procedures of intercept then contact The President. If the errant,
> Highjacked AC would not follow intercept orders a decision could be made to
> take more drastic measures. It isn't that difficult.

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



--
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

"RD (The Sandman)" > wrote in message
...
> copertopkiller wrote:
>
> > "RD (The Sandman)" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>copertopkiller wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Morton Davis" > wrote in message
> >>>news:s7Kdc.2995$rg5.29227@attbi_s52...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Seems someone needs to look at a map. America is one big place. The
best
> >
> > I
> >
> >>>>can gather from the 9/11 commission hearings is that there were vague
> >>>>warnings that an attack MIGHT happen SOMEWHERE in the USA SOMETIME,
> >>>
> >>>SOMEHOW,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>SOMEWAY, by SOMEBODY.
> >>>>
> >>>>-*MORT*-
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>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?

>
>
> > 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?


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

"RD (The Sandman)" > wrote in message
...
> copertopkiller wrote:
>
> > "John P." > wrote in message
> > news:%enec.14862$wP1.34802@attbi_s54...
> >
> >>"copertopkiller" > wrote in a message
> >>
> >>
> >>>Lets forget about most cases and stay specific of this attack, Mort. 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?
> >>
> >>Sure.
> >>
> >>We could have arrested all the terrorists in the U.S. and thwarted the
> >>attack on 9/11 (in which case they'd have activated sleeper cells or
sent
> >>others in through Canada or Mexico and 9/11 would have happened on 10/12
> >>instead)
> >
> >
> > Pshycic?
> >
> >>We could have grounded all flights that day (so we'd remember 9/12 or
9/13
> >>instead)
> >>
> >>Anything you can think of would *delay* the attacks on 9/11... but how
> >
> > would
> >
> >>you *stop* them?
> >
> >
> > 1) Pat attention to the warnings of AC Highjackings AND Highjacked AC as
> > weapons into American Targets.
>
> What warnings? Yes, there were AQ members 'learning' to fly but not to
> land or take off. We had no specific targets or dates, so any action to
> have been taken would have been of a very general nature.

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

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

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



>[i]
> > 2) Brief FAA Officials of these non-actionable (cough) warnings and tell
> > them to not to scratch their heads at:
> >
> > a) the first sign of trouble
> > b) when it is know to be highjacked

> > only to talk amongst themselves. Instead, clarify that they are to
expedite
> > FAA Procedures of intercept then contact The President. If the errant,
> > Highjacked AC would not follow intercept orders a decision could be made
to
> > take more drastic measures. It isn't that difficult.


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

Most didn't? Most didn't what, moron? If you're going to try and convince
yourself that you are in reality you will need to put up a better argument.

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

Can you cite one FAA procedure that specifically states this? No, you can't
because there is no such document. There are however quite a few procedures
that call for intercepts on errant, nordo, unidentified AC doing what they
will and other "emergency" situations that undoubtedly cover HJ's. None of
which were carried out expeditiously and was the opposite in fact.
Furthermore, you'd be wrong. The G8 Summit just prior was not to let HJ'ed
AC do as they will.

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

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

You know how foolish you are sounding? Highjacked over Northern Mass and
then in a blink of an eye, like a UFO, appear crashing into its target in
NYC with no chance to attempt to turn it away from the metropolis and
downing it as a last resort for not following intercepted procedures. Yes as
a last resort, before it came close enough to inflict horrific damage and
casualties in NYC. An intercept is air superiority.

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

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.

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?

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:36:39 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:

>> Anything you can think of would *delay* the attacks on 9/11... but how
>would
>> you *stop* them?
>
>1) Pat attention to the warnings of AC Highjackings AND Highjacked AC as
>weapons into American Targets.

And that would have stopped 9/11 exactly how, Bryan?

>2) Brief FAA Officials of these non-actionable (cough) warnings and tell
>them to not to scratch their heads at:
>
>a) the first sign of trouble
>
>b) when it is know to be highjacked

And that would have stopped 9/11 exactly how, Bryan?

>only to talk amongst themselves. Instead, clarify that they are to expedite
>FAA Procedures of intercept then contact The President. If the errant,
>Highjacked AC would not follow intercept orders a decision could be made to
>take more drastic measures. It isn't that difficult.

Right, we're back to shooting down civilian airliners without
provocation. Great solution, Bryan.

>After all there was all kinds of information about planes as weapons.

And you have to be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys. You
want to shoot first and ask questions later. That would make everyone
real comfortable who flies. A radio failure and a diversion to the
nearest airport means you get shot down. That's a great solution.

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

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.

> 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. 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.

My point was that since FAA Procedures weren't followed, 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.
Remember me saying that tough decisions are made in the US Government on a
daily basis on this scale.

"Paul Mays" > wrote in a message

> Its the " I don't know what to do but DamNit! do sumthin!!! and do it
> Fast! Don't wait to figure out if it does more harm than good...." kinda
> mind set that annoys the hell outa me....

Yup. ... and the mistaken belief that you could even possibly find some
magic "thing* that would assure you of safety & security.

"RD (The Sandman)" > wrote in a message

> How do we prevent these attacks in the future?

You don't. Someone who is dedicated to task and willing to die cannot be
stopped (especially when there are 1,000 others just like him ready to try
again if he fails). The best you can do is take reasonable safety
precautions, act on what you can and live your life. ... just like you do
with your house - you lock the door at night, but you don't brick over the
doors and windows.

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.

"John P." > wrote in message
news:5zFec.22746$_K3.56992@attbi_s53...
> "RD (The Sandman)" > wrote in a message
>
> > How do we prevent these attacks in the future?
>
> You don't. Someone who is dedicated to task and willing to die cannot be
> stopped (especially when there are 1,000 others just like him ready to try
> again if he fails). The best you can do is take reasonable safety
> precautions, act on what you can and live your life. ... just like you do
> with your house - you lock the door at night,

Why would I lock my doors at night? The dogs could always use a ate night
snack.

-*MORT*-

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?

>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. And
armed aircraft were dispatched to follow the hijacked aircraft. There
was no provision to shoot down an unarmed civilian airliner on 9/11.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:27:09 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:


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

But he asked you, Bryan. What would you have done?

> 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. Stupid becuase they have been
answered many times.

> 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: Re: 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
>...
> "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/Opening%20Presentation.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/stewart/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: Re: 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-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2

>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?

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:00:12 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:22:26 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> And what measures should have been taken, Bryan?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I know you have selective memory. Do try to refresh your
recollection.
> >> >>
> >> >> To the best of my recollection, you've never answered the question,
> >> >> Bryan.
> >> >
> >> ><snicker>
> >> >
> >> >Loosen the flag around your head some. Now do you remember?
> >> >
> >> >Hint: it has to do with FAA Regulations and NORAD
> >>
> >> If you've answered it before, then you should have no trouble doing so
> >> again. But since you never answered it, except for sputtering that
> >> "they" should have done something, you can't.
> >
> >Not true. I will not becuase you more than else have been hammered with
this
> >argument.
>
> Not really, Bryan. You've never come close to laying a glove on me.

Yeah, thats difficult to do from behind PC's although I was not thinking
physically but argumentively. It was about FAA Procedures which you claim
myself and others have misconceptions about. You know the procedures brought
up. Why don't you list the misconceptions? poorboy
>
> >Now you want to make it seem like we haven't been down this road
> >before which is simply untrue.
>
> No, Bryan, we've been down the road, you just haven't ever answered
> the question.

<snicker>
>
> >Now I seem to remember very recently you making some kind of statement
that
> >the FAA Procedures that are referred to are not what people claim they
are.
> >I of course asked you to list these misconceptions and am still waiting
for
> >you or anybody else to do so.
>
> Been there, done that, Bryan. Go consult Google.

Go consult a whore you half of fag.

"copertopkiller" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "copertopkiller" > wrote
> > >
> > > Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.
> >
> > There is an upper limit on the speed of an F-15 or F-16.
> > Otis ANGB -> NYC or Langley AFB -> Washington DC is a fixed distance.
> >
> > You do the math.
> >
> > Pete
>
> Actually provide it for everyone. Supply the specifics and incorporate it
> into your statement. I am very interested in what you will put forth.

Naaa...you go ahead. You're the one making the claim that they should have
been successful.

The timelines for that morning are detailed and numerous. Feel free to use
any of the more reputable versions, along with USAF basing and force levels
on that morning, and pray tell us what 'armed AC' were available and able to
intercept, but did not.

Pete
please note the word 'reputable'

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "copertopkiller" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > "Pete" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "copertopkiller" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.
> > >
> > > There is an upper limit on the speed of an F-15 or F-16.
> > > Otis ANGB -> NYC or Langley AFB -> Washington DC is a fixed distance.
> > >
> > > You do the math.
> > >
> > > Pete
> >
> > Actually provide it for everyone. Supply the specifics and incorporate
it
> > into your statement. I am very interested in what you will put forth.
>
> Naaa...you go ahead. You're the one making the claim that they should have
> been successful.

I did not introduce speeds and distance into this tread, you did. So if you
care to be taken seriously that your introduction has any pertinent validity
into my disscussion of procedures not being followed I suggest you do so.

<snicker>
What a bunch of irrelevant hot air.


>
> The timelines for that morning are detailed and numerous. Feel free to use
> any of the more reputable versions, along with USAF basing and force
levels
> on that morning, and pray tell us what 'armed AC' were available and able
to
> intercept, but did not.


The timelines are differing and numerous, moron. Furthermore why do I need
to show you or anyone else what alert birds were able to intercept when
everybody knows none did?



>
> Pete
> please note the word 'reputable'

Please not the word "strawman".

I guess I set the bar too high for you.

"copertopkiller" > wrote
> >
> > Naaa...you go ahead. You're the one making the claim that they should
have
> > been successful.
>
> I did not introduce speeds and distance into this tread, you did. So if
you
> care to be taken seriously that your introduction has any pertinent
validity
> into my disscussion of procedures not being followed I suggest you do so.

Speed & distance has *everything* to do with aerial intercepts. If you
cannot understand that basic fact, there is no help for you.

Your earlier question of "Can you explain why then with armed AC and AA
bateries available none where successful or used at all?" would seem to
point to something 'sinister'.

They were not successful in intercepting the hijacked AC
Why?
Either they did not a) launch early enough, or b) fly fast enough
Why not?

That is the question...
Was it some grand design conspiracy in the
identification/authorization/launch/intercept process?
Or was it considered to be a standard hijacking? (In which case alert jets
were not always launched)

>
> The timelines are differing and numerous, moron. Furthermore why do I need
> to show you or anyone else what alert birds were able to intercept when
> everybody knows none did?

If none did, and that is what they were supposed to do....then why didn't
they?
You're the one making the claim. Fess up, son.

> > please note the word 'reputable'
>
> Please not the word "strawman".

I insert the word reputable, because a grand conspiracy theorist such as
yourself would be prone to use junk information, such as "they WERE notified
hours before, but bushman told them not to launch until it was too late"

Pete

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "copertopkiller" > wrote
> > >
> > > Naaa...you go ahead. You're the one making the claim that they should
> have
> > > been successful.
> >
> > I did not introduce speeds and distance into this tread, you did. So if
> you
> > care to be taken seriously that your introduction has any pertinent
> validity
> > into my disscussion of procedures not being followed I suggest you do
so.
>
> Speed & distance has *everything* to do with aerial intercepts. If you
> cannot understand that basic fact, there is no help for you.

Speed and distance that intercepts need to travel have nothing to do with
procedures not being followed. This is a fact that you do not aseem to
comprehend or be able to refute with data and/or by "reputable" cites.

You were requested to supply the specifics and incorporate them into your
statement anyway. You haven't and cannot be taken seriously.


>
> Your earlier question of "Can you explain why then with armed AC and AA
> bateries available none where successful or used at all?" would seem to
> point to something 'sinister'.
>
> They were not successful in intercepting the hijacked AC
> Why?
> Either they did not a) launch early enough, or b) fly fast enough
> Why not?
>
> That is the question...
> Was it some grand design conspiracy in the
> identification/authorization/launch/intercept process?
> Or was it considered to be a standard hijacking? (In which case alert jets
> were not always launched)
>
> >
> > The timelines are differing and numerous, moron. Furthermore why do I
need
> > to show you or anyone else what alert birds were able to intercept when
> > everybody knows none did?
>
> If none did, and that is what they were supposed to do....then why didn't
> they?
> You're the one making the claim. Fess up, son.


I have made a claim that is widely known, moron.


>
> > > please note the word 'reputable'
> >
> > Please not the word "strawman".
>
> I insert the word reputable, because a grand conspiracy theorist such as
> yourself would be prone to use junk information, such as "they WERE
notified
> hours before, but bushman told them not to launch until it was too late"
>
> Pete

If I was to use junk information, why would such a person as yourself who
hasn't provided "reputable" information himself or even sufficiently
classified what would be reputable be questioning anyone?

John P. wrote:

> "RD (The Sandman)" > wrote in a message
>
>
>>How do we prevent these attacks in the future?
>
>
> You don't.

Well, you can stop some, just not all.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:27:59 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:

>> Yep it was you - here's an example:
>
>There's no need for an example I am quite aware of this exchange. You are
>the one that questioned this exchange. <snicker>

I didn't question the exchange. You just didn't prove your point.

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

Not in any particular order:

--Bryan, in a thread titled "Re: 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/elearning/module4/readings/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/Feb2002/0202norad_print.html

"On Sept. 11, NORAD was unaware that a problem existed until the
Federal Aviation Administration, the civilian agency in charge of US
air traffic, notified the command. For some time, the FAA had been the
lead agency for handling events of "air piracy." NORAD and the FAA had
a cooperative arrangement that left control of domestic airspace in
the hands of the FAA. Domestic airliners were considered "friendly by
origin," said a NORAD spokesman.

In the wake of the attacks, NORAD has been closely monitoring all
potential threats both inside and outside of US borders. Each day
military detection and tracking systems designed to watch for bombers
and missiles monitor 7,000 aircraft approaching the United States.

NORAD officials said the command does not have constant access to the
"interior" radar displays used by the FAA and said this is a potential
area of improvement. In fact, the command is now working to achieve a
more comprehensive level of vigilance that will not require reliance
on the FAA for help monitoring domestic air traffic, Pennie said.

"We need better connectivity" to guarantee access to domestic air
traffic information generated by the FAA and its Canadian counterpart,
he said.

Civilian air traffic radars are separate from NORAD's "fence" of
radars focused on external threats, Pennie explained. The rationale
for this arrangement was that not only were Sept. 11-style hijackings
not expected, but the Cold War mind-set was that "once a bomber got
that far [past the NORAD fence] ... things were pretty bad."

Unfortunately, Pennie reported, NORAD "simply can't connect all the
radars" and create an all-inclusive radar monitoring facility. The
technology simply does not exist to do this, and building an all-new
radar system from the ground up would be time consuming and
prohibitively expensive.

For the time being, "working closely with the air traffic authorities"
in the United States and Canada "is the way to go," Pennie said."



--Bryan in the same thread:

"An aircraft that deviates from pre-flight coordinates does constitute
an emergency and is the main reason an escort or intercept is
required. Your implying that becuase your thought process isn't
specifically in written form it is untrue. The following item is why
you are a foolish shill.
http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html"

And the answer to that misconception is:

And NO WHERE in that regulation does it say "It is routine procedure
to scramble fighters when planes deviate from course"


Yet another:

"But we did have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles sitting
on runways ready to intercept."

Former senator Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire, a Korean War veteran
and national security expert, said it would have been "very
unrealistic" to expect the military to have interceded successfully on
Tuesday.

"This country is not on a wartime footing," Rudman said. "We don't
have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles sitting on runways
in this country. We just don't do that anymore. We did back during the
'70s, the '60s, along the coast, being concerned about Russian
intrusion, but to expect American fighter aircraft to intercept
commercial airliners, who knows where, is totally unrealistic and
makes no sense at all."


Yet another:

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

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

Response:

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

"We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a
potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled
commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10
minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not
enough notice," said Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for
NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo.

"This is an unprecedented event, unfortunately, and we're just going
to have to adjust accordingly," Snyder said."

If they did it routinely, what adjustment was needed?

Yet another:

Hijacked aircraft must be intercepted.

Yet the FAA Regulations state:

" '7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE

The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by
direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC).
Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action.
However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort
aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort
mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will
advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of
the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then
authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military
unit. When a NORAD resource is tasked, FAA will coordinate through
the appropriate SOCC/ROCC. "

Escort had to be requested by the FAA. Note the words "When the
military can provide escort aircraft", which can only mean that it was
not a requirement that they be provided.

And another:

Positive flight following means that the hijacked aircraft will follow
the escort aircraft's instructions.

here's a definition of "positive flight following":
http://www.bushfire.nsw.gov.au/pdf_files/Av_sops_17.pdf.

Positive flight following is the knowledge of the aircraft's position,
and its condition at all times.

And another:

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

Order 7610.4J, Special Military Operations, Section 1.3.2

http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch1/mil0103.2.html#1-3-2
"Scramble. Departure of an aircraft training for or for the purpose of
participating in an air defense mission.

Scramble Order. A command and authorization for flight requiring time,
of not more than 5 minutes, to become airborne. "

And some of his all time greatest misconceptions:

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

FAA regulations were followed.

"FAA regulations require NORAD to scramble aircraft in the event of a
hijacking or an emergency."

There are no such regulations. How can FAA regulations require NORAD
to do anything?

"Following procedures guarantees a successful outcome."

Wouldn't doctors like this to be true?

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

Which is just nonsense.

The list can go on and on.

I summed it all up in a post on 5/20/2003. It's in Google, it can be
retrieved:

Here, I'll spell it out for you.
1.a. Intercepts by military aircraft of hijacked civilian airliners
were not required on 9/11.
b. Emergencies did not require the intercept of civilian airliners
by military aircraft.
c. Interception in these cases, when done, were to accomplish
three things:
-Positive flight following - meaning the military pilots were
to maintain visual contact with the target.
-Report unusual observances - Pretty self explanatory.
-Aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency - Also pretty
self explanatory.
2. Procedures were followed on 9/11. The ATC controllers determined
that there was a hijacking, advised the FAA Hijack Controller, who
notified NORAD and requested a military escort. NORAD made the
decision to dispatch military aircraft. Aircraft were ordered aloft
from the nearest alert bases (Otis and subsequently, Langley). And as
you have pointed out, this was a "routine" event.
3. Even if those aircraft had made it to New York City before the
planes hit the WTC, there was no reasonable action that they could
have taken, given the information and the orders that the pilots had
available to them, that would have prevented the crashes into the WTC.

"copertopkiller" > wrote
>
> Speed and distance that intercepts need to travel have nothing to do with
> procedures not being followed. This is a fact that you do not aseem to
> comprehend or be able to refute with data and/or by "reputable" cites.
>
> You were requested to supply the specifics and incorporate them into your
> statement anyway. You haven't and cannot be taken seriously.

Speed references for an F-15 or -16: www.fas.org
Distance from Otis ANGB, MA to NYC or Langley AFB, VA to Wash, DC :
www.mapquest.com

Have fun.

> > They were not successful in intercepting the hijacked AC
> > Why?
> > Either they did not a) launch early enough, or b) fly fast enough
> > Why not?
> >
> > That is the question...
> > Was it some grand design conspiracy in the
> > identification/authorization/launch/intercept process?
> > Or was it considered to be a standard hijacking? (In which case alert
jets
> > were not always launched)

The silence here is astounding.

> > If none did, and that is what they were supposed to do....then why
didn't
> > they?
> > You're the one making the claim. Fess up, son.
>
>
> I have made a claim that is widely known, moron.

It is also 'widely known' that Elvis was sighted in 1995. Doesn't make it
true, though.

Pete
bye bye for now. I'm on vacation for a few days.

copertopkiller wrote:


>>>1) Pat attention to the warnings of AC Highjackings AND Highjacked AC as
>>>weapons into American Targets.
>>
>>What warnings? Yes, there were AQ members 'learning' to fly but not to
>>land or take off. We had no specific targets or dates, so any action to
>>have been taken would have been of a very general nature.
>
>
> What warnings? I can see you are either a moron or a shill. In either case
> get yourself together. How many times will you trumpet that retarded
> statement of 'we had no specific targets or dates..." as an excuse for NO
> ACTION being taken?

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

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

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

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

ROFLMAO!!!! Wow, what a source. I am not denying that it could be
true, but I am not about to accept that without further verification.
Hell, I can call into talk shows and make statements. Ever listen to
Art Bell?
[i]
>>>2) Brief FAA Officials of these non-actionable (cough) warnings and tell
>>>them to not to scratch their heads at:
>>>
>>>a) the first sign of trouble
>>>b) when it is know to be highjacked
>
>
>>>only to talk amongst themselves. Instead, clarify that they are to
>
> expedite
>
>>>FAA Procedures of intercept then contact The President. If the errant,
>>>Highjacked AC would not follow intercept orders a decision could be made
>
> to
>
>>>take more drastic measures. It isn't that difficult.
>
>
>
>>Most didn't, since the first sign of trouble was at the time of the
>>hijackings.
>
>
> Most didn't? Most didn't what, moron?

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

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

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

>>Excuse me, but until 9/11, the paradyme for hijacking was not to
>>interfere and obey what the hijackers were telling you to do. Until
>>9/11, hijacking was used as a method of simply flying somewhere that was
>>not on the the flight plan. Usually, the flight crew and passengers
>>were released or ended up unharmed. 9/11 changed that.
>
>
> Can you cite one FAA procedure that specifically states this? No, you can't
> because there is no such document.

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

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

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

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

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

>>Nope,. but you have to have planes in the air. You can't really shoot a
>>missile at it (a new idea after 9/11) over a city and you don't know
>>until it occurs, just what city.
>
>
> Huh! And you are claiming that these alert birds and HJ AC just appear where
> they are in position to crash into their target or in the case of intercepts
> where the highjacked AC are going to attack?

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:35:36 GMT, "copertopkiller"
> wrote:


>> You haven't even come close to "slapping" me Bryan.
>
><snicker>
>
>Oh yes I have.

Only in your little wet dreams.

>> >> >Can you explain why then with armed AC and AA bateries available none
>> >where
>> >> >successful or used at all?
>> >>
>> >> There were no anti aircraft batteries available that day, Bryan.
>> >
>> >Please provide some information.
>>
>> Been there done that, Bryan. Go Google it.
>
><snicker> Man do you have issue's.

Not as many as you do.

>> >And
>> >> armed aircraft were dispatched to follow the hijacked aircraft.
>> >
>> >
>> >Not one AC was intercepted therefore none were successful.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with whether the procedures were followed.
>
><snicker>
>
>Procedure 1: a particular way of accomplishing something in a traditional or
>established way.

And that guarantees success how, Bryan? If a heart surgeon follows
procedures and the patient still dies, what does that mean?

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 "Re: 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/elearning/module4/readings/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/Feb2002/0202norad_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 "Re: 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/elearning/module4/readings/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/Feb2002/0202norad_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?

> 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 "Re: 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/DailyNews/sept11_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/DailyNews/sept11_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.