F-16 pilot was ready to ram hijacked plane on 9/11
 

Pretty interesting, Never read this before.

"We wouldn't be shooting it down. We would be ramming the aircraft because we didn't have weapons on board to be able to shoot the airplane down," ... "The people on Flight 93 were heroes, but they were going to die no matter what," she said.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6627/990lhco6em55.jpg


http://news.yahoo.com/f-16-pilot-rea...138786.html?nc


.

I remember reading at the time that jet fighters were scrambled for just that purpose, but I didn't know that they might have to resort to kamikaze tactics.

A very brave woman.

Thank you to the extraordinary heroes, as well as to the ordinary everyday ones.

Peace and love,

ADG

This is suprising. But I liked the other story better. Where they say "Let`s roll" and then they attacked the terrorists to save America.

no weapons on board? why not?

I bet Santa Claus and Rudolph had a radar lock on that plane as well. What people don't know is the Easter Bunny was the terrorist cell leader on that plane........which mysteriously disappeared into the earth leaving a small crater and no debris. But hey, don't question authority.

You might get suicided with two rounds to the head with your hands tied behind your back.

good on her for serving well

You're not one of those so called "truthers" are you?

You always struck me as being a bit smarter than that.

That report is fake. Notice a really good looking fighter pilot to make you believe it was true.
http://911notes.blogspot.com/2009/05...flight-93.html

Try this version of events with evidence.

Sorry folks, I'm just gonna have a hard time believing that jets scrambled in defense of our airspace get sent up unarmed.

Do I have to post the entire article for you? :mad: :winkwink:

There, now get back to investigating! Journalists---sheesh!!!

ADG

Just heard a report yesterday about the planes were fully armed. No way in hell would they go up unarmed.

So many Sally Rands now a days

ummmmm sounds insteresting :)

A one ton piece of an engine was found over a mile away from the crash site. This combined with eyewitness accounts of a midair explosion point to it being downed by a heat seeking missile.

Another thing I find interesting is that all of the major members of the government went to the Shanksville ceremonies yesterday and today and none of them to the Pentagon or WTC. Obama, Biden, Clinton, Bush.... kind of odd. It's as if the government has a special connection to the Shanksville location.

How far do you think a 2000 pound metal object might bounce and travel when hitting the ground at 500mph? A mile or so?

The opposite of truther is _ _ _ _.

I know, right?

Our military has always been trained to to look outwards for an attack. But still, we never know where an attack is going to come from. Why wouldn't we have fully armed planes standing by, waiting to be scrambled?

agreed... They usually arm the jets in the hangers before they get onto the run way & the jets on carriers are usually kept armed :2 cents:

I've seen a pitcher throw a baseball at 98 miles per hour and it bounced on
the ground but it didn't bounce 1/4 of a mile away.

So I don't know, maybe a 2000 pound metal baseball would have bounced further.


:uhoh

Wow, comparing the kinetic energy of a baseball to a 2000 pound metal object traveling at 5X the velocity. Did you even go to school at all?

Hey I said I didn't know. Why get mean?

And I did use 1/4 mile instead of a mile, can you give me credit for that.

What should I use to make the comparison?

Car wreck, previous plane wreck, train wreck, cannon fire?

Why don't you give all us stupid people who didn't go to school the proper
comparison so that we can understand?

That would be more helpful.

A person, or persons, who don't hear voices inside of their head :upsidedow

I could imagine, depending on the angle of a crash, with something of that size having a major effect of where parts of it would land. Most car, train or bike accidents are horizontal, and therefore the trajectory of the item is flung into the air. As long as the force was higher than the weight ratio, the item could be thrown far. With a plane driving into the earth, it would be more so the explosions or the parts that were fired from the other moving part :2 cents:

One of the voices inside my head agrees with you, the other doesnt :winkwink:

It's difficult for me to grasp the idea that you can't intuitively understand the difference by simply observing the world around you. I would hope that your own comparison of an object weighing 5.25 oz traveling at 98mph and object weighing 2000lbs traveling 500+mph would be self explanatory with respect to the kinetic energy each would possess and their respective abilities to travel any distance once released.

It's because the US only spends about $800 billion a year on military. You need to up that by a few billion if you actually wanted ARMED fighter jets.

heh... world's super power sent up unarmed aircraft during an attack on home soil? Pretty fucken unlikely...

Was it Jimmy Carter or Reagan who, as a cost saving measure, all but emptied this nation's mental hospitals way back when?

Whoever it was, it was a most unfortunate decision.

You haven't shown me a mathematical model that will estimate the distance.

You didn't provide the "proper comparison" that I asked for.

So basically you want me to blindly believe you without question.
(Hmmmm, you may have a future in government :1orglaugh)

I'm willing to believe, just show me some actual data, or formula, or previous event.

This isnt true... the weight of an object doubled, doesnt mean the double speed would make it travel as far.

Something 5times the weight needs much more power or speed to reach the similar place.

It is similar with effect of speed, the air thickens the faster something travels, therefore it takes so much more power to find just the extra 5mph at high speeds :2 cents:

Give me a break....there is no way in hell those jets did not have weapons on board.

f16 costs like $20million. id be cheaper to have weapons on board at all time than not. story sounds a bit staged

That doesn't even make sense. But thanks for your "effort"

BTW... in this case, we are comparing an object that weighs 5.25 oz's and an object that weighs 6095 times more.

Take 6 hours off and put a cold towel on your forehead before you attempt thinking again. I think you've already pushed yourself a little far for the week.

"power"? The word you are looking for is velocity. And the 2000lb engine is already doing 500+mph when released, it's not accelerating to 500+mph. The question is how much distance does it require (all relevant factors considered) to come to a rest from 500+mph decelerating to 0mph and assuming it became detached and airborne again on impact with no other decrease or increase of force acting on it.

The properties of air do not change as the speed of the object increases. At least not at this speed. You, in what is a painful to watch attempt at appearing to have some semblance of intelligence, are trying to describe resistance and drag.

Seriously... do you try to be retarded? I mean, after a while it starts to seem this all has to be an act. Are you, Paul Markham, Bittiebucks and DVDTimes part of some underground British club who's primary goal is to prank unsuspecting webmasters by pretending to be indescribably stupid on internet forums?

Why dont you take a running jump off this ski jump, maybe work out that what I said made perfect sense & maybe you should back off.....

Watch this & learn about weight, speed & projectory, velocity & everything else that goes together to see that something as heavy as a plane falling from the sky wouldnt nessessarily bounce or be flung a mile but at the same time, with the weight, as long as the angle was right, it could go further than something lighter.

http://www.topgear.com/au/videos/mini-ski-jump

:1orglaugh

i live near many airbases and the only time they have weapons on board is when they go to war. Other than that they flight without weapons so it does not seem absurd at all. I know this as I have friends who work there.

none of this they have weapons on all the time bullshit.


now to defend national airspace is different I can't say, maybe it's true maybe it's not. But there is one clear fact, america was not in anyway prepared at all for this and thus it could be credible.


and why the fuck would they lie about this?

one thing is very funny though gfy'ers arguing about physics ^^

QFT. :thumbsup

I was in a Navy aviation squadron that had tactical nuclear weapons, and we sure as hell didn't fly around with them armed all the time, especially not at our home base in the US.

Whenever we were at high alert, we had to patrol our aircraft in the hangars and on the tarmac with shotguns loaded with pellets, in order to not pierce our own aircraft fuselage skin in case we had to fire (and these were reinforced military aircraft, not a civilian passenger liner).

There is a possibility that the National Guard pilots could have brought the aircraft down with the "bullets" they had on board (hint: they are slightly bigger than the bullets in handguns). I'm guessing this would have been attempted before smashing into the aircraft if they were over a relatively unpopulated area.

A reason to scramble the first two jets without air-to-air missiles immediately is to at least have some means to take out the hijacked aircraft while the other aircraft were being armed. If the other two aircraft with missiles could have been scrambled in time, I'm sure they would have taken the shot.

A salient point overlooked by the conspiracy theorists that claim the hijacked jet was shot down by a US military aircraft (and hence this is all a cover-up), is that what the whole story above underscores, is that indeed we would have taken down the hijacked aircraft if the brave passengers on flight #93 had not first sacrificed themselves, and for the same reason - in order to spare the nation further carnage. Basically, there was nothing to cover up there.

We can armchair quarterback this to death, but I would guess that post-9/11, there are intercept aircraft which are armed with air-to-air missiles 24/7/365 near DC.

Also, in case you weren't aware, there are surface to air defenses covering Washington DC. :2 cents:

ADG

the lady is a hero ready to sacrifice her life for strangers and you people call her a liar. how awful.

I'm fairly certain Gary doesn't have even a sixth grade education. He doesn't even make sense half of the time speaking in his mother language. Trying to educate him is a total and complete waste of time.


I mean come on, he doesn't even know the difference between mass and weight. He honestly does think that air "gets thicker" as objects move faster. Not to mention his calculations use an unknown factor called projectory.

Agreed, all that pussy in life, especially on GFY to look at, & we argue about science :thumbsup


I do not know the difference between the size of something & the weight of it? Where did you get that from? I think it is you that cannot speak a word of English & most certainly needs to learn to think before they type if you do not believe that the faster an object moves through air the harder it is to travel as air becomes more dence :2 cents:

I put it to you, you have little brains, are very ignorant & need to sort your life out :thumbsup

Gary, you're not smart enough to understand it, but every post you make just puts another exclamation point on how stupid you are. Really, quit while you're ahead.

This is pure comedy gold. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

This is an amazing article in Vanity Fair on NORAD's response on 9/11 and includes audio between the pilots and air controllers...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...08/norad200608

That's the only magazine I still have a subscription to ..... .

If one quit while ahead, one would be overtaken.....

However, I'm merely posting what I know to be true & not to be ahead, I believe in equality :thumbsup

I seriously do not understand why anyone would say "quit while you're ahead", it sounds like a person pursuing, are you pursuing me :2 cents:

God damn are you one slow idiot Gary. Unbelievable.

I guess I'm not too much better, given that I'm here trying to herd cats. Good luck figuring out what that one means, Einstein.

Long read (Vanity Fair is known for that), but a very interesting narrative and timeline told from the perspective of the military decision makers.

I remember watching as the events unfolded, and even at that time, wondered when it would stop, and how difficult it must have been for the people in charge to make decisions in the face of such an unprecedented attack.

Thanks for sharing! :thumbsup

ADG

Pretty sexy fighter babe. Getting rammed by her at 10,000 feet --or even at sea level --might not always be a bad thing!

:)