Quoted: Based on what Blatherman posted I have no doubt this happened.

Yeah he sure did put alot of info up to clear all doubt. I am convinced.

Quoted: SO did this happen at Tinker AFB or Hill AFB?  I'm confused now

It didnt happen anywhere. Some conspiracy nutjob was getting frustrated that none of his crackpot theories came true. So what he did was make up something that  could possibly happen and created a story to make it true. He even probably believes it himself. I have seen this over and over again.

Can I prove that? No. Can the conspiracy be proven? No
I just go for the most likely scenario.

People WANT to believe so badly they creat their own realities.

I am not saying anyone here created this story, I just give it no credibility.

BigB

Yes I see, That site with the story is questionable and I havent seen anything else anywhere. Who knows. I wasnt asking the poster why he was posting a BS story I ment why would a news agency make something so drastic up?

I Dunno....I'm not Dan Rather.

I'm just posting the information, that I've been able to gather, since I first ran into the World Net Daily article this morning.

Using Google and the help of a couple of other posters to this thread, we quickly tracked what we believe to be the original report, back to the SFTT (Soldiers for the Truth) site ( Retired Col.David Hackworth's old site before his untimely death.) From there we found, what  is porported to be, the "Hill AFB security memo." Referencing the Tinker incident. We've spent the rest of the afternoon batting back and forth ideas as to whether or not the "Hill memo" is believable or not.

There...Now you know about as much about it as I do.

I started this thread and prefaced my doubts about World Net Daily right up front....Like I said. I'm not Dan Rather... I'm not reporting this to you as facts handed down by god, but since  I live right down the road from where this is supposed to have happened and since Terrorism in the United States concerns us all greatly...I'm darned sure going to stick with this thread till I get some answers.

FWIW

Allthough think its garbage. I sure still enjoy reading this kind of stuff  because its good to see folks become detectives and try to sniff out the truth.

Quoted: The story is true.

It's true that it was reported, however, the source was deemed non-credible. That's all I have to say.

In the words of Col. Jack O'Neill of SG-1......... "Oh for crying out loud!"


<------------------

Wouldn't anything about the incident, if it happenned, be classified, particularly steps taken to address the threat (for obvious reasons)?

jksTexas

Wouldn't anything about the incident, if it happenned, be classified, particularly steps taken to address the threat (for obvious reasons)?

So What your saying is....I should just sit back and be Blissful in my ignorance, of any of the dangers around me?

By this logic, I suppose if I'd read an internet report, on april 18th 1995, that a small group of suspected terrorists, were seen mixing what observers, thought to be some sort of truck bomb, at a local lake, that I should have discounted that report,  because it may have been leaked to the internet from a classified source?

Of course, discounting that report, as run of the mill internet tin foil, could have had some serious negative consequences, if I'd happened to work in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown OKC.

No...Sorry JKSTexas...But I'm going to chalk this one up to situational awareness.

Remember, that the OHP Trooper that walked up to Timothy McViegh's car window, had no idea what he was walking up on...I Don't intend to work under that kind of handicap. Simply because, some internet naysayer, like yourself, thinks I should bury my head in the sand, because the story, freely availible on two public websites, may or may not, have been leaked from an "official use only" government document.

Like it or not, if it's being reported by World Net Daily and Soldiers for the Truth....It ain't a secret anymore.

Look, It was Tinker AFB.  If you don't believe it was discredited, call the Oklahoma City JTTF or local LEOs and ask about the news report if you're really concerned.  Since it has been discredited, they may tell you so.  The media might actually correct the story too.

As a newbie Air Defense Officer, I seriously doubt any of the stingers we gave away 20 years ago are going to work anymore.

Toycop

Look, It was Tinker AFB. If you don't believe it was discredited, call the Oklahoma City JTTF or local LEOs and ask about the news report if you're really concerned. Since it has been discredited, they may tell you so. The media might actually correct the story too.

Ok Toycop....Give me one reason why I should give one centilla more credence to your claim, that the story was discredited, than say, any other poster on this thread, who said it was true.

Whats your claim to fame and the inside scoop?

Quoted: Ok Toycop....Give me one reason why I should give one centilla more credence to your claim, that the story was discredited, than say, any other poster on this thread, who said it was true. Whats your claim to fame and the inside scoop?

Perhaps it's because I'm a LEO and get literally dozens of "reports" daily or maybe I'm just Johnny Smith from the Dead Zone. If you don't believe, be a concerned citizen, call and ask.  The person that released the info in the first place should be hammered on an OPSEC violation.

Well...If it's all just bullshit...Never happend....Then there should be no OPSEC problem at all, with you filling us in on the details, of how this "Was all just a big misunderstanding"

I Mean, If this is all just BS and there's nothing to it....You must know the story of why it's BS...Right?

By the way...I see your  supposed to be in MI....so this story was important enough to have a national bulletin fired off to every LEO agency in the country?

Hmmm....thats unusual...most of the time one see's such bulletin's, it means that the subject matter is anything but bullshit...I can't ever remember seeing one in fact, that said "Sorry the story was discredited. Please move along. Nothing to see here. If the story is discredited, they usualy don't send out a national bulletin at all.

Thing that make you go Hmmmm.

Quoted: The person that released the info in the first place should be hammered on an OPSEC violation.

+ 10,000
and mentioning all this on a public forums  is a certain way to get busted.

Be carefull.

Based on my faith in the credibility and gullibility of the US forces  (primarily talking about the 1/4 below the average )the idea that it has only been leaked once and to a marginal source strains the imagination.  And if it has been reported to all LE agencies, and still only one media outlet has run it? is even more hard to believe.

Now maybe somebody called up and said I saw this and the wheels started rolling and the next day it got BS'd.  

I think what we got here was a BS report later used as a general pay atention out there note.

As noted there are a variety of things that call the intitial incident into question.

I was not trying to be a naysayer.  I was simplying asking the question as to whether, if it happenned, wouldn't the matter be classified, and the steps taken to secure against that form of threat be classified as well?  I do not know if it happenned or not.  It would not surprise me if it did.  If it did happen, I am of the opinion the public should be told about it, but the steps taken to address the threat should be secret.

The incident was in fact reported as the news suggests.  You have to remember that the initial report doesn't mean squat.  The initial report will, however, result in an alert to base personnel and to LEOs around the country.  I'm gueesing this info was released at that time.

When one makes such a big claim, there is a further investigation.  In this case, it states the FBI was involved.  Under pressure, an individual may crack and say the story, as originally reported, isn't quite accurate.  This would result in the source being deemed non-credible and another updated alert might be distributed to those that received the original.

The person who revealed the "alleged threat" is guilty of an OPSEC violation because he/she revealed the details of an incident under investigation.  It doesn't matter whether the incident is deemed a hoax or not, the individual should keep his/her mouth shut.

Quoted: I was not trying to be a naysayer.  I was simplying asking the question as to whether, if it happenned, wouldn't the matter be classified, and the steps taken to secure against that form of threat be classified as well?  I do not know if it happenned or not.  It would not surprise me if it did.  If it did happen, I am of the opinion the public should be told about it, but the steps taken to address the threat should be secret.

It would probably be classified LEO Sensitive/NOFORN.  NOFORN is for no foreign disclosure.  So, whoever released the information is a fool, they didn't release "classified" (i.e. Secret, TS) information.

Wildboar

+ 10,000 and mentioning all this on a public forums is a certainy way to get busted.

Not if I'm discussing a news story, read by millions and posted on two seprate internet news sites.

World net daily may be tin foil, but their listed on Drudgereport and have a huge readership.  I'd hazard a guess, that as much as 5% of ArfCommer's, read WND before logging onto this site every day, or at some point during thier daily browsing... Soldiers for the Truth has a sizable readership as well.

The Fed's might go after Joe Fahah, or SFTT, But the last time I checked, there wasn't a law against my discussing an article, I read in a news paper, or on the world wide web.

the roads references are not TAFB..4 sure.

i havent heard anything about it..thru the grapevine...i know some people at TAFB.

ToyCop

The incident was in fact reported as the news suggests. You have to remember that the initial report doesn't mean squat. The initial report will, however, result in an alert to base personnel and to LEOs around the country. I'm Guessing this info was released at that time. When one makes such a big claim, there is a further investigation. In this case, it states the FBI was involved. Under pressure, an individual may crack and say the story, as originally reported, isn't quite accurate. This would result in the source being deemed non-credible and another updated alert might be distributed to those that received the original. The person who revealed the "alleged threat" is guilty of an OPSEC violation because he/she revealed the details of an incident under investigation. It doesn't matter whether the incident is deemed a hoax or not, the individual should keep his/her mouth shut.

I just thought I'd place the weasil words, in this statment in red, to illustrate the fact that most of what your telling us here Toycop, seems to be your own speculation....Your "Guessing"?....They May have?...They Might be?

So, what you seem to be telling us here Toycop, is that you don't have the slightest idea who the FBI interveiwed about this, or if they interveiwed anybody at all. This business about the FBI "leaning on an "Cracking" somebody, is shear speculation on your part, no better than my own...Unless your in the FBI...because those kind of details don't get put into bulletins sent out to every cop shop in MI.

Further more. I've been around long enough, to have seen the FBI deem some informants and sources Non-credible, that later turned out to be credible as hell...or does how the Zacharias Mousawi investigation was handled, just after his detainment, or the name Carol Howe of Oklahoma City Bombing fame, ring any bells.

If your so concerned about OPSEC ToyCop....do you mind telling me what your doing revealing the contents of  these LEO only bulletins you claim you may or may not have access to, from your deptment, where you might or might not be a cop?

You see, there are some, things, that just don't quite add up about your story and motivations ToyCop, At least, not to me anyway. You'll forgive my suspicious nature ToyCop, because you would not be the first person, to ever try to misrepresent yourself on the internet and back up your story with bluster, but little in the way of facts or documentation.

How do we know, your not just some ex military guy, with a hard on for OPSEC, thats offended by seeing what you consider national secrets posted on the internet and decided to try to pass yourself off as a LEO, in order to quash to a thread that offended your sense of military secrecy.

The fact is...we don't know any more about you ToyCop...Than the guy, somebody said was Bomber pilot earlier in this thread, that claimed this was "all true", Or for that matter, any more than anybody on this board knows about me. The only diffence being, I'm not making any claims one way or the other, I'm simply trying to gathering information, on a topic of safety concern to us all.

The 1700 or so ArfCommer's who've read this thread, so far, will make up there own minds whether it's Bullshit or not. I don't think I'm going to change Wildboars mind. His take on all this, is his own, and thats as it should be. I value his input to the thread, just as much as I value the inputs of the people that have agreed with my own thoughts on the matter.

What matters, is the information is out there....Kind of like a storm warning. Sometimes the weatherman's right, sometimes he's wrong, but everybody wants to know if there's a tornado on the ground in their vicinity.

Quoted: Wildboar + 10,000 and mentioning all this on a public forums is a certainy way to get busted. Not if I'm discussing a news story, read by millions and posted on two seprate internet news sites. World net daily may be tin foil, but their listed on Drudgereport and have a huge readership.  I'd hazard a guess, that as much as 5% of ArfCommer's, read WND before logging onto this site every day, or at some point during thier daily browsing... Soldiers for the Truth has a sizable readership as well. The Fed's might go after Joe Fahah, or SFTT, But the last time I checked, there wasn't a law against my discussing an article, I read in a news paper, or on the world wide web.

I wasnt meaning you were guilty of blowing OPSEC. The original person who leaked the info, to have it travel around the net to places like here can be tracked if needed.

You are in the clear but whoever leaked it originally that is if it really happened as described, can and  should get into trouble.

Your last post I agree with totally, especially this part

What matters, is the information is out there....Kind of like a storm warning. Sometimes the weatherman's right, sometimes he's wrong, but everybody wants to know if there's a tornado on the ground in their vicinity.

Quoted: 07-15-2005 ALERT: Danger to US Commercial & Military Aircraft in CONUS By Roger Charles The following "REAL WORLD" notice was just received from an SFTT supporter. The full notice is a 2-page document posted below. The danger to US commercial & military aircraft in CONUS appears to be very real. TEAM TINKER BATTLE STAFF DIRECTIVE (BSD)  BSD # 41 DTG    140825L Jul 05L                   OPR: All                               SUSPENSE: Upon receipt SUBJECT:  BSD# 40 Amendment SITUATION:  On 14 Jul 05, three individuals were observed outside of the perimeter of Tinker AFB, OK.  They were looking through binoculars, taking pictures and one appeared to be holding a large weapon at chest level.  The weapon appeared to be aimed towards a low flying aircraft.  The three individuals were described as being of Middle Eastern decentand left the area when approached. The weapon was later identified as a rocket launcher (MANPAD) and the low flying aircraft to be a B-1 Bomber.  FBI in Oklahoma City and AFOSI determined the threat to be credible.  Due to this and other recent incidents and security concerns surrounding Tinker AFB, OK, the potential for suspicious activity in the Tinker AFB (TAFB) Area of Responsibility (AOR) has increased.  While there is no specific threat information directed towards the TAFB AOR, it is imperative that all personnel remember their responsibilities to report any and all suspicious activity they observe. MISSION:  The Eagle Eyes (EE) program is the USAF mechanism for early detection of criminal and terrorist threats.  All personnel stationed at TAFB must be reminded about the EE program and reporting criteria. TASK: 1.  Personnel must remain vigilant during their daily activities; take note of any abnormal activities/personnel and immediately up-channel EE reportable criteria as listed below. 2.  UCC’s will keep EE criteria accessible as a reference to facilitate rapid communication with law enforcement personnel as needed.   The following information must be communicated to TAFB personnel as soon as possible: TAFB personnel are reminded to keep a look out for any of the following suspicious behaviors: SURVEILLANCE: Someone recording or monitoring activities, including the use of cameras (both still and video), note taking, drawing diagrams, writing on maps, or using binoculars or any other vision-enhancing devices. ELICITATION: Anyone or any organization attempting to gain information by mail, fax, telephone, or in person about military operations or people. TESTS OF SECURITY: Any attempts to measure reaction times to security breaches or to penetrate physical security barriers or procedures. ACQUIRING SUPPLIES: Purchasing or stealing explosives, weapons, ammunition, uniforms, decals, flight manuals, passes or badges (or equipment to manufacture them) or any other controlled items. SUSPICIOUS PERSONS OUT OF PLACE: People who don’t seem to belong in the workplace, neighborhood, business establishments, or anywhere else.  This also includes suspicious individuals outside TAFB’s perimeter fence, those stopped along any adjacent roads, such as Hwy 193, Riverdale Road, I-84 and I-15.  Pay particular attention to individuals who appear to be out of place either on or off the installation DRY RUN: Putting people into position and moving them about without actually committing a terrorist act such as a kidnapping or bombing. An element of this activity could also include mapping out routes and determining the timing of traffic lights and flow. DEPLOYING ASSETS: People and supplies getting into position to commit the act.  This is the last opportunity to alert authorities before terrorism occurs. REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS;  UCC report acknowledgement of this tasking to your Battlestaff Rep.  Immediately report suspicious incidents to the LE desk at 801-777-3056. UCC REQUIREMENT:  Ensure this information reaches all levels within your unit.  Contact your Battlestaff representative to confirm receipt and compliance in notifying all personnel. BSD APPROVED BY:  Battlestaff Mission Director. ALERT: Danger to US Commercial & Military Aircraft in CONUS " Ok...First of all, let me state, that this came from an open source, availible to anybody with an internet connection. While anybody familiar with military document's, could have written this....I'm starting to lean twards the idea, this is for real. The reason for my concern should be obvious. I live in Stillwater Oklahoma. A large university town (OSU), less than an hour away from Tinker AFB, strait up I-35. Oklahoma City and Norman (OU) both have sizable muslim populations as well, but it occure's to me, that most of the London Bombers, lived in Muslim Communities outside, but within easy driving range of LONDON and that living in smaller muslim communities outside the primary target area, may be Al Qaeda doctrine. College towns like Stillwater, are the only places outside the OKC and Tulsa Metro areas, in Oklahoma, that  a terrorist of Middle Eastern decent, could fade into a community of  people that looked like them. So in other words...Stillwater would be a great place for a cell aimed at Oklahoma City to hide I'm not standing outside screaming "LOCK-N-LOAD MOTHERFUCKERS"...but I do want to know more about this deal.

Descent is spelled descent.
NOT decent.

That "directive" is either a bucket of steaming BS, or who wrote it shouldn't be writing
USAF "directives".

Quoted: <snip> So, what you seem to be telling us here Toycop, is that you don't have the slightest idea who the FBI interveiwed about this, or if they interveiwed anybody at all. This business about the FBI "leaning on an "Cracking" somebody, is shear speculation on your part, no better than my own...Unless your in the FBI...because those kind of details don't get put into bulletins sent out to every cop shop in MI. Do you think I would put something like that on a public forum if I did?  I'm not quite that dumb. Further more. I've been around long enough, to have seen the FBI deem some informants and sources Non-credible, that later turned out to be credible as hell...or does how the Zacharias Mousawi investigation was handled, just after his detainment, or the name Carol Howe of Oklahoma City Bombing fame, ring any bells. How did you "see" the FBI information?  How many stories have been leaked to the press that turned out to be total bull and retracted later?  Hell, there was one in England today. If your so concerned about OPSEC ToyCop....do you mind telling me what your doing revealing the contents of  these LEO only bulletins you claim you may or may not have access to, from your deptment, where you might or might not be a cop? I didn't and wouldn't reveal any information from a LE Sensitive bulletin to a non-LEO, let alone in a public forum.  Not everything received is LE Sensitive and a lot is transmitted over email in the open, but that still doesn't mean I'd send it to World Net Daily or SFTT or post in on here.  I'm sure there are members on here that know people on the base and could find out the truth. You see, there are some, things, that just don't quite add up about your story and motivations ToyCop, At least, not to me anyway. You'll forgive my suspicious nature ToyCop, because you would not be the first person, to ever try to misrepresent yourself on the internet and back up your story with bluster, but little in the way of facts or documentation. I don't have anything to prove to anyone here. You can believe it or not, I don't care, nor am I blustering. I say bull for my reasons and that's good enough to me. People are saying fact because it hit two news sites, whatever.  For people to panic about this is pretty silly to me. How do we know, your not just some ex military guy, with a hard on for OPSEC, thats offended by seeing what you consider national secrets posted on the internet and decided to try to pass yourself off as a LEO, in order to quash to a thread that offended your sense of military secrecy. A news story is far from a national secret.  I don't have a hard on for OPSEC, but I do have a problem with half truths being spread around like the gospel, especially when it's by the "media". I am ex-military (got out in 1994). The fact is...we don't know any more about you ToyCop...Than the guy, somebody said was Bomber pilot earlier in this thread, that claimed this was "all true", Or for that matter, any more than anybody on this board knows about me. The only diffence being, I'm not making any claims one way or the other, I'm simply trying to gathering information, on a topic of safety concern to us all. That's true, you don't. Some here know me...thousands don't.  I don't see how one "alleged" incident at an AFB is a safety concern to us all.  Are the recent bomb threats in airports around the country a threat to everyone or only those that fly frequently?  There a hundreds of suspicious activity reports a year.  All are investigated and either deemed credible or not.  If a public statement was made for every threat in every city, there wouldn't be anything else in the news. The 1700 or so ArfCommer's who've read this thread, so far, will make up there own minds whether it's Bullshit or not. I don't think I'm going to change Wildboars mind. His take on all this, is his own, and thats as it should be. I value his input to the thread, just as much as I value the inputs of the people that have agreed with my own thoughts on the matter. They will make up their own minds, but it is still just their opinion.  I believe I made it pretty clear when I said call AFOSI or the FBI and find out for yourself.  If I said I called AFOSI and they told me it was bull, would you believe me any more than you do now?  Of course not.  If anyone here is concerned and really wants to know they should call the LEOs involved and find out. Nothing anyone says on the internet is going to convince people. What matters, is the information is out there....Kind of like a storm warning. Sometimes the weatherman's right, sometimes he's wrong, but everybody wants to know if there's a tornado on the ground in their vicinity. Yeah, the information is out there, maybe we'll see a correction in a day or two.  Since the "incident" hasn't hit the big media markets maybe no one cares.  Hell, maybe it's a government cover-up that only World Net Daily and SFTT knows about.  Now think of all the information that isn't out there for public consumption.  That's the scarry part.

.

The quoted article is lighter in details and references to facts similar to water cooler conversations.  Nothing more there than any one of us couldn't dream up with a minute notice.

Been away for a while...I would have responded earlier.

Here's the bottom line:  whether or not there were actually people near the perimeter with a missile-like object, I cannot say, as I was not there.  However, we (and many other Air Force bases) did change our approach and departure procedures significantly for several days after the event.  And we did not make that change based on a simple news article.  Enough said.  

www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1102607.php

September 14, 2005 Suspicious object removed at Tinker Associated Press OKLAHOMA CITY — Emergency crews removed a suspicious object that was discovered Tuesday afternoon at Tinker Air Force Base and prompted an employee evacuation of several buildings, officials said. The device was found by an employee who was cleaning in Building 2211 near Douglas Boulevard, officials said. There was no immediate word on what kind of device was discovered. The FBI declared the area to be a crime scene and is investigating, base officials said. As a precaution, a section of Douglas Boulevard was closed and employees were evacuated from several nearby buildings. Bomb disposal experts were called to the scene, and a 1,000-foot cordon was established.

Bigfeet

Quoted: Been away for a while...I would have responded earlier. Here's the bottom line:  whether or not there were actually people near the perimeter with a missile-like object, I cannot say, as I was not there.  However, we (and many other Air Force bases) did change our approach and departure procedures significantly for several days after the event.  And we did not make that change based on a simple news article.  Enough said.

Were the threat so real I bet the procedures would have been changed for more than several days.

Quoted: Quoted: Been away for a while...I would have responded earlier. Here's the bottom line:  whether or not there were actually people near the perimeter with a missile-like object, I cannot say, as I was not there.  However, we (and many other Air Force bases) did change our approach and departure procedures significantly for several days after the event.  And we did not make that change based on a simple news article.  Enough said.   Were the threat so real I bet the procedures would have been changed for more than several days.

+1 and now maybe one of their guys just read this and they are loading up the cart and getting the donkey ready to make the trek back out there.

Standard security posture is to assume the threat is real until found to be otherwise, so their response to change flight paths for a few days until the threat's credibility was determined makes perfect sense.  The same about the flights over NY, they changed flight paths for a time until they determined that a missile was not involved.

Quoted: Standard security posture is to assume the threat is real until found to be otherwise, so their response to change flight paths for a few days until the threat's credibility was determined makes perfect sense.  The same about the flights over NY, they changed flight paths for a time until they determined that a missile was not involved.

Correct. Which is why I sad the Tinker story was dis-credited.  I think we're on the same wavelength here.

Quoted: Quoted: Standard security posture is to assume the threat is real until found to be otherwise, so their response to change flight paths for a few days until the threat's credibility was determined makes perfect sense.  The same about the flights over NY, they changed flight paths for a time until they determined that a missile was not involved. Correct. Which is why I sad the Tinker story was dis-credited.  I think we're on the same wavelength here.

I believe that we are.