Saturday, October 21, 2006

False Brain News

I just started listening to False Flag News from last Friday. Just a few minutes in this cracked me up:

I will once again remind everybody, the Eisenhower Strike Group, with a nuclear submarine, loaded with B-1s and B-52s and minesweepers will be approaching around October 21st, and when I get in I am going to give a very quick intelligence briefing and then I am going to introduce my special guest Alex Jones from infowars.com.
Well I for one can't wait for the intel briefing. Maybe he will explain how they get these on the submarine?














23 Comments:

At 21 October, 2006 15:14, Blogger Rayzor said...

CGI/video hologram super secret machine? Ocean's 12 had one, so therefore it must exist.

 
At 21 October, 2006 15:21, Blogger Alex said...

Far be it for me to defend a twoofer, but I think you misunderstood what he was saying James....

Was that intentional? I don't wanna explain it and then feel stupid when it turns out you were just trying to be funny....

 
At 21 October, 2006 15:21, Blogger James B. said...

Gee, that Alex Jones is such a savvy political commenter.

"This is the lowest point since the 94 elections gave President George Bush's Republican's control of the House and the Senate".

Uhh, who was president in 1994 again?

 
At 21 October, 2006 15:24, Blogger James B. said...

I think he misunderstood what he was saying, that is the point.

 
At 21 October, 2006 15:27, Blogger Alex said...

Uhm, I think he meant to say that the strike group has B-52's and B-2's attached to it. Not the submarine itself.

Ofcourse, even that'd be wrong, but at least it's a little easier to understand that sort of a mistake vs. "yeah there's a B-52 in that there sub".

 
At 21 October, 2006 15:31, Blogger James B. said...

Well yeah, the sub part was a sarcastic comment on my part. I am not sure if he was saying it was attached (although I am not sure how you attach a land based bomber to a carrier group) or if he just confused the plane nomenclatures with something else.

 
At 21 October, 2006 15:33, Blogger Alex said...

Ok :) He probably thinks they're carrier-capable.

 
At 21 October, 2006 21:39, Blogger remdem said...

B-52s and B-1s can fit into a submarine, you just have to be really really careful when you fold the wings in 45 places.

 
At 21 October, 2006 22:12, Blogger telescopemerc said...

You silly government shills don't understand TARDIS technology the way the CTs do!

 
At 21 October, 2006 22:32, Blogger default.xbe said...

i dont what you guys are talking about, that b1 in the first pic is abviously being launched from a submarine

 
At 22 October, 2006 07:35, Blogger Dog Town said...

That is a really cool shot of the B1. The water in the wash!

 
At 22 October, 2006 16:56, Blogger SFC B said...

What sort of bizarre military planning attaches a B52 or a B1 to a carrier group?

Did he just look through FAS.org's web page, pick a couple of ominous sounding jets, and stick them in a carrier group?

 
At 23 October, 2006 05:35, Blogger Stevew said...

I thought the B1 and B2 were Airforce and carrier groups were Navy

 
At 23 October, 2006 08:01, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Nano technology!

 
At 23 October, 2006 08:53, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

...or it could be a mistype, when in fact, he was referring to the Eisenhower battle group having the bombers, versus the subs.

James you are sure searching for stuff to critique aren't you? LOL!

One question, you wouldn't be working for CENTCOM would you?
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,89811,00.html

 
At 23 October, 2006 12:15, Blogger Alex said...

...or it could be a mistype, when in fact, he was referring to the Eisenhower battle group having the bombers, versus the subs.

Are you blind? That was one of the first things we discussed!

And no, the Eisenhower battlegroup doesn't have bombers either.

 
At 23 October, 2006 12:53, Blogger SFC B said...

Even though he probably mispoke when he implied that the B1 and B52s were IN the submarines, and really just attached to thr carrier group, it still doesn't make any sense.

I assure you that the Eisenhower doesn't have a B1 or B52 assigned to it, since the take off and landing wingspans of the B1 and the B52 are both larger than the available deck space on the Eisenhower, they weigh signifigantly more than the catapault and arrester systems on the Eisenhower are designed to launch and land, oh and they're not built to be used on a carrier.

Attaching Air Force bombers to a Navy carrier strike group would be like attaching a company of Abrams tanks to a Coast Guard cutter.

 
At 23 October, 2006 12:54, Blogger SFC B said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 23 October, 2006 14:40, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

"Attaching Air Force bombers to a Navy carrier strike group would be like attaching a company of Abrams tanks to a Coast Guard cutter."

Well, it has been discussed before:

Air Force "Air University" link

But that was in the context of a specific type of mission, which was to provide a longer range defense against the then Soviet fleet's operations against a CVBG. So please don't take that as a confirmation or ringing endorsement of the genius work done by this "False Flag News" site </sarcasm>.

But otherwise I agree with you, SFC: It's dumb to attach air capacity to something with it's own air capacity.

As an aside: What is it with Conspiracy Fantasists constant attempts to use terminology they understand nothing about to sound knowledgeable? I kept seeing that in the "pyroclastic flow" claims, and I'm seeing it here. Ignore the error about Air Force bombers being attached to a carrier strike group; why list the nuclear submarine? Isn't that simply assumed when you say "Carrier Strike Group"? It's not like he's also listing the cruisers and destroyers, or mundane ships like the resupply vessels. And I thought a carrier's antimine capability was in its aviation wing, not as a separate ship (or am I misreading that quote in assuming the speaker is referring to anti-mine ships?). If someone's around who's in the Navy, please, help out and correct my far-from-informed rear end regarding that stuff. But whether I got that right or not (at least I'm admitting my dearth of knowledge) my point is that the quote sounds less like someone who's actually in possession of real knowledge and more like someone trying to retail terms to sound impressive.

 
At 23 October, 2006 15:27, Blogger SFC B said...

There are three groups in the Gulf. The Eisenhower and Enterprise carrier strike groups and the Boxer expeditionary strike group.

None of the three groups have any anti-mine ships in them. They use anti-mine aircraft.

However there are four anti-mine ships based in the Gulf in Bahrain.

As best as I can figure the all the military planning knowledge these folks know comes from the Civilization computer games. In those games you could land bombers on aircraft carriers.

If they're using these buzzwords like "B1", "Carrier Group", or whatever to make themselves sound smarter or more authoritive then it's just depressing. It really doesn't take a whole lot to see through how their claims don't work. Something as simple as assigning a B1 to a carrier. Just looking at a picture should tell you that it's not possible. The B1 is HUGE when compared to other carrier-based aircraft. Just looking at one should set off someone's bullshit detector.

It really shouldn't be this hard to come up with a scenario that can at least survive a Google search. If I were so inclined I could come up with more plausible conspirary theories than these yabos

 
At 23 October, 2006 16:56, Blogger Stevew said...

Alex
This is ot but I wanted to pass this along to you
http://www.colonialfanforce.org/

 
At 23 October, 2006 19:18, Blogger James B. said...

James you are sure searching for stuff to critique aren't you? LOL!

One question, you wouldn't be working for CENTCOM would you?


Not at the moment. I did at one time, but then I gave my DCUs back and they let me go home.

 
At 24 October, 2006 09:37, Blogger Alex said...

Awesome, thanks Steve!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home