Plane Crazy

Steyr

Taken from irishairpics.com:

Article in Irish Mail on Sunday 26-8-07 Page 18.

Title: "Thats plane crazy!"
Subtitle: "The pride of the Air Corps... left standing in a hijack"
By: Ken Foxe, Security Correspondent

Summary: The article (accompanied by a photo of PC-9M '260' and an Airbus A321) basically points out the lack of intercept aircraft within the AC fleet. It states that the PC-9's are only capable of 579km/h compared to the A321's 946-1,004km/h.
Tha article states that Labour's Joe Costello sent an independent analysis to the defence minister which compared th e lack of intercept aircraft to that of the gardai having slower cars than criminals.

Security analyst Declan Power stated that the AC "had been offered fighter aircraft by a Czech manufacturer". He said "This would have given us interception capability with rogue airliners but the department did not consider that this would be cost-effective"

(It doesn't state whether he was referring to the L39's or L159's. As we all know here, the PC-9's are almost as fast and more advanced than the L39's!)

The govts reply in the article basically states there will be no change, mostly citing the cost factor of purchasing and operating jet aircraft when we have no imminent fear of attack.

Davidth88

Dave,

Thats what the RAF is for

Next time a hijacked Aerlingus A321 is told ' take this plane to Shannon ' imagine the RAF Eurofighter being scrambled and taking it out over the Irish Sea a'la Viscount ............sorry that was in bad taste ( the conspirisy theories are still doing overtime on that crash arn't they ? )

I must admit I always thought the lack of fighting aircraft a bit strange.

Steyr

Davidth88 wrote:

I must admit I always thought the lack of fighting aircraft a bit strange.

I find it utterly unacceptable and disgraceful.

Gablin

Well, I'd rather see the money go on an advanced HEMS service for the West myself.

And is this not the same paper that was bleating about how "war-like" our Air Corps were becoming once they saw the PC-9 air firing exercises?

electric69

Steyr wrote:

I find it utterly unacceptable and disgraceful.

we are a "neutral" country so why should we need them?

Davidth88

we are a "neutral" country so why should we need them?

Not withstanding the arguments that your ( I am not Irish ) neutrality disappeared a long time ago , this is not a political forum .

Look at the Swiss , they are also neutral, but they remain neutral by remaining very very strong. Their airforce is something to be reckoned with , along with the Swedes

I think you should have some form of fighter, esp with the new percieved threat since 2001.

I read somewhere that the IAC were looking at ex Danish Drakkans when they retired them back in the late 80's.

An advanced HEMS service I think should also be a must, you should not have to depend on the coast guard to carry out these duties, after what happened down in Cork recently ( with the drugs ) they should be guarding the coasts maybe ?

The IAC have only recently replaced 1960's choppers so I suppose ....

Anyway , having Eurofighters or F18's ( or whatever as long as it has afterburners ) screaming out of Casement would really give me something to watch. It would also give the people who complain about a few C172's out of Weston something to smoke in their pipes

jmayo

Davidth88 wrote:

Not withstanding the arguments that your ( I am not Irish ) neutrality disappeared a long time ago , this is not a political forum .

Look at the Swiss , they are also neutral, but they remain neutral by remaining very very strong. Their airforce is something to be reckoned with , along with the Swedes

I think you should have some form of fighter, esp with the new percieved threat since 2001.

I read somewhere that the IAC were looking at ex Danish Drakkans when they retired them back in the late 80's.

An advanced HEMS service I think should also be a must, you should not have to depend on the coast guard to carry out these duties, after what happened down in Cork recently ( with the drugs ) they should be guarding the coasts maybe ?

The IAC have only recently replaced 1960's choppers so I suppose ....

Anyway , having Eurofighters or F18's ( or whatever as long as it has afterburners ) screaming out of Casement would really give me something to watch. It would also give the people who complain about a few C172's out of Weston something to smoke in their pipes

Here we go again...
For God's sake you can not compare Ireland to either Sweden or Switzerland. Both of these countries have actual home grown companies involved in military hardware design and production.
Sweden have advanced fighters because they are home produced by Saab.
BAE Systems Hägglunds AB produce ATVs and combat vehicles/tanks, and the CV90 model is used by amonst others the Swedish and Swiss military.
BAE Systems Bofors are a leader in artillery design.
Bofors own the Carl Gustav recoiless rifle that has been in service with the Irish Army.
These items are also for sale to whoever wants them.

The Pilatus aircraft that the IAC have are actually Swiss built. The Swiss airforce have US built aircraft (F5s and F18s) but they also have their own Pilatus trainers Pc-6,Pc-7 and Pc-9s.
Swiss Arms AG or better known as SIG Arms AG is a Swiss based small arms manufacturer. Their weapons are used by their own military, as well as military and police forces around the world.

Switzerland remained neutral or rather were probably not invaded during the last great war in Europe (WWII) becuase they were more use to the German war machine as they were. After all they took the German stolen gold/loot and sold them armanents to help keep the war machine going.
Sweden remained neutral also because it was not in the interest of Germany to attack it, it was easier just to buy the minerals.

It is time that some people get a grasp on reality and stop considering us to be so important in the grand scheme of things. The percieved threat after 2001 ?
Look what happened in Glasgow, the threat can usually be a very simple one and the best defence is advanced intelligence. What use is a fighter when someone gets on a bus carrying a homemade bomb.

This discussion comes up every few months on these forums and it is usually where people start dreaming about what they would love to see flaking across the Irish sky, be they F18s, F16s, Eurofighters, A10s or Apaches.

Sponge Bob

a Saab Gripen would do , not forgetting its KEPD capabilities

Davidth88

Hi,

In many ways Ireland gets compared to Denmark. The Danish AF is pretty good , ok they are part of NATO but anyway..........

Perhaps a homegrown arms industry world have been a good idea ? Think of it rather like RSA/Israel/France , or as you say Sweden/Switzerland. An Irish built fighter ?

Of course the only reason I would like to see this is because to see fastjets coming out of Casement would be a scream !

I have no illusions about the importance of Ireland in the world scheme of things, after all I am British where our over inflated sense of importance is well known :-) That is why I used the word percieved.

ambasite

Steyr wrote:

PC-9's are almost as fast and more advanced than the L39

750km/h for L39, 576km/h for PC9, according to wiki

Steyr

electric69 wrote:

we are a "neutral" country so why should we need them?

Were not Neutral we have a policy of Non Alignment.

Steyr

Gablin wrote:

Well, I'd rather see the money go on an advanced HEMS service for the West myself.

There is something like that already in the Pipeline for the Country.

Catcher86

The question about whether or not we should have jet fighters has nothing to do with neutrality. Every country has the sovereign right to defend its self.

The air corps has only ever been interested in intercept aircraft. They have never have and never would be interested in Fighter bombers. Even though they were in discussions for purchasing F-16s which are multi-role fighters, I am sure the sir corps would only be interested in a intercept configuration.

They fact that air corps recently purchased pc9s which are top of the line jet trainers shows that they are still interested in fighters.
I sure that this country will have jet fighters sometime within the next twenty years. Its just a matter of price, although costs seem to be escalating.

Steyr

Catcher86 wrote:

They fact that air corps recently purchased pc9s which are top of the line jet trainers

The PC9M is not a jet it is an Advanced Turboprop Trainer with "jet like" characteristics.

oscarBravo

I've never quite understood what an interceptor is supposed to do with a hijacked jet once it's been intercepted.

Steyr

oscarBravo wrote:

I've never quite understood what an interceptor is supposed to do with a hijacked jet once it's been intercepted.

Show it's "Teeth" ( Missiles ) and escort Airliner to a secure base/airport if it intends to land peacefully and if not i suppose make them leave National Airspace one way or another?

oscarBravo

Steyr wrote:

Show it's "Teeth" ( Missiles ) and escort Airliner to a secure base/airport if it intends to land peacefully and if not i suppose make them leave National Airspace one way or another?

If it intends to land peacefully, it will do so without a gun to its head. As for making it leave national airspace: the only way I can see of doing that with missiles is to forcibly introduce it to national groundspace.

All this talk of interceptors came up after 9/11. My questions are (a) do we seriously expect a re-run of that day (which is unlikely for a lot of reasons), and (b) what would a jet interceptor realistically be able to do to prevent it?

pclancy

Sigh. This discussion keeps appearing.

I can think of about 100 more interesting targets in Europe for a terrorist then Dublin or any other major Irish city. I know we're living about 5 inchs up NATOs arse but we're still not worth bothering about. Most people in the middle east or asia wouldnt have a clue where or what ireland was, it wouldnt be a major political gain to any kind of terrorist party/group to crash a plane on our soil. And a military attack by air? Ha! Name one airforce from a "threat" country that could possibly fly here to attack us? Any kind of threat and the RAF would have us covered, such is the reality.

If any government spent millions on equipping us with fast jets Id be disgusted. There are over 1000 people sleeping rough in dublin tonight, there are probably over people 100 waiting on trollies in casualty, schools need building, roads need sorting- I cant see as much a waste of money for Ireland as a fleet of shining F16s sitting at casement in case "the enemy" should appear over wicklow and start lobbing bombs at us.

Steyr

oscarBravo wrote:

If it intends to land peacefully, it will do so without a gun to its head.
All this talk of interceptors came up after 9/11. My questions are (a) do we seriously expect a re-run of that day (which is unlikely for a lot of reasons), and (b) what would a jet interceptor realistically be able to do to prevent it?

Sorry i meant a forced ( Hijack ) landing.

Do i see a re run of 9/11? Yes. Earlier this year an Aer Lingus New York flight to Dublin was diverted to Shannon following a phoned in bomb alert made in Dublin. There were no Air Corps planes available to intercept and guide into Shannon. Luckly it was a hoax. If it wasn't or if the plane had been highjacked and was heading for a building such as Shannon Airport or the US Embassy what would we have done? Rely on the RAF? What a disgrace i am not Anti British but we have the men so we should do the Job ourselves we dont need to be helped. There was a Turkish Atlas Jet MD-83 Airliner hijacked and forced to land at Antalya just a few weeks ago, good ending but what if that was an Aer Lingus in or heading to Irish or UK or European Airspace or any other Aircraft and the Terrorists intentions were not to land but crash into a building or heavily populated area perhaps and they staged the Hijack or whatever in our Airspace can you imagine the news worldwide that we stood by and did nothing!


What would a jet do? Shoot it. Why have PC9M's ? Just so the jocks in the Don can train to fly for Aer Lingus or RyanAir? Dont make me sick, they are supposed to be a Military arm.
Who mentioned F-16's PCLANCY? You know the Cech's have brand new upgraded L-159's for sale and they are just as good as an Interceptor, and are valued assets at NATO meets especially Tiger Meets. Excellent performance with modern American engine and avionics systems, including multi-mode radar and defensive aids suite. Armed with AIM-9 sidewinders and a gun pack - along with a range of advanced air to surface capability, including laser guided bombs, Maverick missiles and rockets. Easy to maintain and a simple conversion from the PC-9M. Five standard single-seat ALCA's and a single two-seat TL-159 would do the trick. Czech 159's have earned a first-rate reputation in NATO air exercises.

Catcher86

Steyr wrote:

The PC9M is not a jet it is an Advanced Turboprop Trainer with "jet like" characteristics.

Sorry I think you misunderstand what I was saying. Its jet trainer as in its what would be used before a pilot moves on to an actual jet.

Catcher86

oscarBravo wrote:

If it intends to land peacefully, it will do so without a gun to its head. As for making it leave national airspace: the only way I can see of doing that with missiles is to forcibly introduce it to national groundspace.

All this talk of interceptors came up after 9/11. My questions are (a) do we seriously expect a re-run of that day (which is unlikely for a lot of reasons), and (b) what would a jet interceptor realistically be able to do to prevent it?

If a terrorist sees that they are going to be shot down without their mission being completed, they might consider landing peacefully and trying again another day.
As grim as it may seem shooting down an airliner is a viable option if it results in less lifes being lost.

Catcher86

pclancy wrote:

Sigh. This discussion keeps appearing.

I can think of about 100 more interesting targets in Europe for a terrorist then Dublin or any other major Irish city. I know we're living about 5 inchs up NATOs arse but we're still not worth bothering about. Most people in the middle east or asia wouldnt have a clue where or what ireland was, it wouldnt be a major political gain to any kind of terrorist party/group to crash a plane on our soil. And a military attack by air? Ha! Name one airforce from a "threat" country that could possibly fly here to attack us? Any kind of threat and the RAF would have us covered, such is the reality.

If any government spent millions on equipping us with fast jets Id be disgusted. There are over 1000 people sleeping rough in dublin tonight, there are probably over people 100 waiting on trollies in casualty, schools need building, roads need sorting- I cant see as much a waste of money for Ireland as a fleet of shining F16s sitting at casement in case "the enemy" should appear over wicklow and start lobbing bombs at us.

The fact is that Al Qaeda are already in this country and are being monitored by the SDU. Shannon and the US embassy are obvious targets. Al Qaeda target embassies all over the world.

As mentioned in my other post on the same thread in another forum, our budget has an average surplus of almost €2.5 billion euro every year. I think its public knowledge now that that throwing money at the health problem or any other problem for that matter does not work. Planning and structure is the solution, thats what they are doing now and thats why they dont throw the surplus at the problems.

bushy...

A few decent helicopters c/w missiles etc for dealing with situations like that stolen bus are needed too. Actually probably more needed.

jmayo

Oh those bad boys Al Qaeda again.
We are getting as bad as the Americans with all these tales of what ifs.
Jeeze why can't people get into their heads we are a small insignificant in the big bad world.
Because airline and airport security is so locked down it makes it harder to hijack airliners ala 911. Yes there will still be occurrences as the lastest one showed but a rerun of 911?

What are you going to do with an interceptor?
Ultimately you would have to shoot something down that was not responding.
Does anyone think Bertie would have the guts to make that call :rolleyes:
He would bloody well do another disappearing act ala Shannon and Aer Lingus.

The easiest way to hit air travel was shown in Glasgow.
It is surprising no one has walked into major airport and hit departures/checkin areas.
It would be very interesting to see how overcrowded Dublin would fair in that scenario. Then again the terrorists would probably give up while stuck on the M50 traffic nightmare.
Most people just want to see the air corp with fighters.
Hell they could add another layer of officers to the already top heavy structure.

oscarBravo

Catcher86 wrote:

If a terrorist sees that they are going to be shot down without their mission being completed, they might consider landing peacefully and trying again another day.

...or, alternatively, they might consider forcing a shoot-down order as a successful outcome to their mission. We can play the what-if game all day, but ultimately we're talking about spending millions of euros on hardware whose only justification is an unattractive outcome to an extremely unlikely scenario.

Catcher86 wrote:

As grim as it may seem shooting down an airliner is a viable option if it results in less lifes being lost.

The era of hijacking is over. If anyone tries to take over an airplane with the intention of crashing it, they'll be torn limb from limb.

Davidth88

Pclancy ( everyone )

Does no one see the irony in the statement :-

Any kind of threat and the RAF would have us covered, such is the reality

Of course that is the reality, but should you be reliant on another soverign state ?
What about if ( god forbid ) that state was the one invading ? ( this is totally hypothetical , I really don't want to get into a conversation about the North ).

I too agree the money should be spend elsewhere , its a shame there is no evidence of this ( for example where are the shiny new hospitals ? )

I still would love to watch Eurofighters screaming out of Casement ( just for the craic )

pclancy

Its a crazy idea. We simply dont need them. We're too small, too insignificant and whatever al queada are up to on our shores Im sure its as a staging post to attack the UK or Europe, theres nothing here of any value and if they wanted to attack us they could have done it years ago with the state of our intelligence.

Never mind if its F16s or any other brand of attack interceptor, we simply dont need that crap. Fair enough as soverign state we should have the ability to defend ourselves but I cannot see the rest of the EU standing still while some random country attacked us in someway, it just wouldnt happen.

Anyway, its a silly discussion to have in a forum full of spotters and enthusiasts, of course everyone wants to see shiny euorfigthers in IAC colours but nobody would think beyond that. My 2c. Id much rather see some surplus in our budget being spent on the country itself not some peice of hardware to give fighter jocks a hard on.

Catcher86

jmayo wrote:

Oh those bad boys Al Qaeda again.
We are getting as bad as the Americans with all these tales of what ifs.
Jeeze why can't people get into their heads we are a small insignificant in the big bad world.
Because airline and airport security is so locked down it makes it harder to hijack airliners ala 911. Yes there will still be occurrences as the lastest one showed but a rerun of 911?


Most people just want to see the air corp with fighters.
Hell they could add another layer of officers to the already top heavy structure.

This is just how the U.S government responded to the F.B.I when they warned pre 9/11 that an attack by Al Qaeda by hijacking was imminent.

As for Ireland being a fairly insignificant country, this is true. But Tanzania, Tunesia and the small Indonesian island of Bali are all pretty insignifcant countries are the world map, but the oppurtunities presented themselves and Al Qaeda took them. Thats why they have scouts all over the world.

I'm not some Gung-Ho American. I could'nt give two ***** whether the air corps has jets or not. But speaking objectuvely on the matter I think a sovereign state to rely on another is a cop out.

p.s Would people stop bring up the health service when this topic is discussed. Every year the majority of our budget is distributed across the health service and all other problems. Every year we still have a surplus of close to €2 billion which normally just gets redistributed and mismanaged.
Management and proper structure is what is needed. They have already proven that throwing money at the problem does not work.

jmayo

Catcher86 wrote:

This is just how the U.S government responded to the F.B.I when they warned pre 9/11 that an attack by Al Qaeda by hijacking was imminent.

As for Ireland being a fairly insignificant country, this is true. But Tanzania, Tunesia and the small Indonesian island of Bali are all pretty insignifcant countries are the world map, but the oppurtunities presented themselves and Al Qaeda took them. Thats why they have scouts all over the world.

I'm not some Gung-Ho American. I could'nt give two ***** whether the air corps has jets or not. But speaking objectuvely on the matter I think a sovereign state to rely on another is a cop out.

p.s Would people stop bring up the health service when this topic is discussed. Every year the majority of our budget is distributed across the health service and all other problems. Every year we still have a surplus of close to €2 billion which normally just gets redistributed and mismanaged.
Management and proper structure is what is needed. They have already proven that throwing money at the problem does not work.

Firstly look how lax airport security in the USA was pre 911.
That was one of reasons they were able to get away it.

Secondly warning bells were ringing, nobody significant noticed and the ones that did, did not dissiminate the information etc.

The US have loads of fighters (Air Force, Navy and Marines) but did that prevent the attacks ? No.
What would have prevented the attacks is somebody catching those guys beofre they ever got near an aircraft.

The point I and a few others are making are what good would fighter jets do if we did have an attack like Tanzania, Bali or even like those in the "significant" countries of Spain and the UK.
Aircraft are pretty hard to get at these days, so Al Qaeda will look for softer targets.
If you look at one of my previous posts I do mention intelligence as the key.

And I don't agree more money should be spent on health.
There are already wasting too much of it :mad:
If you check any of my posts on this subject you will no mention of diverting money from defense to healthcare or homeless.

I keep saying, like a couple of other posters, that the IAC do need more aircraft i.e. helicopters both heavy and medium. These would be more suitable to dual role of protecting our coastline and deploying anti-terrorist units in event of ground attacks.

But this thread and partner one on Military forum was created to reopen the old argument about having fighter jets for the wee boys out in Baldonnel to go screamin around the Irish skies. Then of course the discussion moves onto how are we to give close air support to our UN invasion force in Darfur and the need for heavy lift cargo planes to transport the MBTs to the desert :rolleyes:

Catcher86

jmayo wrote:

Firstly look how lax airport security in the USA was pre 911.
That was one of reasons they were able to get away it.

Secondly warning bells were ringing, nobody significant noticed and the ones that did, did not dissiminate the information etc.

The US have loads of fighters (Air Force, Navy and Marines) but did that prevent the attacks ? No.
What would have prevented the attacks is somebody catching those guys beofre they ever got near an aircraft.

The point I and a few others are making are what good would fighter jets do if we did have an attack like Tanzania, Bali or even like those in the "significant" countries of Spain and the UK.
Aircraft are pretty hard to get at these days, so Al Qaeda will look for softer targets.
If you look at one of my previous posts I do mention intelligence as the key.

And I don't agree more money should be spent on health.
There are already wasting too much of it :mad:
If you check any of my posts on this subject you will no mention of diverting money from defense to healthcare or homeless.

I keep saying, like a couple of other posters, that the IAC do need more aircraft i.e. helicopters both heavy and medium. These would be more suitable to dual role of protecting our coastline and deploying anti-terrorist units in event of ground attacks.

But this thread and partner one on Military forum was created to reopen the old argument about having fighter jets for the wee boys out in Baldonnel to go screamin around the Irish skies. Then of course the discussion moves onto how are we to give close air support to our UN invasion force in Darfur and the need for heavy lift cargo planes to transport the MBTs to the desert :rolleyes:

Well firstly the erratic movements of the first two planes could not have been identified has hijacked aircraft in 2001. Nowadays they would know straight away.
Secondly your post raises another discussion, which is probably best avoided. However can we know for sure that flight 93 was not shot down? It is clear from the evidence that it is a clear possibility. The debris was scattered of too wide an area. Eyewitness reports say they saw another plane, which looked like an unmarked military plane. Another eyewitness who was a Vietnam Vet said he heard a missile, and that he knows what one being fired sounds like.

In relation to the attacks on Tanzania and Bali, yes bombs were used because they were the best option at the time. I accept that the possibility of using a commercial jet has become a very remote one. But its still a possibility along with transport jets occupied by only a small crew that could be hijacked or private jets.

Apologies if you thought I was referring to you with regard my views on public spending. That was with reference to the posts of previous members.

Finally, the basis of my argument is that fighter jets are affordable if we want. However I would agree that first priority should be Helicopters and transport aircraft.

tricky D

There aren't many targets in Ireland for a 9/11 style attack. So why wouldn't a few strategically-placed missile batteries do the trick at a fraction of the cost of getting interceptors??

oscarBravo

Catcher86 wrote:

Secondly your post raises another discussion, which is probably best avoided. However can we know for sure that flight 93 was not shot down? It is clear from the evidence that it is a clear possibility. The debris was scattered of too wide an area. Eyewitness reports say they saw another plane, which looked like an unmarked military plane. Another eyewitness who was a Vietnam Vet said he heard a missile, and that he knows what one being fired sounds like.

There's a Conspiracy Theories board for that sort of nonsense.

pclancy

Im in general no fan of conspiracy theories even though I am very liberal/open minded. However flight 93s ending is very strange, afaik no recorder data has been released and its debris pattern corresponds to an explosion/missile.

I think the missile defence system at key population centres would be a much more cost effective option to any threat of terrorist controlled big jet crashes, though I think that threat is tiny now and the next big terrorist attack on a city wont be of the style we've seen before. Next time they'll do something new...

JayDee68

Gentlemen, (yes, a presumption I know but how and ever)

Regarding your lively debate, just a few points to put things in context. We need to get over this 'sovereign state' whinge-fest.

If we really believed in such crap we'd never have joined the EU and changed our currency etc etc ad nauseum. The fact is, a state cannot always exist in splendid isolation.

New Zealand got rid of its jet intercept capability for economic reasons. Australia now cover that gap. Canada is an integral part of the US air defence umbrella of North America.

Instead of believing we can do a better job than the UK in air defence let's just recognise reality and leave the RAF to do a job they are trained, resourced and well able to do.

We're already happy to have them help us out with air-sea-rescue.

Other posters are right when they point to the proliferation of low-intensity threats. Building up intelligence resources and partnerships with state's that have expertise and hardware we lack....that is the best method of protection of our state and citizenry.

Incidentally (I'm finishing my longwinded rant now, Phew!), don't be so complacent about Ireland being so insignificant. I'm sure most of you posters with military service know, a terrorist looks for the soft target, not necessarily the best target.

Never mind flying a jet into Intel or the US Embassy, think of the psych damage done by detonating a simple device on a bus load of aged Irish-American tourist visiting the Ring of Kerry!

Intelligence and Vigilance are the keys to defence. Complacency and Smugness wrapped in the outdated cloak of neutrality (which never bloody existed anyway!) point the way to disaster.

Semper Paratus!

pclancy

Good points, yes maybe we should be more vigilant to possible internal threats as you mention, the key to that would be more funding for the garda anti-terrorism unit. We do have a good intelligence service, probably under resourced like all garda operations but its had 30 years of the troubles to hone its skills so helping those guys along would certainly be a better defence.

cp251

As Jaydee says, but as I said on the military forum. I would lay any money that there is an agreement with the British that in the event of a rogue airliner. The RAF would be here as fast as a supersonic dash can bring them. Any Irish government that is serious about security must have considered the possibility. We'll never hear about this agreement unless it is invoked.

By the way for those of you who do not believe in the threat from Islamic terrorism to Ireland. If you have any friends in Special Branch, ask him what he spends his day doing. As ever, we never hear the half of it.

As for flight 93, tsk tsk. If it was shot down, there would have been no cover up. The debris pattern corresponds exactly to a missile strike because that is what it became, a missile. Aircraft are in fact quite delicate items. They disintegrate completely when hitting the ground at high speed.

On another forum, someone posted something claiming that the Pentagon airliner was a missile as there were no aircraft parts seen in the Pentagon. It took me precisely five minutes to search and post pictures via google which showed plenty of aircraft parts in the Pentagon. Suggest you google for evidence on flight 93. It won't take long. All of these stupid conspiracty theories are easy to debunk.

Catcher86

JayDee68 wrote:

Regarding your lively debate, just a few points to put things in context. We need to get over this 'sovereign state' whinge-fest.

If we really believed in such crap we'd never have joined the EU and changed our currency etc etc ad nauseum. The fact is, a state cannot always exist in splendid isolation.

This has to be the most ridiculous statement I've heard in a long time. Joining the EU had nothing to do with our sovereignty. It was for purely economical reasons. We still are'nt a member of Nato and I think you need to look up the full meaning of sovereignty. I don't mean this in a rude way.

JayDee68 wrote:

New Zealand got rid of its jet intercept capability for economic reasons. Australia now cover that gap. Canada is an integral part of the US air defence umbrella of North America.

I will remind you that Ireland's economy is much stronger and healthier than New Zealands. Canada does have its own airforce and patrols its own airspace. Here is its website if you want to check it out.

www.airforce.forces.gc.ca

I do agree with the rest of your post.
Just a hunch but are you in the coastguard?

Catcher86

cp251 wrote:

As Jaydee says, but as I said on the military forum. I would lay any money that there is an agreement with the British that in the event of a rogue airliner. The RAF would be here as fast as a supersonic dash can bring them. Any Irish government that is serious about security must have considered the possibility. We'll never hear about this agreement unless it is invoked.

No need to lay any money. Its well known that the Raf patrol our airspace and that they would be hear in the case of an emergency. They came a few months ago when a plane suspected of having a bomb had to emergency land in shannon.

cp251 wrote:

As for flight 93, tsk tsk. If it was shot down, there would have been no cover up. The debris pattern corresponds exactly to a missile strike because that is what it became, a missile. Aircraft are in fact quite delicate items. They disintegrate completely when hitting the ground at high speed.

In the official report they said that the debris that was found eight miles away was blown there on the ground by the wind. There are also discrepancies in the report with regards the length of tape of the flight recorder and the time of the crash.

cp251 wrote:

On another forum, someone posted something claiming that the Pentagon airliner was a missile as there were no aircraft parts seen in the Pentagon. It took me precisely five minutes to search and post pictures via google which showed plenty of aircraft parts in the Pentagon. Suggest you google for evidence on flight 93. It won't take long. All of these stupid conspiracty theories are easy to debunk.

Tell us were this photos are I can't find them. Go to this website www.ae911truth.org these are highly qualified architects and engineers showing us substantial evidence that the World Trade Centre buildings were brought down by controlled explosions.
Speaking subjectively on the matter I'am not entirely convinced on either side of the argument but the website above is quickly changing my views. Lets remember that what the CIA were doing in Cambodia, Africa and South America were once called conspiracies, and they have now owned up to what they did.
I hope people do have informed opinions and don't just say the first thing to pop into their heads.

Steyr

Catcher86 wrote:

No need to lay any money. Its well known that the Raf patrol our airspace and that they would be hear in the case of an emergency. They came a few months ago when a plane suspected of having a bomb had to emergency land in shannon.

Sure Tornado F3,s have been seen buzzing along the Cork/Kerry Coastlines.

cp251

Oh dear Catcher please, I typed 'Pentagon crash' into google and got this. Plenty of conspiracy sites and a few reality sites.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html Look at the pictures, read the eyewitness statements. They saw an aeroplane hit the building.

It didn't even take me five minutes.

As for the WTC itself, stop for one minute and think. We all saw the pictures, two airliners flew into the towers. If you were organising a conspiracy and had two airliners lined up to crash into the buildings. Why on earth would you need to make sure of the job by using controlled demolition? In any case have you ever watched a programme on TV where they demolish a building? It's an enormously complex operation. Use your own common sense.

Read this

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

I can never understand why need to find conspiracy theories when the most obvious answer stares them in the face.

Catcher86

cp251 wrote:

Oh dear Catcher please, I typed 'Pentagon crash' into google and got this. Plenty of conspiracy sites and a few reality sites.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html Look at the pictures, read the eyewitness statements. They saw an aeroplane hit the building.

It didn't even take me five minutes.

As for the WTC itself, stop for one minute and think. We all saw the pictures, two airliners flew into the towers. If you were organising a conspiracy and had two airliners lined up to crash into the buildings. Why on earth would you need to make sure of the job by using controlled demolition? In any case have you ever watched a programme on TV where they demolish a building? It's an enormously complex operation. Use your own common sense.

Read this

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

I can never understand why need to find conspiracy theories when the most obvious answer stares them in the face.

Listen cp, I never denied that a plane hit the pentagon. I just asked to see the photos.
With regards the Trade Centre. Go to the website I listed above and look at building 7 collapsing, its at about the 30 min mark. The video is 2 hours long and it is scrutinizing the every piece of evidence on all the world trade centre buildings. This may be too long for you to watch. If so, you do not have a truly informed opinion.
Building 7 contained a lot of documentation on wall street affairs and Enron that was heading for the courts. Police are heard on tape telling people to move away because it was going to collapse before it did. Firemen are also heard saying it sounded and looked like a demolition. A BBC news reporter reports that is has already collapsed, when it is still to be seen behind her.

With regards the twin towers. A hydrocarbon fire burns at 13000-1500 degrees sometimes getting up to 1800 degrees.
MOLTEN metal was found at the bottom of the towers. This burns at 2700 degrees.
Another reason that the collapse cannot be attributed to the fire from the fuels, is that one side would have been much hotter and would have caved in first, causing an implosion.
Instead the building came down like a pancake. It also exploded outward which should not have happened.

It is clear from your comments that you don't really know alot on the matter bar what google tells you.
Use your common sense and educate yourself. Iam done educating.

pclancy

Catcher86 wrote:

Joining the EU had nothing to do with our sovereignty. It was for purely economical reasons.

Well not quite, we did lose a lot of control over agriculture and trade as well as joining the euro. You'll see a large number of changes over the next 5-20 years that will bring us closer to losing more sovereignity leading us towards a federal US of E. Not the end of the world its done wonders for us so far but defence is something that its easy see the countries with the larger defence budgets being tasked to look after. Whats wrong with letting the British, French, Spanish or German airforces waste billions on their airforces and we keep our money for stuff that helps humanity instead of blowing it up....

I would think New Zealand would be a very good comparison, yes they havnt experienced the celtic tiger but their population, land mass and politcal standpoint are very similar to ours, allthough we probably are a more valid target seeing as we are so economically reliant on the US and UK. Intel, Microsoft, Symantec, HP, Dell, Pfzier and Wyeth being US owned companies that provide huge employment and contribution to our GDP would show a terrorist that we side with the US when we want thier money! Its a scarey thought if they were all to pull out because of security reasons, it would be a serious economic catastrophy for Ireland.

9/11 conspiracies are to be taken with a pinch of salt, some are wacky some are plausible. Having fully loaded 757s and 767s smash into the twin towers looked very much to me like it did happen and cause them to collapse. I dont go for the remote control theory. The pentagon to me is an unsolved mystery, it just doesnt look to me like what should happen when a 757 crashes and flight 93 again, to me, looks like it was shot down by a fighter. There are so many unknowns though, we'll probably all find out the truth in 50 years time when they release the secrets they know now. A terrible loss of life and Bush's reaction has caused thousands more to die across the world.

Catcher86

pclancy wrote:

Well not quite, we did lose a lot of control over agriculture and trade as well as joining the euro.

This is a slightly grey area. If you deem entering an agreement losing control. Well fine then. In return for the exports which we got high prices for. We were also given the largest share of regional grants as the least developed region in Europe.

pclancy wrote:

You'll see a large number of changes over the next 5-20 years that will bring us closer to losing more sovereignity leading us towards a federal US of E.

Any change that is made, will be partly ours, given the fact that we do have a say in Europe.

cp251

You asked for the pictures. I gave you the pictures. The Pentagon is not an unsolved mystery. It was hit by a hijacked airliner as seen by many witnesses and as evidenced by aircraft wreckage seen in photos. Check the website I linked to. No mystery.

The WTC collapsed because it was hit by two airliners and burned. I didn't need google to notice that.

WTC7 collapsed for some reason. If we are to believe the conspiracy nutters. Someone took advantage of the day and demolished it to cover up some unknown badness they were involved in.

You know, if I saw that in a movie, I would laugh out loud. In real life it's pure BS.

The whole 911 conspiracy thing is nonsense from the word go. To say the same Bush administration, that mishandled everything it touched before or since, pulled off one of the most perfectly carried out conspiracy ever in the history of mankind is really too far fetched to be credible.
:rolleyes:

On September the 11th, four groups of terrorists, hijacked four airliners. Three got to their targets, one didn't because the passengers found out what was going on and rushed the cockpit, forcing the hijackers to crash the aircraft in a field.

It's as simple as that.