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.

 

Rare Footage -- Flight 93 Shootdown Award

page: 12
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by darkbluesky
If Flight 93 was shot down by the USAF with the knowledge of the SecDef, doesn't that seem to indicate that Flt 93 was a real threat. That it was under the control of someone whose intent was unknown and presumed to be malicious?


Please read the NORAD protocol for airliners not responding.

It basically states that any plane off cource and not repsonding becomes a threat
. It had nothing to do with who was on Flight 93.


You originally claimed that NORAD considered airliners not responding or airliners deviating from their course to be a threat. You still have not provided the NORAD protocol to back it up.

The first link you provided discusses NORAD hijack procedures only, it does not mention course deviation or NORDO.

The second link you provided is the opinion of whoever authored 911research. There is no NORAD documents to back up his claim.



You have proven nothing. Please try again.




posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
@LaBTop:

2. Told you already, there was a Missile Cruiser in the Potomac Bay or whatever name that anchor point has.

Any links/evidence? I hadn't heard this before...

Not a one-line post - it's a legit request for more info.


[edit on 16-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


I have read a legitimized source that an Aegis cruiser was arriving near the Washington coast just before 9/11 and was anchored in that bay on 9/11.

I'm still searching for that specific news piece, but as a start, here is some interesting news :

www.abovetopsecret.com... ,

proving that a lot of denial of foreknowledge of terrorist attacks by the Bush-ists was a total fabrication and a constant pushed lie, until exposed as a lie :


"Operation Amalgam Virgo is a CINCNORAD joint task counter-terrorist and field training exercise (FTX) carried out in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida on early June of 2001. NORAD sponsored the multi-agency planning exercise involving the hypothetical scenario of a cruise missile launched by a rogue government or threats from a barge off the East Coast. Osama Bin Laden was pictured on the cover of the proposal for the exercise. Key military players involved in the exercise also included personnel from the 1st Air Force battalion, the U.S. National Guard, the U.S. Reserve forces, and the U.S. Navy.

Several naval ships including the USS Yorktown and the Navy Aegis cruiser were dispatched to the Gulf of Mexico as part of the multi-service anti-cruise missile operation. Military land personnel from the 1st Air Force also engaged in gathering radar information on low-level targets by using the Joint-Based Expeditionary Connectivity Center (JBECC), a mobile shelter capable of being deployed to high-risk regions while providing early warning signals on cruise missile attacks."


As far as I remember from the news piece, the USS Yorktown or the Navy Aegis cruiser was anchored in that bay near Washington on 9/11, or was just outside.

Quite a strange coincidence, ain't it.
Specially when its appearance there gets connected with this Operation Amalgam Virgo from early June of 2001.

Don't worry, I'll find that news piece, or someone else who is faster than me.
You perhaps? You have all the necessary search words from the above article now.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
The second link you provided is the opinion of whoever authored 911research.


The site i posted is a good site and supports the statement i made and does prove my point. (unless you want to try to debate the site)

If you need more proof i suggest you do your own research and stop being afraid of the truth.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Source: www.globalsecurity.org... :


USS Leyte Gulf is an TICONDEROGA class AEGIS Guided Missile Cruiser home-ported in Norfolk VA. --snip--
As part of the USS George Washington (CVN 73) Carrier Battle Group (CVBG), and in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the USS Leyte Gulf set sail in support of defense and humanitarian efforts off the coast of New York.


www.leytegulf.navy.mil... (homepage)
www.navy.mil... (fact-sheet)

To stay connected to reality, in my opinion the black-operational use of a fully operational and manned Missile Cruiser to bomb the Pentagon on 9/11 is a bit far fetched. Too many potential whistle-blowers aboard.
The use of black marketed cruise missiles launched from any land or sea based "terrorist" or "terror-agency" platform is not such a faint possibility, as stated in this link about the Amalgam Virgo exercise, during June 1-4, 2001 :
www.globalsecurity.org...


What was perhaps a bit different about this exercise was that it involved U.S. homeland defense and practicing to merge a variety of sister services' capabilities to create a uniform picture and response. There are 75,000 cruise missiles and cruise missile-like aircraft in about 75 countries around the world. Those facts, coupled with the ease with which a cruise missile can be acquired make cruise missile defense a priority. Because of the capability for people with very limited means, in relative terms, to be able to obtain a cruise missile, NORAD has to be very serious about that threat.


Btw, these links are still not the mentioned news articles about some missile cruiser near Washington anchored the day before 9/11. It was posted in this forum, in the past.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The site i posted is a good site and supports the statement i made and does prove my point.
No, it doesn't.


(unless you want to try to debate the site)
There's nothing to debate, this NORAD protocol that you speak of is not there either.


If you need more proof i suggest you do your own research and stop being afraid of the truth.
If I were afraid of the truth, I wouldn't be asking you to provide it for me. So far, you have not done that.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
So far, you have not done that.


Yes i have you just do not want to admit it. It seems like i may have to take you by the hand and show you some more NORAD information.

More NORAD rules about aircraft being intercepted and escorted that are off cource and can not be contacted at the following sites.

www.faa.gov...

www.dtic.mil...

www.9-11commission.gov...


[edit on 18-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


This ''NORAD protocol" that you suggested reading is not in any of the links you provided.

Can you provide them or are you going to admit that they do not exist?



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Was it NORAD protocol on 9/11 to be a high-speed taxi service for civilians instead of defending American airspace?

The more I think about this explanation, the more ridiculous it sounds.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
This ''NORAD protocol" that you suggested reading is not in any of the links you provided.


How much more infomration do i need to show ? This is the last information i post, if you cannot figure it out this time you are far beyond my help and living in a fantasy world.

www.iraap.org...

If a plane deviates from its flight plan, or makes the wrong turn at one of its 'fixes,' an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) contacts the pilot. If the ATC cannot make contact, he or she will request an escort - that is, a military jet - to scramble and check out the situation. This is called 'interception.'


www.gao.gov...

If the offending aircraft deviates from its planned
flight path but is not heading directly toward the protected asset, FAA
may monitor the aircraft and try to contact the pilot but not interdict
the aircraft. Conversely, if NORAD or FAA perceives the aircraft to be
a threat based on its speed, direction, or other information, NORAD can
alert its aircraft and attempt to intercept the violator.


www.ibiblio.org...

The FAA and NORAD had developed protocols for working together in the event of a hijacking. As they existed on 9/11, the protocols for the FAA to obtain military assistance from NORAD required multiple levels of notification and approval at the highest levels of government.101


I HOPE SOME DAY YOU WILL LEARN TO DO RESEARCH OR STOP BEING AFRAID OF THE TRUTH.



[edit on 18-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



This is the last information i post


That's not a bad idea because every single link that you have posted contradicts your claim.

All of them prove that the FAA determines the threat and then contacts the military.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
All of them prove that the FAA determines the threat and then contacts the military.


Well all the sources i posted proves my point that when NORAD is contacted about a plane off course or not in communication it treats it as a threat. THATS THE POINT I WAS MAKING AND HAVE PROVEN.

Why else would NORAD send up armed planes?

Please just be adult enough to admit i have proven my point.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


@LaBTop: I have to agree that using the AEGIS to attack the Pentagon would be rather obvious.

Thanks for posting the links/info - I had started to look but hadn't found much. I was going to look again this weekend, but you've beaten me to it!

Quite a ship. It was also involved in shooting down a satellite.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

Well all the sources i posted proves my point that when NORAD is contacted about a plane off course or not in communication it treats it as a threat. THATS THE POINT I WAS MAKING AND HAVE PROVEN.

Why else would NORAD send up armed planes?


If that was your point the whole time, then I agree (for the most part).

We would've saved each other a lot of time if you would have just said that the FAA determines the threat first instead of making it sound like NORAD considered every aircraft off course or out of communication a threat.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
instead of making it sound like NORAD considered every aircraft off course or out of communication a threat.


But NORAD does consider every aircraft off course or out of communication a threat when notified, THATS WHY THEY SEND ARMED AIRCRAFT FOR INTERCEPTION.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

But NORAD does consider every aircraft off course or out of communication a threat when notified, THATS WHY THEY SEND ARMED AIRCRAFT FOR INTERCEPTION.


Was Payne Stewart's Learjet considered a threat?



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Was Payne Stewart's Learjet considered a threat?


Yes, armed aircraft were vectored to intercept the aircraft. Then the pilots reported the iced over windows.

As stated all aircraft as considered a threat untill contact can be made and the situation resolved.



[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The aircraft were not armed:


Shoot down not considered by Pentagon

The Pentagon said Monday it never came close to shooting down Stewart's wayward plane in order to prevent a possible crash into a heavily populated area.

In fact, a Pentagon spokesman said, the F-16 fighter planes that monitored the jet's flight were not armed with air-to-air missiles.


www.cnn.com...

[edit on 20-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
In fact, a Pentagon spokesman said, the F-16 fighter planes that monitored the jet's flight were not armed with air-to-air missiles.



As usual the media has its facts wrong, the first plane to intercept was not an F-15 but an F-16. You should try using the NTSB as a source insted of the media.

You do know there was discussion of shooting the plane down to keep it from crashing into a populated area. Specailly if it croseed into Canada.


[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You have a source?

The Pentagon said there were planes sitting on the runway on "strip alert" that were armed in S. Dakota. They never even took off.




top topics



 
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join