S
SoDamn@Insane.com
Guest
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> In article <qpvru3h342kca7lhsfnqv5j5f3f6brbqpt@4ax.com>
> Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:45:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> > <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> >
> > >http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were
> > >-tracked-even.html
> > >
> > >One of the most important parts of the official story is that the
> > >government
> >
> > No. Air traffic control, the organisation who's job it is to track
> > commercial aircraft.
> >
> > >couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the
> > >hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is
> > >that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available
> > >to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location,
> > >but not altitude.
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > >This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect
> > >our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading
> > >our country.
> >
> > Invading our country? From outside? Invading? Right.
> >
> > >Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or
> > >Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his
> > >transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!
> >
> > Is a Russian or Chinese pilot going to be stealing a commercial
> > airliner at a civilian airfield?
> >
> > >Primary radar is a red herring.
> > >
> > >Why?
> > >
> > >Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example,
> > >"military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres
> > >across" miles up in space.
> >
> > You have no idea of the concepts of scanning and tracking, do you?
> >
> > >AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes
> >
> > Should? Ok. With what we know now maybe they should.
> >
> > How many AWACs aircraft were airborne over the east coast of the
> > continental USA on September 11 2001 at around 9am? How many of these
> > were alerted to hijacked aircraft? How many were asked to try and
> > locate them? How many aircraft, of any type, are flying above the
> > continental USA without transponders at any one time?
> >
> > >Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that
> > >can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
> > >
> > > "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS)
> > > airborne radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft
> > > radar operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85
> > > miles per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
> > >
> > >There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the
> > >morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot
> > >learned of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade
> > >Center. While, at first he thought it was part of the war game
> > >exercise, "it didn't take him long to realize it was real."
> > >
> > >The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and
> > >around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been
> > >standard military protocol: to protect the command and control
> > >structure of the U.S. government and military.
> >
> > Would have been? So you are guessing?
> >
> > >The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > >Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the
> > >Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended
> > >buildings in the world.
> >
> > Unmitigated bullshit.
> >
> > >They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air
> > >space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander
> > >in chief and the military)
> >
> > More bullshit.
> >
> > >and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes approaching
> > >the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole area is
> > >covered by very sophisticated military radar.
> >
> > Entirely certain? More guesses?
> >
> > >And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much
> > >easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.
> >
> > You have no idea, do you?
> >
> > >Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has
> > >doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has
> > >doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it
> > >make sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White
> > >House would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and
> > >Pentagon? Or do they just monitor the weather?)
> >
> > No. You have absolutely no idea.
> >
> > >The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE
> > >PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles
> > >simultaneously.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png
> >
> > Notice the big hole in the coverage?
> >
> > "The radar, developed by Raytheon, is used primarily to detect and
> > track sea-launched (SLBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles
> > (ICBMs).
> >
> > The system also has a secondary mission of Earth-orbiting satellite
> > detection and tracking."
> >
> >
> > >Indeed, this CBS news article implies
> >
> > Implies? Oh well! That bit of "evidence" has confirmed it for me. How
> > could anyone question an implied "fact"
> >
> > >that military radar actually was tracking Flight 77 as it approached
> > >the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney -- sitting in a military command bunker
> > >underneath the White House-- monitored flight 77 for many miles as it
> > >approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).
> > >
> > >The Other Planes
> > >
> > >While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the
> > >Pentagon, this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over
> > >numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases
> > >undoubtedly possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.
> >
> > Undoubtedly? Another wild arsed guess.
> >
> > >In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being
> > >tracked. For example, an ABC News article states:
> > >
> > > "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight
> > > 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to
> > > Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They
> > > tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the
> > > target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller
> > > Mark Hodgkins. "
> >
> > And this proves that the military were tracking it...how?
> >
> > >Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
> > >
> > >Confirmed
> >
> > Confirmed by...? What?
> >
> > >All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a
> > >former air traffic controller,
> >
> > An unnamed controller? Wow. Thanks for that "evidence".
> >
> > >who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin
> > >Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual
> > >hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their
> > >transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).
> >
> > But you have no idea how this is done, or the problems involved, do
> > you? To you this seems to be the easiest thing in the world to do.
> > Because you've seen it done in James Bond movies. Get a clue!
> >
> > Shill #2
> > --
> > Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
> > to those of us who do.
> > Isaac Asimov
>
> I knew I would catch a kooky shill when I set my bait. And you fell for
> it hook ... line ... and sinker, kook.
>
> Hey, kook, I bet you didn't know that Darleen Druyun had three AWACS
> planes in the air on September 11th. But kook did you know that the US
> has a fleet of four AWACS total? Why would three of the only four US
> owned AWACS planes be used on 9/11? Answer: They were used because of
> Global Guardian '01 i.e. 9/11.
>
> You know, I could inundate this newsgroup with 9/11 **** and you have no
> choice but to respond ... because you are a kooky shill paid to "debunk"
> 9/11. And if you aren't doing your "debunking" properly, you will be
> replaced with someone who is more competent. Wouldn't that suck? Yes, it
> would definitely suck for you but I would find it totally hilarious.
>
> Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
> non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
> reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
> di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
> Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
> https://www.mixmaster.it
you're a stupid asshole - looking up it to find your head eating your
asshole - asshole mother****er
> In article <qpvru3h342kca7lhsfnqv5j5f3f6brbqpt@4ax.com>
> Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:45:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> > <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> >
> > >http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were
> > >-tracked-even.html
> > >
> > >One of the most important parts of the official story is that the
> > >government
> >
> > No. Air traffic control, the organisation who's job it is to track
> > commercial aircraft.
> >
> > >couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the
> > >hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is
> > >that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available
> > >to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location,
> > >but not altitude.
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > >This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect
> > >our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading
> > >our country.
> >
> > Invading our country? From outside? Invading? Right.
> >
> > >Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or
> > >Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his
> > >transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!
> >
> > Is a Russian or Chinese pilot going to be stealing a commercial
> > airliner at a civilian airfield?
> >
> > >Primary radar is a red herring.
> > >
> > >Why?
> > >
> > >Because the military possesses highly sensitive radar. For example,
> > >"military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres
> > >across" miles up in space.
> >
> > You have no idea of the concepts of scanning and tracking, do you?
> >
> > >AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes
> >
> > Should? Ok. With what we know now maybe they should.
> >
> > How many AWACs aircraft were airborne over the east coast of the
> > continental USA on September 11 2001 at around 9am? How many of these
> > were alerted to hijacked aircraft? How many were asked to try and
> > locate them? How many aircraft, of any type, are flying above the
> > continental USA without transponders at any one time?
> >
> > >Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly sensitive doppler radar that
> > >can detect any moving object. As an Army website states:
> > >
> > > "Although Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS)
> > > airborne radar can detect practically any moving object, aircraft
> > > radar operators routinely screen out objects moving slower than 85
> > > miles per hour to avoid tracking motor vehicles."
> > >
> > >There was, in fact, at least one AWACS near Washington, D.C. on the
> > >morning of 9/11 participating in a war game exercise. The pilot
> > >learned of the attacks soon after the first hit on the World Trade
> > >Center. While, at first he thought it was part of the war game
> > >exercise, "it didn't take him long to realize it was real."
> > >
> > >The military should have had the pilot track all planes moving in and
> > >around the White House-Pentagon corridor. That would have been
> > >standard military protocol: to protect the command and control
> > >structure of the U.S. government and military.
> >
> > Would have been? So you are guessing?
> >
> > >The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > >Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the
> > >Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended
> > >buildings in the world.
> >
> > Unmitigated bullshit.
> >
> > >They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air
> > >space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander
> > >in chief and the military)
> >
> > More bullshit.
> >
> > >and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes approaching
> > >the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole area is
> > >covered by very sophisticated military radar.
> >
> > Entirely certain? More guesses?
> >
> > >And keep in mind that installing military radar on the ground is much
> > >easier and less expensive than mounting it in a moving airplane.
> >
> > You have no idea, do you?
> >
> > >Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, and has
> > >doppler radar even for public weather monitoring (if the base has
> > >doppler for something as mundane as weather monitoring, doesn't it
> > >make sense that the air force base closest to the Pentagon and White
> > >House would have sophisticated radar to protect the White House and
> > >Pentagon? Or do they just monitor the weather?)
> >
> > No. You have absolutely no idea.
> >
> > >The Pentagon itself also has access to the highly sophisticated PAVE
> > >PAWS radar which is capable of monitoring many planes or missiles
> > >simultaneously.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NuclearWarningSystemMap.png
> >
> > Notice the big hole in the coverage?
> >
> > "The radar, developed by Raytheon, is used primarily to detect and
> > track sea-launched (SLBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles
> > (ICBMs).
> >
> > The system also has a secondary mission of Earth-orbiting satellite
> > detection and tracking."
> >
> >
> > >Indeed, this CBS news article implies
> >
> > Implies? Oh well! That bit of "evidence" has confirmed it for me. How
> > could anyone question an implied "fact"
> >
> > >that military radar actually was tracking Flight 77 as it approached
> > >the Pentagon. And Dick Cheney -- sitting in a military command bunker
> > >underneath the White House-- monitored flight 77 for many miles as it
> > >approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).
> > >
> > >The Other Planes
> > >
> > >While I have focused on Flight 77 and the area surrounding the
> > >Pentagon, this diagram shows that all of the hijacked planes flew over
> > >numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. Those military bases
> > >undoubtedly possess highly-sophisticated radar as well.
> >
> > Undoubtedly? Another wild arsed guess.
> >
> > >In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being
> > >tracked. For example, an ABC News article states:
> > >
> > > "Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight
> > > 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to
> > > Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They
> > > tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the
> > > target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller
> > > Mark Hodgkins. "
> >
> > And this proves that the military were tracking it...how?
> >
> > >Similarly, air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.
> > >
> > >Confirmed
> >
> > Confirmed by...? What?
> >
> > >All of the above-described information confirms the statement by a
> > >former air traffic controller,
> >
> > An unnamed controller? Wow. Thanks for that "evidence".
> >
> > >who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin
> > >Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual
> > >hijackings, that planes can be tracked on radar even when their
> > >transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).
> >
> > But you have no idea how this is done, or the problems involved, do
> > you? To you this seems to be the easiest thing in the world to do.
> > Because you've seen it done in James Bond movies. Get a clue!
> >
> > Shill #2
> > --
> > Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
> > to those of us who do.
> > Isaac Asimov
>
> I knew I would catch a kooky shill when I set my bait. And you fell for
> it hook ... line ... and sinker, kook.
>
> Hey, kook, I bet you didn't know that Darleen Druyun had three AWACS
> planes in the air on September 11th. But kook did you know that the US
> has a fleet of four AWACS total? Why would three of the only four US
> owned AWACS planes be used on 9/11? Answer: They were used because of
> Global Guardian '01 i.e. 9/11.
>
> You know, I could inundate this newsgroup with 9/11 **** and you have no
> choice but to respond ... because you are a kooky shill paid to "debunk"
> 9/11. And if you aren't doing your "debunking" properly, you will be
> replaced with someone who is more competent. Wouldn't that suck? Yes, it
> would definitely suck for you but I would find it totally hilarious.
>
> Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
> non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
> reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
> di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
> Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
> https://www.mixmaster.it
you're a stupid asshole - looking up it to find your head eating your
asshole - asshole mother****er
