Russian Threats!

M.Dancer · August 18, 2008

The second you definately saw. The footage of the first plane was not released for a day or two.

So what is the problem? TYou are investing in tin foil futures over a semantic glitch?

PoliticalCitizen · August 18, 2008

So what is the problem? TYou are investing in tin foil futures over a semantic glitch?

The problem is US Government never openly admitted what we all saw and read on the internet about the "plane" that crashed into Pentagon etc.

Reminds me of Soviet press...

M.Dancer · August 18, 2008

The problem is US Government never openly admitted what we all saw and read on the internet about the "plane" that crashed into Pentagon etc.

And what is that......exactly....

reminds me of another Tr00ther....

GostHacked · August 18, 2008

So what is the problem? TYou are investing in tin foil futures over a semantic glitch?

I gave you a situation wher you clearly saw Bush do A, but a few days later he tells you B.

That's no glitch.

If you think I am lying, go look for it. Or if you want to wait a day or two, I'll get it all posted here for you. If you simply do not want to look it up, then you are done here.

M.Dancer · August 18, 2008

I gave you a situation wher you clearly saw Bush do A, but a few days later he tells you B.
That's no glitch.

If you think I am lying, go look for it. Or if you want to wait a day or two, I'll get it all posted here for you. If you simply do not want to look it up, then you are done here.

So you say when he said he saw the first plane hit, he was lying or he was mistaken?

I just thinks it takes a lot of tin foil to be a tr00ther (and a severe shortage of sense.)

PoliticalCitizen · August 18, 2008

So you say when he said he saw the first plane hit, he was lying or he was mistaken?
I just thinks it takes a lot of tin foil to be a tr00ther (and a severe shortage of sense.)

To prove my point the details do not matter.

More than half of all Canadians do not believe the official story on 9/11.

I'm sure in other countries this number is even higher.

M.Dancer · August 18, 2008

To prove my point the details do not matter.
More than half of all Canadians do not believe the official story on 9/11.

I'm sure in other countries this number is even higher.

I fail to see how that is relevant. Millions of russians believe there is an international jewish banking conspiracy. Does that make it true or are Russians stupid?

Edited August 18, 2008 by M.Dancer

PoliticalCitizen · August 18, 2008

I fail to see how that is relevant. Millions of russians believe there is an international jewish banking conspiracy. Does that make it true or are Russians stupid?

Typical American view on things. Most of the world tells them something (like "Don't attack Iraq!") but they fail to see how it is relevant.

GostHacked · August 18, 2008

So you say when he said he saw the first plane hit, he was lying or he was mistaken?
I just thinks it takes a lot of tin foil to be a tr00ther (and a severe shortage of sense.)

I am sure the overwhelming majority of people on that day knew , where, when and what they were doing when the planes hit. I sure can tell you. I was still in bed sleeping. Hell almost everyone knew where they were when JR was shot.

Since there was no aired footage that day of the first plane hitting the WTC, there is no way Bush could have seen the first plane on a TV in the school as it happened. Most networks started to tune in moments AFTER the first plane hit. If all the newscrews were focused on the first plane (as it happened) that would mean, everyone knew about it and was ready for it.

So what makes sense to you? I really ask you to think about it and leave the tin foil hat out of it.

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/secrethistory/timeline8.html

After hearing about the first crash into the World Trade Centre, he insisted on carrying on with his planned activities. At 9:05 am, his Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him the second plane had hit the second tower that America was under attack. He famously did nothing for almost 7 minutes. He later said he was trying to project an image of calm.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....2674&EDATE=

On Sept. 11, brothers Gedeon and Jules Naudet were in lower Manhattan
taping a documentary on the Engine 7, Ladder 1 firefighters when Jules

suddenly heard a roar from above and turned his camera upward. In doing so,

he captured the only known video of the first plane striking the World Trade

Center. Cameras still rolling, Jules followed the firefighters into the heart

of what would soon be known as Ground Zero.

Such an interesting body of work. Hearing what firefighters were talking about, how the brothers got seperated that day ect ect .... I do suggest watching it.

M.Dancer · August 18, 2008

I am sure the overwhelming majority of people on that day knew , where, when and what they were doing when the planes hit. I sure can tell you. I was still in bed sleeping. Hell almost everyone knew where they were when JR was shot.
Since there was no aired footage that day of the first plane hitting the WTC, there is no way Bush could have seen the first plane on a TV in the school as it happened.

Then he made a semantic mistake....I'm sure you can provide the exact quote if you are up to it.

The time of the attacks I was on the phone with my collegue in New York. Their office was 5 minutes from the WTC. While we were talking someone said a twin engine plane crashed into the tower...of course we thought it was someone who went to the same flying school as JFK Jr...I even joked about it online...it was only a short time later we realized we were wrong.

PoliticalCitizen · August 18, 2008

Then he made a semantic mistake....I'm sure you can provide the exact quote if you are up to it.
The time of the attacks I was on the phone with my collegue in New York. Their office was 5 minutes from the WTC. While we were talking someone said a twin engine plane crashed into the tower...of course we thought it was someone who went to the same flying school as JFK Jr...I even joked about it online...it was only a short time later we realized we were wrong.

Then we should be happy he didn't confuse Iraq with Iran... the difference is just a letter...

M.Dancer · August 18, 2008

Then we should be happy he didn't confuse Iraq with Iran... the difference is just a letter...

Either or would have been fine.

PoliticalCitizen · August 18, 2008

Either or would have been fine.

Of course. I'd be surprised if in the South militias are not mobilizing to protect Atlanta, GA from Russian invasion

Edited August 18, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

PoliticalCitizen · August 20, 2008

Back to the topic:

In response to Poland signing the agreement of placing the missle-defence system on its territory, Belarus and Syria offered Russia to place Russian Iskander missle systems and / or strategic bombers on their territory.

Also Russian Tu-95 "Bear's" are flying along the northern borders of US, Canada and Norway...

moderateamericain · August 20, 2008

Back to the topic:
In response to Poland signing the agreement of placing the missle-defence system on its territory, Belarus and Syria offered Russia to place Russian Iskander missle systems and / or strategic bombers on their territory.

Also Russian Tu-95 "Bear's" are flying along the northern borders of US, Canada and Norway...

Absolutely fine with me, if they wanna ship millions of equipment into syria so the Jews can then blow them up thats fine with me. Besides if they dont get em we sure as hell will.

GostHacked · August 20, 2008

Russia may just be testing waters. I do not know if they have developed any new military hardware since the break up of the USSR. The Mig 29, and SU27 are over 20 years old. The TU's are still mostly turbo prop bombers.

Most of the Russian air force's planes are not stealthy at all. The US is way ahead on this curve when it comes to technology.

moderateamericain · August 20, 2008

Russia may just be testing waters. I do not know if they have developed any new military hardware since the break up of the USSR. The Mig 29, and SU27 are over 20 years old. The TU's are still mostly turbo prop bombers.
Most of the Russian air force's planes are not stealthy at all. The US is way ahead on this curve when it comes to technology.

Exactly, the New F22's would wipe the floor with anything Russia could put in the air. Actually they would wipe the floor with anything anyone could put in the air. Did you know the pilots can actually see through the planes. And that their FnF missles can be guided by site. So they could be flying side by side with a plane and actually fire a missle to the side. O yeah and most importantly they are completely stealth. The Migs wouldnt even know they are there till there Radar started screaming at them as the missle closed in.

Edited August 20, 2008 by moderateamericain

AngusThermopyle · August 20, 2008

Much of what you say is true Ghosthacked. However I believe it would be a mistake to count out Russia so quickly on the technology front.

They have shown that they can be leaders and not just followers. For instance they were leaders in the area of aero sciences for quite some time, fielding designs and innovations that the west hadn't even thought of. Things such as vectored thrust rockets and turbines, or that supersonic torpedo they developed. In the area of space exploration they excell in their knowledge of the effects of extended periods of living in zero g. Also foregoing the admittedly very impressive feat of landing men on the moon and instead opting to land robotic devices allowed them to gather far more "on the ground" information than the Lunar landings afforded the west. Laser eye surgery is another area in which they set many precedents and the west actually learned from them.

In short, even though they have suffered as a result of the cold war and the economic failure that it produced I think it would be short sighted to discount them. It probably wouldn't take too long for them to get back on the horse so to speak and ramp up their research and technology gathering/development again.

PoliticalCitizen · August 20, 2008

Russia may just be testing waters. I do not know if they have developed any new military hardware since the break up of the USSR. The Mig 29, and SU27 are over 20 years old. The TU's are still mostly turbo prop bombers.
Most of the Russian air force's planes are not stealthy at all. The US is way ahead on this curve when it comes to technology.

The newer air superiority / interceptor aircraft in use by Russian Airforce are SU-35 (very few) and MiG-31(lots of these).

The strategic bombers Tu-95 were in service since the 1960's and expected to be for another couple of decades.

"Stealth" doesn't mean too much with today's radar technology. It does make a plane more expensive, though..

PoliticalCitizen · August 20, 2008

Exactly, the New F22's would wipe the floor with anything Russia could put in the air. Actually they would wipe the floor with anything anyone could put in the air. Did you know the pilots can actually see through the planes. And that their FnF missles can be guided by site. So they could be flying side by side with a plane and actually fire a missle to the side. O yeah and most importantly they are completely stealth. The Migs wouldnt even know they are there till there Radar started screaming at them as the missle closed in.

I am not aware of any production aircraft that would surpass F22. There are several Russian prototypes that are designed to compete with it.

As to "wipe the floor" - I believe US learned in Vietnam that superior hardware doesn't always win the war...

It does give an advantage, however.

Besides - these beasts cost a TON of money to produce and maintain, and I don't think Russia is quite at the level that would allow it to afford a top-notch fleet...

PoliticalCitizen · August 20, 2008

Much of what you say is true Ghosthacked. However I believe it would be a mistake to count out Russia so quickly on the technology front.
They have shown that they can be leaders and not just followers. For instance they were leaders in the area of aero sciences for quite some time, fielding designs and innovations that the west hadn't even thought of. Things such as vectored thrust rockets and turbines, or that supersonic torpedo they developed. In the area of space exploration they excell in their knowledge of the effects of extended periods of living in zero g. Also foregoing the admittedly very impressive feat of landing men on the moon and instead opting to land robotic devices allowed them to gather far more "on the ground" information than the Lunar landings afforded the west. Laser eye surgery is another area in which they set many precedents and the west actually learned from them.

In short, even though they have suffered as a result of the cold war and the economic failure that it produced I think it would be short sighted to discount them. It probably wouldn't take too long for them to get back on the horse so to speak and ramp up their research and technology gathering/development again.

Thank you for these kind words

The economic failure was more of a result of the Socialism than the cold war...

So was the shelving and stiffling of numerous inventions by Soviet scientists that would have been immediately exploited in the West...

Oh well... Thankfully, that's not the case anymore... but the accent may still be on military hardware.

Have you heard of "Elbrus" processor? It was developed in USSR to control ballistic missle flight. In one of its generations it was said it could outperform Intel's Itanium...

M.Dancer · August 20, 2008

So was the shelving and stiffling of numerous inventions by Soviet scientists that would have been immediately exploited in the West...
Have you heard of "Elbrus" processor? It was developed in USSR to control ballistic missle flight. In one of its generations it was said it could outperform Intel's Itanium...

:lol: :lol:

PoliticalCitizen · August 20, 2008

From cnews.ru:

30.06.2008, 11:06:43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100% Russian computer revives

100 new Russian Elbrus-3M computers based on the same-name processors will be delivered to its customers later in the year. Elbrus computers will be used in anti-missile and air defense, as well as in cryptographic calculations for secret services.

This year will see the batch production of the “Russian supercomputer” based on the Elbrus-3M servers, Director General of the MCST company which has been developing the Elbrus line, Alexander Kim told CNews. 100 such computers will be delivered to customers by late 2008.

Elbrus-3M is managed by Linux MCBC (mobile system for armed forces). It is made of two Elbrus superscalar processors capable of processing more than one instruction at a time. The server’s peak performance is 9,6Gigaflops (9,6x109 floating-point operations per second). Alexander Kim said computer systems with the productivity of 0,6Tflops will be created based on such servers. They might be considered as entry-level supercomputers.

The history of the Russian Elbrus line computers started back in 1970s at the Institute of Precision Mechanics and Computer Engineering when the Elbrus-1 ensemble machine with the productivity of 15m operations per second was created.

AngusThermopyle · August 20, 2008

"Stealth" doesn't mean too much with today's radar technology.

Yeah...okay...dream on buddy.

GostHacked · August 20, 2008

Elbrus-3M is managed by Linux MCBC (mobile system for armed forces). It is made of two Elbrus superscalar processors capable of processing more than one instruction at a time. The server’s peak performance is 9,6Gigaflops (9,6x109 floating-point operations per second). Alexander Kim said computer systems with the productivity of 0,6Tflops will be created based on such servers. They might be considered as entry-level supercomputers.

For a processor that old, that is really freakin impressive. Entry level for sure, but for only two processors, of that age, doing that kind of calculations is ... again impressive.

PoliticalCitizen

The newer air superiority / interceptor aircraft in use by Russian Airforce are SU-35 (very few) and MiG-31(lots of these).

The MIG 31 is about as old as the F-18s. and 16s. Any F-15 could take that puppy out. The SU 35 is in many ways similar to the 29, but it is bigger.

One thing I will give the Russians, is that they did make a foward swept wing craft. They used off the shelf Russian parts like the US did with off the shelf US parts. They also tried to make a Harrier type craft, The YAk-35.... but the design was seriously flawed.

The strategic bombers Tu-95 were in service since the 1960's and expected to be for another couple of decades.

The B-52 has been in service for as long or longer. The TUs are nice, but the

"Stealth" doesn't mean too much with today's radar technology. It does make a plane more expensive, though..

It makes it more expensive, but at the same time, the stealth technology works, which saves the expensive plane's ass. The b-2 siginature is about as big as an average bird. Radars don't look for those kinds of birds.