|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| We are going to have to get a better quality of tinfoil hat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| You look like you are just trying to argue for argument sake. |
| Quote: |
| Is there anything wrong with that? |
No, but it would be a better debate if the truth was the objective, and not just being right.
| Quote: |
| Specifically, your rebuttal to the question of jets not being scrambled is amateurish. |
I've asked some pointed question about the claim. Do you have an answer? The intercepts they hold up to be an example of the system working, can they really be compared. It's one thing to claim the system works when you have outbound approaching American shores, the NORAD posture at the time, vs off course planes in the USA. The referenced article seems to offer no comparison. Why?
According to Popular Mechanics:
| Quote: |
Intercepts Not Routine
Claim: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."
FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent. |
Sure seems to me like the pdf author fudged the facts.
| Quote: |
| You also pick and choose, and conveniently avoid the questions about the Cheney timeline, the pentagon not being protected by missile defence, the expert testimony that the maneuver by the plane hitting the pentagon would be impossible for a pilot of his training, and the videos of whatever hit the pentagon not showing a plane. |
| Quote: |
| Does the Pentagon publish what plans it has for air attack? I some how doubt the Pentagon reveals such information. It's hard to say "wow, a spectular failure! A little too spectacular!" when there is no basis for comparison. About the only thing I know is the White House used to have some Secret Service agents ready with stingers to shoot down small planes. |
Your telling me that you believe the Pentagon failing to do ANYTHING defensive, be it scramble a jet, shoot a missile (which would only require the system to be turned on, this is an automatic system; it doesn't require people sitting on the roof to shoot) is not a spectacular failure? These are not cavemen. This is the pentagon, and this is the united states military industrial complex at its zenith, and it can't manage ONE defensive salvo after TWO planes have already hit WTC1&2? AND the White House has already been EVACUATED? If you were told just these facts, they would seem to fancifal to even be considered, but these are the UNDISPUTED facts.
Moving on:
Cheney timeline. Full of Holes. Full of Falsehoods by the commission, including disputing what Cheney said on Meet the Press 5 days after 9/11, disputing Minota, disputing Clarke. This is very significant, so speak to it. It is crucial because the real time line allows Cheney to let the plane hit the pentagon, whereas the commission timeline doesn't.
In a court of law, the defense has its expert that says the guy was insane, the prosecution has its expert that says the guy was sane. Sorry, I'd sure like to hear the consensus opinion on the flying skill needed.
| Quote: |
| and the videos of whatever hit the pentagon not showing a plane |
| Quote: |
| A security camera taking a frame per second might not capture an object moving at 500 mph. |
A security camera? Try dozens that were fixed on the pentagon that day. You've been shown one, and it took something like 3 years to be released. What about the other cameras?
| Quote: |
| These questions you are conveniently avoiding. Are you serious, or are you in the jinju/cbc school of debate? |
Then maybe you'd not like to debate me. I'd be more than happy to deal with loose_ends on his thread. I don't really have the time to argue two threads on 9/11. This thread seemed like it was drawing to a close when I issued the challenge to loose_ends. And then W introduced the PDF full of real meat to debate.
That said, B and W maybe follow up here in loose's thread about actual evidence. The PDF seems to stray now into not questions but claims. I'll deal with claims there:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=102045&start=15 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3fZokHRTHk
Some interesting questions for Mr. Bush. |
FYI, I don't have time to devote to two topics on this issue. If you want to move the NORAD discussion to loose_end's thread, I'll be happy to deal with it there. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's OK. I think the point has been made.
There seem to be enough holes in the official version of events to allow one to be reminded of swiss cheese. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
That's OK. I think the point has been made.
There seem to be enough holes in the official version of events to allow one to be reminded of swiss cheese. |
I'm glad you have point.
It will make the Tinfoil hat fit better.
Edit: Corrected Grammer.
Last edited by cbclark4 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| some waygug-in wrote: |
That's OK. I think the point has been made.
There seem to be enough holes in the official version of events to allow one to be reminded of swiss cheese. |
I glad you have point.
It will make the Tinfoil hat fit better. |
I guess you'd know, judging by the picture of yourself you posted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
