Another Intercept, but this time it's different

[Flyin'[email protected]]

I am sure we are all getting tired of the constant topics about intercepts,
but I feel this one is a little different.

Now it appears they are intercepting small planes for getting close to
restricted airspace. That's right, not busting through the airspace, but
getting close to it. I know we can not put much faith in the story's from
the media, but if this is even close to the facts, it is rediculous. So
what the heck...


Full story is below...
and here is the actual link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157833,00.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Small Plane Intercepted Near Air Force Base

PALMDALE, Calif. — A small plane that repeatedly ventured close to
restricted air space at Edwards Air Force Base was intercepted by two F-15
fighter jets Thursday and escorted to a local airport. The FBI was
interviewing the pilot and a passenger, officials said.

The twin-engine Aero Commander plane was spotted flying in the high desert
north of Los Angeles for several hours during the afternoon at about 18,000
feet and could not be identified or contacted by the Federal Aviation
Administration, agency spokesman Donn Walker said.

The plane approached restricted air space several times and the FAA
notified Western Air Defense, which scrambled military jets, officials
said.

The aircraft was escorted to Palmdale Airport, FBI spokeswoman Laura
Eimiller said. It wasn't immediately clear why the pilot didn't respond or
what the plane was doing near the air base.

The pilot and passenger were being interviewed at an FBI satellite office
in Lancaster, Eimiller said.

A person who answered the phone at Palmdale Airport declined to comment.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Larry Dighera]

Is this intercept of an aircraft that hadn't breached restricted
airspace a reaction to the rather late intercept of the Cessna 150 in
DC?

On 27 May 2005 15:04:06 GMT, wrote in
>::

>The pilot and passenger were being interviewed at an FBI satellite office
>in Lancaster, Eimiller said.

There doesn't seem to have been probable cause to divert this flight
nor detain the pilot and his passengers. Also, why would the pilot
submit to interrogation in this instance if he knew he hadn't entered
Restricted airspace? I suppose that if he didn't, our government
would have labeled him an Enemy Combatant, and taken him Syria for
further interrogation. :-(

This government 'security' activity just keeps getting curiouser and
curiouser. Bureaucratic fear and overreaction are leading to
citizens' complete loss of civil rights. Appalling.

[aluckyguess]

I thought he went above 18000 feet and not talking to approach.and that was
why they detained him. I hope they at least paid for his fuel.
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is this intercept of an aircraft that hadn't breached restricted
> airspace a reaction to the rather late intercept of the Cessna 150 in
> DC?
>
> On 27 May 2005 15:04:06 GMT, wrote in
> >::
>
>>The pilot and passenger were being interviewed at an FBI satellite office
>>in Lancaster, Eimiller said.
>
> There doesn't seem to have been probable cause to divert this flight
> nor detain the pilot and his passengers. Also, why would the pilot
> submit to interrogation in this instance if he knew he hadn't entered
> Restricted airspace? I suppose that if he didn't, our government
> would have labeled him an Enemy Combatant, and taken him Syria for
> further interrogation. :-(
>
> This government 'security' activity just keeps getting curiouser and
> curiouser. Bureaucratic fear and overreaction are leading to
> citizens' complete loss of civil rights. Appalling.
>
>

[Flyin'[email protected]]

According to the story, which we all know how accurate those can be, he was
"NEAR" 18000, I read that as 17,999 and not 18,001. Benefit of the doubt
to him, especially given the accuracy of the equipment.

"aluckyguess" > wrote:
> I thought he went above 18000 feet and not talking to approach.and that
> was why they detained him. I hope they at least paid for his fuel.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> According to the story, which we all know how accurate those can be, he
was
> "NEAR" 18000, I read that as 17,999 and not 18,001.

Class A starts at 18000, but the buffer is 500 feet.

> Benefit of the doubt
> to him, especially given the accuracy of the equipment.

Bust an altitude by 500 feet and see how much benefit of the doubt they give
you.

[Flyin'[email protected]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > According to the story, which we all know how accurate those can be, he
> was
> > "NEAR" 18000, I read that as 17,999 and not 18,001.
>
> Class A starts at 18000, but the buffer is 500 feet.
>
> > Benefit of the doubt
> > to him, especially given the accuracy of the equipment.
>
> Bust an altitude by 500 feet and see how much benefit of the doubt they
> give you.

Was not aware there was any buffer, but not surprised I guess. My point
being that noone "in the know" has said he busted the 18K mark nor did not
stray into the restricted airspace. So... why scramble F15's to intercept?
Sounds like someone is loosing it. I fly near restricted airspace all the
time, granted I don't loiter, but noone says I can't loiter outside
restricted airspace. Guess I need to revisit where I fly less I be shot
down.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[gatt]

> wrote in message news:20050527142925.731

>So... why scramble F15's to intercept?
> Sounds like someone is loosing it. I fly near restricted airspace all the
> time, granted I don't loiter, but noone says I can't loiter outside
> restricted airspace. Guess I need to revisit where I fly less I be shot
> down.

They didn't shoot him down.

Last time I was between Edwards and Palmdale (pre-9/11) they had strange
security going on.
First clue were the submachine guns at the Palmdale gate.
Second clue was the AC-130 gunship orbitting Edwards.
Third clue was the strange bare-aluminum aircraft with fighter escort moving
from Palmdale to Edwards...
Fourth clue was the X-32 sitting on the flightline when we got there, and
the NASA/Dryden people warning us not to look too much "that direction."

Makes me wonder if there might have been a test underway at Edwards or
something.

-c

[joe]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Is this intercept of an aircraft that hadn't breached restricted
> airspace a reaction to the rather late intercept of the Cessna 150 in
> DC?
>
> On 27 May 2005 15:04:06 GMT, wrote in
> >::
>
> >The pilot and passenger were being interviewed at an FBI satellite office
> >in Lancaster, Eimiller said.
>
> There doesn't seem to have been probable cause to divert this flight
> nor detain the pilot and his passengers. Also, why would the pilot
> submit to interrogation in this instance if he knew he hadn't entered
> Restricted airspace? I suppose that if he didn't, our government
> would have labeled him an Enemy Combatant, and taken him Syria for
> further interrogation. :-(
>
> This government 'security' activity just keeps getting curiouser and
> curiouser. Bureaucratic fear and overreaction are leading to
> citizens' complete loss of civil rights. Appalling.


What's also appalling.... Last night there was another ADIZ incursion.
Seems a fellow pilot skirted the eastern edge flying north from norfolk
va area. The F-15's intercepted him forced him to land and handcuffed
him in front of his two small children.... this is bull****... The TSA
is out of control.

its time to throw the tea in to the bay

joey

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > According to the story, which we all know how accurate those can be,
he
> > was
> > > "NEAR" 18000, I read that as 17,999 and not 18,001.
> >
> > Class A starts at 18000, but the buffer is 500 feet.
> >
> > > Benefit of the doubt
> > > to him, especially given the accuracy of the equipment.
> >
> > Bust an altitude by 500 feet and see how much benefit of the doubt they
> > give you.
>
> Was not aware there was any buffer, but not surprised I guess. My point
> being that noone "in the know" has said he busted the 18K mark nor did not
> stray into the restricted airspace. So... why scramble F15's to
intercept?

If someone keeps coming to my front door and acting suspicious, I'd call the
cops and not waiting until...


> Sounds like someone is loosing it. I fly near restricted airspace all the
> time, granted I don't loiter,

BINGO!

> but noone says I can't loiter outside
> restricted airspace. Guess I need to revisit where I fly less I be shot
> down.

Not only WHERE but how high...

[Matt Barrow]

"joe" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > Is this intercept of an aircraft that hadn't breached restricted
> > airspace a reaction to the rather late intercept of the Cessna 150 in
> > DC?
> >
> > On 27 May 2005 15:04:06 GMT, wrote in
> > >::
> >
> > >The pilot and passenger were being interviewed at an FBI satellite
office
> > >in Lancaster, Eimiller said.
> >
> > There doesn't seem to have been probable cause to divert this flight
> > nor detain the pilot and his passengers. Also, why would the pilot
> > submit to interrogation in this instance if he knew he hadn't entered
> > Restricted airspace? I suppose that if he didn't, our government
> > would have labeled him an Enemy Combatant, and taken him Syria for
> > further interrogation. :-(
> >
> > This government 'security' activity just keeps getting curiouser and
> > curiouser. Bureaucratic fear and overreaction are leading to
> > citizens' complete loss of civil rights. Appalling.
>
>
> What's also appalling.... Last night there was another ADIZ incursion.
> Seems a fellow pilot skirted the eastern edge flying north from norfolk
> va area. The F-15's intercepted him forced him to land and handcuffed
> him in front of his two small children.... this is bull****... The TSA
> is out of control.
>
> its time to throw the tea in to the bay
>
Or it's time to kick these bozo's asses that can't fly without flirting with
"danger".

[Montblack]

("joe" wrote)
[snip]
> The F-15's intercepted him forced him to land and handcuffed
> him in front of his two small children....


And all without opposable thumbs - a remarkable aircraft. <g>


> its time to throw the tea in to the bay

I fear too many have already drunk the Kool-Aid.


Montblack

[George Patterson]

wrote:
> According to the story, which we all know how accurate those can be, he was
> "NEAR" 18000, I read that as 17,999 and not 18,001. Benefit of the doubt
> to him, especially given the accuracy of the equipment.

This is Edwards AFB. The accuracy of military radar is along the lines of "He's
at 18,027' 1", Captain."

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> I know we can not put much faith in the story's from
> the media, but if this is even close to the facts, it is rediculous.

Why? We've been repeatedly warned that loitering around sites like this will
result in interceptions.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

Yeah... Did not think about that fact...


On Sat, 28 May 2005 01:59:38 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

wrote:
>> According to the story, which we all know how accurate those can be, he was
>> "NEAR" 18000, I read that as 17,999 and not 18,001. Benefit of the doubt
>> to him, especially given the accuracy of the equipment.
>
>This is Edwards AFB. The accuracy of military radar is along the lines of "He's
>at 18,027' 1", Captain."
>
>George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 10:00:15 -0700, "aluckyguess" > wrote in
>::

>I thought he went above 18000 feet and not talking to approach.and that was
>why they detained him.

No mention of that at the link in the article that started this
thread:

PALMDALE, Calif. — A small plane that repeatedly ventured close to
restricted air space at Edwards Air Force Base (search) was
intercepted by two F-15 fighter jets (search) Thursday and
escorted to a local airport. The FBI was interviewing the pilot
and a passenger, officials said.

The twin-engine Aero Commander plane was spotted flying in the
high desert north of Los Angeles for several hours during the
afternoon at about 18,000 feet and could not be identified or
contacted by the Federal Aviation Administration, agency spokesman
Donn Walker said.

The plane approached restricted air space several times and the
FAA (search) notified Western Air Defense (search), which
scrambled military jets, officials said.

The aircraft was escorted to Palmdale Airport, FBI spokeswoman
Laura Eimiller said. It wasn't immediately clear why the pilot
didn't respond or what the plane was doing near the air base.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:44:20 -0700, "gatt" >
wrote in >::

>Makes me wonder if there might have been a test underway at Edwards or
>something.

That's what I was thinking too.

[Larry Dighera]

On 27 May 2005 17:57:59 -0700, "joe" > wrote in
. com>::

>
>its time to throw the tea in to the bay

It's sure beginning to look that way.

The current security policy fails to address the issue of the proven
threatening aircraft, airliners, and imposes lethal consequences for
benign GA flights. Is that the best they can do?

What would be an effective course of action for pilots to take in
getting this onerous pseudo-security policy rescinded?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 02:00:55 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <rhQle.2245$zb.131@trndny02>::

>We've been repeatedly warned that loitering around sites like this will
>result in interceptions.

I have seen no such warnings. There have been warnings not to loiter
over nuclear facilities and open air assemblies, but I'm not aware of
any warnings against loitering outside Restricted airspace.

[Matt Barrow]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("joe" wrote)
> [snip]
> > The F-15's intercepted him forced him to land and handcuffed
> > him in front of his two small children....
>
>
> And all without opposable thumbs - a remarkable aircraft. <g>
>
>
> > its time to throw the tea in to the bay
>
> I fear too many have already drunk the Kool-Aid.
>

And ate the pudding.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:rhQle.2245$zb.131@trndny02...
> wrote:
> >
> > I know we can not put much faith in the story's from
> > the media, but if this is even close to the facts, it is rediculous.
>
> Why? We've been repeatedly warned that loitering around sites like this
will
> result in interceptions.

Loitering like that on the ground, in several locations, can get you shot!

>
> George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.

Where I'm from, it's because she smells like a new saddle.

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah... Did not think about that fact...
>
>
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 01:59:38 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >> According to the story, which we all know how accurate those can be, he
was
> >> "NEAR" 18000, I read that as 17,999 and not 18,001. Benefit of the
doubt
> >> to him, especially given the accuracy of the equipment.
> >
> >This is Edwards AFB. The accuracy of military radar is along the lines of
"He's
> >at 18,027' 1", Captain."

They can also say, "The pilot is a male Caucasian, 34 years old, 5'11" tall
and 205 lbs, married with two kids...not getting any from his old lady."

[Montblack]

"Matt Barrow"
> They can also say, "The pilot is a male Caucasian, 34 years old, 5'11"
> tall
> and 205 lbs, married with two kids...not getting any from his old lady."


I feel for the guy - everyone wants him to keep clear of their restricted
zones!


Montblack

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
[snip]
> The twin-engine Aero Commander plane was spotted flying in the
> high desert north of Los Angeles for several hours during the
> afternoon at about 18,000 feet and could not be identified or
> contacted by the Federal Aviation Administration, agency spokesman
> Donn Walker said.


Possible radio problems in a 150 - ok. Harder to swallow when it's an Aero
Commander.

OT - Speaking of Aero Commanders, I saw the Pella Windows corporate jet a
few weeks ago at the Pella, Iowa airport open house. Talked with the crew.
It's an Aero Commander jet. Israeli company converts them - see link.

http://tinyurl.com/a7duk
Israel IAI-1124A Westwind


Montblack

[Matt Barrow]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow"
> > They can also say, "The pilot is a male Caucasian, 34 years old, 5'11"
> > tall
> > and 205 lbs, married with two kids...not getting any from his old lady."
>
>
> I feel for the guy - everyone wants him to keep clear of their restricted
> zones!
>

Hide the wim'men!!

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On 27 May 2005 17:57:59 -0700, "joe" > wrote in
> . com>::
>
>>
>>its time to throw the tea in to the bay
>
> It's sure beginning to look that way.
>
> The current security policy fails to address the issue of the proven
> threatening aircraft, airliners, and imposes lethal consequences for
> benign GA flights. Is that the best they can do?
>
> What would be an effective course of action for pilots to take in
> getting this onerous pseudo-security policy rescinded?
>
>

A massive fly in somewhere...

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "joe" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>>Is this intercept of an aircraft that hadn't breached restricted
>>>airspace a reaction to the rather late intercept of the Cessna 150 in
>>>DC?
>>>
>>>On 27 May 2005 15:04:06 GMT, wrote in
>::
>>>
>>>
>>>>The pilot and passenger were being interviewed at an FBI satellite
>
> office
>
>>>>in Lancaster, Eimiller said.
>>>
>>>There doesn't seem to have been probable cause to divert this flight
>>>nor detain the pilot and his passengers. Also, why would the pilot
>>>submit to interrogation in this instance if he knew he hadn't entered
>>>Restricted airspace? I suppose that if he didn't, our government
>>>would have labeled him an Enemy Combatant, and taken him Syria for
>>>further interrogation. :-(
>>>
>>>This government 'security' activity just keeps getting curiouser and
>>>curiouser. Bureaucratic fear and overreaction are leading to
>>>citizens' complete loss of civil rights. Appalling.
>>
>>
>>What's also appalling.... Last night there was another ADIZ incursion.
>>Seems a fellow pilot skirted the eastern edge flying north from norfolk
>>va area. The F-15's intercepted him forced him to land and handcuffed
>>him in front of his two small children.... this is bull****... The TSA
>>is out of control.
>>
>>its time to throw the tea in to the bay
>>
>
> Or it's time to kick these bozo's asses that can't fly without flirting with
> "danger".

I'd say both. No excuse for dumb pilots, but also no excuse for many of
our "security" restrictions these days either.


Matt

[Mike W.]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> The current security policy fails to address the issue of the proven
> threatening aircraft, airliners, and imposes lethal consequences for
> benign GA flights. Is that the best they can do?

There is a reason why you never hear about airliners busting the ADIZ.
>
> What would be an effective course of action for pilots to take in
> getting this onerous pseudo-security policy rescinded?
>
Is creating oversized restricted areas a knee-jerk reaction to something
they can't control? Agreed.

On the other hand, why is it such a big deal? If you never fly in the area,
don't worry about it. If you do have to go through or near it, get all the
facts, be organized, be aware of your position and do what you are supposed
to do. They are not randomly intercepting planes just because they are GA
aircraft.


--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

[Jose]

>> What would be an effective course of action for pilots to take in
>> getting this onerous pseudo-security policy rescinded?
> A massive fly in somewhere...
>

I remember suggesting something like this after a few beers recently. I
even suggested a location. :)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
> >
> > Or it's time to kick these bozo's asses that can't fly without flirting
with
> > "danger".
>
> I'd say both. No excuse for dumb pilots, but also no excuse for many of
> our "security" restrictions these days either.

Given that there was, overall, merely and uproar resulting from these
episodes, would you rather they over-react, or under-react? Finding the
exactly right balance is not something humans seem to gravitate to,
especially bureaucracies.

Remember, 9/11 was Bush's fault for not acting sooner, but he would have
caught hell for anything other than appointing a study commission.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> Remember, 9/11 was Bush's fault for not acting sooner,

wow.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Dave S]

From what the ATC can see its more like: 17,900 or 18000 feet.. the
Mode C encodes in 100 ft increments

Dave

wrote:

> According to the story, which we all know how accurate those can be, he was
> "NEAR" 18000, I read that as 17,999 and not 18,001. Benefit of the doubt
> to him, especially given the accuracy of the equipment.
>
> "aluckyguess" > wrote:
>
>>I thought he went above 18000 feet and not talking to approach.and that
>>was why they detained him. I hope they at least paid for his fuel.
>
>

[Dave S]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>>>at 18,027' 1", Captain."
>
>
> They can also say, "The pilot is a male Caucasian, 34 years old, 5'11" tall
> and 205 lbs, married with two kids...not getting any from his old lady."

I guess this is the same data gathering ability that said "Yes, Iraq had
WMD's" as well?

Not trying to flame a political debate, but yanno... there IS a limit to
capabilities.

Dave

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 23:16:41 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>::

>("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>[snip]
>> The twin-engine Aero Commander plane was spotted flying in the
>> high desert north of Los Angeles for several hours during the
>> afternoon at about 18,000 feet and could not be identified or
>> contacted by the Federal Aviation Administration, agency spokesman
>> Donn Walker said.
>
>
>Possible radio problems in a 150 - ok. Harder to swallow when it's an Aero
>Commander.

There is no requirement to be monitoring the radio below 18,000' in
that area. Without more details, it's difficult to know how
appropriate this intercept may have been.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:27:07 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >::

>I'd say both. No excuse for dumb pilots, but also no excuse for many of
>our "security" restrictions these days either.

That sounds like a rather balanced approach to raising our nation's
consciousness about it's lethal pseudo-security policies toward GA
pilots. If we are seen as publicly chastising errant pilots among our
ranks for their negligence, and at the same time pointing out how
arrogantly inappropriate our nation's shoot-down policy is, we may be
viewed as responsible citizens, and perhaps be able to garner some
public support to end this outrageously stupid policy. All that is
lacking is a realistic alternative policy to replace it.

[Jose]

> All that is
> lacking is a realistic alternative policy to replace it.

Freedom.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
[snip]
> Given that there was, overall, merely and uproar resulting from these
> episodes, would you rather they over-react, or under-react? Finding the
> exactly right balance is not something humans seem to gravitate to,
> especially bureaucracies.


Key word is "react."

When a snake strikes, instinctive "reaction" is to jump - I think all
mammals do this (except elephants, who can't jump. Apparently hippos can
jump. Who knew?)

Then fight or flight kicks in.

Later, reason finally takes over and a well thought out plan to either avoid
the snake in the future or kill the snake is now in order.

I think our government is sill a little "jumpy."


Red next to (Mont)Black - is safe for Jack;
Red next to Yellow - will kill any fellow.
http://www.floridaorienteering.org/nature/coralking.htm

[Montblack]

("Jose" wrote)
> I remember suggesting something like this after a few beers recently. I
> even suggested a location. :)


"Did you drink and dial?"
- Sideways (2004)

....up for Best Picture Oscar along with The Aviator. Both movies lost out to
Million Dollar Baby.


Montblack

[Franklin Newton]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...

> There is a reason why you never hear about airliners busting the ADIZ.
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....<

Yes, there is a very good reason you seldom hear of an air carrier busting
the ADIZ or TFR's, .... ATC.
There is always at least two qualified folks in front, one of which has an
ATP, they are under positive control, they only fly places where they have
been route checked and they generally have better equipment.

[Bob Moore]

"Franklin Newton" wrote
> There is always at least two qualified folks in front, one of which
> has an ATP, they are under positive control, they only fly places
> where they have been route checked and they generally have better
> equipment.

Can easily tell that you have never flown for an airline.
Yes, we did get "route checks", but only on a typical route.
Who could possibly afford to route check every pilot on
every route and airport in the system? Impossible for a
supplemental aircarrier and impractical for a scheduled one.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[Franklin Newton]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "Franklin Newton" wrote
> > There is always at least two qualified folks in front, one of which
> > has an ATP, they are under positive control, they only fly places
> > where they have been route checked and they generally have better
> > equipment.
>
> Can easily tell that you have never flown for an airline.
> Yes, we did get "route checks", but only on a typical route.
> Who could possibly afford to route check every pilot on
> every route and airport in the system? Impossible for a
> supplemental aircarrier and impractical for a scheduled one.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-707 B-727
> PanAm (retired)

You are correct.

[Chris Schmelzer]

In article >,
"gatt" > wrote:

> > wrote in message news:20050527142925.731
>
> >So... why scramble F15's to intercept?
> > Sounds like someone is loosing it. I fly near restricted airspace all the
> > time, granted I don't loiter, but noone says I can't loiter outside
> > restricted airspace. Guess I need to revisit where I fly less I be shot
> > down.
>
> They didn't shoot him down.
>
> Last time I was between Edwards and Palmdale (pre-9/11) they had strange
> security going on.
> First clue were the submachine guns at the Palmdale gate.
> Second clue was the AC-130 gunship orbitting Edwards.
> Third clue was the strange bare-aluminum aircraft with fighter escort moving
> from Palmdale to Edwards...
> Fourth clue was the X-32 sitting on the flightline when we got there, and
> the NASA/Dryden people warning us not to look too much "that direction."
>
> Makes me wonder if there might have been a test underway at Edwards or
> something.
>
> -c


What's the big deal about the X-32? It is just a JSF (Joint Strike
Fighter)...

They ain't all that secret anymore!

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD
Capt, 110th Fighter Michigan ANG
University of Michigan Hospitals
Ann Arbor, MI

[Chris Schmelzer]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Sat, 28 May 2005 02:00:55 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote in <rhQle.2245$zb.131@trndny02>::
>
> >We've been repeatedly warned that loitering around sites like this will
> >result in interceptions.
>
> I have seen no such warnings. There have been warnings not to loiter
> over nuclear facilities and open air assemblies, but I'm not aware of
> any warnings against loitering outside Restricted airspace.


You haven't?!?

Hope you don't have any nuclear power plants in your area! We have one
just south of here..You can cruise by it if you want, but start doing
circles above it and you are likely to get a visit from the FBI

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD
Capt, 110th Fighter Michigan ANG
University of Michigan Hospitals
Ann Arbor, MI

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> >>>at 18,027' 1", Captain."
> >
> >
> > They can also say, "The pilot is a male Caucasian, 34 years old, 5'11"
tall
> > and 205 lbs, married with two kids...not getting any from his old lady."
>
> I guess this is the same data gathering ability that said "Yes, Iraq had
> WMD's" as well?
>
> Not trying to flame a political debate, but yanno... there IS a limit to
> capabilities.

Ya know...some people equate intelligence gathering the way that Hollywood
portrays it in the spy movies.

I guess all those 100,000 Kurds really weren't gassed, huh?

[Matt Barrow]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> [snip]
> > Given that there was, overall, merely and uproar resulting from these
> > episodes, would you rather they over-react, or under-react? Finding the
> > exactly right balance is not something humans seem to gravitate to,
> > especially bureaucracies.
>
>
> Key word is "react."
>
> When a snake strikes, instinctive "reaction" is to jump - I think all
> mammals do this (except elephants, who can't jump. Apparently hippos can
> jump. Who knew?)
>
> Then fight or flight kicks in.
>
> Later, reason finally takes over and a well thought out plan to either
avoid
> the snake in the future or kill the snake is now in order.
>
> I think our government is sill a little "jumpy."

Tell someone "HALT" and when they don't, there's reason to escalate the
reaction to the next level.

What was it we heard, dozens of intrusions happen each week, but only this
one made a big splash. Then, too, the rest of them respond when challenged.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[George Patterson]

Dave S wrote:
>
> I guess this is the same data gathering ability that said "Yes, Iraq had
> WMD's" as well?

No, this is a state-of-the-art military radar system.

> Not trying to flame a political debate,

Bull****.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Dave S wrote:
> From what the ATC can see its more like: 17,900 or 18000 feet.. the
> Mode C encodes in 100 ft increments

Except this wasn't ATC. This was the U.S.A.F..

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> > Remember, 9/11 was Bush's fault for not acting sooner,
>
> wow.
>

Not _my_ take. It's from those who equate intelligence gathering with the
Hollywood spy movie model.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 17:03:42 -0400, Chris Schmelzer >
wrote in >::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 May 2005 02:00:55 GMT, George Patterson
>> > wrote in <rhQle.2245$zb.131@trndny02>::
>>
>> >We've been repeatedly warned that loitering around sites like this will
>> >result in interceptions.
>>
>> I have seen no such warnings. There have been warnings not to loiter
>> over nuclear facilities and open air assemblies, but I'm not aware of
>> any warnings against loitering outside Restricted airspace.
>
>
>You haven't?!?
>
>Hope you don't have any nuclear power plants in your area! We have one
>just south of here..You can cruise by it if you want, but start doing
>circles above it and you are likely to get a visit from the FBI

I believe George was referring to Edwards Air Force Base, not nuclear
plants.

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> I have seen no such warnings. There have been warnings not to loiter
> over nuclear facilities and open air assemblies, but I'm not aware of
> any warnings against loitering outside Restricted airspace.

Here's an example --
1/3352 ...SPECIAL NOTICE... FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL
FURTHER NOTICE, PURSUANT TO 14 CFR 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS,
OPERATIONS WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S. THIS IS A RESTATEMENT OF
A PREVIOUS ADVISORY. PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID THE AIRSPACE ABOVE, OR IN
PROXIMITY TO, SITES SUCH AS NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, POWER PLANTS, DAMS,
REFINERIES, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES, MILITARY FACILITIES AND OTHER SIMILAR
FACILITIES. PILOT SHOULD NOT CIRCLE AS TO LOITER IN THE VICINITY OF SUCH
FACILITIES. WIE UNTIL UFN

Note the phrase "military facilities."

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 23:19:10 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <O%6me.6984$zb.398@trndny01>::

>PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID THE AIRSPACE ABOVE, OR IN
>PROXIMITY TO, SITES SUCH AS NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, POWER PLANTS, DAMS,
>REFINERIES, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES, MILITARY FACILITIES AND OTHER SIMILAR
>FACILITIES. PILOT SHOULD NOT CIRCLE AS TO LOITER IN THE VICINITY OF SUCH
>FACILITIES.

Thank you for the information, George. I guess I overlooked 'military
facilities' in those NOTAMS.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Thank you for the information, George. I guess I overlooked 'military
> facilities' in those NOTAMS.

Keep in mind that the NOTAM doesn't prohibited loitering. If it did, it
would read "may not" instead of "should not". Furthermore, the NOTAM
doesn't say anything about the consequences of such loitering, never mind
that an interception will occur.

It may be a reasonable assumption, but the FAA is hardly clear about it.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article <x86me.6153$Fb.4615@trndny07>,
George Patterson > wrote:

> No, this is a state-of-the-art military radar system.

which military radar is can determine altitude with such
precision?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Skywise]

Bob Noel > wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

> In article <x86me.6153$Fb.4615@trndny07>,
> George Patterson > wrote:
>
>> No, this is a state-of-the-art military radar system.
>
> which military radar is can determine altitude with such
> precision?

Edwards AFB is used as a testing and proving ground. As such,
they have radars and optical tracking abilities for following
flight tests in extreme detail. A lot of the footage you see
on The Military Channel (formerly Discovery Wings) of older
aircraft being tested, for example the X planes, was taken
here.

It would not surprise me that they could take a picture of any
aircraft within range and tell you it's position, orientation
and velocity to three decimal places using their radars. It's
their job.

BTW, Edwards was used to help track SpaceShipOne and to confirm
it's record and prize winning altitude.

This article covers the test of a new radar system on SS1...
http://www.edwards.af.mil/archive/2004/2004-archive-spads.html

An interesting quote about the radars capabilities...

"Then (the aircraft) will fly by and drop a whole load of
bombs, and this radar can actually see all the individual
bombs, see them spin, see the fins come out, the whole works."

I just did quite a bit of Googling and not surprisingly, didn't
find any exact specifications. But I did see a reference to one
radar having .1 milliradian angle resolution and 20ft distance
resolution. It was described as being a basic radar of lesser
capability.

Then I found mention of imaging radars. I forgot all about
those things. If you think about it, it has to be pretty high
resolution in order to actually make an image using radar returns.
Now that I've been reminded of this, I recall seeing a program
on one of those Discovery like channels that showed the imaging
radar image from a cruise missile, and in it you could even make
out the wires between high voltage towers.

Hope this has been of some help.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Corky Scott]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:42:05 GMT, Dave S >
wrote:

>I guess this is the same data gathering ability that said "Yes, Iraq had
>WMD's" as well?

You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
three weeks ago. Here's the information you missed:

*** Begin Quote ***

The memo was written by British national security aide Matthew
Rycroft, based on notes he took during a July 2002 meeting of British
Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisers, including Richard
Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service who had
recently met with Bush administration officials.

Since being leaked to a British newspaper, the memo has raised
questions anew about whether the Bush administration misrepresented
prewar intelligence about suspected weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq to justify military action against Saddam Hussein's regime.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified
by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo said. "But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. It seemed
clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if
the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not
threatening hi-bility was less than that of Libya, North Korea or
Iran."

*** End Quote ***

"Blair's offfice has not disputed the authenticity of the memo", but
the White House has of course claimed it's false.

See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051705Y.shtml for the complete
story, or just google "the downing street memo", or google "memo wmd".

Corky Scott

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:42:05 GMT, Dave S >
> wrote:
>
>>I guess this is the same data gathering ability that said "Yes, Iraq had
>>WMD's" as well?
>
> You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
> along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
> three weeks ago. Here's the information you missed:
>
> *** Begin Quote ***
>
> The memo was written by British national security aide Matthew
> Rycroft, based on notes he took during a July 2002 meeting of British
> Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisers, including Richard
> Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service who had
> recently met with Bush administration officials.
>
> Since being leaked to a British newspaper, the memo has raised
> questions anew about whether the Bush administration misrepresented
> prewar intelligence about suspected weapons of mass destruction in
> Iraq to justify military action against Saddam Hussein's regime.
>
> "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified
> by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo said. "But the
> intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. It seemed
> clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if
> the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not
> threatening hi-bility was less than that of Libya, North Korea or
> Iran."
>
> *** End Quote ***
>
> "Blair's offfice has not disputed the authenticity of the memo", but
> the White House has of course claimed it's false.
>
> See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051705Y.shtml for the complete
> story, or just google "the downing street memo", or google "memo wmd".
>

First, it was a memo from notes that would be considered hearsay in any
court. Second, Truthout.com is hardly an unbiased source.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
> along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
> three weeks ago.
>

So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:17:23 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

>First, it was a memo from notes that would be considered hearsay in any
>court. Second, Truthout.com is hardly an unbiased source.

Right, except we aren't in court (although perhaps we should be) and
the Blair government has not denied the authenticity of the memo and
an unnamed "Senior American Official" has characterized it as
"absolutely accurate".

Truthout.com is just reporting what the memo said, not making it up.
It was originally printed in "The Times of London" to which it was
leaked. In effect, when protesting Truthout.com, you are shooting the
messenger. In addition, that website was merely the first I picked,
there were dozens more I could have posted.

The text of the memo (it isn't very long) is also available, simply
google "downing street memo". The first site when you do this search
is the "Times online", and the memo is printed in it's entirety
without editorial comment.

Corky Scott

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:32:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
.net>::

>
>"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
>> along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
>> three weeks ago.
>>
>
>So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?
>
>

What dates did those poisonings occur?

Chronology is everything in this issue:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0505170052may17,1,5984426.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1&coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
However, a commission appointed by the president to investigate
intelligence gathering that led to the invasion concluded that all
of the intelligence community's information about the existence of
biological or any other weapons of mass destruction was "deeply
flawed."

"The intelligence community was absolutely uniform, and uniformly
wrong, about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. And
they pushed that position," said Judge Laurence Silberman,
co-chairman of the commission.

Critics of the Bush administration have long argued that Bush
appeared intent on invading Iraq long before Congress voted to
authorize military action in October 2002 if Hussein didn't
abandon his alleged illegal weapons programs.

Former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, who was chairman of the Senate
Select Intelligence Committee when Democrats ruled, has written in
his book, "Intelligence Matters," about his visit to MacDill Air
Force Base, home of the U.S. Central Command, on Feb. 19, 2002. He
was going for a status report on Afghanistan, Graham wrote, but
CENTCOM'S Gen. Tommy Franks called him aside to tell him,
"Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan."

"Excuse me?"' Graham replied.

"Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to
prepare for an action in Iraq," Graham quoted Franks as saying.

Graham wrote: "I was stunned. This was the first time I had been
informed that the decision to go to war with Iraq had not only
been made but was being implemented, to the substantial
disadvantage of the war in Afghanistan."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
>>> along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
>>> three weeks ago.
>>>
>>
>>So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?
>>
>
> What dates did those poisonings occur?
>

How long is "never"?

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:32:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?

Sorry, did you not know where Saddam got that gas? I honestly thought
everyone knew by now. The Reagan administration sent it to him to
assist him in his war against Iran. Please, tell me you aren't
surprised by this old news.

There's some world class irony working here: We gave him the nerve gas
and then complained to the world that he used it. In addition, we
invaded his country on the pretext that he had WMD (Rumsfeld even had
the cheek to pinpoint where they were during a news conference). But
none were ever found and the search for them has officially ended.
But Rumsfeld knew that he had them at one time, because we had the
receipts for them, so to speak, having given them to him.

Corky Scott

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Corky Scott wrote:
> Truthout.com is just reporting what the memo said, not making it up.
> It was originally printed in "The Times of London" to which it was
> leaked.

On a point of pedantry, there is no such newspaper. There is just "The
Times" or "The Sunday Times". It is a national newspaper, not a London
newspaper.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:24:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
>>>> along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
>>>> three weeks ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?
>>>
>>
>> What dates did those poisonings occur?
>>
>
>How long is "never"?
>

So what were the dates the Kurds and Iranians were poisoned?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sorry, did you not know where Saddam got that gas? I honestly thought
> everyone knew by now. The Reagan administration sent it to him to
> assist him in his war against Iran. Please, tell me you aren't
> surprised by this old news.
>
> There's some world class irony working here: We gave him the nerve gas
> and then complained to the world that he used it. In addition, we
> invaded his country on the pretext that he had WMD (Rumsfeld even had
> the cheek to pinpoint where they were during a news conference). But
> none were ever found and the search for them has officially ended.
> But Rumsfeld knew that he had them at one time, because we had the
> receipts for them, so to speak, having given them to him.
>

So what you're saying is Saddam did have WMD. Is that correct?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:32:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> .net>::
>
>>
>>"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
>>> along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
>>> three weeks ago.
>>>
>>
>>So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?
>>
>>
>
> What dates did those poisonings occur?
>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1877161.stm
Iraqi aircraft shelled Halabja with chemical weapons on 16 March 1988, in an
attack which left 5,000 dead and 7,000 injured or with long-term illnesses.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So what were the dates the Kurds and Iranians were poisoned?
>

It doesn't matter. The claim is Saddam never had WMD. If Saddam poisoned
them then he had WMD.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:300ne.19408$DC2.2562@okepread01...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1877161.stm
> Iraqi aircraft shelled Halabja with chemical weapons on 16 March 1988, in
> an attack which left 5,000 dead and 7,000 injured or with long-term
> illnesses.
>

Well, that would mean that Saddam had WMD and he was willing to use them.
Thank you.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:32:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> .net>::
>
>>
>>"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
>>> along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
>>> three weeks ago.
>>>
>>
>>So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?
>>
>>
>
> What dates did those poisonings occur?




Here's Some More...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

Although the Iraqis initially used chemical weapons to prevent defeat and to
reduce battlefield losses, they later integrated CW attacks into
combined-armed operations designed to regain lost territory and to gain the
offensive. Iraq's use of CW in the war with Iran can be divided into three
distinct phases:
1.. 1983 to 1986--used in a defensive role; typically to deflect Iranian
human-wave assaults. In 1984 Iraq became the first nation to use a nerve
agent on the battlefield when it deployed Tabun-filled aerial bombs during
the Iran-Iraq war. Some 5,500 Iranians were killed by the nerve agent
between March 1984 and March 1985. Tabun kills within minutes. Some 16,000
Iranians were reported killed by the toxic blister agent mustard gas between
August 1983 and February 1986.
2.. 1986 to early 1988--iraq adapts use against Iran to disrupt Iranian
offensive preparations.
3.. early 1988 to conclusion of the war-- Iraq integrated large nerve
agent strikes into its overall offensive during the spring and summer of
1988 leading to the ceasefire.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:32:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?
>
> Sorry, did you not know where Saddam got that gas? I honestly thought
> everyone knew by now. The Reagan administration sent it to him to
> assist him in his war against Iran. Please, tell me you aren't
> surprised by this old news.
>
> Corky Scott
>

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

In the early stages of its chemical weapons programme, Iraq imported all its
precursor chemicals. Over time, however, Iraq sought to obtain the
capability to produce indigenously all the precursors required for the
production of the agents noted above. Iraq acknowledges that it had or was
on the brink of having the capability to produce in quantity the precursors
for tabun (GA): D4 and phosphorous oxychloride (POCl3), the sarin/cyclosarin
(GB/GF) precursors: methylphosphonyl difluoride (DF), methyl phosphonyl
dichloride (MPC), dimethylmethyl phosphonate (DMMP), trimethylphosphite
(TMP), hydrogen fluoride (HF), phosphorous trichloride (PCl3) and thionyl
chloride (SOCl2). Phosphorous trichloride and thionylchoride are also the
main precursors for the production of mustard (HD).
Iraq also had the capability to produce, at least at laboratory scale,
sodium sulphide (Na2S) and thiodiglycol (both for sulphur mustard agent
production), methyl benzilate (for BZ production), triethanol amine (for
nitrogen-mustard agent production) and potassium bifluoride and ammonium
bifluoride (for GB/GF production). In addition, Iraq had the capability to
produce the VX precursors choline, methyl thiophosphonyl dichloride (MPS) at
the least at pilot-plant scale.

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:08:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>So what you're saying is Saddam did have WMD. Is that correct?

He did at one time, until he used them all against the Iranian's and
the Kurds. The GW Bush claim was that he had them (at the time of the
invasion) so we had to invade him to take them away from him. This
assertion appears to be untrue, based on the memo leaked to "The
Times".

So my original statement "he never had them" was incorrect. At the
time of the invasion, he no longer had them because they had been used
up back in '88. I should have written "did not currently possess
them".

Corky Scott

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:Ol_me.19406$DC2.10426@okepread01...
>
> "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:42:05 GMT, Dave S >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>I guess this is the same data gathering ability that said "Yes, Iraq had
> >>WMD's" as well?
> >
> > You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
> > along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
> > three weeks ago. Here's the information you missed:
> >
> > *** Begin Quote ***
> >
> > The memo was written by British national security aide Matthew
> > Rycroft, based on notes he took during a July 2002 meeting of British
> > Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisers, including Richard
> > Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service who had
> > recently met with Bush administration officials.
> >
> > Since being leaked to a British newspaper, the memo has raised
> > questions anew about whether the Bush administration misrepresented
> > prewar intelligence about suspected weapons of mass destruction in
> > Iraq to justify military action against Saddam Hussein's regime.
> >
> > "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified
> > by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo said. "But the
> > intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. It seemed
> > clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if
> > the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not
> > threatening hi-bility was less than that of Libya, North Korea or
> > Iran."
> >
> > *** End Quote ***
> >
> > "Blair's offfice has not disputed the authenticity of the memo", but
> > the White House has of course claimed it's false.
> >
> > See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051705Y.shtml for the complete
> > story, or just google "the downing street memo", or google "memo wmd".
> >
>
> First, it was a memo from notes that would be considered hearsay in any
> court. Second, Truthout.com is hardly an unbiased source.
>
It was also a memo about one persons take on what other people were
thinking. Unless the guy's a mindreader....

[Matt Barrow]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:17:23 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
> >First, it was a memo from notes that would be considered hearsay in any
> >court. Second, Truthout.com is hardly an unbiased source.
>
> Right, except we aren't in court (although perhaps we should be) and
> the Blair government has not denied the authenticity of the memo and
> an unnamed "Senior American Official" has characterized it as
> "absolutely accurate".

Authentic but full of ****. Right up there with "Fake but accurate".

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:18:49 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>It was also a memo about one persons take on what other people were
>thinking. Unless the guy's a mindreader....

Matt, you need to READ-THE-MEMO before commenting. The memo is
actually minutes of a meeting at which Tony Blair was present and
there's nothing false about it. During the meeting "C" commented on
his recent trip to Washington where he was briefed by his U.S.
intelligence counterparts. "C" is Sir Richard Dearlove who is the
head of MI6.

Since Dearlove was in Washington as the head of MI6 in order to be
briefed, it's hardly necessary for him to be a mind reader. He has to
listen to what he's told and render this information accurately to
Tony Blair.

No person in the British government is denying the accuracy of the
memo.

Frankly, I too wish it weren't so.

Corky Scott

[George Patterson]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> "Blair's offfice has not disputed the authenticity of the memo"...

Which means nothing except that they don't have compelling evidence that it's
false and probably don't have evidence that it's accurate.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Matt Barrow]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:18:49 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> >It was also a memo about one persons take on what other people were
> >thinking. Unless the guy's a mindreader....
>
> Matt, you need to READ-THE-MEMO before commenting. The memo is
> actually minutes of a meeting at which Tony Blair was present and
> there's nothing false about it. During the meeting "C" commented on
> his recent trip to Washington where he was briefed by his U.S.
> intelligence counterparts. "C" is Sir Richard Dearlove who is the
> head of MI6.

Sounds like hearsay to me.

>
> Since Dearlove was in Washington as the head of MI6 in order to be
> briefed, it's hardly necessary for him to be a mind reader. He has to
> listen to what he's told and render this information accurately to
> Tony Blair.
>
> No person in the British government is denying the accuracy of the
> memo.
>
> Frankly, I too wish it weren't so.
>
Odd, isn't it, that it's not getting any traction here, even in the left
wing press.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:kp4ne.6316$zb.6088@trndny02...
> Corky Scott wrote:
> >
> > "Blair's offfice has not disputed the authenticity of the memo"...
>
> Which means nothing except that they don't have compelling evidence that
it's
> false and probably don't have evidence that it's accurate.
>
Yes, it's a real memo. The content, though, is noting more than hearsay.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:18:49 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >It was also a memo about one persons take on what other people were
> > >thinking. Unless the guy's a mindreader....
> >
> > Matt, you need to READ-THE-MEMO before commenting. The memo is
> > actually minutes of a meeting at which Tony Blair was present and
> > there's nothing false about it. During the meeting "C" commented on
> > his recent trip to Washington where he was briefed by his U.S.
> > intelligence counterparts. "C" is Sir Richard Dearlove who is the
> > head of MI6.
>
> Sounds like hearsay to me.
>
> >
> > Since Dearlove was in Washington as the head of MI6 in order to be
> > briefed, it's hardly necessary for him to be a mind reader. He has to
> > listen to what he's told and render this information accurately to
> > Tony Blair.
> >
> > No person in the British government is denying the accuracy of the
> > memo.
> >
> > Frankly, I too wish it weren't so.
> >
> Odd, isn't it, that it's not getting any traction here, even in the left
> wing press.
>
One last thing: this all sounds very much like the Joe Clark episode.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 09:13:32 -0400, "Mike W."
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> The current security policy fails to address the issue of the proven
>> threatening aircraft, airliners, and imposes lethal consequences for
>> benign GA flights. Is that the best they can do?
>
>Is creating oversized restricted areas a knee-jerk reaction to something
>they can't control? Agreed.
>
>On the other hand, why is it such a big deal?

Because acceptance of these lethal shoot-down pseudo-security policies
by airmen can appear as tacit endorsement, it sends the wrong message
to the TSA. Unless we want to seem more of this lethal, but
ineffective, philosophy directed toward airmen by their government, we
should protest loudly and often, IMO.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> He did at one time, until he used them all against the Iranian's and
> the Kurds.
>

What evidence is there that he used them all against the Iranians and the
Kurds?


>
> The GW Bush claim was that he had them (at the time of the
> invasion) so we had to invade him to take them away from him. This
> assertion appears to be untrue, based on the memo leaked to "The
> Times".
>

That assumes the assertions in the memo are true, there's no reason to
believe that's the case.


>
> So my original statement "he never had them" was incorrect.
>

No question about that.


>
> At the
> time of the invasion, he no longer had them because they had been used
> up back in '88. I should have written "did not currently possess
> them".
>

Much to question about that. We know for certain that Saddam had WMD and
that he was willing to use them. We don't know when or how he got rid of
them. If he was rid of them in 1988 he certainly made an effort to appear
that he still had them.