| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Pentagon Reservation has Ballistic Missile Defense appropriations; ... cat's out of the bag? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 4 2009, 01:51 AM (395 Views) | |
| JackD | Jun 4 2009, 01:51 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/budget_justification/pdfs/03_RDT_and_E/Vol_2_MDA/08_PE-0603888C-Test%20and%20Targets.pdf Go to this doc page 103 of this document, and/or search for "pentagon" or "pentagon reservation" |
 |
 
|
| JackD | Jun 4 2009, 03:19 AM Post #2 |
|
I'm going to debunk my own post now. "Just because there was money spent or appropriated under a column "ballistic missile defense" at the Pentagon, that doesnt mean that the Pentagon is equipped with any kind of defense system against missiles or planes or anything else. For all we know, the Pentagon, the location of Donald Rumsfeld & Top Brass office, and home to highly sensitive defense control units, is completely undefended -- and even a slow-flying lazy old 757 aircraft flown by amateur pilots could probably even circle overhead and approach the Pentagon itself, without anyone being the wiser. So all you all who keep saying that the Pentagon's defenses were ordered to stand down and not respond to hostile threats ("Do the Orders Still Stand?") -- had better first produce some hard factual evidence including photos and video and credible first-person testimony that the Pentagon had ANY kind of air defense protection at all. The fact that money was appropriated for Pentagon reservation missile defense means that they were equipped to defend at most against missiles, and no way Jose would anti-missile defense ever be able to stop a 757! [edit: sarcasm alert. the link post is quite serious. Many, including Barbara Honegger, cite evidence that the Pentagon is indeed well-protected and any 'friendly' aircraft approaching would have to emit a IFF signal that was friendly to avoid being blown out of the sky. for the defenses to be lowered, a stand-down order would have to be issued. ] Edited by JackD, Jun 4 2009, 03:26 AM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 4 2009, 06:39 AM Post #3 |
|
Unfortunately the duhbunkers will say. " but that is for 2007 onwards", but likely in a much more foul mouthed manner. |
|
|
| 22205 | Jun 6 2009, 01:33 AM Post #4 |
Arlingtonian
|
sorry to play "duhbunker" here JackD, but:   general search: http://www.google.com/search?q=0901585C&hl=en&sa=2 key result: http://tinyurl.com/p693r6 (cached html) or original pdf: http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2010/MDA/0901585C.pdf
if you look at how much money was appropriated, its clear that its not enough money for a "missile response system". so i think the above description/explantion of where the funds went/go, sounds legit. secondly, i have personal word from a local (airforce) person intimately familiar with the place and procedures in question, and according to him the only air defenses around the pentagon are mobile. in other words there are no missile silos or automatic/built-in missile batteries. when there is a "situation" like 9/11, "scuds" (direct quote from my source) whose launchers are built into or onto the back of trucks are driven in and then placed at the scene. you have to keep in mind how close to the airport the pentagon is, and how - if there was an automatic system set up - it could shoot down a passenger plane by mistake or accident. dozens of planes fly around or almost over that building all day everyday, so i think an automatic friend/foe shootdown system would be very risky, to the point of making it unfeasible, even after 9/11. with regard to Honnegar, either she is misinformed (i.e. she has not updated her knowledge base) or she is controlled opposition. i dont know if any attempts have officially been made to make her privy to cit's interviews or to the implications of the northside, or if she knows of the complete absence of any evidence for a missile attack. but if she knows of this new (cit) evidence and is still pushing missile theories, then she is suspect (imo). if she doesnt know, then she has no business expressing any "expert" thoughts on the matter. if she claims to be or poses as someone who is knowledgeable on the "pentagon attack" then she is 100% responsible to keep in touch with updated information on the subject. we are at exactly a year since the ANC witnesses were interviewed and those interviews made public, so i dont think its an unreasonable to expect her to know whats new and whats up. but since i dont track her or her "theories", i have no idea where she currently stands, that is - if she stands anywhere at all, for i dont know of or havent heard of any recent activity from her. there was no missile there on 9/11: there is not one eyewitness to substantiate its existence. not one. |
|
|
|
| French St | Jul 30 2009, 08:36 AM Post #5 |
|
You probably know these two links: 1) Pentagon arms missile batteries around D.C. (September 11, 2002 Posted: 9:47 AM): http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.air.defense/index.html Quotes: “The Pentagon decided Tuesday to arm portable surface-to-air missile launchers deployed around Washington.” “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.” 2) Context of '(8:45 a.m.-9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Secret Service Does Not Use Its Stinger Missiles to Protect New York and Washington' http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a845stingermissiles#a845stingermissiles NORAD: Official link: “About NORAD”: http://www.norad.mil/about/index.html Quote: “To accomplish the aerospace warning mission, the commander of NORAD provides an integrated tactical warning and attack assessment to the governments of Canada and the United States. To accomplish the aerospace control mission, NORAD uses a network of satellites, ground-based radar, airborne radar and fighters to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any air-breathing threat to North America. As a part of its aerospace control mission, NORAD assists in the detection and monitoring of aircraft suspected of illegal drug trafficking.” This link does not mention that "surface-to-air missiles” can be used to accomplish this “aerospace control mission”. The same official link of the NORAD asserts: “The events of September 11, 2001 demonstrated NORAD’s continued relevance to North American security.” Of course this assertion is ridiculous because NORAD has totally failed on 11 September 2001. A good analysis of this failure is given by the following link: “The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11” By Paul Thompson: http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Jul 30 2009, 11:40 AM Post #6 |
|
The pentagon is a theatre... |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
4:53 PM Dec 6
