View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

A Challenge to Scepcop

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby stundie » 12 Dec 2009, 06:36

ProfWag wrote:
stundie wrote:Challenge met hopefully. :)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23319117/NORA ... -Procedure

I will freely admit stundie, that THAT was a valiant effort! Kudos to you! However, as ND aluded to, almost all military instructions are revisions of old instructions. If it is a revision, there is a summary of changes. As you can see from this document, paragraph 7 is a listing of the summary of changes which are:
7. Summary of Changes
a. Unmanned vehicles (UAV, ROV) added to the description of
possible derelict airborne objects.
b. Statutory Authority for Responding to Aircraft Piracy enclosure
removed and added to reference list.
c. In various places throughout the document, “USELEMNORAD” was
replaced with “NORAD.”
d. FAA Order 7610.4J, 3 November 1998, “Special Military
Operations,” was added as a reference

These really don't sound to me like neither Chaney nor Rumsfeld changed much of anything relating to the shooting down commercial airliners, but one may see something different than I. The fact that this CJCSI was updated 3 months prior to 9/11 sure does make for a good conspiracy story though!
Wag

Hi ProfWag,

It sure does make for a good conspiracy story but not as good a story as the Halloween Massacre. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Massacre

Cheers

Stundie :)
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17






Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby Nostradamus » 12 Dec 2009, 09:53

Actually stundie it says secretary of defense. Do you know if this was a change?

What I find amusing is that a civilian led the military campaign on the War in Iraq.

Why is that funny? The constitution sets a civilian in charge of the armed forces.

You think the previous changes were to a 1988 document. That's a guess. So the question on how often documents are reviewed and updated is an open question.

Don't you think it is odd that the star pattern is what it was? The CT ideas are built on tenuous at best innuendos. This is real unlike almost every CTer claim.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby stundie » 12 Dec 2009, 20:25

Nostradamus wrote:Actually stundie it says secretary of defense. Do you know if this was a change?
I do not think it was a change as such, from what I gather the Sec of Defence approval was only needed where lethal force was used where as this document pertained to approval being needed just to intercept.

As I said, with Rummy being out of the picture on the morning of 9/11, it would mean procedure couldn't be followed.

Nostradamus wrote:
What I find amusing is that a civilian led the military campaign on the War in Iraq.

Why is that funny? The constitution sets a civilian in charge of the armed forces.
I'm not doubting that, but if you start a military campaign, then it's better to let the commanders who are trained to that job than some civilian like Rumsfeld who frankly doesn't have a clue.

Nostradamus wrote:You think the previous changes were to a 1988 document. That's a guess. So the question on how often documents are reviewed and updated is an open question.
No, it's not a guess, it is what I remember when I last looked into the issue a couple of years ago.

As far as I'm aware, they are not reviewed/updated every 2 years or so.

Nostradamus wrote:Don't you think it is odd that the star pattern is what it was?
Not really!

Nostradamus wrote:The CT ideas are built on tenuous at best innuendos. This is real unlike almost every CTer claim.
There are some CT that are just plain whacky but unfortunately, as a skeptic, I have too look at all the possibilities.

Claiming that every CT claim is unreal is silly and highlights cognitive dissonance rather than critical thinking skills. The Halloween Massacre (see link above!) was a conspiracy involving Cheney and Rumsfeld to overthrow certain Republicans in power during Ford's presidency.

So your claim is false.

Cheers

Stundie :)
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests