| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: The dangerous cult of 911 truth |
 |
|
| Quote: | The Dangerous Cult of 9/11
By Elias Davidsson, 29 May 2008 (*)
A new religious movement was born September 11th, 2001. This movement was conceived by the American government and comprises many members of the American and European elite, politicians, editors of mass and so-called alternative media, publishers and academics. The movement’s unifying faith is the Legend of 9/11, namely that 19 Arab terrorists hijacked four airliners and flew these airliners into the known landmarks in a suicide operation. The Legend of 9/11 is composed of a number of distinct beliefs. Here are ten of the most tenacious beliefs that unite Cult members:
1. They believe that 4 young pilots who love money, booze and sex, could be convinced to kill themselves for a religious purpose.
2. They believe that four teams of four to five persons rather small men could subdue 40 to 80 passengers without using firearms and without raising the suspicion of the pilots.
3. They believe it is possible to subdue a pilot and co-pilot in their flight cabin before either can transmit a hijacking code, a verbal Mayday message, or raise the suspicion of the crew.
4. They believe a person who could hardly control a one-engine Cessna can fly a Boeing passenger airliner on instruments alone for more than an hour in a foreign country and crash this airliner at 500 mph into the side of a building 20 feet above ground.
5. They believe the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. , is undefended against approaching unidentified aircraft.
6. They believe crashing aircraft can disintegrate, leaving no visible debris such as fuselage, wings, tail or engine.
7. They believe an airliner with 45 passengers can crash without leaving visible bodies and blood.
8. They believe debris from a crashing airplane can be found eight miles away.
9. They believe it is possible to induce a free-fall collapse of a skyscraper by hitting it with an airplane (even if the skycraper was designed to withstand such a strike) and then letting the resulting fire bring it down.
10. They believe that 19 Arab terrorists actually boarded the four aircraft that crashed on 9/11.
Religious movements are generally peaceful, but this is not the case with the 9/11 Cult. The cult’s members control weapons of mass destruction and most information publicly available about the focus of the cult’s belief system. When such powers are concentrated in the hands of cult members who base their decisions on irrational and unsubstantiated beliefs, rather than on facts, everyone is in danger.
Members of this Cult, no matter how elevated their positions in the status quo, must be designated as madmen. It is important to non-violently remove such madmen from positions of authority as soon as possible, in order to give peace and international security a chance.
(*) Thanks to Barrie Zwicker and David Ray Griffin for critical observations. |
Using the usual establishment tactic of playing the man not the ball 
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=119162#119162&sid=9f 36e85fdc25950ac4bafe709e42f780
_________________
Pikey
Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: The dangerous cult of 911 truth |
|
|
Obviously the writer of this article believes in the 'no-hijackers' conspiracy theory - not all truthers do. Are the truthers who believe that hijackers did control the planes part of this cult? Do truthers agree on Shanksville? Or the Pentagon? No they do not - this list offends anyone who demands more than soundbites on which to base their opinions.
The writer has no problem accepting a mish-mash of obscure media reports about the hijackers movements pre-9/11 as some sort of coherent commentary on their motives, yet refuses to accept simple CCTV footage of the hijackers in the airports on the day!
They believe utterly unfounded and mystifying allegations about off-site debris in Shanksville, yet refuse to accept the plain evidence of debris on-site - how can one be so utterly contradictory, these allegations are utterly incoherent! Either there was debris or there wasn't - if the plane didn't crash in Shanksville, how did the debris manage to get 8 miles away?
The air defence allegation in particular is utter hogwash, and seems to indicate the writer subscribes to some system akin to the Star Trek bridge operating in or on behalf of Washington. It reveals a shocking naivity of the actual defences in place, and the existing accounts of the FAA/NORAD response on the day.
The key point is this: displaying an amount of incredulity about a set of events DOES NOT equal evidence that these events did not occur. Opinions are not fact - this rhetoric is nothing but hot air. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The fact that someone who has been in the troof movement three years could paste such utter trash is quite surprising. Its the sort of thing someone who's been into troof for two weeks would fall for.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: Re: The dangerous cult of 911 truth |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | The writer has no problem accepting a mish-mash of obscure media reports about the hijackers movements pre-9/11 as some sort of coherent commentary on their motives, yet refuses to accept simple CCTV footage of the hijackers in the airports on the day! |
Could you provide some evidence of the "simple CCTV footage of the hijackers in the airports on the day" please Alex_V?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject: Re: The dangerous cult of 911 truth |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | Alex_V wrote: | | The writer has no problem accepting a mish-mash of obscure media reports about the hijackers movements pre-9/11 as some sort of coherent commentary on their motives, yet refuses to accept simple CCTV footage of the hijackers in the airports on the day! |
Could you provide some evidence of the "simple CCTV footage of the hijackers in the airports on the day" please Alex_V? |
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Atta_Portland_Airport_3.jpg
- Atta and al-Omari
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hani_Hanjour_Timeline:_Official
- At the bottom of this page - the CCTV footage of the five Pentagon hijackers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pity, isn't it, no one told these patsies in advance that the hijack training exercise they had agreed to participate in was just a set-up?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I mean, according to the 300 page FBI timeline used by the 9/11 Commission
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/sourcedocuments/2001/pdfs/fbi911tim eline1-105.pdf
so-called hijacker Hamza Al-Ghamdi had booked future flights to San Francisco and Riyadh, suggesting that he was unaware of his eventual fate aboard United Airlines Flight 175, the plane that hit the World Trade Center's south tower. What suicide hijacker books flights he knows he will never take?
Citing “UA passenger information," on page 288 under an entry pertaining to “H AlGhamdi,” the FBI timeline reads: "Future flight. Scheduled to depart Los Angeles International Airport for San Francisco International Airport on UA 7950."
Al-Ghamdi was also booked to fly on September 20, 2001 from Casablanca, Morocco to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and on September 29, where he planned to fly from Riyadh to Damman, Saudi Arabia.
But in the never-never world of 9/11 truth deniers, all kinds of illogicality are allowed, n'est-pas? Like people booking flights they never intend to take. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | I mean, according to the 300 page FBI timeline used by the 9/11 Commission
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/sourcedocuments/2001/pdfs/fbi911tim eline1-105.pdf
so-called hijacker Hamza Al-Ghamdi had booked future flights to San Francisco and Riyadh, suggesting that he was unaware of his eventual fate aboard United Airlines Flight 175, the plane that hit the World Trade Center's south tower. What suicide hijacker books flights he knows he will never take?
Citing “UA passenger information," on page 288 under an entry pertaining to “H AlGhamdi,” the FBI timeline reads: "Future flight. Scheduled to depart Los Angeles International Airport for San Francisco International Airport on UA 7950."
Al-Ghamdi was also booked to fly on September 20, 2001 from Casablanca, Morocco to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and on September 29, where he planned to fly from Riyadh to Damman, Saudi Arabia.
But in the never-never world of 9/11 truth deniers, all kinds of illogicality are allowed, n'est-pas? Like people booking flights they never intend to take. |
Future flights part of an attempt to avoid suspicion? Backup plan on failure?
Flights booked for much later could have been booked before the date of the event was known. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: The dangerous cult of 911 truth |
|
|
Interesting piece of evidence there Micpsi that neither side should ignore surely?
Thanks for the links Alex_V.
I was aware of the Portland stills, complete with conflicting time stamps, allegedly showing Mohamed Atta.
I was unaware of the Dulles CCTV.
So I downloaded the complete 8 minute CCTV clip from the trial of the alleged 1+19th hijacker, the incredibly reliable and stable, Zacarias Moussaoui here - Warning: This is a 516 MB file and may take more than an hour to download.
| Quote: | Exhibit Number: NT00211
Description:
Surveillance videotape from Dulles Airport West Security Checkpoint #1 on 9/11/01 [This video runs 8 minutes, 0 seconds, and is blank after 5 minutes, 48 seconds] |
There is no time stamp or date stamp on this CCTV whatsoever.
Even if these individuals are who it is claimed they are, I interpreted Elias Davidsson's final point as "there is no proof that they boarded the flights in question".
I do not consider neither grainy CCTV or a couple of stills, allegedly recorded on the morning in question, which allegedly shows those men that are accused of hijacking aircraft, walking through airport security as proof of anything other than they walked through airport security.
Whether they did on the day in question is not proven by either resource.
Whether they then went on to board the aircraft in question is not proven either.
Whether they then went on to hijack the aircraft is not proven either.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: The dangerous cult of 911 truth |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | Thanks for the links Alex_V.
I was aware of the Portland stills, complete with conflicting time stamps, allegedly showing Mohamed Atta.
I was unaware of the Dulles CCTV.
So I downloaded the complete 8 minute CCTV clip from the trial of the alleged 1+19th hijacker, the incredibly reliable and stable, Zacarias Moussaoui here - Warning: This is a 516 MB file and may take more than an hour to download.
| Quote: | Exhibit Number: NT00211
Description:
Surveillance videotape from Dulles Airport West Security Checkpoint #1 on 9/11/01 [This video runs 8 minutes, 0 seconds, and is blank after 5 minutes, 48 seconds] |
There is no time stamp or date stamp on this CCTV whatsoever.
Even if these individuals are who it is claimed they are, I interpreted Elias Davidsson's final point as "there is no proof that they boarded the flights in question".
I do not consider neither grainy CCTV or a couple of stills, allegedly recorded on the morning in question, which allegedly shows those men that are accused of hijacking aircraft, walking through airport security as proof of anything other than they walked through airport security.
Whether they did on the day in question is not proven by either resource.
Whether they then went on to board the aircraft in question is not proven either.
Whether they then went on to hijack the aircraft is not proven either. |
I don't think it would be used, on it's own, to prove anything more than that they walked through security. So I reject your straw man arguments that it doesn't prove a hijacking - of course it doesn't.
In terms of the lack of datestamps, I think that is a little bit of a red herring - those would be much much easier to forge than the actual footage.
I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that this is footage from the day, and that the men almost certainly got on planes after going through security.
It seems illogical to assume, without evidence of such, that the footage was either filmed at another time or is fake footage. There is corroborating evidence that they bought tickets, were in the area, were seen by other witnesses, left evidence behind, were on the flight manifests, were heard onboard in some cases, and have never been seen since.
In my opinion it would be extraordinary to dispute, with no evidence to the contrary, that they got on those planes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK Alex_V.
Nuff said.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 5. They believe the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. , is undefended against approaching unidentified aircraft. |
That old Red Herring again!! Why do Truthers think the might of the USAF is on 24hrs standby just to protect Washington from attack from the air? When was the last time the US mainland was bombed by an enemy and what by? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | Quote: | | 5. They believe the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. , is undefended against approaching unidentified aircraft. |
That old Red Herring again!! Why do Truthers think the might of the USAF is on 24hrs standby just to protect Washington from attack from the air? When was the last time the US mainland was bombed by an enemy and what by? |
The US mainland had been struck by 2 airborne attacks on the World Trade Centre think that is enough justification to warrant some jets in the air.
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dallas
Validated Poster
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 102
Location: NYC/Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | Quote: | | 5. They believe the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. , is undefended against approaching unidentified aircraft. |
That old Red Herring again!! Why do Truthers think the might of the USAF is on 24hrs standby just to protect Washington from attack from the air? When was the last time the US mainland was bombed by an enemy and what by? |
The USAF is on standby to protect the whole country from that sort of thing and has been since the Eisenhower administration.
Google Payne Stewart for an example of how this is supposed to work.
_________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776!
-Alex Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | Quote: | | 5. They believe the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. , is undefended against approaching unidentified aircraft. |
That old Red Herring again!! Why do Truthers think the might of the USAF is on 24hrs standby just to protect Washington from attack from the air? |
Well, along with the rest of the North American continent and not just one city, and in conjuction with the Canadian Armed Forces, BECAUSE THAT'S ITS JOB.
What possible motive can you have in suggesting otherwise - apart from making yourself look ridiculous, which regulars here are already well aware of?
| Wibble wrote: | | When was the last time the US mainland was bombed by an enemy and what by? |
1961, and an RAF Vulcan - had they taken the opportunity (exercise Skyshield).
Getting back to the point and dismissing your quaint if inadequate attempt to excuse the inexcusable:
"Aircraft flying over our air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a day." -- NORAD: Air National Guard manning stations across the country; National Guard Association of the United States, Sep. 1997 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_199709/ai_n8766326.).
"The NORAD mission is threefold. NORAD's first responsibility is to provide surveillance and control of the airspace covering North America, specifically the airspace of Canada and the United States. This mission is based on agreements between the two governments….
The second part of NORAD's mission is to provide the NCAs with tactical warning and attack assessment of an aerospace attack against North America. This information is essential to providing those in command with information to aid them in making decisions on how to respond to an attack against North America.
NORAD's third responsibility is to provide an appropriate response to any form of air attack. NORAD was created to provide a defense against the threat from aircraft (as opposed to missile attack), specifically the threat from long-range bombers. However, over the years the threat has changed. Now NORAD must provide an appropriate response to a multitude of threats, to include the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) and the sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM)." -- NORAD AIR DEFENSE OVERVIEW; Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Syracuse University, pre-1995 (http://www.npac.syr.edu/projects/civ/vanguard/C2Demo/OPRef.html).
This monitoring and control mission is called "air sovereignty". "One ongoing mission of the Battle Management Center is to coordinate "air sovereignty" efforts, monitoring every aircraft that enters U.S. or Canadian airspace -- some 2.5 million a year. NORAD is asked to investigate aircraft that do not file flight plans, contact ground controllers or identify themselves with transponders." -- Cheyenne Mountain: America's underground watchtower; CNN Interactive, 1999 (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/route/01.che yen...).
"NORAD defines "sovereign airspace" as: the airspace over a nation's territory, internal waters, and territorial seas. NORAD's territorial seas extend 12 miles from the continental United States, Alaska, and Canada. Sovereign airspace above a nation's territory is unlimited." -- NORAD AIR DEFENSE OVERVIEW; Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Syracuse University, pre-1995 (http://www.npac.syr.edu/projects/civ/vanguard/C2Demo/OPRef.html).
"The Air Operations Center (AOC) maintains constant surveillance of North American Airspace to prevent overflight by hostile aircraft. It tracks over 2.5 million aircraft annually. The AOC collects and consolidates surveillance information on suspected drug-carrying aircraft entering or operating within North America, and provides this information to counternarcotics agencies." -- Cheyenne Mountain Complex; Federation of American Scientists, 1999 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/cmc.htm).
Note that the above info existed pre-911 before the promoted General Myers and his lie machine got to work justifying the USAF's ineffectiveness; a passive but crucial participant in the attacks.
_________________
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: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
You all watch too many films!!
The USAF had 14 aircraft on standby on 9/11 on what is known as QRA. Just 14 aircraft to cover a huge country. NORAD is optimised as a defence from military threats from outside the US, not terrorist threats inside.
Do you all think that every single USAF aircraft is sat armed, fueled, crewd waiting for launch? Just how much money will that cost? Just how happy with the US taxpayers be paying for it all when there was no threat.
This is not the Cold War. On 9/11 there was virtually no threat of air attack to the US hence why only 14 ircraft were on QRA.
Your Quotes, like this one, back me up, not you. Thanks.
| Quote: | | NORAD was created to provide a defense against the threat from aircraft.............specifically the threat from long-range bombers |
| Quote: | | 1961, and an RAF Vulcan - had they taken the opportunity (exercise Skyshield). |
It did not bomb the US so answer the question????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | You all watch too many films!!
The USAF had 14 aircraft on standby on 9/11 on what is known as QRA. Just 14 aircraft to cover a huge country. NORAD is optimised as a defence from military threats from outside the US, not terrorist threats inside.
Do you all think that every single USAF aircraft is sat armed, fueled, crewd waiting for launch? Just how much money will that cost? Just how happy with the US taxpayers be paying for it all when there was no threat.
This is not the Cold War. On 9/11 there was virtually no threat of air attack to the US hence why only 14 ircraft were on QRA.
Your Quotes, like this one, back me up, not you. Thanks.
| Quote: | | NORAD was created to provide a defense against the threat from aircraft.............specifically the threat from long-range bombers |
| Quote: | | 1961, and an RAF Vulcan - had they taken the opportunity (exercise Skyshield). |
It did not bomb the US so answer the question????? |
Ah dear, Wibble.
Wibble,Wibble,Wibble,Wibble,Wibble.
At least your name matches your apparent intelligence capacity.
Too bad, and good luck.
_________________
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: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chek,
Can you please answer the question? You are making quotes in an attempt to prove you knowledge of the USAF and the air defence of the USA yet can even tell me the last time the US was bombed from the air? Defence is always based on threat so it is important to present an example of previous attacks on the USAF as precedent.
The Vulcan incident is kind of relevant as it exposes gaps in the NORAD defence from aircraft coming from outside the country. Considering that is the whole job of NORAD that is quite embarrassing especially in the height of the Cold War. The Cold War is over. What was the threat to the USAF from attacks from the air on 9/10? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | Chek,
Can you please answer the question? You are making quotes in an attempt to prove you knowledge of the USAF and the air defence of the USA yet can even tell me the last time the US was bombed from the air? Defence is always based on threat so it is important to present an example of previous attacks on the USAF as precedent.
The Vulcan incident is kind of relevant as it exposes gaps in the NORAD defence from aircraft coming from outside the country. Considering that is the whole job of NORAD that is quite embarrassing especially in the height of the Cold War. The Cold War is over. What was the threat to the USAF from attacks from the air on 9/10? |
Maybe - just maybe - once you comprehend the issue of maintaining air sovereignty, as explained above, you'll get the idea.
Otherwise, all you'll have demonstrated is that you've fallen for Myer's inconsistent criminal negligence BS.
Meanwhile here's a hint: the Cold War is over in Europe too.
But that doesn't mean Quick Reaction Alerts have ended, either for the RAF or the Luftwaffe, or USAFE, or CAF and by extension Conus USAF.
Get a clue, Wibble.
_________________
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: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Check,
Please answer the question?
The QRA in Europe is still all part of NATO. NATO was set up for the cold war. Get it? Unlike the US there are plenty of examples, some quite recent, of attack from the air on European countries.
The QRA in Eurpoe is not proof that the USAF could have intercepted the aircraft on 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Come on Chek, answer the question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can someone please estimate what the odds are of some loon landing a Cessna in Red Square in the middle of the Cold War?
_________________
"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: Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | Chek,
Can you please answer the question? You are making quotes in an attempt to prove you knowledge of the USAF and the air defence of the USA yet can even tell me the last time the US was bombed from the air? Defence is always based on threat so it is important to present an example of previous attacks on the USAF as precedent.
The Vulcan incident is kind of relevant as it exposes gaps in the NORAD defence from aircraft coming from outside the country. Considering that is the whole job of NORAD that is quite embarrassing especially in the height of the Cold War. The Cold War is over. What was the threat to the USAF from attacks from the air on 9/10? |
Wibble your fixation on just one aspect of NORAD's mission being made more or less redundant by the Cold War ending has no impact on the other roles they also fulfil.
Their continued responsibilities were previously outlined in paragraphs 1,5 and 7 of my previous post which you seem to be ignoring in solely promoting your external attack scenario as if that is relevant.
Despite both Bush's and Rice's proven false statements that nobody expected airliners to be used as attack vehicles, we know that such situations were in fact both wargamed and exercised, and as such are covered by paragraph 4.
Therefore your questions have been answered already.
_________________
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: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Their continued responsibilities were previously outlined in paragraphs 1,5 and 7 of my previous post which you seem to be ignoring in solely promoting your external attack scenario as if that is relevant. |
You are ignoring your very own quotes
| Quote: | | NORAD was created to provide a defence against the threat from aircraft (as opposed to missile attack), specifically the threat from long-range bomber |
You said it not me!!!!
The external attack scenario is massively relevant as the radars were optimised to detect an external attack, not an internal attack. Why would you spend billions of dollars on radars to detect long range bombers taking off and attacking US cities from within the USA?
So stop messing about and answer the question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | Quote: | | Their continued responsibilities were previously outlined in paragraphs 1,5 and 7 of my previous post which you seem to be ignoring in solely promoting your external attack scenario as if that is relevant. |
You are ignoring your very own quotes
| Quote: | | NORAD was created to provide a defence against the threat from aircraft (as opposed to missile attack), specifically the threat from long-range bomber |
You said it not me!!!!
The external attack scenario is massively relevant as the radars were optimised to detect an external attack, not an internal attack. Why would you spend billions of dollars on radars to detect long range bombers taking off and attacking US cities from within the USA?
So stop messing about and answer the question. |
Er, no Wibble. Partial quotes (and partial reading) leading to partial understanding are your issue, not mine.
_________________
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: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Wibble wrote: | | Quote: | | Their continued responsibilities were previously outlined in paragraphs 1,5 and 7 of my previous post which you seem to be ignoring in solely promoting your external attack scenario as if that is relevant. |
You are ignoring your very own quotes
| Quote: | | NORAD was created to provide a defence against the threat from aircraft (as opposed to missile attack), specifically the threat from long-range bomber |
You said it not me!!!!
The external attack scenario is massively relevant as the radars were optimised to detect an external attack, not an internal attack. Why would you spend billions of dollars on radars to detect long range bombers taking off and attacking US cities from within the USA?
So stop messing about and answer the question. |
Er, no Wibble. Partial quotes (and partial reading) leading to partial understanding are your issue, not mine. |
So it does not say NORAD is specifically there for long range bomber attacks? Is that what you are saying?
Answer the original question please?
Are you still going to state that the external attack scenario is irrelevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chek, do you think they used thermite to land the plane in Red Square? Cui bono! Although i've never actually seen video of the plane landing...
_________________
"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: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Chek, do you think they used thermite to land the plane in Red Square? Cui bono! Although i've never actually seen video of the plane landing... |
No pepik, I understand the young pilot used a light aircraft with a negligible radar return flown at tree top height under the coverage of the radar system.
Although I did find myself wondering if your brains were thermite, would there be enough to melt your earwax?
_________________
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 16, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No pepik, I understand the young pilot used a light aircraft with a negligible radar return flown at tree top height under the coverage of the radar system. |
Hmmm... any chance you just made that up on the spot so you could focus on coming up a snarky remark, no matter how lame?
Because even a five second wiki search puts your answer in the bin. Typical troofer.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
