Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Automated Missiles Systems at the Pentagon

I noticed this interview with Jim Fetzer. This guy is so repetitive that there is very little original here. He doesn't even bother to change the wording of his lies. You got to love the psychadelic look though. I imagine Uncle Fetzer sitting back with a joint playing the Beatles tunes from his radio show. In any case, one notable thing is Fetzer is now repeating the "automated missiles at the Pentagon" myth:

Host: Now I am going to skip back to the Pentagon that we talked about. Isn’t that, like the heaviest fortified… they’ve got like, isn’t that like automatic weapons that go off when something gets in the area?

Fetzer: Sure. They have automated anti-aircraft missile systems and so forth. So, you can’t imagine having all these hundreds of billions of dollars to play with and those brass hats not making sure they’re safe.

Host: Yeah

Fetzer: Even if no one else in the world (unintelligible).

Host: That’s the Pentagon. That’s the symbol that shows our strength, our status. That is… You said they’re automatic weapons. When something comes into the area, boom, (snaps fingers) they’re gone

Fetzer: Unless they’re directed to stand down.

This often repeated claim, is of course baseless, as I have addressed in my JOD911 paper (shameless self plug). Ironically, the best evidence I could come up with against this, was a picture I stole from the Loosers from their recent "research" trip to DC.

Reagan National Airport is less than 2 miles away from the Pentagon. For some reason these invisible missile batteries don't seem to be automatically shooting down all those airplanes.

Fetzer also repeats the "hundreds of billions of dollars" of stolen gold from the World Trade Center claim. Geez guy, even the Loose Change boys have dropped that claim from the newest version of their movie. Get with the times.


At 19 September, 2006 22:42, Blogger Richard said...

Wow, guess me and my ADA buddies have been kept in the dark all these years about automated missile defense systems. There is actually one picture that could be twisted to support that claim and I have yet to see any truther post it. It's right there on google, just a few keys words and they would have it. I know my fellow debunkers could find it. I'll give +100 shill points to whoever posts it first!

At 20 September, 2006 00:44, Blogger nesNYC said...

SLC hearts Fetzer!

At 20 September, 2006 00:45, Blogger Killtown said...

Interview with April Gallop

Me: ...I have heard that, as of 9/11, the anti-aircraft batteries were automated, in other words, that they would have automatically fired against any incoming aircraft that did not transmit the appropriate friend or foe signal. Is that true?

AG: Yes that is true. They are either to attempt to guide the incoming aircraft that has violated the airspace to a safe location to land. Making reasonable effort to guide it down. Or shoot it down.


Challenge for the screwies.

At 20 September, 2006 01:42, Blogger Alex said...

They are either to attempt to guide the incoming aircraft that has violated the airspace to a safe location to land. Making reasonable effort to guide it down. Or shoot it down.

That shows she either has no idea what she's talking about, or didn't understand the question. How exactly are "automated anti-aircraft batteries" supposed to "attempt to guide the incoming aircraft"? What, does the pentagon have an Artificial Intelligence in charge of it's defences? SkyNet much?

My guess, she was talking about fighter jets. Don't know why she made such a strange mistake, but there's no way she could actually be trying to convince us that missile batteries can talk to (and negotiate with) incoming aircraft.

As for your "challenge", I'd rather see a new independent investigation into what societal conditions create people like you and Nazinyc. It'd be much more productive. Imagine if we could find a cure!

At 20 September, 2006 04:04, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Richard beat me to the punch but I too have never heard of "automated missile batteries" in the US military or any other for that matter.

At 20 September, 2006 06:38, Blogger JoanBasil said...

I'd like to second killtown's challenge: You folks who believe the official theory should be calling for a new independent investigation.

At 20 September, 2006 06:54, Blogger James B. said...

I already address April Gallop at length in the paper I linked. You might try actually reading something occasionally that disagrees with you Killtown.

At 20 September, 2006 06:58, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

What happens when the "independent" investigation comes to the same conclusion?

At 20 September, 2006 07:09, Blogger CHF said...


I asked several of you loons at Ground Zero:


None of them had a clue.

Do you?

If so, give me some names.

At 20 September, 2006 07:15, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

I nominate...

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands...

At 20 September, 2006 07:39, Blogger James B. said...

Colonel Sanders...

At 20 September, 2006 07:46, Blogger MarkyX said...

Adolf Hitler.

With him on the panel, the 9/11 Deniers can't go against their #1 fan.

At 20 September, 2006 08:42, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

I'd like to second killtown's challenge: You folks who believe the official theory should be calling for a new independent investigation.


Oooh wait a minute......
Maybe I should consider your crack induced version?

At 20 September, 2006 09:18, Blogger Alex said...

I'd like to second killtown's challenge: You folks who believe the official theory should be calling for a new independent investigation.

Tell ya what, you meet my challenge and I'll be more than happy to go for yours. Here's my challenge:

Show me one, just ONE, piece of evidence which shows that someone other than muslim hijackers brought down the WTC towers. Here's the catch: you can't rely on guesswork, "lone witness" scenarios, selective quotation, or misinterpretation of scientific principles. If you can do that, I'll be more than happy to support your "independent investigation". I'll even let Nazinyc, Ahmadinejad, and Nasrallah run the damn thing. It'll be real "impartial". But if you CAN'T do it, you have to promise to STFU and stop poisoning peoples minds with your nonsense.


At 20 September, 2006 10:22, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

chrip chrip chirpchirp chirp chirp chirpchirp

At 20 September, 2006 10:40, Blogger CHF said...

C'mon Killton, Nazinyc...

List me some names of people who should be on an independent, impartial investigative team.

At GZ I prented some 17 year old twoofer with an idea: how about we gather up some expets like structural engineers and contolled demo experts WHO HAVE NOT PUBLICALLY WIEGHED IN ON 9/11 and present them with all evidence/claims regarding the CT and OS.

Then we see who they agree with.

The twoofer kid thought it was a good idea.

What about you guys?

At 20 September, 2006 12:01, Blogger Rob said...

Quite apart from the proximity of a major airport, one of whose runways points directly at the Pentagon, there are many other things which could cause confusing and cluttered radar returns which any automated missile launcher would have to cope with.

It is closely surrounded on all sides by roads - at least one of which is a major highway - which have all sizes and shapes of vehicles driving along them at all speeds. On one side is a river with different sizes and shapes of ship sailing up it. And there's a railway line, carrying different sizes and shapes of train at different speeds, between it and the airport.

All these things will return a great variety of cluttered radar signals, and any automated system would have to (with absolute infallible accuracy) never open fire on any of them but (instantly and without Human intervention) shoot down a low-flying attacking aircraft. This combination of absolute caution with hair-trigger reaction strikes me as unachievable. Remember that back in 1988 a warship with the most sophisticated radars and defences of the time, while operating in the relativity open and uncluttered environment of the sea, shot down a civilian airliner after misidentifying it as a warplane.

At 20 September, 2006 13:24, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 20 September, 2006 13:25, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...


Fetzer is a great find. I think you should keep him as your "Press" guy. As long as he is the leader of the "Scholars", I can rest easy that the loons will remain "in the bin".

Nominations for the "Independent" Committee:

ME - bias
YOU - bias
Bush - bias
KT - bias
Joan - bias
Fetzer - bias
S. Jones - Bias
Hoffman - Bias
Gordon Ross - Bias
Brainster - bias
MarkyX - bias

Europeans - bias
Russians - bias

shall I go on...

At 20 September, 2006 16:57, Blogger default.xbe said...

Interview with April Gallop

not Sgt Gallup or Lt Gallup?

so mr town, what would you expect a civilian to know about the military defense of the pentagon?

(yes i realize she worked there, but somehow i doubt that automatically gives her clearance to know all about any defense systems)

At 20 September, 2006 22:04, Blogger Richard said...

I don't know where these defense systems would even be kept. I have yet to see any picture that shows anything like a missile defense system. Save one, but no CT'er has ever posted it. If I wanted to I could put together something way better than the CTers. I think that just shows how lazy they are.

"did not transmit the appropriate friend or foe signal"

I wish IFF codes were perfect but there are several examples where aircraft have still been shot down on accident.

At 21 September, 2006 09:25, Blogger Alex said...

I have yet to see any picture that shows anything like a missile defense system.

Hell, I've never even seen pictures of anything that looks like a radar tower, let alone a missile defence system.

At 24 September, 2006 09:09, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

actually they were montoring the flight as it hit the pentagon. IF they had anti aircraft, they could have shot it down. Funny how this point is neither confirmed or denied ...


Post a Comment

<< Home