Remember me
▼ Content

Ding Dong the Witch is dead. That said queen elizabeth lived long enough to kill Princess Diana first



Page 3 of 6<12345>>>
15-09-2022 18:58
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:... what Bush did and failed to do as the current CIA chief.

Bush is not the current CIA chief.

I believe what you meant to write is "... what Bush did and failed to do as the CIA chief at the time."

Do you really believe that the investigation into the death of JFK includes CIA doings? If so, why do you believe this?

.


Bush was the current CIA chief when JFK got his brain blown out because the CIA did not try to stop the shooter.

Yawn, are you out of KY yet?


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 15-09-2022 19:17
15-09-2022 19:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:Bush was the current CIA chief when JFK got his brain blown out

Incorrect. Bush was the CIA chief when JFK was shot. Bush is not the current CIA chief and Bush was not the current CIA chief.

If I mistakenly call you "Pete Rogers" it's because you mix inappropriate tenses with incorrect grammar.

Swan wrote:because the CIA did not try to stop the shooter.

The CIA is not supposed to be performing law enforcement within the United States.

.
15-09-2022 19:28
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Bush was the current CIA chief when JFK got his brain blown out

Incorrect. Bush was the CIA chief when JFK was shot. Bush is not the current CIA chief and Bush was not the current CIA chief.

If I mistakenly call you "Pete Rogers" it's because you mix inappropriate tenses with incorrect grammar.

Swan wrote:because the CIA did not try to stop the shooter.

The CIA is not supposed to be performing law enforcement within the United States.

.


LOL you are really getting frustrated now, so keep your panties on girl.

Again the current CIA chief when JFK was shot was Bush, and he knew all about Oswald and the plot before the shooting as the documents will show.

Smile, the A team has everything needed to start and win a war


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 15-09-2022 19:32
15-09-2022 19:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:LOL you are really getting frustrated now, so keep your panties on girl.

Ask me how I know you're getting frustrated.

Swan wrote:Again the current CIA chief when JFK was shot was Bush,

Incorrect. "Current" always means "right now." What you want to say is that Bush was the CIA chief when JFK was shot.

Trust me. That's how English works.

Swan wrote: and he knew all about Oswald and the plot before the shooting as the documents will show.

I would ask you how you know what a currently dead guy knew back in the past, except that we all accept the scientific fact that you are omniscient.

The FBI performs Federal law enforcement, not the CIA, and because of that, DCSA performs background investigations for DoD because the FBI is busy performing Federal law enforcement.

.
15-09-2022 20:21
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL you are really getting frustrated now, so keep your panties on girl.

Ask me how I know you're getting frustrated.

Swan wrote:Again the current CIA chief when JFK was shot was Bush,

Incorrect. "Current" always means "right now." What you want to say is that Bush was the CIA chief when JFK was shot.

Trust me. That's how English works.

Swan wrote: and he knew all about Oswald and the plot before the shooting as the documents will show.

I would ask you how you know what a currently dead guy knew back in the past, except that we all accept the scientific fact that you are omniscient.

The FBI performs Federal law enforcement, not the CIA, and because of that, DCSA performs background investigations for DoD because the FBI is busy performing Federal law enforcement.

.


And no government agency had the balls to question me or the wife after their obvious baseless accusations. Again, new recruits are put in holding once they get to Groton submarine base pending their FBI clearance investigation, at least those who will be assigned to Navy classified communications on the sub that was there when the Kursk sank.

Silly

Sorry I can't tell you more without having a secure channel, I am sure that you understand, the bureau doesn't want their failures publicly known, but Trump will rectify this soon enough.

No telling where I might be now if I had applied for a patent for my custom external hot swap hard drive interface with the erector set frame.

LOL I might just have to sing a few bars of those were the days


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 15-09-2022 20:22
15-09-2022 21:46
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL you are really getting frustrated now, so keep your panties on girl.

Ask me how I know you're getting frustrated.

Swan wrote:Again the current CIA chief when JFK was shot was Bush,

Incorrect. "Current" always means "right now." What you want to say is that Bush was the CIA chief when JFK was shot.

Trust me. That's how English works.

Swan wrote: and he knew all about Oswald and the plot before the shooting as the documents will show.

I would ask you how you know what a currently dead guy knew back in the past, except that we all accept the scientific fact that you are omniscient.

The FBI performs Federal law enforcement, not the CIA, and because of that, DCSA performs background investigations for DoD because the FBI is busy performing Federal law enforcement.

.


And no government agency had the balls to question me or the wife after their obvious baseless accusations. Again, new recruits are put in holding once they get to Groton submarine base pending their FBI clearance investigation, at least those who will be assigned to Navy classified communications on the sub that was there when the Kursk sank.

Silly

Sorry I can't tell you more without having a secure channel, I am sure that you understand, the bureau doesn't want their failures publicly known, but Trump will rectify this soon enough.

No telling where I might be now if I had applied for a patent for my custom external hot swap hard drive interface with the erector set frame.

LOL I might just have to sing a few bars of those were the days


You scared of discussing the Kursk? or did those who control you shut you down

Doing the chicken dance

Naturally if you have a classified endorsement on your slave labor permit you are unable to respond for fear of reprisal, and you have exposed yourself fully to the light. Unlike you I can say and do as I please, something that slaves like you will never experience.






This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 15-09-2022 22:40
16-09-2022 07:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:You scared of discussing the Kursk? or did those who control you shut you down

Is this question directed toward me?



I'd be elated to discuss the Kursk, but not about how Queen Elizabeth somehow caused its demise.

Swan wrote:Naturally if you have a classified endorsement on your slave labor permit

It's not much of an endorsement if it's secret, now is it?
16-09-2022 14:31
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:You scared of discussing the Kursk? or did those who control you shut you down

Is this question directed toward me?



I'd be elated to discuss the Kursk, but not about how Queen Elizabeth somehow caused its demise.

Swan wrote:Naturally if you have a classified endorsement on your slave labor permit

It's not much of an endorsement if it's secret, now is it?


Says the simpleton that denies the holocaust and the last ice age as well. Great going gomer


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
17-09-2022 02:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Trump still has all the JFK files.

CIAO

What JFK files????????!? Void argument fallacy.


These JFK files.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/oliver-stone-biden-trump-jfk-assassination-records-column-1235045794/

What JFK files????????!? Void argument fallacy.
Swan wrote:
Let me know if you get tired of embarrassing yourself

Seems to be YOUR problem.
Swan wrote:
The 1992 legislation decreed that everything would be declassified by Oct. 26, 2017. On that day, President Trump was visited by the CIA and FBI. He was the only person allowed by law to further delay the process. He did so, twice. First, a six-month delay on the grounds the agencies had "insufficient time" to finish the job required by the JFK Records Act. In April of 2018, he granted a three-year delay.

President Trump also added a layer of bureaucracy to the law which is not there: The National Archives was never foreseen as an arbiter of what should be withheld or released. Yet, agencies apparently continue to make postponement requests to the archivist, even after President Trump's arbitrary three-year "extension."

The JFK Records Act also stated that if any record was still being withheld in 2017, the president had to state, in writing, the reasons why. That did not happen.

Most people thought that Biden would break with Trump and declassify everything immediately on the due date of Oct. 26. He didn't. He has now given the CIA and FBI until Dec. 15, 2022, to comply with the law. Between Trump and Biden, the total delay will be more than five years. In other words, the public will have waited 59 years since Kennedy's assassination for the declassification of the last of the JFK records.


What JFK files???????!?
Why are you making an issue out of nothing?


Oh...that's right. You like to troll.


Ya know, you are really cute when you get really frustrated and TRIGGERED

Assumption of victory fallacy. Gaslighting. No argument presented. Trolling.


Is that all you have?

Trump has the JFK files that show EXACTLY what Bush did and failed to do as the current CIA chief. And the FBI is scared shitless because they were complicit in looking the other way and letting JFK's brains fly.

Yawning

What JFK files??????!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-09-2022 14:05
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Trump still has all the JFK files.

CIAO

What JFK files????????!? Void argument fallacy.


These JFK files.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/oliver-stone-biden-trump-jfk-assassination-records-column-1235045794/

What JFK files????????!? Void argument fallacy.
Swan wrote:
Let me know if you get tired of embarrassing yourself

Seems to be YOUR problem.
Swan wrote:
The 1992 legislation decreed that everything would be declassified by Oct. 26, 2017. On that day, President Trump was visited by the CIA and FBI. He was the only person allowed by law to further delay the process. He did so, twice. First, a six-month delay on the grounds the agencies had "insufficient time" to finish the job required by the JFK Records Act. In April of 2018, he granted a three-year delay.

President Trump also added a layer of bureaucracy to the law which is not there: The National Archives was never foreseen as an arbiter of what should be withheld or released. Yet, agencies apparently continue to make postponement requests to the archivist, even after President Trump's arbitrary three-year "extension."

The JFK Records Act also stated that if any record was still being withheld in 2017, the president had to state, in writing, the reasons why. That did not happen.

Most people thought that Biden would break with Trump and declassify everything immediately on the due date of Oct. 26. He didn't. He has now given the CIA and FBI until Dec. 15, 2022, to comply with the law. Between Trump and Biden, the total delay will be more than five years. In other words, the public will have waited 59 years since Kennedy's assassination for the declassification of the last of the JFK records.


What JFK files???????!?
Why are you making an issue out of nothing?


Oh...that's right. You like to troll.


Ya know, you are really cute when you get really frustrated and TRIGGERED

Assumption of victory fallacy. Gaslighting. No argument presented. Trolling.


Is that all you have?

Trump has the JFK files that show EXACTLY what Bush did and failed to do as the current CIA chief. And the FBI is scared shitless because they were complicit in looking the other way and letting JFK's brains fly.

Yawning

What JFK files??????!?


The ones that you do not have the clearance to see and that were already required by law to be released. However, it is not likely that the secret service could protect any Bush if it is known that a Bush helped murder JFK, by not stopping Oswald.

Those files


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 17-09-2022 14:44
17-09-2022 17:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Trump still has all the JFK files.

CIAO

What JFK files????????!? Void argument fallacy.


These JFK files.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/oliver-stone-biden-trump-jfk-assassination-records-column-1235045794/

What JFK files????????!? Void argument fallacy.
Swan wrote:
Let me know if you get tired of embarrassing yourself

Seems to be YOUR problem.
Swan wrote:
The 1992 legislation decreed that everything would be declassified by Oct. 26, 2017. On that day, President Trump was visited by the CIA and FBI. He was the only person allowed by law to further delay the process. He did so, twice. First, a six-month delay on the grounds the agencies had "insufficient time" to finish the job required by the JFK Records Act. In April of 2018, he granted a three-year delay.

President Trump also added a layer of bureaucracy to the law which is not there: The National Archives was never foreseen as an arbiter of what should be withheld or released. Yet, agencies apparently continue to make postponement requests to the archivist, even after President Trump's arbitrary three-year "extension."

The JFK Records Act also stated that if any record was still being withheld in 2017, the president had to state, in writing, the reasons why. That did not happen.

Most people thought that Biden would break with Trump and declassify everything immediately on the due date of Oct. 26. He didn't. He has now given the CIA and FBI until Dec. 15, 2022, to comply with the law. Between Trump and Biden, the total delay will be more than five years. In other words, the public will have waited 59 years since Kennedy's assassination for the declassification of the last of the JFK records.


What JFK files???????!?
Why are you making an issue out of nothing?


Oh...that's right. You like to troll.


Ya know, you are really cute when you get really frustrated and TRIGGERED

Assumption of victory fallacy. Gaslighting. No argument presented. Trolling.


Is that all you have?

Trump has the JFK files that show EXACTLY what Bush did and failed to do as the current CIA chief. And the FBI is scared shitless because they were complicit in looking the other way and letting JFK's brains fly.

Yawning

What JFK files??????!?


The ones that you do not have the clearance to see and that were already required by law to be released. However, it is not likely that the secret service could protect any Bush if it is known that a Bush helped murder JFK, by not stopping Oswald.

Those files

What files??????!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-09-2022 18:16
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Trump still has all the JFK files.

CIAO

What JFK files????????!? Void argument fallacy.


These JFK files.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/oliver-stone-biden-trump-jfk-assassination-records-column-1235045794/

What JFK files????????!? Void argument fallacy.
Swan wrote:
Let me know if you get tired of embarrassing yourself

Seems to be YOUR problem.
Swan wrote:
The 1992 legislation decreed that everything would be declassified by Oct. 26, 2017. On that day, President Trump was visited by the CIA and FBI. He was the only person allowed by law to further delay the process. He did so, twice. First, a six-month delay on the grounds the agencies had "insufficient time" to finish the job required by the JFK Records Act. In April of 2018, he granted a three-year delay.

President Trump also added a layer of bureaucracy to the law which is not there: The National Archives was never foreseen as an arbiter of what should be withheld or released. Yet, agencies apparently continue to make postponement requests to the archivist, even after President Trump's arbitrary three-year "extension."

The JFK Records Act also stated that if any record was still being withheld in 2017, the president had to state, in writing, the reasons why. That did not happen.

Most people thought that Biden would break with Trump and declassify everything immediately on the due date of Oct. 26. He didn't. He has now given the CIA and FBI until Dec. 15, 2022, to comply with the law. Between Trump and Biden, the total delay will be more than five years. In other words, the public will have waited 59 years since Kennedy's assassination for the declassification of the last of the JFK records.


What JFK files???????!?
Why are you making an issue out of nothing?


Oh...that's right. You like to troll.


Ya know, you are really cute when you get really frustrated and TRIGGERED

Assumption of victory fallacy. Gaslighting. No argument presented. Trolling.


Is that all you have?

Trump has the JFK files that show EXACTLY what Bush did and failed to do as the current CIA chief. And the FBI is scared shitless because they were complicit in looking the other way and letting JFK's brains fly.

Yawning

What JFK files??????!?


The ones that you do not have the clearance to see and that were already required by law to be released. However, it is not likely that the secret service could protect any Bush if it is known that a Bush helped murder JFK, by not stopping Oswald.

Those files

What files??????!?


The files that Trump baited the FBI to seize in his new safe, that were not there or in his wife's panty drawer.

Silly girl


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
17-09-2022 21:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:Bush if it is known that a Bush helped murder JFK, by not stopping Oswald.

Doesn't that mean that you and I both helped murder JFK? After all, we didn't lift a finger to stop Oswald either.

Should we be turning ourselves in?
18-09-2022 00:34
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Bush if it is known that a Bush helped murder JFK, by not stopping Oswald.

Doesn't that mean that you and I both helped murder JFK? After all, we didn't lift a finger to stop Oswald either.

Should we be turning ourselves in?


However, if an American be it a common man or the chief of the CIA has information that there is a credible threat to the President, that person is legally required to act on that information. Which for me or you means notifying the appropriate federal authorities. If those authorities do not act to stop the threat to the President as Bush did not then he is an accomplice to the assassination.

Thus, Bush actually pulled the trigger on JFK merely by refusing to stop the shooter and this is actually a crime punishable by firing squad, hanging, lethal injection or preferably a slow electric chair. That said the old fool who married his grandmother is dead now, but there would be no resurrection ever for the name Bush, who would all need to move to the center of the Outback or bunk with Snowden in Moscow.

Yawning


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 18-09-2022 00:37
18-09-2022 00:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:
However, if an American be it a common man or the chief of the CIA has information that there is a credible threat to the President, that person is legally required to act on that information.

Incorrect. You have no basis for making this claim without citing the law that so requires the acting. Of course, there is no such law. Someone could know about an assassination plot and choose to remain silent.

Swan wrote: If those authorities do not act to stop the threat to the President as Bush did not then he is an accomplice to the assassination.

The CIA does not perform domestic law enforcement. I'm not sure why you aren't getting this.

Swan wrote:Thus, Bush actually pulled the trigger on JFK

Has anyone ever told you that the words "off" and "deep end" fit very nicely with your sense of logic.
18-09-2022 01:21
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
However, if an American be it a common man or the chief of the CIA has information that there is a credible threat to the President, that person is legally required to act on that information.

Incorrect. You have no basis for making this claim without citing the law that so requires the acting. Of course, there is no such law. Someone could know about an assassination plot and choose to remain silent.

Swan wrote: If those authorities do not act to stop the threat to the President as Bush did not then he is an accomplice to the assassination.



The CIA does not perform domestic law enforcement. I'm not sure why you aren't getting this.

Swan wrote:Thus, Bush actually pulled the trigger on JFK

Has anyone ever told you that the words "off" and "deep end" fit very nicely with your sense of logic.


LOL so you are claiming that a law does not exist unless I quote the law to you.

Sorry retard the system does not work that way, it never did. However coming from the dickface that denies the last ice age and the holocaust both, at least your delusions are constant.


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
18-09-2022 01:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:LOL so you are claiming that a law does not exist unless I quote the law to you.

I never accused you of sound logic. You got that entirely backwards.

You can't cite any specific law because no such law exists.

.
18-09-2022 01:40
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL so you are claiming that a law does not exist unless I quote the law to you.

I never accused you of sound logic. You got that entirely backwards.

You can't cite any specific law because no such law exists.

.


Says the idiot who actually believes that there was no ice age or holocaust. Tell us again that they never existed as well, but take your pills first, do it for your Mommy not me.

Oh as for the law it is the Espionage act.

18 U.S. Code § 792 - Harboring or concealing persons
U.S. Code

Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under sections 793 or 794 of this title, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Now take your meds agent Sam


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 18-09-2022 02:03
18-09-2022 03:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:Oh as for the law it is the Espionage act.U.S. Code § 792 - Harboring or concealing persons

LOL. Too funny.. LOL.

I should have known that your misunderstanding is another product of your inability to read English.

That law makes it a crime to harbor criminals, not to remain silent.

LOL.
18-09-2022 04:34
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Oh as for the law it is the Espionage act.U.S. Code § 792 - Harboring or concealing persons

LOL. Too funny.. LOL.

I should have known that your misunderstanding is another product of your inability to read English.

That law makes it a crime to harbor criminals, not to remain silent.

LOL.


Nope all you need to do is conceal information, like Bush concealed Oswald's intent.

18 U.S. Code § 792 - Harboring or concealing persons
U.S. Code

Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under sections 793 or 794 of this title, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

That said since you are still in denial of the ice age and the holocaust, you will never know.

Tell us again that no law is real if you do not know about it.

Ignoramus


Naval exercise

Kursk was a Project 949A Antey (Oscar-II class) submarine, twice the length of a 747 jumbo jet, and one of the largest submarines in the Russian Navy.
On the morning of 12 August 2000, Kursk was in the Barents Sea, participating in the "Summer-X" exercise, the first large-scale naval exercise planned by the Russian Navy in more than a decade, and also its first since the fall of the Soviet Union.[6] It consisted of 30 ships and three submarines.[7]

Kursk had recently won a citation for its excellent performance and been recognised as having the best submarine crew in the Northern Fleet.[5] Although this was an exercise, Kursk loaded a full complement of conventional combat weapons. It was one of the few submarines authorised to carry a combat load at all times. This included 18 RPK-6 Vodopad/RPK-7 Veter (SS-N-16 "Stallion") antisubmarine missiles and 24 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 "Shipwreck") cruise missiles, which were designed to defeat the best naval air defences.[7]

Kursk had a mythical standing. It was reputedly unsinkable and it was claimed to withstand a direct hit from a torpedo.[8] The outer hull was constructed using 8 mm (0.3 in) steel plate covered by up to 80 mm (3 in) of rubber, which minimised other submarines' or surface vessels' ability to detect the submarine. The inner pressure hull was made of high-quality 50 mm (2 in) steel plate. The two hulls were separated by a 1-to-2 m (3-to-7 ft) gap. The inner hull was divided into nine water-tight compartments. The boat was 508 ft (154.8 m), about as long as two jumbo jets.[8][9]

At 08:51 local time, Kursk requested permission to conduct a torpedo training launch and received the response "Dobro" ("Good").[5][10] After considerable delay, the submarine was set to fire two dummy torpedoes at the Kirov-class battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy. At 11:29 local time,[4] the torpedo room crew loaded the first practice Type 65 "Kit" torpedo, (Russian: tolstushka, or "fat girl", because of its size),[11] without a warhead,[12] into Kursk's number-4 torpedo tube on the starboard side. It was 10.7 m (35 ft) long and weighed 5 t (4.9 long tons; 5.5 short tons).[13]

Initial seismic event detected

Norwegian Seismic Array seismic readings at three locations of the explosions on the submarine Kursk on 12 August 2000.
At 11:29:34 (07:29:50 GMT), seismic detectors at the Norwegian seismic array (NORSAR) and in other locations around the world recorded a seismic event of magnitude 1.5 on the Richter scale.[14] The location was fixed at coordinates 69°38′N 37°19′E, north-east of Murmansk, approximately 250 km (160 mi) from Norway, and 80 km (50 mi) from the Kola Peninsula.[15]

Secondary event
At 11:31:48,[14] 2 minutes and 14 seconds after the first, a second event, measuring 4.2 on the Richter scale, or 250 times larger than the first,[13] was registered on seismographs across northern Europe[16] and was detected as far away as Alaska.[8] The second explosion was equivalent to 2–3 tons of TNT.[4]

The seismic data showed that the explosion occurred at the same depth as the sea bed.[14] The seismic event, triangulated at 69°36.99′N 37°34.50′E, showed that the boat had moved about 400 m (1,300 ft) from the site of the initial explosion. It was enough time for the submarine to sink to a depth of 108 m (354 ft) and remain on the sea floor for a short period.[14]

Rescue response
The crew of the submarine Karelia detected the explosion, but the captain assumed that it was part of the exercise.[17] Aboard Pyotr Velikiy, the target of the practice launch, the crew detected a hydroacoustic signal characteristic of an underwater explosion and felt their hull shudder.[18] They reported the phenomenon to fleet headquarters but their report was ignored.[17]

The schedule for Kursk to complete the practice torpedo firing expired at 13:30 without any contact from the sub. Accustomed to the frequent failure of communications equipment, Fleet Commander Admiral Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Popov, aboard Pyotr Velikiy, was not initially alarmed.[19]: 36  The ship dispatched a helicopter to look for Kursk, but it was unable to locate the sub on the surface; this was reported to Popov.[20]


Russian sailors on the surface aboard the DSRV AS-28 Priz
The Northern Fleet duty officer notified the head of the fleet's search and rescue forces, Captain Alexander Teslenko, to stand by for orders. Teslenko's primary rescue ship was a 20-year-old former lumber carrier, Mikhail Rudnitsky, which had been converted to support submersible rescue operations.[21] Teslenko notified the ship's captain to be ready to depart on one hour's notice.[18] Berthed at the primary Northern Fleet base at Severomorsk,[22] the ship was equipped with two AS-32 and AS-34 Priz-class deep-submergence rescue vehicles, a diving bell, underwater video cameras, lifting cranes, and other specialised gear,[22] but she was not equipped with stabilisers capable of keeping the vessel in position during stormy weather and could lower her rescue vessels only in calm seas.[21]: 72  The Russian Navy had previously operated two India-class submarines, each of which carried a pair of Poseidon-class DSRVs that could reach a depth of 693 m (2,270 ft), but due to a lack of funds, the vessels had been held since 1994 in a Saint Petersburg yard for pending repairs.[22][23][24]

At 17:00, an Ilyushin 38 aircraft was dispatched. The crew spent three hours unsuccessfully searching for Kursk.[21]: 74  At 18:00, more than six hours after the initial explosion, Kursk failed to complete a scheduled communication check.[10] The Northern Fleet command became concerned and tried to contact the boat. After repeated failures, at 18:30, they began a search-and-rescue operation, dispatching additional aircraft to locate the submarine, which again failed to locate the boat on the surface.[18][25] At 22:30, the Northern Fleet declared an emergency, and the exercise was stopped.[18] Between 15 and 22 vessels of the Northern Fleet, including about 3,000 sailors, began searching for the submarine. The Mikhail Rudnitsky left port at 00:30.[10][18]

Official government response
The Russian Navy initially downplayed the incident. Late on Saturday night, 9 hours after the boat sank, Northern Fleet commander Admiral Popov ordered the first search for the submarine. Twelve hours after it sank, Popov informed the Kremlin, but Minister of Defence Igor Sergeyev did not notify Putin until 07:00 Sunday morning. Sergeyev "did not recommend" that Putin visit the disaster site.[22]

On Sunday, after Popov already knew that Kursk was missing and presumed sunk, he briefed reporters on the progress of the naval exercise. He said the exercise had been a resounding success and spoke highly of the entire operation.[5]: 149 [19]: 23 

Rumours among family members
Early on Sunday morning, 13 August, at the Vidyaevo Naval Base, rumours began to circulate among family members of Kursk's crew that something was wrong. A telephone operator handled an unusual volume of calls and overheard that a submarine was in trouble and the boat's name. As the base was very small, news spread quickly. Wives and family members exchanged news, but information was scarce. Because Kursk was regarded as unsinkable, family members wished to discount the worst of the rumors. They hoped that Kursk was merely experiencing a temporary communication problem. The deputy base commander assured the women that the headquarters office was half empty and that the officers present were just "passing the time."[21]: 87 

Foreign assistance refused
On the afternoon of the explosion, before the Kremlin had been informed of the submarine's sinking, U.S. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Defense Secretary William Cohen were told that Kursk had sunk.[11] Once officially informed, the British government, along with France, Germany, Israel, Italy, and Norway, offered help,[10] and the United States offered the use of one of its two deep submergence rescue vehicles, but the Russian government refused all foreign assistance.[26] Minister of Defence Igor Sergeyev told the American Embassy that the rescue was well under way.[5]: 152  The Russian Navy told reporters that a rescue was imminent.[5]

Russian rescue efforts falter
At 04:50 on Sunday, 13 August, personnel aboard Pyotr Velikiy detected two anomalies on the seabed that might be the boat. At 09:00, Mikhail Rudnitsky arrived at the location. While setting anchor, its crew interpreted an acoustic sound as an SOS from the submarine, but soon concluded the noise had been produced by the anchor chain striking the anchor hole. At 11:30, Mikhail Rudnitsky prepared to lower the AS-34, which entered the water at 17:30. At 18:30, at a depth of 100 m (300 ft) and at a speed of 2 kn (3.7 km/h; 2.3 mph), the AS-34 reported colliding with an object, and through a porthole, the crew saw the Kursk's propeller and stern stabiliser. With the AS-34 damaged by the collision and forced to surface, the crew of Mikhail Rudnitsky began preparing the AS-32 for operation.[18]

At 22:40, the AS-32 entered the water and began searching for Kursk. It was unable to locate the submarine, because it had been given an incorrect heading by personnel aboard Pyotr Velikiy. Crew aboard Mikhail Rudnitsky tried to contact Kursk and briefly thought they heard an acoustic SOS signal, but this was determined to be of biological origin. They reported the sounds to Pyotr Velikiy. The AS-32 returned to the surface at 01:00 on Monday morning, 14 August.[18]

The salvage tug Nikolay Chiker (SB 131) arrived early in the rescue operation. Using deep-water camera equipment, it obtained the first images of the wrecked submarine, which showed severe damage from the sub's bow[15] to its sail.[27] Kursk was listing at a 25-degree angle and down 5–7 degrees by the bow.[10] The bow had ploughed about 22 m (72 ft) deep into the clay seabed, at a depth of 108 m (354 ft). The periscope was raised, indicating that the accident occurred when the submarine was at a depth of less than 20 m (66 ft).[10]

The AS-34 was repaired and was launched at 05:00 on Monday. At 06:50, the AS-34 located Kursk and unsuccessfully tried to attach to the aft escape trunk over Kursk's ninth compartment. Unable to create the vacuum seal necessary to attach to the escape trunk, its batteries were quickly depleted and the crew was forced to surface. No spare batteries were available, so the crew was forced to wait while the batteries were recharged. Meanwhile, winds increased, blowing 10–12 m/s (19–23 kn) to 15–27 m/s (29–52 kn), and the waves rose to 3–4 points (4–8 ft, 1.2–2.4 m), forcing the Russians to suspend rescue operations.[18]

First official announcement
The first official announcement of the accident was made by the Russians on Monday, 14 August. They told the media that Kursk had had "minor technical difficulties" on Sunday. They stated that the submarine had "descended to the ocean floor", that they had established contact with the crew and were pumping air and power to the boat, and that "everyone on board is alive."[6] The BBC reported that the Kursk crew "had been forced to ground" the submarine because it "[had] broken down during exercises," but rescue crews were "in radio contact with surface vessels."[28]

Collision initially blamed
Senior officers in the Russian Navy offered a variety of explanations for the accident.[8] Four days after Kursk sank, Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief and Fleet Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov stated the accident had been caused by a serious collision. Vice-premier Ilya Klebanov said the submarine might have hit an old World War II mine.[29] He also said that almost all of the sailors had died before the vessel hit bottom.[30]

The Russian government convened a commission, chaired by Vice-Premier Ilya Klebanov, on 14 August, two days after Kursk sank.[10] Nearly half of the commission members were officials with a stake in the outcome of the investigation. Independent investigators were not invited to take part, giving the appearance that the commission's findings might not be impartial.[19]: 32 

Weather delays efforts
Bad weather, 3.7 m (12 ft) waves, strong undersea currents, and limited visibility impaired the rescue crews' ability to conduct operations on Tuesday and Wednesday.[6] On Tuesday Mikhail Rudnitsky lowered a diving bell twice, but were unable to connect to the sub. They also tried and failed to manoeuvre a remotely operated vehicle onto the rescue hatch.[23]

At 20:00 Tuesday, AS-34 was launched again, but was damaged when it struck a boom as it was being lowered into the sea. It was brought back aboard, repaired, and relaunched at 21:10. On Tuesday, 15 August, three days after the sinking, the crane ship PK-7500 arrived with the more manoeuvrable Project 18270 Bester-type DSRV (AC-36).[31] The weather, though, prevented the PK-7500 from launching the DSRV. The rescue team decided to launch the submersible near the coast and tow it to the rescue site with a salvage tug.[18]

On Wednesday, 16 August, at 00:20, AS-34 twice attempted to attach to the ninth compartment escape hatch, but was unsuccessful. It surfaced, and as it was being lifted onto the deck of the mother ship, its propulsion system was seriously damaged. The crew of Mikhail Rudnitsky cannibalised the AS-32 to repair the AS-34. Rescue operations were suspended while the repairs were made.[18] PK-7500 arrived from the coast where it had launched its DSRV. It repeatedly lowered the rescue vessel 110 m (360 ft) to the submarine but it was unable to latch onto an escape hatch. One of the rescue capsules was damaged by the storm.[32]

On Thursday at 12:00, Popov reported to the general staff of the Navy that no explosion had occurred on the Kursk, that the sub was intact on the seafloor, and that an "external influence" might have caused a leak between the first and second compartments.[18] On Thursday, the Russian DSRV made another attempt to reach the aft area of the submarine, but it was unable to create the vacuum seal necessary to attach to the escape trunk.[23] The Russians' 32-hour response time was widely criticised; however, the Submarine Rescue Diving Recompression System aims for deployment in 72 hours.[33]

The rescue ship Altay attempted to attach a Kolokol diving bell to the sub,[34] but was unsuccessful.[10] Russian Navy headquarters in Moscow told media that rescuers had heard tapping from within the boat's hull, spelling "SOS ... water",[10] although the possibility of hearing tapping through the double hull was later discounted. Other reports said the sounds had been misinterpreted or were made up.[27]

Rescue divers did not attempt to tap on the hull to signal potential survivors acoustically.[33] However, video evidence seems to suggest otherwise, as it shows Norwegian divers tapping on the aft rescue hatch while the rescue part of the operation was still underway.[35]

Fragments of both the outer and inner hulls were found nearby, including a piece of Kursk's nose weighing 5 t (5.5 short tons), indicating a large explosion in the forward torpedo room.[36][37]

British and Norwegian help

The British deep submersible rescue vehicle LR5
Private media and state-owned Russian newspapers criticised the Navy's refusal to accept international assistance.[6] Five days after the accident on 17 August 2000, President Putin accepted the British and Norwegian governments' offer of assistance. Six teams of British and Norwegian divers arrived on Friday, 18 August.[15] The Russian 328th Expeditionary rescue squad, part of the Navy's Office of Search and Rescue, also provided divers.[38] On 19 August at 20:00, the Norwegian ship Normand Pioneer arrived with the British rescue submarine LR5 on board, seven days after the disaster.[15][27]

On Sunday 20 August, the Norwegians lowered a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to the submarine. They found that the first 18 m (59 ft) section of the boat was a mass of twisted metal and debris.[15]

Russian Navy officials imposed specific constraints that restricted the Norwegian divers to work on the stern of the boat, specifically the escape hatch over compartment nine and an air-control valve connected to the rescue trunk.[15] The Norwegian deep-sea divers protested against the restrictions, which they believed impeded their rescue operations.[14]

When the divers attempted to open the air-control valve, it would not move. Russian experts told the divers that they must open the valve anticlockwise, or they would break it. The divers finally went against the experts' advice and tried turning it clockwise, which worked.[39]

The divers tried to use the arms of the ROV to open the hatch, but were unsuccessful until the morning of Monday, 21 August; they found the rescue trunk full of water.[14][15] That morning, they used a custom tool to open the internal hatch of the rescue trunk, releasing a large volume of air from the ninth compartment. Divers lowered a video camera on a rod into the compartment and could see several bodies.[15]

The salvage companies agreed that the Norwegian divers would cut the holes in the hull, but only Russian divers would enter the submarine. The Norwegian divers cut a hole in the hull of the eighth compartment to gain access,[40] using a cutting machine that shoots a high-velocity water-and-cutting-grit mix at a pressure of 100,000 kPa (15,000 psi).[41] The Russian divers entered the wreck and opened a bulkhead hatch to compartment nine.[42]

They found that dust and ash inside compartment nine severely restricted visibility. As they gradually worked their way inside the compartment and down two levels, Warrant Officer Sergei Shmygin found the remains of Captain-lieutenant Dmitry Kolesnikov.[38] All the men had been badly burned.[15] The divers cut additional holes in the hull over the third and fourth compartments.[40] The Russian divers removed secret documents and eventually recovered a total of 12 bodies from the ninth compartment. This contradicted earlier statements made by senior Russian officials that all the submariners had died before the submarine hit the bottom.[30] They also found the boat's log, but had to suspend work because of severe weather.[27] The rescue teams conducted continuous radiation measurements inside and outside the submarine, but none of the readings exceeded normal ranges.[15]

On 21 August, after the Norwegian divers confirmed that no one was alive in the ninth compartment, Russian Northern Fleet Chief of Staff Mikhail Motsak announced to the public that the Kursk was flooded and that all of its crewmembers had died.[23] Admiral Popov, commander of the Northern Fleet, also addressed the public in a televised broadcast (at the end of which he removed his navy beret) and asked the Kursk family members for forgiveness: "...forgive me for not bringing back your boys."[43][44]

Additional plans were made to continue to remove the bodies, but the Russian Navy could not agree on a contract with a foreign company. The families of those who died on the submarine protested that they did not want additional lives put at risk to bring up the dead.[45] On 22 August, President Putin issued an executive order declaring 23 August a day of mourning. On 26 August, Putin awarded the title of the Hero of Russia posthumously to the submarine's commander, Gennady Lyachin, and the 117 crewmembers and specialists were posthumously awarded the Order of Courage.[46]

Russians claim collision with NATO submarine
On Monday 14 August, Fleet Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov stated the accident had been caused by a serious collision with a NATO submarine,[29] although he gave no evidence to support his statement.[19] Senior commanders of the Russian Navy repeated this account for more than two years after the disaster. Many who wished for continued poor relations between Russia and the West supported this scenario.[19]

During the original exercise, the Russians required each of their submarines to stay within a specified area. This protocol was intended to eliminate the possibility of a collision and to allow surface ships to detect the presence of a Western spy sub.

On 29 or 30 August 2000, an official government commission tasked with investigating the disaster announced that the likely cause of the sinking was a "strong 'dynamic external impact' corresponding with the 'first event'", probably a collision with a foreign submarine or a large surface ship, or striking a World War II mine.[6] They said that the exercise had been monitored by two American Los Angeles-class submarines—USS Memphis and Toledo—and the Royal Navy Swiftsure-class submarine HMS Splendid. Russian sources said that when the exercise was cancelled due to the accident, these vessels put in at European ports.[47]


Size and mass comparison of Kursk and USS Toledo, which is less than half of Kursk's displacement
United States Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen responded to Russian accusations of a collision with a submarine at a press conference in Tokyo on 22 September 2000.[48]

Q: Russians are suggesting that one of the possible reasons is a collision with a NATO or American submarine, they are asking to let them, well, have a look at a couple of United States submarines and the answer from the American side is no; so I ask, why not? And what is your own explanation of that particular accident. Thank you. – Reporter

A: With respect to the Kursk, we had made it very clear that the United States, that our ships had no role in that terrible tragedy. We have communicated that, we believe that our word, indeed, has been categorical. I have received every assurance and I know that all our ships are operational and could not possibly have been involved in any kind of contact with the Russian submarine. So frankly, there is no need for inspections, since ours are completely operational, there was no contact whatsoever with the Kursk. I hope that the Russian authorities find out the cause of it. All I can do is speculate at this point, that there were internal blasts that led to the loss of that ship and the fine men aboard her.[48]

While the official inquiry was still under way, on 25 October 2000, Commander of the Northern Fleet Popov and his Chief of Staff Motsak were interviewed by the Spanish newspaper El Mundo.[49] They repeated the theory that Kursk collided with a NATO submarine shadowing the exercise.[49] Fleet Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov stated again on 25 October that he was 80% certain the accident was caused by a collision with a foreign submarine.[50]: 22  Eleven collisions had occurred between submarines in the Barents Sea since 1967. The Russian Navy produced video footage of the wreck that they claimed showed evidence that this, too, resulted from a collision.[8]

On 5 November, a representative of the Northern Fleet general staff told the Russian NTV television station that the sinking was caused by a collision. Admiral Mikhail Motsak repeated this assertion on 17 November in an interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestia.[49] Officials insisted that an American submarine was closely shadowing Kursk and had caused the collision by getting too close. The Russian Navy produced satellite imagery of the U.S. submarine Memphis docked at a Norwegian naval base in Bergen just after the alleged collision and claimed this proved the submarine had surfaced for repairs,[8] but the authenticity of the photos was never proven.[51]

Geophysicists who analysed the seismic signals concluded and reported in February 2001 that the initial sound recorded was triggered by an explosion and not a collision with another vessel.[52] The seismic waveforms of the second event, known by then to be from the explosion of several torpedo warheads, also generated a high-frequency bubble signature characteristic of an underwater explosion of about 3–7 tons of TNT. When analysts compared the second event with the first, they concluded that the first event was also the explosion of a torpedo. Britain's Blacknest seismic monitoring station, which studies seismic signals generated by underground nuclear explosions and earthquakes,[53] identified two distinct explosions. They determined that the two shockwaves were a perfect match and consistent with a torpedo explosion.[8]

Criticism of government response
While the rescue crews repeatedly failed to attach to the rescue trunk and to contact potential survivors aboard the submarine, President Putin was shown on TV enjoying himself on a summer holiday at a villa on the Black Sea. His seeming indifference outraged the families of the Kursk sailors and many other Russians.[27] Amelia Gentleman in The Guardian wrote:

For President Vladimir Putin, the Kursk crisis was not merely a human tragedy, it was a personal PR catastrophe. Twenty-four hours after the submarine's disappearance, as Russian naval officials made bleak calculations about the chances of the 118 men on board, Putin was filmed enjoying himself, shirtsleeves rolled up, hosting a barbecue at his holiday villa on the Black Sea.[54]

The Russian media strongly criticised the government's response to and handling of the sinking.[55] Images of angry family members demanding information or waiting anxiously at the dock for news were shown on media worldwide.[8] Some relatives said they learned of the disaster only from the public media[56]: 108  or from conflicting rumours circulating at the navy base.[21]: 87  They complained they did not receive any information from the government on the status of the disaster or rescue efforts until Wednesday, five days after the sinking. Some were unable to confirm whether their family members were among the crew on board the boat.[6] The government refused to release a list of the missing sailors even to the families of those aboard; a Pravda reporter paid an officer 18,000₽ to get the list. Even then, the government tried to prohibit reporters from contacting family members.[19]: 37 

The continued problems that the rescuers had in reaching potential survivors and ongoing conflicting information about the cause of the accident inflamed Russian public opinion.[27] Media described the Russian government's response to the disaster as "technically inept" and their stories as "totally unreliable".[6]

Putin meets with families

President Putin in a contentious meeting with relatives of the dead sailors in Vidyayevo, during which the families complained about the Russian Navy's response to the disaster
President Putin had been advised by the military from the start of the disaster that they had the situation under control and that he did not need to intervene.[5][57] He was told that a strong possibility existed that a foreign vessel had caused the accident and that Russia should not accept help from foreign powers.[5]: 154  Only four months into his tenure as president, Putin was highly criticised by the public and media for his decision to remain at a seaside resort, and his once highly favourable ratings dropped dramatically.[57] The President's response appeared callous and the government's actions looked incompetent.[11]

On Tuesday, 22 August, 10 days after the sinking, Putin met at the Vidyayevo navy base officers' club and cultural centre with about 400 to 600[5]: 154 [56]: 105  angry and grieving residents of the navy base and about 350 family members of the Kursk's crew.[5][56]: 107  The meeting was closed and access was tightly controlled.[5] Two Russian journalists from Nezavisimaya Gazeta and Kommersant, who posed as family members, witnessed distraught widows and mothers howling at Putin, demanding to know why they were receiving so much conflicting information and who was going to be punished for the deaths of their family members.[58] They cried:[56]: 107 

But since you were not there it could not have happened.

Must be fun being a delusion


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 18-09-2022 04:53
18-09-2022 07:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Oh as for the law it is the Espionage act.U.S. Code § 792 - Harboring or concealing persons

LOL. Too funny.. LOL.

I should have known that your misunderstanding is another product of your inability to read English.

That law makes it a crime to harbor criminals, not to remain silent.

LOL.


Nope all you need to do is conceal information,

... conceal information about criminals being harbored.

Nobody is ever required to divulge information that is simply known. We don't have thought police because that would be unconstitutional. There has to be an action that is illegal, such as harboring criminals.

Learn some law ... after you learn what government agencies do what.

.
18-09-2022 07:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:Foreign assistance refused
On the afternoon of the explosion, before the Kremlin had been informed of the submarine's sinking, U.S. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Defense Secretary William Cohen were told that Kursk had sunk.[11] Once officially informed, the British government, along with France, Germany, Israel, Italy, and Norway, offered help,[10] and the United States offered the use of one of its two deep submergence rescue vehicles, but the Russian government refused all foreign assistance.[26] Minister of Defence Igor Sergeyev told the American Embassy that the rescue was well under way.[5]: 152  The Russian Navy told reporters that a rescue was imminent.[5]

Russian rescue efforts falter
At 04:50 on Sunday, 13 August, personnel aboard Pyotr Velikiy detected two anomalies on the seabed that might be the boat. At 09:00, Mikhail Rudnitsky arrived at the location. While setting anchor, its crew interpreted an acoustic sound as an SOS from the submarine, but soon concluded the noise had been produced by the anchor chain striking the anchor hole. At 11:30, Mikhail Rudnitsky prepared to lower the AS-34, which entered the water at 17:30. At 18:30, at a depth of 100 m (300 ft) and at a speed of 2 kn (3.7 km/h; 2.3 mph), the AS-34 reported colliding with an object, and through a porthole, the crew saw the Kursk's propeller and stern stabiliser. With the AS-34 damaged by the collision and forced to surface, the crew of Mikhail Rudnitsky began preparing the AS-32 for operation.

More IBDanalysis:

Russian officials did an abrupt 180-degree U-turn after announcing for days that the Kursk was fine, that all aboard were fine, that the Kursk was simply experiencing some minor technical difficulties and had to park on the ocean floor for a moment. When the absurdity of that narrative became conspicuous, officials changed the narrative to say that the Kursk had experienced an explosion and that all aboard had died before the Kursk hit the sea floor.

That was not true either. Several were still alive as they were carried to the ocean floor. What was disheartening to the families of the Kursk crewmembers is that some were alive for up to five days after the Kursk sunk, but Russian officials totally hampered search and rescue efforts to the point that the rescue took longer than that unnecessarily and, of course, all were dead after that.

From the moment the Kursk sunk, someone was tapping/banging on metal to provide signs of life and to help direct search efforts. The tapping occurred for days but became fainter with each passing day. Eventually, on the fifth day, all tapping ceased.
18-09-2022 13:07
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Oh as for the law it is the Espionage act.U.S. Code § 792 - Harboring or concealing persons

LOL. Too funny.. LOL.

I should have known that your misunderstanding is another product of your inability to read English.

That law makes it a crime to harbor criminals, not to remain silent.

LOL.


Nope all you need to do is conceal information,

... conceal information about criminals being harbored.

Nobody is ever required to divulge information that is simply known. We don't have thought police because that would be unconstitutional. There has to be an action that is illegal, such as harboring criminals.

Learn some law ... after you learn what government agencies do what.

.


Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold against the President of the USA as Bush concealed Oswald's plan to assassinate the President.

That said since you also deny the holocaust and the thousands of miles of terminal moraines that the last ice age left; you will rot away here day by day inside of your terminal delusions

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/russ-baker/the-close-friend-of-george-h-w-bush-and-lee-harvey-oswald/

What possible connection could there have been between George H.W. Bush and the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Or between the C.I.A. and the assassination? Or between Bush and the C.I.A.? For some people, apparently, making such connections was as dangerous as letting one live wire touch another. Here, in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination in November, is the fifth part of a ten-part series of excerpts from WhoWhatWhy editor Russ Baker's bestseller, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years. The story is a real-life thriller.

Note: Although these excerpts do not contain footnotes, the book itself is heavily footnoted and exhaustively sourced. (The excerpts in Part 5 come from Chapter 5 of the book, and the titles and subtitles have been changed for this publication.)[amazon asin=1608190064&template=*lrc ad (right)]

For Part 1, please go here; Part 2, here; Part 3, here; Part 4, here.

"Must have angered a lot of people"

In 1976, more than a decade after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a letter arrived at the CIA, addressed to its director, the Hon. George Bush. The letter was from a desperate-sounding man in Dallas, who spoke regretfully of having been indiscreet in talking about Lee Harvey Oswald and begged Poppy for help:

Maybe you will be able to bring a solution into the hopeless situation I find myself in. My wife and I find ourselves surrounded by some vigilantes; our phone bugged; and we are being followed everywhere. Either FBI is involved in this or they do not want to accept my complaints. We are driven to insanity by this situation . . . tried to write, stupidly and unsuccessfully, about Lee H. Oswald and must have angered a lot of people . . . Could you do something to remove this net around us? This will be my last request for help and I will not annoy you anymore.

The writer signed himself "G. de Mohrenschildt."

The CIA staff assumed the letter writer to be a crank. Just to be sure, however, they asked their boss: Did he by any chance know a man named de Mohrenschildt? Bush responded by memo, seemingly self-typed:

I do know this man DeMohrenschildt. I first men [sic] him in the early 40'3 [sic]. He was an uncle to my Andover roommate. Later he surfaced in Dallas (50's maybe) . . . Then he surfaced when Oswald shot to prominence. He knew Oswald before the assassination of Pres. Kennedy. I don't recall his role in all this.
Not recall? Once again, Poppy Bush was having memory problems. And not about trivial matters. George de Mohrenschildt was not just the uncle of a roommate, but a longtime personal associate. Yet Poppy could not recall – or more precisely, claimed not to recall – the nature of de Mohrenschildt's relationship with the man believed to have assassinated the thirty-fifth president.[amazon asin=1616087080&template=*lrc ad (right)]

This would have been an unusual lapse on anyone's part. But for the head of an American spy agency to exhibit such a blasé attitude, in such an important matter, was over the edge. At that very moment, several federal investigations were looking into CIA abuses – including the agency's role in assassinations of foreign leaders. These investigations were heading toward what would become a reopened inquiry into Kennedy's death. Could it be that the lapse was not casual, and the acknowledgment of a distant relationship was a way to forestall inquiry into a closer one?

Writing back to his old friend, Poppy assured the Mohrenschildt that his fears were entirely unfounded. Yet half a year later, de Mohrenschildt was dead. The cause was officially determined to be suicide with a shotgun. Investigators combing through de Mohrenschildt's effects came upon his tattered address book, largely full of entries made in the 1950's. Among them, though apparently eliciting no further inquiries on the part of the police, was an old entry for the current CIA director, with the Midland address where he had lived in the early days of Zapata:

BUSH, GEORGE H. W. (POPPY), 1412 W. OHIO ALSO ZAPATA PETROLEUM MIDLAND.

De Mohrenschildt and the Oswalds

When Poppy told his staff that his old friend de Mohrenschildt "knew Oswald," that was an understatement. From 1962 through the spring of 1963, de Mohrenschildt was by far the principal influence on Oswald, the older man who guided every step of his life. De Mohrenschildt had helped Oswald find jobs and apartments, had taken him to meetings and social gatherings, and generally had assisted with the most minute aspects of life for Lee Oswald, his Russian wife, Marina, and their baby.

De Mohrenschildt's relationship with Oswald has tantalized and perplexed investigators and researchers for decades. In 1964, de Mohrenschildt and his wife Jeanne testified to the Warren Commission, which spent more time with them than any other witness – possibly excepting Oswald's widow, Marina. The Commission, though, focused on George de Mohrenschildt as a colorful, if eccentric, [amazon asin=1620878070&template=*lrc ad (right)]character, steering away every time de Mohrenschildt recounted yet another name from a staggering list of influential friends and associates. In the end, the commission simply concluded in its final report that these must all be coincidences and nothing more. The de Mohrenschildts, the Commission said, apparently had nothing to do with the assassination.

Even the Warren Commission counsel who questioned George de Mohrenschildt appeared to acknowledge that the Russian émigré was what might euphemistically be called an "international businessman." For most of his adult life, de Mohrenschildt had traveled the world ostensibly seeking business opportunities involving a variety of natural resources – some, such as oil and uranium, of great strategic value. The timing of his overseas ventures was remarkable. Invariably, when he was passing through town, a covert or even overt operation appeared to be unfolding – an invasion, a coup, that sort of thing. For example, in 1961, as exiled Cubans and their CIA support team prepared for the Bay of Pigs invasion in Guatemala, George de Mohrenschildt and his wife passed through Guatemala City on what they told friends was a month-long walking tour of the Central American isthmus. On another occasion, the de Mohrenschildts appeared in Mexico on oil business just as a Soviet leader arrived on a similar mission – and even happened to meet the Communist official. In a third instance, they landed in Haiti shortly before an unsuccessful coup against its president that had U.S. fingerprints on it.

A Russian-born society figure was a friend both of the family of President Kennedy and his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. A series of strange coincidences providing the only known link between the two families before Oswald fired the shot killing Mr. Kennedy in Dallas a year ago was described in testimony before The Warren Commission by George S. de Mohrenschildt.

He was actually much more intriguing – and mystifying. As Norman Mailer noted in his book Oswald's Tale, de Mohrenschildt possessed "an eclecticism that made him delight in presenting himself as right-wing, left-wing, a moralist, an aristocrat, a nihilist, a snob, an atheist, a Republican, a Kennedy lover, a desegregationist, an intimate of oil tycoons, a bohemian, and a socialite, plus a quondam Nazi apologist, once a year."

A Name Never Dropped[amazon asin=0345404378&template=*lrc ad (right)]

During all these examinations, and notwithstanding de Mohrenschildt's offhand recitation of scores of friends and colleagues, obscure and recognizable, he scrupulously never mentioned that he knew Poppy Bush. Nor did investigators uncover the fact that in the spring of 1963, immediately after his final communication with Oswald, de Mohrenschildt had traveled to New York and Washington for meetings with CIA and military intelligence officials. He even had met with a top aide to Vice President Johnson. And the commission certainly did not learn that one meeting in New York included Thomas Devine, then Bush's business colleague in Zapata Offshore, who was doing double duty for the CIA.

Had the Warren Commission's investigators comprehensively explored the matter, they would have found a phenomenal and baroque backstory that contextualizes de Mohrenschildt within the extended petroleum-intelligence orbit in which the Bushes operated.

Getting America Into World War I

The de Mohrenschildts were major players in the global oil business since the beginning of the twentieth century, and their paths crossed with the Rockefellers and other key pillars of the petroleum establishment. George de Mohrenschildt's uncle and father ran the Swedish Nobel Brothers Oil Company's operations in Baku, in Russian Azerbaijan on the southwestern coast of the Caspian Sea. This was no small matter. In the early days of the twentieth century, the region held roughly half of the world's known oil supply. By the start of World War I, every major oil interest in the world, including the Rockefellers' Standard Oil, was scrambling for a piece of Baku's treasure or intriguing to suppress its competitive potential. (Today, ninety years later, they are at it again.)

In 1915, the czar's government dispatched a second uncle of George de Mohrenschildt, the handsome young diplomat Ferdinand von Mohrenschildt, to Washington to plead for American intervention in the war – an intervention that might rescue the czarist forces then being crushed by the invading German army. President Woodrow Wilson had been reelected partly on the basis of having kept America out of the war. But as with all leaders, he was surrounded by men with their own agendas. A relatively close-knit group embodying the nexus of private capital and intelligence-gathering inhabited the highest levels of the Wilson administration. Secretary of State Robert Lansing was the uncle of a diplomat-spy by the name of Allen Dulles. Wilson's closest adviser, "Colonel" Edward House,[amazon asin=1616082917&template=*lrc ad (right)] was a Texan and an ally of the ancestors of James A. Baker III, who would become Poppy Bush's top lieutenant. Czarist Russia then owed fifty million dollars to a Rockefeller-headed syndicate. Keeping an eye on such matters was the U.S. ambassador to Russia, a close friend of George Herbert Walker's from St. Louis.

Once the United States did enter the war, Prescott Bush's father, Samuel Bush, was put in charge of small arms production. The Percy Rockefeller-headed Remington Arms Company got the lion's share of the U.S. contracts. It sold millions of dollars worth of rifles to czarist forces, while it also profited handsomely from deals with the Germans.

In 1917, Ferdinand von Mohrenschildt's mission to bring America into the world war was successful on a number of levels. Newspaper clippings of the time show him to be an instant hit on the Newport, Rhode Island, millionaires' circuit. He was often in the company of Mrs. J. Borden Harriman, of the family then befriending Prescott Bush and about to hire Prescott's future father-in-law, George Herbert Walker. Not long after that, Ferdinand married the step-granddaughter of President Woodrow Wilson.

In quick succession, the United States entered World War I, and the newlywed Ferdinand unexpectedly died. The von Mohrenschildt family fled Russia along with the rest of the aristocracy. Emanuel Nobel sold half of the Baku holdings to Standard Oil of New Jersey, with John D. Rockefeller Jr. personally authorizing the payment of $11.5 million. Over the next couple of decades, members of the defeated White Russian movement, which opposed the Bolsheviks and fought the Red Army from the 1917 October Revolution until 1923, would find shelter in the United States, a country that shared the anti-Communist movement's ideological sentiments.


Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too. Did that ever stop them?

You may now reach way up and flush yourself


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 18-09-2022 13:23
18-09-2022 17:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...

... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.

No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.
18-09-2022 20:08
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...

... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.

No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.


Harboring means having and shielding
Concealing can mean the same thing, or merely hiding information that something is about to happen to the President like Bush concealed Oswald's plan's that the CIA uncovered and did nothing about. But then if they had picked up Oswald then the real shooter on the knoll would not have had a patsy cover. Really very simple, Johnson was in on the plot as well because he did not let the car even be examined for bullet holes. At any rate Trump has the docs, which is basically why they cannot kill him and will choose to help reelect him when the time comes, rather than expose themselves as assassins.


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
18-09-2022 21:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...
... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.
No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.
Harboring means having and shielding
Concealing can mean the same thing, or merely hiding information

Nope. LOL. Too funny. LOL.

There are no thought police arresting the citizenry and charging them with having knowledge surrounding crimes committed by others. That would be unconstitutional.

You should read up on that Constitution thing.

LOL.
18-09-2022 23:04
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...
... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.
No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.
Harboring means having and shielding
Concealing can mean the same thing, or merely hiding information

Nope. LOL. Too funny. LOL.

There are no thought police arresting the citizenry and charging them with having knowledge surrounding crimes committed by others. That would be unconstitutional.

You should read up on that Constitution thing.

LOL.


LOL are you referring to the constitution that allows Americans to buy whatever arms that the government didn't ban the public from owning so that the government can shoot farther and off the public quicker. That constitution? LOL you gonna shoot down Russian drone launched missiles with an AR15 semi auto piece of krap. Might as well KY up the gun first as you might slip and hit something

People like you who believe that the constitution still means something are retarded. But this has been previously established.

PS. The police do not protect the president, the secret service does and they can arrest the police if they so choose, and have, and will again.


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
19-09-2022 21:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...
... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.
No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.
Harboring means having and shielding
Concealing can mean the same thing, or merely hiding information

Nope. LOL. Too funny. LOL.

There are no thought police arresting the citizenry and charging them with having knowledge surrounding crimes committed by others. That would be unconstitutional.

You should read up on that Constitution thing.

LOL.


LOL are you referring to the constitution that allows Americans to buy whatever arms that the government didn't ban the public from owning so that the government can shoot farther and off the public quicker.

The Constitution does not ban any weapon. It does not give power for the federal government to ban any weapon.
Swan wrote:
That constitution?

You obviously have never read it.
Swan wrote:
LOL you gonna shoot down Russian drone launched missiles

Drones don't need to launch long range missiles. They can't. Just shoot down the drone.
Swan wrote:
with an AR15 semi auto piece of krap.

An AR-15 style rifle is very effective at shooting down drones.
Swan wrote:
Might as well KY up the gun first as you might slip and hit something

Insulting people isn't an argument.
Swan wrote:
People like you who believe that the constitution still means something are retarded. But this has been previously established.

Nah. You just never read the thing.
Swan wrote:
PS. The police do not protect the president, the secret service does and they can arrest the police if they so choose, and have, and will again.

No, they can't just arrest anyone they want.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-09-2022 03:56
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...
... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.
No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.
Harboring means having and shielding
Concealing can mean the same thing, or merely hiding information

Nope. LOL. Too funny. LOL.

There are no thought police arresting the citizenry and charging them with having knowledge surrounding crimes committed by others. That would be unconstitutional.

You should read up on that Constitution thing.

LOL.


LOL are you referring to the constitution that allows Americans to buy whatever arms that the government didn't ban the public from owning so that the government can shoot farther and off the public quicker.

The Constitution does not ban any weapon. It does not give power for the federal government to ban any weapon.
Swan wrote:
That constitution?

You obviously have never read it.
Swan wrote:
LOL you gonna shoot down Russian drone launched missiles

Drones don't need to launch long range missiles. They can't. Just shoot down the drone.
Swan wrote:
with an AR15 semi auto piece of krap.

An AR-15 style rifle is very effective at shooting down drones.
Swan wrote:
Might as well KY up the gun first as you might slip and hit something

Insulting people isn't an argument.
Swan wrote:
People like you who believe that the constitution still means something are retarded. But this has been previously established.

Nah. You just never read the thing.
Swan wrote:
PS. The police do not protect the president, the secret service does and they can arrest the police if they so choose, and have, and will again.

No, they can't just arrest anyone they want.


Drones certainly do launch missiles, though this info may not have reached your mom's basement yet. It will one day, have faith.

Hey sal, get a Thorazine dart ready, this one is a real winner


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-09-2022 19:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...
... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.
No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.
Harboring means having and shielding
Concealing can mean the same thing, or merely hiding information

Nope. LOL. Too funny. LOL.

There are no thought police arresting the citizenry and charging them with having knowledge surrounding crimes committed by others. That would be unconstitutional.

You should read up on that Constitution thing.

LOL.


LOL are you referring to the constitution that allows Americans to buy whatever arms that the government didn't ban the public from owning so that the government can shoot farther and off the public quicker.

The Constitution does not ban any weapon. It does not give power for the federal government to ban any weapon.
Swan wrote:
That constitution?

You obviously have never read it.
Swan wrote:
LOL you gonna shoot down Russian drone launched missiles

Drones don't need to launch long range missiles. They can't. Just shoot down the drone.
Swan wrote:
with an AR15 semi auto piece of krap.

An AR-15 style rifle is very effective at shooting down drones.
Swan wrote:
Might as well KY up the gun first as you might slip and hit something

Insulting people isn't an argument.
Swan wrote:
People like you who believe that the constitution still means something are retarded. But this has been previously established.

Nah. You just never read the thing.
Swan wrote:
PS. The police do not protect the president, the secret service does and they can arrest the police if they so choose, and have, and will again.

No, they can't just arrest anyone they want.


Drones certainly do launch missiles, though this info may not have reached your mom's basement yet. It will one day, have faith.

Hey sal, get a Thorazine dart ready, this one is a real winner

No drone launches anything like a long range missile.
Psychoquackery. Insult fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-09-2022 19:38
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...
... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.
No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.
Harboring means having and shielding
Concealing can mean the same thing, or merely hiding information

Nope. LOL. Too funny. LOL.

There are no thought police arresting the citizenry and charging them with having knowledge surrounding crimes committed by others. That would be unconstitutional.

You should read up on that Constitution thing.

LOL.


LOL are you referring to the constitution that allows Americans to buy whatever arms that the government didn't ban the public from owning so that the government can shoot farther and off the public quicker.

The Constitution does not ban any weapon. It does not give power for the federal government to ban any weapon.
Swan wrote:
That constitution?

You obviously have never read it.
Swan wrote:
LOL you gonna shoot down Russian drone launched missiles

Drones don't need to launch long range missiles. They can't. Just shoot down the drone.
Swan wrote:
with an AR15 semi auto piece of krap.

An AR-15 style rifle is very effective at shooting down drones.
Swan wrote:
Might as well KY up the gun first as you might slip and hit something

Insulting people isn't an argument.
Swan wrote:
People like you who believe that the constitution still means something are retarded. But this has been previously established.

Nah. You just never read the thing.
Swan wrote:
PS. The police do not protect the president, the secret service does and they can arrest the police if they so choose, and have, and will again.

No, they can't just arrest anyone they want.


Drones certainly do launch missiles, though this info may not have reached your mom's basement yet. It will one day, have faith.

Hey sal, get a Thorazine dart ready, this one is a real winner

No drone launches anything like a long range missile.
Psychoquackery. Insult fallacies.


LOL the fact is that drones launch much like jets, hover over the enemy and launch missiles on various targets. You need to accept this as it is now commonplace.



You live in the past and your mothers basement


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-09-2022 19:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...
... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.
No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.
Harboring means having and shielding
Concealing can mean the same thing, or merely hiding information

Nope. LOL. Too funny. LOL.

There are no thought police arresting the citizenry and charging them with having knowledge surrounding crimes committed by others. That would be unconstitutional.

You should read up on that Constitution thing.

LOL.


LOL are you referring to the constitution that allows Americans to buy whatever arms that the government didn't ban the public from owning so that the government can shoot farther and off the public quicker.

The Constitution does not ban any weapon. It does not give power for the federal government to ban any weapon.
Swan wrote:
That constitution?

You obviously have never read it.
Swan wrote:
LOL you gonna shoot down Russian drone launched missiles

Drones don't need to launch long range missiles. They can't. Just shoot down the drone.
Swan wrote:
with an AR15 semi auto piece of krap.

An AR-15 style rifle is very effective at shooting down drones.
Swan wrote:
Might as well KY up the gun first as you might slip and hit something

Insulting people isn't an argument.
Swan wrote:
People like you who believe that the constitution still means something are retarded. But this has been previously established.

Nah. You just never read the thing.
Swan wrote:
PS. The police do not protect the president, the secret service does and they can arrest the police if they so choose, and have, and will again.

No, they can't just arrest anyone they want.


Drones certainly do launch missiles, though this info may not have reached your mom's basement yet. It will one day, have faith.

Hey sal, get a Thorazine dart ready, this one is a real winner

No drone launches anything like a long range missile.
Psychoquackery. Insult fallacies.


LOL the fact is that drones launch much like jets, hover over the enemy and launch missiles on various targets. You need to accept this as it is now commonplace.



You live in the past and your mothers basement

Shoot down the drone.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-09-2022 21:03
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...
... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.
No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.
Harboring means having and shielding
Concealing can mean the same thing, or merely hiding information

Nope. LOL. Too funny. LOL.

There are no thought police arresting the citizenry and charging them with having knowledge surrounding crimes committed by others. That would be unconstitutional.

You should read up on that Constitution thing.

LOL.


LOL are you referring to the constitution that allows Americans to buy whatever arms that the government didn't ban the public from owning so that the government can shoot farther and off the public quicker.

The Constitution does not ban any weapon. It does not give power for the federal government to ban any weapon.
Swan wrote:
That constitution?

You obviously have never read it.
Swan wrote:
LOL you gonna shoot down Russian drone launched missiles

Drones don't need to launch long range missiles. They can't. Just shoot down the drone.
Swan wrote:
with an AR15 semi auto piece of krap.

An AR-15 style rifle is very effective at shooting down drones.
Swan wrote:
Might as well KY up the gun first as you might slip and hit something

Insulting people isn't an argument.
Swan wrote:
People like you who believe that the constitution still means something are retarded. But this has been previously established.

Nah. You just never read the thing.
Swan wrote:
PS. The police do not protect the president, the secret service does and they can arrest the police if they so choose, and have, and will again.

No, they can't just arrest anyone they want.


Drones certainly do launch missiles, though this info may not have reached your mom's basement yet. It will one day, have faith.

Hey sal, get a Thorazine dart ready, this one is a real winner

No drone launches anything like a long range missile.
Psychoquackery. Insult fallacies.


LOL the fact is that drones launch much like jets, hover over the enemy and launch missiles on various targets. You need to accept this as it is now commonplace.



You live in the past and your mothers basement

Shoot down the drone.


Not with your constitutional AR15 piece of krapp you're not.


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-09-2022 22:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...
... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.
No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.
Harboring means having and shielding
Concealing can mean the same thing, or merely hiding information

Nope. LOL. Too funny. LOL.

There are no thought police arresting the citizenry and charging them with having knowledge surrounding crimes committed by others. That would be unconstitutional.

You should read up on that Constitution thing.

LOL.


LOL are you referring to the constitution that allows Americans to buy whatever arms that the government didn't ban the public from owning so that the government can shoot farther and off the public quicker.

The Constitution does not ban any weapon. It does not give power for the federal government to ban any weapon.
Swan wrote:
That constitution?

You obviously have never read it.
Swan wrote:
LOL you gonna shoot down Russian drone launched missiles

Drones don't need to launch long range missiles. They can't. Just shoot down the drone.
Swan wrote:
with an AR15 semi auto piece of krap.

An AR-15 style rifle is very effective at shooting down drones.
Swan wrote:
Might as well KY up the gun first as you might slip and hit something

Insulting people isn't an argument.
Swan wrote:
People like you who believe that the constitution still means something are retarded. But this has been previously established.

Nah. You just never read the thing.
Swan wrote:
PS. The police do not protect the president, the secret service does and they can arrest the police if they so choose, and have, and will again.

No, they can't just arrest anyone they want.


Drones certainly do launch missiles, though this info may not have reached your mom's basement yet. It will one day, have faith.

Hey sal, get a Thorazine dart ready, this one is a real winner

No drone launches anything like a long range missile.
Psychoquackery. Insult fallacies.


LOL the fact is that drones launch much like jets, hover over the enemy and launch missiles on various targets. You need to accept this as it is now commonplace.



You live in the past and your mothers basement

Shoot down the drone.


Not with your constitutional AR15 piece of krapp you're not.

An AR-15 can easily shoot down drones.
The Constitution does not ban any weapon.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-09-2022 01:42
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...
... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.
No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.
Harboring means having and shielding
Concealing can mean the same thing, or merely hiding information

Nope. LOL. Too funny. LOL.

There are no thought police arresting the citizenry and charging them with having knowledge surrounding crimes committed by others. That would be unconstitutional.

You should read up on that Constitution thing.

LOL.


LOL are you referring to the constitution that allows Americans to buy whatever arms that the government didn't ban the public from owning so that the government can shoot farther and off the public quicker.

The Constitution does not ban any weapon. It does not give power for the federal government to ban any weapon.
Swan wrote:
That constitution?

You obviously have never read it.
Swan wrote:
LOL you gonna shoot down Russian drone launched missiles

Drones don't need to launch long range missiles. They can't. Just shoot down the drone.
Swan wrote:
with an AR15 semi auto piece of krap.

An AR-15 style rifle is very effective at shooting down drones.
Swan wrote:
Might as well KY up the gun first as you might slip and hit something

Insulting people isn't an argument.
Swan wrote:
People like you who believe that the constitution still means something are retarded. But this has been previously established.

Nah. You just never read the thing.
Swan wrote:
PS. The police do not protect the president, the secret service does and they can arrest the police if they so choose, and have, and will again.

No, they can't just arrest anyone they want.


Drones certainly do launch missiles, though this info may not have reached your mom's basement yet. It will one day, have faith.

Hey sal, get a Thorazine dart ready, this one is a real winner

No drone launches anything like a long range missile.
Psychoquackery. Insult fallacies.


LOL the fact is that drones launch much like jets, hover over the enemy and launch missiles on various targets. You need to accept this as it is now commonplace.



You live in the past and your mothers basement

Shoot down the drone.


Not with your constitutional AR15 piece of krapp you're not.

An AR-15 can easily shoot down drones.
The Constitution does not ban any weapon.


Dude drones can fly from 18,000 feet to 60,000 feet and their missiles are radar tracking or heat seeking, so you aint shooting one down with a piece of shit AR15.

Actually the constitution allows for all arms, so when the first gun ban went into effect the constitution turned into toilet paper, yet morons like you still believe it has worth.


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
21-09-2022 02:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Conceal information about a crime or plan of a crime that is about to unfold ...
... only for crimes in which one is involved. Thought-policing is unconstitutional.

You aren't very law-savvy, LOL.

Swan wrote:Yo monkeybrains, the CIA is banned from operations in Moscow too.
No intelligence agency is somehow "banned" from its mission, which imposes a responsibility over every cubic inch of earth outside of US territory.

You are gullible. LOL. LOL.
Harboring means having and shielding
Concealing can mean the same thing, or merely hiding information

Nope. LOL. Too funny. LOL.

There are no thought police arresting the citizenry and charging them with having knowledge surrounding crimes committed by others. That would be unconstitutional.

You should read up on that Constitution thing.

LOL.


LOL are you referring to the constitution that allows Americans to buy whatever arms that the government didn't ban the public from owning so that the government can shoot farther and off the public quicker.

The Constitution does not ban any weapon. It does not give power for the federal government to ban any weapon.
Swan wrote:
That constitution?

You obviously have never read it.
Swan wrote:
LOL you gonna shoot down Russian drone launched missiles

Drones don't need to launch long range missiles. They can't. Just shoot down the drone.
Swan wrote:
with an AR15 semi auto piece of krap.

An AR-15 style rifle is very effective at shooting down drones.
Swan wrote:
Might as well KY up the gun first as you might slip and hit something

Insulting people isn't an argument.
Swan wrote:
People like you who believe that the constitution still means something are retarded. But this has been previously established.

Nah. You just never read the thing.
Swan wrote:
PS. The police do not protect the president, the secret service does and they can arrest the police if they so choose, and have, and will again.

No, they can't just arrest anyone they want.


Drones certainly do launch missiles, though this info may not have reached your mom's basement yet. It will one day, have faith.

Hey sal, get a Thorazine dart ready, this one is a real winner

No drone launches anything like a long range missile.
Psychoquackery. Insult fallacies.


LOL the fact is that drones launch much like jets, hover over the enemy and launch missiles on various targets. You need to accept this as it is now commonplace.



You live in the past and your mothers basement

Shoot down the drone.


Not with your constitutional AR15 piece of krapp you're not.

An AR-15 can easily shoot down drones.
The Constitution does not ban any weapon.


Dude drones can fly from 18,000 feet to 60,000 feet and their missiles are radar tracking or heat seeking, so you aint shooting one down with a piece of shit AR15.

Actually the constitution allows for all arms, so when the first gun ban went into effect the constitution turned into toilet paper, yet morons like you still believe it has worth.

The right to self defense does not come from the Constitution, dude.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-09-2022 02:37
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
Correct as the constitution became dog shit the moment that the first gun ban went into effect.

Constitution of the United States
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So in 1934 the constitution died with. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 was the country's first major federal gun control legislation. The law required the registration of certain firearms, imposed taxes on the sale and manufacture of firearms, and restricted the sale and ownership of high-risk weapons, such as machine guns.


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 21-09-2022 02:41
21-09-2022 03:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Correct as the constitution became dog shit the moment that the first gun ban went into effect.

Constitution of the United States
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So in 1934 the constitution died with. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 was the country's first major federal gun control legislation. The law required the registration of certain firearms, imposed taxes on the sale and manufacture of firearms, and restricted the sale and ownership of high-risk weapons, such as machine guns.

The Constitution never became dog shit. It still exists today. Quite a lot of people in this country still uphold it too.

The federal government does not have the power to destroy the Constitution. The law you refer to is unconstitutional.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 21-09-2022 03:01
21-09-2022 03:12
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2133)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Correct as the constitution became dog shit the moment that the first gun ban went into effect.

Constitution of the United States
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So in 1934 the constitution died with. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 was the country's first major federal gun control legislation. The law required the registration of certain firearms, imposed taxes on the sale and manufacture of firearms, and restricted the sale and ownership of high-risk weapons, such as machine guns.

The Constitution never became dog shit. It still exists today. Quite a lot of people in this country still uphold it too.

The federal government does not have the power to destroy the Constitution. The law you refer to is unconstitutional.


The federal government does have the power to amend the constitution as they see fit. The federal government also has the power to restrict the rights of Americans to bear arms as they do with over 300 federal and state gun laws that nullify the second amendment to (you now have the right to bear the arms that we say you can bear as long as we approve). So you are upholding a lie, they can accuse you of anything without merit and you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent (Trump). Been there and done that and you are a federal piece of shit, but it's not your fault because they have control of your mind. You have free will to do as you are told, when and where you are told, the way you are told. Deviate just a tad and you are the next erased fool, but hey, I will still be me.


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 21-09-2022 03:50
21-09-2022 04:57
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2548)
Swan wrote:
Dude drones can fly from 18,000 feet to 60,000 feet and their missiles are radar tracking or heat seeking, so you aint shooting one down with a piece of shit AR15.

How do they get to 18,000+ ft of altitude?
Oh silly me. I forgot about the quantumentangleteleportation.


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
Page 3 of 6<12345>>>





Join the debate Ding Dong the Witch is dead. That said queen elizabeth lived long enough to kill Princess Diana first:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Ding Dong the skanky old queen is dead, party at every Irish pub on Earth011-09-2022 19:06
Lizard Liz is dead, London bridge has fallen. Diner in Scotland celebrates with Champagne010-09-2022 14:33
Aesop's Fables - The Troll Who Cried Dead Barrier Reef804-09-2022 00:00
5 Covid 19 vaccinated children dead of liver disease9127-05-2022 23:18
As long as we're talking about scams and climate ...1716-04-2022 20:38
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact