F-16 fighter jets escort 2 airliners into Atlanta airport, both planes land safely; airport: bomb th

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: roadgravel

They went over the ocean so they could go supersonic and have little traffic to contend with. They held over the city.

Always fly the wrong direction when time is short. Too bad NORAD was upset by that action.

Anyway, back to atlanta.

a reply to: roadgravel

Well hell why not just fly the right way through heavy traffic areas, at over Mach 1, including the take off and departure area of three major airports. Hell makes perfect sense to me.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: EvilBat

They weren't told to on 9/11 either. Lack of resources is not the same as a stand down.

Hush now, you shouldn't let the love of an irrational conspiracy with no evidence be impacted by reality and facts, that just won't do!

originally posted by: EvilBat
a reply to: Zaphod58

depends on the book you read and interviews you watch

It depends on all available evidence we have, in comparison to opinions given as fact, and theories given as reality.

I can go out there and read 30 stories telling me a belief or opinion, but I'll believe the one that is actually backed up with evidence in the form of statements from those actually there on the day, actually doing their jobs and based on the actual recordings we all had the freedom to hear after the conspiracy theories got it all wrong.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Listen to the NORAD tapes.

a reply to: roadgravel

I have. You don't plow two fighters at mach 1 through busy routes.

a reply to: Rocker2013


I made a statement of not talking about it because this topic is on ATL
Bottom of page 1 I'm trying to keep it back on topic.
not about what I had stated "Shocked they weren't told to stand down"

I stand by what I had said,
You believe what you want I believe what I want.

The question is..was this really the hijacked thread or was it a drone thread?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I am curious why in a real threat situation that NORAD wouldn't issue a NOTAM to avoid say FL 470. Then kick the eagles in the backside and light the burners, sub two minutes they could be at their flight level. Then they could fly mach 2 not just 1. I am pretty sure at those altitudes that sonic booms do not damage windows in populated areas.

Anyways back to the here and now, where did the bomb threats come from and where were the flights originating out of?

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: IronNuts

Because NOTAMs are distributed days and weeks ahead of time to allow distribution. Also an F-15 or F-16 that's loaded can barely get over Mach 1.

Some punk ass on the net spread these threats. The Delta flight was out of Portland, the Southwest out of Milwaukee.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: EvilBat

They weren't told to on 9/11 either. Lack of resources is not the same as a stand down.

But when one person (Don Rumsfeld) makes sure 99 percent of those Military resources are busy up in Canada or practicing the same 9/11 simulation at the same time so no body knows if its real or not, most would cry foul. Especially when he changed the long standing policy of the shoot down order for Commercial passenger jets that was in place just prior. Just so they would have to go through him first and not straight to the President wasting valuable time. 9/11 was in no way just 19 Arab terrorist.

Especially when Many Pentagon Police who were outside that day testified on camera that the plane NEVER hit the Pentagon, it fly over like a low bombing run as one hit the deck cause he thought he was dead only to get up after the explosion and see the plane banking away after flying over.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: IronNuts

Because NOTAMs are distributed days and weeks ahead of time to allow distribution. Also an F-15 or F-16 that's loaded can barely get over Mach 1.

Some punk ass on the net spread these threats. The Delta flight was out of Portland, the Southwest out of Milwaukee.

Two or even four sidewinders are not going to limit a F-15 to mach one. With a full bomb load sure but they are made to intercept with weapons not jack around.

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

Alert F-15s fly with all eight missiles and three external fuel tanks loaded. Even with that they usually have to refuel on the way back depending on mission duration. The F-15C, which is used for the alert mission doesn't carry bombs.

And they were not designed to go Mach 2 with external stores. The top speed was set on internal fuel at cruising altitude, without any externals. Once you add externals the drag becomes a major factor.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If the roll is to intercept would they not drop the externals unless distance and duration were an issue? Also if they are over domestic land, fighter aircraft can land on civilian air stripes. That way they don't have to possibly fly bingo fuel until hooking up to a support tanker.

I am curious as to why both planes were considered targets? Has the person responsible for the threats been identified? I would think that given the distance between the flights origins, that unless the threat was from a known group that it would have gotten less credibility.

a reply to: IronNuts

One reason is that the tanks have to land somewhere. Another is that they're fairly expensive, and there are a lot of alert launches in a year. We averaged 24-30 a year for one base. You also don't gain enough.

Landing at a civilian airport isn't that straightforward. You have to have people trained on the aircraft refuel it. When a fighter lands at a civilian airport unplanned, most times they end up sending at least a couple people from either their base or a nearby base to service them.

They have the twitter handle. It sounds like a punk trying to get the cops to raid someone's house.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's too bad that the tax payers end up paying for the deployment of the falcons. The perpetrator should be held for all expenses just as an arson should have to pay for all fire fighting costs.

Even if a few support personnel had to take a tanker over to fill it up, you'd imagine it's still more cost effective then air to air refuel. Also are externals able to be recovered if dropped over water?

a reply to: IronNuts

No, they tend to suffer a lot of damage when they land. Especially of it's a fairly high speed drop.

Cost is another reason they try not to land at a civilian airport. In the early 90s, Jet-A was about $3.30 at the airport, and JP-8 was just about a dollar on base.

a reply to: Zaphod58

What kind of high speeds would theses tanks have? I know that unless they are being propelled that they would reach a terminal velocity on their free fall, no?

a reply to: IronNuts

They'd start out at the speed of the aircraft at the time they were dropped. Generally low and slow, you MIGHT be able to return them to service. High and/or fast, they end up in at least two pieces at impact.