F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11

[Live and Learn]

WASHINGTON — Late in the morning of the Tuesday that changed everything, Lt. Heather “Lucky” Penney was on a runway at Andrews Air Force Base and ready to fly. She had her hand on the throttle of an F-16 and she had her orders: Bring down United Airlines Flight 93. The day’s fourth hijacked airliner seemed to be hurtling toward Washington. Penney, one of the first two combat pilots in the air that morning, was told to stop it.

The one thing she didn’t have as she roared into the crystalline sky was live ammunition. Or missiles. Or anything at all to throw at a hostile aircraft.

Except her own plane. So that was the plan.

Because the surprise attacks were unfolding, in that innocent age, faster than they could arm war planes, Penney and her commanding officer went up to fly their jets straight into a Boeing 757.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/ar-AAebKjD?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=SL5BDHP

[Mika]

1. Uh huh.

“We had to protect the airspace any way we could,” she said last week in her office at Lockheed Martin, where she is a director in the F-35 program.

[Live and Learn]

3. Yep, I always suspected that was what they were planning to do.

Well, actually I thought they were planning to shoot them down. Now we know, if your plane is high-jacked don't call for help. You are on your own or dead anyway. Pretty frightening if you ask me.

[Mika]

5. What plan? To use 9-11 as marketing for the F-35? That plan?

So many heroes. So little done.

[mhatrw]

24. Yep. Everybody was a hero except the still living first responders and clean up crew.

Those sick people can fend for themselves.

We need to hear about more heroes who almost managed to respond in time to potentially save lives! You know, like Dubya and Cheney.

[artislife]

34. It is a national shame how we treated them

and continue to.

[hankthecrank]

2. That is one powerful Lady

Not sure a F-16 can get off the ground with a heart that big!

[treestar]

4. why would there not be any ammunition?

Makes no sense.

[Mika]

6. Its just using 9-11 and the heroes who did nothing for marketing the MIC. eom

[treestar]

7. That's what I'm thinking

What kind of defense do we have if we don't have armed air force jets?

[Mika]

8. Or multi billion dollar jets that can't fly in the rain.

That's the project the heroic pilot works for now.

[Mosby]

9. it takes an hour to load munitions on an f16

And back then we did not maintain combat ready planes at all times like now.

[treestar]

10. why not have some loaded and ready?

if something can happen at the drop of a hat.

[Mosby]

11. I don't know, seems pretty obvious.

[Wilms]

12. That would screw up the plan.

[TexasProgresive]

14. see my post #13

[jeff47]

18. There were....in Cape Cod.

The assumption was that they only needed to deal with aircraft coming from outside the US. So F-15s that regularly flew over the Atlantic to check out the planes coming in were armed.

Pretty much everything else was unarmed. Can't accidentally shoot something down if you don't have weapons.

[mhatrw]

26. What do they use these jets for if not training missions?

Don't tell me there were no training missions going on that day that could have been diverted.

Don't tell me that there was not a single fighter already in the sky that morning loaded with at least training rounds.

Come on.

[stevenleser]

30. You don't usually load live rounds for training missions. You use dummy munitions. nt

[mhatrw]

36. Yes. But they are still steel rounds.

The are still speedy steel projectiles. They just don't explode.

[stevenleser]

39. Yes, that are light and hollow. nt

[Travis_0004]

57. I thought dummy rounds usually had no propelent and primer

As such they would not fire, on cycle through the gun.

[mhatrw]

25. Any training fighter would have been loaded with blank rounds.

That is more than enough to take on a passenger jet.

[stevenleser]

32. Well, dummy missiles won't do anything. Training cannon rounds in the F-16 are hollow

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article5.html

It's questionable whether they would bring down an airliner.

[mhatrw]

35. They are made of steel. It's not as if the chambers are empty.

And it's not like an F-16 vs. a passenger jet is a fair fight.

[Juicy_Bellows]

37. Yeah but don't go bringing logic and reason into it!

Water carriers for how and why 9/11 went down will never garner my respect.

If they tried to take them out with blank rounds or at least scrambled around the hijacked planes then they'd have something, but they rest their hat on horseshit and go to bed easy. Perhaps they are the sane ones?

Cheers!

[stevenleser]

40. The logic and reason is that we are talking about rounds that were NOT loaded and speculating

if they would have worked IF they had been loaded and IF the planes had been fueled.

You conveniently skip that part.

[Juicy_Bellows]

41. The rounds, at the very least, were the planes themselves which were not scrambled.

We didn't even try to intercept. That's the problem.

[stevenleser]

43. The term "surprise attack" implies something not planned for and not expected. And the reason such a

thing poses an issue is that there are all kinds of problems dealing with an attack of type/place/etc. that you didn't expect.

As other posters have written, our air attack defenses were greatly drawn down after the end of the cold war and were geared towards an attack from across the atlantic or over the arctic. No one contemplated the need to have combat air patrols to protect us against domestic airliners or if it had it would have been rejected as impractical and likely unnecessary. Anyone requesting the funds to have active units ready for such a thing would have been laughed out whatever meeting at which they proposed it. No one had money to guard against imaginary threats that folks didn't foresee.

The US has a tremendous amount of airspace and coastline to defend if every airliner is a potential threat and certainly no one contemplated that it was a realistic possibility that they were all potential threats before 9/11.

[Juicy_Bellows]

44. Some truth in there. A lot of steaming dung too.

So we are all to believe that all of our ground and air vehicles were cold? We had no fighter jets or anti-aircraft weaponry hot? Even the Pentagon had nothing anywhere near it hot? No ground to air, or air to air hot?

Please man.

We had forces ready to go and they were ordered to stand down. Period. We can debate as to why but we must first agree at this point.


EDIT - we could have and should have scrambled anything with wings and our ground to missile tech is/was crazy accurate then.

[stevenleser]

46. Updated: None of it is steaming dung. Even now a commercial airliner attack on a random city

would be hard to stop once folks had gotten control of the planes. Do you understand the amount of airspace we are talking about?

Do you want us all to pay for the jet fuel required for 24x7x365 armed combat air patrols to be within striking distance of every large American city at all times? Do you know how much fuel these kinds of planes suck up on each flight/mission/sortie? It's massive.

Do you think that is a good use of money even post 9/11 when there has been exactly one attack like that in the history of this country?

I'm not even sure that the entire inventory of the USAF would have enough fighters to make that happen. Even with around 1400 fighters, there is 3.8 million square miles of airspace to patrol if we just count the airspace above US soil. A combat air patrol doesnt mean you use all the planes at the same time, there is a rotation. You have around 1/4 of the planes at your disposal in the air at any time, 1/4 on the ground sitting ready, 1/4 being maintained, etc. So we are talking about 350 planes to try to cover 3.8 million square miles of airspace assuming that is all we were doing with the entire USAF fighter inventory. Its not close to enough. 350 planes might cover most of the eastern seaboard.

And getting back to fuel, an F-16 uses around $4000 of fuel per hour. 350 planes doing Combat Air Patrol would use $1.4 million dollars per hour of fuel every hour every day all year. That's $12.2 Billion dollars of fuel per year to have 350 planes flying CAP all the time.

Where is your steaming dung now?

[Juicy_Bellows]

53. Ok.

And getting back to fuel, an F-16 uses around $4000 of fuel per hour. 350 planes doing Combat Air Patrol would use $1.4 million dollars per hour of fuel every hour every day all year. That's $12.2 Billion dollars of fuel per year to have 350 planes flying CAP all the time.

That's a drop in the bucket for what we pay towards the military every year - you know this.

Besides, we wouldn't need that many, but we should have a few here and there hot, ready to go at a moments notice. F-16s are quite a bit faster than passenger jets.

You still make no mention of ground to air defenses of which there are many.

The Pentagon for Christ's sake, nothing there either? No jets nearby, no ground defenses and controversely enough, no cameras either, unless we are counting those few frames of horseshit.

One other point -

Do you think that is a good use of money even post 9/11 when there has been exactly one attack like that in the history of this country?

Well, to listen to the pundits it sure seems to be priority number one, especially early after the attack yet no one has even suggested such patrols. That's interesting, no?

Could it be because we played a hand in it and know to further such endeavors would be meaningless?

Where the fuck does all our money go then?

What's the point?

[stevenleser]

56. LOL, ground to air defenses. See my #51, there are none save shoulder launched at the WH.

I don't think you get it. Russia and China and the folks we are really worried about have aircraft with standoff missiles that can launch several hundred miles from the coast/border like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-90 with a range of 1,900 miles and this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-15 with a range of 160 miles.

Needless to say, if an enemy aircraft is over US soil, that is a failed air defense situation. They need to be stopped LONG before that, and that is to what our defenses are geared. Not lobbing missiles or AAA at planes over US soil.

[Juicy_Bellows]

59. Ok. I don't think I'll waiver your beliefs in any way.

That sure is one glaringly huge gaping hole in our defense then eh? Get into our domestic airspace and we are as sure as dead. I must have imagined all the hijacks in the 80s, we didn't seem to react or learn from them at all. We were still worried about the Russians and the Chinese - I need to go watch Wolverines again to assess real threats.

I could go on about the Pentagon and other targets and all the anomalies but I think it's best for both of us to just call it.

Cheers!

[stevenleser]

64. More like, I don't think the empirical data is affecting your beliefs in any way, which is sad.

"Get into our domestic airspace and we are as sure as dead"

Um, we are well into the missile era. This isn't World War II where a plane had to be over a city and drop an unguided bomb on it in order to do damage.

If you let someone get within 150 miles of your coast/border, the attack is successful. Preventing that is what our air defenses are geared toward protecting us against.

None of the points you raise make sense. I probably should have mentioned early on that I am former USAF and have a pretty decent idea of all of the relevant facts here.

[Juicy_Bellows]

67. You don't address the points I raise.

You act as if- to quote you - "If you let someone get within 150 miles of your coast/border, the attack is successful. Preventing that is what our air defenses are geared toward protecting us against. "

Ok, if our enemies know this, which they must, wouldn't they attack inside our airspace? Like, I dunno, maybe another 9/11 but with weaponized devices this time? Seems like a cake-walk if all we give a shit about is the latest hotness out of Russia, China at a 150 miles out. Come on man, as a former USAF guy you must recognize and address all threats, especially those that have been the most successful (9-11 for the lead example).

I made mention of the numerous 80s hijackings which further lend credence to my initial failure assessment of 9/11.

[stevenleser]

68. No, that doesnt make sense either. What the Soviets did supposedly do...

is develop briefcase nukes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device#Russian

If you are already inside a country, why make the effort to launch and fly a plane? Hide suitcase nukes in buildings in cities around that country and at a time of your choosing set them off.

Or if not nukes, biological or chemical weapons. Or use conventional explosives against Dams or nuclear power plants or whatever else. If you have gotten inside a country, launching a plane is wasted effort.

[Juicy_Bellows]

70. Now you're talking sense.

However, the most successful attack on US soil was 9/11 and it was done with hijacked planes. You adjust for the possibility in the future, no? I think we had the capability to deal with it on 9/11 and you don't - that's fine. You must admit that we should prepare for that in the future though, right? I mean, sure, do our best to prevent them from taking control of an airliner but we must be ready if it happened again, we must agree here?

[stevenleser]

71. No, I don't agree. Outside of terrorists, this attack mode doesn't make sense for reasons I already

explained in my Soviet briefcase bomb message.

And regarding terrorists, the defense that makes the most sense is preventing they or anyone else from being able to get on the plane with any kind of weapon. Hence, the extremely annoying and intrusive but necessary security measures at airports.

[Juicy_Bellows]

72. So you are saying if they get past those pesky security measures at airports we shouldn't have a

Plan B?

"Sir"

"Yes?"

"We have reason to believe enemies have hijacked an airliner sir"

"Why didn't we stop them at the airport?!"

" I'm not sure sir, they fooled us."

"Oh well, increase the MIC budget some more."

"For more fighters to scramble in such an event sir?"

"No, to replace those low wage TSA agents."


Sounds solid!

[stevenleser]

75. What plan B? I've already shown you there aren't enough planes in the inventory

To cover all of US airspace.

Should we redeploy a SAM and AAA system with bases all around the country and hire the tons of folks we need to staff them 24x7?

Before we go too much further, what is your defense/military/national security background? You're not exhibiting a whole lot of knowledge in this subject.

[Juicy_Bellows]

76. We probably don't need air coverage over Alaska or Montana.

Last edited Sat Sep 12, 2015, 03:34 AM - Edit history (1)

However, we might be served by having some fighters ready to go along the Eastern and Western coasts in the event of a hijacking. We sure as shit should have the DC area covered but it wasn't.

I'll admit - my defense and military background is that of an asshole on the sidelines with a good fucking point.

I commend your service but I don't think you argue completely honestly.

Check above for evidence.

Cheers!

[stevenleser]

60. And, assuming we should spend the $22 billion and assuming all USAF fighters should be doing nothing

but this as you suggest. Do you understand what round the clock CAP using all USAF fighters on rotation would do to the airframes of those fighters? They would all be worn out within 18 months, requiring us to purchase another 1400 fighters every 1-2 years at a cost of what, $100 million an airplane. Now we are at well over a trillion dollars every 1-2 years for this.

[Juicy_Bellows]

62. Sure.

I already addressed the fact that we don't need a swarm in the sky but you keep positing that we don't need any domestic air security at all. So which is it?

Radar, intelligence and action is what we needed then and I hope to shit we have now. You seem to think it's futile especially before 9/11 and that is just the lamest argument to make for the largest military the world has EVER known.

[stevenleser]

66. We don't need any domestic air security/CAPs. This attack has happened once and is best addressed by

preventing terrorists from getting onto the planes in the first place.

Again, none of what you suggest makes sense from an economic, environmental, military or any other perspective.

[Juicy_Bellows]

69. Alright.

Let's not get into the people boarding the plane scenario which can happen in every country that has a flight landing in the United States. Let's try and monitor foreign governments and travel agencies the world over. OR, we could have a few sorties in every military base ready to go at 24/7. The fire and police departments somehow can do it, but the grossly over-funded military can't make it happen. Let's pry into everyone's emails.

I admit, I took some liberties in this post but I feel you are being disingenuous with your rebuttals.

[tblue37]

63. Don't forget how much pollution those planes would pump into the atmosphere to

contribute to climate change.

[stevenleser]

65. Yes, unbelievable amounts. For an attack that happened once and is better dealt with by preventing

terrorists from getting onto the planes in the first place.

The entire rabbit hole we have gone down here with round the clock Combat Air Patrols is ridiculous.

[Snobblevitch]

47. Are you saying that you belive that the U. S.

Air Force had armed fighter jets ready and willing to go on the morning of 09/11/2001 but were told to stand down by the Bush Administration?

[stevenleser]

48. I think that is exactly what he is saying. Being former USAF, I have a bit of an advantage in this

discussion. I've talked to F-16 and F-15 crew chiefs and drivers and have a fair idea of what it takes to load, fuel and get one of these beasts ready for flight.

The conspiracy theories are ridiculous, and we haven't even gotten to the 9/11 conspiracy theories regarding NORAD yet.

[Juicy_Bellows]

49. Yes. I do believe that.

Trillions of dollars in MIC and nothing on the ground on 9/11 could be made hot immediately? We just let the Pentagon sit there completely defenseless. I'll concede the fighter jets just for arguments sake (still don't buy it) but no anti air was hot? Okey dokey!

I don't know your posting history, so maybe you're taking the piss, in which case I apologize.

[stevenleser]

51. Anti air? When was the last time you saw an anti-aircraft emplacement in your travels around the US?

Please tell us when you have seen these. I'll help. You haven't seen them. We don't really have any. Our air defense plans do not contemplate the need to shoot down aircraft with ground based AAA or SAMs already over US soil. If enemy aircraft penetrate that far, it's a fail.

Our last widely deployed SAM system was deactivated in the 1970s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nike#Decommissioning

[nationalize the fed]

79. You can't be serious

Anti air? When was the last time you saw an anti-aircraft emplacement in your travels around the US? Please tell us when you have seen these. I'll help. You haven't seen them. We don't really have any. Our air defense plans do not contemplate the need to shoot down aircraft with ground based AAA or SAMs already over US soil.

Rubbish. You were in the Military? Hint- there's a reason the average traveler can't see where the US Anti-Aircraft missiles are. If you think about it for awhile you might be able to guess why.


"A rare glimpse of the missile battery on the roof of the "New Executive Office Building"





Washington Naval Yard Missile Battery
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/wny-mb/wny-mb.htm

You are asking readers to believe that the US fought the cold war without AA batteries protecting Washington DC? Hilarious.

[caraher]

81. This doesn't invalidate his point

These point-defense installations serve a very different purpose from the area-defense functions of the obsolete systems he was talking about. There are no currently deployed land-based anti-air systems in the interior of our country intended to defend large areas against a general air threat.

The systems you're highlighting are mostly things rushed into place AFTER 9/11, short-range defenses against light targets. That's not remotely what you need to control the airspace between cities. They do not replace the function of things like the Nike/Ajax batteries you could see all over the country when we worried about Soviet bombers during the Cold War.

[stevenleser]

85. Ah, you beat me to it. Exactly.

The antidote to conspiracy theories is research and facts.

Most conspiracy theories, like the ones about 9/11 rely on superficial analysis and innuendo. Once you dive in deep, the conspiracy theories fall apart.

[stevenleser]

84. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Most of those are relics from the 1970s and no longer

In operation.

What you just showed pictures of are not meant to stop the Russians or anyone else. Those are very short range weapons systems designed to try to stop a one off attacker from particular landmarks.

[Snobblevitch]

52. "Taking the piss".

What does that mean?

In 2001, and before, there had never been an airstrike by planes on the U.S. There had not been any reason to prepare for such an attack. (Canada and Mexico had made no threats.)

Do you seriously think there should have been SA-7, or Patriot Missle launchers surrounding the Pentagon?

[Juicy_Bellows]

55. It means pulling ones chain or having a go.

I don't think we should have been in the sky like a swarm of angry bees but we should have had a few military jets and ground to air contingencies ready to go 24/7. With the money we spend on defense, it sure was absent that day, no?

The Pentagon is supposedly the most heavily defended place on earth, how do you square that circle on 9/11?

[Snobblevitch]

58. "Taking the piss" is a vulgar and uneeded phrase to be used on DU.

There had never been an air-threat on the U.S. since WWII. Do you really think we should have had fighter jets at all U.S. airbases ready to go in ten minutes around the clock. For how many decades should this have been the norm?

[Juicy_Bellows]

61. What? Chill on the uneeded phrase BS. It's as common in England as cherry pie in the States.

Around the Pentagon, yes. There were quite a bit of commercial hijackings in the 80s and YES we should have had some planes ready to go 24/7 - what the hell else are we spending the money on?

[Snobblevitch]

73. Are you a Brit? If so, piss off.

[Juicy_Bellows]

74. Wow, Ok. Jesus, they are characters on the screen written by a fellow human.

I will not go into my demographics as they play no part in the previous discussion.

I however, wish you a good evening.

Cheers!

[oneshooter]

15. Since US airspace was not concidered a combat zone

Aircraft on the ground were not armed.

I believe that policy has changed.

[TexasProgresive]

13. Unready and unarmed

I was ignorant of the fact that we no longer had viable air defense of the U.S. Back in the day 2 of the out of route air liners would have been brought down. I don't think it probable to intercept the 2nd plane after the 1st attack. It is possible if we were maintaining hot birds (armed and ready) that as soon as the airliners turned off their transponders F-16s would've been in the air in a very few minutes. I wonder if it is any different now.

[jeff47]

20. The armed planes were used to patrol the Atlantic.

The assumption was that the only aircraft they had to worry about were aircraft coming from outside the US. So F-15s based out of Cape Cod were armed, and would check out planes coming into US airspace.

There basically wasn't enough time to get those planes back from the Atlantic, or launch new planes. They got two in the air about when the Pentagon was hit. They were sent to intercept the 4th plane, but it crashed before they got there.

Also, the only radar we had that could find an airplane were pointed out over the oceans. Internal "radar" relied on transponders instead of detecting the aircraft directly. Made it a lot harder to find the planes.

[TexasProgresive]

21. When we had and Air Defense command

There would be hot birds ready to respond all over. A lot of them were at Air National Guard bases.

[stevenleser]

38. ADC became NORAD. nt

[mhatrw]

27. Because the Atlantic is so, so far away from the East Coast. Right?

You'd need a plane to get there!

[stevenleser]

42. You mean from Cape Cod where the armed F-16s were to DC or NYC?

Cape Cod to NYC, which is closer of course, is 250 miles. Cape Cod to DC is around 470 miles.

An F-16's combat radius is around 400 miles so an intercept of the Pentagon plane is out of the question without aerial refueling which itself takes time.

To have intercepted the second NYC based plane, time to intercept assuming the plane had already been fueled and armed and once it had taken off and had gotten to cruising speed (around 500 Mph) and altitude would have been around 30 minutes. Sure, an F-16 can go faster than 500Mph if you use the afterburner, but the afterburner consumes massive amounts of fuel and reduces combat radius significantly.

There was only 17 minutes between the first plane hitting the north WTC tower and the second plane hitting the south tower. So assuming an immediate takeoff, an F-16 would have arrived in NYC 13 minutes late.

Assuming immediate and instantaneous takeoff once the first plane hit, unlimited fuel and that the F-16 could use max afterburners the whole way and hit its maximum speed of 1350 Mph, it could have arrived in time. But that is fantasy-land kind of stuff.

[jeff47]

82. 100 miles into the Atlantic, along the route planes from Europe fly is.

Remember, planes fly in from Europe from pretty far North.

[treestar]

90. What an assumption

After the zillions we pay for "defense."

[treestar]

88. Exactly. What are they for if they are not armed?

And not there ready to go at any minute? We spend so much money on "defense" and now they tell us our air force might have had to do a suicide mission? We don't require that of our military and never should.

[LittleBlue]

16. Incredibly brave

Thanks for your service

[lpbk2713]

17. I hope the GOP members of Congress think of this ...

the next time they want to take away any benefits from any veterans.

[mhatrw]

19. How this narrative has changed over the years.

"We were always trying to shoot down Flight 93."

George Orwell would be proud.

[BlueJazz]

22. Whoa Go Girl!

[Snobblevitch]

23. Those two pilots are quite impressive.

They had little time to plan how they were going to make that airliner crash. They needed to make sure they could take it out, thus the plan to ram it.. I bet they could have made it crash by playing chicken with it and not actually ramming it.

[jmowreader]

28. Maybe, maybe not

They probably had those planes on autopilot, and autopilots give no fucks whatsoever.

[Chan790]

29. Wouldn't wake-turbulence disruption have been the better choice anyways?

Given, I'm not an aeronautics engineer (both of my parents were for Pratt and Whitney...I'm too lazy to go get the phone and call my mom to ask) but wouldn't the jetwash and wing-vortices of two afterburning F-16s doing flyby at extreme near-distance have been sufficient to basically knock a passenger jet out of the sky? You don't even have to make contact, just get really close and light-up the air directly in front of the wings of the passenger jet. Those military-grade engines move a lot of air and they do it really really really hot.

Given an experienced jet pilot would probably recover control and flight-worthiness...but these weren't experienced jet pilots hijacking the planes.

[stevenleser]

45. I wonder. I think the jet wash/vortices affect fighter planes with a smaller wing surface much more

than a commercial airliner, particularly a large one like a 757 or 767 that have very large wings that produce a lot of lift.

See this list of incidents from wikipedia. Where large aircraft have been affected, the culprit was another large aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_turbulence#Incidents_involving_wake_turbulence

[Travis_0004]

54. I wouldnt think so

Fighter planes are very small.

Wake turbulance is certainly a factor. A small plane following a large plane should be about 6 nautical miles back to avoid wake turbulance.

A large plane can follow a small plane as close as it wanted. Wake turbulance wouldnt be a factor. Seperation is needed to avoid a crash, but they could theoritically be stacked much closer together.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Seems like half this thread got lost on the way to creative speculation

Yes, it was a conspiracy to not have the planes loaded and ready with live ammunition.

[mhatrw]

77. It was rank incompetence not to get a training fighter there whether

the rounds were dummy or not.

On any given morning, there are scores of fighters [n]in the air on the Eastern seaboard. Some of them should have been rerouted once it became painfully clear the USA was under attack. The idea a terrorist hijacking and crashing scenario had never been anticipated or planned fo is patently absurd. There is plenty of pre-9/11 documentation showing that this exact scenario was planned for. So why was everybody asleep at the wheel on the day it happened? And why wasn't that ever investigated?

We expect far too little of our then $500 billion a year military. We breathlessly congratulate them for their ever-changing feelgood stories about almost getting there in time. It's fine, I guess, if it makes you feel good, but just a bit silly. What good is an airforce to the average US citizen if it is utterly helpless in the face of domestic passenger jets?

[mhatrw]

77. It was rank incompetence not to get a training fighter there whether

the rounds were dummy or not.

On any given morning, there are scores of fighters [n]in the air on the Eastern seaboard. Some of them should have been rerouted once it became painfully clear the USA was under attack. The idea a terrorist hijacking and crashing scenario had never been anticipated or planned fo is patently absurd. There is plenty of pre-9/11 documentation showing that this exact scenario was planned for. So why was everybody asleep at the wheel on the day it happened? And why wasn't that ever investigated?

We expect far too little of our then $500 billion a year military. We breathlessly congratulate them for their ever-changing feelgood stories about almost getting there in time. It's fine, I guess, if it makes you feel good, but just a bit silly. What good is an airforce to the average US citizen if it is utterly helpless in the face of domestic passenger jets?

[Historic NY]

33. President Cheney order the shoot downs...

since dim son was playing hide and go seek.

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. Something no one seems to understand: When you strap one of those planes onto your back...

you're putting your life on the line and have decided to put your fate into the hands of those who designed it, and those who maintain it.

Sometimes I think people believe Servicemen and Servicewomen only put their lives on the line during times of war.

Having worked the flight deck of four different Aircraft Carriers, all during peacetime, I can tell you that's not the case.

[trof]

83. Exactly.

I was an air guard troop.
Every time I did a night refueling in an F-84 dodging thunderstorms over Tennessee I knew I was putting my life on the line.

Of course I was young and bulletproof back then, so I didn't dwell on it.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

80. There are a number of jobs in the military where sacrificing yourself for the many is part of

job.

This is not news at all she and the media are making a much bigger deal out of it then it really is.

IT is part of the deal when one joins the military you very well may have to give orders where you know people are going to die and you very well may be given orders where you know the odds are extremely high you will die.

Don't want to die for your country, don't join the military.

[EX500rider]

86. Actually there very few kamikaze like suicide jobs in the US military..

.....many missions may have a poor chance of success but generally we don't give out mission orders with a 100% fatality rate.

The only instance i can think of was the Green Berets had a cold war mission where they would parachute in with backpack nukes and were ordered to guard the munitions till they went off.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

87. Most of them are not talked about even by the people who know full well they may have to do it

it is what it is.

[treestar]

89. Not like that though

In a fight / battle, but not purposely. They should not have to die like that for their country. Let's get over ourselves. Who owes us that? Nobody.