For those still skeptical about the conspiracy theories that point to an inside job (and it should be noted that the Official Account – or which one of its variants one choses to believe – should be classed as a conspiracy theory) and like to think, amongst other things, of Popular Mechanics and NIST as having debunked controlled demolition I point to David Ray Griffin’s latest book:

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X

which also draws further attention to problems with the account WRT communications between the FAA and the military.

When one appreciates the many, many things which do not add up, and also the number of times that key administration figures have contradicted themselves then the Official 9/11 report (Kean/Zelikow) can only be described as bunk. It should have been marketed with free gifts in pouches tapped to the inside covers, an packet of smoke on the inside front and a pack of mirrors on the rear inside.

Now please do not shoot this messenger again without informing yourself first.

And exactly what part of that is evidence of your ludicrous claims? Thats right none of it.:mad:

So how are ET and Elvis?:rolleyes:

What is the consensus on the switch from an airborne deterrent to using SLBMs?
It is the more effective option, or does using a bomber force give more flexibility?

It was definatly the right thing to do. British air bases were vulnerable to to Soviet IRBM’s with short flight times. At Sea SSBN’s were not especially with NATO naval supremacy.

Most retared people I have seen were laughing.. :rolleyes:

Probably because they were fully aware of their intellectual superiority to you!:D :p :rolleyes:

They are electable because you do not know any other alternatives. People prefer existing system not because they have chosen it, but because they have lived their whole lifes in that one, they do not know anything else and lion share of people generally don’t like change.

An example: why do all Americans born in USA speak English? According to your argumentation it is because they have freely chosen it to be their language, but this is not true. You did not chose English because it is the most suitable/best/nicest language you know, you speak English because your parents taught you so. And they taught you so, because it is the language they really know best and because everyone else uses it so it fits your needs.

Dragging some Al-Qaeda into this debate completely erases your credibility so let’s act as if you never said that.

Note:
You are completely obsessed with bringing the words *terrorism* and *Al-Qaeda* into almost every debate possible. Tell me, is the Al-Q=aeda-obsession some kind of incurable mental illness with you or what?

Lol, now your living in a fantasy land. We are all aware of the alternatives, as it happens communism and facism didnt turn out so well, and going by Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under the Taliban your dream of a global Islamic state would be just as bad if not worse.:D

So you are suggesting that at birth every child be given a choice of what language they want to speak irrelevent of that of their parents, lol.:D :p :rolleyes:

Kh-22? The real question is, was the weapon armed (ie did it have a warhead) and if so was it conventional or Nuclear?

SLL, I have reread and reread your post, and to me that does imply you mean the RAF.

Surely the RAFs choice of going for single types to do different roles was a sounder idea than having one multi role type which might not have lived up to expectations (ala Tornado with the F.3).
The FAA probaly latched on to multi role idea when the carriers started shrinking, due to limitations of carrier borne operations, ie only having room and equipment on a ship for a handfull of types.
There has always been the threat of merging the FAA into the RAF, since WWII, so this must of led to rivalery to any available defence budget and competition between the two forces, now of course it is merged aircraft wise.

1) I didnt, I apologise if my post was not clear enough.

2) The Tornado problem was really the result of taking an aircraft that was largely orientated towards the strike role and then making it into a fighter, never a happy conversion. Rather than having an original airframe intended for both. If one takes the Phantom as an example, it managed to pull of both roles sufficiently well, as has the Mirage 3/5/50/F1/2000 series and the Mig-23/27. I would also not the weakness that the RAF’s fighter force has suffered really up to now as a result of the previously mentioned single role policy.

As for the FAA, well its all hypothetical anyway, they ended up with no choice but the Harrier and its dual role capability when they were given baby carriers. However I maintain that had the Vickers Type-581 been selected from the off as a strike and fighter airframe for both the FAA and the RAF, both sides could have had a much more capable fleets at a reasonable development cost and support for British Industry.

I have always felt that the only scenario in which the P.1154 would have made any real sense is if the RN had remained a super power navy and maintained a large force of smaller carriers, under this scenario only Ark Royal and Eagle (and their potential successors) were large enough for phantom size aircraft thus the P.1154 could have been use to equip the older smaller ships (rebuilt ‘armoured’ carriers and the centaurs). Obviously that is just pure fantasy though.

What the RAF COULD have been doesn’t matter.

Without a political base…and public support for a strong (or at least credible) defense…there wasn’t the money for it.

In the end it worked out okay…the UK survived the Cold War while spending the least amount of money it had to.

All the neat stuff cancelled over the years would have been good for the UK aerospace industry (and made things a bit easier in the Falklands..and perhaps the 1991 Gulf War), plane buffs and Airfix, but in the long run history proves they weren’t needed (thanks in part to a strong NATO/U.S.).

Again well put. And even with the political support there probably would not have been enough money.;)

The problem with that is that the longer range standoff missiles had sufficient range to be launched from relative safety. It is very likely of course that the SSBNs would still have been bought, but a Skybolt or similar missile might have allowed the RAF to share the deterrent role.

Depends where you are trying to hit inside the Soviet Union.;)