Loose Change - Part II

[dubfan]

Well, about 99.5% of the reason for keeping up with the LC forum just went out the window.

 

[Gravy]

Well, about 99.5% of the reason for keeping up with the LC forum just went out the window.

DJLegacy's response seems about right:

LOL,
Yeah I forget sometimes that this forum is full of 16 and under....as our poll shows lol...
I swear some people on here haven't seen a girl before

 

[joseph k.]

JamesB...

I'd imagine, since you are looking into whether there's batteries included at the pentagon or not, you'd probably have seen this:

Pentagon arms missile batteries around D.C.

For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis almost 40 years ago, armed missile launchers will be protecting the nation's capital by day's end Tuesday -- a precaution that comes amid a heightened alert status on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
...
The Pentagon says for "security and deterrent" reason it will not discuss the exact location of the air defense sites, but one Army Avenger missile system can be seen outside the Pentagon....
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.air.defense/

I'd have to concur that some auto-respond solution seems quite foolish, given the pentagon's location. If you are still wondering why Gravy seems to be curt with you, perhaps its because you don't seem to have delved into 911myths or any of the other debunking sites and are asking leading questions that obviously tip your hand.

edit-clarity

 

[dubfan]

Oh, brother.

I suppose at this point we might do our visitors a service, and pre-emptively point out that the Pentagon also does not have a battalion of combat Marines to protect against ground troops, a squadron of tanks, its own fighter wing, etc., in addition to its non-existent anti-aircraft guns or missiles.

Just because it's involved with the military does not mean it's built for combat. It's an office building. It has relatively little tactical military value. Aside from security issues, it's just not that special. Passive measures only.

Otherwise, they would never have built it in such a sensitive area. If you're expecting the heavy heat, you build out in the middle of nowhere, like Cheyenne Mountain or Malmstrom Air Force Base. It would seriously suck to repel an attack, only to have the Capitol wiped out by near misses.

And people are laughing because you should be able to answer these questions for yourself. I would fail a fourth-grade research report that made such assertions. Nothing personal, we like to help, but you must also participate in your own education.

Without wanting to disagree with your post too much -- because your point is valid -- I think it's a mistake to say the Pentagon has relatively little tactical value. The NMCC is there, the JCS is there, and the SecDef is there. An effective tactical strike on the Pentagon would decapitate the US military (although I'm sure there are contingency plans and redunancies built into the system to make it survivable). It is an office building, but it's a pretty damned important one.

 

[JamesB]

I'd have to concur that some auto-respond solution seems quite foolish, given the pentagon's location. If you are still wondering why Gravy seems to be curt with you, perhaps its because you don't seem to have delved into 911myths or any of the other debunking sites and are asking leading questions that obviously tip your hand.

Huh? I didn't realize Gravy was being curt with me. And I think I have looked into some of the debunking sites.... Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else?

 

[R.Mackey]

Without wanting to disagree with your post too much -- because your point is valid -- I think it's a mistake to say the Pentagon has relatively little tactical value. The NMCC is there, the JCS is there, and the SecDef is there. An effective tactical strike on the Pentagon would decapitate the US military (although I'm sure there are contingency plans and redunancies built into the system to make it survivable). It is an office building, but it's a pretty damned important one.

We can agree -- I chose my words carefully. "Tactical" was the key word.

Wasting the Pentagon and killing everyone inside would have serious long-term effects on the military's ability to wrangle budgets and policy, for sure, might even have some strategic impact (I'm suddenly reminded of the plotline of The Dirty Dozen). But I would imagine it would have no effect at all on the military's immediate response capability. Many of those in the Pentagon, SecDef included, are civilians.

This is just my guess, and it is admittedly hard to prove, though.

 

[Gravy]

JamesB...
I'd imagine, since you are looking into whether there's batteries included at the pentagon or not, you'd probably have seen this:
Pentagon arms missile batteries around D.C.

If I recall correctly, that was juat a temporary measure. I don't have a source, just memory.

 

[Gravy]

Huh? I didn't realize Gravy was being curt with me. And I think I have looked into some of the debunking sites.... Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else?

Is he mistaking you for SBrown? You both have "sb" in your names. But if I want to get curt with you, I'll get CurtC to help. He's a natural.

 

[JamesB]

It was, the article cited even mentions that it was the first time in 40 years, and this was only after the 9/11 attacks. The Avenger is just 4 stingers mounted on the back of a humvee. The CTs have been alluding to some type of permenent missile battery. Some moonbat in the new LC video even suggests there is some type of secret underground missile battery, however the hell that works.

This is a line of sight system of course, so to be effective you would need one on each side. I think someone would have noticed 4 Avengers parked on the lawn of the Pentagon before 9/11. Aside from the fact that in order to staff it 24/7 would basically tie up an entire ADA battalion.

 

[Pardalis]

In all honesty, I think you guys have been a little harsh on SBrown.

I know her choice of screenname might not help in taking her (her?) seriously, and even though her question might have been clumsy, I think overall she did raise kind of a good point. Is the Pentagon is a little too close to civilian activities, for it's own good and for the safety of the people? Should they have been more prepared for an attack? How does securing strategic buildings in urban areas work exactly? All of these questions are interesting for people not knowledgeable in that area (such as myself).

But then again, now a days everything is a good target. And since we all wouldn't want every important building in every city to have missile silos around them, there's a thin line here between ultra protection and just being prepared for the worst.

Just a thought

 

[joseph k.]

Huh? I didn't realize Gravy was being curt with me. And I think I have looked into some of the debunking sites.... Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else?

Is he mistaking you for SBrown?

You are correct, sirs. My apologies, I seem to have had a misplaced brain flatulation.

I was attempting to address SBrown. It must be all these darn initial name combos...

 

[XXX]

I also enjoyed how you taunted them for getting their collective butts whipped by Obviousman on the Moon Hoax thread. What a bunch of [rule8]s. I especially enjoyed when they said that Eric Huffy would show you and Obviousman. Rather doubtful considering he ran screaming from any debate on the Bad Astronomer bulletin board years ago.

They find faith in the dumbest, most cowardly people in that forum.

Man, I just finished reading that thread. OMG, it's just too much. I especially like, after having been given a nice detailed analysis about the radiation belt that they had been asking for..."I wonder if someone who is sure man went on the moon - can prove it without typing a whole bunch of technical jargon." I'm sorry that your attention span is limited to what will fit onto a bumper sticker. Or how about admin The Quest saying that all your "facts" come from the hoaxers, and therefore he doesn't have to deal with them. It's no wonder they moved that thread...people might actually see how some of the people they are taking their cues from think, and it's pretty scary.

 

[SezMe]

...snip... I think overall she did raise kind of a good point. Is the Pentagon is a little too close to civilian activities, for it's own good and for the safety of the people? Should they have been more prepared for an attack? How does securing strategic buildings in urban areas work exactly? All of these questions are interesting for people not knowledgeable in that area (such as myself).

I want to support Pardalis here. My question, given that Reagan airport is so close to the Pentagon, White House, Congress, and so many other sites of essential importance to our country, why is it still open?

My answer: It is the airport used by members of congress, other VERY high ranking government officials, and senior management of our nation's largest (and influential) corporations. These people are willing to sacrifice the security of our essential infrastructure so that they don't have to use Dulles like the rest of us schlubs.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Of course. They had to have had one. A stupid frigate has multiple ones. The Pentagon is the heart of our national defense. Why would they not have one?

The Pentagon did have armed missile batteries around D.C.:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.air.defense/

For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis almost 40 years ago, armed missile launchers will be protecting the nation's capital by day's end Tuesday -- a precaution that comes amid a heightened alert status on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

but they were portable surface-to-air missile launchers (mounted on the backs of Hummers) and were deployed in 2002.

edit: sorry for the redundancy, I hadn't yet gotten to this post from joseph k: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1678010#post1678010

 

[WildCat]

Man, I just finished reading that thread. OMG, it's just too much. I especially like, after having been given a nice detailed analysis about the radiation belt that they had been asking for..."I wonder if someone who is sure man went on the moon - can prove it without typing a whole bunch of technical jargon." I'm sorry that your attention span is limited to what will fit onto a bumper sticker. Or how about admin The Quest saying that all your "facts" come from the hoaxers, and therefore he doesn't have to deal with them. It's no wonder they moved that thread...people might actually see how some of the people they are taking their cues from think, and it's pretty scary.

Hehe, I didn't see that until now. These people are so willfully ignorant it's astonishing. On this page broodlinger says:

Moon photos and videos seem to be pretty limited and rare.

Must not have ever seen this site, chock full of hundreds of high-res images from every Apollo mission. Funny how the hoax sites only show low-res pics, much like CT'ers get all their "evidence" from highly compressed video and pics.

 

[Belz...]

Of course. They had to have had one.

Convincing.

A stupid frigate has multiple ones. The Pentagon is the heart of our national defense. Why would they not have one?

Because the Pentagon doesn't tend to go on the front lines.

 

[Hutch]

Just a couple of things to add, I agree that SBrown did ask a few pertinent questions and probalby shouldn't have been dusted quite that quickly.

On DC National Airport--The normal approach route (the only one I have ever seen used in my many years and trips to Washington) is from the South over the Potomac, never from the North over the city. Takeoffs are to the North, so you are departing towards the city (and are past the Pentagon before the gear has retracted) and flights need to pull a hard left during departure so as not to pass over the monuments/Capitol region. These restrictions were in effect long before 9-11.

And remember, National was the only airport for the DC region until the 1960's when Dulles was built (30+ miles awayt), and even then Dulles did not become a going concern until the 80's when the city and transit began building out that way. I don't see DC National being closed anytime soon, it is simply to convienent for the hundreds of thousands of people who must travel to and from the capitol of the most powerful nation on earth.

On the Pentagon--Concur, it is an office building, but given it's bulk and the wide spacing of offices, it would take more than just a plane crash to disable it and it's functioning. And the military always has a chain of command that specifies who is in charge if officers above become incapacitated (or dead) so while their would be confusion, it would not last long.

As to missiles, this is one that I believe the burden of proof would be on the CT'ers. To the best of my knowledge no anti-aircraft batteries were stationed at the Pentagon prior to 9-11 because (1) as mentioned above, the danger was considered minor and (2) an out-of-control plane from DC National (probably a scenario that was discussed, not a deliberate suicide run as occured) would happen to fast for any type of anti-aircraft reaction.

Not to mention that giving the order to shoot down a passenger plane would need coordination and decision-making---damn few Generals would order such a shootdown without higher authority, even if they had the capability, which I doubt was available.

Anti-Missile Defense--SBrown, the articles you referenced dealt with the testing of the Ballistic Missile defense, which is designed to intercept incoming Ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads from another country. It was not designed to protect buildings or other sites from attacking aircraft--the US Military has lots of specialized forces to do that.

But none at the Pentagon on 9-11, it would appear...

Press on.

 

[ZouPrime]

I wanted to answer the whole "missile defense system" claim, but I see that other posters have done a pretty good job at it while I was sleeping. For the record, yes, the "pentagon missile system" quote presented refers to the "star wars" anti-ICBM system Bush was pushing so much at the begining of his first mandate - not some kind of short range missile batterie. The quote made it pretty clear in fact. As for the idea of putting permanently an automated system out there... can you imagine the trouble? Airplane attacks are very rare compared to confused pilots; the amount of false-positives is staggering. Worst Idea Ever.

And just to conclude:

Of course. They had to have had one. A stupid frigate has multiple ones. The Pentagon is the heart of our national defense. Why would they not have one?

This is called "trusting your instincts even if they are based on ignorance". And I would say that 99% of all CT claims have exactly the same base. "It seems", "I feel it should be that way", "common sense tell us" are good arguments only if you can back them up with actual experience. Not that I'm accusing SBrown of being a CT believer...

 

[60hzxtl]

Funny, I almost made the exact same post, R.Mackey. Well, the 'office building' part, anyway. You fleshed it out rather well.

I started that too, but it was above my pay grade to say "office building" and I knew where the objections would be, and didn't have the answers when they 'just asked questions' Glad I remembered that and left it to some one else to say.

and then from the losers:

<<Yeah I forget sometimes that this forum is full of 16 and under....as our poll shows lol...>>

'Yup I' don't know what a girl looks like, but lemme tell ya' about controlled demolition, 'cause I saw it in a movie and I saw that movie 3 times.'

 

[Hutch]

FWIW, our Ninja Wave picture has been removed.

No sense of humor, I guess...