| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
So Chek I guess it ends here then? You have no interest in Mathias Rust landing a plane in Red Square because you know it won't support your conspiracy theories. You make up some bs and when that doesn't cut it you lose interest. Just like the book on the Pentagon book won't help you so you won't read it.
Its too bad you can't do a better job of faking being interested in truth.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | So Chek I guess it ends here then? You have no interest in Mathias Rust landing a plane in Red Square because you know it won't support your conspiracy theories. You make up some bs and when that doesn't cut it you lose interest. Just like the book on the Pentagon book won't help you so you won't read it.
Its too bad you can't do a better job of faking being interested in truth. |
I thought I'd got used to the inadequacy of your comprehension skills, but you continue to surprise pepik. And the wiki is like, the cliff notes version.
Let's examine your version shall we?
Here's some relevant info on the plane Rust used, the Cessna 172:
Length: 27 ft 2 in (8.28 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 1 in (11.0 m)
Wing area: 174 ft² (16.2 m²)
Max takeoff weight: 2,450 lb (1,113 kg)
Here's some data on the F-4 Phantom, the most common fighter in NATO at the time and just the sort of thing the Russians would be looking out for:
Length: 63 ft 0 in (19.2 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4.5 in (11.7 m)
Wing area: 530.0 ft² (49.2 m²)
Max takeoff weight: 61,795 lb (28,030 kg)
So Rust's plane was half the size and approx. 1/25 of the bulk.
First he disappears off Finnish radar prompting a rescue search, then it says contact is lost several times en route. Did you get all that?
And of course light airctaft are notoriously difficult to track, with a similar Cessna able to crash in the grounds of the White House in September 1994.
Now maybe you'll be able to explain what the relevance is compared to NORAD's documented responsibilities, related earlier, in tracking four transponderless 200 ton airliners flying at altitude while not adhering to their flight plans. If you can drag yourself away from generating bile for a few moments. Though frankly I doubt it.
In any case whatever you concoct with your usual flair will have to be for the benefit of the other boys and girl here, because contrary to the appearances of this temporary aberration, you're on my ignore list (to give it its polite name) and so even if you were to reply in letters like, this big I probably won't see it.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Now maybe you'll be able to explain what the relevance is compared to NORAD's documented responsibilities, related earlier, in tracking four transponderless 200 ton airliners flying at altitude while not adhering to their flight plans |
Are you still pushing this one? Have you even bothered to less to the transcripts from NORAD?
"Flying at altitude" how could they not fly at altitude? All 4 aircraft had transponders. Your knowledge of aviation is amazing.
I am still waiting for an answer to my question. It must be about a week now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Now maybe you'll be able to explain what the relevance is compared to NORAD's documented responsibilities, related earlier, in tracking four transponderless 200 ton airliners flying at altitude while not adhering to their flight plans |
| Wibble wrote: | | Are you still pushing this one? Have you even bothered to less to the transcripts from NORAD? |
To 'less'? God knows what that means. I sort of assumed you might mean 'to listen', but how one does that with a transcript (which would be read) is also beyond me.
| Wibble wrote: | | "Flying at altitude" how could they not fly at altitude? All 4 aircraft had transponders. Your knowledge of aviation is amazing. |
'Flying at altitude' is there to make clear they weren't down in the weeds avoiding radar. And the transponders were turned off, but thanks for making clear how little you know.
| Wibble wrote: | | I am still waiting for an answer to my question. It must be about a week now. |
You had your answer, whether you understood it or not in your obstructive zeal ain't my problem.
Take heart though Wibb old man, not everyone despises your arguments from ignorance. The governments of Westworld love and embrace your lack of knowing about stuff. You'll believe whatever they tell you.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Flying at altitude' is there to make clear they weren't down in the weeds avoiding radar. |
But they were avoiding the radars!!!! You have clearly learned all you know from Hollywood films. What was the base height of the RADARs in the aircraft's flight path? You don't know do you? So you just assume the radars could see the aircraft so it fits in with your own blinkered view of what happened.
| Quote: | | And the transponders were turned off, but thanks for making clear how little you know. |
So one minute you were saying the aircraft had no transponders and the next they do but they were turned off. Make up your mind.
| Quote: | | but how one does that with a transcript (which would be read) is also beyond me. |
Sorry for the typo, not sure what happened there. I meant have you read the transcripts from NORAD? They are also available as audio files so you can listen instead of that is easier.
| Quote: | | You had your answer |
No you haven't but that does not surprise me as all you ever seem to do is ask stupid misguided questions and never answer anything. Do your research and come back later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | Quote: | | Flying at altitude' is there to make clear they weren't down in the weeds avoiding radar. |
But they were avoiding the radars!!!! You have clearly learned all you know from Hollywood films. What was the base height of the RADARs in the aircraft's flight path? You don't know do you? So you just assume the radars could see the aircraft so it fits in with your own blinkered view of what happened. |
Stealth 757's and 767's? You're just making this up as you go aren't you!
All too ready to accept the myth. As former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon has said - with considerably more authority than you:
"Claims by authorities that, once a hijacked aircraft’s transponders have been turned off, the plane becomes virtually invisible to radar, is another sore point for Hordon.
“Bottom line, these aircraft were always radar monitored, we were always in communication with them, even if they were hijacked. The only way you can lose an aircraft these days is for the plane to flat out blow up.”
Since any genuine air attack would not likely announce itself as such, NORAD radar has to be able to detect anything. But there’s nothing stealthy about an enormous Boeing passenger liner, whether its transponder is operating properly or not.
“That aircraft is represented on their radar scope from the time it takes off to the time it lands. Even little puddle-jumpers out of our local airports. NORAD tracks all these aircraft. They have the world’s most sophisticated radar.”
So...who to believe? An ATC with 11 years on the job experience and a commendation received for actually handling a hijacking, or some anonymous evidence free chancer on t'internet calling himself 'Wibble'.
Decisions decisions...
| Quote: | | And the transponders were turned off, but thanks for making clear how little you know. |
| Wibble wrote: | | So one minute you were saying the aircraft had no transponders and the next they do but they were turned off. Make up your mind. |
Once again, thanks for making clear how much you know about this subject, which is nothing.
| Quote: | | but how one does that with a transcript (which would be read) is also beyond me. |
| Wibble wrote: | | Sorry for the typo, not sure what happened there. I meant have you read the transcripts from NORAD? They are also available as audio files so you can listen instead of that is easier. |
Please don't attempt to present yourself as an authority even on NORAD's morphing story when it's only too clear you are nothing of the kind.
| Quote: | | You had your answer |
| Wibble wrote: | | No you haven't but that does not surprise me as all you ever seem to do is ask stupid misguided questions and never answer anything. Do your research and come back later. |
Great - another Pointless Pepik clone and just as empty of actual information, but possibly even more incapable of absorbing it.
I don't know about dangerous, but the cult part is pretty close to you operators. Even if only spelling-wise.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chek, Check, Check
You really do spend to much time on reading rubbish.
| Quote: | | Stealth 757's and 767's? You're just making this up as you go aren't you! |
Who said they were Stealth? Do you really think the there is 100% radar coverage in the US? Every cubic foot of airpspace has coverage? Of course. Why do you think they invented transponders? Well a significant part is so they would not need the old style radars. They track the aircraft via SSR. Therefore, large parts of airspace no longer have the old style radar. Did your ATC buddy tell you about that? Or dont tell me you have never met him? You just cut and paste it from another part of this forum.
| Quote: | | Please don't attempt to present yourself as an authority even on NORAD's morphing story when it's only too clear you are nothing of the kind. |
That coming from the king of cut and paste and misquotes!! You don't even know when or how the USA was last bombed from the air let alone anything to do with the current defence set up. It is all to clear you have not bothered to read the NORAD transcripts just like you don't read anything that could be classed as genuine research.
Just carry on basing everything of second hand information from 9/11 conspiracy sites. Just don't be surprised when all your arguments fall apart.
Have you ever been on aircraft? Just wondering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | blah blah blah etc. |
Wibble, unless I see independently verifiable information backed by a reference included in any future response from you, you're in pepik's club.
You might fondly imagine to yourself that your self-perceived razor sharp wit and piercing intellect are all you need to get by with your trolling and distracting, but it ain't. Not by a long shot.
Oh, and by the way, the term is 'copy and paste'.
'Cut and paste' generally dates back to the days of using scissors.
But again, it's a telling general guide to your limited grasp of things.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Check,
Just because you chose to ignore those people who rip your arguments to shreds does not make your arguments anymore valid. The fact that your knowledge of aviation in general and NORAD is so poor is not my fault.
Do some research before you come back into CC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
And so there it is all laid out in plain sight in the preceding exchange.
In the well recognised - not to mention old and tired - manner all too typical of the Government Cover Story Loyalists, we get nothing but mouth, trousers, wind and pyss. And not one shred of evidence to back their assertions. The same MO as used on every 911 forum.
Same old story, ineffective as it is.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | And so there it is all laid out in plain sight in the preceding exchange.
In the well recognised - not to mention old and tired - manner all too typical of the Government Cover Story Loyalists, we get nothing but mouth, trousers, wind and pyss. And not one shred of evidence to back their assertions. The same MO as used on every 911 forum.
Same old story, ineffective as it is. |
You are clearly talking out of your BEEP here. You were asked if you had read/listened to the NORAD tapes (ie Evidence) and it is clear that you haven't. That is not my nor anyone elses fault.
You failure to read evidence and your habbit of ignoring everything that backs up the OT is your problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's almost as if they can't help it.
It's all about giving the impression, but with no substance.
You can spot the same laughable, lazy b0ll0x methodology being used on every 911 forum. So lame.
But as I'm often told, when they run out of road, as they have always done many times before, it's not about trying to convince me.
It's the casual browser they like to imagine they're addressing.
They're actually catering for the stupid, with their stupidity appealing impression of even having an "argument", all done by the 'attitude'.
Don't let that be you.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I thought I'd got used to the inadequacy of your comprehension skills, but you continue to surprise pepik. And the wiki is like, the cliff notes version. |
Right, so this is the usual preface where you preen your feathers and admire your own brilliance. Meanwhile you've been trying to do some catch up reading to improve on your previous, frankly stupid answer. | Quote: | Let's examine your version shall we?
Here's some relevant info on the plane Rust used, the Cessna 172:
Length: 27 ft 2 in (8.28 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 1 in (11.0 m)
Wing area: 174 ft² (16.2 m²)
Max takeoff weight: 2,450 lb (1,113 kg)
Here's some data on the F-4 Phantom, the most common fighter in NATO at the time and just the sort of thing the Russians would be looking out for:
Length: 63 ft 0 in (19.2 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4.5 in (11.7 m)
Wing area: 530.0 ft² (49.2 m²)
Max takeoff weight: 61,795 lb (28,030 kg)
So Rust's plane was half the size and approx. 1/25 of the bulk. |
That's nice, but they were still able to spot him on radar. I guess you think if you throw irrelevant facts and figures around that somehow makes you right? It doesn't. | Quote: | | First he disappears off Finnish radar prompting a rescue search, then it says contact is lost several times en route. Did you get all that? |
Yes but then he was picked up by Russian radar. A relevant fact, don't you think? One you "accidentally" forgot to mention. I already read the story, you are the one pretending you knew all along what happened. So bluffing at this stage is a stupid tactic.
| Quote: | | And of course light airctaft are notoriously difficult to track, with a similar Cessna able to crash in the grounds of the White House in September 1994. |
That's nice, but he was picked up by Russian radar. Again, why are you bluffing when its clear I actually researched the event? These are quite pathetic answers you are giving.
| Quote: | | Now maybe you'll be able to explain what the relevance is compared to NORAD's documented responsibilities, related earlier, in tracking four transponderless 200 ton airliners flying at altitude while not adhering to their flight plans. If you can drag yourself away from generating bile for a few moments. Though frankly I doubt it. |
Oh I see, two cold war countries which failed to intercept planes which deviated from official flight paths. What could possible be the relevance. Keep thinking about it Chek, one day the little light bulb will switch on.
| Quote: | | In any case whatever you concoct with your usual flair will have to be for the benefit of the other boys and girl here, because contrary to the appearances of this temporary aberration, you're on my ignore list (to give it its polite name) and so even if you were to reply in letters like, this big I probably won't see it. |
Oh dear, did I make you look like a moron too many times? Well I don't see how I'm any worse off, given what throwaway nonsense you usually respond with. I'll keep pointing out your stupidity, whether you try to weasel out of it is hardly important to me.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | So...who to believe? An ATC with 11 years on the job experience and a commendation received for actually handling a hijacking, or some anonymous evidence free chancer on t'internet calling himself 'Wibble'.
Decisions decisions... |
Here's another choice - believe what conspiracy websites tell you to think, or do some actual research.
http://www.realopinion.com/showthread.php?t=4163
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | So...who to believe? An ATC with 11 years on the job experience and a commendation received for actually handling a hijacking, or some anonymous evidence free chancer on t'internet calling himself 'Wibble'.
Decisions decisions... |
Here's another choice - believe what conspiracy websites tell you to think, or do some actual research.
http://www.realopinion.com/showthread.php?t=4163 |
Dont go letting the truth get in the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You lot would actually be comedic in other circumstances.
But not here.
I guess it'll take you some time to work out the big fat kick in the teeth that you've given your own shoddy and mendacious case.
I won't be holding my breath to see how long it takes the penny to drop.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | You lot would actually be comedic in other circumstances.
But not here.
. |
On the contrary, they made me laugh 
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think I'm struggling to see the relevance of yet another of your light aircraft factoids.
But obviously not as much as you're struggling in attempting to justify how NORAD can easily lose four big, ferk off, jumbo sized jet airliners.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
I think I'm struggling to see the relevance of yet another of your light aircraft factoids.
But obviously not as much as you're struggling in attempting to justify how NORAD can easily lose four big, ferk off, jumbo sized jet airliners. |
Pepik has presented a link for you. I have presented explanation of how RADAR works in the real world (not in the movies where you get your information from). Go read it!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
