Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,457 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

skyeagle409

this will give you an idea who was behind the plot

Osama_bin_Laden_portrait.jpg

Sheikh_july2009.jpg

911_Hijackers.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

The information on the ACARS system is on ARINC's website. in PDF form and specifically states how the system handles failed up-links....in detail!!

This is why you lose any sort of credibility in this discussion is because you are susceptible to reading and agreeing gish gallop and woo off sites like PF911T.

Why base your understanding off someone else's obvious bias analysis when it would that much easier to read about the system off the company's own provided documentation??

And your credibility and gullibility are well established by the fact that you embrace an impossible story, told by known liars.

Will either of us get into heaven? :w00t:

Maybe Woody's interpretation of the data is wrong, but it doesn't look like it to me. Could ARINC have 'tightened up' the data after the fact, Wikipedia style? It's possible. Considering the sophistry advanced by many corporations to toe the line with the OCT, I would not be surprised in the least if that were the case. The most incriminating video footage from the news helicopters at Shanksville, 3 of them, was absolutely scrubbed from the internet.

It is not the Boy Scouts of America who are controlling the coverup Raptor, it's the US government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaptorBites

And your credibility and gullibility are well established by the fact that you embrace an impossible story, told by known liars.

Will either of us get into heaven? :w00t:

Maybe Woody's interpretation of the data is wrong, but it doesn't look like it to me. Could ARINC have 'tightened up' the data after the fact, Wikipedia style? It's possible. Considering the sophistry advanced by many corporations to toe the line with the OCT, I would not be surprised in the least if that were the case. The most incriminating video footage from the news helicopters at Shanksville, 3 of them, was absolutely scrubbed from the internet.

Oh boy! Claims of ARINC modifying their documentation specifically to support the OCT?

I think the only obvious attempts at a cover-up here is your own ignorance/paranoia/mistrust of anything that does not support your views.

Please, the ARINC documentation precedes 9/11.

I will be honest though. The response you just gave regarding ACARS and ARINC documentation being covered-up/fixed, was the exact answer I was expecting!

I wonder if the Wikipedia on WTC aluminum plated facade was also changed to support the OCT..../sarcasm.

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222

I am still waiting for a 9-11 troother nutter to tell me why the government/Haliburton/The Illuminati/the CIA/Mossad/whoever would want to to simulate an additional Jihadist terrorist attack in addition to the thousands that have occurred already?

I guesss no answer will ever be forthcoming.

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaptorBites

I am still waiting for a 9-11 troother nutter to tell me why the government/Haliburton/The Illuminati/the CIA/Mossad/whoever would want to to simulate an additional Jihadist terrorist attack in addition to the thousands that have occurred already?

I guesss no answer will ever be forthcoming.

You won't get an answer. Its hard enough for truthers to explain how FDNY/NYPD were involved in the cover up of "mass murder".

Now you expect them to explain how those organizations you listed were involved directly?

Its like asking flat earth believers to explain how the horizon works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ove

Just so you get an idea of how outrageous the official 9/11 story is;

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yswMOB8_IAM[/media]

Keep in mind, these are objective experts who studied the 9/11 commission's report and official story and had no axes to grind or reason to lie.

This video is more than enough evidence, it was controlled demolition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

And your credibility and gullibility are well established by the fact that you embrace an impossible story, told by known liars.

You must mean those 911 conspiracy websites. Those 911 conspiracy websites are well known for getting the facts wrong on a regular basis and I am still waiting for "Pilots for 911 Truth" to make much-needed corrections on its website.

Maybe Woody's interpretation of the data is wrong, but it doesn't look like it to me.

Woody has been discredited with facts and evidence time after time and it is amazing that anyone would even use Woody as a reference.

Could ARINC have 'tightened up' the data after the fact, Wikipedia style? It's possible.

Call ARINC and let the ACARS experts tell you why you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

This video is more than enough evidence, it was controlled demolition.

I think not, considering that no bomb explosions were seen nor heard or detected by seismic monitors in the area. Add to the fact that NO evidence of explosves was found at ground zero, which proves beyond any doubt that no explosives were used.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

Oh boy! Claims of ARINC modifying their documentation specifically to support the OCT?

I think the only obvious attempts at a cover-up here is your own ignorance/paranoia/mistrust of anything that does not support your views.

Please, the ARINC documentation precedes 9/11.

I will be honest though. The response you just gave regarding ACARS and ARINC documentation being covered-up/fixed, was the exact answer I was expecting!

I wonder if the Wikipedia on WTC aluminum plated facade was also changed to support the OCT..../sarcasm.

I was just wondering. Kinda the same way I was wondering how, but knowing why, the videos taken from the 3 news helicopters at Shanksville were eventually 'scrubbed' from the internet.

Naw, you're right dude, the government wouldn't lie to you.

Nonetheless, I think Woody's presentation and interpretation corroborate what pictures and testimony show--no Boeing at Shanksville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I was just wondering. Kinda the same way I was wondering how, but knowing why, the videos taken from the 3 news helicopters at Shanksville were eventually 'scrubbed' from the internet.

What difference does that make when United Airlines, investigators and clean-up crews confirmed the crash site as that of United 93?

What difference does it make considering that wreckage at the crash site of United 93 is consistent with wreckage of a B-757?

What difference does that make when coroner, Wally Miller, confirmed that human remains from United 93 were recovered at the crash site of United 93?

What difference does that make when remains of passengers, crew and of the hijackers of United 93 were recovered from the crash site of United 93?

It is evident that you are just here to have fun and cannot be taken seriously.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ove

I think not, considering that no bomb explosions were seen nor heard or detected by seismic monitors in the area. Add to the fact that NO evidence of explosves was found at ground zero, which proves beyond any doubt that no explosives were used.

Doesn't matter what you think, experts say it was controlled demolition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Doesn't matter what you think, experts say it was controlled demolition.

But, real demolition experts have denied that explosives were used! In addition, I have spent a lot of time in Vietnam to know what real bomb explosions sound and look like and I saw no evidence of bomb explosions in those 911 videos.

Since you want to take the word of real experts, let's take a look here because it is apparent that you have missed the following information before.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

------------------------------------------------------------

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

http://www.popularme...ld-trade-center

'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

American Society of Civil Engineers

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

Structural and Civil Engineers against Controlled Demolition

Letter to the Editor

Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Fulton College of Engineering and Technology

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

By John Fleck

Journal Staff Writer

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

My link

Even the following data does not depict an event involving explosives.

911-seismograph-1.jpg

911-seismograph-2.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

This thread is like a tennis match: you prove it - you prove it.

Fact is nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Make your own judgement..

Absolute garbage. It has indeed been proven that the official account is supported by physical evidence, and the reason for the collapses has been outlined extensively. All erroneous claims have been answered, and then met with "I don't reckon". Every positive has been met with an "Well I think" or "It might be this" but nothing refuting the actual information and physical evidence has been refuted. There have been claims of Thermite charges which is refuted by the claim itself, there have been compete scenarios made up about Shanksville, yet not one of the pictures Skyeagle has laboriously posted time and again has been explained via the CT and why this physical evidence that supports the official story is not valid evidence. The CT is entirely speculation from the so called explosions, which strikes me as rather normal in a urning collapsing high rise building, or the backside covering blunders that show Barbara Bodine could have prevented this, but was a major stumbling block. Fact supports the official version of events, speculation supports the CT.

And that is about as in deep as any personal judgment goes. You either accept what it was, or one can spend decades pondering nuances. In the end the official story will prevail because it has physical evidence and the CT has a handful of obnoxious idiotic claimants that make even the most benign enquiry seem an attack on logic. Makes it hard for anyone with a genuine question I think.

At the end of the day you have people claiming responsibility and rejoicing in the slaughter they caused. Really, I do not know why that most important factor is constantly overlooked. I'd like to spend more time in this thread, but it moves a bit quick for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

Doesn't matter what you think, experts say it was controlled demolition.

If you stick around long enough, you will discover that Sky is one of those who simply denies that anybody else in the world can analyze facts and evidence.

He denies evidence that contradicts the official story, and he demonizes anybody that presents or analyzes said evidence.

But you're right--Gage and the others at AE911 have provided an invaluable analysis regarding what happened at WTC that day.

The official story is a bright and shining lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

If you stick around long enough, you will discover that Sky is one of those who simply denies that anybody else in the world can analyze facts and evidence.

Facts and evidence support the official story, :yes: not your fantasies. :no:

Remember,

* You've posted that an anti-ship cruise missile struck the Pentagon

* You've posted that explosives knocked down the light poles leading to the Pentagon despite the impact damage on the light poles

* You've posted the aircraft passed north of the gas station despite the fact the distribution of B-757 wreckage inside and leading up to, the Pentagon, and of course, the downed light poles which indicated that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

Not to mention the recovered FDR, the same recovered FDR that American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Company sent the conversion formulas that pertained ONLY to the FDR of American 77, and no other aircraft.

* Then, you turned around and posted that nukes were responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings despite the fact the nuke story was a hoax.

* You've posted that "no Boeings" were involved in the incidents at the Pentagon and Shanksville despited the recovery of B-757 wreckage at those crash sites and the fact that American Airlines and United Airlines, coroners, and recovery and clean-up workers confirmed the crash sites of those aircraft.

* You blundered on ACARS, which was evident to others as well.

* You've claimed that you are an airplane and helicopter pilot, but your lack of knowledge in aerodynamics and aeronautics and missteps and blunders proved otherwise.

And, the list goes on and on, so it is evident to me that you are just here to have fun and nothing else, and it is obvious why no one can take you seriously.

But you're right--Gage and the others at AE911 have provided an invaluable analysis regarding what happened at WTC that day.

I guess you overlooked something, because:

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

And of course, there are videos proving Richard Gage lying on camera. In other words, he has no credibility.

The official story is a bright and shining lie.

Let's take another look. Only one of the following is true:

* You've claimed that no Boeing crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

mystery_debris.jpg

American 77 wreckage at the Pentagon

739px-UA93_livery_debris.jpg

United 93 Wreckage

It is very clear why no one can take you seriously. In other words, Babe Ruth, you've struck out. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

I am still waiting for a 9-11 troother nutter to tell me why the government/Haliburton/The Illuminati/the CIA/Mossad/whoever would want to to simulate an additional Jihadist terrorist attack in addition to the thousands that have occurred already?

I guesss no answer will ever be forthcoming.

Notwithstanding your “troother nutter” flame (I hazard a guess, for your lack of better argument), the question is very easily answered by anyone who has researched the topic. There were individuals within government (and yes, Cheney was also a chairman of Haliburton, though I’m most reluctant to include the ‘Illuminati’ haha) who stated the effect and benefit to the U.S. that, “a new Pearl Harbor” event would bring. It appears that none of the previous ‘thousands’ of attacks were to the likeness of Pearl Harbor that would incite the American people or timing required and so it was found necessary to induce 9/11, granted credibility with no small assistance of the Jihadist threat which already existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ove

This video is more than enough evidence, it was controlled demolition.

I think not, considering that no bomb explosions were seen nor heard or detected by seismic monitors in the area. Add to the fact that NO evidence of explosves was found at ground zero, which proves beyond any doubt that no explosives were used.

Doesn't matter what you think, experts say it was controlled demolition.

But, real demolition experts have denied that explosives were used! In addition, I have spent a lot of time in Vietnam to know what real bomb explosions sound and look like and I saw no evidence of bomb explosions in those 911 videos.

Since you want to take the word of real experts, let's take a look here because it is apparent that you have missed the following information before.

"WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse."

lead investigator Shyam Sunder is debunked at 04:39 in the video

Edited by Ove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222

the question is very easily answered by anyone who has researched the topic.

Oh, is it? Then try, please.

There were individuals within government (and yes, Cheney was also a chairman of Haliburton, though I’m most reluctant to include the ‘Illuminati’ haha) who stated the effect and benefit to the U.S. that, “a new Pearl Harbor” event would bring.

Irrelevant, and speculation.

It appears that none of the previous ‘thousands’ of attacks were to the likeness of Pearl Harbor that would incite the American people or timing required and so it was found necessary to induce 9/11, granted credibility with no small assistance of the Jihadist threat which already existed.

Oh does it "appear" now, really? Well, how is the 9/11 jihadist attack different from, say, the attack on the Beirut Barracks, on the USS Cole, and on the US embassies in Daressalam and Nairobi? Or, for that matter, the jihadist terrorist attack on the WTC in New York in 1993? They were all spectacular, large, and directly against the state in case of embassy bombings. Yes, 9-11 had pretty spectacular results, but the the attack itself (with a bunch of box cutters) was pretty pedestrian.

So no, there is NOTHING qualitatively different here. Jihadist attacks were on-going and are on going.

If this is what you call "research", you just embarrassed yourself. FAIL!

So again: Why would anyone concoct a gigantic conspiracy, just to add another jihadist attack in the middle of thousands of jihadist attacks?

It seems to me the troothers have no answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Irrelevant, and speculation.

In your opinion, somehow, sure. But there are many who find it quite relevant that individuals within government stated the effect and benefit “a new Pearl Harbor” would bring to the United States. It is not speculation that the requirement was pre-stated: -

"Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after.""

Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy, Imagining the Transforming Event - 1998

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

~Rebuilding America's Defenses, Neocon roadmap - 2000

Well, how is the 9/11 jihadist attack different from, say, the attack on the Beirut Barracks, on the USS Cole, and on the US embassies in Daressalam and Nairobi? Or, for that matter, the jihadist terrorist attack on the WTC in New York in 1993?

We had this 'discussion' briefly before, here. It seems that you ignored my answer or that it was above your understanding. Personally I think it’s a silly question which indicates you have not researched the facts and figures of those attacks and/or put any thought into it. I’ll request the same as I did then in the hope you might be sensible and take the advice onboard this time...

First, please consider the scale of destruction, loss of life and location of each incident. That will answer your question as to how 9/11 differed from those other attacks. What you will find is that none, bar 9/11, are anywhere near a match to Pearl Harbor in consideration of these factors. Even Bush drew the comparison: “That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor.”

Second, attacks like at the Beirut Barracks, WTC '93 and U.S. Embassies all pre-dated discussion of how a new Pearl Harbor-like attack would effect and benefit the United States and the coming to power of the Neocon politicians who stated it and therefore can be discounted even inspite of their differences to 9/11. As I said in my previous post, the timing had to be right for those politicians to act upon the pretext.

It seems to me the troothers have no answer.

It seems to me you don’t have much of a question in the first place, are more interested in flaming “troothers” and don’t think much or consider answers provided, which makes you irrelevant so far as any rationale debate is concerned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

People ready to take advantage of an event like Pearl Harbor isn't a secret, isn't evidence of a conspiracy, has nothing to do with believing in bombs in buildings. They flat out wrote it for all to see. It's right in front of our noses, it's not buried under fabulous secrets made up by imaginations. The US always takes advantage of the opportunity that violence creates in the world. Welcome to stating the obvious. This isn't a conspiracy it's another day in the office. There's hardly a major act of violence in the Middle East that goes by without the US sticking its nose in it. Why? Do we love violence for the sake of violence? Of course not, we have interests that are met by sticking our noses in other peoples' business.

Truthers are dupes of Zion. Obviously if you can't even intellectually handle the fact that terrorists attacked us on 9/11, by logical extension, you can't deal with the motivation of those terrorists to attack us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

lead investigator Shyam Sunder is debunked at 04:39 in the video

The video mentioned 1500 people calling for a new investigation, yet they are out numbered by 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report and 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

In your opinion, somehow, sure. But there are many who find it quite relevant that individuals within government stated the effect and benefit “a new Pearl Harbor” would bring to the United States. It is not speculation that the requirement was pre-stated: -

"Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after.""

Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy, Imagining the Transforming Event - 1998

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

~Rebuilding America's Defenses, Neocon roadmap - 2000

I have a problem with claims that 911 was a new Pearl Harbor to rebuild America's Defenses, especially as I watched cuts in goods and services since the 911 attack. Just the other day, the Air Force announced that another squadron is to be deactivated when 14 other squadrons have been cut with 3 more squadrons on the chopping block and more cuts are on the way.

Federal budget cuts ground Air Force aircraft

Budget cuts ground 3rd of Air Force warplanes; those headed to Afghanistan to be mission ready

Reduced Flying Hours Forces USAF To Ground 17 Combat Air Squadrons

The U.S. Air Force will begin grounding combat air squadrons Tuesday in response to forced spending cuts that have eliminated more than 44,000 flying hours through September, according to internal documents obtained by Defense News.

The Air Force’s budget for flying hours was reduced by $591 million for the remainder of fiscal 2013, making it impossible to keep all squadrons ready for combat, according to an April 5 memo signed by Maj. Gen. Charles Lyon, director of operations for Air Combat Command. The across-the board spending cuts, called sequestration, took effect March 1 when Congress failed to agree on a deficit-reduction plan.

Seventeen combat-coded squadrons will stand down effective Tuesday or upon their return from deployments, according to the documents. The Air Force will distribute 241,496 flying hours that are funded to squadrons that will be kept combat ready or at a reduced readiness level called “basic mission capable” for part or all of the remaining months in fiscal 2013, the documents said.

http://www.defensene...t-Air-Squadrons

US Army Announces Brigade Cuts, Restructuring

The US Army will cut 10 brigade combat teams over the next four years, bringing the number of active-duty BCTs to 33, Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno said Tuesday.

http://www.defensene...s-Restructuring

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) -- A top general says federal budget cuts that will ground one-third of the U.S. Air Force's active-duty force of combat planes including fighters and bombers means "accepting the risk that combat airpower may not be ready to respond immediately to new contingencies as they occur."Gen. Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia, issued the warning Tuesday as the Pentagon braces for more effects of the automatic spending cuts triggered by the lack of a budget agreement in Washington.

Hostage said that only the units preparing to deploy to major operations, such as the war in Afghanistan, will remain mission-ready. Other units would stand down on a rotating basis, he added.

The Air Force didn't immediately release a list of the specific units and bases that would be affected, but it said it would cover some fighters like F-16 Fighting Falcons and F-22 Raptors, and some airborne warning and control aircraft in the U.S., Europe and the Pacific.

The Air Force says, on average, aircrews "lose currency" to fly combat commissions within 90 to 120 days of not flying. It generally takes 60 to 90 days to train the crews to mission-ready status.

Returning grounded units to be ready for missions will require additional funds beyond Air Combat Command's normal budget, according to Air Force officials. The "stand down" will remain in effect for the remainder of fiscal year 2013 barring any changes to funding.

"Even a six-month stand down of units will have significant long-term, multi-year impacts on our operational readiness," Air Combat Command spokesman Maj. Brandon Lingle wrote in an email to The Associated Press.

http://news.yahoo.co...-113356244.html

Budget cuts force Air Force, Navy to ground aircraft

More than a dozen Air Force fighter squadrons were grounded Tuesday at U.S. bases around the world, including some in Europe and the Pacific, as the cash-strapped service confronts the effects of steep defense budget cuts brought on by sequestration.

About one-third of active-duty Combat Air Force warplanes were to be grounded in connection with the elimination of about 45,000 flying hours by Oct. 1, according to a news release from Air Combat Command. The Air Force’s budget for flying hours was reduced by $591 million for the remainder of fiscal 2013, which makes it impossible to keep all squadrons ready for combat, Defense News reported.

Among the Air Force units grounded Tuesday were two F-15 fighter squadrons from the 48th Fighter Wing at RAF Lakenheath in the United Kingdom, F-16s from the 555th Fighter Squadron, according to Defense News. The 81st Fighter Squadron, which flies A-10s, is inactivating in May.

http://www.stripes.c...rcraft-1.215708

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

People ready to take advantage of an event like Pearl Harbor isn't a secret, isn't evidence of a conspiracy, has nothing to do with believing in bombs in buildings.

DITTO!!! :tu:

911 conspiracist speak of a new Pearl Harbor in regards to the 911 attack and the rebuilding of America's Defenses, but I see no connection whatsoever. Many Air Force squadrons that have not been cut today, are already broke, including my former unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ove

They pulled down the building, skyeagle409

The owner Larry Silverstein said so, you know it and everybody knows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

They pulled down the building, skyeagle409

The owner Larry Silverstein said so, you know it and everybody knows it.

Once again, the term: "Pull It" meant that buildings are pulled down my cables, not by explosives. Once again, you have shown just how easy you are duped. Mr. Silverstein was talking about pulling people out of WTC7, not demolishing WTC7.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.