How An American F-16 Pilot Was Given A Kamikaze Mission On Sept. 11

a reply to: roadgravel

I was both surprised and disappointed to see how the military functioned that day after years of cold war and trillions of dollars to build a defense for the US. I suspect it isn't much better today.

After the cold war things were scaled down.
Although I don't think we ever had plans to deal with an attack by our own passenger planes.

If you think about it, even today, what could we do if someone breeched to cockpit door unbeknownst the passengers?

There was that Egyptair flight 990 where the pilot intentionally crashed the plane.

You would think the capital of the worlds super power would have some air to ground missiles ready and active...............


WTF is that trillion doller military budget being used for if you can even protect your own freaking capital!

a reply to: samkent

That seems to be correct, but one has to always ask what is the benefit of reposting it? If there were no armed planes that went out as the story states, and they didn't trash their planes or collide, then the logical conclusion is that the plane went down as per the OS. Therefore the propaganda machine will never rest unless and until calls for a new complete and transparent investigation are heeded, and I don't think I'll be able to live another two hundred years in order to see that happen.

a reply to: crazyewok

WTF is that trillion doller military budget being used for if you can even protect your own freaking capital!

This aint Berlin in 42.
I doubt whether any of the worlds major capitals have air defenses.
Even today the only place with air defense is the Whitehouse.

originally posted by: crazyewok
You would think the capital of the worlds super power would have some air to ground missiles ready and active...............

WHY?

This is a lame argument I've heard quite a few times over the years. The US Capital hasn't been under threat of airstrikes since like never............ until 9/11

WTF is that trillion doller military budget being used for if you can even protect your own freaking capital!

Haven't you heard?

Million dollar toilets on the stealth bomber...

That's a play on emotions if I ever saw it...patsy.

Exersizes conducted off-shore depicting actual circumstances? Did those aircraft perform with munitions on-board?

pre-01 scrambles

Fighter jets are regularly scrambled by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in response to suspicious or unidentified aircraft flying in US airspace in the years preceding 9/11. [GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, 5/3/1994, PP. 4; ASSOCIATED PRESS, 8/14/2002] For this task, NORAD keeps a pair of fighters on “alert” at a number of sites around the US. These fighters are armed, fueled, and ready to take off within minutes of receiving a scramble order (see Before September 11, 2001).

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: crazyewok
You would think the capital of the worlds super power would have some air to ground missiles ready and active...............

WHY?

This is a lame argument I've heard quite a few times over the years. The US Capital hasn't been under threat of airstrikes since like never............ until 9/11

WTF is that trillion doller military budget being used for if you can even protect your own freaking capital!

Haven't you heard?

Million dollar toilets on the stealth bomber...

Why lame?

Sorry but the military should be ready for ANYTHING! Especially with the money thrown at it.

Id be epically pissed off that the military THAT I PAY WITH MY OWN MONEY TO PROTECT ME is not doing just that.

Yeah no expected to attack DC directly? SO WHAT? When has a enemy ether attacked predictably and in the most heavily fortified place? They don't unless they want to get there arse kicked.


Just because something has not happened for a while doesn't mean that its safe to let your guard down.

If anything a vulnerable place that has not been attacked for decades is the most likely attack spot.


Maybe your military should spend less time protecting Israel and Saudi Arabia and more time protecting the country its try to protect.


Does it not seem a wrong to you that USA fighter sets could be there to defend a foreign country at the drop of a hat but cant defend its own land?

a reply to: aboutface

Therefore the propaganda machine will never rest unless and until calls for a new complete and transparent investigation are heeded,

The conspiracy believers would never accept any new investigation as being 'fair and honest'.
After all by definition they don't believe anything from the MSM or Government.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: crazyewok

WTF is that trillion doller military budget being used for if you can even protect your own freaking capital!

This aint Berlin in 42.
I doubt whether any of the worlds major capitals have air defenses.
Even today the only place with air defense is the Whitehouse.

London has had fighters ready to scramble ect

To me the military is mean to protect the HOME LAND, its doing a pretty #ty job if a hijacked passenger plane with no weapons can just watlz into your capital and you cant stop it unless you ram it.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Just because something has not happened for a while doesn't mean that its safe to let your guard down.

In a while?

When was the previous airstrike?

The rest of your reply is simply Monday morning quarterbacking.

a reply to: crazyewok

Sorry but the military should be ready for ANYTHING! Especially with the money thrown at it.

How does the military protect us against a LNG tanker in SanFran harbor?
How does the military protect us against a truck bomb?

How do you then justify fighters and other forces on standby in every major city on the US?

PS the LNG tanker is as effective as a nuke and a very serious threat.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: crazyewok
Just because something has not happened for a while doesn't mean that its safe to let your guard down.

In a while?

When was the previous airstrike?

The rest of your reply is simply Monday morning quarterbacking.

So it does not seem odd to you that the USA could have fighters over Japan or Israel or even us in the UK at even a moments notice? But it cant do the same on your OWN soil?

a reply to: crazyewok

So let's click back the clock to that period.

The US was arrogantly self assured with the idea that the Oceans would give it protection and time needed to respond to early warnings against airstrikes not highjacked civilian airline jets.

Having said that, Just how many Civilian aircraft had been flown into buildings in terrorist attacks up til that date? Air defense are against incoming fighters/bombers etc. As I stated *Monday morning quarterbacking meaning, it's easy to sit back and judge actions done while not feeling the pressure at the time.

Here, I could do it too

The air defense fighters at Pearl Harbor should not have been guarded while parked neatly together in the center of the tarmac to prevent easy sabotage but rather armed to the teeth and sitting on the flight line.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

The US was arrogantly self assured with the idea that the Oceans would give it protection and time needed to respond to early warnings against airstrikes not highjacked civilian airline jets.

Thats the problem I see here. And who ever was in charge of the US mainland defences at that time IMO should be charged with negligence. Those at the top are trusted and PAID to not let things like that happen.

The fact the usa "arrogantly self assured with the idea that the Oceans would give it protection" as you put it at pearl harbour makes it doubly worse. As it should have been known large distances and and oceans are not defences.


This isnt to bash America. Im just horrified at the incompetence at the top that but my Americans brothers and sisters lives in danger.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: crazyewok

Sorry but the military should be ready for ANYTHING! Especially with the money thrown at it.

How does the military protect us against a LNG tanker in SanFran harbor?
How does the military protect us against a truck bomb?

How do you then justify fighters and other forces on standby in every major city on the US?

PS the LNG tanker is as effective as a nuke and a very serious threat.

Well maybe if the USA stopped giving money to country's that hate the USA and westren values it may have a few extra billion to think on some defences.

For one they can cut funding to Turkey which just told USA to basically go F itself in regards to ISIS.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: aboutface

The conspiracy believers would never accept any new investigation as being 'fair and honest'.
After all by definition they don't believe anything from the MSM or Government.

True enough government and the MSM have done such a fabulous job (Not!) exposing the Kennedy assassination to name one, but bare faced evidence that has not been fabricated to deceive is what we all want to see and know about. We will keep asking for truth and honesty and real evidence.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Thats the problem I see here. And who ever was in charge of the US mainland defences at that time IMO should be charged with negligence. Those at the top are trusted and PAID to not let things like that happen.

Defend against thousands of Civilian airline jets already over head?
It hadn't happened before 9/11 that's why it was such a shock and unique in it's delivery.

Now in 2014 it's a 'No Brainer'

The fact the usa "arrogantly self assured with the idea that the Oceans would give it protection" as you put it at pearl harbour makes it doubly worse. As it should have been known large distances and and oceans are not defences.

Agreed

This isnt to bash America. Im just horrified at the incompetence at the top that but my Americans brothers and sisters lives in danger.

So then

Are you advocating every major US city be ringed with Anti aircraft Missiles and air bases? Let's really let the terrorist win and become the most heavily fortified country in the world with our cities bristling with missiles, airbases and AA gun towers etc...

originally posted by: crazyewok
For one they can cut funding to Turkey which just told USA to basically go F itself in regards to ISIS.

Which might be used to strike targets in Syria, Are you ok with the US launching strikes on ISIS in Syria?

It's their country and they have a right of refusal even though they are part of NATO. I'm sure as bad as ISIS are Turkey will change their tune soon but until then. It's their right.

a reply to: crazyewok

Thats the problem I see here. And who ever was in charge of the US mainland defences at that time IMO should be charged with negligence.

Since the point of a terrorist attack is to strike in a place and manor not expected . . .

I'm sure you could think of a spot in your own city that is well populated and exposed.

a reply to: aboutface

an F16 can take down a passenger jet - with out weapons OR contact :

google : bumping

despite the moniker - its a contactless attack - using the afterburner and speed