Disqus - Latest Comments for royastokes

Re: Daily 49er - New 9-11 investigation needed to prove science doesn't lie

royastokes — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:00:18 -0000

The majority of passengers aboard the Titanic refused to believe the ship was sinking until nearly all the lifeboats were put off. By that time, it was becoming quite obvious the ship was sinking. A person standing on deck didn't need a scientist to tell him that he was going to die. Forensic evidence of the gash wasn't needed to know that water was filling the ship.

Gary's smarmy attitude reveals the lack of any spiritual compassion or sense of service to humanity. He fulfills at least one bible prophecy: the highest will be made lowest. In lieu of the observation (by deduction) that Gary doesn't take the universes' eternity as a serious reality, he is sadly left to face his own inner void. Fortunately for him, there are those who will extend a hand to him in his darkest hour.

That will certainly change his arrogant attitude.

Re: Daily 49er - New 9-11 investigation needed to prove science doesn't lie

royastokes — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:07:33 -0000

Gary (unregistered) wrote, in response to royastokes:

“I didn't say that defense should be an industry, and the fact that airline pilots are ex-military and fought back or that they have ways to notify of hijackings doesn't mean that our "defense industry"'s mission or reason for being was anything close to defending against a near simultaneous attack by our own civilian airliners.”

ROY: Then what the fuck is it for?

Gary: “ I do believe that non other than the head of NORAD has said as much.”

ROY: Belief doesn’t count.
KNOWING counts. Give quotes and references.

Gary:
“So ..... does all this really boil down to the fact that you resent the military ever actually using any of those expensive weapons that it buys? And so you think you need to negate the rationale for say ..... bombing Tora Bora? By blaming the bombers of Tora Bora for the bombing of the WTC and Pentagon?”

ROY: a.) No. Nice diversionary tactic, Gary.
b.) YOUR assumption…and you make plenty of them.

Gary:
Were you on the O.J. jury?

ROY: Are you a troll?

Gary: In the case of most hijackings back then, which didn't involve the hijackers taking over as pilots, I hardly think that this kind of intervention would be welcomed by negotiators. The hijackers seeing their wishes overridden by a computer would most likely carry out their threats against the passengers and crew.
ROY: And have to face their captors when they land? Got better plans?

Gary: Interesting concept, one that may be more applicable today given the suicidal tendencies of Islamic pilot-hijackers, but probably not a very useful thing back in the 70's.

ROY: You think this technology didn’t continue to evolve? Cheap shot, Gary, invoking the “oh, so old ‘70’s technology” as irrelevant to the situation. Are you still working on WordPerfect 5.1? Probably not. That grew into MicroSoft Word, didn’t it?

Gary: So just how would this "Home Run" translate into your apparent belief that our "defense industry" was or should have been on hair-trigger alert to shoot down our own airliners?

ROY: Where did I state “shoot down”?
Your diversionary tactics and misquoting are quite obnoxious. You do not answer questions posed to you with a straight-forward answer, and I can only conclude that you are a troll with no life, other than the internet.

Re: Daily 49er - New 9-11 investigation needed to prove science doesn't lie

royastokes — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:38:46 -0000

"In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical reasons. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced [Research] Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, "Home Run" [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means. From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane."

Re: Daily 49er - New 9-11 investigation needed to prove science doesn't lie

royastokes — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:47:17 -0000

You're absolutely wrong about that, and you know it. In 2001 (and even before that) it was virtually impossible to highjack a jetliner. A four-digit number punched into a keyboard is all it takes for a pilot to send the signal. 6 out of 8 of the alledged commercial pilots were ex-military. Do you think they didn't hear commotion before the cockpit was entered, and didn't put up a fight when it was? As the Hudson River ditching shows us, voice-activated controls are available. They were available then, too.

And why should "defense" be an INDUSTRY? A for-profit entity, that by vertue of its title, intends to stay in BUSINESS. Business perpetuated by the CIA causing disruption so the demand for bullets is never ending.

You cannot work for peace while simultaniously preparing for war.

Re: Daily 49er - New 9-11 investigation needed to prove science doesn't lie

royastokes — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:31:18 -0000

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The Northern Virginia Daily July 14, 2009
Sir:
Regarding Karen Hill’s July 10 letter;
The war machinery I refer to is also called the “Military Industrial Complex”. At this point in history, it is composed primarily of several huge corporations which provide goods and services to the Pentagon.
The U.S. owns 11 aircraft carriers at a cost of $45 billion each, a yearly operating cost of $160,000,000...that’s $438,356.00 per day, each. We have in service 89,129 military aircraft with an additional 29,700 helicopters, all needing fuel and maintenance. There are 8,800 tanks, depending on whose numbers you believe. All have parts that wear out. All of the above required research, development, testing, upgrading, transportation costs and yearly makeovers. America claims 737 military bases worldwide, but that number rises well past 1,000 when secret bases are taken into account. They had to be built, maintained, people fed and clothed (military), provided computers, desks and pencils. Regarding the secret bases; prison hardware, “interrogation facilities”, electricity and water, heating and cooling (for the interrogators).
Approximately 1,840,062 U.S. military personal worldwide make up the manpower of the above machinery. All must be fed, housed, clothed, transported, educated, trained, and some require bullets. Tomahawk missiles at $1.5 million each require expensive launchers. The research and development of weaponry alone is in the billions.
The electronic aspects are staggering, with NORAD and Global Hawk technology fed into several million computers and defense mechanisms. Infra-red gizmos and gadgets adorn our soldier’s lives in varying aspects, and then there are radar facilities and satellite manufacturing. A variety of simulators for a variety of training needs.
There are corporations who, like General Electric, have shifted entirely to the needs of the defense industry. Halliburton and Northrop are household words, and during the Bush years, privatization of military supplies increased.
World peace would bring this manufacturing to an abrupt end, irritating corporate interests.
If all this “defense” is designed to keep us safe, 24/7, under most any variant an enemy could possibly dream up, I have only one question, Ms. Hill:

Where was this Defense industry for two hours on the morning of September 11, 2001?

Roy A. Stokes