Rare Footage -- Flight 93 Shootdown Award

Originally posted by Boone 870
Using federally controlled aircraft to shoot down a civilian aircraft would have violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

And we all know the Bush crime cabal wouldn't even think of violating any law like Posse Comitatus, let alone that "goddam piece of paper" that they swore an oath of allegiance to.

Originally posted by Boone 870
No they are not. Please show where the FAA or NORAD considered Payne Stewart's Lear jet to be a threat before launching fighters to provide escort.

NORAD considered Payne Stewarts a threat becasue they launched fighters. (Interceptors always have at least guns loaded). The reason they launch fighters is becasue planes off course are considered a threat.

en.wikipedia.org...

There were, however, several reports on Canadian news services that four CF-18 Hornets had been dispatched by NORAD from CFB Cold Lake, ready to intercept and down the aircraft once it reached Canadian airspace to prevent any possibility of the jet crashing into a populated area.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Boone 870
Using federally controlled aircraft to shoot down a civilian aircraft would have violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I thought they might destroy it if it looked like it was going to head into a major built-up area.

en.wikipedia.org...

There were, however, several reports on Canadian news services that four CF-18 Hornets had been dispatched by NORAD from CFB Cold Lake, ready to intercept and down the aircraft once it reached Canadian airspace to prevent any possibility of the jet crashing into a populated area.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1

NORAD considered Payne Stewarts a threat becasue they launched fighters. (Interceptors always have at least guns loaded). The reason they launch fighters is becasue planes off course are considered a threat.

2 points:

1. Please stop saying that interceptors always have at least guns loaded without proof. Just because you want to believe that does not mean that it is true. Valid sources with links, please. I do not consider David Ray Griffin or 911research.whatever.net as valid because they do not back up their claims with sources.

2. NORAD did not consider Payne Stewart's Learjet a threat.

10:08 Tyndal AFB alert. Fighters scrambled for civilian inflight emergency. FAA requested emergency escort.

They launched two fighters from Tyndall and then recalled them 12 minutes later after locating a F-16, on a routine training mission, that was closer.

10:10 Tyndall fighters airborne.
10:22 Tyndall fighters released. F-16A from Eglin diverted to escort.
Source

Originally posted by Boone 870
1. Please stop saying that interceptors always have at least guns loaded without proof. Just because you want to believe that does not mean that it is true. Valid sources with links, please. I do not consider David Ray Griffin or 911research.whatever.net as valid because they do not back up their claims with sources.

There were, however, several reports on Canadian news services that four CF-18 Hornets had been dispatched by NORAD from CFB Cold Lake, ready to intercept and down the aircraft once it reached Canadian airspace to prevent any possibility of the jet crashing into a populated area.

What and how many sources would you accept?

Do you have any evidence with sources that 911research is not a valid site?


[edit on 21-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima, you do realize that CF-18's are Canadian, correct?

The United States of America and Canada are to whole different countries.

Is Canada required by law to uphold America's Posse Comitatus act?

Originally posted by Boone 870
Ultima, you do realize that CF-18's are Canadian, correct?

Please be adult enough to answer the questions for the record.

The F-18s were under the control of NORAD, YES or NO?

NORAD is joint American and Canadian, YES or NO?

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Hi Fleece, the incident we are discussing occurred in 1999. Bill Clinton was president in 1999, George Bush wasn't.

Your rhetoric has no validity in this conversation unless you want to claim that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are actually the same shape shifting reptilian.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

The F-18s were under the control of NORAD, YES or NO?

NORAD is joint American and Canadian, YES or NO?

YES

and

YES

Originally posted by Boone 870
YES

and

YES

Ok, so far so good. Now if i post information on interceptors being loaded with ammo would you admit to it, YES or NO ?

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Hi Fleece, the incident we are discussing occurred in 1999. Bill Clinton was president in 1999, George Bush wasn't.

Your rhetoric has no validity in this conversation unless you want to claim that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are actually the same shape shifting reptilian.

Pretty much the same. One corrupt and imperious "royal" bloodline after another.

This seven year-old NewsMax article really nailed it:

Bush Shields Clinton Scandals
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, Dec. 14, 2001

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration, citing executive privilege for the first time, refused Thursday to honor subpoenas from a House committee investigating campaign finance violations in the Clinton administration and the use of informants in organized crime investigations.

Justice Department officials said the refusal would keep investigations "free from political influences."

Republicans and Democrats alike excoriated the decision, suggesting Bush was creating a "monarchy'' or "imperial'' presidency to keep Congress from overseeing the executive branch and guarding against corruption.

The House Government Reform Committee claims the decision to reject the subpoenas reflected a policy of the Bush administration to refuse cooperation with Congress on criminal investigations, even when the cases are closed.

The panel released previous public statements from Attorney General John Ashcroft's tenure in the Senate in which he defended similar congressional oversight.

"Everyone is in agreement you guys are making a big mistake,'' Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., told Justice lawyers at a hearing after the announcement. "We might be able to go to the [House] floor and take this thing to court."

Burton said in his opening statement: "What we've been told is that the Justice Department will not provide any deliberative memoranda from any criminal investigation to any congressional committee, ever. It doesn't matter if the case has been closed for 20 years.

"This new policy is utterly unprecedented. And if this new policy stands, it will be virtually impossible for any congressional committee to conduct meaningful oversight of the department."

archive.newsmax.com...

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Ok, so far so good. Now if i post information on interceptors being loaded with ammo would you admit to it, YES or NO ?

YES.

If the interceptors were American, then don't bother. It is illegal for American aircraft to shoot down a civilian aircraft.

Originally posted by Boone 870
If the interceptors were American, then don't bother. It is illegal for American aircraft to shoot down a civilian aircraft.

Please explain to me why NORD scrambles ARMED aircraft to intercept civilian aircraft. Is it maybe becasue they have authority to shoot planes down, YES or NO?

Why wont you accept evidence of NORAD having armed aircraft to shoot planes down?

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Please explain to me why NORD scrambles ARMED aircraft to intercept civilian aircraft.

Because that's what NORAD had available. The Boston controller that requested military assistance called NEADS because he knew they had fighters on alert. Those alert fighters just so happened to be armed.

If they had any unarmed fighters ready to go they would launch them. One F-16 from Langley Virginia was unarmed, the other two that were on alert were armed. The DC Air National Guard launched unarmed fighters also. A Minnesota Air National Guard C-130 was also vectored to follow flight 77 and it was unarmed.

Is it maybe becasue they have authority to shoot planes down, YES or NO?

Yes, but not civilian aircraft. NORAD's mission was to intercept foreign military aircraft and cruise missiles coming through the ADIZ.

Why wont you accept evidence of NORAD having armed aircraft to shoot planes down?

I'm not denying that NORAD have armed aircraft to shoot down planes, I am just stating the fact that NORAD does not have legal authority to shoot down civilian airplanes.

It was illegal. Hijackings were considered a law-enforcement problem, not a military problem. The military was allowed to escort civilian aircraft only.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Because that's what NORAD had available.

But then why are all interceptor aircraft kept armed?

Please do research before posting, you might learn a little about NORAD and interceptor aircraft are kept armed in case they have to shoot a plane down.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

But then why are all interceptor aircraft kept armed?

I don't know what you're talking about.

NORAD keeps their alert aircraft armed.

Are you claiming that every interceptor in the country was supposed to be armed before and on 9/11?

Originally posted by Boone 870
Are you claiming that every interceptor in the country was supposed to be armed before and on 9/11

Well let me put it this way.

All bases i have been on that had interceptor aircraft kept them armed at all times.

Cheney + Mineta + AF person + Tower + pilot. That is all that needed to know. It is all there if you look for it.

As far as why would the government cover it up? It would be a disaster. That is why I still believe that the original Truth movement was created by our own government so people would watch videos of WTC 7 and not look into what really happened that day over Shanksville. It is called deflection. I mean, have none of ou ever been in a relationship???

Funny thing is that you used to be able to google a lot more about Rick Gibney than you can now.

Mineta, look him up as well as Flight 587. There is a video, on this site here , thast shows smoke trailing from the aircraft due to explosion, not rudder wash.....this was done by one of the other hijackers who did not make it on the planes.

There is so much more there but it seems we all look in the wrong places.

Originally posted by esdad71
Funny thing is that you used to be able to google a lot more about Rick Gibney than you can now.

There had been reports that google was censoring 9/11 information.


[edit on 23-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

There is alot of information about Flight 93 that you cannot find anymore and it was removed but no one noticed because they were looking for non exsitent explosives in New York.

Flight 587 is also an interesting story.