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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why Does a Florida County Need Eight $18 Million Helicopters?

page: 12
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

(post by toto88 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:37 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I think I'd be more concerned as to why they were buying 2x ball bearings at nearly $400,000.00 each!

Black ops funding has to come from somewhere I guess.....


posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 08:49 PM

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

They need that and more because you live there.


LOL, my words must be bullets to them huh?

On a more serious note, all these efforts to essentialy militarize LEA's is very concerning. If you look at that last link I gave it shows that the goverment is really serious about using military equipment for law enforcement which should only be used for war. Then again all we have to do is see the perception that tptb in the U.S. has about "this nation being a warzone" to them...

posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 08:51 PM
a reply to: Marlborough Red

Naa, i am more concerned about LEA's using military helos that were valued originally at 18 million each. It all seems to point to the fact that they are arming up for some major conflicts within th U.S. in the near future.

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 12:47 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yeah, I was just teasing you.
The gear should have been provided to
The National Guard from The beginning.
Rather than "Local" Law Enforcement.

Big Screw Up by the chain of command.


edit on 6-9-2014 by Wildmanimal because: typo

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:58 PM
a reply to: Wildmanimal

lol, yeah I've got the joke, and I was joking as well.

BTW, there is an update about the militarization of LEA's, although this news is from another city in the U.S.

The update is about a military style helicopter, which to me actually looks like an apache, landing in downtown Dallas yesterday (Tuesday).

There is a video showing the helo, which to me appears to be an apache taking off from the Dallas CBD Vertiport, which is owned by the city of Dallas.

Here is a video of the helo.

BTW, the person recording this says it is a blakchawk, but imo it is actually an apache helo and not a Blackhawk.

The landing and take-off occured just a half-mile from Dallas Police Department headquarters. Maj. Max Geron, who oversees media relations for the police department, told TheBlaze he had no information about the helicopter or the flight. A call to the FAA was not immediately returned.

The heliport where the helicopter landed is just feet from the Dallas Convention Center and sits atop a parking garage. According to records, a private heliport that used to be owned by the Belo Broadcasting Corporation is in the immediate area. Bello was purchased by media giant Gannett in December 2013. Gannett representative Jeremy Gaines, however, told TheBlaze in an email that the company “doesn’t have a heliport in Dallas.”*

There is a military air base in the area, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, but a spokesman who answered the phone there said he had no information on the flight or the aircraft.

Military-style helicopters flying in urban American environments have taken place with some frequency of late. Just last month, residents in Minneapolis were surprised to see Blackhawks and Hughes 500 choppers buzzing through the downtown area. The flights were part of training exercises for the Department of Defense, but residents were upset that no one was notified until after the flights occurred. That wasn’t the first time it happened — the same thing occurred in 2012.

Similar exercises have taken place in both Miami and Chicago on several occasions. But as for the Dallas incident, so far no one seems to know why.

UPDATE 1 p.m. ET:

It appears the heliport where the helicopter landed is the Dallas CBD Vertiport, which is owned by the city of Dallas. A section on the Dallas Convention Center website describes its capabilities:

The public-use, elevated Vertiport is located on the south end of the facility. A dual deck and can accommodate three helicopters plus two vertical-take-off and landing aircraft at the same time. It features approximately 169,000 square feet of flight deck, a dedicated automobile parking lot, full service lobby including conference room, and waiting area for pilots. Both rotor aircraft and tilt-rotor aircraft, such as the Osprey V-22, can be accommodated at the Vertiport.

“The Vertiport is open seven days a week from 7:00am until 10:00pm CST,” it continues. “Prior flight arrangements are not necessary as the facility is staffed, and monitored by unicom frequency 123.05 MHZ.”

A call to the office that manages the facility seeking more information on the flight and its purpose was not immediately returned.

Phone calls were done asking about this recording as well as other eyewitnesses but so far no information has been given about this particular sighting or the recording.

More and more these flights and landings of what are essentially military helicopters have been taking place with more and more frequency of late. Something that never really happened before.

The worst part is that these "exercises" are happening without the knowledge of the public which is part of what has me concerned, because for example the case of the military helos that flew in Florida shooting blanks in a busy highway which could have caused an accident and residents were not told about these "exercises" before hand.

To me what is happening is that people are being acclimatized slowly to the presence of these military helos for the obvious reason that they will be used 'in supporting civil authorities for a variety of mission roles not typically undertaken by active military components under “Title 10”'.

...Introduction - The ANG has a unique mandate in supporting civil authorities for a variety of mission roles not typically undertaken by active military components underTitle 10” …… This requires that the ANG acquire and maintain unique capabilities to meet this challenge.


edit on 10-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:15 PM
Here are some photos that show the differences between a Blackhawk helo and an Apache.

This is what a Blackhawk helo looks like.

This is what an Apache looks like.

BTW, I just noticed that the photo of the Apache I gave has a radar dome which is set in the center on top of the blades, and the one in the picture taken in Dallas doesn't, so I am adding another picture of an Apache without the radar dome.

The following photos of what appears to be an Apache were taken by Jonathon M. Seidl/TheBlaze and can also be found at the Blaze link.

Both of the above photos were taken by Jonathon M. Seidl/TheBlaze and credit goes to them for the photos and reporting this incident.

BTW, I know that the pictures taken of the helo that landed and took off in Dallas are small, but you can still discern the differences. For example the tail is very thin, like the tail in an Apache, and the nose of the helo doesn't look rounded like it does on a Blackhawk.

edit on 10-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add info and photo.

posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 03:22 PM
Time to update this a bit more.

I am not sure if this information has been posted before, more so since the following info is from August but I thought it was worth mentioning.

First of all, the primary reason why the Defense Logistics Agency's Law Enforcement Support Office through the use of the 1033 program have been giving more and more militarized equipment to LEAs seems to be because defense industry lawmakers are making money off this program.

According to "MapLight".

Defense Industry-Backed Lawmakers Voted to Continue Police Militarization Program

Submitted by Donny Shaw on Aug 14, 2014
Local law enforcement around the country has become more heavily armed through partnerships with the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. One of the key programs, the 1033 Program, allows the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) under the Department of Defense to transfer military equipment to civilian police.

In June, the House of Representatives voted on an amendment from Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) that sought to partially defund the 1033 Program. The amendment failed on a bipartisan vote of 62-355.
Representatives voting to continue funding the 1033 Program have received, on average, 73 percent more money from the defense industry than representatives voting to defund it.
•Fifty-nine representatives received more than $100,000 from the defense industry from January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2013. Of those only four supported defunding the 1033 Program.


If we keep reading the Maplight link we can also find that not all military equipment that the DLA is distributing to LEAs are old, in fact according to an ACLU investigation apparently the DLA can purchase new equipment from weapon manufacturers and then transfer it to LEA's free of charge. Of course, the U.S. taxpayer is the one footing the bill of the price of this military equipment. LEA's only pay for transportation costs.

As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) noted in a recent report, "it appears that the DLA can simply purchase property from an equipment or weapons manufacturer and transfer it to a local law enforcement agency free of charge." The ACLU states that 36 percent of the equipment transferred under the program is brand new (pg. 26).

Below is the ACLU document.

Also of note is that the lists released to the public do not show all the equipment that LEAs are receiving from the DLA. There is equipment being given which will not be listed in the lists that the public can access.

Here is another website with more info on this.

This amendment didn't even target some of the common transfers: assault rifles, night vision goggles, etc.. These common indicators of police militarization would have continued to flow from the US government to law enforcement agencies unabated. Instead, 355 legislators voted that local law enforcement should still be allowed access to the following equipment:
Aircraft (Including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), Armored Vehicles, Grenade Launchers, Silencers, Toxicological Agents, Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs, Mines, or Nuclear Weapons
One wonders if armored vehicles and drones had been struck from the list, the vote might have been more even. But phrased the way it was, if you still wanted your local PDs to acquire MRAPs, silencers and helicopters, you had to also give them the theoretical ability to requisition toxicological agents and ballistic missiles.

I don't imagine the government will be handing out guided missiles and nukes to law enforcement EVER, but what can be requisitioned is still partially a secret and information released to Muckrock by the Defense Logistics Agency only denotes which state received what, rather than indicate which law enforcement agencies were involved.

But even if the government has no intention of turning local law enforcement into full-fledged armies with nuclear/biological weapon capabilities, it's still handing over weapons and vehicles with little to no discretion. As Christopher Ingraham at the Washington Post notes, if you can fill out one very simple form, you'll be able to roll down Main Street, USA in an armored tactical vehicle bristling with military assault rifles.
Applying for federal student aid? You'll need to fill out a 10 page application. Social Security retirement benefits come with an eight-page form, a passport application is six pages, and the shortform Obamacare application is five.

But if you are a law enforcement agency in the U.S., you can apply for a free armored tactical vehicle from the Pentagon with a simple one-page form, below. You can even apply for multiple vehicles using the same form!
Ingraham's article oversimplifies the process somewhat (a few layers of pre-approval are needed), but the fact remains that it's incredibly easy to outfit local law enforcement units with military gear. A vetting process with some teeth would likely have prevented small towns from acquiring vehicles designed to protect soldiers in combat zones from explosives.

Crime is way down and police are more heavily-armed and well-protected than ever. Part of it is defense contractors making sure there's still a growing market for their wares. As Maplight points out (quoting an ACLU report on police militarization), 36% of the equipment transferred to law enforcement via the 1033 program is brand new. What may have seemed to be a fiscally responsible program -- making use of excess military equipment rather than simply scrapping it -- is now another way to blow tax dollars. Only this time, it's having other adverse effects on the general public.
... shtml

At first I thought that much of the above information must have been exaggerated, but so far I have found many other news sources also giving the same information.

edit on 22-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: correct errors and add comment.

posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 03:25 PM
BTW, yes I do know that "logic" would dictate that LEAs would not acquire military equipment such as "Toxicological Agents, Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs, Mines, or Nuclear Weapons" etc, but that does not mean lawmakers who are making money from this program did not approve it. What I do think we need to know is if this equipment and the 1033 program could be in use to relocate this type of equipment to maybe some other government agencies, or even to foreign nations.

If you don't think that this is possible that lawmakers would even think about transfering such military equipment to LEAs, here is an amendment that was offered by Mr Grayson to, and I quote:

An amendment, offered by Mr. Grayson, to prohibit use of funds to make aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxocological agents (including chemical agents, biological agents, associated equipment), launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines or nuclear weapons available to local law enforcement agencies. Mr. Frelinghuysen raised a point of order against the Grayson amendment. Mr. Frelinghuysen stated that the provisions of the Grayson amendment sought to change existing law and constituted legislation in an appropriations bill. The Chair sustained the point of order.

BTW, I do know that there are other ways in which the DOD transfers, or sells military equipment to "friendly nations", but I can't conceive any reason why the DLA program would be able to transfer "Toxicological Agents, Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs, Mines, or Nuclear Weapons" to our own federal agencies. What would be the reason for this military equipment to be included for transfers through the DLA to federal agencies? (which btw such agencies include the CIA)

More so since there is military equipment that is being transferred and the list of that equipment is not available to any news agency or to the public in general.

edit on 22-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: correct error and add comment.

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 09:32 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Your accurate that way.

Sikorsky flies those all around here all the time.

Check it Out :

edit on 27-10-2014 by Wildmanimal because: classified link deleted

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11   >>

log in