See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Pilots Analyze the Government Provided Radar Data of the Planes of 9-11
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 24, 2012
Author: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-inter
Post Date: 2012-09-24 19:34:06 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 4719
Comments: 145
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-intercepted/
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 144.
#2. To: tom007 (#0)
Alleged aircraft hit the buildings???? One can see where this is going. Another waste of time. Another review by "EXPERTS" that cannot..."AUTHENTICATE"... the government provided material, well then the inference is it may all be LIES, all BOGUS, BECAUSE WE CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING, WHY WASTE YOUR TIME.
Are you trying to say that it is 100% certain that the aircraft which struck the towers are the ones reported as being hijacked? If you bothered watching the video, you'd more than likely understand why and how that is highly unlikely.
I dont think so. I'll stand with my flying telephone poles. Am organizing a panel of "pole" experts as we speak, to address the "alleged" 9/11 event that never happened.
Cyni, 9/11 happened alright, just not the way the talking heads and the politicians claim it did. What do you make of that van on the George Washington Bridge pulled over on 9/11 after the attacks, you know, the one that was filled with tons of explosives and driven by Israelis?
Good starting point. Ever notice however there are no panels of experts to prove or disprove they ever existed?
News reports from that day, along with FBI documents, indicate they did in fact exist.
However, there has never been any independent panel of "experts" that can "prove" the government is lying.
Ever hear of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, or the producers of this video Pilots for 9/11 Truth? The government story of the WTC collapse is physically impossible. The Israelis who were arrested on 9/11 with tons of explosives were released with charges. How much more factual evidence is necessary? Would it take Sean Hannity to report that the government lied on 9/11 to make it so?
This is what I spoke of... "What do you make of that van on the George Washington Bridge pulled over on 9/11 after the attacks, you know, the one that was filled with tons of explosives and driven by Israelis?" I would like to see a panel of experts or anyone to revisit that.
Who needs a panel of experts when you got the cops on their radio? Now you can empanel a jury of pointy heads, Cyni. ; ]
Having been involved with lesser events with the government and military, over many years, I can safely say that, things get screwed up, people misspeak, misunderstand, and it takes great effort to untangle things. Recall that no one of responsibility ever stood up and called a halt to the madness. It was a lowly FAA person that finally took the bull by the horns and ordered everyone down until it could be sorted out. Cheney and Bush did nothing,none of their boot lickers did anything, the world was gone mad. A peon stepped up, called a halt to everything. The VP was as useless as tits on a rain barrel and Bush was hiding in Louisiana.
Recall that no one of responsibility ever stood up and called a halt to the madness. It was a lowly FAA person that finally took the bull by the horns and ordered everyone down until it could be sorted out. Cheney and Bush did nothing,none of their boot lickers did anything, the world was gone mad. A peon stepped up, called a halt to everything. What? Where did you get the impression that an FAA person ordered SCATANA implemented rather than the Military?
After this young man, before pointing negative fingers, do a check on the subject. Here is the mans name and the story. ANYONE THAT HAD ANY INTEREST IN 911 SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS GENTLEMAN FROM DAY ONE, NOT YEARS LATER. "Man who grounded 4,000 planes on 9/11 was on first day of his job As terrorists seized control of four airplanes on Sept. 11th, 2001, Ben Sliney, chief of air-traffic-control operations at the FAA's command center in Herndon, Va., gave the unprecedented order to ground 4,000-plus planes across the nation and redirect any in the sky to the nearest airport. It was his first day on the job. On Sept. 11th, 2001, terrorists hijacked four American commercial jets with the intention of crashing them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. The terrorists were successful in three of their four targets with the fourth plane's assault on the Capitol building was thwarted by heroic passengers on board. While we now know no other planes were hijacked, at the time, each of the 4,000-plus flights in American air space were potential risks. But due to Ben Sliney, the Federal Aviation Administration's National Operations Manager on duty that fateful morning, possible harm, at least by the thinking at the time, was averted. Sliney made the gutsy — and completely unprecedented — call to ground every single commercial airplane in the country. Man who grounded 4,000 planes on 9/11 was on first day of his jobWhat makes the call — which, without direct order from the President and the bureaucracy above him, was his and his alone to make — all the more gutsy is that Sept. 11th, 2001, was Ben Sliney's first day on the job as an FAA National Operations Manager. Although that's not to say Sliney was some neophyte making a cowboy-like call. He had 25 years of experience in air traffic control as part of FAA management, including a leadership position at New York TRACON, which has responsibility over all air traffic for New York City's three major airports and the smaller, regional airports in the New York City area. But the decision to ground the planes — that was entirely Sliney's. In fact, it's such a great story that when Universal Pictures decided to turn the heroism of the passengers of United Flight 93 into a movie, they not only didn't overlook Sliney's role — they asked him to play himself in the movie. Which he did. Sliney's decision is a great testament to the belief that doing the right thing sometimes requires a risky choice. Sliney made the right one." Cyni...
Maybe a video would be more convincing? See http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295417-1
Thanks... Friend of mine had that job a few years ago after I retired. Many people are afraid of or are unable to recognize reality. That is what we have here. There is no excuse for being obtuse about something when it is obvious to others that an enlightened background is missing. Failure to avail oneself of what is available is basis for forming wrong opinions that defy gravity.
That is what we have here. There is no excuse for being obtuse about something when it is obvious to others that an enlightened background is missing. Failure to avail oneself of what is available is basis for forming wrong opinions that defy gravity. I love you C But that post was marvelous nonsense.
I was taught civility, long ago. The first example drummed into my thick head was this: "Winston Churchill once said..."It costs me nothing to be civil to a man, even though I intend to hang him tomorrow". ON this forum, I am very often labeled as dumb, stupid, ignorant and those are the kind and generous ones. At times posters use language that describes what they really think. At the end of the day, I will have proven myself ignorant at best, but I did try to be civil doing it. Did not cost me a cent.
Malarkey. What you tried to do here in your responses to me is exempt yourself from civility with an autocratic double standard equating any attempt to debate you as finger-pointing, rudeness, verbiage, gross verbiage, lack of self- enlightenment and intelligent discourse, negativity and so on. Edited for spelling.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who knows he's full of shit. He pulls out the "civility" canard when he's had his ass handed to him on a plate an can no longer defend his position. Then he runs away.
Perhaps my civility classes would be beneficial????? People that do not function well in open society find such very helpful.
People that do not function well in open society find such very helpful. Because...they're not functioning well or they'd know better than to take a class in civility from you, Mr. Double Standards Autocrat?
Fan would feel much better if he were a Fan of Salma Hayek. She has a calming effect on men that are troubled.
The comments coming from so many on all the forums on the internet sure do lend insight to the whys and wherefores of this country's status. So many attack when opinions differ, yet few offer up anything worth considering for solving today's problems. Insults and name calling come fast and furious, but too few have, can or will hold rational discussions. There is so much to be learned from history as well as from the views and opinions of those we share space with on this earth. There is little to be gained from challenging the rights of others to differ. Rational and respectful discussion can bring not only enlightening knowledge, but acceptable compromise. Irrational and disrespectful communication not only encourages silence, but also limits ideas, views and suggestions that could well lead to excellent solutions, not just mediocre attempts at "putting out fires". I hope the day comes when the majority of people on this world show respect to others.
How to phrase this question for Cynicom without rankling him by using the word "you"...I'm gonna venture going with this: Is Kissinger an alumni of the Cynicom Class of Civility? Henry Kissinger Says Luke Rudkowski Is A Sick Person for Questioning Him on NSM 200
Henry... I recall in real time the appearance of this evil person. Henry like von Mises, Hayeks and others were the offspring of the Rockefeller money. Henry was a nobody,enlisted person in the military, suspected Russian spy with the code name of Bor. He was a nobody, going nowhere until Nelson Rockefeller bought and paid for him. When Henry was turned loose into the political arena, Rockefeller gave him $50,000 cash to tide him over until a "position" was found for him. Anyone that read his """best seller""""" Nuclear weapons and Foreign Policy"""" knew he was another Ayn Rand in the making.
That says something treasonous about G.W. Bush's selection of Kissinger to commandeer the 9/11 Commission. 9-11 Commission - Wikipedia [sic] The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was established on November 27, 2002, by President George W. Bush and the United States Congress, with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger initially appointed to head the commission.[2] However, Kissinger resigned only weeks after being appointed, because he would have been obliged to disclose the clients of his private consulting business.[3]
Grey... If you have time to waste, read Kissingers book. I read it when very young and came away with one thought in mind. What did he say and what in hell is he talking about. Henry can babble on endlessly and say nothing. Turtle reminded us of one of his bad habits, I seem to recall from somewhere in the past that Henry also had body odor. I am gonna look up Salma Hayek and forget you and Fan even exist.
Is that so? Well then, just don't go forgetting that in reality holograms do exist. John Lear - 9/11 & Strategic Perception Management Until we meet again here...
Lear mixes truth with fiction. Those impacts at the WTC most certainly weren't holograms, and to my knowledge, holograms appear transparent, not as solid objects. It would be especially difficult if not impossible for a hologram to be visible in bright daylight from miles away, and then there's the matter of the impact damage itself.
CNN Shows Off Hologram Technology - Presidential Election 2008 Uploaded by ArchangelSandalphon on Nov 4, 2008 Jessica Yellin shows up on CNN New York from Chigago in a hologram
One other thing GL, since when do you trust CNN to be giving you truthful information?
Since when don't you trust CNN/MSM video on 9/11 imagery issues?
Thing is, it wasn't just CNN which had live video from 9/11, it was all the other networks airing simultaneously, including international networks such as the BBC. Besides, for the reasons mentioned it is pretty much impossible that the flight of the aircraft could be faked with a hologram. It borders on science fiction, whereas the remote controlled plane theory isn't within that realm, it is actually quite possible and plausible.
Cross-referencing Post #59 at 4um Title: Let US start a thread on WHO Did 911 Excerpts: EXERCISES INCLUDED MOCK TV NEWS REPORTS It is known that simulated television news reports had been used in training exercises before 9/11. For example, a two-day exercise was held at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, in June 2001, called "Dark Winter," based on the scenario of a smallpox attack on the United States. This exercise, according to New York magazine, included "simulated news clips from an imaginary cable news network called NCN."
And the Starship Enterprise could have just blasted away with its phasers. Thing is, a remote controlled missile (which the aircraft would have been) has a very damn good chance of hitting its target. For CGI to have faked EVERYTHING seen on network TV, ALL of the on scene reporters and camera crews would had to have been in on the grand conspiracy, ALL of the first responders who witnessed the 2nd impact would had to have been in on it, and ALL of the NYC inhabitants who witnessed the event would had to have been in on it. There is just WAY too much chance of something going wrong, where if people saw a blast without an aircraft striking the tower, it would have drawn INSTANT attention. Besides that, there would have been SOME video of that occuring, being that MANY people were recording the smoke coming from the North Tower by that point in time. That's besides the fact all of the news stations would have had to simultaneously blend CGI into live video, and had the explosives go off in the towers at the precise time to make it appear the CGI aircraft actually impacted the South Tower at the correct moment. Not only would thousands, if not tens of thousands of people been involved, the technical feasibilty of such a hoax is pretty farfetched. CGI is good these days, but not THAT good. There is no evidence of fakery in the live videos, although no planers HAVE faked their own later videos to "make their point". Why do you keep falling back with this science fantasy scenario GL? Aren't actual documented facts and scientific evidence enough to prove 9/11 was an inside job, carried out with the help of the Mossad?
But in the post I replied to, you said remote control planes -- not missiles. The issue isn't about whether remote control missiles can hit their target. Surely they can with a high degree of accuracy but with more risk of error and discovery than CGI. I don't know which videos you're referring to as being faked by No Planers. Initially, there were about 40 videos that were in evidence and what's unusual is that there weren't many more if many people in the area were recording. I've spent a lot of time addressing your concerns and would like to hear your explanation for why there was little to no smoke damage at the WTC [Towers and Bldg. 7 too] as well as how WTC 1 was insignificantly impacted by flying projectiles when WTC 2 was demolished. No Planes research doesn't threaten investigations of 9/11 as an inside job carried out with the help of the Mossad, or controlled demolition determination. Edited for grammar and bracketed insert.
Yeah OK GL. We had discussed the "Smoke and Mirrors" video in length on the last 9/11 thread. It was blatently obvious that the video was a collection of fraudulent clips which were actually doctored from the original CBS live video. THAT is what I mean by faked video, and you should know that. It doesn't sit well with me that you pretend not to know what I'm talking about here. It's quite obvious that "no planers" view it as their "smoking gun" where in reality it's an obvious fake designed to propel their theory into the limelight.
FL: Yeah OK GL. We had discussed the "Smoke and Mirrors" video in length on the last 9/11 thread. It was blatently obvious that the video was a collection of fraudulent clips which were actually doctored from the original CBS live video. THAT is what I mean by faked video, and you should know that. It doesn't sit well with me that you pretend not to know what I'm talking about here. It's quite obvious that "no planers" view it as their "smoking gun" where in reality it's an obvious fake designed to propel their theory into the limelight. It doesn't sit well with me that you pretend not to know that video was a Media alteration. I thought you finally understood that the last time we discussed it.
The author of the video, and titorite were trying to pass it off as original footage from the morning of 9/11. You were playing the "media made it" angle, yet you say there's some ORIGINAL video which shows the same thing, or similar "abnormalities". That is pure BS. This is getting tiring, and I have better things to do with my time than to play this game for another 7 days straight. Is it your mission in life to bog down every 9/11 discussion with this crap?
No, I said it was a Media alteration -- about umpteen times -- and that there are smoke anomalies in other MSM videos. The poster of the video stated in the Description section that it was posted as it was found. I linked to the webarchived-site where it was found for comparison, as well as the NIST video of the PBS documentary that the Smoke and Mirrors video referenced. titorite simply submitted it here as a smoke anomaly and didn't know the details about it. You are bogging down discussions by having to repeat things over and over and it still doesn't get through to you or doesn't stick with you. I do think this is a game for you and I have better things to do too.
I still maintain it was all flying telephone poles. During the Viet thing, I had friends flying B-52s over North Vietnam. They could see the SAMS being fired off both visually and on ground scanning radar. They attached the name of telephone poles because that is what they looked like. Carry on.
During the Viet thing, I had friends flying B-52s over North Vietnam. They could see the SAMS being fired off both visually and on ground scanning radar. They attached the name of telephone poles because that is what they looked like. Carry on. I was surprised to find a godlikeproductions post today from a Canadian who seems to sort of agree with you but thinks they were British cruise missiles. Am going to post an abbreviated version of it here (and some related info in another post) but first I want to set this link for the thread's 9/11: INTERCEPTED video by Pilots for 9/11 Truth to start at 22:25, which says: "Uh, we want 'em in the Whiskey 386 area." Excerpt from: www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1978389/pg1#33334085 User ID: 23403601 Canada 09/10/2012 06:49 PM Whereas the US NAvy loads, paints and maintains the cruise missiles for the US Navy, after becoming Prime Minister, of Britain, Tony Blair, despite being a "socialist", hence against privatisation, contracted out the maintenance, including painting of Britain's nuclear subs, their cruise missiels (the same as the USA ones) and their fire control systems to... Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiaruy of Halliburton. As each missile resides in a separate silo onboard, no sailor, not even the captain would have seen what his own missiles would have looked like in terms of paintwork once loaded by KBR. in terms of fire control, it would have been easy for KBR to have had a technitian replace a circuit board or two to allow the cruise missiles to be electronically hijacked and for the fire control systems to report that the missiles on a test launch had been destroyed rather than flying on to the Eastern Seaboard of the USA. The next question is one of how missiles actually beat the US Radar defence systems to hit the Pentagon which is supremely defended. The answer lies in the Falklands War. During this, the Exocet and no other Argentine missile did catastrophic damage to the British fleet. The reason for this was revealed at the time. NATO planners long ago realized that a NATO/WARSAW PACT sea battle would last seconds due to the staggering destructive firepower. Radar and missile technicians would have split seconds to respond, so in order to simplify NATO radar systems, a new standard was adopted in which NATO radar systems, including those of the Pentgon, only show… In short, NATO systems as blind to missiles and aircraft belonging to missiles and aircraft of your allies. Hence, a cruise missile launched from a British or French sub would be ENTIRELY INVISIBLE to all of the Pentagon’s radar systems. However, not all systems meet this code and indeed, the base scrambling the jets to head to Whiskey 386 patch of ocean were still fitted with OLD equipment wupon which such missiles would have been clear. So who had the access to these Norad systems? Not just the USA, but also her allies, such as Britain who had contracted their own work out to…KBR, the subsidiary of Halliburton. So, where do British subs test fire their missiles? At a place in the atlantic called… Whiskey 386. So were there any British subs in the region? Records on line that I have seen, submitted by one peace grouop in the UK clearly established that HMS Trafalgar left port in the UK on 1st September 2001 to travel via the Americas to the Far East which would have put it in Whiskey 386 or so on 11th September 2001. This peace group who incidentally have nothing to do with the 9/11 movement, established that when HMS Trafalgar reached port in the Far East, her inventory of cruise missiles were down by EIGHT,, indicating a test firing in Whiskey 386 of 8 Cruise missiles on about 11th September 2001. Had this occurred, and they been compromised and electronically hijacked without the sub knowing, they could have been flown straight to the Pentagon and the WTC without a glitch on any NATO radar. Finally, how did they get a dunce like George W Bush to lie? Simple. he didn't. What he said was LITERALLY TRUE, but open to the wrong interprestation, for the WTC WAS hit by hijacked aircraft, but not jetliners, British cruise missiles.
Grey... I give you an A+ for tenacity. Also yall been discussing smoke etc at NYC. There is a photo taken by an astronaut from space station that shows the smoke plume. Perhaps you have seen it?
So, what's your opinion of the radar info and such in the godlikeproductions post [Edit to add: at #129]?
Grey... Several can be found here. Should charge you.
Should charge you. Interesting but maybe I should charge you too for the insepections -- per slide. There's a bunch scattered about there and the smoke is like all over the map, as they say. This one looks like the space station took it from the ground looking up: Pic link: World Trade Center-911-View from space station All those projectiles flying at WTC 1 and nary a scratch on it! When I see films like that and the clips below at 1:27 and 6:30, I wonder why it even fell at all, durable as it was:
The space shot is within the ground photos display. Hereafter all urls are fifty cents.
Hereafter all urls are fifty cents. Too pricey for me. I saw many space shots there. The one I posted [Edit to add: at #137] was #32 -- 31 clicks to the right from the first and the caption said: World Trade Center-911- View from space station: If you'd care to freely give your assessment of the radar info and such that I asked about at Post #135 regarding the godlikeproductions posting at #129, I'd be interested in hearing it.
Grey... Bet you think I could be taken snipe hunting voluntarily????
No, I really wanted your input on it as a flyer, not a hunting sniper.
You ever been snipe hunting?. Most states have open seasons on snipes.
No, I haven't. If you were thinking about going snipe hunting and would rather not evaluate the radar posting at #129, no problem. Suit yourself. Edited for grammar.
I was in the radar antique days, would never attempt to second guess something I am not qualified to do. We had the first IFF transponders which were very crude, compared to today. Second guessing the people on duty at the time is wading in deep water.
#145. To: Cynicom (#144)
I'd never heard of a British cruise missile theory about 9/11, so thought it would be best to run the "allied" stealth readings by your radar bearings to see what you thought of it. Believe it or not, that was a time that I would have been glad to see one your "Nonsense" remarks.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Cynicom, tom007 (#2)
Alleged aircraft hit the buildings????
#5. To: FormerLurker (#3)
Are you trying to say that it is 100% certain that the aircraft which struck the towers are the ones reported as being hijacked? If you bothered watching the video, you'd more than likely understand why and how that is highly unlikely.
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
#7. To: FormerLurker (#6)
What do you make of that van on the George Washington Bridge pulled over on 9/11 after the attacks, you know, the one that was filled with tons of explosives and driven by Israelis?
#8. To: Cynicom (#7)
Ever notice however there are no panels of experts to prove or disprove they ever existed?
#10. To: FormerLurker (#8)
News reports from that day, along with FBI documents, indicate they did in fact exist.
#12. To: Cynicom (#10)
However, there has never been any independent panel of "experts" that can "prove" the government is lying.
#14. To: FormerLurker (#12)
How much more factual evidence is necessary? Would it take Sean Hannity to report that the government lied on 9/11 to make it so?
#22. To: Cynicom (#14)
I would like to see a panel of experts or anyone to revisit that.
#28. To: randge (#22)
#41. To: Cynicom (#28)
Having been involved with lesser events with the government and military, over many years, I can safely say that, things get screwed up, people misspeak, misunderstand, and it takes great effort to untangle things.
#48. To: GreyLmist, Phant2000, All (#41)
#55. To: Cynicom (#48)
ANYONE THAT HAD ANY INTEREST IN 911 SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS GENTLEMAN FROM DAY ONE ...
#56. To: Phant2000 (#55)
#58. To: Cynicom (#56)
Many people are afraid of or are unable to recognize reality.
#74. To: tom007 (#58)
But that post was marvelous nonsense.
#76. To: Cynicom (#74)
(Edited)
I did try to be civil doing it.
#78. To: GreyLmist, Cynicom (#76)
What you tried to do here in your responses to me is exempt yourself from civility with an autocratic double standard equating any attempt to debate you as finger-pointing, rudeness, verbiage, gross verbiage, lack of self- enlightenment and intelligent discourse, negativity and so on.
#81. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#78)
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who knows he's full of shit. He pulls out the "civility" canard when he's had his ass handed to him on a plate an can no longer defend his position. Then he runs away.
#82. To: Cynicom, F.A. Hayek Fan (#81)
Perhaps my civility classes would be beneficial?????
#83. To: GreyLmist (#82)
Because...they're not functioning well or they'd know better than to take a class in civility from you, Mr. Double Standards Autocrat?
#85. To: Cynicom (#83)
#87. To: Phant2000, Cynicom (#85)
I hope the day comes when the majority of people on this world show respect to others.
#88. To: GreyLmist, Phant2000 (#87)
#91. To: Cynicom (#88)
suspected Russian spy with the code name of Bor.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was set up on November 27, 2002, "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks", including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks.
#92. To: GreyLmist (#91)
#94. To: Cynicom (#92)
and forget you and Fan even exist.
#95. To: GreyLmist (#94)
#96. To: FormerLurker, *9-11*, *No Planers* (#95)
to my knowledge, holograms appear transparent, not as solid objects.
#98. To: GreyLmist (#96)
#99. To: FormerLurker (#98)
One other thing GL, since when do you trust CNN to be giving you truthful information?
#101. To: GreyLmist (#99)
Since when don't you trust CNN/MSM video on 9/11 imagery issues?
#102. To: FormerLurker (#101)
Remote control could not ensure that a plane (civilian, military, or drone) wouldn't break apart outside of the buildings on impact (endangering people on the street, leaving contradictory evidence behind, and messing up the cover story for the destruction of the Towers) but CGI could.
#103. To: GreyLmist (#102)
(Edited)
Remote control could not ensure that a plane (civilian, military, or drone) wouldn't break apart outside of the buildings on impact (endangering people on the street, leaving contradictory evidence behind, and messing up the cover story for the destruction of the Towers) but CGI could.
#106. To: FormerLurker (#103)
(Edited)
Thing is, a remote controlled missile (which the aircraft would have been) has a very damn good chance of hitting its target.
#110. To: GreyLmist (#106)
I don't know which videos you're referring to as being faked by No Planers.
#114. To: FormerLurker (#110)
Me: I don't know which videos you're referring to as being faked by No Planers.
#118. To: GreyLmist (#114)
It doesn't sit well with me that you pretend not to know that video was a Media alteration. I thought you finally understood that the last time we discussed it.
#119. To: FormerLurker (#118)
#120. To: GreyLmist, FormerLurker (#119)
#129. To: Cynicom, *9-11* (#120)
I still maintain it was all flying telephone poles.
"Say again where you want 'em?"
- potential enemy missiles and aircraft
- your own country’s missiles and aircraft
- civilian and neutral country missiles asd aircraft.
#130. To: GreyLmist (#129)
#135. To: Cynicom (#130)
(Edited)
#136. To: GreyLmist (#135)
#137. To: Cynicom, *9-11* (#136)
Several can be found here.
#138. To: GreyLmist (#137)
#139. To: Cynicom (#138)
(Edited)
The space shot is within the ground photos display.
images.search.yahoo.com- i...r2d6th&.crumb=kqrva0lOWXM
#140. To: GreyLmist (#139)
If you'd care to freely give your assessment of the radar info and such that I asked about at Post #135 regarding the godlikeproductions posting at #129, I'd be interested in hearing it.
#141. To: Cynicom (#140)
Bet you think I could be taken snipe hunting voluntarily????
#142. To: GreyLmist (#141)
#143. To: Cynicom (#142)
(Edited)
#144. To: GreyLmist (#143)
Suit yourself.
Replies to Comment # 144.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 144.
