• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US shoots down ‘high-altitude object’ over Alaska, White House says

lwf said:
It wasn't unidentified. It was identified by the pilots. They just haven't released this information to the public at this point.
Click to expand...
What the NSC spokesperson said is they don’t know what it is, who owns it, or what’s it’s purpose is.
 
Napoleon said:
What the NSC spokesperson said is they don’t know what it is, who owns it, or what’s it’s purpose is.
Click to expand...
No he didn't, but since you're arguing in bad faith that won't matter to you.
 
Cardinal said:
No he didn't, but since you're arguing in bad faith that won't matter to you.
Click to expand...
Stop lying.

“We are calling this an “object” because that is the best description we have right now,” said Mr Kirby.
“We do not know who owns it, whether it is state-owned or corporate-owned or privately owned we just don’t know.
“We don’t understand the full purpose, we don’t have any information that would confirm a stated purpose for this object.”
 
Napoleon said:
Stop lying.

“We are calling this an “object” because that is the best description we have right now,” said Mr Kirby.
“We do not know who owns it, whether it is state-owned or corporate-owned or privately owned we just don’t know.
“We don’t understand the full purpose, we don’t have any information that would confirm a stated purpose for this object.”
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean they don't know what it is. But again, since you're arguing in bad faith that won't matter to you. You just came to this thread to be argumentative, not because there's anything you believe in.
 
Firstly, an altitude of 40,000 is not normally an altitude where you'll find commercial flights. Or my memory isn't so great. Been out of that business for a long time. In fact, didn't they state that balloon over CONUS was not a threat to commercial air travel because it was at about the same altitude? I think they need new writers at that organization.

Secondly, what the heck does that "reasonable threat" mean? A bloody threat is a threat, or so I thought. What's an 'unreasonable threat'?

And now they can collect the pieces much easier off the ice.

EDIT: But I see the thread I thought I would post in was dumped and we already had one and you folks are having questions anew. Some of you are correct that something is a tad odd here. For example, why the heck even tell the public at this early stage?
 
Great, now MTG will be wearing her white fur coat while carrying a white balloon to this Sunday's Super Bowl Game. If this was another white balloon shot down. Wait a minute - why didn't the Pentagon summoned S Palin to shoot the balloon down from her back porch with her mighty magnum moose rifle - look at the money that could have been saved!!!:p
 
medi said:
Firstly, an altitude of 40,000 is not normally an altitude where you'll find commercial flights. Or my memory isn't so great.
Click to expand...
Commercial flights are at around 36,000 feet, can go up to 42,000. Military is a bit higher.

medi said:
Secondly, what the heck does that "reasonable threat" mean?
Click to expand...
Not much. It probably just means they suspect it's another spy ballon, but could be a totally harmless weather balloon.

medi said:
For example, why the heck even tell the public at this early stage?
Click to expand...
Because the media had a massive two week freak-out over the spy balloon. If they don't tell people and it gets spotted, we'll have yet more hysterics.
 
medi said:
Firstly, an altitude of 40,000 is not normally an altitude where you'll find commercial flights. Or my memory isn't so great. Been out of that business for a long time. In fact, didn't they state that balloon over CONUS was not a threat to commercial air travel because it was at about the same altitude? I think they need new writers at that organization.

Secondly, what the heck does that "reasonable threat" mean? A bloody threat is a threat, or so I thought. What's an 'unreasonable threat'?

And now they can collect the pieces much easier off the ice.

EDIT: But I see the thread I thought I would post in was dumped and we already had one and you folks are having questions anew. Some of you are correct that something is a tad odd here. For example, why the heck even tell the public at this early stage?
Click to expand...
You retire from Pan-Am or TWA?

Civilian air traffic uses altitudes from 33,000’ to 42,000’.
 
Maybe a drone?
 
Rexedgar said:
You retire from Pan-Am or TWA?

Civilian air traffic uses altitudes from 33,000’ to 42,000’.
Click to expand...
Yep. My sons Delta flight this week was at 42k
 
Cardinal said:
If he revealed what the object was that would have absolutely no bearing on your position.
Click to expand...
You have no principles. That’s why you’re in here supporting stupidity and defending shooting something without even knowing what it is.
 
So...they are able to detect this thing...about the size of a car...over Alaska, but they couldn't detect that balloon with a payload the size of three school buses when it was over Alaska.
 
Napoleon said:
You have no principles. That’s why you’re in here supporting stupidity and defending shooting something without even knowing what it is.
Click to expand...
If you knew what it was you would change your line of attack to something else.
 
The General called it an ‘aircraft’ and immediately said object.
 
CaughtInThe said:
I think this is a thread where we're going to find out that a bunch of old conservatives just have to be mad all the time.
Click to expand...
"Find out?" :D

To be fair, there are plenty on the left who are equally on the constant hunt for outrage.
 
Rexedgar said:
You retire from Pan-Am or TWA?

Civilian air traffic uses altitudes from 33,000’ to 42,000’.
Click to expand...
Without going too far off-topic, my remembering is that most companies don't like to push an airframe up toward service ceilings because of maintenance cost increases when you do that. I seem to recall that 36,000 to about 39,000 was about right, depending on meteorological conditions. Other air traffic is also a determining factor, too. But 40,000 20 years ago just wasn't the normal cruising altitude that I remember.

But weren't they stating that balloon thingy wasn't a threat to commercial flights at 40,000, no?

By the way, most of my flight time was military choppers and we never got up there. I think that box car used to do altitude records off-and-on, but don't remember how high.
 
The fail displayed in this thread, given the reaction to the last balloony thingy, is epic.
 
When drones violate airspace we shut it down until they clear. This was different somehow
 
Napoleon said:
No, based on what the NSC spokesman said in the press briefing.
Click to expand...
Yes ... like I said. No matter what or who you want to believe, the military doesn't broadcast everything it does, nor the reasons why. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom