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.


Did the USAF Help pull off 911?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:30 AM
reply to post by defcon5

So what does that have to do with an C-130 flying over the pentagon right after the impact?

[edit on 28-10-2009 by impressme]

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:55 AM
reply to post by impressme

Sorry, was that the topic?
I thought that the topic was why NORAD did not supposedly do some kind of magic trick to prevent 911?

As to any aircraft being called in to scene, it’s SOP in any air mishap. The FAA will put out a call to any aircraft in the area to go to the last spot the aircraft was on radar and report what they see. Since, as our military friend above mentioned, that those planes were operating out of a station close by the Pentagon, and as they obviously had aircraft in the air at the time running missions, the FAA asked one to respond to the site.

As a matter of fact, its very common for control to ask other aircraft for assistance in any kind of emergency/irregularity, its done on a regular basis. Just recently, two pilots (most likely) fell asleep, and over flew their destination by an hour. ATC asked other pilots to try to reach the crew on their radios thinking they had forgotten to switch over from the previous station. There is nothing I find strange or unusual about TACMO or any other military asset in the area being called in to find out if the plane was down after it went off radar.

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 04:44 AM
reply to post by defcon5

Now that you have explained why the military is not responsible for patrolling our airspace on 911 and they have no knowledge to what is going on over the pentagon or the White House air space much less the WTC. Then try and explain why there was a C-130 flying around at the pentagon right after the alleged impact and the plane was captured on home videos by people that were at the pentagon. What do you have to say about these State Department official who do not buy in to the 911 events?

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
The precautionary principle is based on the fact that its impossible to prove a false claim to be true. Failure to prove a false premise true does not automatically make it false but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 . After five long years, our government has provided the public with no physical evidence to support its claim that the attacks were the work of Muslim terrorists, or even that the identity of the aircraft that struck their targets on September 11 was the same as those specified in the 9/11 Commission's report. As explained below, it would be a simple matter to confirm the identity of each of the four aircraft, and until such physical proof of identity is forthcoming, no conclusions can be scientifically drawn to support the official story as being accurate. This is a precaution against rushing to judgment. At this point, it could just as easily be assumed that the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with full cooperation of elements within our own government.
In July, 1965 I had just been commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously, and it was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.
As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California . In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even learned of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft --- and in most cases, even determining the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be replaced, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. The plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists with a work order when the parts must be replaced. When the parts are installed, the completed work order will have serial numbers of the parts married to the aircraft registration number and it will be returned to the records section for updating in the aircraft records. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators, pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.
Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001 , certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts, and I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my assessment of these facts.
United Airlines Flight 93
This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.
Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a shallow, smoking hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the alleged crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proven beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any physical evidence that would prove beyond doubt, the specific identity of the aircraft that allegedly crashed at that site. On the contrary, it was reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, was still in operation for several weeks after September 11, 2001 .
American Airlines Flight 11
This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767-200, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including foreign nationals who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.
Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.
United Airlines Flight 175
This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767-200, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.
Once more, the government has yet to produce even one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.
American Airlines Flight 77
This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 16 feet wide.
Following a cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001 , resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:42 AM
The US Air Force DOES NOT POLICE THE SKIES OVER AMERICAN AIRSPACE, that job belongs to the FAA. The Military is even required to file an appropriate flight plan with the FAA when operating outside a restricted area, MAO, or MTR… They follow the FAA’s regulations, and only offer assistance when they are asked to do so by the FAA.

In the US all of the civil and military aviation must comply with the FAA rules. The military because of the unique things that they do in the air also have their own rules that add on to the FAA. As mentioned above they usually have their own airspace such as MOA's(military operating area), Restricted airspace, SUA (special use airspace), alert Areas, ATCAA (air traffic control assigned airspace). When the military is using these areas depending on what type, all IFR traffic will be diverted and most VFR will be transition at your own risk. Sometimes military pilots like to think that the rules do not apply to them because most of the time they do not really have to use them because generally they are going to their training areas and are VFR most of the time, but if they are doing a cross country trip and flying through Class A airspace, or any other controlled area, then they are required to abide by FAA regulations. If the military pilot does not comply with FAA regulations then a HATAR (hazardous air traffic report) can be filed and he can loose his license.

Do you think I just made up all the DEW line stuff for that post? Even if its called by another name today, that is where to focus of the military is, at the boarders. They rely on information from the Civilian FAA for anything internal. Even today, with them patrolling for drug flights, they are looking for aircraft trying to sneak in from over the boarder, not flights that are already in country.

Then try and explain why there was a C-130 flying around at the pentagon right after the alleged impact and the plane was captured on home videos by people that were at the pentagon.

Here listen to the pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O' Brien, including the radio calls:

BTW that is NOT a TACAMO plane, it’s National Guard.

What do you have to say about these State Department official who do not buy in to the 911 events?

I don’t know, maybe something like “go learn a thing or two about aviation.”

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

What does the quote from a Retired USAF Mechanic have to do with any of this?
Did you accidentally post that, or did it have a point?

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

I knew it because of reading about it. Even if I had been in the service still at that time my particular squadron would not have been involved as we were responsible for different demographics; however, one of our sister squadrons would have been involved without doubt. Whenever the Navy launches a ballistic missile, take a look in the sky. You will see either a C130-Q or the replacement aircraft an EA-6B in the vicinity. As far as I know, there are no exceptions to this or at least there wasn't at the time when I was there. The technology changes so quickly that they may be completely controlled by the frigates and destroyers by now, but I still doubt that as the aircraft has a much larger area of operation and can better control targeting adjustments, aborts, or re-direction commands. If I were a radioman I could probably give you more information; however I was an aviation hydraulics mechanic air crewman and my job was with the trailing wires and was not directly involved in the actual guidance or communications aspect of the missions.

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:03 PM

Originally posted by bagari
reply to post by DarrylGalasso

I was stationed at Pax River from 1998 - 2002. I never saw a VQ-4 C-130 there during those four years. They were all replaced by the E-6 long ago. There may have been a C-130 in the skies on 911, but I don't think it was a VQ bird.

Forgot to mention that Andrews AFB has a C-130 squadron based there, only 8 miles from DC.

[edit on 10/28/2009 by bagari]

I am sure you are probably correct, I have not been to Patuxent river since 1991 and as I said when I was getting out they were getting ready to transition to the new aircraft. As far as Andrews' C-130s I was referring to Navy C-130s when I said 'nothing within 450 nautical miles' as the plane I saw was not marked consistently with an air force plane. Also, there was also what looked to me (from the drawings we had been shown of our replacement birds) to be an EA-6B there also on 9-11. And in one of the loose change videos, you can see the trailing wire on the C-130. That I cannot explain in any other way. If I remember correctly there was 4 or 5 different squadrons on Patuxent river NATC, which one were you attached to? One has an old A-5 Vigilante on a pedestal in front of their hanger, I forget what their designation is I am sure it was a VF squadron, but I don't really remember. The only reason I remember them at all is because the A-5 is one of my favorite planes of all times along with the F-4J. Interestingly, the A-5 had to change it's mission designation to a spy plane because it could not fire its missiles without shooting itself down. It was too fast for the missile technology at the time and outran its missiles and thus became its own target. And to the best of my knowledge the top speed for the F-4J is still classified although the plane is no longer in active service other than perhaps with some national guard squadrons. What a plane that was, 2 General Electric J-79 engines (the largest true jet engine ever made). The plane looks rather large; however, if you open the 9r or 9l access panels, you will see there is about 1 inch between the skin and the engine, the plane is basically all engines with a couple wings thrown in for good measure.

By the way, is the Tiki Bar still opened on Solomon's Island?

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:30 PM
As an Air Force veteran I found it impossible to believe the Air Force couldn't have intercepted ALL of theos airliners if allowed to. I personally have made emergency launches of fighter aircraft that took no more than five minutes from first orders to "wheels in the well", i.e., aircraft off the ground and landing gear retracted.

I also found it impossible to believe that not a single military aircraft was airborne east of the Mississippi that couldn't have been diverted for a look-see within minutes.

Then I found out that Christian evangelicals had taken over the Air force Academy to such an extant that several non-evangelical chaplains resigned because of persecution. :

'Team Jesus Christ'
The reports of the religious climate at the Air Force Academy are unsettling: A chaplain instructs cadets to try to convert classmates by warning that they "will burn in the fires of hell" if they do not accept Christ. During basic training, freshman cadets who decline to attend after-dinner chapel are marched back to their dormitories in "heathen flights" organized by upperclassmen. A Jewish student is taunted as a Christ killer and told that the Holocaust was the just punishment for that offense. The academy's head football coach posts a banner in the locker room that proclaims, "I am a Christian first and last. . . . I am a member of Team Jesus Christ."

With that kind of indoctrination, it wouldn't surpirse me to find senior USAF officers in collusion with a rogue regime in Washington to foment a crusade against Muslims. In fact, I feel that it is probably the only plausible explanation, as sad as that makes me.

My beloved USAF has been corrupted and perverted by prosletyzing Christians into a tool of religion, it would seem.

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by apacheman

As an Air Force veteran I found it impossible to believe the Air Force couldn't have intercepted ALL of theos airliners if allowed to. I personally have made emergency launches of fighter aircraft that took no more than five minutes from first orders to "wheels in the well", i.e., aircraft off the ground and landing gear retracted.

Was the aircraft on "strip alert" - fueled, armed with pilots sitting in alert
shack? On 9/11 were 14 such aircraft at 7 bases for entire country

Takes lot longer if have to fuel, arm aircraft first and then round up pilots

Shortly after the second WTC crash, calls from fighter units begin “pouring into NORAD and sector operations centers, asking, ‘What can we do to help?’” From Syracuse, New York, a commander of the 174th Fighter Wing of the New York Air National Guard calls and tells NEADS commander Robert Marr: “Give me ten [minutes] and I can give you hot guns. Give me 30 [minutes] and I’ll have heat-seeker [missiles]. Give me an hour and I can give you slammers [Amraams].” Marr replies, “I want it all.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002; News 10 Now, 9/12/2006] Reportedly, Marr says: “Get to the phones. Call every Air National Guard unit in the land. Prepare to put jets in the air. The nation is under attack.” [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002] Canadian Major General Eric Findley, based in Colorado and in charge of NORAD on this day, reportedly has his staff immediately order as many fighters in the air as possible. [Ottawa Citizen, 9/11/2002] However, according to another account, NORAD does not accept the offers until about an hour later: “By 10:01 a.m., the Command Center began calling several bases across the country for help.” [Toledo Blade, 12/9/2001] The 9/11 Commission later concludes that a command for other bases to prepare fighters to scramble is not given until 9:49 a.m. In fact, it appears the first fighters from other bases to take off are those from Syracuse at 10:42 a.m. (see 10:42 a.m. September 11, 2001) This is over an hour and a half after Syracuse’s initial offer to help, and not long after a general ban on all flights, including military ones, is lifted at 10:31 a.m. (see 10:31 a.m. September 11, 2001) These are apparently the fourth set of fighters scrambled from the ground. Previously, three fighters from Langley, two from Otis, and two from Toledo, Ohio, were scrambled at 10:01 a.m. (see 10:01 a.m. September 11, 2001), but did not launch until fifteen minutes later. [Toledo Blade, 12/9/2001]

Took hour and half to launch fighters from Syracuse (Hancock)

Read "TOUCHING HISTORY" for account of ANG pilots at various bases
struggling to get airborne.

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:15 PM
Msnbc web article id 5234996 claims that is IS the job of the Air Force to monitor domestic flights, specifically the domestic defense branch, North American Air Defense along with the Air National Gaurd. The article goes on to state that these two groups for 50 years have been tasked with intercepting domestic aircraft, except for on that fateful day on 9/11 when they happen to have undergone a thorough and complete existence failure.

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:32 PM
Yes... and no... Not willingly. Let's just say they were not told to stop the second jet, and they didn't bother to think about the first one. You really have to look at what they were doing and were told to do by command. The servicemen and women themselves are not to blame. Look at command and control.

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:33 PM
reply to post by impressme

Then try and explain why there was a C-130 flying around at the pentagon right after the alleged impact ...

Oh, dear.

Really, this has been covered over and over again, right here on ATS...look for the thread about "84 RADES data" for starters.

defcon covered it, pretty well, with that YT video (if you watched it.)

Few things I noticed, from that video:

O'Brien is damned honest...I wonder about his claim of the "30-40 degree bank" though...again, a professional pilot eyewitness, just shows that everyone has impressions, wrong or's the nature of the 'eyewitness' phenom.

(I mention this because a 30-degree bank for a passenger jet is NOT is the upper limit of what is considered comfortable and 'standard' for the passengers). 40~ degrees IS excessive....

But, he was likely referring to the time when AAL 77 was finishing the turn, before lined up on the final attack run. Nothing in the SSFDR shows excessive bank angles after that turn was completed.

The only other thing, and it grinds my gears, is when a documentary (or anyone) uses stock footage of some sort, while describing the historic event...which, in this case, involved an American Airlines B757, and show another type of airplane as 'illustration' to go with the narrative! Ticks me off! (In that short video, as the V.O. of the female British narrator drones on, they show an American MD-80 fuselage...NOT a B757!!! Grrrrrrr!)

[edit on 28 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by thedman

No, not on alert...on alert I've launched wheels-in-well in 30 seconds, from end-of-runway alert shelters, up to slightly over a minute from further away.

the launch I'm referring to wasn't an alert aircraft, it had to be prepped for flight and a crew rounded up: it was in response to what turned out to be a fatal crash.

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:14 PM
reply to post by thedman

The first priority is always intel: you need eyes on the scene so that you know what the mission is, so it doesn't require that all aircraft be armed with all possible armaments.

Aircraft are always fully fueled on landing and recovery as a safety precaution: less danger of explosive fumes. So it doesn't matter how long it takes to arm aircraft. Any responsible commander would immediately launch a flight to go full afterburner to find out what was going on while others were being armed.

If 14 aircraft were on alert, why weren't any launched? If any were in the air on training flights,why weren't they diverted to report on location and status?

There are simply too many failures to use available assets for it to be more plausible that the USAF became that incompetent up and down the chain of command than they were deliberately prevented from doing their duty, doing what they are well-trained to do, than the other option: diverted by orders from the top.

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by apacheman

If I can ask a question....even IF airborne ona training mission, where were they, and how far?

See what I'm asking?

Also, without going super....(which really won't save that much time, anyway) imagine you ARE vectored to the estimated vicinity of the Boeing 757 ... (using that because by the time anyone was aware of the attacks, the two B767s had already hit the Towers) ... how do acquire the primary target....NO transponder, remember, so skin paint only. IR?

Not asking you to divulge anything classified, of course...since you cannot.

But, really....not knowing altitude or exact location, would it be difficult to acquire the Bogey? How long might that take? Given the inherit inaccuracy of the ATC Radar as well...I mean, at first it would be like groping in the dark, and given the short time involoved....?

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:44 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

The well-trained Mark I eyeball is an amazingly versatile and responsive thing. Aircrew don't rely exclusively on electronics, bearing in mind that a lot of what they may be looking for in the sky may be actively using countermeasures. In mixed military/civilian skies the possibility of an errant civilian aircraft is always present and such aircraft are relatively hard to see electronically, so the eyball gets a good workout as a matter of course. Military pilots are trained to be keen observers in the real world:their lives depend upon it. So if they know the type of aircraft, the time, altitude, and course of the last known position, it isn't difficult to figure out an efficient search pattern and spot your bogey from pretty far away. That's pretty much the definition of what the Air Force does at all times anyway.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by apacheman]

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:46 PM

Originally posted by impressme
In this debate Please lets leave out “opinions as your facts”

The above was taken from the OP.

I don’t disagree with you on that, however, “in my opinion”

I do believe... .

We all know...

I believe George Bush...

I don’t believe Cheney...

I am convinced...

That is why I believe....

The proof is...

All the above quotes were taken from *one* post in this thread by the OP author.

Too bad, based on his request in his original post to " Please lets leave out “opinions as your facts” he can't follow his own guidance/request.

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by apacheman

So if they know the type of aircraft, the time, altitude, and course of the last known position, it isn't difficult to figure out an efficient search pattern and spot your bogey from pretty far away. That's pretty much the definition of what the Air Force does at all times anyway.

yes, I understand, the 20/20 machine....look, I have been flying for over 35 years....and I know how hard it is to spot even something like a B757 from over three miles away (if it's not making a contrail, of course).

Depends on so it silouetted against the sky? An undercast? Try to spot it looking down into ground clutter?? Hope to spot its motion, is not easy, so don't try to BS us here.

....if they know the type of aircraft, the time, altitude, and course...

But, you see, that's the problem, ain't it??

NO Mode C.

Course only as accurate as what the last few hits from the radar predict...the bogey can turn in the meantime, and the update is going to lag by at least several seconds....but, you assume the hijackers won't turn much, so I grant that one...

Then, you mention the "efficient search pattern"....just how long, how much time might that entail? GIVEN that you may know approx lateral postion, but NOT altitude????

Be honest.

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:00 PM

Originally posted by apacheman
As an Air Force veteran I found it impossible to believe the Air Force couldn't have intercepted ALL of theos airliners if allowed to. I personally have made emergency launches of fighter aircraft that took no more than five minutes from first orders to "wheels in the well", i.e., aircraft off the ground and landing gear retracted.

When would this have been? Pre 1991 or post 1991? What was the reason for launch?

I also found it impossible to believe that not a single military aircraft was airborne east of the Mississippi that couldn't have been diverted for a look-see within minutes.

Really. How close is Sept 11 to the end of the government (meaning military) fiscal year? How many squadrons do you think were not flying that early in the morning on a Tuesday to save operational dollars that close to the end of the FY?

There were aircraft airborne - specifically on the east coast in the bombing range called Dare County in northeastern NC, I believe. Its between 300 and 350 miles from that area of training to the VA/West VA border or NYC. These aircraft were from the DC National Guard, so the fuel they burned getting down to Dare County was worth some amount, and the fuel they burned while executing their training runs while at Dare County was worth some amount, leaving the fuel they had left as all they had to what...execute a high speed intercept of planes nobody knew where were?

None of the other bases up or down the east coast or in the eastern part of the country had aircraft airborne that early in the morning. Again, late in the fiscal year and by 8am - very few aircraft would have been flying.

My beloved USAF has been corrupted and perverted by prosletyzing Christians into a tool of religion, it would seem.

It looks like your "beloved air force" had been corrupted and perverted by idiotic officers well before this. When was it you served again?

[edit on 28-10-2009 by trebor451]

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I truly do wish I knew who you are in real life. Slander and libel are civil offenses for which you can be held liable.

I would love to see that go to court.

Someone was once taken to court over similar "libel" charges related to the JFK case. Despite what official reports have always claimed, the jury ruled that there was indeed more to the JFK story and found the defendant not guilty.

Would love to see this go to court.

Please, by all means, someone start a suit.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by bsbray11]

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:42 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Did I say it would be easy? I only said that it is what Air Force pilots are trained to do. It isn't a whit different from finding an enemy aircraft in wartime.

My main point is that as far as I can tell there was zero response and zero attempts to use what was available in a timely manner from the Air Force in a situation that was clearly defined as its responsibility and primary reason for being: defense of US airspace.

As far as when I served, what earthly difference would that make? Are you trying to say that the Air Force went through a period of utter incompetence and then was rebuilt and retrained into an efficient fighting force sometime between 1991 and 2003? So far as I can tell the US military, all branches, have maintained their competence and fighting edge pretty efficiently for about sixty or seventy years or so at the tactical level. Most failures have had more to do with misuse or strategic blunders, not incompetence at the unit level.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in