Iranians Seize 15 British Sailors

[tameelf]

china you call me a nutter and a tit when i posted the banned bbc wtc footage on the 911 thread you almost became a nutter and a tit what changed your mind .the bbc dissmissed it as a error , then ccn footage confermed both major msm networks received the same press releace at the same time.but from who??

 

 

china quoted

I'm willing to say that your video is fascinating. As you say is that building WTC 7 ... looks like it, but the brown building in front of it and partially obscuring it on the BBC Video isn't on the video of the collapse - its very hard to tell distances and foreshortening - but there is another smaller, similar building to WTC7 on the collapse video half off the view on the bottom right - now if I could see what is infront of that building I'd be happier.

 

Find me some more pictures of that brown building partly obscuring what is claimed to be WTC7 in context with WTC7 and I'll be interested.

 

Plus I'm very suspicious that there is no ticker in the video - a BBC standard. These are on every other BBC video: like this

Reduced: 34% of original size [ 1500 x 1121 ] - Click to view full image

And how does the video know the time - it is never mentioned once in the news reports - at what is said to be 5 O'clock that seems odd - no anouncement of the time - plus the intro graphics are shorter than usual - they seem to be edited.

Those discrepencies make me very suspicious, but I'll honestly say this is the first 911 conspiracy that has even slightly made me interested.

 

unquote

bbc confirmed it if their footage

what changed your mind that i missed.what stoped you becoming a tit and nutter (the fee)

[ballaughbiker]

Stevie - evidence?

[P.K.]

I thought we should take it to private message, since I'm sure neither of us wish to divert the conversation away from it's original purpose any further, and because I'm curious as to what kind of person you are when you're not playing to an audience.

 

As much as I enjoy the regular flame wars you initiate, they're not particularly becoming. On the other hand, it almost seems a pity to simply tire of your antics and ignore you as one would an obnoxious child, like so many appear to have done before. So here we are, do your worst (it shouldn't take too much extra effort, since you already do so badly as it is).

 

By the way, I'm not from Norwich (although it's a lovely place) and I'm more than happy with my education - which is still ongoing and is at least such that I know to use "nemesis" in the way you advise would, although in keeping with your own sense of self importance, be incorrect - it's not a synonym for righteous indigation and acting on a mistaken belief that someone's criticising your english, which I wasn't, is hardly an act of retribution in the sense 'nemesis' encapsulates. Try harder next time.

[Chinahand]

china you call me a nutter and a tit when i posted the banned bbc wtc footage on the 911 thread you almost became a nutter and a tit what changed your mind .the bbc dissmissed it as a error , then ccn footage confermed both major msm networks received the same press releace at the same time.but from who??

 

bbc confirmed it if their footage

what changed your mind that i missed.what stoped you becoming a tit and nutter (the fee)

Tamelf - I called you a tit when you claimed Ahmadinejad didn't want to remove Israel from the face of history, wipe Israel from the Map or however else you might want to translate it - when if you went to his own website you'd find it saying exactly that.

 

I think you are a conspiracy nutter because you claim that the twin towers and WTC7 were wired with explosives.

 

And I think you are a conspiracy nutter and a tit because you think the world's media is controlled by Jews.

 

I can hardly understand your post - what's new - but I have already made a long post (as ever) expanding on what you have quoted me saying and explaining why I think the BBC (and CNN) coverage of WTC7 is real and that while it doesn't tell us anything about the various conspiracies around 911, it does tell us that the fire service etc did know that the building was badly damaged and unstable and that they expected and reported that it would collapse, before it did. The media picked up on this and in the confusion of the day "about to" became "did collapse" - shock horror media gets it wrong - proof of conspiracy I don't think so! They reported car bombs at Washington Malls and the shooting down of seven aircraft too - none of these things happened and aren't part of any conspiracist cover up.

 

I've recently posted stuff about Rumsfeld's desire to attack Iraq and use the excuse of 911 to do it. I don't see this as being anything to do with the 911 conspiracy. If anything it weakens the claims Conspiracy Theorists have - if the conspirators were real they could/would have been prepared to use 911 as the excuse to launch attacks on Iraq on that day and used the fog of war to justify it - they didn't. Rumsfeld's musings about doing it are spontaneous and show his attempts to get something "profitable" out of that terrible day - if he was involved in the conspiracy he'd have been prepared and not needed these incriminating doodles of his plans.

 

Regime change in Iraq was Clinton's policy before it was Bush's policy and Bush made his desire to unseat Hussein clear from day one. The Bush government's desire to use any excuse and manipulate the intelligence and the media to get its way are well known and documented and show its failure to get its version to be accepted. The invasion of Iraq was undertaken despite what the Bush regime claimed and in the teeth of massive opposition.

 

You seem to think this is an example of the powerful controlling the media and public opinion? - err in what way, where?

 

Anyway this is entirely irrelevent to this thread. So either shut up, or post a new topic, or say something original, worthwhile or so unbelievably stupid I won't be able to resist having a go.

 

Erm wonder which one it will be?

[tameelf]

 

 

 

And I think you are a conspiracy nutter and a tit because you think the world's media is controlled by Jews.

 

not think know

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=71087

 

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_...tories_sale.htm

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IfkGrWHHWQ

 

must admit if i was forced to play chess i would confess too

 

some peoples stories will never be told because of death. or who owns your jewspaper

[Alias]

I have a question - are Iran's nuclear facilities even within reach of Israel's tactical fighters?

 

Looking on a map from the beeb - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4617398.stm, looks to be pretty far considering the strike on Osirak was with heavily fueled jets which returned pretty empty.

 

Can hardly deny knowledge/involvement if the strike is from Iraq?

[Chinahand]

I have a question - are Iran's nuclear facilities even within reach of Israel's tactical fighters?

 

Looking on a map from the beeb - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4617398.stm, looks to be pretty far considering the strike on Osirak was with heavily fueled jets which returned pretty empty.

 

Can hardly deny knowledge/involvement if the strike is from Iraq?

According to Boeing the latest version of the F15 Strike Eagle has a combat radius of 1000 Nautical Miles = 1800 km. I'd bet the Israeli stuff is similar!

 

Jerusalem 31 47N 35 13E to the furthest away nuclear site at Natanz 33.30N 51.55E is 1572km.

[P.K.]

The military also do this mid-air fuel transfer stuff. It's dead clever you know.....

[Chinahand]

But what friendlies would let them overfly with tankers? Iraq? Not without starting another uprising! Turkey? Jordan? No way - they'll have to get to and from Israeli Airspace on their own.

 

I can't see tankers sitting around waiting them to return over unfriendly territory.

 

When they took out the Iraqi nuclear power plant it was combat aircraft full speed in and out. Can't see how it can be different this time.

[Alias]

That's what I mean - they can't really do tankers/bombers.

 

I'm assuming coz it says radius that includes the return trip, but surely that would be on a bare aircraft apart from fuel?

 

Edit: To evade detection from Syria/Jordan they'd probably also want to fly over Saudi like last time wouldn't they? 'Stealth' is still pretty risky over so large terrain..

[Chinahand]

That's what I mean - they can't really do tankers/bombers.

 

I'm assuming coz it says radius that includes the return trip, but surely that would be on a bare aircraft apart from fuel?

 

Edit: To evade detection from Syria/Jordan they'd probably also want to fly over Saudi like last time wouldn't they? 'Stealth' is still pretty risky over so large terrain..

 

I assumed combat radius was exactly that - carrying enough equipment for combat! It would be significantly less than absolute range. Anyone know different

[Chinahand]

This seems a reasonable article on the subject!

 

Odd bits - quoted out of context!

 

Most analysts agree that Israel does not have the capability to strike all of the sites associated with the program - estimates range between 12 and more than 20 locations. With limited power projection capabilities, Israeli intelligence analysts will determine the critical portions of the program - the key elements that if destroyed will slow down the effort. In 1981, the Israeli air force successfully crippled the Iraqi nuclear program with a daring daylight air raid on the key element of that program – the French-built Osirak reactor at At-Tuwaythah, just south of Baghdad. The single most critical element In the Iranian program is thought to be the centrifuge facility at Natanz (also known as the Esfahan enrichment facility).

 

The least risky method of striking Natanz is with Israel's medium range ballistic missiles, the Jericho II or III. Details on the exact capabilities of these systems are unknown, but it is believed that the Israeli missiles can reach Natanz. However, to travel that far, the missiles will have a limited warhead weight, probably less than 1000 pounds. It is doubtful that these warheads will be able to penetrate far enough underground to achieve the desired level of destruction. That points to an attack by the Israeli air force's American-made fighter-bomber aircraft as the most likely option. The Israelis have 25 F-15I Ra'am (Thunder) and about 30 F-16I Sufa (Storm) jets.

 

 

The best "guestimate" of the combat radius of the F-15I and F-16I, outfitted with conformal fuel tanks, two external wing tanks and a decent weapons load, is almost 1000 miles. Either of the two possible flight routes above is about 200 miles further than that. To make up for the shortfall, the aircraft could be fitted with an additional external fuel tank, but this will require a reduction in the weapons load. Given the accuracy of the weapons in the Israeli inventory, that might not be problematic. However, if the aircraft are detected and intercepted, the pilots will have to jettison the tanks in order to engage their attackers. Dropping the tanks will prevent the aircraft from reaching their target.

 

This raises the question of air refueling? This is a limitation for the Israelis. While Israel has a large air force, its focus has been on the Arab countries that surround it. In recent years, it has sought the capability to project power against a target over 1000 miles away. To do this, Israel has acquired five B707 tanker aircraft. However, the tankers would have to refuel the fighters in hostile airspace. The B707 is a large unarmed aircraft and would be very vulnerable to air defenses.

[P.K.]

The IDF is surrounded by hostile states and yet has 5 x B707 tanker aircraft. Now let me think about this for a moment, why would it acquire them?

 

If IDF aircraft were re-fuelled above Iraq or Saudi for that matter on the way to a pre-emptive strike in Iran just how loud would those states protest - after the event? Come on folks, we're living on Planet Earth here.......

[stevie]

it is obvious the u.s and u.k will at some point go to war with, or attack iran. the propeganda is getting ridiculous, we are seeing the same propeganda lies we were sold to go to war with iraq.

 

on the 6th April we were told that iran are making the EFP bombs for the shiite militia

 

The U.S. military has claimed Iran is supplying Shiite militia fighters in Iraq with the powerful weapon, known as an EFP. It hurls a molten, fist-sized copper slug capable of piercing armored vehicles

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6537428,00.html

 

yet on the 7th April an EFP factory was discovered in iraq, although this is not widely reported in the "MSM"

 

“Iraqi army soldiers swept into the city of Diwaniya early this morning to disrupt militia activity and return security and stability of the volatile city back to the government of Iraq,†the US military said in a statement.

Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced “explosively formed penetrators†(EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches.

 

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/arti...mp;parent_id=18

 

so then, on the 10th April, immediatley after discovering the EFP factory in iraq, thry change thier mind and tell us that iran are "training" the iraqi fighters.

 

Iranian intelligence operatives have been training Iraqi fighters inside Iran on how to use and assemble deadly roadside bombs known as EFPs, the U.S. military spokesman said Wednesday.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

 

so please, can they just make up one lie and stick to it, i'm getting sick of them changing the goalposts to suit themselves.

[stevie]

But what friendlies would let them overfly with tankers? Iraq? Not without starting another uprising! Turkey? Jordan? No way - they'll have to get to and from Israeli Airspace on their own.

 

I can't see tankers sitting around waiting them to return over unfriendly territory.

 

When they took out the Iraqi nuclear power plant it was combat aircraft full speed in and out. Can't see how it can be different this time.

 

 

hows about azerbaijan then china??

suppose the u.s were to set up military bases in azerbaijan to attack iran? that would be perfect for them hey china, right on the iran border.

oh shit, they already did! only last week!!

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=5322