Ferguson no-fly zone aimed at media

Informal discussions
Post Reply
L.G. Morgan

Ferguson no-fly zone aimed at media

Post by L.G. Morgan » Thu Nov 06, 2014 3:12 am

Image

WASHINGTON • The U.S. government agreed to a police request to restrict more than 37 square miles of airspace surrounding Ferguson, Missouri, for 12 days in August for safety, but audio recordings show that local authorities privately acknowledged the purpose was to keep away news helicopters during violent street protests.

On Aug. 12, the morning after the Federal Aviation Administration imposed the first flight restriction, FAA air traffic managers struggled to redefine the flight ban to let commercial flights operate at nearby Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and police helicopters fly through the area — but ban others.

"They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out," said one FAA manager about the St. Louis County Police in a series of recorded telephone conversations obtained by The Associated Press. "But they were a little concerned of, obviously, anything else that could be going on.

At another point, a manager at the FAA's Kansas City center said police "did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn't want media in there."

FAA procedures for defining a no-fly area did not have an option that would accommodate that.

"There is really ... no option for a TFR that says, you know, 'OK, everybody but the media is OK,'" he said. The managers then worked out wording they felt would keep news helicopters out of the controlled zone but not impede other air traffic.

The conversations contradict claims by the St. Louis County Police Department, which responded to demonstrations following the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, that the restriction was solely for safety and had nothing to do with preventing media from witnessing the violence or the police response.

Police said at the time, and again as recently as late Friday to the AP, that they requested the flight restriction in response to shots fired at a police helicopter.

But police officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed "rumors."

The AP obtained the recordings under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. They raise serious questions about whether police were trying to suppress aerial images of the demonstrations and the police response by violating the constitutional rights of journalists with tacit assistance by federal officials.

Such images would have offered an unvarnished view of one of the most serious episodes of civil violence in recent memory.

"Any evidence that a no-fly zone was put in place as a pretext to exclude the media from covering events in Ferguson is extraordinarily troubling and a blatant violation of the press's First Amendment rights," said Lee Rowland, an American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney specializing in First Amendment issues.

FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said in a statement Sunday his agency will always err on the side of safety. "FAA cannot and will never exclusively ban media from covering an event of national significance, and media was never banned from covering the ongoing events in Ferguson in this case."

Huerta also said that, to the best of the FAA's knowledge, "no media outlets objected to any of the restrictions" during the time they were in effect.

In the recordings, an FAA manager urged modifying the flight restriction so that planes landing at Lambert still could enter the airspace around Ferguson.

The less-restrictive change practically served the authorities' intended goal, an FAA official said: "A lot of the time the (lesser restriction) just keeps the press out, anyways. They don't understand the difference."

The Kansas City FAA manager then asked a St. Louis County police official if the restrictions could be lessened so nearby commercial flights wouldn't be affected. The new order allows "aircraft on final (approach) there at St. Louis. It will still keep news people out. ... The only way people will get in there is if they give them permission in there anyway so they, with the (lesser restriction), it still keeps all of them out."

"Yeah," replied the police official. "I have no problem with that whatsoever."

KMOV-TV News Director Brian Thouvenot told the AP that his station was prepared at first to legally challenge the flight restrictions, but was later advised that its pilot could fly over the area as long as the helicopter stayed above 3,000 feet. That kept the helicopter and its mounted camera outside the restricted zone, although filming from such a distance, he said, was "less than ideal."

None of the St. Louis stations was advised that media helicopters could enter the airspace even under the lesser restrictions, which under federal rules should not have applied to aircraft "carrying properly accredited news representatives." The FAA's no-fly notice indicated the area was closed to all aircraft except police and planes coming to and from the airport.

"Only relief aircraft operations under direction of St. Louis County Police Department are authorized in the airspace," it said. "Aircraft landing and departing St. Louis Lambert Airport are exempt."

The same day that notice was issued, a county police spokesman publicly denied the no-fly zone was to prevent news helicopters from covering the events. "We understand that that's the perception that's out there, but it truly is for the safety of pilots," Sgt. Brian Schellman told NBC News.

Ferguson police were widely criticized for their response following the death of Brown, who was shot by a city police officer, Darren Wilson, on Aug. 9. Later, under county police command, several reporters were arrested, a TV news crew was tear gassed and some demonstrators were told they weren't allowed to film officers. In early October, a federal judge said the police violated demonstrators' and news crews' constitutional rights.

"Here in the United States of America, police should not be bullying and arresting reporters who are just doing their jobs," President Barack Obama said Aug. 14, two days after police confided to federal officials the flight ban was secretly intended to keep media helicopters out of the area. "The local authorities, including police, have a responsibility to be transparent and open."

The restricted flight zone initially encompassed airspace in a 3.4-mile radius around Ferguson and up to 5,000 feet in altitude, but police agreed to reduce it to 3,000 feet after the FAA's command center in Warrenton, Virginia, complained to managers in Kansas City that it was impeding traffic into St. Louis.

The flight restrictions remained in place until Aug. 22, FAA records show. A police captain wanted it extended when officials were set to identify Wilson by name as the officer who shot Brown and because Brown's funeral would "bring out the emotions," the recordings show.

"We just don't know what to expect," he told the FAA. "We're monitoring that. So, last night we shot a lot of tear gas, we had a lot of shots fired into the air again. It did quiet down after midnight, but with that ... we don't know when that's going to erupt."

The recordings do not capture early conversations about the initial flight restriction imposed a day earlier, but they nonetheless show the FAA still approved and modified the flight restriction after the FAA was aware that its main intent was to keep the media away.

One FAA official at the agency's command center asked the Kansas City manager in charge whether the restrictions were really about safety. "So are (the police) protecting aircraft from small-arms fire or something?" he asked. "Or do they think they're just going to keep the press out of there, which they can't do."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/ferg ... 33686.html

Mike Sullivan

Re: Ferguson no-fly zone aimed at media

Post by Mike Sullivan » Thu Nov 06, 2014 3:19 am

Fred has a good column in which he notices things as they are... kinda.

Black Power; Fred's blog
http://www.fredoneverything.net/BlackPower.shtml

The theme is the power of blacks in national discourse, on TV, in what the laws are and how they are enforced... the conclusion is that they, the blacks, rule.

But after writing this:
  • It is curious that blacks, the least educated thirteen percent of the population, the least productive, most criminal, and most dependent on governmental charity, should dominate national politics. Yet they do. Virtually everything revolves around what blacks want, demand, do, or can’t do. Their power seems without limit.
Fred, ol' boy... if the blacks are least educated, least productive, most dependent on government free shit programmes, it is not THEIR power.

The non-functional retards, because that is what they are, DO NOT RULE by definition.

Somebody else has been pulling the strings; someone else rules...

There is also an invasion from the South; the numbers would alarm a Roman senator, quaestor, censor, general... and the Romans would take action to defend their nation state and their people.

The thing is, this is also happening in Europe. Instead of only blacks spreading like a virus, it is also the maghreb, "the arab street"- the moslems, and you can bet the quarter in your wallet that these are not the university educated elites.

Were Europeans polled about the invasion of their homelands, the wholesale destruction of their culture and indeed their towns (? Were we, the Americans? Of all skin colors?

If you look somewhat closer, you notice that this whole thing stinks. And how obvious it is.

Al Sharpton Must Be Crazy To Think Blacks Will Support Illegal Immigration; blacknewsweekly.com.
http://www.blacknewsweekly.com/blackbriefs2.html

Sharpton is not "crazy" - he is just a paid employee of the establishment and is doing what his boss(es) tell him to do; just like you do at your place of employment if you want to keep your position and benefits and not be fired.

Do you seriously think that black people want competition for low skilled jobs and social "gibs me dat" progammes? In that case, YOU are crazy.

So, Fred, blacks rule in America, eh? They are all powerful, hmm? Perhaps it is another (very, very powerful) social/elite group which has taken over power and is bending this "powerful" nation to its whims to accomplish THEIR goals?

Again, the same thing is happening in Europe.

Just google europe no go white areas...

In Europe, it is not usually the blacks (although they are imported/allowed to come just as enthousiastically as the somalis are in Chicago; there are hordes of somalis in chicago and its suburbs) who are the invaders - it is the moslems.


Lets take a look at what is going on in both North America and Europe.

The elites which rule over us (but are not "of us"; i.e. they are NOT OUR PEOPLE and they do not take into considerations our interests) work assiduously to pump as many non-White people into successful 1st world (read - highly civilized) countries.

There are official Orwellian policies and punishments alongside social stigma promoted by state and propaganda is pumped 24/7 into your brain (mass media, boy scouts, your union, your neighbors' association, your TV commercials).

But why?

The answer is very simple.

Jews took over the Weimar republic, taking advantage of Germany's catastrophic situation and their incredible organization, togetherness, skill, drive and intelligence (yes, lets not kid ourselves, your average Jew is smarter, better educated, better motivated than your average fat Joe Schmoe American - I know, most of my Jewish friends are successful entrepreneurs, taking risks mitigated by their network of self-help of their religious/ethnic cousins).

It did not work out so well for everybody (you HAVE to read this article: Dirty Little Secrets Of WWII The Hidden, Awkward Origins Of World War 2 By Jason Collett, if you have not done so before.

If you have, it behooves you to re-read it again.

And again.


The whole hitler phenomena, alongside NSDAP and total dictatorship and total war happened because the German people NOTICED that their bankers, the bosses they worked for, the factories they worked in, their newspaper owners, newspaper editors who had the final say on what was printed in them, their radio broadcasting, their culture - theatres, cinemas, books, and the magazines which reviewed them and the publishers which chose what and who to print... and the brothels and red light districts also (it is an interesting phenomena that Jews are very much into the porn business, something which should be investigated further...).

ALL OF THEM WERE OWNED BY JEWS (virtually all, of course, not the total 100%).

A small minority successfully hijacked a whole country, a whole nation state, a WHOLE PEOPLE and...

IT WAS NOTICED. AND ACTION WAS TAKEN.

... To the detriment of us all, with millions of White Europeans maimed or dead...


Being more intelligent than the idiots that they happened to live amongst, Jews again succeeded in taking over the countries where they COULD take over (no, not China).

That is why the same patterns are happening in Europe (now in Eastern Europe, also!) and North America.

Because when there is a homogenous population outsiders, invaders - THE ENEMY - is noticed when they are overwhelmingly present in top elite positions ruling and shaping the country.

Germans noticed that Brulensteins and Golds and Bernstains and Shmuelsons were in all the top positions in newspapers, factories, banks, with no sign of any Meyer or Hirsch or Schneider... but lots of Meyers and Hirschs and Schneiders were working for them, for a pittance, and literally starving and freezing...

While the Brulensteins and Golds and Bernstains and Shmuelsons lived in stupendous palaces or at the very least very expensive upper middle class homes.

They stuck out like sore thumbs.

Because in a homogenous society, it is very easy to notice THE OTHER.


Jews, unlike us Europeans, are not idiots and they learn from their mistakes. They do not watch or (old true gods forbid!) pay into modern panem et circes of "entertainment", porn and/or professional sports, where a White woman with a black detective arrest a White man pervert EVERY EPISODE, where a coked out of her mind blonde is bullied and mentally abused by her Jewish master, where black retards run or kick a ball on a painted grass field...

But I digress...

The solution to their conundrum was obviously not to assimilate and become just like us. They did not survive as an elite culture, able to thrive in ANY country they chose to locate in...

For a time, until the population has had enough - this has happened time after time after time, country after country, from ancient times. If you read the bible (yes, I know it is jewish propaganda, and you should read it with this viewpoint), one of the first "stories" is the Jews exile from Ancient Egypt...

Of course they were innocent lambs persecuted because, well, RACISM, duh!

And the same story was repeated roughly a hundred or so odd times.

Google Jews thrown out country and see for yourself.

When there is a pattern of them being thrown out of every country they settled in, by different cultures, religions and peoples, well, perhaps there was something more to the story than RACISM and anti-semitism (which is an even worse racism, because it is against the Jews, and so deserves its own word, unlike, say, the hatred of Congolese or Indonesians).

And this puts the whole bible exodus story in a different light, eh, my dear idiot christian believer?


The solution to their conundrum was to make the places themselves, where they chose to settle and rule, more fitting to themselves. More given to their purpose.


And so, most Jews I know in America have changed their names as they were granted citizenship status. (Interestingly, whole hordes of somalis, pakistanis, jews have no problems legally immigrating to this country, people from Eastern Europe like the Poles (my people) are not allowed to (legally) and all kinds of obstructions placed to prevent them from doing so).

Russian Jews changed their last names, a Bulgarian guy I know also did so, and another, and another...

So a Bernstein becomes a Mr. Smith. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Bern. And so on and so on...
Interestingly in Medieval Europe Jews who left the shtetl changed their names to be like the nobility (von Bern, for example). Like a chameleon which can adapt... they DO adapt.


But that is not enough. That will not do.

And so since Ancient Egypt all the way to the Weimar Republic, despite this (to them) natural behaviour, they still found themselves in trouble. Persecutions, pogroms, people just not liking them.

Because racism, of course.

All one hundred (and some odd fifty times?).

So the idea they hit upon is destroying the homogenous societies and making them into heterogeneous ones. Not one people - multiple PEOPLES, plural, as many as possible, with conditions being created to make them hate each other, or at the least fight for jobs, professional organizations, political positions, and the like.

If you look at what's going on GLOBALLY under this prism, things that did not make sense suddenly DO make sense.

Why do Jews work so hard to import hordes of moslems into France? Into the UK? Sweden?

moslems HATE jews, and there are real crimes committed by moslems against jews in Europe (actual "anti-semitism", if you will).

But yet Jewish leadership, elites and organizations do everything in their power to import the moslems wholesale into White countries.


Of course NOW you get it.

The lower class of people, us, the blacks, Whites, Asians, we will focus on each other and fight over admissions to universities, our neighborhoods... and everything is done to prevent different peoples living peacefully in their ethnic enclaves - governments in N. America and Europe have a slew of programmes to resettle different groups in populations centres of other groups.

Keep the conflict going in the lower levels of society.

Fight for the crumbs.

Us, the lower castes, the plebs, the cattle - the goyim.

That leaves the upper caste - and there is only one, regardless of the "frontmen" pushed in front of the cameras - to do as they please.


Meanwhile, we do not notice the fact that the Central Bank is ALWAYS staffed by Jews, run by Jews, and that it has always been so. It is acknowledged now that Jews own the media, with radio shows either being music which stupifies (rather, "music", with the lowest degenerate blacks and Whites promoted into being "superstars") or radio shows which discuss politics (and on today's NPR, we will discuss a great Jewish author, Welcome Mr. Shmuelson... Good to be here, Mr. Bernstein... Lets talk about White racism...).




As for that other stuff - voting, and foreign policy, hell, our rights as citizens and employees - well, we don't have neither the time nor the inclination to even spend one minute per day thinking about that.

Because...

It is hard to do so when Tyrone and Jose are shooting each other on your street while your home is invaded by Shaniqua and her boyfriend, LeThirdWerdTurd, and your daughter is groomed by the nice pakistani men to be a whore - and woe to you if you even try to say something about any of this...



Brilliant, terrifying, and effective.


It is so simple.

And so easy to spot if you spend even a moment of the day unplugging from TV "entertainment", and to do what Greek citizens did in Athens - get involved in YOUR COUNTRY.

Well, actually, is it NOT your country anymore... you have lost it... White European.

http://americangoy.blogspot.com/

Post Reply