It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Israeli Strike On Iran Turned Back

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 04:30 AM
link   
They could have turned them into one giant piece of glass, and it wouldn't be are fault. This is the stupist thing i've ever heard.




posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Couldn't this have been a training exercise? When Israeli pilots struck the Iraqi reactor, they had been training for more than 10 months.

Some journalist might have changed it into ''stopped by the Americans'' rather than ''just a training''.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Israel also knows that Iran has a sattelite, which provides for early warning, making the mission a virtual suicide. Unassisted that is.

Will the satellite be effective against a stealth F-16? And I think the iranian satellite is much more occupied to watch the american naval force near their border.


Stealth F-16? Come on... really.


Do you really think a F-16 fighter aircraft can carry a 20Kt payload? plus sufficient fuel to reach Iran (nevermind returning)?

It would've made more sense if it were F-117's (which is a stealth bomber)



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller
Do you really think a F-16 fighter aircraft can carry a 20Kt payload?


It appears that they most certainly can.
www.asianaffairs.com...

According to Jane’s Defence Survey, 2002,
...
Pakistan similarly can deliver a 20 to 25kt warhead either by its F-16 or other aircraft or by a Shaheen/Ghauri missile.
* emphasis mine



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller

Stealth F-16? Come on... really.




My thoughts, exactly. I've read some rumors about Israelis making F-16 radar signature as big as a children tricycle. IMO, that is BS. If that would be possible, I bet virtually all of the USAF would be using stealth fighters. It would also mean that F-22 or B-2 are a huge waste of $$$.

Yet, I do think that F-16 could carry 20 kT weapon.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I happen to believe this is false. And for several reasons. First of all, I can't believe that if the Israelis were truely serious about doing this unilaterally, that they'd hardly try to fly through Iraq. It has been discussed before here other routes, and means, by which to deliver weapons on Iran, not the least of which comes to mind is submarines.

Second, I believe this is probably a hit piece designed to terrorize Iran, and possibly provoke them into firing first, so to speak. Let's face it, with such public awareness now of incidents like the Gulf of Tonkin and false flag operations in general (Operation Northwoods), the administration is not going to get so easily by an increasingly scrutinous public eye. But an Iran fire-first scenario is the one situation where an apparent justification for retribution can take place./I agree.i dont believe the credibility of this story and also dont believe that if israel did attempt such an attack it would not be through iraq!

Third, with an increasing powerful Iranian air defense system spearheaded by Russian TOr-M1 and arguably, S-300 missiles, I can hardly believe that Israel would target Iran with only three planes, and not coordinate the attack with other means as well, such as surface to surface missiles, and as previously mentioned, submarines.

I'm just not buying it, and hopefully, for the world's sakes, I am right.

Edit to add:
And upon further scrutiny, I further believe that this article is wack. They mention Debka as a Russian source, when it is widely known that Debkafile is an Israeli publication. And there are more errors as well. In addition, why does this piece go out on such tangents to establish that this might be true? The central point of interest here is that, alledgedly, Israeli nuclear-armed planes were driven back by the US. That point so overshadows the rest of the article, that in trying to support itself, it self-destructed.



[edit on 19-1-2007 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
screw refueling, the article said the IAF tells the pilots that go on a mission like this that they wont be coming home, and that only one plane needed to get through to Iran, the other 2 would stall USAF interference.

my question is.....would Israel risk pissing the USA off in order to "destroy" the Iranian leadership?

or are we being played like a fiddle here?



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by nb25
my question is.....would Israel risk pissing the USA off in order to "destroy" the Iranian leadership?

or are we being played like a fiddle here?


Fiddly dee, fiddly dum.... But, if I was to play along...

Why? Maybe because in reality it could be another false flag operation with covert US support, as is evidenced by plots like Operation Northwoods and Gulf of Tonkin. The government would have no problem sacrificing the few air force pilots that would get killed in the resulting nuclear area blasts from the protecting Israeli pilots.

The article says 2 of them would drop area nukes to take out any US interference, while the third would get through to at least get a 20kt nuke over Tehran. So I am suggesting that the upper levels of the military could be covertly involved in such a plot. And with history and the 9/11 coverup in play here, I believe no one would be too far out of line to suspect them. (If what this article says happened really did.)

Also, if what this says is true, why then did the Israelis call them back? Again, playing along, if it were true, maybe the US dropped a little bomb on Israel (figuratively speaking), and let them know about some new technology that could wipe out all 3 Israeli aircraft at will.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   
It is preposterous to believe that Israel will go and nuke Iran, unless there is a clear, present, and evident threat. Not only will the whole world turn against them, but the US would too. You don't use nukes...period.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
the thing that really ticks me off is that if this kind of scenario were to happen, places like Australia and UK who have a huge muslim population would be the ones "punished" with terrorist attacks, jihads and the like, even though we have a small Jewish population and really dont "get" this middle eastern/Jewish thing.

I hope before either America or Israel decide to do anything in Iran, that they have the decency to contact western leaders with enough warning to prepare us for the consequences from homegrown retaliatoin.

The war on terror has spawned a battle without borders.
When will they wake up to the fact that Iran neednt retaliate on Iranian soil and that this would activate Muslims outside of Iran to be feeling justified in any violence that will suredly happen all around the world?

for gods sake, I hope this isnt true.





You went to public school right?? There is something new going on here as of just 5 minutes ago??? What shopping mall or playground do you hang out in???

To my knowlege America, England, Austraulia.. and even Spain have been already hit. Curious to know what places are safe today..from anyone and anything??

Also I agree with some of the posters here. If any nation decided to launch such a strike..conventional or nuclear the pilots and aircraft would be considered expendable and disposable.

Not quite sure what to make of the story. Like many I think the story is a plant to see what washes out in the fallout..a reaction. A test of the waters so to speak.

I think it will happen eventually. Someone will try it.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 05:18 AM
link   
At 45 I would be considered a perv and weirdo if I hang out at school playgrounds , so that point is mute my friend.

And as at this point , Australia hasnt had a terrorist attack on Australian soil.

Yes, I realise this is nothing new, but that doesnt mean that I cant express my feelings on it. Each day you learn something new or your convictions are more
passionate. I'm just trying to deny ignorance, my own particularly, and I view these events with more urgency than I did even 2 years ago. Peace.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
At 45 I would be considered a perv and weirdo if I hang out at school playgrounds , so that point is mute my friend.

And as at this point , Australia hasnt had a terrorist attack on Australian soil.

Yes, I realise this is nothing new, but that doesnt mean that I cant express my feelings on it. Each day you learn something new or your convictions are more
passionate. I'm just trying to deny ignorance, my own particularly, and I view these events with more urgency than I did even 2 years ago. Peace.



When all those Aussies and others were killed in that nighclub bombing years ago..It should have been a wake up call. Territory is not an object/obstacle in the way today. SAme with Spain, England, USA, and other places. In process of time you are going to see this accelerate.

No problem with you expressing your feelings Flighty. It is just that you come across as being unawares even playground immature of the change and believing you deserve some kind of special dispensation...immunity from the madness. You come across as believing that somehow this world should be "Fair." The folks Down under are actually much closer geographically to a very large area of muslim influence than are us here stateside.
Those in the UK have a huge muslim population as does France. So does Canada. What on earth do you think is going to happen given the "peaceful" nature of the religion itself?? I have seen some of the photographs and read the articles that they dont dare post here on the evening news for "correctness."
Our government is keeping a huge block of this information out of the publie eye..until the time is right for us to get on the proper politicial bandwagon....just like up north in Canada.

Please dont misunderstand me Flighty..I want Peace too. I just dont look to government/governments to get it for me. I look to them to muck it up.
I also know what a peaceful religion this is when it is fallen into the hand of Politicians/Radicals....as is happening under the radical leadership we see and hear about today. Are all muslims like this..no they are not. But the most vocal leadership in fact is.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
www.milavia.net/users/fighterjets/aircraft/f16_fighting_falcon.php


Maximum Payload: 7800 kilograms (17200 pounds)


this is what I came up with...



this story is BS... IMO.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller
www.milavia.net/users/fighterjets/aircraft/f16_fighting_falcon.php


Maximum Payload: 7800 kilograms (17200 pounds)


this is what I came up with...



this story is BS... IMO.


And? Maximum payload: 7800 kilograms, 7.8 tons.


The yield-to-weight ratio is the amount of weapon yield compared to the mass of the weapon. The theoretical maximum yield-to-weight ratio for fusion weapons is 6 Megatons per metric ton (6 Mt/t). [2] The practical achievable limit is somewhat lower. For current US weapons 600 kt/t (2.5 TJ/kg) to 2.2 Mt/t (9.2 TJ/kg). By comparison, for the Davy Crockett it was 0.4 - 40 kt/t (0.002 - 0.167 TJ/kg), for Little Boy 4 kt/t, and for the Tsar Bomba 2 Mt/t (8 TJ/kg) (deliberately reduced from the possible maximum which was twice as much), and for the Mk-41 5.2 Mt/t.

For current US weapons 600 kt/t (2.5 TJ/kg) to 2.2 Mt/t (9.2 TJ/kg). So it should be the same for Israël. In the article, they say each F-16 have a 20kt nuclear bunker buster.

20 KT /600 KT/ton = 0.033 ton. So it's light enough for them to have at least 5, to why not 1?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
ooohhh... 20Kt explosive yield (then it can karry a 340 Kt yield)... there is a major difference between what eplosive yield it can carry, and what the aircraft's maximum payload is....

it didn't make sense... a 12 ton fighter jet carrying a 20Kt bomb.
physically impossible.

anyway, here's a link...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   


it didn't make sense... a 12 ton fighter jet carrying a 20Kt bomb. physically impossible.

Yes, it's possible a 20kt bomb weight is 0.03 ton. 30 kg.

Didn't you saw that?



For current US weapons 600 kt/t (2.5 TJ/kg) to 2.2 Mt/t (9.2 TJ/kg)

So one nuke of 600kt would weight 1 ton. A 20kt one would weight 0.033 ton or 33 kgs. Understand?



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logitechismykeyboard
The Jesus people are very strong. Israel was created so that when Israel goes nuclear bombing, Iran and other's will retaliate against Israel and blow it to bits. But Israel is just a create state the Jewish people reside around the world. They do not have a country. I think this is a big trick. Thats why Israel is so aggressive they don't care if Israel get's struck, it's Palestine's land anyway. It was Neocon's dream when Israel was created. It gave them a station to attack from. Aren't zionist's neocon's? A neocon state created and recognized by America, This article show's that America is a seperate entity then Israel and is telling it to stop. I think it is fake because America created Israel, the people that command the two countries are one and the same. Why do you think Israel and America are fighting in the same general vinicity, it's because America = Israel. Neocon's = America = Israel = nuclear bombing = advancing global warming = antichrist


I think you went to public school and got a 24 carat television education...mostly emotions.

THe Jews have no biblical right to that land. Their right comes from a ancient dogma or dictum which states "The Victors Get The Spoils." They have had to fight to keep that land from day one back in 1948 or so. Some five or six major wars for them. I admire them for this but they will have to fight to keep it to the very end.
Alot of very conservative Christians think that this nation today is the same Israel of the Olde Testament in their Bibles. It is not. No way. It is not even close. These Christians are in for a shock.
I am very conservative but even I know that it is not the Israel of the Olde Testament.

YOu do know that Hillary and her husband Bill were moving much closer to the Palestenian position before Bill left office...Dont you?? Alot of hob-knobbing with Arab and Palestenian leaders and their wives. Yet ironically the Jewish vote in the State of New York helped put her in that office. Think this through carefully and not from a standard propaganda conditioning of emotional cultivation. Hillary is getting ready to run for the office of President. Will she once again cultivate the Arab vote world wide...and then cultivate the Jewish vote?? Think dont emote here. THe Muslims like the Chinese will spend huge amounts of moneys in this next presidential election..in the background. This is a very dangerous line for a politician to tread. Especially now days.
Politicians like any whore will usually go where the money and power are...any of them regardless of party affiliation. It is just a matter of can they conceal this from the public long enough to get in office.

The Jews outisde of the Nation of Israel tend to be very liberal in their politics. This is very strange behavior because in Israel itself they need to be very conservative to maintain and keep the country. THey are liberal in other peoples and nations politics but very conservative in the nation of Israel...a strange dichotomy.

Watch closely in the future...the Israelis seem to be quietly arming the Al Fatah..Palesteninan political party for a civil war against the Hamas leadership. This will not help them in dealing with Iran in the future but merely an immediate local problem. It is going to be a mess.

I dont trust the Jews here or in Israel on this one and I certainly dont trust our politicians either...conservative or liberal. I think they will all lie and deceive us on this one ....the media too. I think they have all been deceiving us on this one for years and years now.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo


it didn't make sense... a 12 ton fighter jet carrying a 20Kt bomb. physically impossible.

Yes, it's possible a 20kt bomb weight is 0.03 ton. 30 kg.

Didn't you saw that?


No it's not possible.

If a nuclear weapon was 30 Kg, then it'll cost a lot cheaper to use a conventional bomb and have the same effect. And it is a bunker buster... so it'll have to weigh, way more than 30Kg (don't know how much it weighs)

so a 20 000 ton yield explosive is not 30 Kg.
Hiroshima's bomb's ("fat man") explosive yield was 21 Kt, they used a big bomber (B-29 Superfortress Bockscar), the bomb weighed 10,200 pounds (4,630 kg). read here en.wikipedia.org...

A sidewinder missile = 100 Kg . nevermind bombs... I guess the minimum weight for a bomb is 250Kg/500lbs (mk.84 dumb bombs), there might be smaller, but pretty much useless.

Prove me wrong


Edited to add: Or have a look here, en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 23-1-2007 by The_unraveller]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Interesting article that follows up my original post on the turned back Israeli attack.

Things should heat up in a few days once the UN security council meets, but I doubt if the council has the balls to really put the screws to Iran so look for the US, UK to go it alone again, while Israel takes on Syria and Lebanon.



Wrestling With The Devil
Behind The Story Of Israel’s Aborted Nuclear Strike
By William Thomas | Jan 25th 2007

On January 8, 2007 I received a tip regarding a brief news item on an Israeli air strike against Iran the previous day.

The raid had been turned back over Iraq by the American air force.

But the FOX and CNN coverage was incomplete.

According to my well-connected informant, the Israeli Air Force jets had been carrying nuclear bombs.

Diminutive atomic bombs would somehow be guided into the blasted-open shafts by Israeli pilots dodging heavy flak and swarms of anti-aircraft missiles over one of the most heavily defended sites on Earth....

www.willthomas.net...



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
There are two key words in both the original and follow up article that pretty much guarantee it's BS - those two words are "Will Thomas".





top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join