Re: Don Henly, Dubya, & Linda Ronstadt

[BUFDRVR]

know_buddee wrote:

>They can't face the obvious fact that the thousands Iraqis and
>Americans who've been killed and crippled would have been healthy and
>happy people today - if it weren't for dubya's dumb (flat out evil)
>insistance on invading Iraq.

There are mass graves in Iraq that prove that statement is false...but please,
don't let facts get in the way of your hatred.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Billy Preston]

"Dana Miller" > wrote
>
> Saddam had been filling those graves for decades before we took action.
> What changed? What REALLY changed?

3000 dead, billions in losses. The US can't afford to sit around and wait
for threats to mature.

North Korea, Iran, Sudan, etc, are certainly targets, but the threat isn't as
great as Iraq. As we see in Iraq, as we saw in Afghanistan, their are
numbers of groups who care very little about anything, unless it is out of
a barrel of a gun. We need to kill them in large numbers.

When the Marines surrendered in Falluja, I decided then and there, that
the Bush regime had failed us, and I will no longer vote for them. The war
is lost, and we might as well let France dictate the next era.

[John S. Shinal]

"Billy Preston" wrote:

>"Dana Miller" > wrote
>>
>> Saddam had been filling those graves for decades before we took action.
>> What changed? What REALLY changed?
>
>3000 dead, billions in losses. The US can't afford to sit around and wait
>for threats to mature.
>
>North Korea, Iran, Sudan, etc, are certainly targets, but the threat isn't as
>great as Iraq. As we see in Iraq, as we saw in Afghanistan, their are
>numbers of groups who care very little about anything, unless it is out of
>a barrel of a gun. We need to kill them in large numbers.

Well, as daunting as someplace like the Balkans can be
regarding war and stability, there is a pragmatic aspect and a
humanitarian aspect to US intervention abroad. Taking a stand and
actually DOING something in Rwanda, the Balkans, Sudan, etc can
literally be described as protecting Muslims from genocidal murders.
That *has* to be powerful stuff if applied properly. It's a lot harder
to be hated by Muslims when you are all over the world saving them. A
lot of the problem has been inaction, and not properly using the good
acts to generate goodwill - our P.R. is pretty awful. Ironic
considering the size of the US ad and media industries.


>When the Marines surrendered in Falluja, I decided then and there, that
>the Bush regime had failed us, and I will no longer vote for them. The war
>is lost, and we might as well let France dictate the next era.

The Marines don't appear to be in a surrendering mood these
past few days. I also wondered about the previous cease-fire, but it
appears to have been a "biding time" play by al-Sadr's militia. I
doubt there will be a second cease-fire.

[Keith Willshaw]

"John S. Shinal" > wrote in message
...
> "Billy Preston" wrote:
>

>
> Well, as daunting as someplace like the Balkans can be
> regarding war and stability, there is a pragmatic aspect and a
> humanitarian aspect to US intervention abroad. Taking a stand and
> actually DOING something in Rwanda, the Balkans, Sudan, etc can
> literally be described as protecting Muslims from genocidal murders.

Problem is damm few of those killed in Rwanda were Muslims
and its Arab militants killing black animists and Christians
in the Sudan. Note the Arab league just voted to support the
line of the Sudanese government.

> That *has* to be powerful stuff if applied properly. It's a lot harder
> to be hated by Muslims when you are all over the world saving them. A
> lot of the problem has been inaction, and not properly using the good
> acts to generate goodwill - our P.R. is pretty awful. Ironic
> considering the size of the US ad and media industries.
>

Trouble is that outside of SE Asia most Muslim countries
have government controlled media. Its hard to get the message
across when people have no access to the channels of communication.

>
> >When the Marines surrendered in Falluja, I decided then and there, that
> >the Bush regime had failed us, and I will no longer vote for them. The
war
> >is lost, and we might as well let France dictate the next era.
>
> The Marines don't appear to be in a surrendering mood these
> past few days. I also wondered about the previous cease-fire, but it
> appears to have been a "biding time" play by al-Sadr's militia. I
> doubt there will be a second cease-fire.
>

Agreed and the Iraqis themselves seem now to have lost patience
with al-Sadr

Keith

[BUFDRVR]

Vince Brannigan wrote:

>> That's quite a statement and I would really like to have you elaborate on
>> the statement. If it is imperialism , it is only in the broadest sense
>that
>> the US was extending it's influence into Iraq. It's difficult to think of
>> that as being bad for anyone given the nature of the Saddam regime. Were
>> the Balkan's intervention also imperialism?
>>
>
>The difference is UN support

The U.N. *did not* support Operation ALLIED FORCE in 1999. Do you think that
was imperialism?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

John Kunkel wrote:

>So, only 150 total
>non-combatants killed in all the B-52 raids during the entire Vietnam
>conflict? OK. Sure.

Actually, I stand corrected. There are a total of only 275 documented civilian
deaths from B-52 strikes. This from "The 11 Days of Christmas" by Marshal L.
Michel;

"Tragically bombs from one of the downed B-52s fell on the Bach Mai hospital,
causing considerable damage....." (p.173)

"The Bach Mai hospital bombing killed twenty-five members of the staff,
including fifteen nurses." (p.173)

"An errant string of bombs fell on Kham Thein Street, a civilian shopping
district, and killed over 250 civilians." (p.202)

And this is the main reason why the U.S. doesn't intentionally hit civilians;

"By killing so many people on Kham Thein Street the Americans united everyone
behind their government" (p.202)

So there you go, 275 documented and because of the remote areas hit in Arc
Light missions, I'll stick to my initial claim of 100 for a total of 375. How
many thousands have been pulled from mass graves in Iraq?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[B2431]

>From: Vince Brannigan
>Date: 8/11/2004 7:04 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>1000 dead americans and allies in iraq and not a single WMD is failure
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not a single WMD has been found? What's so bad about extraordinarily light
>> casualties?
>>
>>
>
>no, not a single WMD has been found. and,

Really? Then explain the sarin filled shells found by the Poles 2 months ago.
Explain the sarin filled artillery shell found by the U.S. military as part of
a roadside IED.

Granted a few shells doesn't amount to much, but Saddam told the U.N. there
were none. It is highly probable he didn't know about those.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

< US *

Any chance this is Kramer in disguise?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> < US *
>
> Any chance this is Kramer in disguise?
>

I don't think so, Kramer has never shown an aversion to making a fool of
himself so I don't think he'd bother posting under another name. It's a new
loon entirely.

[B2431]

>From: (ZZBunker)
>Date: 8/12/2004 12:54 AM Central Daylight Time

<snip>

> That doesn't, since the British already proved it doesn't work
> about 500 years ago.
>
> Which is why today in the US, Florida and the
> Mafia are still the only two states that
> have no state taxes.

All U.S. states have all kinds of taxes. Florida is no exception.

If you mean state income taxes Florida isn't the only one that doesn't. We
don't need it since assorted hotel and motel taxes are paid by the tourists.

In any event, what does this have to do with military aviation?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[William Wright]

"* US *" > wrote in message
...
> Vietnam started with fewer deaths by far than the Iraq invasion.
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:36:40 GMT, "Jarg" >
wrote:
>
> >When was the comparable period in Vietnam?
> >
> >Jarg
>
> You could know that already if you weren't effectively brain-dead.
>
> Strictly speaking, there's no truly comparable period, as this conflict
> has been escalated far-more rapidly than that one was. It is already
> far worse.
>
> You have to want to *waste* US troops to support Bush's war crimes.
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 02:43:15 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
> >... extraordinarily light
> >casualties ...
>
> The casualties in Iraq are already worse than those from the
> comparable period in Vietnam.

There is no comparable period in Vietnam. This is not Vietnam 1965. This is
not the Cold War. Get over it.

>
> The bushkultie isn't happy if too few US soldiers are killed ...
>
> He imagines that travesty didn't start more slowly than this one.

[B2431]

>From: * US *
>Date: 8/12/2004 5:46 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Everyone knew Saddam was probably disarmed and the inspectors
>were on the verge of confirming it when Bush forced them out.

Really? Then how come so many people including Al Bore were saying Saddam had
WMD as late as mid 2002?

>"...a former Pentagon Air Force Traffic controller writes:
>"All those years ago when I was in the Pentagon, this wouldn't have happened.
>ATC Radar
>images were (and are) available in the understructures of the Pentagon, and
>any commercial
>flight within 300 miles of DC that made an abrupt course change toward
>Washington, turned
>off their transponder, and refused to communicate with ATC, would have been
>intercepted at
>supersonic speeds within a max of 9 minutes by a Fighter out of Andrews.
>Period. Why these
>planes weren't, baffles me. If we could get fighters off the ground in 2
>minutes then, we
>could now." ..."

Why would the Pentagon need scope dopes? As an ATC he would need to control air
traffic. How could he do it and no one in federal ATC not know about it? What
would the above scope dope's chain of command be? For that matter who in the
Pentagon had authority to issue such a launch order on such short notice?

Do you always accept stories such as this on faith alone?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >"...a former Pentagon Air Force Traffic controller writes
>
> Uhhh? Not much need for a guy on the scope at the Pentagon.
>
> >ATC Radar
> >images were (and are) available in the understructures of the Pentagon
>
> Interesting, I worked in the "understructures" of the Pentagon and I
> never saw
> an "ATC room". It amazes me the myths surrounding that building...

Or how some things got so mundane. I can remember more than once turning
too soon, and have a fairly bored guard say "no, this is the back
entrance to the National Military Command Center [1]. The Army Map Depot
is the next corridor down, on the left."

[1] Technically the National Military Intelligence Center at that level.

>
> >would have been intercepted at
> >supersonic speeds within a max of 9 minutes by a Fighter out of Andrews.
>
> Maybe in 1958, but certainly not in 2001.

In either case, with how much fuel after a supersonic intercept? And
just how did a presumed Soviet get there from the north?

[* US *]

On 13 Aug 2004 02:04:38 GMT, IBM > wrote:

>* US * wrote in :
>
> [snip]
>
>> Hope they don't use blackbox electronic voting systems to thwart
>> justice.
>
> Its too late.
> The fix is in.
> Flee for your life.

There's nowhere that would be safe from the ultra-greedy once they're ultimately powerful.

>> True patriots in many states are working to prevent the use of such
>> devices.
>
> Those would the folks in the tinfoil hats?

Hardly: they're professors at Harvard and MIT, among others ...

http://www.blackboxvoting.com
http://verifiedvoting.org
http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html

>> "...a former Pentagon Air Force Traffic controller writes:
>> "All those years ago when I was in the Pentagon, this wouldn't have
>> happened. ATC Radar images were (and are) available in the
>
> "All those years ago".
> Livin in the past.
> That was then, this is now.


When did we stop paying for defense?


Why did Bush stand the air defenses down, when he'd been warned repeatedly that
an attack featuring aircraft used on landmarks was imminent?


It's a good idea to question the questionable.

[Pete]

<* US *> wrote in message ...
> On 13 Aug 2004 02:04:38 GMT, IBM > wrote:
>
> >* US * wrote in :
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Hope they don't use blackbox electronic voting systems to thwart
> >> justice.
> >
> > Its too late.
> > The fix is in.
> > Flee for your life.
>
> There's nowhere that would be safe from the ultra-greedy once they're
ultimately powerful.
>
> >> True patriots in many states are working to prevent the use of such
> >> devices.
> >
> > Those would the folks in the tinfoil hats?
>
> Hardly: they're professors at Harvard and MIT, among others ...
>
> http://www.blackboxvoting.com
> http://verifiedvoting.org
> http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html
>
> >> "...a former Pentagon Air Force Traffic controller writes:
> >> "All those years ago when I was in the Pentagon, this wouldn't have
> >> happened. ATC Radar images were (and are) available in the
> >
> > "All those years ago".
> > Livin in the past.
> > That was then, this is now.
>
>
> When did we stop paying for defense?
>
>
> Why did Bush stand the air defenses down, when he'd been warned repeatedly
that
> an attack featuring aircraft used on landmarks was imminent?
>
>
> It's a good idea to question the questionable.

You maintain the US air defenses were stood down that morning. Prove it.

How many airbases had fighter aircraft loaded and on alert the morning of
9/11?
How many actual aircraft, what types, and where?
More importantly, which specific units were 'stood down'.

Not just a list of air bases, or a list of squadrons that have a flying
mission. Specific units and aircraft, "on alert"

Find this out and get back to us.

Pete

[B2431]

>From: * US *
>Date: 8/12/2004 10:19 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:23:30 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>>"All those years ago..." when we had many, many more aircraft and squadrons
>>on alert all up and down the east coast.
>
>Bush got warnings of imminent attacks using aircraft on landmarks.
>
>He should have done at least something other than stand down the air
>defenses.

Aha!! You ARE maron!!

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

US wrote:

>Bush got warnings of imminent attacks using aircraft on landmarks.
>
>He should have done at least something other than stand down the air
>defenses.

And I'm sure you'll show us documentation of "imminent" attacks and explain
what actions he took to "stand down the air defenses".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

* US * wrote:

>If you believe that standard procedures for US air defenses were
>followed on 9/11, you're the one who need to substantiate that.

You continue to spout this crap without even a moderate clue what you're
talking about. The only east coast units on Air Defense alert on the morning of
9/11 were the F-15As from Otis ANG base in MA. The guard unit who you insinuate
was "stood down" was the ANG unit from Andrews who was indeed airborn on 9/11
(at least a two ship) practicing *air to ground* attacks. Why don't you provide
proof (beyond some tinfoil hat quote from a guy who claims the Pentagon has an
air traffic alert function) of what units were stood down on 9/11?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Billy Preston]

"IBM" > wrote
> "Billy Preston" > wrote
>
> [snip]
>
> > To claim that ATC operators conduct air defense, is bogus information,
> > by someone who has never been in the air defense business.
>
> What?
> Surely this cannot be?
> I mean it was posted on the internet.
> It must be true.
> I'm sooooo confused.

A friend of mine was fired by Reagan after many years in ATC, and became
a Weapons Controller in AWACS after coming back active duty, and it was
interesting to see him switch from Air Defense, to Air Traffic Control (lost,
or emergency aircraft). In AWACS, you lose points if the planes don't
merge, and in ATC you lose points if they do :-)

Cessna 742, 235 for 20, Bullseye!

Say again for Cessna 742?

Oh sorry, altimeter 30.01 airport is 10 miles, fly a heading of 010, ident.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> * US * wrote:
>
> >If you believe that standard procedures for US air defenses were
> >followed on 9/11, you're the one who need to substantiate that.
>
> You continue to spout this crap without even a moderate clue what you're
> talking about. The only east coast units on Air Defense alert on the
> morning of
> 9/11 were the F-15As from Otis ANG base in MA.

In fairness, also a two-ship at Langley, in VA but a significant
distance from DC/suburban Virginia. They launched following standing
orders that took them out over by the Atlantic. By the time they could
be directed to the DC area, they were too short on fuel to have had much
chance of identifying a specific target in a busy air corridor.

The point remains valid, confirmed by the 9/11 Commission Report, that
there were no air defense aircraft postured to meet the specific threat.
That is quite different than being "stood down". They had no rules of
engagement, local area intercept command, etc., for a threat that had
not been seriously considered.


>The guard unit who you
> insinuate
> was "stood down" was the ANG unit from Andrews who was indeed airborn on
> 9/11
> (at least a two ship) practicing *air to ground* attacks. Why don't you
> provide
> proof (beyond some tinfoil hat quote from a guy who claims the Pentagon
> has an
> air traffic alert function) of what units were stood down on 9/11?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
> harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Ipgay AcilbuperNay]

IBM wrote:

> * US * > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>The casualties in Iraq are already worse than those from the
>>comparable period in Vietnam.
>
>
> U r wun dum phuq.
> Lets see 1000 in just over a year.
> At that rate it will take at least 5 decades to
> match Vietnam.
>
>
>>The bushkultie isn't happy if too few US soldiers are killed ...
>
>
> Nah, you seem to be confused. Its the Dhimmicreeps who want
> blood thigh deep in the streets.
>
> IBM
>
>
> __________________________________________________ _____________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
>
What were the casualties in the first year of the Vietnam war,
dumb right wing asshole?

And why isn't a gung ho Noble Republican warmonger in Iraq
pulling some guard duty, instead of sucking right wing dicks
on the internet?

--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful.
And so are we..
Our enemies never stop thinking about ways to harm our country and our
people.
And neither do we.."

-George W. Bush, August 5, 2002

[Billy Preston]

"Ipgay AcilbuperNay" <_> wrote
>
> What were the casualties in the first year of the Vietnam war,
> dumb right wing asshole?

1946? or 1947?

[B2431]

>From: * US *
>Date: 8/14/2004 1:11 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 08:44:51 -0500, "Billy Preston" >
>wrote:
>
>>First of all, ATC is responsible for separation of aircraft, and airport
>operations.
>
>That's not relevant. Jets should have been scrambled promptly, but they
>didn't do so, because standard procedures for US air defense were not
>followed on 9/11.

You were citing a report about a nonexistant person. Pentagon has no ATCs. You
can't have it both ways. Either ATC is relevent or not.

>>Second of all, weapons controllers are the operators used for air defense
>radar
>>operations.
>
>That's not relevant, either. Bush was told there were going to be attacks
>involving using aircraft as missiles on US landmarks. He didn't do anything
>whatsoever to protect the victims. He did all he could to make sure they
>died.

Other than this "report" citing a non existant person what proof do you have?

>
>>Third of all, these weapons controllers are either on AWACS, or in the
>Regional center,
>>or in mobile radar deployments.
>
>That's not relevant any sooner than your previous irrelevancies. Bush knew
>that
>Americans on US soil were going to be attacked and killed en masse, and he
>just
>cleared the way for it and went on vacation. Then he lied about it, at least
>when
>he wasn't joking about it. He's the principal beneficiary of those crimes.

Other than this "report" citing a non existant person what proof do you have?
>
>>Fourth of all, the Pentagon does not have an air defense operations center,
>manned by
>>weapons controllers.
>
>That's still not relevant. Apparently you have no idea what's being
>discussed, here.
>It's the fact that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, and that
>Bush
>took a series of measures to *thwart* defensive responses.

What "measures?" Other than this "report" citing a non existant person what
proof do you have?

>>To claim that ATC operators conduct air defense, is bogus information, by
>someone
>>who has never been in the air defense business.
>
>That's just your totally irrelevant straw man, however, and not pertinent to
>the subject.

Other than this "report" citing a non existant person what proof do you have?

>
>Are you saying that if you had been POTUS and had been told of imminent
>attacks
>using aircraft against landmarks in the USA, you'd have issued no public
>warnings?

You still haven't proved he knew of an "imminent attack." It seems your entire
theory is supported by ONE article that has already been proved wrong.

>Are you saying that you would tell pilots they couldn't carry sidearms and
>air defense
>pilots they couldn't scramble?

Side arms are not usually carried in peace time. Very few aircrews are in
position to "scramble" in peace time and the normal compliment was there on
9/11.

Would you have your cronies stop lying
>commercial,
>so they'd not be harmed, but let the public be unaware of this huge looming
>threat?

Nope, but what you described never happened. If it did PROVE it and I don't
mean by citing the same bogus article.

>
>Are you saying you'd go on vacation for longer than any other POTUS in US
>history,

He wasn't on vacation at the time.

>then sit and do nothing but play mindlessly with children as the attacks are
>executed,

He didn't know the attacks were going to happen.

>then try to claim afterward that you had no idea anything of the sort could
>happen?

Prove he did. Don't expect us to do your research for you. You made the claim,
now PROVE it without using that report.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[IBM]

Ipgay AcilbuperNay <_> wrote in :

[snip]

> What were the casualties in the first year of the Vietnam war,
> dumb right wing asshole?

And which year would that be?
Remember, this isn't a Dhimmicrapic Debacle like Vietnam.
I know the Dhimmicrips are trying their best to ensure a
similar outcome but that ain't a gonna happen.

> And why isn't a gung ho Noble Republican warmonger in Iraq
> pulling some guard duty, instead of sucking right wing dicks
> on the internet?

You've been inhaling your own effluvia again haven't
you.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[BUFDRVR]

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

>In fairness, also a two-ship at Langley, in VA

True, I forgot about the guys at Langley. They were "Happy Hooligans" from
Fargo, ND right?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Pete]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote

> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
> >In fairness, also a two-ship at Langley, in VA
>
> True, I forgot about the guys at Langley. They were "Happy Hooligans" from
> Fargo, ND right?

Right. Buddy of mine watched them launch that morning.

Pete

[BUFDRVR]

* US * wrote:

>http://www.standdown.net/index.htm
>
>Not a refutation in sight, no matter how much I'd like to see it.

You're a joke. Not only is Bush and NORAD named as partcipants in 9/11, but the
ANG pilots who were airborne are also blamed. This web page is a joke and I
suggest you adjust your tinfoil hat because I can show you web pages "proving"
Elvis Presley is alive and well.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Pete"
> wrote:

> <* US *> wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 15:30:24 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:
> >
> > >What units were ordered to "stand down"?
> >
> > All of them, obviously.
>
> All of them? So you're stating as fact that zero jets were launched from
> Otis AFB, MA?
> And zero jets were launched from Langley AFB, VA?
>
> Let me say this again....you are stating, as fact, that on the morning of
> 9/11, no USAF jets (active, Guard, or Reserve) were launched specifically
> to
> intercept the hijacked airliners.
>
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
>
Let me add that I live and work about 4 miles from the Pentagon. I
heard the airliner crash as a loud but muffled BOOM, much like the end
of a large fireworks display on the National Mall. Fireworks, however,
do not shake the windows; this did.

Several minutes after the BOOM, I realized there was something
distinctly unusual when I heard fighters overhead, in military power.
I'm guessing these were the Andrews F-16's, although they might have
been the Langley aircraft.

[* US *]

http://www.standdown.net/index.htm

Not a refutation in sight, no matter how much I'd like to see it.

Please, someone, prove that SOP were followed on 9/11.

[B2431]

>From: * US *
>Date: 8/14/2004 6:13 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>http://www.standdown.net/index.htm
>
>Not a refutation in sight, no matter how much I'd like to see it.

Nice try, but no stand down order is cited there. All kinds of innuendo, but no
direct cite.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: * US *
>Date: 8/14/2004 6:13 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:17:51 -0500, "Billy Preston" >
>wrote:
>
>>The link you provided, says ATC personnel conduct air defense operations ...
>
>Reporting aircraft offcourse with transponders shut down is exactly that.

It happens every day that aircraft are off course with transponder errors or
failures.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

* US * wrote:

>"...the two generals knowingly violated mandatory procedures ..."
>
>http://www.911inquiry.org/Presentations/BruceGagnon.htm

No wonder you don't have any idea what you're talking about, look at the web
sites you read! I stopped reading when Mr. Gagnon tried to claim initial
contact with Payne Stewart's jet was by a pair of "immediately scrambled two
jets". Initial contact with Payne Stewart's jet was by an F-16 from the test
wing at Eglin who was on a local training sortie over the Gulf of Mexico. The
first jets scrambled to "escort" Stewart's jet were from Fort Smith, Arkansas
*hours* after Stewart's aircraft stopped responding.

Do yourself a favor, buy a clue and stay away from the "black helicopter" web
sites.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[IBM]

"Pete" > wrote in
:

>
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote
>
>> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>>
>> >In fairness, also a two-ship at Langley, in VA
>>
>> True, I forgot about the guys at Langley. They were "Happy Hooligans"
>> from Fargo, ND right?

I believe that is correct.

> Right. Buddy of mine watched them launch that morning.

Me too.
I was less than half a mile from the alert hangar.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Pete]

"Billy Preston" > wrote in message
news:CRKTc.2936$ni.912@okepread01...
> "Pete" > wrote
> >
> > You've provided nothing to refute.
> >
> > Specifically, what units were ordered to 'stand down'?
>
> Give it a break already. He doesn't know!
>

I know. But sometimes the trolls are too much fun to leave alone.

Pete

[B2431]

>From: * US *
>Date: 8/14/2004 9:53 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>http://www.standdown.net/index.htm
>
>Not a refutation in sight, no matter how much I'd like to see it.
>
>Please, someone, prove that SOP were followed on 9/11.

Prove it wasn't.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: * US *
>Date: 8/14/2004 9:53 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:41:39 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>>Please research and tell us ...
>
>Why don't you already know what you should know?
>
>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:17:51 -0500, "Billy Preston" >
>wrote:
>
>>The link you provided, says ATC personnel conduct air defense operations ...
>
>Reporting aircraft offcourse with transponders shut down is exactly that.

In other words you have no idea what "air defense operations" means.

Now I am convinced you are maron.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: * US *
>Date: 8/15/2004 9:17 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 03:06:08 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>>... up the dosage ...
>
>Bush is a convicted drug abuser.

Prove it.

Pilots were forced to take amphetamines
>before they killed those Canadians in Afghanistan.

Prove it.
>
<snip>
>
>
>The Bush administration thwarted automatic responses in
>favor of making officials request permission before taking
>defensive action, and they did so knowing of the attack
>being imminent. They created a delay without which the
>crimes of 9/11 could not have had the magnitude they did.

Repeating your assertions proves nothing, maron.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >From: * US *
> >Date: 8/15/2004 9:17 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 03:06:08 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:
> >
> >>... up the dosage ...
> >
> >Bush is a convicted drug abuser.
>
> Prove it.
>
> Pilots were forced to take amphetamines
> >before they killed those Canadians in Afghanistan.

"Forced" is too strong a word. There has been legitimate study within
the military that concluded the benefits outweighted risk, such as
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/spr97/cornum.html
[1]. See Navy doctrine in www.safetycenter.navy.mil/aviation/
aeromedical/downloads/performancemanual.pdf

The basic principle is that no one takes stimulants unless authorized by
flight surgeons (in specific doses), and the crewdog can choose not to
take them. In appropriate doses, medically supervised amphetamines and
related drugs have not been shown to impair judgment. If anything, they
may improve decisionmaking in fatigued personnel

It is absolutely understood among flight surgeons that they are not a
substitute for rest, but they can defer the need. This can add to
safety, for example, when ferry flight times exceed usual allowable
flight duration, or when a combat emergency requires taking people out
of crew rest.


[1] Given that the study has both Army flight surgeon Rhonda Cornum and
Air Force flight surgeon Cory Cornum as coauthors, that a married
couple agree on it might give special credence! ;-)
>