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.

 

Breaking News: Alex Jones Reports Possible Aircraft Psyop in Austin

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
According to the flight radar the plane did not originate from an Austin airport, it came from the base close to San Antonio. From what I could tell from the flight radar it did not land in Austin, it returned to SA.
edit on 7/3/2013 by seentoomuch because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by seentoomuch
 


Launched from San Antonio, where it's temporarily assigned, did touch and goes at Austin for training, and returned to San Antonio to bed down again. That's a pretty common flight from bases all over the country. They launch from one base, do touch and goes at another, and return home. We used to call them "locals" because they returned to where they came from. Some people call them round robins.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'm with you on Alex...bit of an alarmist in my opinion. Personally I think the powers appreciate that he there, distracting us and keeping us in fear.

My issue is the fact that the military practice anything over populated areas.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


It's a plane landing. Guess what, commercial pilots do it too before they get certified. So do general aviation pilots. Do you have a problem with them doing it too? All pilots have to practice. Commercial pilots have the advantage that they fly the most out of any group of pilots, so they get their landings.

And guess what? More landing accidents occur in populated areas from commercial and general aviation than from military aviation.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well I'd prefer not to ad a military accident to all those domestic ones. They need to keep their training over areas that don't house hundreds of thousands of citizens. A little respect for us lowly slaves paying for all of it, not to mention the inconvenience of those that had to subsidize it with their own time.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Witness2008
 


It's a plane landing. Guess what, commercial pilots do it too before they get certified. So do general aviation pilots. Do you have a problem with them doing it too? All pilots have to practice. Commercial pilots have the advantage that they fly the most out of any group of pilots, so they get their landings.

And guess what? More landing accidents occur in populated areas from commercial and general aviation than from military aviation.


Can't wait until these people see some guys doing touch and gos
there will be some freak out going on



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
DE plane de plane


edit on 3-7-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I just read in the comments on info wars that a plane is now buzzing San Antonio. I agree with Witness, they should practice away from heavily populated areas.


edit on 7/3/2013 by seentoomuch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Well in that case we'll have to stop almost all training. Just about every flight goes over a populated area, and an accident can take place at any phase of flight. So to keep from risking it, we'll just have to stop flying all together.

You are far more at risk of that Delta 767 falling on your head than you are a military plane falling in a populated area.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 



I DID see an E-4B flying over Nebraska yesterday though, doing approaches, but considering that it was right by its home base, I'm not surprised.
edit on 7/3/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


Yep, I could tell it wasn't an E4, but then again I was stationed at Offutt for awhile. Also, the E4 seemed to be unmarked, just a white jet. They also had some rivet joint jet there that was funny



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
bloody hillarious


are they dumping chemicals over people in austin or is it mind control experiments? you know they can use electronic jamming devices to turn people into zombies.

sigh. AJ usually does a good job reporting stuff that msm avoids, but this story is d grade nonsense. maybe he needs to get rid of some of his staff that are suspect to say the least.


how can you be credible 80% of the time then come out with garbage like this is mindboggling. whatever



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





You are far more at risk of that Delta 767 falling on your head than you are a military plane falling in a populated area.


You are just adding to the risk. Thanks



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Well in that case we'll have to stop almost all training. Just about every flight goes over a populated area, and an accident can take place at any phase of flight. So to keep from risking it, we'll just have to stop flying all together.

You are far more at risk of that Delta 767 falling on your head than you are a military plane falling in a populated area.


Zaphod, he does raise an interesting question which I'll toss out there, since you may well have a logical reason for how it's done.

Why not confine this training to bases? It's not like we're a small nation with few places to land and take off, right? We have dozens of bases all over the U.S. and surrounding territory, for that matter. I imagine they could do almost all of their training without ever seeing a civilian airfield of any sort, couldn't they?

I'm not against Military training and you're right in saying Commercial has more accidents outside the extreme flight requirements of war zones overseas. Still, in a general way here, are there specific reasons why touch/go on a civilian airfield is important vs. circling and doing this at Ft. Hood for instance or even a little further into White Sands if they want a real trip simulation?

I honestly can't imagine the reasons ...and haven't been in that life and world to know better. Hence..my question.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




Must be a slow day in AJ's World............



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Because they don't always land at military bases when they travel. They need to interact with civilian air traffic control as well as military. The basics are the same, but the way they handle aircraft as far as controller attitude goes is completely different.

Hickam is a good example. Hickam is an Air Force base, without a runway. When they went to jets, the runways on the base were too short, so they signed an agreement with Honolulu International, where Hickam is responsible for installation of barrier systems, and the upkeep of the first two thousand feet of runway, and Honolulu provides all ATC services for military aircraft coming into Hickam.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


You have one plane, that probably does 15 approaches before leaving. You've just added 0.001% to the risk.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


Went through Lincoln the other day, and about wrecked looking over at their airport. They had five grey KC-135s parked in a row there, and right in the middle of them a white RC-135. I was like "One of these things is not like the others."



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thanks for the clarification. So it's not related to the physical airfield or runways they choose civilian airfields for the training, but the need to be as familiar with civilian procedure as military? That makes sense.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It used to drive us nuts when we'd send out our C-135s, because they'd land occasionally at a civilian airfield, which uses a different fuel than we did. They'd come home with a write up that they were leaking fuel badly out of at least one tank, we'd downcheck it and send it to fuel cell, and nothing would be wrong.

Jet-A/Jet-A1 is thinner than JP-8. You can put it into the same tank, and Jet-A will pour out of the tank, and JP-8 won't leak a drop. That's just one of the differences between the two (as far as actually operating out of them). As far as air traffic control the civilian side are much less formal than the military side.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





Because they don't always land at military bases when they travel. They need to interact with civilian air traffic control as well as military. The basics are the same, but the way they handle aircraft as far as controller attitude goes is completely different.


So the pilots tap into civilian frequency, and take direction from them?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join