lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 16, 2008 12:46:34 GMT -4
Some guy showed up on George Washington’s blog claiming he is a USAF veteran who was working at Langley AFB on 9/11. He says he was told by others the F-16’s scrambled from there didn’t go to DC but rather to Pennsylvania and one of them shotdown flight 93. I see 4 - 5 possibilities 1) He’s a complete fake who never served in the USAF but Googled enough to talk the talk reasonably well. 2) He is serving or served in the Air Force but not at Langley on 9/11 3) He was at Langley but made story up or was misinformed by his coworkers 4) His story is accurate. IMO the order of likelihood is 2), 1), 3), 4). I thought it suspicious that he said “The "Alert Squadron" of 4 F-16 Falcons also stationed at Langley AFB was scrambled AFTER the "plane" crashed into the Pentagon.” There were 2 F-16’s on alert at Langley but they managed to launch 3. I find it odd someone working as “a ground equipment mechanic” wouldn’t know how many plane’s were kept on alert. Also I don’t this the contingent of planes kept on alert is called a squadron. I was wondering if any of you noticed any inconsistencies that I missed; see my reply (as ‘Len’) and his replies (‘Jeremy’). georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/04/us-air-force-shot-down-flight-93.html I was hoping especially for input from Frenat and others with applicable USAF experience. Also Obviousman perhaps you could ask some of the people at Elgin (if you’re still there) Len |
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Apr 16, 2008 14:38:25 GMT -4
Its BS
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 16, 2008 14:48:56 GMT -4
You want someone to go up to random servicemen on Elgin airbase and say "could you tell me how many alert fighters there were on 9/11"? What sort of response do you think they'll receive?
|
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Apr 16, 2008 16:32:29 GMT -4
Total BS.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 16, 2008 22:21:05 GMT -4
I have no doubt it's BS but I was hoping for something more specific i.e. any errors he made that would indicate he is not who he claims to be. As a layman I find it hard to believe "a ground equipment mechanic” at Langley would think 4 planes were keept on alert when it had been standard since at least 1992 for alert bases to have two planes on alert. This would have more weight coming from someone on the USAF, like frenat or obviuosman's friends at Elgin
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 16, 2008 22:25:57 GMT -4
You want someone to go up to random servicemen on Elgin airbase and say "could you tell me how many alert fighters there were on 9/11"? What sort of response do you think they'll receive? The question isn't how many planes were on alert at Elgin or Langley, that was publiclly available information. The question is how realistic is it for someone who worked as a mechanic at an alert base to have though there were four at his base until a few days ago when I explained to him there were only two. |
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Apr 17, 2008 15:28:49 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Apr 17, 2008 17:16:52 GMT -4
The question isn't how many planes were on alert at Elgin or Langley, that was publiclly available information. The question is how realistic is it for someone who worked as a mechanic at an alert base to have though there were four at his base until a few days ago when I explained to him there were only two. I can't speak for the USAF, as far as the RAN would be concerned... entirely plausible. It depends on the level of responsibility. If they were what you would call the line chief, and had to have four aircraft at Alert 15 for a 24 hour period, then they would have a good knowledge. They'd have to keep those aircraft ready, and perhaps juggle other airframes around this requirement. On the other hand, if someone was just one of the maintainers (say the bottom end of the enlisted ranks), then they might have absolutely no idea. They just get told "Carry out an R41 serving on tail number 12345" or "replace the inner right main gear tyre". They would probably not know - or care - what the alert staus of particular aircraft in the squadron was. It would only affect them if they were responsible for that aircraft, or wanted to cannibalise it in some way. |
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 19, 2008 11:24:49 GMT -4
The question isn't how many planes were on alert at Elgin or Langley, that was publiclly available information. The question is how realistic is it for someone who worked as a mechanic at an alert base to have though there were four at his base until a few days ago when I explained to him there were only two. I can't speak for the USAF, as far as the RAN would be concerned... entirely plausible. It depends on the level of responsibility. If they were what you would call the line chief, and had to have four aircraft at Alert 15 for a 24 hour period, then they would have a good knowledge. They'd have to keep those aircraft ready, and perhaps juggle other airframes around this requirement. On the other hand, if someone was just one of the maintainers (say the bottom end of the enlisted ranks), then they might have absolutely no idea. They just get told "Carry out an R41 serving on tail number 12345" or "replace the inner right main gear tyre". They would probably not know - or care - what the alert staus of particular aircraft in the squadron was. It would only affect them if they were responsible for that aircraft, or wanted to cannibalise it in some way. Frenat (or anyone else from the USAF) would you say the same is true for the USAF? All - Other than not believeing the part about flt 93 being shot down is there anything in his story that indicates he might not be who claims? |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Apr 21, 2008 17:13:24 GMT -4
Once on "alert", the two planes are not touched except by exception. They are preflighted by each alert crew coming on shift. The planes are armed, and guarded in the alert facility.
If the flight is launched, say for a practice scramble, then the base is not available for alert until either the flight lands, turns, and returns to alert status, or two backup airframes are armed up and brought on alert. If this is the case, the landing airframes are disarmed, turned, and put on the flightline for daily training
flights.
Bringing additional fighters on alert is an HQ call. Normal status is (was) a pair at each alert base.
Had the flights gone to PA, the FAA radar data would have shown it. How would a maintenence type know where the flight went anyway? He salutes them off then waits for them to taxi in after the flight. He doesn't have the flightplan (the Langley guys launched on the canned scramble order, which erroneously took them into the Whiskey area off the coast, there was no canned scramble order to take them over the continental landmass).
The alert fighter airframes belong to the 1st TFW, but are OPCON'd to NORAD while on alert.
Also odd how he capitalizes "Flight" and "Loader". I also believe that the folks that handle missiles are not "ground equipment mechanics", they are armament specialists. I think he's blowing smoke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on May 5, 2008 12:04:46 GMT -4
I never understood this particular conspiracy theory.
IF this plane was shot down, WHY would the government lie about it?
After the initial hysteria had died down, most people would have realised that that would have been the correct decision to make under these terrible circumstances.
It would actually make the government look good. (Something they desperately needed, and need.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on May 5, 2008 13:10:28 GMT -4
I don't want to sound like a CT here and I do not believe this story, however, playing devil's advocate: IF this plane was shot down, WHY would the government lie about it? I think your next sentence could offer an answer to that: After the initial hysteria had died down Again purely hypothetically, I can understand that a Government could fear the repercussions of killing it's own citizens. It may appear to them that it would be better to have the world believe that US citizens died heroically in a fight against the evil of terrorism than at the hands of the USAF. most people would have realised that that would have been the correct decision to make under these terrible circumstances. True, but not if the Government had initially lied. Look at the CT claims of mass murder on 9-11 which already exist, imagine what the US government's enemies (internal and external)would make of an admission that the government had killed it's own citizens on that day and then covered it up. Imagine also the effect it would have on the relatives of those that died, founding out that they had been lied to about the circumstances of their loved ones deaths. It would actually make the government look good. (Something they desperately needed, and need.) Only if they had been honest at the time. To admit they had lied would be make the US government look anything but good after the event. I repeat I do not believe this story (and will not do so unless evidence appears to confirm it) but of all the CT theories surrounding 9-11 this is the one that I find the least ludicrous. |
|
