N. Korea missile aimed at area off Hawaii - report

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Actually the U.S. facility in Norad can calculate within a 100 mile radius where a missile is going to land as soon as it rotates out of it silo or off of its launcher, the longer they can track it, the more accurate they can get.

Is this the same NORAD that completely lost track of four civilian planes on 9/11 in their own airspace and were completely baffled at how to react?

I have no doubt that NORAD makes these claims. I also have no doubt that it is possible, with the right intelligence. As long as you have the knowledge of what type of missile is being launched, the number of stages, the payload weight, and the angle at which it was launched, you can make a pretty good guess as to where it's going to land. But when you readily admit that you do NOT have any intelligence on the weapon, that you're unsure of the stage configuration, and you're not sure of the fuel situation or payload, you can't predict a damn thing.

Quick, answer me this question:

I'm leaving my house this morning, how far will I get before I run out of gas? Come on fellas, you're all really smart guys, how far do I get?

BTW... let's not forget that something came off the missile at launch, does that affect the ability of NORAD to track or predict anything? Also, NORAD is able to identify missiles by signatures from engines, identified through collection of data from observation of test launches. If this was the maiden flight, what data would there be to identify anything? Sometimes "military intelligence" really is an oxymoron.

[Daradon]

I find it hard to believe that a missiles path could be accurately estimated within it's first 40 secs. Especially if it's a long range missile and especially if it's a multi-staged missile. Now whether it was multi-staged or not is something else entirely, but it was claimed to be, was it not?

Add to the fact that it wsn't opperating properly and such estimations could probably be thrown right out the window, but I guess they were estimating on where it was aimed, not whether it would make it there.

However, it would make sense that it's target would be just short of American airspace or what might be an American target in the future. That would definitely get people's attention. Seeing as N. Korea has already proved what they want to regarding their range abilities and Japan, Hawaii would be the next logical step in distance and route would it not?

Going back to the other side of the argument, it would also make sense for the media to make this assumption though without credible facts. Not necessarily for any right vs. left agenda or anything or because they were convinced by the government such data was correct, but simply because alarming news sells better. If it bleeds, it leads right?

Going back to the original argument, I also have to agree that recent efforts by N. Korea are more of a bargaining tool and a cry for attention, than a real act of hostility. Right or not, they probably do fear their independance. And they also probably crave some of the bargaining attention Iran has received lately.

Now they could obviously correct this by establishing a more fair more free government, working peacefully with the world, and other such things, but it's doubtful they are going to do it that way. That's not really the argument.

I also saw a news report and some analysts that said that the recent actions by Kim were because of pressure from hardliners in his government/military rankings. An interesting idea to think he might not be the most hardline of the people in charge in that nation, but it does make sense.

The people, and the government take a lot of pride in their military accomplishments. It's as much to make his own nation happy (or feel safe or vindicated or strong) as it is to get attention from the rest of the world.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Is this the same NORAD that completely lost track of four civilian planes on 9/11 in their own airspace and were completely baffled at how to react?

I have no doubt that NORAD makes these claims. I also have no doubt that it is possible, with the right intelligence. As long as you have the knowledge of what type of missile is being launched, the number of stages, the payload weight, and the angle at which it was launched, you can make a pretty good guess as to where it's going to land. But when you readily admit that you do NOT have any intelligence on the weapon, that you're unsure of the stage configuration, and you're not sure of the fuel situation or payload, you can't predict a damn thing.

Quick, answer me this question:

I'm leaving my house this morning, how far will I get before I run out of gas? Come on fellas, you're all really smart guys, how far do I get?

BTW... let's not forget that something came off the missile at launch, does that affect the ability of NORAD to track or predict anything? Also, NORAD is able to identify missiles by signatures from engines, identified through collection of data from observation of test launches. If this was the maiden flight, what data would there be to identify anything? Sometimes "military intelligence" really is an oxymoron.

On the first part, I can't really disagree with you without making an ass out of myself. However there are some givens here. When the missile launches if you have a good look at it you can get a pretty good feel for its characteristics just by looking at the acceleration curve from first ignition until it reaches its consistant top boost phase. Also except for the Chinese who have thier missiles more or less angled in thier silos or the Russians who set initial aiming points on thier SRBM's by angling thier launching vehicles, most missiles come out of thier launch tubes, and then rotate and angle onto thier headings. Between these things you can get a pretty good picture of where its going and how far its going to go. After that it becomes straight math based around stage stage firings and times of burn, it has very little to do with the intelligence on the rockets, the U.S. does thier actual classifications based around data gathered during observed test launches.

On your hypothtical on the car and gas thing, its a little different here Lanny and you know it. A liquid fueled missile is carrying a full load of fuel because missiles have to be light and they are incredibly fragile/ The Fuel actually gives a missile its strength and rigidity. So again you can time burn rates on stages and be pretty consistant on knowing the missiles range. But if we were take your car with a full fuel load, and we know where you were going and had a consistant state of the conditions of your course we could pretty accurately calculate your length of travel and probable destination with a certain degree of confidence. IE if we fueled up your car to the max, put you and your wife in it with a consistant load of payroll and fired you from a catapult, we can calculate with a certain degree of certainty where your car and you would land (and explode).

We can also look at probable tagets between your start points and your course as a second source of data.

Yes a part coming off of the rocket would certainly effect thing, again I'm not denying that, however it came off after the initial boost phase (right). So they were through the boost phase and rotation.

However I don't think that this bomb aimed at Hawaii story has any legs. As it stands if Bush was the Darth Vader of the century he would have been on the roof tops bleating about this and firing cruise missiles into N Korea as justification for his war on terror.

I think we're jumping at shadows, and the missiles targets would be the west coast people . . . the west coast. That part of the states was suppossed to slide into the sea years ago, its beyond its lifespan and has had a good run.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

On the first part, I can't really disagree with you without making an ass out of myself.

Thank you. You ran headlong into that one. I had to do that to you since I've taken so much flak using NORAD as an example of inconsistencies in the events of 9/11. Can't have it both ways, right? Oh, and I firmly believe that NORAD has these tools to do what we both suggest/know they can do.

However there are some givens here. When the missile launches if you have a good look at it you can get a pretty good feel for its characteristics just by looking at the acceleration curve from first ignition until it reaches its consistant top boost phase. Also except for the Chinese who have thier missiles more or less angled in thier silos or the Russians who set initial aiming points on thier SRBM's by angling thier launching vehicles, most missiles come out of thier launch tubes, and then rotate and angle onto thier headings. Between these things you can get a pretty good picture of where its going and how far its going to go.

All good points and very true. The problem is that we are unsure if the rocket was indeed completely fuelled and we have no idea if all stages were fuelled. This may have the reason for the early termination of the missile, that it was unstable from these control factors not being taken into consideration.

the U.S. does thier actual classifications based around data gathered during observed test launches.

This was the first launch of this missile, so there was no observable data to rely upon. Based on this lack of data it would have been impossible to identify and estimate the potential target for the missile.

On your hypothtical on the car and gas thing, its a little different here Lanny and you know it. A liquid fueled missile is carrying a full load of fuel because missiles have to be light and they are incredibly fragile/ The Fuel actually gives a missile its strength and rigidity. So again you can time burn rates on stages and be pretty consistant on knowing the missiles range. But if we were take your car with a full fuel load, and we know where you were going and had a consistant state of the conditions of your course we could pretty accurately calculate your length of travel and probable destination with a certain degree of confidence. IE if we fueled up your car to the max, put you and your wife in it with a consistant load of payroll and fired you from a catapult, we can calculate with a certain degree of certainty where your car and you would land (and explode).

Yes, it is a little different, but that's the point of the exercise. You DON'T have the complete intelligence. You DON'T know what vehicle is leaving the garage. You don't know if I have a full tank of gas and you don't know whether I have a payload or if I am towing anything that will reduce my range. These are the unknowns and you have no idea. You can give a range, but that is it.

We can also look at probable tagets between your start points and your course as a second source of data.

Yes, and since this was a test flight and there was thousands of miles of open ocean I would say they were hoing to hit the ocean. Now, if it had been Shean Donovon at the controls I woud say that the odds were pretty good that the missile wouldn't have hit the ocean, where it was aimed!

Yes a part coming off of the rocket would certainly effect thing, again I'm not denying that, however it came off after the initial boost phase (right). So they were through the boost phase and rotation.

Were they? I don't have enough information on this missile to make that assumption.

However I don't think that this bomb aimed at Hawaii story has any legs. As it stands if Bush was the Darth Vader of the century he would have been on the roof tops bleating about this and firing cruise missiles into N Korea as justification for his war on terror.

I think we're jumping at shadows, and the missiles targets would be the west coast people . . . the west coast. That part of the states was suppossed to slide into the sea years ago, its beyond its lifespan and has had a good run.

We agree. I think this whole thing is a steaming pile of bull**** dreamed up and planted in the media to test the reaction of the people.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

They probably are in YOUR political spectrum. Where you sit, EVERYTHING is left wing. If you Bushies were any further right, you'd pop up over on the extreme left. I guess that would make sense since your political movement (the neocons) was founded by a bunch of ex-Trotzkyites.

What's funny is that I am pro-business, pro-capitalism, and pro-small government, but with a humanistic approach. I believe people should be rewarded for their hard work, but not at the expense of their fellow man. That means that there should not be a massive (300 times) gap between C-level and line workers. I believe that business should be abe to turn unlimited profits, as long as they meet a social responsibility contract with their community. I believe that government should be small, non-obtrusive, and effective. That means they make the rules that support the needs of the whole, and then monitor them for compliance, penalizing those who do not comply. Now where do those values lay in the political spectrum?

So you're a right winger. Probably voted for Reform too back in the day. In fact I share every single one of those values cited, I just don't see where in your deluded mind you get the impression that Azure, I or anyone else is a "neo-con" (the bad word of the left) or a "Bushie".

Please Lanny, if you are watching Loose Change II and believe one iota of "truth" in that piece of crap, then why is it me that has to exercise some critical thought around here.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Is this the same NORAD that completely lost track of four civilian planes on 9/11 in their own airspace and were completely baffled at how to react?

I have no doubt that NORAD makes these claims. I also have no doubt that it is possible, with the right intelligence. As long as you have the knowledge of what type of missile is being launched, the number of stages, the payload weight, and the angle at which it was launched, you can make a pretty good guess as to where it's going to land. But when you readily admit that you do NOT have any intelligence on the weapon, that you're unsure of the stage configuration, and you're not sure of the fuel situation or payload, you can't predict a damn thing.

Quick, answer me this question:

I'm leaving my house this morning, how far will I get before I run out of gas? Come on fellas, you're all really smart guys, how far do I get?

BTW... let's not forget that something came off the missile at launch, does that affect the ability of NORAD to track or predict anything? Also, NORAD is able to identify missiles by signatures from engines, identified through collection of data from observation of test launches. If this was the maiden flight, what data would there be to identify anything? Sometimes "military intelligence" really is an oxymoron.

Do you know what NORAD is? It tracks outside incoming threats, it was never designed to monitor what goes on INSIDE the continental US.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do you know what NORAD is? It tracks outside incoming threats, it was never designed to monitor what goes on INSIDE the continental US.

Well...they used to be. NORAD is now a part of both Canada's and the US's homeland defense systems...but only after 9/11.

So the question remains.... did NORAD lose track of 4 civilian airliners on 9/11 when they weren't supposed to be monitoring them to begin with?

IIRC they were called into action only after the 2nd plane hit the WTC.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well...they used to be. NORAD is now a part of both Canada's and the US's homeland defense systems...but only after 9/11.

So the question remains.... did NORAD lose track of 4 civilian airliners on 9/11 when they weren't supposed to be monitoring them to begin with?

IIRC they were called into action only after the 2nd plane hit the WTC.

Of course I was talking about 2001. Not only did they not find 4 airliners they weren't supposed to be tracking, in order to find them they had to cross-reference literally 1000s of data streams from radar stations across America. No wonder it took them a few hours to do it.

As for the myth about Cheney ordering fighters to stand down on 9/11... there were only 14 fighters on alert for all 48 states. It would have taken them over an hour to intercept the airliners when they had been found.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well...they used to be. NORAD is now a part of both Canada's and the US's homeland defense systems...but only after 9/11.

So the question remains.... did NORAD lose track of 4 civilian airliners on 9/11 when they weren't supposed to be monitoring them to begin with?

IIRC they were called into action only after the 2nd plane hit the WTC.

Bull. NORAD has been tracking every single object in North America airspace for 20+ years. This has been a badge of distinction that the military likes to trot out every now and then. The one quote that has always stood out for me was, "There is not anything man made that flies over North America that we are not able to identify and able to track". Reagan damanded that the command be able to do just that, and they have been since the 80's.

And you don't recall correctly. NORAD was notified directly by Boston flight control of the hijackings at 8:37 am. FAA administartor Jane Garvey testified to the 9/11 commission that they were notified of the hijackings at 8:30 and she personally notified NORAD at 8:34. Flight 11 hit the north tower of WTC at 8:46. a full 12 minutes after NORAD was notified by the FAA, or 9 minutes after being notified by Boston control. NORAD was well aware of the situation, had fighters in the air on any of 15 different exercises that were taking place that day, and did nothing to divert any of them. But hey, they were completely unaware and were not responsible.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Of course I was talking about 2001. Not only did they not find 4 airliners they weren't supposed to be tracking, in order to find them they had to cross-reference literally 1000s of data streams from radar stations across America. No wonder it took them a few hours to do it.

As for the myth about Cheney ordering fighters to stand down on 9/11... there were only 14 fighters on alert for all 48 states. It would have taken them over an hour to intercept the airliners when they had been found.

Wow, where do you get your information? There was a full squadron of D.C. Air National Guard fighters on alert at Andrews, a mere 10 miles from the Pentagon. As well, there were fighters on alert at both Otis and Langley airforce bases, and were scrambled from both, but not until after the fact. NORAD did not scramble fighters until 9:49, and did so nation wide. That's a full 1:15 minutes after being notified by the FAA of multiple hijackings. But hey, don't worry, there were only 14 fighters in all of the United States!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Wow, where do you get your information? There was a full squadron of D.C. Air National Guard fighters on alert at Andrews, a mere 10 miles from the Pentagon. As well, there were fighters on alert at both Otis and Langley airforce bases, and were scrambled from both, but not until after the fact. NORAD did not scramble fighters until 9:49, and did so nation wide. That's a full 1:15 minutes after being notified by the FAA of multiple hijackings. But hey, don't worry, there were only 14 fighters in all of the United States!

Whoa, what quack source do you get your information from?
I said 14 fighters on alert, dummy.

[transplant99]

Bull. NORAD has been tracking every single object in North America airspace for 20+ years. This has been a badge of distinction that the military likes to trot out every now and then. The one quote that has always stood out for me was, "There is not anything man made that flies over North America that we are not able to identify and able to track".

Lanny, there is a massive difference in being ABLE to track anything that flies and actually tracking EVERYTHING that flies....

When they notice anomilies, IE; NOT civilian aircraft, they then notify Canadian and US goverments as to what cause of action to take, and to scramble fighters if told so by the military.

The other instances is when there is suspected drug trafficking flights. Then they notify CIVILIAN authorities and they take over from there.

[Gugstanley]

Lanny why do you live in the United States?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

..

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Whoa, what quack source do you get your information from?
I said 14 fighters on alert, dummy.

I get my information from The 9/11 Commission Report, The 9/11 Commission Report: Errors and Ommissions, The Terror Timeline, Crossing the Rubicon, The New Pearl Harbor, Cover Up, Weapons of Mass Deception, septembereleventh.org, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Physics911, Center for Cooperative Research, the NIST, 911independentcommission.org, the Anti-defamation league, the 9/11 digital archive, september11victims.com, familiesofseptember11.org, 911 Families for a Secure America, and the sworn testimony of 510 EMS and firefighters who were in the buildings that made up the WTC complex on 9/11. In other words, a helluva lot more information sources than you've even considered looking at, or even heard of.

Also, your line of there were only 14 fighters on alert is also 100% bull****. NORAD admitted, during the investigation by the 9/11 commission, that there were at least six bases in the northeastern United States that squadrons on stand-by, meaning at least 24 fighters were available to scramble in the north east alone. As well, there were jets already in the air off the coast of New York state and North Carolina, but for some reason they were not ordered into the area. Your theory of 14 fighters being on standby was debunked a very long time ago.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Gugstanley

Lanny why do you live in the United States?

I like the weather.

Why do you live in the United States?

Now before you answer that, read some of Thomas Jefferson's writings about government, being an upstanding American, and being a patriot, and then you tell me which of us is more like the vision he had for his nation.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Lanny, there is a massive difference in being ABLE to track anything that flies and actually tracking EVERYTHING that flies....

When they notice anomilies, IE; NOT civilian aircraft, they then notify Canadian and US goverments as to what cause of action to take, and to scramble fighters if told so by the military.

The other instances is when there is suspected drug trafficking flights. Then they notify CIVILIAN authorities and they take over from there.

Okay, I see the point you are trying to make, but is several planes going off of their registered flight plan not an anomoly? According to testimony given to the 9/11 Commission it was, but was not acted upon. Payne Stewart's jet was intercepted in a much more timely and orderly fashion, on the instructions of NORAD. NORAD did not act in the manner it was suppose to have. Especially with advanced intelligence that suggested there was a high probablility of highjacking attempts in the coming months. If you think this is the way they operate, then God forbid anyone ever attacks us. They way these clowns do their jobs we'll be lucky to get anything in the air before its all over.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I like the weather.

Why do you live in the United States?

Now before you answer that, read some of Thomas Jefferson's writings about government, being an upstanding American, and being a patriot, and then you tell me which of us is more like the vision he had for his nation.

The US itself lacks the original vision its founding fathers had, but that's a story for another time... Carry on.

[C Of Cup]

Lanny you're on drugs.

No one is touching the U.S. We have more people in Task force in the U.S than most countries have in their military and police force combined. NK is a million man army with a crack head ruler who holds public executions, not to mention shooting Taepedongs 2 near Japan. A T2 is 120 ft long and weighs more than 140,000 Lbs. You don't test these kind of missiles. Now that the U.S has a ship docked near Japan ready to take out whatever they launch, no one should worry. You shouldn;t of worried in the first place cause their is a place called HAARP in Alaska that is like a secret Area 51. No one is touchin the states kid.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by C Of Cup

Lanny you're on drugs.

No one is touching the U.S. We have more people in Task force in the U.S than most countries have in their military and police force combined. NK is a million man army with a crack head ruler who holds public executions, not to mention shooting Taepedongs 2 near Japan. A T2 is 120 ft long and weighs more than 140,000 Lbs. You don't test these kind of missiles. Now that the U.S has a ship docked near Japan ready to take out whatever they launch, no one should worry. You shouldn;t of worried in the first place cause their is a place called HAARP in Alaska that is like a secret Area 51. No one is touchin the states kid.

Wow, where to begin.

* Kind of contradict yourself don't you. Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "Task force" before we go any further.

* You don't test a T2? Really? Then how do you know it works? Everyone tests their weapons. EVERYONE.

* Oooooh, the United States has a ship docked near Japan (I won't even touch the semantic errors, its way too easy), big whoop. What, do they have a big fly swatter, or a component of the money pit that is the missile defense shield. Propably some of them thar highly reliable systems based off of the useless Patriot missile system, right?

* HAARP? Secret? HAARP isn't a secret.

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
http://www.alaska.net/~logjam/HAARP.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarp
http://www.crystalinks.com/haarp.html

As for weaponizing the ionosphere, I think that has been proven to be fruitless. More health concerns than military concerns.

http://www.earthpulse.com/src/subcat...d=1&subcatid=3
http://www.earthpulse.com/src/subcat...d=1&subcatid=4
http://www.ee.psu.edu/cssl/ferraro.html
http://www.padrak.com/ine/HAARP97.html

Holes in Heaven is a pretty interesting documentary, even if it is sensationalistic at times and the science flawed.

http://www.haarp.com/main.html

Well, you really got me there. A lot of hubris, but nothing to back it up. How "patriotic" of you. Yup, no one is going to touch America, kid. Keep dreaming. Shouldn't the "missile defense shield" shoot something down before you make these statements? There has not been a single successful test to date, so no proof of concept. Oh, I forgot. Countries don't test **** anymore!

Also, I wonder how effective them "missile defense systems" are against subs and launches from 20 miles off shore, or a nuke planted in a cargo container or a suitcase? Yup, no one's going to touch America. No one. Not even 19 guys with box cutters. Or are you ready to admit the government was complicent in that action?