It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Despite Obama Hope, another conspiracy arises

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:33 AM
I like to think that Obama will bring a new age of hope to America, and that there will be the inevitable 'knock on effect' here in the UK.
However, while trawling the net I came across yet another conspiracy theory, based around the expansion of Heathrow airport, which I hadn’t heard of before, and one that I hadn’t considered.
I'll add it here. (I did add it on another thread, so forgive me for repeating myself)
Tell me your views.

"The issue of Heathrow has enflamed widespread discussion and protest in Britain, and after the issue forced a vote in the House of Commons recently, which sadly was marginally defeated, the subject is not going away any time soon.
The protests are based around all too common sense arguments on behalf of those, like me, against the expansion. Climate control and air pollution, the destruction of both the countryside and the homes of those who are unlucky enough to be living on the runways planned route.

Yet few have considered a darker purpose behind this plan. Something that poses even more questions, each, darker than the surface arguments regarding the topics noted above.
If time proves these bleak suggestions true, then the rejection and protest voiced at this moment in UK history is even more important.

The government claims that the expansion is based around increasing air traffic to address the growing need for both cross Atlantic travel and also travel worldwide. Despite the logic, contradictory to this claim, that given the present economic recession, air travel is probably far from the minds of the everyday people of not only this country, but everywhere.
So, why increase the capacity of an airport if not for commercial use?

At present, there are 12 US air bases operating on the UK mainland (QPSW June 2004) not including the 22 or more facilities available for US use in Britain) It is widely acknowledged that the UK has long formed a strategic ‘stepping stone’ for military traffic from the US to other parts of the world, in particular the Middle East. This was first put to major use during WW2 for access to the European Theatre of Operations (ETO). This is more important given the reluctance of other European countries to wholly support this role.

The suggestion is that if a large scale military action or a number of these were ever instigated by the US, Britain would need to have the air traffic provision to cope with the large scale transport of both military hardware and personnel. Something that the established bases in the UK would, at present, be unable to cope with. The suggestion indicates that large scale transport of both military hardware and personnel would be a provision on or even above the instance experienced inWW2. Sea transport, like that used during WW2 is not a viable option in today’s flashpoint, instant response military culture, so it is logical to rule out ocean transport in favour of large scale air transport of everything needed to wage a military campaign, and also to maintain that campaign and ensure reliable supply networks.

So, the use of commercial airports to transport military personnel, leaving hardware to take normal military routes, makes perfect sense in the situation of a large scale conflict.
Let’s face it. A population are unlikely to be driven to protest over men and women using planes. (beyond the predictable outcomes of such a use) But this would predictably change if arms supplies, tanks and missiles start trundling through so-called civilian channels.

So, is the expansion of Heathrow, really an expansion of the UK to accommodate large scale military transport, if that were ever required?
Or, more ominously, when it is needed?

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:36 AM
MMMmmm thats rather worrying possibility...
Depending on Obama's plans, they could even use it for invasion!?

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:12 AM
OK, am I assuming that you believe that Heathrow airport is being expanded to facilitate and American invasion of Britain? Or a stepping stone somewhere else?

If your speaking of the middle east, Germany is a much more logical stepping stone than London.

Even if Britain is used - it would be easier to expand an military facility for that purpose.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:12 PM
Nah, think it isnt about invading Britain....wots the point, they own us already. This is about elsewhere in the world, which makes sense as like the item says, its been done before. Oh, thanks for that 'special relationship' we have with the USA!

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:17 PM
"Successful business model may involve thinking about more than the short period of depression we're going to enter into in the UK shocker".

Maybe they're just building another runway because the current set-up doesn't accomidate enough planes. Just a guess mind. Oh and claiming that the 'countryside' is going to be destroyed - erm no.

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:16 AM
reply to post by Napalmtheelf

Honestly, I don't think so. Look at it this way; the Unites States has a lot of military bases in Europe, and a lot of personnel and equipment already there. Why would there be a need for a bigger airport in the UK to move troops and supplies that are already there?

Not that I trust Obama, mind you, but I don't see this being something related to the United States military. Of course....Obama HAS talked about some civilian force being "necessary", and stated that "we can't depend on the military" to protect us... So, maybe there is a reason to worry.

Any hint of a connection to his being elected and this expansion?

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 04:24 AM
reply to post by jBrereton

Well, if the removal of the village of sipton and the surrounding countryside isnt destroying the countryside I dont know what is.Think you might think differently if you lived there.

new topics

top topics


log in