| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mason-free party wrote: | | can someone explain why there wasn't a crater underneath the engine part that susposedly fell from the top of the tower?...how about doing a reconstruction to see if a crater is caused by a heavy engine part falling from several hundred ft on a pavement block...should be interesting like planes going through steel made of butter |
how do you know it landed in that exact spot?
how do you know it didn't - for example - hit a nearby building, bounce off and then land in the street below? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lyceum
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | | mason-free party wrote: | | can someone explain why there wasn't a crater underneath the engine part that susposedly fell from the top of the tower?...how about doing a reconstruction to see if a crater is caused by a heavy engine part falling from several hundred ft on a pavement block...should be interesting like planes going through steel made of butter |
how do you know it landed in that exact spot?
how do you know it didn't - for example - hit a nearby building, bounce off and then land in the street below? |
Yeah, it was one of those bouncybouncy rubber beachball engines, we know, we know... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lyceum wrote: | | Yeah, it was one of those bouncybouncy rubber beachball engines, we know, we know... |
can you prove that it flew through the air for several hundred yards and just landed in that exact spot without coming into contact with anything else first? how likely is that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lyceum
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | | Lyceum wrote: | | Yeah, it was one of those bouncybouncy rubber beachball engines, we know, we know... |
can you prove that it flew through the air for several hundred yards and just landed in that exact spot without coming into contact with anything else first? how likely is that? |
It would still have to hit the ground with an almighty thud, just like you did when your mum dropped you on your head when you was a baby. 
Or are you suggesting a 'Boeing safety net' was at hand which broke it's fall, whereby it rolled into place with the soft, gliding demeanour of a chocolate Revel?
Last edited by Lyceum on Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it could have collided with any number of things before arriving at its eventual destination couldn't it?
how are you suggesting it got there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plane son on 911
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It was lowered from the back of a truck, thats why there was no crater |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lyceum
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: |
how are you suggesting it got there? |
Prime candidate:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plane son on 911
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Lyceum wrote: | | I struggle to understand this fantasy 'remote controlled' nonsense. Lying for truth, lying for truth. |
Amazing that. Tell me something: Why do you think "Operation Northwoods" in the early 1960's involved the use of Remote Controlled passenger jets? |
Operation Northwoods is Fake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unless of course you think that Operation 911 will be released in 20 years time under a freedom of information request
Operation Northwoods was put out to reinforce the current truthers official conspiracy theory of planes and to detract from no planes
The giveaway in Northwoods is when they refer to taking a holiday when everybody knows that in America you take a vacation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | A review of Boeing documentation shows that in fact, the 757/767 flight computer has nearly all of the required capabilities as standard equipment, including guidance, communications, GPS navigation, and traffic control functions.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/background.html
Flight Deck
The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crewmember operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays. Those offer increased reliability and advanced features compared to older electro-mechanical instruments.
A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.
The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer.
[....]
Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical and both aircraft have a common type-rating. Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft can fly any of the seven 757/767 family members with only minimal additional familiarization.
Furthermore, additional functionality can easily be added by simply uploading the required software.
Operational program software (OPS).
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/ps02txt .html
The operating system of an LRU, the OPS acts on data contained in the operation program configuration (OPC) files to define the function of the LRU. The OPS is typically the largest, most complex software associated with an LRU, both in the amount of information it contains and the time required to load the software. Obtaining certification for new versions of an OPS requires commensurate time and effort.
Operational program configuration (OPC).
This software is a specialized database that determines the LRU configuration and function by enabling or disabling optional features contained in the OPS. Configuration information is also supplied to many LRUs through hard-wired discretes (program pins). The large number of possible combinations of software and program-pin configurations complicates configuration management. Though an OPC will probably never completely replace program pins, Boeing has placed as much configuration information as possible in the OPC. The OPC is small compared to the OPS and typically requires less than one minute to load.
Database.
A database is a collection of data arranged for easy access and retrieval by the operating system of an LRU. Some of the databases used by software loadable LRUs are:
Flight management computer (FMC) navigation database (NDB).
.......
The NDB, which is quite familiar to operators, is a database of navigation and route information used by the FMC to carry out navigation tasks. NDB software is typically revised every 28 days and becomes available approximately one week before it becomes effective. Unlike other loadable software, the NDB is date controlled as opposed to part number controlled.
......
Summary
Loadable software can be a useful tool for Boeing operators by providing them with the ability to quickly change or update functionality on their commercial airplanes. If operators take the necessary steps to prepare for the maintenance of loadable software systems, they can keep fewer hardware LRUs in stock, increase hardware commonality, and reduce airplane modification time. The maintenance activity to use loadable software includes procuring the necessary loadable software parts and loadable LRUs, managing software libraries, preloading loadable software parts into loadable LRUs off the airplane, and verifying that loadable software part configurations conform to airplane certification documentation.
Remote control technology readily available
Here we find the solution to the question of how a hijack recovery system could be implemented using a central control facility, so that knowledge of the capability would not need to be widely dispersed among ground control personnel. The technology would be implemented using satellite communications links, as noted by the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.geocities.com/anitaalittle/landing_with_remote_control_does nt_quite_fly_with_pilots.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0109280208sep28.story
But companies that have designed such systems for the military say it wouldn't be difficult to adapt the technology for commercial aircraft.
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. developed a remote-controlled reconnaissance plane for the Air Force called Predator, which flew in Bosnia during the conflict there. Used by the military since 1994, it can be landed by pilots linked by satellite using controls on the ground or ordering an onboard computer to do the job.
Tom Cassidy, president and CEO of the San Diego company, said he sent Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta a letter shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Such a system would not prevent a hijacker from causing mayhem on the aircraft or exploding a device and destroying the aircraft in flight," the letter said, "but it would prevent him from flying the aircraft into a building or populated areas."
Cassidy said Thursday that a pilot aboard a commercial airliner could turn the plane's guidance over to ground controllers at the press of a button, preventing a hijacker--or anyone else aboard--from flying the plane.
That system also would keep people on the ground from taking control of a plane away from the pilot, Cassidy said, because the pilot would first have to give up control.
Aircraft anywhere in the nation could be remotely controlled from just one or two locations using satellite links, Cassidy said. Those locations could be heavily fortified against terrorists.
"The technology is available," Cassidy said. "We use it every day."
We can only conclude that the hijack recovery capability could easily have been implemented as a secret project well prior to September 11; but also that if it had not been built as a standard capability, it could also have been uploaded as a simple software upgrade for specific mission requirements.
UPDATE 5/26/2002
I recently received some mail from a reader that pointed out another possible problem for the remote control theory. The 777 was Boeing's first true fly-by-wire design. The 757 and 767 apparently used a mechanical linkage with hydraulic power assist. Although the 757 and 767 are equipped with fully automatic flight controls, the pilot can always over-ride the automatic systems. Normally this is done by simply disabling the automatic systems, but in any event the mechanical linkage would always allow the pilot to wrestle control by applying sufficient force to the yoke. It would be like driving a car with a power steering pump failure.
See
http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/Aviation_Commercial/Aircraft /Boeing777.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml
Also a discussion here, much of which I don't agree with, but possibly some good info about how the standard control system is designed
http//www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/4/191234/589
Vialls imagines a system where the airplane flies itself regardless of pilot input. But implementation of such a system in the 757/767 would require a complete overhaul of the aircraft control systems, to create a means to disable the mechanical linkage.
It would probably be possible to add a remote control to the 757/767 with software changes only, but such a system would only be effective if the crew (and presumably the hijackers) were somehow disabled or detained or otherwise prevented from wrestling with the yoke to override the computer controls.
This isn't necessarily a fatal objection to remote control theory, but we would need to explain how both the original crew and the hijackers (if any) were prevented from attempting to override the system.
For more on Vialls and the remote control theory, also see my earlier article "New questions on remote control and 9/11".
UPDATE 5/28/2002
Another reader points out that extra hydraulic power could probably be added to the system fairly easily, possibly by just modifying valves or pumps.
|
Of course, the potential for pilot's to take control back using the flight stick would be easily neutralised if everyone was unconcious...
And of course, "no Planers", by definition, have to agree that every communication from the Planes was also faked
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lyceum
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| plane son on 911 wrote: | | John White wrote: | | Lyceum wrote: | | I struggle to understand this fantasy 'remote controlled' nonsense. Lying for truth, lying for truth. |
Amazing that. Tell me something: Why do you think "Operation Northwoods" in the early 1960's involved the use of Remote Controlled passenger jets? |
Operation Northwoods is Fake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unless of course you think that Operation 911 will be released in 20 years time under a freedom of information request
Operation Northwoods was put out to reinforce the current truthers official conspiracy theory of planes and to detract from no planes
The giveaway in Northwoods is when they refer to taking a holiday when everybody knows that in America you take a vacation |
Good post, planeson! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And some more...
| Quote: | and the possibility of remote control. See www.oilempire.us/understanding.html for the "hijacking the hijackers" theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
www.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/2001/10/2/remote-pilot.htm
10/02/2001 - Updated 12:18 PM ET
Remote piloting: Solution or disaster-in-the-making?
A FedEx 727 cargo plane lands using remote control technology being developed by Raytheon
BOSTON (AP) — There's little doubt that landing a plane from the ground — technology that could prevent hijackers turning a commercial jet into a weapon — could soon be feasible. Whether it's a good idea or not is another question. Raytheon is one of several companies looking to use new satellite technology that could someday allow jets to be landed by people on the ground, in much the same way that hobbyists bring in their model airplanes by remote control. The company announced Monday that its technology had guided a Federal Express 727 to a safe landing on a New Mexico Air Force base in August — all without the need of a pilot. Raytheon says the technology, primarily designed to help navigation, could be useful in a remote landing system. ....
"There's some pretty overt national security concerns I would think," said John Carr, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "The devil is in the details. Is this something we would put on all aircraft? Because I'm sure you can imagine if I can control all aircraft you would create a new target."
But according to James Coyne, president of the National Air Transportation Association, the technology could be a way to avert disasters like those in the terrorist attacks or even prevent others like the 1996 Valujet crash in Florida and the 1998 SwissAir crash where crews were apparently stymied by fire.
"Perhaps in both of those cases, if people on the ground could have been made aware of the problems, those planes could have been brought back to safety," said Coyne, who thinks remote control could be a good idea.
Military and civilian jets have been landing on autopilot for years, but the Raytheon test used technology that provides the extremely precise navigational instructions that would be required for remote control from a secure location. ....
Aerial Drones Assigned to Arizona Border Patrol
Jun 25, 2004, 10:40 PM (ET)
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Two aerial drones were assigned to Arizona border patrol on Friday in an unprecedented drive to secure a 350-mile stretch of the U.S.-Mexican border that has become the most popular and deadliest corridor for illegal immigrants.
The two unmanned and unarmed aerial vehicles, piloted remotely, can fly up to 90 mph, detect movement 15 miles away and can transmit live pictures day and night of vast stretches of desert and grasslands traversed by more than 1,000 undocumented immigrants a day.
Border patrol officials at an Arizona news conference said the two drones were the first to be deployed on the U.S. border.
The Israeli-made drones are part of a Department of Homeland Security initiative to arrest and sometimes rescue mostly Mexican immigrants, many of whom die in their bid to seek a higher standard of living in the United States.
Temperatures out in the Sonoran desert soar to above 40 degrees (104F) for much of the summer. Border officials said 61 people had died since October in the Tucson sector of the border, 17 of them because of the heat. Others die in traffic accidents often caused by immigrant smugglers trying to outrun police and border agents.
The drones are the most sophisticated hardware in an array of sky-watch towers, ground sensors, cameras, and mobile scope trucks already used by some 2,000 Arizona border agents.
But hours are wasted by guards driving miles through scrubland sometimes to find that a sensor has been triggered by cattle or that the immigrants have moved on.
Border officials say arrests of undocumented immigrants in Arizona have increased substantially in the past year. Some 71,000 were arrested in March.
Some appear to have been encouraged by a White House proposal in January to grant three-year renewable work permits to millions of foreign workers and enable illegal immigrants currently in the United States to gain temporary legal status.
The union representing Border Patrol agents in February reported an estimated 10 percent to 11 percent increase in illegal crossings since President Bush announced the plan. Many illegals apparently believed they would eventually be granted an amnesty.
The Arizona drone plan got a mixed reception from the Mexican government migrant welfare group Grupo Beta in Agua Prieta, just south of the Arizona border.
"We think it's positive from the point of view of protecting migrants who get into trouble in the desert, as it won't take the border patrol so long to locate them and carry out a rescue," Berta Alicia de La Rosa told Reuters.
"Nevertheless, any measure to boost vigilance along the border carries risk with it as migrants will look for ever more remote places to cross in order to avoid detection, such as the deserts of New Mexico where the distances between populated areas are even greater," she added.
The Hermes 450 drones are made by Israeli company Elbit Systems . Unlike the Predator combat drones used in recent years by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Yemen to target suspected al-Qaeda operatives, those used by the Arizona border patrol will not carry any weaponry.
Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots
Sun November 23, 2003 09:43 AM ET
By Chelsea Emery
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Wright Brothers demonstrated that man could fly. A century later, we're looking at a future in which planes fly without humans.
Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs, are taking to the skies as military and civilian organizations turn to remote-operated planes or helicopters to perform tasks considered dull, dirty or dangerous.
Already, drones have dropped bombs in the Middle East, snapped images of dangerous terrain from thousands of feet in the air and monitored traffic on congested roads.
Some commentators have even suggested that Lockheed Martin's high-tech F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may be the last inhabited fighter plane needed. At the very least, analysts say, drones can be used for potentially dangerous environmental monitoring, such as checking air quality for chemical and biological weapons.
"It's no longer 'yes or no' -- the technology and the systems are accepted," says Daryl Davidson, executive director at the trade group Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI). "These things are here to stay and they are proliferating."
Proliferating, yes, but not without doubts about their ability to operate safely over urban centers, their cost, and a crash rate that for some far outstrips fighter jets.
In addition, uninhabited vehicles demand extremely high bandwidth -- a measure of how much information can be carried at any given time -- so their use is limited until the technology catches up with the inspiration.
Most fears center on their safety for civilian use, such as monitoring traffic over urban areas.
"They don't have a pilot to get them out of trouble," notes Steve Zaloga, an analyst with Teal Group, an aerospace and defense research firm. "The local TV station isn't going to be happy to have a million-dollar plane crash into traffic or someone's house. It's going to be a hazard and it's going to be a cost issue."
DRONES
The use of drones took off during the Vietnam War, when soldiers strapped cameras onto target planes and flew them remotely through high-threat areas.
But real leaps have come recently amid breakthroughs in technology, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's clarion call for military transformation, and their success in action in the Balkans and elsewhere.
Advances in satellite-guided global positioning systems and wireless communications have helped scientists jump numerous hurdles.
Networking technology and increasing bandwidth, too, have driven invention, since they allow the complex machines to communicate simultaneously with centers that send them directions, as well as other locations to which they beam their images.
These innovations have led to the development of combat UAVs like Boeing's formerly top-secret X45 plane, which can carry at least 1,000 pounds of precision-guided bombs and be either pre-programmed on the ground or have its mission plan changed mid-flight.
If operations go as hoped in 2006, the Department of Defense will start fielding the systems in 2008, Boeing says.
The Marine Corps has also been testing 5-pound, backpack-portable UAVs called Dragon Eye for "over-the-hill" reconnaissance. Missions are programmed via wireless modem and the planes can be launched by hand or bungee cord.
The Marines plan to field at least 311 in coming years. Drones' successes at reconnaissance and bombing in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have also garnered support for the technology.
"Much to the chagrin of fighter pilots in the Pentagon, UAVs are here to stay," says John Kutler, an industry watcher and chief executive of U.S.-based defense investment bank Quarterdeck Investment Partners.
Combat drones were used for the first time in Afghanistan, where the U.S. military deployed a Predator UAV armed with Hellfire anti-tank missiles.
But the biggest coup came in November 2002, when the Central Intelligence Agency used a Predator to blow up a car carrying six suspected al Qaeda operatives in Yemen, including one man suspected of involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.
"Everyone saw their use in operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, so there's growing confidence in the systems," says George Guerra, deputy program manager for the Global Hawk at Northrop Grumman. "What we are able to do is remarkable."
Advances in technology attracted defense contractors and scientists to the UAV workshop.
Visions of huge profits are keeping them there: Rumsfeld's mandate for a fully connected, wired battlefield has directed billions of dollars into remote vehicle development.
The United States is expected to spend about $680 million on military applications alone for drones in 2002, estimates the Teal Group. In a mere two years, that figure is expected to almost double to about $1.1 billion.
Israel, Japan and Australia are getting into the act, too.
Worldwide spending on UAV development is likely to run to about $3.35 billion in 2012. That's up from $1.88 billion this year.
Wall Street is taking note.
"UAVs could be the next very big growth area," says Jun Zhao, a defense analyst for U.S.-based fund manager Federated Investors. "The Department of Defense has to make a decision whether they will fund legacy programs or skip a generation and go directly to transformation."
His bet? Traditional-platform budgets will suffer. "With civil aviation in the doldrums, drones represent an entirely new market," says Zaloga. "It's a great way to grow a business."
Some UAVs, like the Global Hawk, carry synthetic-aperture radar that can penetrate cloud-cover and sandstorms. Other, smaller drones carry electro-optical cameras, similar to TV cameras, that can capture details as small as helmets or hats from thousands of feet in the air. And they can do it for hours longer than any piloted plane.
The General Atomics reconnaissance Gnat 750, for example, can fly for 48 hours and reach altitudes of 26,250 feet.
COMMERCIAL USE
But while UAVs are becoming standard equipment in combat, their commercial use has far to go and they are still rare outside the military because of their high costs and the concerns over their safety.
NASA has tested drones over California grape crops to monitor frost conditions and the U.S. forest service is considering using remote-operated planes to beam images of forest fires back to base camps.
Countries such as Australia are planning to buy drones to monitor their borders for illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Other nations are exploring the possibility of using drones to monitor the seas for both piracy and storms.
Even as the Pentagon and local governments in the United States are fast-tracking the technology, critics are raising some troubling issues.
For one, UAVs are expensive. The General Atomics Predator costs about $3 million for the plane alone, and the costs quickly skyrocket to tens of millions once the ground crew and other operating systems are added.
The Global Hawk system costs between $33 million and $35 million, while the futuristic manned F-35 Joint Strike Fighter costs about $37 million to $47 million, depending on its operating system. F-16s can be had for about $38 million.
The Global Hawk may cost slightly less than the JSF, but its crash potential is high compared to manned aircraft -- some 50 times higher than that of an F-16 fighter jet, says Victoria Samson at the think tank Center for Defense Information.
Of the 80 Predators in service as of March, 30 had crashed, says Samson. (Some had been crashed intentionally for testing purposes and others had been shot down by enemy fire.)
There are also worries about how well drones can communicate with civilian planes. In August, the Global Hawk finally won permission to fly in civilian airspace. That makes it the first pilot-less airplane to get such clearance, but it was on the condition that it takes off and lands in military areas, and stays thousands of feet above the path of most commercial planes.
Nonetheless, development of military and civil-use UAVs is driving ahead. "The future is promising," says AUVSI's Davidson. "It won't be The Jetsons," he says, referring to the science-fiction cartoon. "But we'll see very utilitarian uses of UAVs. We'll see them on every runway of every airport doing patrols and day-to-day routine tasks.
"They're going to be used in commercial markets for things we haven't even thought of."
(This feature appears in the current issue of REUTERS magazine, Issue 59, November/December 2003. Copyright Reuters Ltd 2003. www.reuters.com/magazine.)
Rise of the Machines
www.antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=2299
by Conn Hallinan
April 17, 2004
The press had lots of fun with the recent robot debacle in the Mojave Desert. Competing for $1 million in prize money, 15 vehicles headed off on a 142-mile course through some of the most forbidding terrain in the country. None managed to navigate even eight miles. The robots hit fences, caught fire, rolled over, or sat and did nothing.
However, the purpose of the event was not NASCAR for nerds, but a coldly calculated plan to construct a generation of killer machines.
Sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Mar. 13 “race” was part of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) plan to make one third of the military’s combat vehicles driverless by 2015. The push to replace soldiers with machines is impelled by an overextended military searching for ways to limit U.S. casualties, a powerful circle of arms manufactures, and an empire-minded group of politicians addicted to campaign contributions by defense corporations.
This “rise of the machines” is at the heart of the Bush administration’s recent military budget. Sandwiched into outlays for aircraft, artillery, and conventional weapons, are monies for unmanned combat aircraft, robot tanks, submarines, and a supersonic bomber capable of delivering six tons of bombs and missiles to anyplace on the globe in two hours.
Techno-War
DARPA, the agency behind these Buck Rogers weapons systems, has a mixed track record, somewhere between silly and sobering. The mechanical elephant it developed for the Vietnam War was not a keeper, and one doubts that the robot canine for the Army, aptly dubbed “Big Dog,” will ever get off the drawing boards. But DARPA also gave us stealth technology, the M-16 rifle, cruise missiles, and the unmanned Predator armed with the deadly Hellfire Missile.
It is currently deploying a carbon dioxide laser to spot snipers in Iraq , as well as a “sonic” weapon that can supposedly disable demonstrators at 300 yards with a 145-decibel blast of sound.
Boeing is busy testing its UCAV X-45A unmanned combat aircraft for DARPA, while Northrop Grumman is working on a competitor, the X-47A Pegasus. DARPA has already field-tested the A-160 Hummingbird, an unmanned chopper for the Marines that can carry 300 pounds of missiles up to 2,500 miles.
According to US Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), chair of the House Subcommittee on Procurements, one-third of US tactical-strike aircraft will be unmanned within the next 10 years.
Lockheed Martin and Boeing, along with Carnegie Mellon University , are developing ground combat vehicles: the Gladiator, the Retiarius, and the Spinner.
The military’s interest is in part a function of the Vietnam Syndrome: lots of aluminum caskets and weeping survivors play poorly on the six o’clock news. While so far the Bush administration has managed to keep these images at arm’s length by simply banning the media from filming C-130s disgorging the wounded and the slain, as casualty lists grows longer, that will get harder to do.
The lure of being able to fight a war without getting your own people killed is a seductive one. “It is possible that in our lifetime we will be able to run a conflict without ever leaving the United States,” Lt. Col. David Branham told the New York Times last year.
A high-tech machine war would allow the US to quickly strike over enormous distances, an important capability in the Bush administration’s preemptive war strategy.
Project Falcon, under development by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, is a case in point. While the press has billed the recent successful test of the X-43 Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle with its scramjet as a boon to commercial aircraft – 40 minutes from Washington to Paris – DARPA has something a good deal more sinister in mind.
“The X-43 has everything to do with defense and very little to do with aerospace,” Paul Beaver, defense analyst for Ashbourne Beaver Associates told the Financial Times. “But if it can be dressed up as a commercial aerospace program it allows NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) more access to funding.”
Such a bomber – manned or unmanned – could strike a target anywhere on the globe within two hours. The revolutionary scramjet can accelerate an aircraft to 10 times the speed of sound, making it virtually invulnerable.
An inordinately large section of Bush’s military budget will end up in the coffers of the “Big Five” – Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. But unraveling that budget is no easy task.
The budget request for fiscal 2005 is $401.7 billion, a 9.7% jump, but there are a host of programs hidden in other budgets. For instance, the $401.7 figure doesn’t include $18.5 billion for nuclear weapons, because that expense is tucked away in the Department of Energy budget. Homeland Security, and related programs in Transportation, Justice, State, and the Treasury, add another $42.5 billion. What should also be included are the Department of Veterans Affairs ($50.9 billion) as well as the interest on defense-related debt ($138.7 billion).
The administration has already informed Congress that it intends to ask for a $50 billion supplement for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (it got $62.6 billion last spring and $87 billion in November).
Hit the add button, and the military budget looks more like $702.3 billion. That’s real money.
Troops Left Out
But not for the troops. The average front-line trooper makes $16,000, the same as a Wal-Mart clerk, and according to a study by Nickel and Dimed author Barbara Ehrenreich, more than 25,000 military families are eligible for Food Stamps. The new budget will raise wages 3.5%, but most of that hike will go to the high-tech Air Force (9.6%), not the larger Army (1.8%).
The arms corporations are another matter. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman will corner one out of every four of those dollars.
There are other spigots besides the military budget that pour money into the coffers of the Big Five. The big winners in NASA’s budget boost will be Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and TRW – all major space contractors.
This generosity is repaid come Election Day. In the 2002 election cycle, defense firms, led by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, poured over $16 million into Political Action Committees (PAC) at a ratio of 65% for Republicans and 35% for Democrats. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, those figures appear to be holding in the run up to the 2004 elections as well.
The collusion between politicians, the military, and the defense firms is particularly egregious in the administration’s race to deploy an antiballistic missile (ABM) system. The ABM soaked up 15% of the $43.1 billion slated for weapons development in 2003 – 60% of which went to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon – and it is getting a major boost in the new budget.
The hemorrhaging of money by the ABM has churned up opposition from current and former military leaders. Led by retired Admiral William Crowe, former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 48 admirals and generals recently urged that the administration halt deploying the ABM and instead divert the $53 billion slated to be spent on the system over the next five years to protecting the nation’s ports from terrorism.
While the military budget and ancillary programs continue to balloon, domestic spending will rise a tepid 0.5%; the White House is highlighting its plan to raise education spending by 3%, but that will only mean a jump of $1.6 billion, less than the cost of a single Northrop Grumman B-2 bomber.
Machines that think and kill are expensive, and very few companies have the wherewithal to make them on the scale needed for the US to continue its imperial reach. The synergy between the massive companies that benefit from empire, and their ability to fill the election coffers of those who dream of a world more akin to the 19th than the 21st century, is a powerful one.
Bloodless War?
Add to that a military beset by re-enlistment difficulties, and the circle comes complete: war that is costly but, for our side, largely bloodless – a virtual war.
Bloodless war is, of course, an illusion. More than 600 US solders have died in Iraq , and thousands of others have been wounded and maimed. No one knows how many thousands of Iraqis have died, because, as Lt. Cmdr. Jane Campbell told the New York Times, “We don’t keep a list. It’s just not policy.”
In his book Virtual War, historian Michael Ignatieff asks the question: “If western nations can employ violence with impunity, will they not be tempted to use it more often?”
The “impunity,” of course, is fantasy. Our military may indeed be able to kill at enormous distances with its Frankenstein killing machines. But all that means is that civilians, not the military, become targets. Ask the relatives of those who died in the Twin Towers, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the nightclub on Bali, and the commuter train in Spain if high-tech war has no casualties.
Conn Hallinan is an analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus and a provost at UC Santa Cruz.
The 757 and 767, the planes used in the 9/11 attack, are much more computerized than earlier generations of planes
.
Articles about remote control possibility
9/11 Evidence - Smoking Gun ... by Cheryl Seal
www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00071.htm
also at www.unknownnews.net/cdd052002.html
one of the best articles describing the evidence and the motivations, warnings, the curious nature of the Pentagon attack (on the mostly empty part of the building), the Bush administration's interference with the FBI investigation of al-Qaeda, and much more. One of the best articles pointing out the likelihood of remote control of the four planes (hijacking the hijackers).
At the very least Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. But the evidence indicates his guilt involves more than just a huge intentional sin of omission – this now seems certain. ...
.... why would Bush admit to having been warned about 9/11 in the first place? In the corporate and political world, this admission is a strategy that has been used over and over by creeps who are guilty of huge crimes and know the heat is on. By confessing to a lesser charge, they try to draw the heat away from the main, more dangerous issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Interview with former German Minister of Technology and State Secretary in the Defense Ministry Andreas Von Buelow, who pokes holes in the official conspiracy theory, hints at remote control for 9-11 planes
www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html
www.questionsquestions.net/documents/von_buelow.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/doc/remcon.html
Having the planes under remote control would eliminate the need to trust the abilities of the hijackers/patsies: "hijacking the hijackers" would greatly increase determinism from the alleged conspirators' point of view. In fact, if there were destructive devices in the WTC towers, relying on the foreign terrorists would be risky. If only one plane hit, the bombs might be discovered in the other tower before they could be removed, for example. As for the Pentagon, I'm not sure if the neocons would have risked getting Rumsfeld incinerated in his office right on the approach path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=September%2011%20-%20US%20G overnment%20accused&edition=663
unsourced Portugal newspaper (in English) argues that the 9/11 planes were probably remotely controlled - this article needs verification, especially since one of the primary participants in the alleged conference mentioned in the article is a promoter of the false Pentagon "no plane" claim
A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: “Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvers by remote control.”
see also www.masternewmedia.org/2001/10/31/commercial_jet_pilots_analysis_of_th e_twin_tower_attack.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
www.empirewatch.org/pages/911/04-essays_misc/2003.11.22-JFK_9-11/index .html |
But remote control "fantasy" says Prole. The use of the word "holiday" over 40 years ago means its impossible says Planes on. Children in the grip of illusions
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Last edited by John White on Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:41 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's not a giveaway. The Northwoods document was written by an Englishman who had emigrated to America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plane son on 911
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | That's not a giveaway. The Northwoods document was written by an Englishman who had emigrated to America. |
Another valuable piece of information from Micspi
It may well have been an englishman
BUT IT'S STILL FAKE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anyway, as far as British English and American English are concerned, if you google the phrases in question "off on a holiday" and "grouping persons" found in the Northwoods document, you will see that they are used in the United States in official documents by such states as Maine, Connecticut, Louisianna, Michigan among others. They are as American as apple pie and false-flag operations. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lyceum wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | plane son on 911 wrote: | To Mason Free Party
Welcome to the world of truth that is no planes and tv trickery
Anyone else want to say they have changed their mind? |
it amazes me how you spend your time trying to sway people away from planes to no planes, there may be truth in it however im yet to see it and i will continue to see nothing when the same arguements and evidence is just recycled that have been argued before and failed to convince, so why is now any differant?
most of us will always disagree untill an offical investigastion by scientists who are not paranoid is carried out. but that dos'nt matter so much dose it? you think we was lied to or the offical story is wrong and so do i, if no planers(well some of them) put as much effort into informing those who don't even see the offical story is wrong there may yet still be hope.
the easiest and most obvious thing to show the offical story is wrong is the collapse of the buildings and how they brake the laws of physics, its school stuff you DON'T need a degree to know yet i don't see it mentioned much especially from the no planes camp. |
No comment from this Marky geezer on September Clues. The fact is that people BELIEVE ALL THIS * JET FUEL BOLLOX. What are you talking about, don't need a * degree? We are allowing the perps to * pwn us by hanging on to this 'planes with indestructible wings' fantasy. 2007 and we have people congratulating Guiliani for being a hero and you still come out with this "you don't need a degree" bollox.
Most people believe the jet fuel bollox. Christ, you people are slow.
Most of you lot just treat this as a pastime, a new hobby, it's a joke, it's a sick joke. |
you want my comment on the film? why it dos'nt matter what i think about it does it? ill be labelled a perp if i don't agree won't i?
i really could'nt be bothered to sit there for 2 hours typing up all the things the film got wrong and tried to decieve on.
here is just one example in video one(in the first post on the thread).
the helicopter films a shot of the plane hitting the towers, as the plane comes through the otherside it blacks out the film for a split second.
this is then relayed to cnn and fox news.
then near the end of the first segment it asks, what are the chances of two blackouts at the point the plane exits the otherside of the towers on two differant networks???????????????????????????????????
it gives us a calculation.
yet the simple answer is the helicopter is relaying to both fox and cnn or just to fox who then relay the same picture to cnn, so the blackout only happened once not twice, the helicopter crew or those in control of the equipment used to film the shot blacked out for a second.
if this is then relayed to fox and cnn the blackout would appear on both networks therefore it was one event not two seperate events.
there are numerous other things that could be pointed out, that mislead or are wrong, but they have been pointed out a million times before so why would you take notice of them now?
the answer is you won't.
so please tell me what good it does for me to comment on this film?????
you have certain people on your side complaining that certain people will answer their post and are trolling, then when you don't answer you make out or try to imply its because you are right and we car'nt disprove it, so you car'nt win what ever you do.
your all nuts, paranoid and convinced yourselves wrongly that people are here to nonsense on the truth and are all perps and shills, when the fact is they are just pointing out what is wrong so we can get to the truth by eliminating the bull****, you all need to get your brains tested, i believe this stuff has turned alot of you wappy and you have lost your grip on what people are doing here and what 9/11 truth is about.
in your minds you are right and could never be wrong and all those doing things to expose 9/11 are perps and shills if they don't agree with you.
it is that way of thinking that will destroy 9/11 truth, you attack those who exposed all this before you even came along.
Last edited by marky 54 on Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:38 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| plane son on 911 wrote: | | Micpsi wrote: | | That's not a giveaway. The Northwoods document was written by an Englishman who had emigrated to America. |
Another valuable piece of information from Micspi
It may well have been an englishman
BUT IT'S STILL FAKE |
That's your opinion. Don't turn it into a fact in order to justify your belief that no planes were hijacked on 9/11. It cuts no ice here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lyceum wrote: | | John White wrote: | | Lyceum wrote: | | I struggle to understand this fantasy 'remote controlled' nonsense. Lying for truth, lying for truth. |
Amazing that. Tell me something: Why do you think "Operation Northwoods" in the early 1960's involved the use of Remote Controlled passenger jets? |
I have no idea. I have seen no proof that remote controlled planes could be flown with the precision it took to fly them through a built up area and hit the twins, bang on target, with such laser guided precision. It's a fantasy. |
No, it is not. Here is US patent 7142971 for automatic and/or remote control of a plane.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PA LL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7142971.PN.&O S=PN/7142971&RS=PN/7142971
It was filed in November 2003, just two years after 9/11. Clearly, the technology would have been tested and used before the patent was applied for..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is news that Boeing were awarded this patent last year "for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location. The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck."
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/01/210869/diagrams-boeing -patents-anti-terrorism-auto-land-system-for-hijacked.html
Be advised that, in the military world, classified technology is many years in advance of the commercial application of patents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plane son on 911
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | Anyway, as far as British English and American English are concerned, if you google the phrases in question "off on a holiday" and "grouping persons" found in the Northwoods document, you will see that they are used in the United States in official documents by such states as Maine, Connecticut, Louisianna, Michigan among others. They are as American as apple pie and false-flag operations. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself. |
Yeah right, just like the Americans fill their cars with petrol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| plane son on 911 wrote: | | Micpsi wrote: | | Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself. |
Yeah right, just like the Americans fill their cars with petrol |
We'll take that as a 'no - I won't check it out and please don't upset my cognitive reality' then, shall we?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| plane son on 911 wrote: | Operation Northwoods is Fake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unless of course you think that Operation 911 will be released in 20 years time under a freedom of information request
Operation Northwoods was put out to reinforce the current truthers official conspiracy theory of planes and to detract from no planes
The giveaway in Northwoods is when they refer to taking a holiday when everybody knows that in America you take a vacation |
ROTFL - that really is priceless!
and to think I was surprised to discover that you can't tell an engine from a fuselage and believe that planes can fly underwater.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspirac man
Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This documentary was pap
_________________
The truth is something that is true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GazeboflossUK
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 312
Location: County Durham, North-East
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remember that FOX Helicopter shot from this 'September Clues' video where it said the plane wasn't visable as the shot zoomed out??
But I have footage that might show otherwise....
File Name: CBS - South Tower Hit - Distance.mpeg
Size: 3MB |
http://www.sendspace.com/file/w5mm70
_________________
www.myspace.com/garethwilliamsmusic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GazeboflossUK wrote: |
But I have footage that might show otherwise....
|
Yup - that's quite a famous piece of footage.
The thing is with all this stuff is it just ends up re-enforcing the point that we now live in a hyperreal, simulated, media-driven world. Now anyone can tinker with footage and it's as 'official' or 'real' as the next one.
So as interesting as I find the whole TV fakery thing I tend to think that like it or not, it's an avenue that just goes round and round. It's like the UFO true/fake thing - and I suppose because I've spent a fair bit of time on that and found it pointless I see this as much the same.
We should all be looking into the structures and systems that allowed this thing to occur as well as what happened on the day. But I realise that's a lot more dry, a lot less instant and thus attracts far less interest.
I'm off to re-watch Peter Dale Scott's new presentation on 9/11. Doesn't make great net-telly but at least moves things onto a different area. Night!
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GazeboflossUK
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 312
Location: County Durham, North-East
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| utopiated wrote: | The thing is with all this stuff is it just ends up re-enforcing the point that we now live in a hyperreal, simulated, media-driven world. Now anyone can tinker with footage and it's as 'official' or 'real' as the next one.
So as interesting as I find the whole TV fakery thing I tend to think that like it or not, it's an avenue that just goes round and round. It's like the UFO true/fake thing - and I suppose because I've spent a fair bit of time on that and found it pointless I see this as much the same.
We should all be looking into the structures and systems that allowed this thing to occur as well as what happened on the day. But I realise that's a lot more dry, a lot less instant and thus attracts far less interest.
I'm off to re-watch Peter Dale Scott's new presentation on 9/11. Doesn't make great net-telly but at least moves things onto a different area. Night! |
I couldn't agree with you more.
_________________
www.myspace.com/garethwilliamsmusic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
So. For my first post, I'm sure to make some non-friends by looking at the NPT'ers and saying... What in the hell are you thinking?
Why, in the name of all things holy, would whoever was really behind this make it more complicated than need be? Instead of ferreting off the passengers on all these planes to some secret base, killing them, disposing of the bodies (and, naturally, disposing of the people who disposed of the bodies)... why not just actually crash jets into the towers and the Pentagon?
Conspiracies, like anything else in life that ends up working, follow KISS rules (Keep It Simple, Stupid for those who are not in the acronym-know).
Do you know why the commentator didn't mention the plane in the first part of the video on the first link provided in the OP? Because the commentator isn't constantly watching the feed! And you also seem to conveniently ignore that the second part of the video captures the plane from the right side of the screen, into the building, and part of the explosion before it goes black, but then we're still supposed to think there's a nefarious purpose behind the blank bit?
A few questions for NPT'ers that you've never been able to answer effectively, so far as I could tell; at least nothing that isn't pure speculation or has more than one or two "witnesses":
1. What did they do with all the people?
2. What did they do with the 'actual' planes?
3. Why do the holes in the buildings just happen to coincide with... planes?
4. Are you seriously suggesting that they bribed / cajoled / faked every single actual, physical eyewitness to the events in NY that day?
Oh, and on the engine thing not leaving a crater... you do realize that there's a good deal of ground below all that cement, yes? And that a partially hollow engine is going to give well before the cement will, I don't give a nonsense what height it gets dropped from?
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laetrile
New Poster
Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. What did they do with all the people?
2. What did they do with the 'actual' planes?
3. Why do the holes in the buildings just happen to coincide with... planes?
4. Are you seriously suggesting that they bribed / cajoled / faked every single actual, physical eyewitness to the events in NY that day?
1. There were no people, they made the names up.
2. There were no planes.
3. That's where they either set off bombs or targeted the DEW.
4. Most of the so called eye witnesses worked for the tv companies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brilliant Laetrile!
And being some sort of Pope or something, we are just meant to accept your splendiforous statements as the infallible expression of your infallible personage are we?
'Fraid that's not how things work round here.
But anyway, let me have a go now please!
"Laetrile, every single one of your statements is absolute cobblers"!
That was fun!
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alwun
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 282
Location: london
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: half a conspiracy |
|
|
Wellcome, TmcM
On this forum there are those who believe none of the official conspiracy theory(OCT), and then there are those who choose to believe some of it - but not, of course, the rest!
cheers Al.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
