America hides its nuke arsenal - They new Syria would start WW3

reply to post by Pinkorchid


Too bad so much information you quoted about that day is just flat out wrong. Do you even know how many armed aircraft were ready to launch there were four the entire US airspace system?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yep , will this do :-

NORAD was unusually prepared on 9/11, because it was conducting a week-long semiannual exercise called Vigilant Guardian. COLONEL ROBERT MARR, US AIR FORCE: We had the fighters with a little more gas on board. A few more weapons on board. [...] We had 14 aircraft on alert, seven sites, two aircraft at each site. [ABC News]
whatreallyhappened.com...

That's a ratio of 3.5 'hot' fighter jets per hijacked airliner.


They were prepped for "Vigilant Guardian" , they were well prepared .

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


PressTV, VeteransToday and Alex Jones. Hmmm....

They all seem to be credible sources to me. El...Oh...El

reply to post by TDawgRex


Just as credible as the main stream media and the current Government , wouldn't you say?

Decrement in all fields of inquiry is required.

Perhaps discrediting the information supplied , rather than the easy way out of trashing the source , might prove more informative.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


There were fourteen aircraft on alert for the entire United States. Of those seven sites, one was in the West, up in Oregon, four were in the south, between Texas and Florida, and two were on the East Coast I believe was the breakdown. That means that five of the seven were useless to try to intercept the aircraft that day.

Vigilant Guardian is not a live fire scenario, so they would have dummy missiles, and a few canon rounds in the aircraft. The only thing with that and 9/11 is that one of the scenarios involved a hijacked FedEx DC-10 or MD-11.

As for the rest of it:

1. Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.

The FAA didn't report a deviation of flight path unless they had reason to suspect that something was going on. When they figured out something was happening, they reported it promptly. A flight path deviation could be for anything from a radio out, to a maintenance problem the crew is troubleshooting and they haven't told the controller yet, to a navigation failure. There was no requirement to immediately report flight path deviations.

2. Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases

What good would it do to scramble unarmed fighters on them? What would they be supposed to do, ram them? A serious hijacker is going to see an unarmed fighter flying next to the plane and ignore it. The armed aircraft came from the only bases that had them sitting on alert that day.

3. Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds and/or in the wrong directions.

Wrong. A fighter top speed is determined by flying it under optimal conditions, with a clean configuration, at high altitude. At low altitude, with three external fuel tanks, and external missiles on board, they can't go their top speed. You're lucky to get them past Mach 1 at all if you still want them to have fuel left on board to do anything when they get there.

4. Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

Most of them were low on fuel and would have to refuel from a tanker before they could do anything. But again, what were they supposed to do, ram them? They were unarmed, and commanders made the decision to get them on the ground and arm them in case something else came that day. It was the right decision to make. Better to have more armed fighters than a bunch of useless unarmed aircraft with training bombs swanning around in the skies doing nothing for you.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


I believe in looking at all sources of information and weighing what they are saying with what I know and common sense.

The thing is that all three of those sources have been widely debunked multiple times on multiple stories. But people keep buying the propaganda that they spew. I'm amazed that RT hasn't chimed in.

reply to post by Zaphod58


By the way thanks for the info.

There were fourteen aircraft on alert for the entire United States. Of those seven sites, one was in the West, up in Oregon, four were in the south, between Texas and Florida, and two were on the East Coast I believe was the breakdown. That means that five of the seven were useless to try to intercept the aircraft that day.

Seems a pretty poor defence of the most powerful nation of the planet to not have enough coverage for the nation. Especially regarding the Pentagon. Is that normal security for the U.S on any given day?

Most of them were low on fuel and would have to refuel from a tanker before they could do anything.

If this is true and you haven't given any links to prove your statement , how was it that all aircraft in the security zone of one of the most important buildings required for the security of the U.S.( Pentagon) was left without fighter coverage because of no fuel?
Don't think you would ever find the Kremlin allowing that to occur, it all smacks of either incompetency or deliberate neglect.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Pinkorchid

 

But according to Alex Jones these are unmarked trucks, like Uhaul or something, with no security. So she saw an unmarked truck driving around on base, and immediately knew they were transferring nuclear weapons?

I'm not trying to argue that this story is bunk or true. But isn't it true that during this Administration, there was a nuke transfer in Mexico. Part of the push for removing excess nuclear weapons, specifically from areas not well protected or corrupted (I forget the title of the initiative) You know, like Mexico. When they did it, I'd have to go back and check but it was an exclusive with Rachel Maddow (gift for her being an Obama mouthpiece).

Oh yeah the point; if i understand correctly the transfer was very 'civilian-esk'. Like not very secure like as to not draw attention. '

reply to post by TDawgRex


So how is the Government or MSN or any number of other sites , different on that score?

Pinkorchid

Seems a pretty poor defence of the most powerful nation of the planet to not have enough coverage for the nation. Especially regarding the Pentagon. Is that normal security for the U.S on any given day?

Yes. Prior to the 1990s there were several dozen bases on alert around the country. After the end of the Cold War it was deemed that the threat was over, and the alert force was gutted, leaving us with seven bases, and between 14 and 28 (2-4 aircraft per base) aircraft on alert at any given time.

If this is true and you haven't given any links to prove your statement , how was it that all aircraft in the security zone of one of the most important buildings required for the security of the U.S.( Pentagon) was left without fighter coverage because of no fuel?
Don't think you would ever find the Kremlin allowing that to occur, it all smacks of either incompetency or deliberate neglect.

The Pentagon has no extra security. They don't have SAMs there, and they don't have fighters orbiting overhead 24/7. If you fly into Reagan National you almost fly over the building on final approach to one of the runways there. If you were to throw a bunch of fighters overhead, or SAMs around it, it would be a disaster waiting to happen.

The fighter defense philosophy for the US was always that the threat would come from the Soviets through either bombers or missiles, which meant from the North, through Alaska/Canada, and the East from Europe. That meant that there would be plenty of time for the early warning radars (ROTH-b, Cobra Dane, etc) to alert the fighter force if it was bombers, and if it was missiles, there was nothing they could do so it wouldn't matter. There was no reason to have armed fighters flying around the Pentagon, or SAMs anywhere near it.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


There have been numerous transfers from former Soviet countries of Uranium, and Plutonium to the US, for us to secure. Not weapons though just weapons grade materials. You don't have to have the extra tight security for that, although it's a good idea to.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


That's what I'm saying.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


It appears she was the journalist that the Secretary of State broke the news to about the clearing of spent nuclear fuel.
And it seems she is also concerned about America's nuclear weaponry.

Rachel Maddow reports on a scandal surrounding the supervision of America's nuclear weaponry stored at Minot Air Force Base that has resulted in a slew of dismissals and further investigations into the "rot" within the ranks that has created this dangerous vulnerability.

video.msnbc.msn.com...

Interesting wording there "Rot within the ranks", yep there's rot there , almost like to separate Governments perhaps , with their own agendas' and there for there own people.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


Like it or not this story is going hot.

Response: Dyess Refuses to Deny Secret Nuke Transfer

Forced to respond by countless comments throughout social media as well as a bombardment of calls to the base, Dyess Air Force base has now released an official response to the high level military intelligence we revealed to you last week regarding a secret nuke transfer from the base to S. Carolina.

www.storyleak.com...

Pinkorchid
Interesting wording there "Rot within the ranks", yep there's rot there , almost like to separate Governments perhaps , with their own agendas' and there for there own people.

edit on 10-9-2013 by Pinkorchid because: (no reason given)

There is no agenda. During the Cold War the Air Force handled nuclear weapons on a daily basis, at the unit level. They had the PRP programs, and took security seriously. After the Cold War, Stratcom took over handling the nuclear weapons, and took them away from the Air Force at a unit level, except the ICBMs. Since they weren't dealing with them continuously like they had been in the past, they became more of a hassle than anything. People started taking shortcuts, using their own checklists, not double checking things, and the end result was the Minot Incident.

Like it or not this story is going hot.

Response: Dyess Refuses to Deny Secret Nuke Transfer

Forced to respond by countless comments throughout social media as well as a bombardment of calls to the base, Dyess Air Force base has now released an official response to the high level military intelligence we revealed to you last week regarding a secret nuke transfer from the base to S. Carolina.

www.storyleak.com...

Of course they're not going to. Official policy has always been to neither confirm nor deny that they're there. I know several bases that they are at, through sources I have and other evidence, but the military, even when directly asked, has always refused to confirm or deny it. Hell, we know they were on subs and some ships in the 1980s and even then they wouldn't say anything about it. So of course they're not going to say anything about it in this case either. Especially in this case.

reply to post by Pinkorchid

Like it or not this story is going hot.

Actually it isn't.

Response: Dyess Refuses to Deny Secret Nuke Transfer

Actually they didn't...

“**ATTENTION TEAM DYESS**

Dyess AFB has not been involved in the transfer of any nuclear weapons. Please be advised that any reports of this nature are inaccurate and information contained in these articles was not released, nor verified by the 7th Bomb Wing commander or other Dyess representatives.”

www.storyleak.com...

You really shouldn't leave out the best parts...

And again how is this even considered credible considering the source for this whole story?

Infowars...

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Its a bit like a quote from the President about whether Assad used chemical weapons or not , he's not likely to say anything less now is he , nor are they.

You never ask the cook who made the rotten stew to tell you how bad it is.

reply to post by Zaphod58

The fighter defense philosophy for the US was always that the threat would come from the Soviets through either bombers or missiles, which meant from the North, through Alaska/Canada, and the East from Europe.

Think they ought to get over that one , or at least be a little more inclusive especially when you have successive Governments throwing their weight around the world and making more and more enemies.
Tunnel vision , can be a dangerous thing and the ability to look outside the square is an important asset to keep in mind.

Just because it hasn't happened , doesn't mean it can't .
Being locked into a point of view leaves area's that can and will get exploited especially with regard to national security and defence.

Is America going to experience another 911 because they had their blinkers on and would not look at any other source of threat , even perhaps from within their own ranks?

You know the saying "There are none as Blind as those that cannot See" , I think it should be "There are none so Blind as those with ego's that need to be right".

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

Actually it isn't

www.google.com.au...=Dyess+Refuses+to+Deny+Secret+Nuke+Transfer&start=40

Actually it is , I got bored after page five of a google search ......

reply to post by Pinkorchid


Notice the use of the word "was".