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: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

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


You should try using the NTSB as a source insted of the media.




posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
double post



[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 

Here is more info:


An Air Force spokesman says two U.S. Air Force F-15s from Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, intercepted the plane shortly after it lost contact with aircraft controllers, and followed it to Missouri.

Pilots reported the plane's crew was "non-responsive" and that the cockpit windows were obscured by condensation or frost, an indication the aircraft may have lost cabin pressure.

Over Missouri, four F-16s from an Air National Guard unit based in Fargo, North Dakota, took over the escort mission, and stayed with the plane until it crashed.

The Air Force says additional F-16s were also scrambled from the Oklahoma Air National Guard unit in Tulsa, but were not used because the Fargo planes arrived first.
www.cnn.com...

Anything about them being armed?



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
An Air Force spokesman says two U.S. Air Force F-15s from Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, intercepted the plane shortly after it lost contact with aircraft controllers, and followed it to Missouri.


The first plane to repsond was an F-16 from a training unit. NOT F-15s.

www.ntsb.gov...

1. About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.

2. About 1113 CDT, two Oklahoma ANG F-16s with the identification "TULSA 13 flight" were vectored to intercept the accident airplane by the Minneapolis ARTCC.

3. About 1150 CDT, two North Dakota ANG F-16s with the identification "NODAK 32 flight" were vectored to intercept N47BA. (TULSA 13 flight had returned from refueling, and both TULSA 13 and NODAK 32 flights maneuvered in close proximity to N47BA.)


As stated, you should stop using the media for infomration so you can get the facts right.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The discussion was if they were armed.


Were they?



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
The discussion was if they were armed.

Were they?


Why can't you be adult enough to repsond when you have been proven to post wrong information?

The point is that armed aircraft were vectered and standing becasue the plane was considered a threat untill the other pilots reported the iced over windows. So my point has been proven that aircraft are considered a threat untill they are intercepted.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima,

The media reported the information i posted. The NTSB posted something else.

Again, YOU stated that the aircraft were ARMED and vectored.

They were not armed.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
The media reported the information i posted. The NTSB posted something else.

They were not armed.


1. So you beleive the media over the NTSB?

2. As stated there were armed aircraft, they do have guns with ammo.
You do know planes have more weapons then just misisles?

3. As statad all aircraft off course are considered a threat.



[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
double post

[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The NTSB states one thing the Air Force states another. CNN was quoting a spokesman from the USAF. Could CNN have stated the wrong type of air craft? Sure!

The question is (again) were the aircrafts ARMED?

The answer is No.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
The question is (again) were the aircrafts ARMED?

The answer is No.


WRONG,

The answer is YES. Due to the fact that the F-16's gun is almost always kept loaded, specially aircraft on intercepter missions.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The ASAF stated that the aircraft were NOT armed and were not planning on shooting down the Lear jet.


"Shooting down the plane was never an option," Air Force spokesman Capt. Joe Della Vedova said. "I don't know where that came from."



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
The ASAF stated that the aircraft were NOT armed and were not planning on shooting down the Lear jet.


Actually all your reports state that the planes were not carrying air to air missiles.

Here is the quote form your CNN link.


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.


Also there was in fact talk of shoting it down if it made it to Canada. Might want to do just a little more research.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Did you read the quote from the USAF spokesman?

"IT WAS NOT AN OPTION"

If he was lying. Please say so.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

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


Please provide a source stating that the first aircraft was armed.




1. So you beleive the media over the NTSB?


This is a big step for you Ultima1. I am glad to see that you consider the NTSB to be a viable source.



2. As stated there were armed aircraft, they do have guns with ammo.
You do know planes have more weapons then just misisles?


F-16s can fly inverted. Using your logic, if the Air Force doesn't state that they flew right side up, then that means they flew upside down.




3. As statad all aircraft off course are considered a threat.


No they are not. Please show where the FAA or NORAD considered Payne Stewart's Lear jet to be a threat before launching fighters to provide escort.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

They were not armed.

If the aircraft has a gun, then it's usually loaded, even for training flights. It's considered the last line of defence for a fighter pilot, but it's available nonetheless.

Just Google for any videos of say F-16s doing training, and if they're in any weapons mode, look at the number of rounds in the cannon. I've yet to see any that say "000".

Cannon rounds are cheap, compared to say an AMRAAM that costs around $300,000 a piece.

Also, when you're a fighter chasing a civilian airliner, do you need anything more than a gun to shoot it down anyway? Shoot at the engines - it's the least lethal action you could take I think. At least they have a chance of landing it somewhere.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


the guns MAY have had ammo. Something that we don't know for sure.

as stated by the USAF: Shooting down the plane was not an option.

this discussion has gone on too long. (I'll take a good part of the blame)



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I think this is relevent, so I'll continue...


as stated by the USAF: Shooting down the plane was not an option.

Not an option, or not a viable option at that time?

I think they would shoot it down if they were along side and saw it was going to do something (like crash into a building). So far, every aircraft has obeyed the instructions.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 



Not an option, or not a viable option at that time?


Not an option.

Stewart's Lear jet didn't fall under the definition of derelict aircraft as stated by CJCSI 3610.01A.

c. Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects. Derelict airborne objects
(for example, unmanned free balloons, moored balloons or kites,
unmanned non-nuclear rockets or missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV) or remotely operated vehicles (ROV)) are a potential threat to
public safety. Military personnel may, upon request, be required to
track and destroy such objects.


Using federally controlled aircraft to shoot down a civilian aircraft would have violated the Posse Comitatus Act.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Thanks for that!

I remember the incident with Stewarts aircraft now - it eventually crashed in the countryside. I didn't realize they could only track it. I thought they might destroy it if it looked like it was going to head into a major built-up area.

Tragic indeed.


[edit on 20-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]




top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join