debunking the "it wasen't a plane that crashed into the pentagon"

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
If you buy and believe the bullshit that the Bush Administration sells you, then yes, you are a Bush sheep in my opinion. Let's not forget who started calling names either, pumpkin!

between who? Me and you or you and my brother?

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Keef
And if, just for the sake of argument, we did buy your far fetched excuse, why were these the only two planes deployed??? We heard rumors the other hijacked planes might be headed to the White House, so why weren't tere other planes in the air?? Why wasn't there PLENTY of firepower in the air, the MINUTE the first plane hit????

That's an easy one! It's because you weren't in charge of national defense...

If you want the real answer, you can ask politely.

[Seshmeister]

The problem with all these cosnpiracy theory guys is that they never take account of the huge number of fuck ups and general incompetance that happens on a day to day basis out in the real world.

Especially in the government and military - the backroom boys there are the people the post office rejected.


Cheers!

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
JA, I know you ain't a pilot, but I just got the cutest image of you in a flight suit...

Wore one for almost 10 years darlin'. And I'm not one of those fat-asses that squeeze it all in... Maybe we could do a picture trade via PM...

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
So you're telling me that a simple flight from Otis air force base to the WTC is going to use all of the jets fuel, huh? Some fighter jet! Hope it never has to see combat if it can't stay in the air for more that a few minutes. I don't buy your lame fuel excuse, sorry.

appearently you've missed and ignored the other posts that said the same thing you know the posts from JA who is ex air force and ally brother who does this stuff as well. stick you head in the sand and ignore what your being told but a fighter going top speed is going to burn a hell of a lot of fuel and by doing so is going to severly limit its range. but don't let facts get in the way of you crap

Originally posted by Keeyth
And if, just for the sake of argument, we did buy your far fetched excuse, why were these the only two planes deployed??? We heard rumors the other hijacked planes might be headed to the White House, so why weren't tere other planes in the air?? Why wasn't there PLENTY of firepower in the air, the MINUTE the first plane hit????

there weren't any rumours and you can't send up planes at will because we don't keep planes on strip alert. it takes time to fuel and arm planes. the planes form otis were two ang planes who were just putting in their hours at the same time as 9-11. you can't send up planes and chase all 4,800 planes that are in the air at any given moment in us air space.

Originally posted by Keeyth
You either work for the Bush administration, or you have earned the title of King Busheep!!

yep thats it it's quite clear to everyone that you know nothing and all you do is talk out of your ass hoping you won't get called on your bullshit you know NOTHING about what you post. all you seem to do is google something then post the results no matter how retarded the site is you post you do it anyway to try to make youself look smart when in fact you come off looking like and idiot the you cll everyone a bush sheep and ignore facts.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
between who? Me and you or you and my brother?

Your brother. Although the spelling is questionable, I believe 'beotch' was the beginning of the name calling...

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Your brother. Although the spelling is questionable, I believe 'beotch' was the beginning of the name calling...

Okay, but you also called me a Bush Sheep and all I call you is pumpkin pie, and that's after the fact. You call EVERYONE who won't sit and believe your claims a Bush Sheep.

Beotch is a common term with the youth today and they add it on everything over here.

And me calling your sentence classic has nothing to do with name calling. I found it funny because I know my brother, that's all. No one else here will understand why I found it funny, but whatever

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
appearently you've missed and ignored the other posts that said the same thing you know the posts from JA who is ex air force and ally brother who does this stuff as well. stick you head in the sand and ignore what your being told but a fighter going top speed is going to burn a hell of a lot of fuel and by doing so is going to severly limit its range. but don't let facts get in the way of you crap

Whatever dude. Fighter jets take off from aircraft carriers far offshore and go on to have dogfights for long periods of time over the desert and are still able to return to their aircraft carriers... ...or am I wrong about that too?? Just making that up??? Get a clue dude.

And I don't believe I have ever 'googled' anything and then posted it here. If you have some proof, please post it.

I question the so-called 'experience' of these people like JA and ally's brother they same way a good investigative reporter questions any source... ...ESPECIALLY when their answers fly in the face of common sense and logic.

Of the two of us, regarding the events of 9-11, I would have to say it is YOU who has his head in the sand brother!

[Big Train]

Keeyth,

Since everything must be spelled out (for "Common Sense" to take place) read the following facts about the F-16, and learn something:

The primary target detection sensor of the F-16A/B is the Westinghouse AN/APG-66 pulsed-Doppler radar. Pulse-Dopper radars operate by measuring the frequency shift that is created by target velocity in order to discriminate between a genuine aircraft and ground clutter. The APG-66 has a medium pulse repetition frequency or PRF for short (typically 10 to 15 kHz). It operates in the I/J band and has a flat-plate planar array antenna. Sixteen operating frequencies are available within the I/J band, and the pilot can select between any four of them.



The APG-66 reduces the radar data to digital form and presents the pilot with a synthetically-generated image made up of a set of predefined symbols. The display is free from clutter and is much easier to read than previous displays, but the ability to discriminate between real and false targets depends entirely on the quality of the software used to control the signal processing equipment.



Radar operating modes may be selected by the pilot by using either the throttle, the sidestick controller, or knobs on the radar control panel. The primary air-to-air search mode is Downlook, which provides clutter-free indication of low- flying targets. Fighter-sized aircraft can be detected at ranges of up to 35 miles. In the Uplook mode, there is no need for the filtering out of spurious responses from the ground, and the pilot can detect targets at ranges of up to 50 miles.



Four modes are available for air-to-air combat. In the Dogfight mode, the radar automatically scans a 20-degree by 20-degree field in the forward direction. If the pilot can see the the target in his HUD, and the range is less than ten miles, the radar will automatically lock on. If high-g maneuvers are to be carried out, the area to be searched can be altered to a 40-degree by 10-degree pattern. If multiple targets are present, the pilot can press the Designate button on his sidestick controller. The radar will then operate in a slim narrow-beam mode, and by maneuvering his aircraft, the pilot can place the beam onto the required target. When he releases the designate button, the radar will acquire and track the chosen target. A Slewable air-combat mode can be used to allow the scan pattern to be moved in anticipation of target maneuvers.

Plenty o firepower and technology to control the situation and shoot down multiple aircraft, as they would be targeted on the way.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Wore one for almost 10 years darlin'. And I'm not one of those fat-asses that squeeze it all in... Maybe we could do a picture trade via PM...

Ah, your lucky lady.

If I were her, I'd insist the Top Gun treatment randomly. :D

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Whatever dude. Fighter jets take off from aircraft carriers far offshore and go on to have dogfights for long periods of time over the desert and are still able to return to their aircraft carriers... ...or am I wrong about that too?? Just making that up??? Get a clue dude.

a us fighter jet hasen't seen air to air action since gulf war 1 over iraq, even then the ones that did were refuled in mid air after seeing action over northern iraq because they were out of fuel. you are making it up. even in places like afghanistan our planes get refueled mid way and reurn home and thats just going on a routine patrol. armaments and a high rate of speed burn fuel and limimt the amount of time a plane can spend in the air. plain and simple. that shouldn't be to hard to understand now is it?

Originally posted by Keeyth
And I don't believe I have ever 'googled' anything and then posted it here. If you have some proof, please post it.

every link you've posted is the first hit in a google search.

Originally posted by Keeyth
I question the so-called 'experience' of these people like JA and ally's brother they same way a good investigative reporter questions any source... ...ESPECIALLY when their answers fly in the face of common sense and logic.

so your calling ja and ally bro liars? hate to break the news to you but a: their answers add up b: they have a hell of a lot more creditablity then you.

Originally posted by Keeyth
Of the two of us, regarding the events of 9-11, I would have to say it is YOU who has his head in the sand brother!

right thats why it seems nothing you say can actually be backed up by anything.your shits been debunked for years but just ignore it. everyone else is a liar and a bush sheep and no one here is or was in the military. thats it no one but you knows what their talking about.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
I question the so-called 'experience' of these people like JA and ally's brother they same way a good investigative reporter questions any source... ...ESPECIALLY when their answers fly in the face of common sense and logic.

As a reporter, I shall tell you these sources are reliable. A friendly association to a man who was enlisted in the air force -- hell, any military section-- and dealt with these issues hands on and another who is a top mechanic and knows planes in and out and why they do what they do are exactly the kind of sources an investigate reporter has wet dreams about when having to deal with reporting on plane incidents.

And where do you get your plane knowledge from? What base did you work at and/or for what airline do you work for? How often do you deal with planes? What licenses do you have? For what airports do you have clearance for?

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Whatever dude. Fighter jets take off from aircraft carriers far offshore and go on to have dogfights for long periods of time over the desert and are still able to return to their aircraft carriers... ...or am I wrong about that too?? Just making that up??? Get a clue dude.

And I don't believe I have ever 'googled' anything and then posted it here. If you have some proof, please post it.

I question the so-called 'experience' of these people like JA and ally's brother they same way a good investigative reporter questions any source... ...ESPECIALLY when their answers fly in the face of common sense and logic.

Of the two of us, regarding the events of 9-11, I would have to say it is YOU who has his head in the sand brother!

Man, you're just digging yourself in deeper and deeper. You truly don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and yet it doesn't stop you. It's kinda weird dude...

Naval aircraft refuel almost immediately after takeoff. This is absolutely irrefutable. They don't only if responding to a threat to the fleet. And in these cases their range is severly limited. I don't know if you completely understand what the people here are telling you. But I can tell you from personal experience that this is the way fighter airplanes work. I've spent plenty of time monitoring refueling operations over a good chunk of the globe. AWACS is responsible for controlling refueling rendezvous’ between tankers and all types of military aircraft. I'm telling you, operations from a naval carrier goes like this: 1. Take off 2. Check in with either AWACS or the Hawkeyes (and even possibly the air controllers on the carrier, as they can coordinate air refuelling as well). 3. rendezvous with a tanker and refuel. 4. Blow shit up. 5. Possibly refuel again. 6. Land.

Although short range strikes can be accomplished without refueling, it's undesireable in the event things don't go as planned (which the pilots naturally plan for), and they need to fight their way out of hostile territory.

I know though, none of this makes "common sense"...

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Big Train
Keeyth,



Plenty o firepower and technology to control the situation and shoot down multiple aircraft, as they would be targeted on the way.

So... ...are you agreeing that there was plenty of firepower and time for those fighters to get to the other planes?

[Keeyth]

Jeeeesssssssussssssss H. Chhhhrriiiiissssttttt !!

JA, Ally and Wilbury,

Why do you Republican clones, or right wingers, all sound the same, and resort to the same tactics??? Go ahead and kill the fuel theory all you want. It's like such a non-issue, but like the G.W Bush would do, you ignore the greater point to take a stand on an insignifigant detail. Look, what I want you to tell me is, F-- the fuel in the two planes, tell me WHY IN THE HELL WERE THERE ONLY TWO PLANES IN ALL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AVAILABLE FOR THAT TASK??????? What, we only have two fucking fighter jets in our multi-BILLION, possibly TRILLION dollar Air Force defending the Home base??????

Keep trying to throw 'Common Sense' back at me by showing you have NONE!!!!! Bring it!!