Posted on 12/12/2010 10:47:16 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
I’m searching for it now. Someone said he took 57 pics on a thread about three weeks ago or more. No one ever questioned it then or any of the dozen times I’ve mentioned since. Every night I do three hours of research for you guys who do none.
The difference between your research and our research apparently, is that we actually produce something. Good luck on the Warren search. I already looked.
What do you mean “we?” Others have produced a lot on both side. You haven’t produced a thing. Other than the little yellow helicopter.
Why would anyone take 12 pics of an ordinary airplane contrail? If you can work in an answer between all of your “research?” ROTFLOL
Thanks for admitting that you haven’t posted anything that hasn’t been posted fifty times before you did.
But one thing 12 pictures aren't...is 57. Or even 50. Keeeeeep lookin.
I think you're getting your numbers confused with your bogus Warren photo count. But while you're researching, please point out anywhere someone else depicted the line of site from LAX or Long Beach Harbor to UPS902. I'll be satisfied with one. Not fifty.
Yet you took credit for it here.
You lied about me last night and tonight you just lie. Or then you lied. Who knows?
" How much original material have you posted to this subject? Any?" - TE
We're discussing it right now and have been for multiple posts. The line of sight diagrams from LAX and Long Beach harbor. - Rokke
That's it for you.
Inquiries made by the Northeast Intelligence Network has so far verified the following:
- There were no warning or advisories to aircraft or air traffic controllers. According to one supervisory ATC from LAX interviewed today, “this was totally unexpected.”
- No U.S. missile tests were scheduled or conducted at that time and location, according to a Pentagon contact;
–Pentagon source 9 November 2010 1510 hours ET
- “This was not an accidental launch. The methods required to launch a missile of this size and presumed type is too complex and involves more than one person, that’s all I can say.”
– Pentagon source; 9 November 2010; 1510 hours ET
–”Oh yes, they know exactly where it came from and what type of missile it was, but are not saying. There are a lot of meetings taking place right now inside the ring [a reference to the Pentagon].”
– Pentagon source; 9 November 2010; 1510 hours ET
–”China, Russia, Iran, France are four countries that have the capabilities for this type type of launch. And of course, we do too. But it was not us. There’s scuttlebut about a cargo ship and China, but that’s all it is, scuttlebut.”
– Pentagon source; 9 November 2010; 1510 hours ET
OK..:o) I'll clarify that a little...was wondering why those who think it was nothing are still on these threads posting wildly...as soon as I was convinced it was nothing I'd have no reason to be here.
I've tried, but I can't compensate for your lack of intelligence. That does not make me a liar. You have never understood what a line of sight is. That makes you ignorant of that topic, which apparently frustrates you. Here is the post where I explained the lines of sight to UPS902... Post #290. I posted it to TXnMA and started with "I extended your plotted line of site from the Leyvas video to the approximate location of the UPS902 flight path. Not surprisingly, it intersects almost exactly the lat/long of where Flightaware says UPS902 was at 5:15." He responded with "BRAVO!! Triangulation -- I knew you would figure out a way do it with the materials and tools at hand! My new tagline honors you! Is there any direction the "missle [sic] folks" can turn now to prop up their mania?"
TXnMA obviously gets it. You don't. My response to his last question now would be, "Yeah, they won't get it and accuse everyone who does of being a liar."
Now I won't call you a liar for repeatedly posting about 50 Warren photographs. You were mistaken. That is a trend for you, but you'll never admit.
Bravo. But there is a difference between posting legitimate sources (the official DoD statement delivered by its official spokesman)like I did, and posting comments from an unknown person from an unknown source. Where did you get your quotes? Who is "Pentagon source"? For all anyone knows, it could be the parking lot attendent for Pentagon Lot C.
There is a difference between being ignorant and being willfully ignorant. I believe you are the latter. That makes you a perfect candidate for conspiracies like this. And a wet dream for "news" sources like The National Enquirer, WND and CBS news.
Now, now TigerEye. Jane’s reversed their initial missile assessment.
So far no one has produced that statement. Would you do that please?
I’ve already provided you and others with the links in other threads. Remember the Air Forces Monthly thread with the poster Mercurius who has a subscription?
Mercurius wrote
The Jane’s account of the event has now gone up online on the Jane’s Missiles & Rockets website, and they are accepting the airliner-contrail explanation.
Apparently the initial short section of the recording their editor had seen did look like a missile, but a longer-duration version that later emerged convinced them it was an aircraft contrail.
Jane’s allowed 169 words of the 523 word article on the events of 8th November to be published freeview online. The rest is visible with a very expensive subscription. Mercurius posting on the subject via Air Forces Monthly magazine forum provides the subscription details.
Not to me you haven't.
Remember the Air Forces Monthly thread with the poster Mercurius who has a subscription?
I have never heard of that thread or that poster.
Pretty much what I expected from you. Nothing.
Do you even read the threads that you post to? This is a typical response from you. Most people following this story have read and followed every thread on the subject. Jane’s Rocket and Missiles dropped the assessment. Live with it. You are clinging onto initial statements that were dumped by Janes weeks ago.
There is nothing to say to you...the obvious is there for anyone to see...it had the trajectory and contrail of a missile, not a plane for heaven sakes..yikes!
I have read every thread on the subject. I put keywords on every one of them too. There is no thread with that title so if there is one I never saw it.
This is a typical response from you.
That is a typical condescending remark. Typical of you and typical of most con-trailers. It would have been ten times as easy for you to post a link to the statement than the empty posts you spent your time on tonight. Usually that's a sure sign you're just blowing smoke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.