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?
posted by James B. @ 2:49 PM
19 comments
19 Comments:
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....
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?
I think he misunderstood what he was saying, that is the point.
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".
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.
Ok :) He probably thinks they're carrier-capable.
You silly government shills don't understand TARDIS technology the way the CTs do!
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?
I thought the B1 and B2 were Airforce and carrier groups were Navy
Nano technology!
...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
...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.
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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"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.
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
Alex
This is ot but I wanted to pass this along to you
http://www.colonialfanforce.org/
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.
Awesome, thanks Steve!
Post a Comment
<< Home