I
Iarnrod
Guest
On Mar 29, 3:50
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Confirmed: 9/11 Planes Were Tracked even With Transponders Turned Off
B
BDK
Guest
In article <27c5b07a06836b1cd8646a097e386040@mixmaster.it>,
nobody@mixmaster.it says...
> 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
>
>
> Actually, I "thank you" from the bottom of my heart for replying because now I know your motivation helping cover up
> 9/11. You are in Switzerland. Near Zug perhaps? Where KPMG's offices are? How's Marc Rich doing? Did you know
> the money trail leads to KPMG and Zug, Switzerland where the RICO operates, kook? What, you never thought this info
> would ever become public, kook?
>
>
> 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
BWHHAAAAAAHHHAAHAHAHAHA!
I love it when a kook plays "detective" and thinks he's hit the
jackpot!!
Sadly for you, it's us "shills" who hit the mother load of laughs when
it happens.
Thanks for the laugh, you don't know how much I needed one this
morning...
BDK
nobody@mixmaster.it says...
> 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
>
>
> Actually, I "thank you" from the bottom of my heart for replying because now I know your motivation helping cover up
> 9/11. You are in Switzerland. Near Zug perhaps? Where KPMG's offices are? How's Marc Rich doing? Did you know
> the money trail leads to KPMG and Zug, Switzerland where the RICO operates, kook? What, you never thought this info
> would ever become public, kook?
>
>
> 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
BWHHAAAAAAHHHAAHAHAHAHA!
I love it when a kook plays "detective" and thinks he's hit the
jackpot!!
Sadly for you, it's us "shills" who hit the mother load of laughs when
it happens.
Thanks for the laugh, you don't know how much I needed one this
morning...
BDK
B
BDK
Guest
In article <5ridnZsrYINBhXPanZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Theodor-
Herzl@judenstaat.il says...
> George Orwell wrote:
>
> >
> http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
> >
> > The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
> >
> > 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. 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) 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.
>
> Yack, yack, yack. ...
>
> 9/11 was an inside job! Stop BSing around with the obvious technical
> details and start point to the crooks who done it, Bauer von der
> J
Herzl@judenstaat.il says...
> George Orwell wrote:
>
> >
> http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html
> >
> > The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
> >
> > 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. 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) 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.
>
> Yack, yack, yack. ...
>
> 9/11 was an inside job! Stop BSing around with the obvious technical
> details and start point to the crooks who done it, Bauer von der
> J
G
Government Shill #2
Guest
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:13:04 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarnrod@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 29, 3:50
>On Mar 29, 3:50
I
Iarnrod
Guest
On Mar 29, 8:47
G
Government Shill #2
Guest
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarnrod@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 29, 8:47
>On Mar 29, 8:47
B
BDK
Guest
In article <1nqsu31j8qpkt16ku8oun4rdg9flp2gfc4@4ax.com>,
gov.shill@gmail.com says...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:13:04 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarnrod@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 29, 3:50
gov.shill@gmail.com says...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:13:04 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarnrod@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 29, 3:50
G
Government Shill #2
Guest
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:08:02 -0400, BDK <BDK@magicsteel.com> wrote:
>In article <1nqsu31j8qpkt16ku8oun4rdg9flp2gfc4@4ax.com>,
>gov.shill@gmail.com says...
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:13:04 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarnrod@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 29, 3:50
>In article <1nqsu31j8qpkt16ku8oun4rdg9flp2gfc4@4ax.com>,
>gov.shill@gmail.com says...
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:13:04 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarnrod@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 29, 3:50
G
george
Guest
On Mar 30, 1:04 am, SoD...@Insane.com wrote:
>
> shill this asshole - stop crossposting into my newsgroup - asshole
Why is it that kooks always pull the homosexual references or the
antiJewish references when they have been shown to be wrong ?
>
> shill this asshole - stop crossposting into my newsgroup - asshole
Why is it that kooks always pull the homosexual references or the
antiJewish references when they have been shown to be wrong ?
B
BDK
Guest
In article <j1usu3doolvabhhb8bakd7j9c1rvuleoun@4ax.com>,
gov.shill@gmail.com says...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:08:02 -0400, BDK <BDK@magicsteel.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1nqsu31j8qpkt16ku8oun4rdg9flp2gfc4@4ax.com>,
> >gov.shill@gmail.com says...
> >> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:13:04 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarnrod@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mar 29, 3:50
gov.shill@gmail.com says...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:08:02 -0400, BDK <BDK@magicsteel.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1nqsu31j8qpkt16ku8oun4rdg9flp2gfc4@4ax.com>,
> >gov.shill@gmail.com says...
> >> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:13:04 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarnrod@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mar 29, 3:50
F
Freedom Fighter
Guest
The government coverup shills and people in chonic denial will all spout
their ad-hominem attacks, unsubstantiated denials, and nit-picking arguments
about this, but the truth is clear given the preponderance of evidence of
the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
From the very start, something smelled crooked in the fact that NORAD, the
world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system, TOTALLY FAILED to
intercept EVEN ONE of the FOUR allegedly hijacked passenger jets flying at
subsonic speeds towards known terrorist targets for over an hour.
Can you say CONSPIRACY?
their ad-hominem attacks, unsubstantiated denials, and nit-picking arguments
about this, but the truth is clear given the preponderance of evidence of
the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
From the very start, something smelled crooked in the fact that NORAD, the
world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system, TOTALLY FAILED to
intercept EVEN ONE of the FOUR allegedly hijacked passenger jets flying at
subsonic speeds towards known terrorist targets for over an hour.
Can you say CONSPIRACY?
J
John P.
Guest
"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in a message
> One of the most important parts of the official story is
> that the government 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.
That is correct. It also cannot tell you the identity of a given contact. If
you don't already know who it is, and cannot establish voice communications,
it's just a plane. With thousands of planes in the air on the morning of
9/11, deciding which one was a hijacked plane, using only primary RADAR
information, would be like finding the tip of a needle in a haystack.
> This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need
> to protect our nation against foreign fighter jets and other
> airplanes invading our country. 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?
If the Russian or Chinese plane took off from an airport within the US
(prior to 9/11), then yes, it would easily go undetected as a threat.
It's pretty easy to identify threats coming from outside the US, as you can
see the contact approaching the US from outside US borders, flying towards
the US. If that plane has no transponder, then you attempt to establish
voice communications to ID the aircraft. If that doesn't work, you send up
an intercept to ID it.
> Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!
Because you're an uneducated kook. Thinking is far beyond your abilities.
> 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.
What does that have to do with identifying a particular domestic aircraft?
> AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes
> Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly
> sensitive doppler radar that can detect any moving object.
> 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."
OK. So the AWACS could have ID'd that there were in fact, domestic flights
in the area. How could he have ID'd any unknown aircraft as specifically
being flight 77?
> 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.
OK. So now you're tracking all the flights you've ordered to land in the DC
area. How do you know which of them is flight 77?
> The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
It's also heavily traveled by aircraft of all types, including domestic
flights.
> 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.
Are they? In what manner?
> The Other Planes
> While I have focused on Flight 77 and the
> area surrounding the Pentagon,...
Actually, you've focused on showing us your limited knowledge and
understanding of RADAR and air defenses.
> In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked.
And...?
> One of the most important parts of the official story is
> that the government 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.
That is correct. It also cannot tell you the identity of a given contact. If
you don't already know who it is, and cannot establish voice communications,
it's just a plane. With thousands of planes in the air on the morning of
9/11, deciding which one was a hijacked plane, using only primary RADAR
information, would be like finding the tip of a needle in a haystack.
> This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need
> to protect our nation against foreign fighter jets and other
> airplanes invading our country. 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?
If the Russian or Chinese plane took off from an airport within the US
(prior to 9/11), then yes, it would easily go undetected as a threat.
It's pretty easy to identify threats coming from outside the US, as you can
see the contact approaching the US from outside US borders, flying towards
the US. If that plane has no transponder, then you attempt to establish
voice communications to ID the aircraft. If that doesn't work, you send up
an intercept to ID it.
> Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!
Because you're an uneducated kook. Thinking is far beyond your abilities.
> 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.
What does that have to do with identifying a particular domestic aircraft?
> AWACS Should Have Tracked Planes
> Airplanes known as AWACS have incredibly
> sensitive doppler radar that can detect any moving object.
> 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."
OK. So the AWACS could have ID'd that there were in fact, domestic flights
in the area. How could he have ID'd any unknown aircraft as specifically
being flight 77?
> 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.
OK. So now you're tracking all the flights you've ordered to land in the DC
area. How do you know which of them is flight 77?
> The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored
It's also heavily traveled by aircraft of all types, including domestic
flights.
> 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.
Are they? In what manner?
> The Other Planes
> While I have focused on Flight 77 and the
> area surrounding the Pentagon,...
Actually, you've focused on showing us your limited knowledge and
understanding of RADAR and air defenses.
> In addition, the is strong evidence that the planes were being tracked.
And...?
B
BDK
Guest
In article <vaxHj.52821$D_3.38618@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
liberty@once.net says...
> The government coverup shills and people in chonic denial will all spout
> their ad-hominem attacks, unsubstantiated denials, and nit-picking arguments
> about this, but the truth is clear given the preponderance of evidence of
> the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
>
> From the very start, something smelled crooked in the fact that NORAD, the
> world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system, TOTALLY FAILED to
> intercept EVEN ONE of the FOUR allegedly hijacked passenger jets flying at
> subsonic speeds towards known terrorist targets for over an hour.
>
> Can you say CONSPIRACY?
>
>
>
Can you say, KOOKERY?
BDK
liberty@once.net says...
> The government coverup shills and people in chonic denial will all spout
> their ad-hominem attacks, unsubstantiated denials, and nit-picking arguments
> about this, but the truth is clear given the preponderance of evidence of
> the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
>
> From the very start, something smelled crooked in the fact that NORAD, the
> world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system, TOTALLY FAILED to
> intercept EVEN ONE of the FOUR allegedly hijacked passenger jets flying at
> subsonic speeds towards known terrorist targets for over an hour.
>
> Can you say CONSPIRACY?
>
>
>
Can you say, KOOKERY?
BDK
J
John P.
Guest
"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in a message
> 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.
ROFLMAO! Good research nut job. The US military owns how many AWACS
aircraft? Talk to me about how many E2's and E3's there are in the US
military.
You say 4? Is that two of each? Three of one, one of the other? All four
E2's? All four E3's? Which is it?
> You know, I could inundate this newsgroup
> with 9/11 ****
Yup. It'd all be ****, because you haven't a clue of the facts.
> 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.
ROFLMAO! Good research nut job. The US military owns how many AWACS
aircraft? Talk to me about how many E2's and E3's there are in the US
military.
You say 4? Is that two of each? Three of one, one of the other? All four
E2's? All four E3's? Which is it?
> You know, I could inundate this newsgroup
> with 9/11 ****
Yup. It'd all be ****, because you haven't a clue of the facts.
J
John P.
Guest
"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>>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?
> Four? Bwahahahaha! Whatta Maroon!
>
> http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=98
>
> "There are 33 aircraft in the U.S. inventory. Air Combat Command has 28
> E-3s at
> Tinker. Pacific Air Forces has four E-3 Sentries at Kadena AB, Japan and
> Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. There is also one test aircraft at the Boeing
> Aircraft
> Company in Seattle."
> Four... pft! You don't mind how big an idiot you look, do you?
Don't forget the US Navy E2(C or D) Hawkeye.
>>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?
> Four? Bwahahahaha! Whatta Maroon!
>
> http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=98
>
> "There are 33 aircraft in the U.S. inventory. Air Combat Command has 28
> E-3s at
> Tinker. Pacific Air Forces has four E-3 Sentries at Kadena AB, Japan and
> Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. There is also one test aircraft at the Boeing
> Aircraft
> Company in Seattle."
> Four... pft! You don't mind how big an idiot you look, do you?
Don't forget the US Navy E2(C or D) Hawkeye.
J
John P.
Guest
<SoDamn@Insane.com> wrote in a message
> you're a stupid asshole - looking up it to find your head eating your
> asshole - asshole mother****er
Uh oh! You got onto mommy's computer again, didn't you? What did she tell
you about not touching her computer?
> you're a stupid asshole - looking up it to find your head eating your
> asshole - asshole mother****er
Uh oh! You got onto mommy's computer again, didn't you? What did she tell
you about not touching her computer?
G
Government Shill #2
Guest
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:15:01 -0500, "John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote:
>"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>
>>>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?
>
>
>> Four? Bwahahahaha! Whatta Maroon!
>>
>> http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=98
>>
>> "There are 33 aircraft in the U.S. inventory. Air Combat Command has 28
>> E-3s at
>> Tinker. Pacific Air Forces has four E-3 Sentries at Kadena AB, Japan and
>> Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. There is also one test aircraft at the Boeing
>> Aircraft
>> Company in Seattle."
>> Four... pft! You don't mind how big an idiot you look, do you?
>
>Don't forget the US Navy E2(C or D) Hawkeye.
I was going to do that, but the loon had stated AWAC, so I gave it the benefit
of the doubt.
You and I are much more intelligent and can handle the extra information.
Shill #2
--
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
to those of us who do.
Isaac Asimov
>"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>
>>>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?
>
>
>> Four? Bwahahahaha! Whatta Maroon!
>>
>> http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=98
>>
>> "There are 33 aircraft in the U.S. inventory. Air Combat Command has 28
>> E-3s at
>> Tinker. Pacific Air Forces has four E-3 Sentries at Kadena AB, Japan and
>> Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. There is also one test aircraft at the Boeing
>> Aircraft
>> Company in Seattle."
>> Four... pft! You don't mind how big an idiot you look, do you?
>
>Don't forget the US Navy E2(C or D) Hawkeye.
I was going to do that, but the loon had stated AWAC, so I gave it the benefit
of the doubt.
You and I are much more intelligent and can handle the extra information.
Shill #2
--
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
to those of us who do.
Isaac Asimov
G
Government Shill #2
Guest
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:57:15 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote:
>The government coverup shills and people in chonic denial will all spout
>their ad-hominem attacks, unsubstantiated denials, and nit-picking arguments
>about this, but the truth is clear given the preponderance of evidence of
>the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
>
>From the very start, something smelled crooked in the fact that NORAD, the
>world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system, TOTALLY FAILED to
>intercept EVEN ONE of the FOUR allegedly hijacked passenger jets flying at
>subsonic speeds towards known terrorist targets for over an hour.
>
>Can you say CONSPIRACY?
The biggest conspiracy has always been the
fact that there is no conspiracy.
Nobody's out to get you.
Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die.
There, you feel better now?
-- Dennis Miller
>The government coverup shills and people in chonic denial will all spout
>their ad-hominem attacks, unsubstantiated denials, and nit-picking arguments
>about this, but the truth is clear given the preponderance of evidence of
>the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
>
>From the very start, something smelled crooked in the fact that NORAD, the
>world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system, TOTALLY FAILED to
>intercept EVEN ONE of the FOUR allegedly hijacked passenger jets flying at
>subsonic speeds towards known terrorist targets for over an hour.
>
>Can you say CONSPIRACY?
The biggest conspiracy has always been the
fact that there is no conspiracy.
Nobody's out to get you.
Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die.
There, you feel better now?
-- Dennis Miller
F
Freedom Fighter
Guest
"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92atu31ictuu52rr094icoop4i58ciehns@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:57:15 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
> wrote:
>
>>The government coverup shills and people in chonic denial will all spout
>>their ad-hominem attacks, unsubstantiated denials, and nit-picking
>>arguments
>>about this, but the truth is clear given the preponderance of evidence of
>>the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
>>
>>From the very start, something smelled crooked in the fact that NORAD, the
>>world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system, TOTALLY FAILED to
>>intercept EVEN ONE of the FOUR allegedly hijacked passenger jets flying at
>>subsonic speeds towards known terrorist targets for over an hour.
>>
>>Can you say CONSPIRACY?
> The biggest conspiracy has always been the
> fact that there is no conspiracy.
> Nobody's out to get you.
> Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die.
> There, you feel better now?
> -- Dennis Miller
Very constructive commentary - as we've come to expect from all GOVERNMENT
SHILLS, whether they admit to being one or not.
news:92atu31ictuu52rr094icoop4i58ciehns@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:57:15 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
> wrote:
>
>>The government coverup shills and people in chonic denial will all spout
>>their ad-hominem attacks, unsubstantiated denials, and nit-picking
>>arguments
>>about this, but the truth is clear given the preponderance of evidence of
>>the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
>>
>>From the very start, something smelled crooked in the fact that NORAD, the
>>world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system, TOTALLY FAILED to
>>intercept EVEN ONE of the FOUR allegedly hijacked passenger jets flying at
>>subsonic speeds towards known terrorist targets for over an hour.
>>
>>Can you say CONSPIRACY?
> The biggest conspiracy has always been the
> fact that there is no conspiracy.
> Nobody's out to get you.
> Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die.
> There, you feel better now?
> -- Dennis Miller
Very constructive commentary - as we've come to expect from all GOVERNMENT
SHILLS, whether they admit to being one or not.
G
Government Shill #2
Guest
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:55:51 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote:
>"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:92atu31ictuu52rr094icoop4i58ciehns@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:57:15 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The government coverup shills and people in chonic denial will all spout
>>>their ad-hominem attacks, unsubstantiated denials, and nit-picking
>>>arguments
>>>about this, but the truth is clear given the preponderance of evidence of
>>>the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
>>>
>>>From the very start, something smelled crooked in the fact that NORAD, the
>>>world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system, TOTALLY FAILED to
>>>intercept EVEN ONE of the FOUR allegedly hijacked passenger jets flying at
>>>subsonic speeds towards known terrorist targets for over an hour.
>>>
>>>Can you say CONSPIRACY?
>
>> The biggest conspiracy has always been the
>> fact that there is no conspiracy.
>> Nobody's out to get you.
>> Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die.
>> There, you feel better now?
>> -- Dennis Miller
>
>Very constructive commentary
By... someone else. But you knew that, right?
> - as we've come to expect from all GOVERNMENT
>SHILLS, whether they admit to being one or not.
I admit to being one. Don't you see the screen name? Gov.shill. I am #2 in the
hierarchy. There's only one shill more senior than me and if I can get him into
this perfectly serviceable elevator...
Shill #1 (almost)
--
If Freedom Fighter says a foolish thing fifty million times, it is
still a foolish thing.
Me (with apologies to Anatole France)
>"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:92atu31ictuu52rr094icoop4i58ciehns@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:57:15 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The government coverup shills and people in chonic denial will all spout
>>>their ad-hominem attacks, unsubstantiated denials, and nit-picking
>>>arguments
>>>about this, but the truth is clear given the preponderance of evidence of
>>>the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
>>>
>>>From the very start, something smelled crooked in the fact that NORAD, the
>>>world's most sophisticated aerospace defense system, TOTALLY FAILED to
>>>intercept EVEN ONE of the FOUR allegedly hijacked passenger jets flying at
>>>subsonic speeds towards known terrorist targets for over an hour.
>>>
>>>Can you say CONSPIRACY?
>
>> The biggest conspiracy has always been the
>> fact that there is no conspiracy.
>> Nobody's out to get you.
>> Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die.
>> There, you feel better now?
>> -- Dennis Miller
>
>Very constructive commentary
By... someone else. But you knew that, right?
> - as we've come to expect from all GOVERNMENT
>SHILLS, whether they admit to being one or not.
I admit to being one. Don't you see the screen name? Gov.shill. I am #2 in the
hierarchy. There's only one shill more senior than me and if I can get him into
this perfectly serviceable elevator...
Shill #1 (almost)
--
If Freedom Fighter says a foolish thing fifty million times, it is
still a foolish thing.
Me (with apologies to Anatole France)
Similar threads
W
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 29
W
