Does anybody remember the rocket launch.....

nitro harley

nitro harley

Well-Known Member
Two or so years ago off the coast of LA.....I never here anybody talking about that......It bugged me alot,..... that was a big rocket....

In my opinion somebody was trying to say something.....I don't think it was a airplane or a hobby rocketeer....it looked like a millitary rocket....North korea,...china maybe......china is my guess......

In my opinion that could of been the closest we have ever been to world war 3 and don't even know it.......Obama I think swept it under the rug............It still bugs me.........nitro...
 
It was a jet airliner according to "official" sources. Just because it didn't look like one and it took a path commercial aircraft don't take, but you can be assured it was just a passenger jet taking off.;-)
 
Wont let me see it. :(

This country covers up far too many going ons from us. They dont want us to know anything as if everything is fine and dandy. Was this around the same time N-Korea sent a missile that landed off the shore of japan stating it was a test? That was a few years ago...
 
NoDrama said:
It was a jet airliner according to "official" sources. Just because it didn't look like one and it took a path commercial aircraft don't take, but you can be assured it was just a passenger jet taking off.;-)
Click to expand...

It looked to me like it was a ICBM missile capable of carrying a nuke war head.........I just can't dummy down enough to believe anything other than that.....IMO......nitro...
 
dude there point mugu, port hueneme, andrews afb, and at least half a doxzen other sites around LA where military hardware gets tested. if the navy's new 3 million a ppop miusile goes out for a routine test and almost wipes out malibu colony or mann's chinese theatre you think they are gonna say shit? fuck no!

if however some foreign power touched off that whistling pete, sudennly you got reasons fro more pentagon funding.

they didnt wanna lie and false flag us, but if they fuck up, you know that shit goes in the top secret archive right next to the ark of the covenant and j edgar's party dress.

unclench homey.

that rocket went off from point mugu naval weapons station or a ship in the channel.
 
nitro harley said:
The rocket was for BarryO from China with love...

http://www.infowars.com/wayne-madsen-china-fired-missile-seen-in-southern-california/
Click to expand...

dude china has ZERO nuclear powered submarines and ZERO intercontinental ballistic missiles, and ZERO chance of fitting a nuclear payload to the short range missiles which they DO have, which can be launched from the diesel subs they DO have.

the rocket plume was witnessed in the vicinity of SEVERAL major us military ordinance testing ranges (channel islands, point mugu, andrews, and i recall one more but the name escapes me. it's most likely this rocket was a test shot which went pear-shaped.

they cannot admit they are testing missiles so close to the LA metroplex and one got loose, since that would result in panic, screaming and eventually political maneuvers to shut those bases down, but these bases are essential, so it's coverup time.

if you take any information from alex jones and his posse of morons seriously then you are begging to be deceived.

alex jones is a liar and a carnival barker.
 
Dr Kynes said:
dude china has ZERO nuclear powered submarines and ZERO intercontinental ballistic missiles, and ZERO chance of fitting a nuclear payload to the short range missiles which they DO have, which can be launched from the diesel subs they DO have.

the rocket plume was witnessed in the vicinity of SEVERAL major us military ordinance testing ranges (channel islands, point mugu, andrews, and i recall one more but the name escapes me. it's most likely this rocket was a test shot which went pear-shaped.

they cannot admit they are testing missiles so close to the LA metroplex and one got loose, since that would result in panic, screaming and eventually political maneuvers to shut those bases down, but these bases are essential, so it's coverup time.

if you take any information from alex jones and his posse of morons seriously then you are begging to be deceived.

alex jones is a liar and a carnival barker.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about China not haveing nuke subs?

Today, six countries deploy some form of nuclear-powered strategic submarines: the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, and India.[SUP][10][/SUP] Several other countries, including Argentina and Brazil,[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] have ongoing projects in different phases to build nuclear-powered submarines.
 
nitro harley said:
Are you sure about China not haveing nuke subs?

Today, six countries deploy some form of nuclear-powered strategic submarines: the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, and India.[SUP][10][/SUP] Several other countries, including Argentina and Brazil,[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] have ongoing projects in different phases to build nuclear-powered submarines.
Click to expand...

china has ZERO nuclear powered submarines. every god damned sub in their fleet is a diesel electric sub, NOT a nuclear sub.

they CLAIM they can mount nuclear warheads on the missile tubes of 4 of their diesel sub (the new yuan class) but that remains a matter of skepticism. they do NOT have any nuclear powered submarines and do not even have plans to build any.

nuclear powered subs are the only subs which can stand off in deep water without refueling, which was the key to the russian/american standoff. china's diesel powered subs have to surface constantly and have to refuel regularly they are NOT nuclear powered.

just because some wiki page or some journalist thinks "nuclear capable" (which is doubtful given china's warhead miniaturization, and missile programs are way behind the west, and even the russians) means "nuclear powered" that doesnt mean china will be sending subs under the arctic ice cap like the US and the soviets did in the 60's

diesel subs are preferred by the chinese because they are SNEAKIER than a nuclear sub when they go quiet. they maay only be able to stay down for a few hours but once they are down, they are harder to detect than a nuclear sub.

nuclear subs can be ANYWHERE, china's subs can only be within 200 miles of where they last surfaced. i find it highly unlikely that a chinese diesel sub could cross the pacific undetected to launch a missile (which would be an act of war) over LA for no reason other than to demonstrate that they have subs with missile launchers, because we already been knowing that, further the missiles that the chinese can put on subs are SHORT RANGE ONLY, with a ~90 mile range, shorter even than the silkworm 2. they do NOT have any ICBMs which can be launched from a sub.
 
Could you imagine if the US & PLC and other Asia nations engaged in a joint operation against a major threat?

It would be very very similar to this... IMO
 
Dr Kynes said:
china has ZERO nuclear powered submarines. every god damned sub in their fleet is a diesel electric sub, NOT a nuclear sub.

they CLAIM they can mount nuclear warheads on the missile tubes of 4 of their diesel sub (the new yuan class) but that remains a matter of skepticism. they do NOT have any nuclear powered submarines and do not even have plans to build any.

nuclear powered subs are the only subs which can stand off in deep water without refueling, which was the key to the russian/american standoff. china's diesel powered subs have to surface constantly and have to refuel regularly they are NOT nuclear powered.

just because some wiki page or some journalist thinks "nuclear capable" (which is doubtful given china's warhead miniaturization, and missile programs are way behind the west, and even the russians) means "nuclear powered" that doesnt mean china will be sending subs under the arctic ice cap like the US and the soviets did in the 60's

diesel subs are preferred by the chinese because they are SNEAKIER than a nuclear sub when they go quiet. they maay only be able to stay down for a few hours but once they are down, they are harder to detect than a nuclear sub.

nuclear subs can be ANYWHERE, china's subs can only be within 200 miles of where they last surfaced. i find it highly unlikely that a chinese diesel sub could cross the pacific undetected to launch a missile (which would be an act of war) over LA for no reason other than to demonstrate that they have subs with missile launchers, because we already been knowing that, further the missiles that the chinese can put on subs are SHORT RANGE ONLY, with a ~90 mile range, shorter even than the silkworm 2. they do NOT have any ICBMs which can be launched from a sub.
Click to expand...
Nuclear powered or not, they got more than we think:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

Besides, with all the goods traveling from China, why is it hard to believe Chinese cargo ships don't deploy Chinese subs when in international waters off the USA?
 
The Chinese are maybe two years away from deploying a nuclear-propelled sub. They're playing a game of developmental catch-up though, and I expect each Chinese nuke boat to attract its share of 688-class remoras. The subs will be loud in the context of our current sonar tech. cn
 
Dr Kynes said:
china has ZERO nuclear powered submarines. every god damned sub in their fleet is a diesel electric sub, NOT a nuclear sub.

they CLAIM they can mount nuclear warheads on the missile tubes of 4 of their diesel sub (the new yuan class) but that remains a matter of skepticism. they do NOT have any nuclear powered submarines and do not even have plans to build any.

nuclear powered subs are the only subs which can stand off in deep water without refueling, which was the key to the russian/american standoff. china's diesel powered subs have to surface constantly and have to refuel regularly they are NOT nuclear powered.

just because some wiki page or some journalist thinks "nuclear capable" (which is doubtful given china's warhead miniaturization, and missile programs are way behind the west, and even the russians) means "nuclear powered" that doesnt mean china will be sending subs under the arctic ice cap like the US and the soviets did in the 60's

diesel subs are preferred by the chinese because they are SNEAKIER than a nuclear sub when they go quiet. they maay only be able to stay down for a few hours but once they are down, they are harder to detect than a nuclear sub.

nuclear subs can be ANYWHERE, china's subs can only be within 200 miles of where they last surfaced. i find it highly unlikely that a chinese diesel sub could cross the pacific undetected to launch a missile (which would be an act of war) over LA for no reason other than to demonstrate that they have subs with missile launchers, because we already been knowing that, further the missiles that the chinese can put on subs are SHORT RANGE ONLY, with a ~90 mile range, shorter even than the silkworm 2. they do NOT have any ICBMs which can be launched from a sub.
Click to expand...

Please DOD's wrong and you're right.... When you gain a security clearance (not saying you'd meet the criteria) and have access to unredacted raw intel from a variety of sources, maybe just maybe, your views on strategic military issues would be valid, until then - "tell him he's dreaming"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top