Putting the difficulty of interception in terms the twoofers understand

Sword_Of_Truth

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
11,494
Since these people don;t "get" anything that isn't encapsulated in a video of less than one hours length, here is an example of the regular air traffic over the US that the twoofers should be able to grasp.

Pay close attention to the counter in the bottom left hand corner of the screen.

Now imagine out of that number that FOUR planes have been hijacked.

Now find them in less than ten minutes.
 
Of course the Truthers will grasp nothing whatsoever. But thanks for the link, which is incredibly cool. It's amazing to think there are that many little tushies flying through the air at any given moment.
 
truthers seem to think that by disablign the transponders the hijackers made the planes easier to find

all you have to do is look at ATC radar that shows transponders, and find any blips on primary radar that arent on ATC, lol
 
It's like trying to catch somebody, with a car on a one way street during rush hour, and the person you are chasing is in a car, similar to all the others on the street, three blocks behind you and their target is one block behind you.
 
Last edited:
It's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

...a needle that's going to kill a bunch of people in less than 10 minutes.
 
DarkMagician said:
It's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

...a needle that's going to kill a bunch of people in less than 10 minutes.
Click to expand...


Actually it's more like looking for a needle in a stack of needles.

-Gumboot

ETA. And of course all the needles are constantly moving! With some leaving the pile and new ones adding to it. And depending on who you talk to, you're not actually sure just how many needles you're looking for!
 
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but what, exactly, is the benefit of shooting down an airliner over a major metropolitan area? Missiles launched from fighter aircraft won't neatly vaporize a large passenger jet. It seems to me like a huge airplane would create as much damage, with the possibility of killing just as many Americans by having large hunks of it land in random spots in NYC or Washington, DC.
 
The Almond said:
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but what, exactly, is the benefit of shooting down an airliner over a major metropolitan area? Missiles launched from fighter aircraft won't neatly vaporize a large passenger jet. It seems to me like a huge airplane would create as much damage, with the possibility of killing just as many Americans by having large hunks of it land in random spots in NYC or Washington, DC.
Click to expand...



I think...

A) The objective would be to shoot it down BEFORE it reached an urban area.
B) As previous examples have shown, airliner crashes in urban environments generally don't actually kill *that* many people. (Perhaps not so much about saving lives, as saving landmarks and protecting "more important" people?

Afterall, all jokes and cynical anti-political-ness aside, what's worse for the country? A 757 crashing into the suburbs of DC at "falling speed"? Or a 757 slamming into a packed Congress at 500 MPH?

-Gumboot
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Since these people don;t "get" anything that isn't encapsulated in a video of less than one hours length, here is an example of the regular air traffic over the US that the twoofers should be able to grasp.

Pay close attention to the counter in the bottom left hand corner of the screen.

Now imagine out of that number that FOUR planes have been hijacked.

Now find them in less than ten minutes.
Click to expand...

Good graphic, Sword of Truth.






Surely, "Ace" will get right on it with a new website or video that he'll call, "Hunt the Hijack".

/tinhat freak mode
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
I think...

A) The objective would be to shoot it down BEFORE it reached an urban area.
B) As previous examples have shown, airliner crashes in urban environments generally don't actually kill *that* many people. (Perhaps not so much about saving lives, as saving landmarks and protecting "more important" people?

Afterall, all jokes and cynical anti-political-ness aside, what's worse for the country? A 757 crashing into the suburbs of DC at "falling speed"? Or a 757 slamming into a packed Congress at 500 MPH?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Both seem pretty bad, but I think there's also a culpability issue. If a military aircraft shoots down a hijacked airliner and the pieces hit (God forbid) a school and kill a few hundred school children, whose fault would it be? How long would it take CT people to claim that the government was aiming for that school, or that they hit any target on purpose?

Ultimately, both senarios accomplish the goals of the terrorists, the murdering of innocent civilians both in the air and on the ground. While the numbers may be different, the tragedy is still the same given the random acts of violence gambit.
 
Once "they" have decided to see a conspiracy, there's no imaginable outcome that doesn't "prove" the conspiracy.

If the operation is a success (from the terrorists' POV), then we have controlled demolitions, cruise missiles at the Pentagon, death rays from space, faked phone calls, stand-down orders, etc.

If the hijackers intentions are discovered before any planes crash and they are shot down, well OMG the hijackings were fake and the .gov shot down innocent people on purpose so Bush & Friends could get permission to screw up in Iraq.

If the intelligence apparatus worked perfectly and all the hijackers were apprehended on 10 Sept, again it's a "false flag" because who would ever believe such a Tom Clancy scenario, lol (insert 500 animated emoticon graphics here).
 
Lord help me... I'm going to borrow a page from Spooked911's "video games = real life" rantings.

I found this interesting tidbit while just poking around the web.

I'll admit right off, it's an instruction manual for yet another video game. But two things occurred to me.

First, somebody who is willing to sit for motionless on a virtual runway for more than 10 minutes while they go through a 28 step startup procedure has waaaaaayyy too much time on his hands.

Second, can someone with Air Force experience confirm the "realism" of this video game manual? Eight minutes just to fire up the inertial navigation system?

Kinda blows away the twoofer claims about what they expect the speed of the interception to have been, doesn't it?
 
negativ said:
If the intelligence apparatus worked perfectly and all the hijackers were apprehended on 10 Sept, again it's a "false flag" because who would ever believe such a Tom Clancy scenario, lol (insert 500 animated emoticon graphics here).
Click to expand...




Look how they reacted when the Brits foiled that latest blow-up-airliners plot...

-Gumboot
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
First, somebody who is willing to sit for motionless on a virtual runway for more than 10 minutes while they go through a 28 step startup procedure has waaaaaayyy too much time on his hands.

Second, can someone with Air Force experience confirm the "realism" of this video game manual? Eight minutes just to fire up the inertial navigation system?
Click to expand...


I can't see the 28 steps on your list actually taking that long to perform...

Bad to use fiction again as comparison, but have you seen the very beginning of the film "Behind Enemy Lines"? They have a full pre-flight check on a 2-seater aircraft (I can't for the life of me remember what it was... Hornet or Tomcat I think...) and it happens very fast.

Also, before being launched, NORAD interceptors are put on "Battle Stations". At Battle Stations the pilots enter the aircraft and assumably do some pre-flight stuff (I don't know if they actually start the ignition or not). This would probably cut down on pre-flight time.

My understanding is, when the barn lights go green, the aircraft immediately commence taxi.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom