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: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


All the time. Every time they fly anywhere they're under civilian direction, except for landing and taking off at a military base. They don't "tap in" though. Once they're cleared out of the military airspace, they are directed to change frequencies to a civilian air traffic controller, and they're under their direction until they get to where they're going. If it's a military base with a runway, they're directed to change frequencies to the military tower frequency and the military controllers bring them in. If it's a civilian airport, the civilian tower brings them in.

Something like 80% or more of radar data that the military uses comes from FAA radar sites, as well as the air traffic control over the entire country, with the exception of military bases. Even military ranges are controlled by civilians, but you have to talk to the military controller at the same time, so they know where you are, and what you're doing there.
edit on 7/3/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I had heard that military flights were at all times under the direction of Military control. Don't you just mean for training over populated areas?

Some may think that I'm being a bit of a ninny here, but for some strange reason I have for the past couple of years suspected that all of air traffic control would soon be taken over by the military.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


No, they're not under military control. They have one radio tuned to the Command Post, but if they're flying through civilian airspace (most of the US) they're under civilian control at all times, unless an emergency pops up and the Command Post has to activate them for something. There's no way they could be under military control flying through civilian airspace, as it's too busy. The civilian side of things wouldn't know where they were going, or anything else that they need to know, and couldn't get instructions to them in case there was a plane .ing towards them or something.

The military won't take it over, it's too big. They'd almost need a completely new service just to do it. There are something like 85,000 flights (military, general, commercial) flights over the US every single day.
edit on 7/3/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



Why not do the approaches from the south of the air port where things are a bit more open?


Wind direction - a runway only has 1 "open" vector at a time, which is determined by wind direction - aircraft takeoff and land into eth wind in order to minimize groundspeed required at various airspeeds.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I see commercial flights coming and going all of the time, and have never seen one fly over the city so low and slow. Ain't buying the wind direction excuse, wasn't much of a wind today.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


It's not an "excuse" it's a fact. Aircraft have to land and take off as close to nose into the wind as they can. Whichever runway is closest to the wind direction is the runway used that day. If they land or take off downwind then they require much more runway, and may have trouble getting airborne, or stopping. If you have a take off speed of 180 mph, and you have a 30 knot .wind on take off, you only need 150 mph of forward speed to get airborne. Same with landing. You can actually land slower than normal, because of the wind over the wings. That means less runway required for both.

If you have to land or take off at the speed required, due to a tailwind, that means you need a lot more runway, and you don't climb as fast. I've watched downwind take offs where they finally got airborne at twice the normal distance, and by the end of the runway, they were about 200 feet high, as opposed to passing through 8 or 900 feet.
edit on 7/3/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
The video shows NOTHING but a plane flying in the skies over London, Paris NYC, ??? Get it? There's nothing relative to the aircraft that tells the viewer what is its location relative to any landmarks, height from the ground, etc. Its all a hype job fake in exactly the same style as Glen Beck.........2 fools.....running neck and neck.........

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



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I sent David Knight the host of the Alex Jones today the links showing the AC in question is a US Navy E-6A/B MERCURY flying command and control center. I also asked why there were no perspective pictures or video taken to show the AC in relationship to the ground or structures.

This is shameful and gives reason for people to question Jones' integrity as a reporter.

If it is a duck ... Prove it.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Witness2008
 


It's not an "excuse" it's a fact. Aircraft have to land and take off as close to nose into the wind as they can. Whichever runway is closest to the wind direction is the runway used that day. If they land or take off downwind then they require much more runway, and may have trouble getting airborne, or stopping. If you have a take off speed of 180 mph, and you have a 30 knot .wind on take off, you only need 150 mph of forward speed to get airborne. Same with landing. You can actually land slower than normal, because of the wind over the wings. That means less runway required for both.

If you have to land or take off at the speed required, due to a tailwind, that means you need a lot more runway, and you don't climb as fast. I've watched downwind take offs where they finally got airborne at twice the normal distance, and by the end of the runway, they were about 200 feet high, as opposed to passing through 8 or 900 feet.
edit on 7/3/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


Even if the wind is slow



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


We used to when the wind shifted suddenly. Whatever planes were already on that end of the runway were given the option of taking off, or taxiing to the other end of the runway. If the winds were light enough, some of them would depart or land.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I see commercial flights coming and going all of the time, and have never seen one fly over the city so low and slow. Ain't buying the wind direction excuse, wasn't much of a wind today.


then you need to get into the real world.

The FACT is that you cannot have aircraft taking off and landing in opposite directions on a runway - they all have to go in the same direction, and that is called the "Active runway" - so, for example, a runway might be on an alignment of north/south has vectors of 00 and 18 (00=0 degrees (north), 18 = 180 degrees (south))

Only 1 of those vectors can be the active runway at 1 time - it will be set because of wind, and will remain that way unless the wind changes sufficiently to require the opposite vector to become active.

Whether the wind is 0 or 10 knots at any point in time in the appropriate direction is not relevant unless the direction changes - all aircraft must use the active runway.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Ya...I get all of that. I don't think the wind direction was the deciding factor in flying circles over Austin.

Perhaps if the military were not training in helicopters firing blanks over large cities I would not be so suspicious. But, alas the have and will again. The military needs to protect the tax paying public at all costs, not performing shock and awe exercises over our communities.

The increase of Military to Civilian cooperation can only mean one thing. More military flights in National air space. I suppose the problems that military drones pose could be one of the reasons for this.

On a side note...Alex is a putz and just discredited what I saw and what I think. He has a knack of doing that to the more important issues.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Military flights only last as long as their budget. If they add flights in the first part of the FY, they won't be flying at the end of it. It doesn't matter about cooperation if they have no money to fly. We always knew when the FY started because suddenly we had more aircraft through than we could deal with. At the end of the FY we had a trickle through.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



Why not do the approaches from the south of the air port where things are a bit more open?


Wind direction - a runway only has 1 "open" vector at a time, which is determined by wind direction - aircraft takeoff and land into eth wind in order to minimize groundspeed required at various airspeeds.


Bingo! I learned this from microsoft flight simulator 2004. Using the wrong runway WILL result in airplane collisions and loss of life. Wind direction determines active runways.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join