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.

 

128 Marines were standing by for a 20 minute trip to save Americans in Benghazi were never deployed!

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I don't know if this is the right spot to post this thread, but as it is Benghazi I put it here. If mods want to move it, please do so.

It seems there was much help available to rescue our men in Benghazi, and yet nothing was done. Is this why those in the know are being kept quiet in numerous ways including allegedly getting lie detector tests frequently to see if they have spilled the beans? This is an account I just read about and it says to share it far and wide so I am.




———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Jimmy

Jack is a very proud retired Marine who lives 3 blocks from us. I’d want him at my back any time, day or night.

Assuming this is true, there are 128 marines and their superiors, the helicopter crews and everyone on the ship that knows a deployment “didn’t occur” to save the people in Benghazi!! Help was 20 minutes away. This story is more believable with all the presence we have in the area than, no troops were close enough.

Jimmy

SOURCE

______beforeitsnews/military/2013/08/truth-about-benghazi-slipping-out-andrews-story-2454358.html

Jeanne

edit on Mon Aug 5 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

edit on 5-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
This shouldn't surprise anyone if it turns out to be accurate. We almost always keep ships off shore when operations are being conducted inland.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
This is an account I just read about


From Before its News, a well know hoax site.... also if they could see Tripoli then they were 650 km from Benghazi.... a bit more than a 20 minute trip!



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
If Before It's News is your only source, the mods will throw it in the hoax bin.

See if you can find something else to link it to.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
well there is this

This came after Jake Tapper at CNN broke the news that there were “dozens” of CIA operatives on the ground in Benghazi on 9-11 when the consulate came under attack and the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.


www.thegatewaypundit.com... ir-names-video/



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
at 650 km away it would have likely taken a little over 2 hours at max speed not 20 minutes.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by namehere
 


Therefore, this story is hoax.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I cannot say the letter posted is true, but there was a story on Breitbart that had this:




Captain Kendra Motz, Marine Corps spokesman, told Breitbart News on Friday that she wasn't aware that the Marine Corps had issued a formal statement, but that the information included in the Powerline report was correct. "The Marine Corps does not have any Marines stationed at diplomatic installations in Libya." When asked if she knew of the existence of the document outlining the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, she stated: "I don't, and even if I did I couldn't disclose it to you because it puts people at risk." The 50 Marines that were rushed to Libya after the murder of Ambassador Stevens are not permanently stationed at any diplomatic installation in Libya.

SOURC E


Further down there is an update to the Breitbart article that talks abut "Fast Platoons", and it seems we still need more information about that because this is all about "Rules of Engagement" which seems to support that letter I posted. Call it a hoax is you want, but we have Navy Ships within striking distance with Jets that were told to stand down. A General was replaced as well. It will be interesting to see if Congress can find any of these people who seem to have seen it happen there and yet keep getting moved around and given lie detector tests.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
at 650 km away it would have likely taken a little over 2 hours at max speed not 20 minutes.


Where in the letter did the guy say they were 650 km away? He said the could see Tripoli. Get I wonder if they could see any other areas of Libya from their ship. 20 min or 2 hours does not make it a hoax, it makes the guy wrong in ETA, which I am sure even at 2 hrs the dead Americans would have appreciated support.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
If we had a carrier off the coast of Libya, does it not make sense that we could have scrambled jets and been their within twenty minutes? Might that have stopped the attack on the American's?

According to one congressman, we could have launched from Italy and been there in 2 hours in that case, so how much faster from a carrier?




“I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.” Hicks claimed he was told fighter jets could have been over Benghazi within two or three hours, if scrambled immediately out of Aviano Air Base in Italy, but the problem was there was no tanker aircraft available to refuel the aircraft. SOURCE



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by namehere
at 650 km away it would have likely taken a little over 2 hours at max speed not 20 minutes.


Where in the letter did the guy say they were 650 km away? He said the could see Tripoli. Get I wonder if they could see any other areas of Libya from their ship. 20 min or 2 hours does not make it a hoax, it makes the guy wrong in ETA, which I am sure even at 2 hrs the dead Americans would have appreciated support.


i never said that, i was merely stating how long it would take if it was that distance as a previous poster stated, from what i can tell to see tripoli from most navy ships by the naked eye you'd have to be at 8 to 10 miles away but there were none on record that close, the closest ship was a destroyer that was about 650 km away or 400 miles.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by namehere
at 650 km away it would have likely taken a little over 2 hours at max speed not 20 minutes.


Where in the letter did the guy say they were 650 km away? He said the could see Tripoli. Get I wonder if they could see any other areas of Libya from their ship. 20 min or 2 hours does not make it a hoax, it makes the guy wrong in ETA, which I am sure even at 2 hrs the dead Americans would have appreciated support.


i never said that, i was merely stating how long it would take if it was that distance as a previous poster stated, from what i can tell to see tripoli from most navy ships by the naked eye you'd have to be at 8 to 10 miles away but there were none on record that close, the closest ship was a destroyer that was about 650 km away or 400 miles.


And you trust the "record" do you? I mean for the record, they attacked because of a bad movie they didn't like too, right?



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
And you trust the "record" do you? I mean for the record, they attacked because of a bad movie they didn't like too, right?


well the closest carrier was still most likely in the red sea in September and had just entered the Suez canal on October 12th. it's kind of hard to hide huge naval ships with just words so yes in the case of records of ship locations i do trust it. let me ask you, do you trust every anonymous source of information even when nothing backs them up except their own words or the word of other anonymous people who can't back their own words either?
edit on 5-8-2013 by namehere because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2013 by namehere because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2013 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
Where in the letter did the guy say they were 650 km away? He said the could see Tripoli.


The distance between Tripoli and Benghazi is 650 km.... so if they could see Tripoli Benghazi was 600+ km away.... just have a look at a map!



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
Where in the letter did the guy say they were 650 km away? He said the could see Tripoli.


The distance between Tripoli and Benghazi is 650 km.... so if they could see Tripoli Benghazi was 600+ km away.... just have a look at a map!


And they could not possibly get there to help right? That is the point really whether it is 20 min or 2 hours. It would have been before they were killed. Yet, the military was told to stand down, why?



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
And they could not possibly get there to help right?


Right!


That is the point really whether it is 20 min or 2 hours. It would have been before they were killed.


Please show us the time the troops could have left, and the time they were killed in Benghazi. Also show us which helicopter had the range to get there and back....



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
And they could not possibly get there to help right?


Right!


That is the point really whether it is 20 min or 2 hours. It would have been before they were killed.


Please show us the time the troops could have left, and the time they were killed in Benghazi. Also show us which helicopter had the range to get there and back....


So you are telling me that the only support we can offer troops under fire is landing more troops? It's what jets are for, what drones are for, and what missiles are for. They were painting the attackers and never got the support they assumed should be there. Drones were overhead. Are you telling me that we could offer then ZERO support?

The military was ordered to stand down! Why?



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Fully loaded super stallions can do 170mph. That round trip is 5 hours with one air refuel on the return leg.
2.5 hours to get on site.
How long did the attack last?

Do the math.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


It's not a carrier, it's an LHD. There's a huge difference. A carrier carries an air wing, and a few Marines, and LHD carries a Marine Expeditionary Unit, and occasionally a small number of AV-8Bs, as well as a lot of helicopters, or V-22 Osprey.

As for "jets and drones" any jets would have had to come out of Aviano Air Base in Italy, and would require a tanker to support them. There were no tankers in the region at the time that could have refueled the strike package, therefore the F-16s, even if they were armed (if they weren't it would have been close to two hours just to arm them), wouldn't be able to reach Tripoli to do anything.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join