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.


SEAL Team Six Helicopter Crash: Let’s Debunk a Myth….

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

No, that is not my point in the least. My point is that I don't believe the media to be a trustworthy source in cases such as these; since we have seen in the past that they are prone to not investigate such matters thoroughly. My distrust of media is perfectly justified... Please take some time to read The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. Better yet, read how it is being used today. The media does not simply print whatever it wants; tho that may be something many believe...

If a matter is deemed as "national security"; or any other matter of governmental secrecy, they are able to directly contravene to stop this information from reaching the public. If you think that the media would just openly present the truth about a matter such as this; then you are blissfully unaware of how things work.

Once again, no historical evidence has been shown; just hearsay.

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:33 AM
reply to post by 007Polytoks

I read your source, it does not talk about media censorship and it only applies after June 2012 almost a year after this crash. I am not going to go and read the 1934 act sorry but I just don’t have the time. Furthermore it only applies to American and does not account for the fact that the world media all broadly agree with the narrative of my OP.

As I have said before, according to the press and government only 15 members of DEVGRU were killed on that helicopter and 24 took part in Neptune Spear so why not kill the other 9 guys just isn’t logical to assume there is a conspiracy.

There is no possible way of debunking this any further with out actually being on the ground when the helicopter crashed and having true first hand knowledge.

What I have to say is not hearsay, it can be substantiated by multiple sources and has not been proven to be incorrect as such it is fact not hearsay

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

If you would have read the article, you would have noticed much of the things he enacted were simply an expansion of old laws. However, this is just one of the systems that is in place to censor the news-media; there is also systems in place such as ECHELON a "signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection and analysis network". The U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are all signatory's.

These are only two of the many systems in place; during, and after WW2, U.S. intelligence seized a huge portion of the media sector; including such big name company's as Disney (which was converted into a war-time propaganda center). During the Cold War they modernized, and changed these centers to distribute media in a method that did not illustrate its clear beginning in the U.S. military's hands.

The media is NOT allowed to distribute things which are matters of "national security"; this was readily demonstrated with the Bradly Manning case, who was held without trial for 1,000 days+, and the institution that distributed this material (Wikileaks) was targeted on a massive scale. The U.S. went as far as to try to extradite a private citizen of another country for helping to support this whistle blowing activity. All the while none of this material was even close to truly being a matter of national security... So what do you think they would do to try to prevent something as damaging as knowing whether or not these SEALS where the same one's that killed Bin Laden (which I don't personally believe even happened).

Actually it is hearsay...

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:43 AM
reply to post by 007Polytoks

“ECHELON does not exist that is just hearsay on your part and you can’t prove it exists”

You see I can do the exact same with your claims, doesn’t make it true however to say that ECHELON does not exist (I believe it does I read a book on it a while ago) although the critique that you only believe that because someone else told you still stands. The point is that there is enough publically available information for a multitude of different sources that points to ECHELON existing and as such it is possible to say that yes, it does exist and is not just hearsay. As such I can say for a fact that yes ECHELON does exist with an 85-90% certainty.

This helicopter crash is the same thing, sure if there was only say one source that said the SEALs on the helicopter did not take part in Neptune spear then ok you could call it hearsay. However when there are multiple sources all saying the same thing and logic also points to the a different group of Seals being killed in addition to the fact there have not been any sources to claim otherwise we can now say with a similar degree of certainty (about 95%) that the Seals killed on that helicopter did not take part in Neptune Spear.

The media is allowed to write about matters of national security, Wikileaks is a perfect example without it for instance we would never have known about Task Force 373. Wikileaks is a debate for another time but it does prove that if the information does become available the press will publish it particularly if it is in the public domain.

Another crash that is comparable to the crash of “Extortion 17” is one that took place during “Operation Red Wings” were a number of SEALs (not DEVGRU) were killed in a Chinook crash. There was no conspiracy regarding that crash. The only reason Extortion 17 is different is because of the timing and that DEVGRU happened to be in the limelight at the time.

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Except; unlike your claim which comes from media sources which have been proven to have lied in the past.... Mine comes from the "European Parliament's Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System". Not to mention its backed up by several sources, and none with any reason to lie about this (unlike your sources). My point was entirely that your sources HAVE an agenda to serve; where as the in the case of ECHELON them investigating it directly contradicts any motive, and thereby is a-lot more likely to be authentic.

The difference between the sources used to confirm the existence of ECHELON are numerous, and have not been caught red handed lying in the past; nor have as basis for hiding the truth. If anything these organizations are putting their lives in danger by exposing this spy infrastructure.... Where as the media outlets, and the SEAL who you use as your source; are if anything protecting their lives by not stating the truth.

How is Wikileaks "a perfect example"?????? They had their funding cut by the majority of payment company's, donations were cutoff, one of their leads was arrested on trumped up charges; and they had some of their whistle-blowers arrested, and held without trial for months. Wikileaks is NOT a solely "American" press, and unless you are using them as a source for your claims in this topic, then I fail to see how this is relevent. Unlike the source you used, Wikileaks is independent; its not owned by a fortune 500 company (like ABC news).

Its like comparing the journalistic integrity on reporting the Iraq war of Democracy Now, to Fox News...

ABC news is not even in the same league as Wikileaks as far as real journalism is concerned.

posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by 007Polytoks

You and I clearly disagree on the reliability of my sources so perhaps it would be better if I were to try another approach.

Can you tell me what you think is the true story behind that helicopter crash and what evidence you have to support your viewpoint.

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:04 PM
Loo,k the whole thing stinks. Believing in the whole Osama incident from start to finish requires us to accept a series of coincidences, arguably convenient ones, as well as a set of arguably ridiculous circumstances which all lead to no hard evidence as to what really happened. Instead we are left with the government and media's word, which is tantamount to heresay. There is more evidence showing that Osama was not involved in the 911 attacks, that he publicly denied having any involvement, and that he had possibly died years prior to this incident.

Regarding the names of the SEAL team and who was in the crash - again, how can we regard the government and media as credible sources? Aliases could have been used...

The fact that there is no body, no DNA, or anything to prove that Osama was indeed killed by the U.S. seems to be another convenient mishap from the world's most formidable and high tech military, such mishaps including the embarrassing failure of NORAD on 911, the failure of the SAMs at the Pentagon, the failure of any security camera footage showing CLEAR footage of the supposed plane that struck the Pentagon, etc..

Personally I find these crockpot excuses by the government insulting and embarrassing to the average intelligence of the American publlic.

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

the only hole in your argument is if they were re-assigned to a different color group after.


Group colors switch....or ect.....

I like that you stick to facts though.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Quite frankly I have no clue what happened that day; and neither do you.

That is my point. All this speculation on them being part of the Bin Laden raid or not is senseless, because there is no way we can find out for sure. Your claims of debunking this conspiracy are just as invalid as if I was to claim that this conspiracy was truth. Both of us have no real insight into what happened that day.

The best thing is to push you elected representative for a congressional hearing on the subject, to try to get some true transparency on this matter. However, I know that even that is unlikely to bring about real results, and freedom of information acts have been denied in the past on less sensitive topics.

posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:30 PM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

First I'd like to thank you for your post. It's pretty spot on. Over the last few days since the Vaughn family had their press conference, along with some other family members, I sat back in utter disgust with the conspiracy theories that were out there. At first I was angry about the things that were being said, then I just felt sorry for all of them.

Maybe they weren't briefed, or maybe they made themselves forget, but there were five of us flying chalk 2 that night. Call sign Extortion 16, tail #296. I saw the Vaughns on Fox News the other day being interviewed by Megan Kelly. They told America on national tv that we didn't have any cover that night. That simply isn't true. There is truth in the statement they made about us not having an escort. There's a reason we didn't have an escort. Our escort, the two Apaches, were already at the LZ, along with "high flyers" above them. There were plenty of eyes on the LZ. A hadji popped out of a hut and fired off an RPG. It hit the aft rotor system... and well there's no recovering from that.

I will not began to pretend that I know what it is to lose a son or a father. That night the Extortion detachment at FOB Shank lost 31 brothers and an awesome K9 named Bart. I really do feel for the Vaughn family, as well as the other families. This crusade has to stop. I can't stand this president just as much as them, but I won't stain the memory and honor of my brothers to see him fall.

Look I really don't care if anyone believes me or not. I've said my peace.
edit on 14-5-2013 by callsignextortion because: tag OP

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:00 AM
reply to post by callsignextortion

Thank you so much for that post

all i am going to do is post this video.

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:17 PM
I've only heard about Navy Seal Team VI. I've not researched it until now.

theunitedwest is the youtube name, and he/ she describes the video nicely:

Watch these Navy SEAL Team VI families and other family members as they reveal the Obama Administrations culpability in death of their sons in the fatal helicopter crash in Afghanistan following the successful raid on bin Laden's compound. This is a powerful and riveting briefing thatincluded some of America's most significant military leaders.

I'm only a few minutes in now.

I searched 'extortion 17' and found this website:

edit: the video has a buzzing noise... sorry if it bothers you. It bothers me.........

posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by Mugen

Sorry I have researched Seal Team Six quite a bit, and although I have not watched that video i am assuming it is the usual "they killed them because of what they knew" mantra?

Such a view is utter rubbish.

although if you could provide a synopsis of the key points form the video i will be happy to discuss them with you further.

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:57 AM
Its real name isnt DEVGRU either. By the time information regarding the structure even the name of a secretive organisation like the one we know as DEVGRU finds its way into Wikipedia and popular culture, the commanders start changing the names that are used internally, maybe even alter the structure somewhat.

The only way to know wether some or all of the soldiers that died on the helicopter were part of the raiding party in Afghanistan is to crossreference the names of the deceased with those whom operated in Pakistan.

You can recruit the most capable operatives from the seal teams and call them whatever you want.
If I were in charge, I would make it such that a memeber of a DEVGRU equivalent does not result as a member of DEVGRU, but remains assigned on paper to the seal team he got recruited from.

With that said I am not aware of any whistleblowers whom point the finger at their own government and claim fratricide, or whistleblowers whom say the raiding party in Pakistan did not consist of Navy Seals or Americans. I am sure if one Navy Seal would suspect that somebody in his position has been murdered by its own government they would not hold back that information.

Are you?
edit on 3-8-2013 by Merinda because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 06:01 AM
Actually, you're arguing semantics with regards to the name. Yes, technically team six was disbanded in 1987, but it was basically just renamed and given a cover task of testing and developing tactics and technology for the other SEAL teams. It, unofficially, still has the same role as before.

Also, you are correct about the members who died officially being from Gold Team. I have to trust them on that I guess. However, it doesn't negate the multitude of strange things that happened in the crash (and aftermath) as well as strange reports from witnesses of the Osama raid.

As a disclaimer, I'd like to state that I do not have an official opinion on the matter, as I do not have enough information at this time to make such a determination. I will, however, present the facts.

Here is one of many interviews from people who saw the raid first hand.

It honestly doesn't sound like he is the most reliable source, but plenty of people who saw the raid report similar things. I could try and find more if you want, but I figure you can do your own research if you so wish.

Now, with regards to the crash, there are a lot more strange things that happened.

Here's a link to a lengthy report on the subject:

Families Suspect SEAL Team Six Crash Was an Inside Job

1. The mission was a joke.

The tragedy unfolded at 10:55 p.m. on Aug. 5, 2011, when 47 Army Rangers set down in two CH-47 Chinooks in high ground overlooking Afghanistan’s Tangi Valley. The mission was part of an intensified campaign to kill or capture Taliban leaders, a drive that put tremendous demands on the helicopter fleet and left newer special “ops” models in short supply.

That night, the quarry was Qari Tahir, identified as the top leader in that critical area south of Kabul where the enemy moved in and out of Pakistan.

The Rangers raided a house thought to hold Tahir. The fleeing enemy — the military calls them “squirters” — escaped through a back door. The Rangers’ leader then made a pivotal decision: He asked the special operations task force to send an immediate reaction force to help catch the squirters, though whether any of them was Tahir was not known. It turned out he was in another village.

Commanders assembled the reaction force in 50 minutes and loaded them on one conventional CH-47, call sign Extortion 17, for the brief flight piloted by a seasoned National Guardsman and a younger reservist.

At that point, it was a far more risky flight than the insertion of Rangers 3 hours earlier. The Rangers had the benefit of surprise. Extortion 17 did not. It was flying into a firefight, with the noise of Apache attack helicopters, AC-130 gunships and drones above telling everyone in the valley that a military operation was underway.

It lifted off a forward operating base at 2:22 a.m., held for several minutes at one point, then announced it was one minute out at 2:38. At that moment, Extortion 17 slowed to 58 mph, at no more than 150 feet, approaching a spot framed by trees and mud-brick huts, and “sparkled” by the infrared designator on an AC-130 gunship.

In darkness, the Taliban fired two or three rocket-propelled grenades, a Soviet-designed OG-7 anti-personnel version that is accurate inside 170 yards. The shooter had positioned himself well within the weapon’s effective range.

One of the rocket-propelled grenades clipped a rotor blade and sent the Chinook into a violent spin, then fiery crash. Within 30 minutes, bragging about the hit from Taliban fighters started appearing on communications nets.

2. They rarely scramble a Immediate Reaction Force, especially for situations like this.

The command press office in Kabul at first told reporters that Extortion 17 was on a rescue mission. But the Rangers did not need rescuing. They had secured the target compound and were chasing squirters.

“A reactionary force is usually sent in as a rescue, meaning our guys are in trouble and you send them in,” Mr. Hamburger said. “You don’t send a reaction force to stop a group of the enemy escaping out the back side of the village, especially in a dangerous valley in a dangerous entry like they were doing.”

The Colt report supports Mr. Hamburger’s position. The special operations command in Afghanistan rarely assembled a reaction force, much less the elite SEAL Team 6, for the chore of chasing fleeing Taliban fighters.

A Colt investigator asked the task force operations officer, “How often do [you] employ the [immediate reaction force] on a target?”

“Rarely sir,” he answered. “It is rare to have a separate IRF element that is planned like this one.”

Likewise, an officer in the combat aviation brigade that provided Extortion 17 said he knew of no previous mission to send a reaction force to catch squirters.

“It has not happened sir,” he told Gen. Colt.

3. They used the wrong chopper.

The CH-47D, a conventional helicopter flown by a non-special operations pilot and co-pilot, is fine for ferrying cargo and troops to uncontested areas.

But to insert commandos into a “hot” zone, specialized choppers such as the MH-47 and MH-60 flown by special operations pilots should have been used, family members say. Army Special Operations Aviation aircraft fly fast and low, while the CH-47D descends to a landing zone from a significant height, making it an easy target.

A special operations commander told Gen. Colt that, of the CH-47D, his “comfort level is low because they don’t fly like ARSOA. They don’t plan like ARSOA. They don’t land like ARSOA. They will either, you know, kind of do a runway landing. Or if it’s a different crew that trains different areas, they will do the pinnacle landing.”


Unlike the MH models, the CH-47D was not equipped with any defensive alert system against rocket-propelled grenades.


It is notable that the command sent the combat rescue, and ordnance disposal teams, to the crash site in MH-47s, not CHs, and that the 47 Rangers left the Tangi Valley in special operations choppers.

Mr. Hamburger said he was told that no MH models were available when Extortion 17 was tapped for its doomed flight.

4. No escorts

The AH-64 Apaches serve as the Chinooks’ bodyguards during a typical troop insertion, escorting them to the landing zone and then targeting enemy on the ground.

But Extortion 17 had no Apache escorts.

5. All seven Afghan soldiers names on the manifest were wrong.

“Yes, sir,” a commander answered. “And I’m sure you know by now the manifest was accurate with the exception of the [redacted] personnel that were on. So the [redacted] personnel, they were incorrect — all seven names were incorrect. And I cannot talk to the back story of why.”

The “seven,” family members say, refers to the Afghan soldiers. The open Colt report makes no reference about why the manifest was inaccurate. Military censors redacted any reference to the Afghans. Some families believe the task force at the last moment was forced to remove seven Afghans whose names remained on the manifest and replace them with seven others.


posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 06:08 AM
6. Also very strange:

Commanders told Gen. Colt’s investigation team that the Taliban put 100 fighters into Tangi Valley for the express purpose of bringing down U.S. aircraft. A flight with 17 SEALs would be a coveted target.

Then there is the fact that a group of Taliban fighters, equipped with hand-held radios, shifted positions and gathered near Extortion 17’s landing zone — a spot never before used by the Americans.

Two Taliban fighters armed with rocket-propelled grenades just happened to be stationed in a high turret less than 150 yards from Chinook’s “hot landing zone,” or (HLZ).

7. Some soldiers were cremated without authorization.

"The Pentagon has defended the cremation to the soldiers’ families, saying the bodies were badly burned."

Rep. Chaffetz, however, saw a photo of one of the deceased SEALs and said, “The body I saw didn't need to be cremated.”

Additionally, at a press conference, Charles Strange noted (at 10:50) that he was told that his son Michael "had to be cremated." He said,

"My son didn't need to be cremated. I've got pictures of my son. He was fighting, he had a gun in his hand."
Mr. Strange continued to say that he "called the command" and asked why his son was cremated. He was told that "everyone was burned beyond recognition." Strange disputes this, saying he had photos from the autopsy report that were included with a "disc" he received.

"Another lie," he said.

And I'm probably missing a ton of things.

All I know, is something happened besides the official story.

posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by JohnnySasaki

Very interesting info JS - thanks for sharing.

Agreed, when it comes to OPS like this, it is *very* difficult to get the straight scoop as to what happened, when & by whom - by design - and understandably so. With that said, an intrepid researcher can connect the dots in a meaningful way to gain a better understanding of things.

The one thing I am not too quick to dismiss are the actions and statements of the families involved. They often know far more than most people, and far more than the military and various intelligence agencies would like, but it's the nature of the beast and the gov't understands that. It comes with the territory...
edit on 11/12/2013 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:39 AM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

I was under the impression we had already discussed this in detail.

Clear up some incorrect statements.

The first Black Hawk tried to land in the largest courtyard. The additional weight of the stealth hardware along with higher than normal temperatures in this particular part of the compound caused the craft to experienced a degrading of it's lift capacity by a aerodynamic phenomenon known as 'settling with power'

The replica of the compound the teams practiced the maneuver-Arizona it is believed- had chain link fences instead of the high compound walls at Abbottabad. This caused 'rotor wash instability' for which they had trained for. The pilot then used the maneuver he had practiced in simulation which was to bury the nose of the Helo into the soft dirt. The operatives had expected such a situation and were properly strapped for the nose dive. It didn't even slow them down. The tail rotor clipped the wall but was insignificant.

The day after the raid President Obama came here to FT Campbell to meet the entire team that accomplished the mission-he also got to meet the dog known as Cairo.

When you arrive at the visitor center, and pass into the compound, there is a large photo of President Obama with the team and Cairo. The men are not named however the pilot is on the Presidents left and the shooter who got OBL is on his right.

How could anyone make a conspiracy out of this is silly. Hundreds if not thousands of people, both military and civilian, walk by the photo every day.

posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by spooky24

Thanks for the info.

Do you know if there's an electronic version of this pic? I'd love to see it.

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 06:22 AM
reply to post by Riffrafter

I have never seen it on the internet and I doubt it ever will be. That would be like a journalist publishing a picture of President Obama puffing on a Marlboro 100.

The base is on high alert again this morning and I don't have the slightest idea why. The solders here are a very tight group. President Obama has made a point to visit the base on December 12th, the anniversary of the Gander crash where so many of the 101st died. He is very well liked and respected as the commander in chief. They wanted a chance for some payback-he gave it to them.

edit on 13-11-2013 by spooky24 because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in