WTF - US drops bombs on Great Barrier Reef

WE WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS
WE WILL ATTACK AMERICA

YES WE WILL...I HAVE GOT SOME PRETTY BIG STICKS AND I RECKON IM GUNNA WHACK EM REALLY HARD

AND THEN THE STRAYAN GUBMINT SHOULD PUT ALL MERKAN SOLDIERS IN STRAYA INTO CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND MAKE THEM CONCENTRATE

way to go

more horror

That's what I thought at first, but if you read the articles, it dropped them NEAR the reefs, NOT actually ON them.
But even mainstream media in the US worded the titles as dropping it on the reef.

The bombs were inert, meaning they had no payload. Such a misleading title.

Hey mateys! Gimme a fair Australian maiden, a nice villa by the beach, one million US dollars cash, and I will talk Obama into not attacking Australia. I mean I will try, but it doesn't work no refund. Deal?

ack

Last Edited by Proud American Supporter on 07/22/2013 01:22 AM

.

Let me guess -- the two Harrier jets were fighter escorts for Barack Obama's Air Force One and he told them to drop the bombs to kill George Zimmerman who was spotted on a raft below.

.

Not necessarily a bad thing... More surface area for life to attach itself to and maintain the reef.

[link to www.weeklytimesnow.com.au]

Can't be self sufficient these days...

Last Edited by CYBERDELIK on 07/22/2013 01:40 AM

park your old boats there not bombs

Typical overdramatic misleading GLP thread title.

Gotta remember that last line

^^^^^

Okey, half million.

The bombs probably leaking right now.....

looking like substandard US pilots and poor military planning, or a cover up.

took off without enough fuel to complete a training exersise? had they not been able to dump the training bombs, the jets would have been lost ?

australian, canadian, british and new zealand pilots have all trained there for years without incident.

it's a further embarrasment and a world first (they got caught at )to do this in a VTOL jet like a harrier that can land anywhere a helicopter can , be refuled and continue on. video of british pilots landing two laden harriers side by side on a fairly small patrol boat helipad in violently pitching seas is being aired this morning.

some first attempts at a US explanation pointed to the carriers' exclusion from entering australian waters and consequently being further than thought to blame, but the latest news is it was not a nuclear powered vessel,was permitted, and well within in australian waters. first attempt exposed.

the american sixth fleet came in the early nineties and it's nuclear carrier had to stay 200 nautical miles offshore, so even if it was a chernobyl class carrier, the extra distance was well known decades in advance. plenty of time to adjust fuel math.

americans also state possible confusion over the different measurement system for fuel , speed and distance to what they are used to on the british designed harrier. seems weak also, the guages are surely converted to the old british system the US still uses.

along with multiple other vessels the jets could have landed on in an emergency, it also seems they could have made several points on land, including three military bases, all involved in the training exersise, which involved over 38,000 military personel . the harrier is also frequently refuled in flight, and airborne tanker jets were in the area.

it is hard to believe a fuel shortage caused this. no harrier ever before (worldwide) has been forced to dump weight other than fuel to land. no military aircraft ever has before in any solo or joint exersise held in this country has been forced to release training ordinance to complete a training run.

whatever happened, the US navy has hired salvage , and is now under escort retrieving whatever it lost in a hurry. speculation is that they are retrieving aircraft wreckage.

Thats the cover story they want to sell to you. but read this and how it connects to something else that may be going on.

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Excerpt: CNN is reporting today that the US Navy dropped 4 bombs in the great barrier reef. [link to edition.cnn.com]
Really? 4 bombs??? Or they meant 1111 or 11-11, 22 or 2 - 2 which both adds up to 4?

Seems very fishy. The argument for different gauges is moot as the AV-8B was heavily redesigned by McDonald Douglas for the US military in the late 1970s.

As for dropping the stores - the parasitic drag of streamlined ordnance should have very minor impact on fuel consumption and if the bombs contained no explosive, the weight should have had little impact either.

These guys ALWAYS know how far it is back to base. The integration of the systems between aircraft and support vessels is staggering. I find it hard to believe that two professional jet jockeys would both ignore a bingo fuel warning and get to a position which required jettison of stores on a training flight.

It's not about a shortage of fuel, its about a violent landing on a boat with objects that could pierce the deck without explosives. anyone who has been near a carrier knows they dump their fuel just before landing in case of a accident. planes NEVER land with a bomb load on a boat.

intimidation psy op?

Is there an oil reserve under the reef . Preparing to damage the reef to put in oil wells ? It has to be connected to minning or oil .

very funny.. made me chuckle

so these things are prepped then...for when SHTF....it will throw more to the fan...

Thought this was just like stocking the shelves. Who wants an earthquake? Might come in handy oneday...

Not quite dude. A reef takes thousands of years to build up. Homie.