Such a gut wrenching and agonizing decision to consider. Thank God they didn't have to actually have to follow through.

There was a lot of sorrow on that fateful day, but also heroic actions by people who refused to just allow themselves to be slaughtered by fanatics.

Those men on flight 93 that planned and took action within 25 minutes of figuring out what was happening are real American Hero's. These fine military folks are too.... of course.

A gallant attitude from dedicated countrymen. I think I might have tried to get an engine with the 105 20mm rounds I had first though.

You can never overstate the courage of our volunteer armed forces. As always, my hat's off to them.

Our men and women in uniform deserve the best, even if it bankrupts our Country. No cost is too great in order to keep Corporate America's children from their shared sacrifice in defending freedom.

Everyone should have to go into the military after college/high school for a minimum of 2 years. Our society would be so much better off.

I wouldn't say God had anything to do with it, if God had time to bless them then God would have time to prevent the tragic event from happening. Anyways, I'm guessing what was going on through their minds was the same thoughts the Japanese kamikaze pilots were thinking. Anyways, I thank each soldier for what they have done in defense of the country, the sacrifice of time, energy and sweat is appreciated.

Hate to poor cold water on this - what good is it to have a $2m fighter at the ready with no missiles - they are always at the ready on 24!

Courage = grace under pressure. Thanks for your service!

Never been there have you.

Please have all the facts before you commit your thoughts to print. All your doing is showcasing your ignorance! 1. At that time we were a nation at peace. 2. Armed aircraft require additional ARMED guards be posted around those aircraft. 3. All military aircraft are fully refueled as soon as they are parked! There are a multitude of other facts that relate to that time period and the scenario presented, I'm merely pointing out three of the biggest reasons why a couple of fully armed fighters were not available in those critical moments ! ! !

The Devil - You are showing your ignorance. At that time aircraft on the ground were refueled as soon as they landed but were generally not armed. There was no need to fuel the aircraft before takeoff, they were already fueled. Today, in addition to being fueled, there are alert aircraft that are kept armed as well.

The fact that these pilots were willing to sacrifice themselves to save others on the ground is what our military is all about. These brave pilots put themselves in harms way to defend your right to spout your ignorant nonsense and you do not even have the courtesy to thank them. I am glad that they were not forced to ram flight 93. Aside from the fact that they likely would not have survived, if they had they would have had to live with the knowledge that they killed a plane load of civilians, even if it was to prevent a larger tragedy. That is not something I would want to see anyone have to live with. Our military personnel make sacrifices every day to allow us the freedoms we have. Everyone in this country, regardless of whether or not you agree with what they are asked to do, owe them a debt of gratitude.

This obviously tells you how brave the pilots were. And lets not forget they didn't ram the plane because of the heroes aboard the flight who tried to save themselves. I will never forget what they did.

"In the days before Sept. 11, there were no armed aircraft standing guard in Washington, D.C., ready to scramble at the first sign of trouble."

Even without the knowledge of a terror attack, this information still shocks me to this day. Not to have at least two fighters armed and ready to go? I just think that we have learned since then, and I hope we never let our guard down as this much ever again.

Not to take anything away from these Brave Women Pilots, incredible really!!

However I must add this is the attitude Our Fire Rescue & Surf Rescue Crews have to go to work with every day. Try running into a burning building to save some one. Or jump from a helo or boat to saddle up a boat wreck victim. Heros are all around us everyday we should take the time to thank them as often as possible. Even though most will simply shrug and say "that's my job!"

Devil; 10 years later its a kamikazi mission? BS. Just getting fuel in the planes would have left time to throw at least a sidewinder on it.

You haven't got a clue, it can DAYS to get missiles out of the ammo dump (not normally on a National Guard base) and on a plane. Your (non service) ignorance is showing, the paperwork alone is a nightmare. Please keep your comments to areas where you are familiar with like maybe what kind of beer nuts go best with Miller beer and leave the military analysis to those who have served.

23 yr Desert Storm vet

I'm a bit confused. Were these fighters actually on alert or just getting ready for a training mission and got diverted? Did we really have unarmed alert jets back then? The birds sitting alert in Alaska were always armed so I'm wondering why those in the Lower 48 weren't. We can't just have been doing it for Russian Bear bombers (they used to like to practice against Alaska back then and we'd go out to intercept them).

Thank you for your service!

Wow, and I thought I had heard every story from that day. This just points out again that our men and women in uniform - including fire fighters and police as well as our military and their families - are for the most part the only Americans called upon for personal sacrifice as a result of the attacks on 9/11/2001.

Had the president called upon all Americans for sacrifice, much in the manner that FDR called upon all of America to rise to a common purpose after the attack at Pearl Harbor, I believe our country would be far less divided than it is today, and Americans would be working together in that common purpose and achieving great things.

Never again should we call upon less than 1% of the American people to shoulder the entire sacrifice for something our official rhetoric says is of great importance to our future and for our common security.

Well, I don't think most of the rest of us would be happy if they sent YOU out there, either. :)

Devil...if you were a serviceman like you say, you certainly don't have much respect becoming a person who has served...what's your problem?

I never served...no way I could do it...but I am still grateful and in awe of those that do...however, you are definitely someone I wouldn't respect at all.

You need to show it to receive it...

Your better off trying not to feel anything; fear can be paralyzing. The first time bullets where whizzing past my head and popping in the sand next to me, I just went numb because I knew I had very little control over anything. Time slowed and I felt really, really small while my head felt really, really big, hot, and as though my ears were stuffed with cotton. After that feeling passed, I think I was more pissed that they were shooting at me. I kept thinking, "just do the job, focus on that."

Devil, from reading your posts I don't really think that's what your "problem is", but I'll leave it at that!

Devil Now I understand Marines are always "loaded" and going off "half cocked" (;-)

Thanks for serving, but your still wrong to question another warriors service without first hand knowledge.

Devil Now I understand Marines are always "loaded" and going off "half cocked" (;-)

Thanks for serving, but your still wrong to question another warriors service without first hand knowledge.

Yeah well that's why they send Marines in first I guess because our willingness to curb stomp the enemy with no questions asked is legendary. I also don't question their overall service or anyone else in terms of them doing their duty honorably. But I do question 10 years later a story of a kamikaze mission.

Let's talk about ignorance, did any of you ignorant folks read the part about the 20 mm cannon being armed?

Speaking of ignorance, did you read the bit where they said each jet had 105 rounds? At 100 rounds/sec, that gives each pilot all of a second (less, actually) to hit the aircraft in exactly the right spot to take it down. I'm not an F-16 pilot so I'll have to ask anyone who is if that's doable. Doesn't sound like it to me.

210 rounds of 20mm would have shredded that planes engines and probably took both wings off.

The M61A1 Vulcan cannon is a six-barrel 20mm gun capable of firing 6,000 rounds per minute.

That is if you hit it traveling at 400 mph plus with a two second burst!

Speaking of ignorance, did you read the bit where they said each jet had 105 rounds? At 100 rounds/sec, that gives each pilot all of a second (less, actually) to hit the aircraft in exactly the right spot to take it down. I'm not an F-16 pilot so I'll have to ask anyone who is if that's doable. Doesn't sound like it to me.

I am not a pilot so I will defer that to an actual F-16 pilot. Though, from what I understand there is a burst controller on the gun so you can fire 2 to 3 up to 40 or 50 rounds at a time.

F16 only packs a little over 500 rounds at full capacity and fires at a speed around 6000 rounds per minute uncontrolled (depends on the gun it's packing). They are 20 mm so they are big and heavy, not as big as the A10's but that Hog was built around a gun in a bathtub. Lawn Darts, cough, er Falcons are missile/bomb platforms.

Devil, my father was a Colonel in the USAF and a B-52 Bomber pilot and being a military brat and eventually military wife, I find you to be the typical USMC. Major attitude problems, visions of grandeur about yourselves and so distinctively vicious. You haven't even got the good graces to to keep your mouth shut on what you believe to be two military fighter pilot as liars. That is your opinion and frankly one I do not care to hear about. What a sad military man you are!

Thank you, thank you to every military man and woman who has sacrificed so much for us to protect our lives and our country. And . . .God bless every one of our precious men and women who were lost that day on 9/11 from the twin towers to Flights 77, 175 and 93. I can only imagine how extremely frightened and helpless they all felt! Never will they all be forgotten. If I have left anyone out, please forgive me.

Jacquep08 I miss the BUFF and Boring Loring. I never thought I would say either of those sentences.

To the person that said we were a nation at peace...really? So we were so loved by the world that we had no reason to think someone might attack us? No excuse not to have armed jets...what's the purpose of them if they're not armed, are they supposed to 'scare the enemy'?

I do agree with TheDevil though, this story seems made up because the anniversary is coming up...why all of a sudden would this be a story? I do salute those who serve to defend the nation, but I hate when people blindly say "Support Our Troops" no matter what. There are many many stories of atrocities committed to innocent civilians (rape, torture, murder) by our military. Just pointing it out because most military types tend to have this "we can do no wrong" attitude, and most civilians eat it right up.

Devil, to get the point of what some of us are saying to you .... "Bull%^&^%" I'm calling you out. I say you are a liar and only pretending anonymously online that you once served as a Marine. You are making it all up!!!"

Now, I'm not serious, I'm making a point. How did that feel? We know nothing about you other than what you have posted; but you know nothing about those pilots other than the information in an article written by a third party.

It takes a pretty bold leap to presume to know the truth with no more information than is included in a brief news story on the Internet, ... and to use that limited information as all the ammunition you need to call two service members liars and question their motivations. I thought the USMC emphasized "honor"? Is this the way you exercise that lesson?

believe cheney was doing his thing that day...

Yes! Every able bodied teen should have to give 2 years to the military before or after college. Our generation needs the structure, respect and responsibility that the armed forces provides.

We have too many smart azz, overweight punks who have no knowledge or respect about the sacrifices that previous generations gave so that they could sleep til noon before a long day of xbox.

if they are claiming they went there to crash into that plane they are liars. Because they had the training (dogfighting with guns) and the equipment (105 rounds each of 20mm) to shoot that plane out of the sky. The article says they did.

From story;

Penney said each jet had 105 lead-nosed bullets on board, but little more.

Penney, a rookie fight pilot, worried about missing her target.

Yep, battle hardened pilots, without the benefit of hindsight, rushing into a situation that NOBODY predicted, said if they had too, they would sacrifice themselves to save thousands, yep your right Devil they are liars, Only YOU know what what was in these warrior's hearts and minds (sarcasm)

In this variant of the story in the Washington Post it is referred to as "dummy ammunition." I certainly wouldn't question this pilot's veracity, and I think it troubling that some in this discussion thread are so easily ready to say "liar". Shame on you!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2011/09/06/gIQAMpcODK_story_1.html

"If this were true we would have heard about it 10 years ago."

It's called reporters looking around for pieces they can bring out for the 10th anniversary. It's not a case of the pilots calling up the newspapers and offering up their story. Someone obviously thought it would be good to write about how those initial pilots were acting and what they thought.

F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93

By William B. Scott/Aviation Week & Space Technology, Sep 9, 2002

Within minutes of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on Sept. 11, Air National Guard F-16s took off from here in response to a plea from the White House to "Get in the air now!" Those fighters were flown by three pilots who had decided, on their own, to ram a hijacked airliner and force it to crash, if necessary. Such action almost certainly would have been fatal for them, but could have prevented another terrorism catastrophe in Washington.

One of those F-16s launched with no armament--no missiles and no usable ammunition in its 20-mm. gun. The other two "Vipers" only had a full load of 20-mm. "ball" or training rounds, not the high-explosive incendiary (HEI) bullets required for combat, and no air-to-air missiles.

The Andrews-based 121st Fighter Sqdn. was not standing alert on Sept. 11, because the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) unit was not assigned to the North American Aerospace Defense Command air defense force. Norad had already scrambled three F-16s from their alert base at Langley AFB, Va., but they were about 12 min. from Washington when the Pentagon was struck at 9:37 a.m. (AW&ST June 3, p. 48).

The 121st squadron's day had started normally. Three F-16s were flying an air-to-ground training mission on a range in North Carolina, 180 naut. mi. away. At Andrews, several officers were in a scheduling meeting when they received word that the World Trade Center had been hit by an aircraft. Minutes later, after United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the second WTC tower, a squadron pilot called a friend in the Secret Service "to see what was going on. He was told some bad things were happening. At that time, we weren't thinking about defending anything. Our primary concern was what would happen to the air traffic system," said Lt. Col. Marc H. (Sass) Sasseville, the current 121st FS commander. On Sept. 11, he was the director of operations and air operations officer--the acting operations group commander under the 113th Wing.

Soon thereafter, the Secret Service called back, asking whether the squadron could get fighters airborne. The unit's maintenance section was notified to get several F-16s armed and ready to fly. Anticipating such an order, Col. Don C. Mozley, the 113th Logistics Group commander, had already ordered his weapons officer to "break out the AIM-9s and start building them up." The missiles had to be transported from a bunker on the other side of the base, which would take a while.

"After the Pentagon was hit, we were told there were more [airliners] coming. Not 'might be'; they were coming," Mozley recalled.

Sasseville grabbed three F-16 pilots and gave them a curt briefing: "I have no idea what's going on, but we're flying. Here's our frequency. We'll split up the area as we have to. Just defend as required. We'll talk about the rest in the air." All four grabbed their helmets, g-suits and parachute harnesses, and headed for the operations desk to get aircraft assignments.

Another call from the Secret Service commanded, "Get in the air now!" Almost simultaneously, a call from someone else in the White House declared the Washington area "a free-fire zone. That meant we were given authority to use force, if the situation required it, in defense of the nation's capital, its property and people," Sasseville said.

He and his wingman, Lucky, sprinted to the flight line and climbed into waiting F-16s armed only with "hot" guns and 511 rounds of "TP"--nonexplosive training rounds. "They had two airplanes ready to go, and were putting missiles on Nos. 3 and 4. Maintenance wanted us to take the ones with missiles, but we didn't have time to wait on those," Sasseville said. Maj. Dan (Raisin) Caine and Capt. Brandon (Igor) Rasmussen climbed into the jets being armed with AIM-9s, knowing they would take off about 10 min. behind Sasseville and Lucky.

"We had two air-to-air birds on the ramp . . . that already had ammo in them. We launched those first two with only hot guns," said CMSgt. Roy Dale (Crank) Belknap, the 113th Wing production superintendent. "By then, we had missiles rolling up, so we loaded those other two airplanes while the pilots were sitting in the cockpit."

Inside, at the operations desk, Lt. Cols. Phil (Dog) Thompson and Steve (Festus) Chase were fielding a flood of calls from the Secret Service and the FAA's two area air traffic control facilities--Washington Center and Washington Approach Control. Thompson is chief of safety for the 113th Wing, and Chase is now commander of the new Air Sovereignty Detachment here. By then, Brig. Gen. David F. Wherley, Jr., the 113th Wing commander, was on-site, trying to determine whether the unit had authorization to launch fighters.

"By this time, [commercial] airplanes were landing, but there were still several unidentified ones flying. One was in the northwest [area], basically coming down the [Potomac] River," Thompson said. Later, they would learn that the FAA and Norad's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) were tracking the hijacked United Flight 93, and feared it was coming toward Washington. Thanks to intervention by passengers, the aircraft ultimately crashed in Pennsylvania.

Maj. Billy Hutchison and his wingmen had just landed after being recalled from a training mission in North Carolina. When Hutchison checked in via radio, Thompson told him to take off immediately.

"Billy had about 2,400 lb. of gas; the other two [F-16s] were too light," Thompson said. "I told Billy to take off, but don't use afterburner to save gas. He took off with nothing--no weapons. I told him to 'do exactly what ATC asks you to do.' Primarily, he was to go ID [identify] that unknown [aircraft] that everybody was so excited about. He blasted off and flew a standard departure route, which took him over the Pentagon."

According to now-official accounts, an armed Norad-alert F-16 from Langley AFB, flown by Maj. Dean Eckmann of the 119th Fighter Wing Alert Detachment 1, was the first defender to overfly the Pentagon. At the time, Hutchison and his fellow "Capital Guardians"--as the 121st FS is known--were unaware that three other fighters were over the city.

MINUTES LATER, Sasseville and Lucky were in the air, roughly 6 min. after they had reached their F-16s. "I was still turning things on after I got airborne. By that time, the [Norad alert] F-16s from Langley were overhead--but I didn't know they were there," Sasseville recalled. "We all realized we were looking for an airliner--a big airplane. That was [United] Flight 93; the track looked like it was headed toward D.C. at that time."

The DCANG was not in the Norad or NEADS communication and command loops, so its pilots weren't on the same frequencies as Norad air defense fighters. The Andrews-based F-16s were launched by the Secret Service and someone in the White House command center, not Norad. At the time, there was no standing agreement between the Secret Service and the 113th Wing for the latter to provide fighters in response to an attack on Washington.

Hutchison made two loops up the Potomac, reversing course near Georgetown and the Pentagon, flying at 500-1,000 ft. AGL. Sasseville and Lucky were at 5,000-6,000 ft., "because I didn't want to get too low for a good radar angle, and not too high, so we could get somewhere fast," Sasseville said. He later conceded he was "making things up on the fly." Obviously, there was no precedent to draw upon. All the pilots were relying on their training and ability to think under pressure.

Hutchison was probably airborne shortly after the alert F-16s from Langley arrived over Washington, although 121st FS pilots admit their timeline-recall "is fuzzy." But it's clear that Hutchison, Sasseville and Lucky knew their options were limited for bringing down a hijacked airliner headed for an undetermined target in the capital city. Although reluctant to talk about it, all three acknowledge they were prepared to ram a terrorist-flown aircraft, if necessary. Indeed, Hutchison--who might have been the first to encounter Flight 93 if it had, indeed, been flying low and fast down the Potomac--had no other choice.

Sasseville and Lucky each had 511 rounds of ammo, but that only provided roughly a 5-sec. burst of the 20-mm. gun. And where should they shoot to ensure a hijacked aircraft would be stopped? Sasseville planned to fire from behind and "try to saw off one wing. I needed to disable it as soon as possible--immediately interrupt its aerodynamics and bring it down."

He admits there was no assurance that a 5-sec. burst of lead slugs could slice an air transport's wing off, though. His alternative was "to hit it--cut the wing off with my wing. If I played it right, I'd be able to bail out. One hand on the stick and one hand on the ejection handle, trying to ram my airplane into the aft side of the [airliner's] wing," he said. "And do it skillfully enough to save the pink body . . . but understanding that it might not go as planned. It was a tough nut; we had no other ordnance."

Still unaware that the 119th FW alert F-16s were overhead, patrolling at a higher altitude, Sasseville initially split the airspace into four sectors. He swept the northwest area of Washington--where the hijacked United Flight 93 was expected to be--and had Lucky guard the northeast area.

Approximately 10 min. after Sasseville and Lucky took off, Caine and Rasmussen launched, the first Andrews-based F-16s to carry both hot guns and live AIM-9 missiles. They worked the city's southern sectors. Soon, F-16s from Richmond, Va., and Atlantic City, N.J., as well as F-15s from Langley AFB, were arriving. The air picture was confused, at best, and radio frequencies were alive with chatter.

"The FAA controllers were doing their best to get us information [about unidentified aircraft], but we were used to working with AWACS and their weapons directors and controllers," Rasmussen said. Eventually, Washington Reagan National Airport was designated "Bullseye," and fighters were given range and bearing to targets from there.

Possibly the highest ranking pilot in the area, Sasseville "essentially declared myself the CAP [combat air patrol] commander and set up deconfliction altitudes so we didn't run into each other. There really wasn't time for niceties." For the rest of the day, a dozen or so fighters rotated in and out of the region, running intercepts on myriad helicopters and light aircraft.

"THEY WERE SNAPPING to targets everywhere," Thompson said. "A lot of light aircraft fly under the [controlled] airspace here, and they had no idea what was going on. What really scared us was Washington Approach broadcasting, 'Anyone flying within 25 mi. of the Washington Tacan is authorized to be shot down.' We kind of winced at that, because there are plenty of hard reasons to not shoot somebody down. We were really in an ID posture--and trying to really be careful."

A miracle of the post-attack hours on Sept. 11 was that no aircraft was shot down accidentally, a credit to the training and discipline of U.S. fighter crews. That fact is even more impressive when one considers many of those pilots had little or no experience with air defense techniques and protocols.

"We really didn't know the intricacies of Norad's mission--how it works," Thompson explained. "We've never been an air defense unit. We practice scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things, but there's a lot of protocol in the air defense business. We obviously didn't have that expertise, but it worked out fine. For the first three days, everybody seemed to be reasonably happy with our orchestrating the D.C. CAP. By day-four, we'd pretty much turned into a national asset" as Norad assumed control of CAPs nationwide.

On that first day, many of the pilots flying CAP over Washington, New York and other U.S. cities were faced with the very real possibility of having to shoot down or ram their fighter into an air transport filled with innocent passengers.

"I was asking myself, 'Is this when I have to make the million-dollar decision on my own?' But with smoke billowing out of the Pentagon . . . ," Rasmussen said.

"That's what we get paid to do, though. When young guys sign up, they may not see that the 'guts and glory' of fighter-flying may cost you your life. That day brought everything into focus."

In the afternoon, Sasseville and Lucky were flying their second mission of the day--armed with AIM-9 missiles now--when they were told to contact an AWACS aircraft in the area and "expect special tasking." They were directed to fly a 280-deg. heading for 140 naut. mi.--almost due west of Washington. Unable to communicate by secure or encrypted means, the AWACS controller lowered his voice and told Sasseville via radio they were going to "escort Air Force One," President Bush's aircraft.

Two Langley F-15s offered to go along, and Sasseville concurred. Soon, an AWACS controller reported a fast-moving, unidentified aircraft southwest of Air Force One, approximately 60 naut. mi. away, but on a "cutoff vector" to the President's Boeing 747. It was above 40,000 ft. and the 747 was "in the 20,000-ft. range," but Sasseville sent the F-15s to intercept the unknown aircraft. It was a Learjet that hadn't yet landed after aircraft nationwide had been ordered out of the air.

Sasseville and the two F-15s later joined on Air Force One, while Lucky positioned her F-16 about 10 naut. mi. in front of the 747. With the SADL data link system, she was able to monitor her location relative to Sasseville's SADL-equipped F-16 positioned on Air Force One's left wing. Another flight of F-16s from Ellington AFB, Tex., were about 5 mi. in trail. They had escorted the President from Offutt AFB, Neb., according to 121st FS officers.

Why the Washington-based F-16s were sent to shadow the President's aircraft back to Andrews AFB has not been disclosed. Apparently, someone in the Norad or Secret Service command loop had received information about a potential threat to the 747, prompting a request for additional armed escorts.

Surrounded by fighters, Air Force One descended rapidly toward its home base. Lucky made a clearing pass over the airfield, pulled up, circled back and joined on Sasseville's wing. All of the fighters remained with the 747 until the latter landed, then climbed and established a CAP over Andrews.

Despite being short of aircrews the next few days, the 121st flew continuously for about 63 hr., maintaining protective CAPs over Washington. They were aided by fighters from other ANG, Reserve and active-duty units, as well.

"We were generating airplanes faster than they could put 'em up," remarked Belknap. "And we still are."

"Kamikaze: F-16 pilots planned to ram Flight 93"

We knew that year's ago. And why would YOU use the word "Kamikaze".

How stupid of this writer to reference "Kamikaze" which were OFFENSIVE Japanese fighter planes in WWII, to an American DEFENSIVE necessitality, when We were under attack.

Those pilots of the F-16's were willing to give their LIVES, and YOU call them, 'Kamikaze'

This media is just plain Pathetic and Stupid! And I mean it.

as active duty Air Force I can tell you unless you are alert, live ordanace training or in the sand box all the missles loaded on the aircraft are "training" missles, they have a real seaker, but have NO rocket moter, NO warhead and, No fuze, the body of the missle is full of concrete. Also standered practice is to fill fighter aircraft up W/ fuel as soon as they land, unless ops wants to do a re-config, also the guns are never loaded unless under the same conditions above and it's a amazing they managed to aquire a U-hual (what we call an ammo loder) to load any ammo, which was probably PGU-27A/B training ammo, wich has an inert projectile as opposed to PGU-28A/B which is live. Also it only takes 10-15 min to load a AIM-9 or AIM-120, but on Air Force bases the ammo dump is uasally a distance from the flightline (it's a 20 min drive at my base) and you def. need paperwork to get live ammo, also the alert bases during 9/11 were in Vermont and in South Carolina...ok...I think covers everything.

forgot one thing....there is no round per minute selector on a F-16...there are 2 detents on the triger, the first turns the gun camera or laser on and the second fires the gun, A-10's have a selector

For anyone wishing to watch the full 1-hour CSPAN interview with Major Penney, the link follows:

September 11th Interview: Major Heather Penney, Fighter Pilot

http://www.c-span.org/Events/September-11th-Interview-Major-Heather-Penney-Fighter-Pilot/10737423885/

Thanks, dadoftim.

Bit of a different story to the one tha said that there were no planes in the area when 93 crashed, despite witnesses saying the contrary. Still kinda funny that the engine of the plane ended up so many miles away from the crash site. These are undisputed facts.

I still say the same. Military had plenty of notice the plane was hi-jacked, at least 50 minutes notice (also undisputed). If they didn't shoot it down, then our military is incompetent.

I don't think our military is incompetent, though I completely understand why they don't want to admit shooting down the plane.

You know, I'm sorry to burst your balloons but as hard as it is for some of you to believe, "the truth" is usually the least complicated and most obvious story ... and does not involve any conspiracies or cover-ups.

So, take off your tin-foil hats, fix a cocktail, and just enjoy a reality vacation from your too complicated thought processes.

Brave pilots on the F16's, INDEED. But the passengers and remaining crew on Flight 93 beat them to the punch. The passengers and crew of Flight 93, along with the Firemen, Police, and rescue workers in NYC and DC who gave their lives willingly are the REAL heroes of 9/11.

God rest their souls. We will NEVER forget them

Except the 911 Commission Report states there were ARMED PLANES scrambled. Speaking specifically of the aircraft of the National Guard 113th it says they were in a weapons free condition with the first planes airborne at 10:38. Meaning the pilots could fire at will. If they could engage they had some type of weapons. Which would match the quote from the pilot that Penney said each jet had 105 lead-nosed bullets on board, but little more. Lead nosed bullets are capable of shooting.

These are planes form the national guard base, the 121st squadron are identified as members of the 113th Wing. The government says they were armed in the 911 commission report. Major Penny says in this interview she had live rounds. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Penne

She says we had 105 lead nosed bullets. Non-incendiary.

Not that actual "facts" will persuade any of you in the 'tin-foil hat society', but if you can open your minds just a smidgen you may find the following of interest:

The following content is from an in-depth investigation of the conspiracy
theories surround the attacks of 9/11, which was published in the March 2005
issue of Popular Mechanics. That cover story was expanded and published
in August 2006 as a book titled Debunking 9/11 Myths. The fully revised and
updated 2011 edition of the book is now on sale.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Flight 93

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-flight-93

... and I didn't see any evidence at all that 9/11 was actually all Obama's fault. (Sorry Tea Party).

@j70141 in Colorado- Actually, the first engine landed right in the debris field, and the second came to rest only 900 feet away- well within the range of debris from an airplane crashing as fast as it did.

Would you like a tinfoil hat with your conspracies? Or do you prefer them black?

Yes, and as stated in the PM report cited above, that was only a piece of an engine, "a fan", which was found 900 feet ("300 yards") from the impact crater. Here's the quote:

"Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National
Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial,
confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over
300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was
traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground,"
says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of
TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high
velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft.
per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would
only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash
analysts contacted by PM concur."

Of course as I noted above, facts are not persuasive to those given to conspiracy theories and tin-foil hats. Facts just aren't ... interesting enough!

$1.44 Actually kamikaze is NOT a Imperial Japanese Suicide pilot. That is a stigmatism that was attributed to suicide pilots of The Imperial Japanese Military at the middle of WWII.

In reality Kami= God or Divine and Kazi= Wind. The Japanese usually transcribed kamikaze as = Divine Wind.

So had these American pilots actually ejected and sent their fighter in the pat or course of Flight 93 to interdict another event, it would have been a divine wind or kamikaze.

The negative connantation is modern mans thinking and not the original intent or translation of the actual meaning or phrase.

I don't know what this whole stupid sub-debate about the article and headline using the word "Kamikaze" is all about. For crying out loud, the author of this article was simply repeating the exact word used by the pilot herself in the C-SPAN interview.

Watch the damned video of the 1-hour interview. She used the word "Kamikaze". Get it? It's a direct quote!! Boneheads, sheesh!

By the way, you mean stigma, not "stigmatism". Look it up.

Ted,

Take a Placebo for your faux outrage.

I plane diving into an urban area only kills the plane's inhabitatnts?

Everything the plane may have hit was evacuated? Too bad you weren't there to tell everyone to chill out let the plane dive into D.C.

I'm glad more info has come out about this. I'm not a conspiracy guy but I had always suspected that the plane was shot down - not brought down by the passengers. It makes sense that the order to shoot it down would have been given (as has come out.)

smallstuff said:

"$1.44 Actually kamikaze is NOT a Imperial Japanese Suicide pilot. That is a stigmatism that was attributed to suicide pilots of The Imperial Japanese Military at the middle of WWII."

You're confusing me with this statement. Please explain.

And, what do You mean by: 'stigmatism'?

"No doubt in my mind."

Well that's your problem. Most of us don't fight Occam's Razor just to come up with and promote a more interesting conspiratorial answer. The foil hatted inside jobbers promote nonsense - ignoring physics & engineering analysis.

Robert in Oregon I wrote "stigmatism as it can be used to indicate that which is a condition relating to a stigma". So show a little more respect for others and tone down your arogance. Your last name is not Webster you know.

Leiya - stigmatism is either a distortion in vision or it might be the spontaneous appearance of the crucifixion wounds as in the stigmata.

I love these little windows into the way people relate to the world.

This just points out again that our men and women in uniform...are for the most part the only Americans called upon for personal sacrifice as a result of the attacks on 9/11/2001.

Had the president called upon all Americans for sacrifice, much in the manner that FDR called upon all of America to rise to a common purpose after the attack at Pearl Harbor, I believe our country would be far less divided than it is today, and Americans would be working together in that common purpose and achieving great things.

Robert in Oregon - exactly how do you think the average American should personally sacrifice as a result of 9/11? The event happened so quickly that only the people who were in the areas of the attacks were close enough to do anything immediately following the attacks. Firemen and other people from across the country travelled to NYC to help clear the debris for months afterward. What exactly is it that the rest of us failed to do?

You are forgetting that one of the sacrifices to which FDR referred was the rationing of meat, metal, etc. that the general public experienced so that those materials could be diverted to the war effort. That sort of rationing is not currently needed to support our present day military. The attack on Pearl Harbor brought us into a World War. The extent of the conflict after 9/11 is on a much smaller scale.

So, where is it specifically that you find today's Americans lacking in sacrifice when there is really nothing that we can do that we are not already doing? I agree that everyone should be required to serve 2 years in the military after graduating high school or upon reaching the age of 18, but fat chance of anyone winning an election if that is part of his campaign platform.

Purnell Meagre Jr. says:

"I love these little windows into the way people relate to the world."

Hee-He!

I like 'Your' window of perception. And, I will consider your comment and give it consideration. One can always get definitive with 'words' or common expressions. I try to be explicit, and detailed in all of my daily activities. Thanks!

Best regards today!

The foil hatted inside jobbers promote nonsense - ignoring physics & engineering analysis.

The information that supports the fact that it was an inside job is easily researched online. Read the articles and watch the linked videos created by physicists and engineers and they walk you through the evidence. The towers did not collapse, they were brought down by demolition. Tower 7? These are not conspiracy theorists. They are a group of engineers and physicists who adamantly disagree with the final reports and after reading and watching, one can't help but wonder. Do your due diligence then decide for yourself.

AE911truth.org

How stupid of this writer to reference "Kamikaze" which were OFFENSIVE Japanese fighter planes in WWII, to an American DEFENSIVEnecessitality, when We were under attack.

Leiya123 - if you ever bothered to consult a dictionary, you would see that "kamikaze" has several definitions. The Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary defines "kamikaze" as follows.

1. a member of a Japanese air attack corps in World War II assigned to make a suicidal crash on a target (as a ship)

2. an airplane containing explosives to be flown in a suicide crash on a target

Thus, the general population considers "kamikaze" to mean an aircraft that is flown on a suicidal mission. I have a feeling that you are aware of that but preferred to exhibit your self-perceived superiority.

I try to be explicit, and detailed in all of my daily activities.

A Google search yields no definition or recognition of the word "necessitality". In fact, when I attempt to enter that term, Google insists on correcting it to "necessitate". Could you please educate the rest of us on exactly what "necessitality" means since you are so explicit and detailed in all of your daily activities?

The towers did not collapse, they were brought down by demolition.

Yeah, and the moon landings were filmed on a Hollywood sound stage.

If the towers were brought down by demolition, then why hasn't one person who was involved in setting the explosives come forward in 10 years to confess? If the conspiracy theories were true, it would involve so many people that someone, somewhere would have produced concrete evidence by now.

UMGator

Hey! Reading comprehension, not one of Your skills?

What is the 'current' definition of 'Kamikaze' that MOST People know of.

It's 'Divine Wind', the title GIVEN to Japanese SUICIDE pilots in WWII. Don't parse words with me, You know what my intent was.

Words have meaning and they have different meaning's based on context and sentence struture.

Come-on! You were just criticizing Me, because YOU were 'nitpicking' me.

Sad of You.

Regards anyway, Leiya

UMGator

Just to follow-up. I love Florida and gators. I see them all the time when I play ladies golf and there's a water hazard.

Leiya

"The information that supports the fact that it was an inside job is easily researched online"

The information that supports Apollo moon landings were staged, Alien influences, perpetual motion machines, and other stories & dogma argued as alternative "facts" are also "easily researched online" too....and they are no more compelling - quite despite how some insist "one can't help wonder". Yea, we really can help because the answers aren't in dispute just because a slim minority of mostly unqualified laypeople continue to suggest they are.

"Read the articles and watch the linked videos created by physicists and engineers and they walk you through the evidence."

I have looked at some of the politically motivated junk evidence. I am an engineer and find much more credible what most all of my peers and physicists have concluded - it is just as it appears (and my Occam's Razor editorial is that most things usually are).

"The towers did not collapse, they were brought down by demolition."

Ignoring the political implications - Real practicing demolition experts disagree - amatures who would ignore such expertice aren't more credible. Perhaps because you're looking for an answer that supports your political motivations or need for the absurd you miss the simple science backed answers. Demo guys rightly point out it takes lots of noisy obvious destructive work to set up for building demolitions. Of course that effort never happened at the WTC. What did happen is that in the 90's a car bomb was parked under the building & detonated - simple. And in 2001 terrorist flew full of fuel airliners into tall heavy buildings that burned and fatigued steel until collapse - Al Qaeda got lucky that time. Building 7 came down because it wasn't a resilient design and rubble from the tower1 tore out a critical section the bottom....and it too burned for hours 1st. No devil, no evil government, no plane passengers hiding somewhere from families, just some terrorists who got lucky on a 2nd try while we were asleep to such an attack. Security failed and insulation failed and metal failed (we engineers understand how much failure and at what temp) - that was & is relatively easy to sort form myths. It would be thousands of loyal quiet conspirators with spot on timing & execution that would be hard to find - harder to find than whackos who pretend they understand materials science or engineering. I'll leave explanations for the apparent need to spread this garbage to the sociologists & psychologists - I'm just an engineer and remain comfortable assessing that physics alone explain the 911 reports better than blind skepticism, cynicism, & politics motivates the deniers.

And as long as we're plugging - I suggest reputable sources like NatGeo or WGBH's Nova programs.

Or this site - it tears apart piece by piece the factoid garbage sites & the fallacies from their promoters:

debunking911.com

smallstuff wrote: "Robert in Oregon I wrote "stigmatism as it can be used to indicate that which is a condition relating to a stigma". So show a little more respect for others and tone down your arrogance."

REPLY: 'Smallstuff', you erred in your use of the word 'stigmatism' - just as you have gone on ad nauseam in a silly and pedantic debate, correcting others about what you contend is the "writer's" use/misuse of the word "Kamikaze." So now you want to lecture me on being "more respectful of others" and "toning down my arrogance"? Do you happen to have a mirror handy?

I repeat, watched the 1-Hr. C-SPAN interview video with Major Penney. I provided the Internet link. SHE, the PILOT, used the word "Kamikaze." Get it? The writer directly quoted her. That's what writers are supposed to do. Why take issue in a ridiculous pedantic pissing match over the writer's correct/incorrect use of a word ...which was a direct quote from the subject of the article. You are making a fool of yourself. When you are in a hole, stop digging!

UMGator wrote: "Robert in Oregon - exactly how do you think the average American should personally sacrifice as a result of 9/11? The event happened so quickly that only the people who were in the areas of the attacks were close enough to do anything immediately following the attacks. Firemen and other people from across the country travelled to NYC to help clear the debris for months afterward. What exactly is it that the rest of us failed to do?"

REPLY: UMGator, as 1% of our fellow Americans, the men and women in uniform and their families have carried the full burden of two wars, the other 99% of Americans were not even called upon to give up their tax cuts in order to pay for the wars. Every penny for these two wars has been borrowed rather than paid for through common sacrifice. Due to the Bush Tax cuts the National Debt doubled between Sept. 11, 2001 and January 20, 2009. All of the "common sacrifice" ...deferred (our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to sacrifice because we could not be bothered). No one in our government ever said to us "find out what you can do in your own communities to assist the families of our men and women in the services serving tour after tour in Iraq and Afghanistan". It has been "out of sight out of mind." And now, members of Congress are discussing reducing veteran's benefits. Our war veterans are returning to an economy unable to employ them, forcing many military families onto public assistance. Our communities continue to layoff police and firefighters in order to contend with the enormous debt crises created by a 10-year-long mentality of not paying for our commitments, nor calling for sacrifice for things we believe in and which we say are important to our nation and its security.

Fishmail: I don't want to be misinformed. One of the points made was how did the buildings fall straight down? If the steel was intact below the impact area and areas where there was fire, how did the buildings fall so uniformly, instead of bumbling down as it met resistance from the lower floors? Wouldn't the upper floors fall to the sides? It's visible in one of the buildings that the upper floors began to fall to one side, then suddenly fell straight down. Certainly the weight of those floors falling to one side didn't cause the middle of all of the lower floors to give way at the same time. It seems to me that the intact lower floors would push back at least a little causing a much more disorganized fall. I'm not being a smart a$$, I really want you to help me understand as I don't have an engineering background.

Julie: You're talking a tremendous amount of weight here, with gravity pulling it straight down. The WTC towers were huge. I can't speak for Bldg 7, but if you look at the towers collapsing, it's obvious the fall begins at the impact points. That means everything above was adding its weight all at once to the lower structures. I didn't see anything leaning much to one side or the other when I looked at the video. It all just pancaked.

Julie, "gravity" is the engineering concept you are grasping for. ;)

I suggest you watch the very fine PBS NOVA program "Why The Towers Fell". It is about 54 minutes in length. Here's the link to watch it online:

"Why The Towers Fell" - NOVA - PBS

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-645400195311132956#

The documentary includes the conclusions of ferensic engineers.

...and so far we haven't heard anyone out there in the realm of Conspiracy Theories (or running for president) insist that "Gravity is just a theory that's out there, but it's got holes in it." So far, we haven't heard that ....

What is the 'current' definition of 'Kamikaze' that MOST People know of. It's 'Divine Wind'.

Sorry, Einstein, but most people associate "kamikaze" with the pilot of a plane who is on a suicide mission. Note the Merriam-Webster definition that I quoted. It doesn't include anything about "Devine Wind", implying that is not one of the more popular definitions of the word. You might be referring to a literal translation of the word, but that is not the common definition of the word. There is a difference. One would assume that someone with such superior reading comprehension, like yourself, would understand the difference.

YOU were 'nitpicking' me.

And you weren't "nitpicking" or criticizing the author when you wrote the following?

How stupid of this writer to reference "Kamikaze" which were OFFENSIVE Japanese fighter planes in WWII, to an American DEFENSIVEnecessitality, when We were under attack.

Seems that you can dish out the criticism but you can't take it. Actually, calling someone "stupid" is a violation of the Newsvine Code of Honor.

Also note that you still have not defined the word "necessitality". Please enlighten those of us whose reading comprehension is not up to par so that we might learn.

UMGator

You're too quick to try to judge a poster on Newsvine. What is the common reference that people think of when they hear/read the word: Kamikaze?

I'll answer this explicit question for You. Ready?

It's a Japanese suicide pilot from WWII. Granted, there maybe other definitions, BUT WHAT DID the Author of the article intend by his usage of the word?

I still say, reading comprehension is not your forte'.

But, thanks in trying to rebutte me.

Leiya

lokay5: You're absolutely right! No doubt in my mind.

That would require having a mind to start with.

well said JS in SD!

Leiya,

The author/reporter only quoted the pilot's use of the word. Take it up with the pilot for misuse. Rebut is the proper spelling... Einstein... you are incapable of objectivity due to your own insecurity shown in your rebuttal. Stop your patronizing about Florida too.

'Leiya123,' and the rest of you whom are fixated on the word "Kamikaze." I repeat (for the fourth time) watch the 1-Hr. C-SPAN interview video with Major Penney. I provided the Internet link. Here it is again:

September 11th Interview: Major Heather Penney, Fighter Pilot

http://www.c-span.org/Events/September-11th-Interview-Major-Heather-Penney-Fighter-Pilot/10737423885/

SHE, Major Penney, the PILOT, used the word "Kamikaze." Get it? The writer simply directly quoted her. That's what writers are supposed to do. Why take issue in a ridiculous pedantic pissing match over the writer's correct/incorrect use or meaning of a word.

It was simply a direct quote from the person that was the subject of the article as can be seen in the interview video or read in the complete interview transcript. You are making fools of yourselves with your fixation over a word.

Get over yourselves. When you are in a hole, stop digging! Perhaps you wouldn't need to be rebutted if you didn't have your head up there?

Robert in Oregon

She used the wrong word and to have 'repeated' in the wrong context is inexcusable.

I can forgive a civilian misspeaking, but NOT a so called national journalist.

Do You see where I'm coming from?

Thanks for the reply and your rationale.

Sheesh! Unbelievable. It was a direct quote!

I give up. Just keep digging.

If you people finally get bored with the definition and etymology and incorrect/correct usage of "Kamikaze", here's another word with which you might have some fun:

"Fixation": An obsessive preoccupation.

Robert in Oregon

You're right, GIVE UP!

You're fixated on a quote.

I concentrated on the usage of the term, 'Kamikaze' by journalists.

Can't YOU grasp the difference? Read my previous posts. Or, maybe YOU just want to be confrontative. "Sheesh, to YOU", too.

Robert in Oregon

You need to concentrate on the comment of the poster (me) and not what YOU want to deal with. I was dealing with the journalists use of the word, 'kamikaze', Not the pilots use of the WORD.

Now Do You Comprehend? Read my previous posts, and NOT fixate on the point YOU were trying to make, that was NOT my topic of discussion. Sheesh!

Robert in Oregon

I'll give You a tip. Once You can start to focus on a posters topic, then and only then, should you reply/comment.

But, until then, don't bother, You'll just make fool out of Yourself.

But, I respect You anyway.

Leiya

Let me say this, I received an email from a Viner who works for Hughes. Ron states that he worked on the electric cannon used in the F-16 and in that capacity he had the chance to fire the gun. He says there is no burst controller on the F-16 which if true would prevent the guns from being used effectively. If there is no ability to use the guns effectively against the airliner than I would accept the pilot's statement as probable.

It would not be out of character for a military person to seek to accomplish the mission in this way.

Practically no powered rotary cannon is supplied with enough ammunition for a full minute of firing, because of the weight of the ammunition. In order to avoid using the few hundred rounds carried in a matter of a single trigger pull, a burst controller is generally used to limit the number of rounds fired at each trigger pull. Bursts of from 2 or 3 up to 40 or 50 can be selected.

-Wikipedia article on the M61 Vulcan

Ammo drum holds a max of 511 rounds. After each trigger pull, the gun self clears, sending 5-9 unfired rounds back to the drum but those rounds are considered spent by the controller, and cannot be reused until the plane has landed and reloaded.

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

Both of these sources lead me to believe it does have the above mentioned "burst controller" which is actually called the "gun controller".

'The Devil-1138528', thank you for that. It takes character to even privately reconsider one's first opinions, when presented new information. But it takes real strength of character to put those reconsiderations in writing for all of the world to see. I don't know if I could live up to the example to just displayed.

Clearly honor and character ARE lessons you took to heart from the USMC. For earlier questioning that based on my own reaction to your first post, I apologise to you and hope that you will accept my apology. Thank you for your added post, and thank you for your service.

Robert

Side note/just general interest: Yesterday, after watching the fascinating 1-HR. C-SPAN video interview with Major Penney I watched some YouTube and Google videos of demonstrations of the 20mm M61A1 'Vulcan' cannons (these were ground demonstrations at public air shows, etc.; not guns mounted in the F-16 aircraft). A couple of the videos I watched showed 40 dummy rounds being run through the gun. It happened so quickly, just a fraction of a second, that it was if 40 rounds were just dumped from a bucket ... followed by the continued high speed spinning of the 6 gun barrels. Very, very impressive speed, ...but it sure makes one think about how quickly that gun would be clicking empty at a fire rate of 100 rounds per second. I imagine both of those pilots -if the situation in the air that day required the unthinkable - would have first tried to use a couple of 1/2-second bursts with their non-explosive range 'practice rounds'. But, ...even going up there with that awful, almost uncomprehensible 'Plan B' in mind ... Well, I just can't even wrap my brain around that.

One F-16 fighter jockey was queried about how he as a pilot uses the Vulcan. He responded: "... I squeeze the trigger count a 'potato' (or watch the target explode) and then release the trigger. Typically the burst from the gun is on the order of about 50 bullets. When you're firing the gun and you hold the trigger for 1 second, it feels like an incredibly long time. If you're wondering if I program the gun to fire for two to four seconds, no. Just squeeze the trigger and release for the desired number of rounds. The gun is used quite often in Iraq and Afghanistan in the strafing role. It is sometimes preferred in engagements because of collateral damage concerns."

That final sentence is perhaps the most impressive, as it also speaks to the character of our men and women in uniform; concern about "collateral damage" even as their own well being is at risk. Again I question whether I could meet such a standard which these men and women consider just part of their job, ... and I have real personal doubt.

Additional general interest: In the C-SPAN article and the video interview with the pilot, Major Penney, the remaining available ammunition rounds were referred to both as "practice" rounds, and "dummy" rounds. I found this information on-line, and will leave to the individual reader and people more knowledgeable than I the conclusions about what a pilot might accomplish with it if used against a 250,000 lb. Boeing 757-222 aircraft?

In the spirit of this day, ...let's all hope we never have to find out.

Practice ("Dummy") Rounds - M61A1 Vulcan 20mm gatling gun

No.21- 20x102 Break up (practice) A plastic
projectile, filled with iron powder. When leaving the barrel, the centrifugal
force throws out the iron powder, breaking open the plastic body. The iron dust
forms a harmless cloud some 20 mtrs in front of the gun. The advantage of this
type of projectile is that one can fire with the full weapon load on very short
shooting ranges without the danger of projectiles flying “over the
fence”.

No.22- 20x102 TP- RRR-M2 (Target practice - Reduced Ricochet
Risc)
Target Practice ammunition with Reduced Ricochet Risk. Enables pilots
to train safely as if using live ammunition. Enables low angle attacks without
Ricochet risk.
Weapon compatibility: M61A1/A2, M39, M197.
The upper end
of the rod connectiong the base and the nose has a weakening (just below the
thread) that breaks upon impact, thereby desintegrating the projectile into
three parts.

No.23- 20x102 TP-T (Target Practice – Tracer) Steel body
with pressed in aluminium dummy fuze. The body of the projectile is blue, the
aluminium nose has no paint.

No.24- 20x102 TP Dm58A1. TP (Target
Practice) DM58A1. Steel body with a pressed in aluminium dummy nose fuze. The
colour of the projectile is blue overall.

No.25- 20x102 TP (Target
Practice) DM58. Steel body with a pressed in aluminium dummy nose fuze.

No.26- 20x102 TP-T (Target Practice – Tracer) M220. A steel body with a
tracer and a pressed in aluminium dummy nosefuze. Colour of projectile is blue
overall, printed text on projectile: 20MM TP-T, M220, NWM 1-2-, XM221E1

"Your better off trying not to feel anything; fear can be paralyzing. The first time bullets where whizzing past my head and popping in the sand next to me, I just went numb because I knew I had very little control over anything. Time slowed and I felt really, really small while my head felt really, really big, hot, and as though my ears were stuffed with cotton. After that feeling passed, I think I was more pissed that they were shooting at me. I kept thinking, "just do the job, focus on that."

You do realize there are laws against impersonating a US soldier, don't you?

Once again, I have my DD214, show me yours and I'll show you mine.

Actually, the "stolen valor" laws are of questionable constitutionality. And why do you think he wasn't a military member? (Also, if he's talking about Loring AFB, I think more likely he'd have been an airman than a soldier).

Yep, airman, Security Police. 42nd SPS C Flight, Element 2, at Loring, black flies, snow, and the moose is loose. I was there from '86 until the base closed.

I think the stolen valor laws were mainly directed towards panhandlers holding up vet signs. I'm glad they have them.

Actually, the "stolen valor" laws are of questionable constitutionality.

Not until the Supreme Court makes its ruling. As of last month, it hasn't decided on whether or not to hear the Alvazer case. In any case, lying about honors not earned, strictly for personal gain, should never be legal, regardless of Free Speech claims.

It's fraud.

Not saying the stolen valor laws should be overturned (as a military member such things do piss me off). But the mere fact that the constitutionality of the law has made it to the appeals court level indicates that it is of questionable legality.

Buy me one too since you are feeling so generous; but I'm not buying the story of sending out unarmed fighter jets to intercept a terrorist-highjacked plane.

La maripoza,

How many years did you serve in the Air Force? Where did you study military history and readiness?

Gil, I believe la maripoza's vast experience in beer drinking qualifies him to make asinine remarks in a public forum.

Ah man thats heart pounding, i would honestly would be lost in my own mind in what to do. I am glad the pilot didn't have to follow through. Still I hope if something liekt his may happen again, to at least arm the M61 Vulcan 20mm Cannon next time.

Yes.. Willing to kill innocent civilians against our own laws to prevent some property damage to evacuated buildings in washington.. Really brave.. Really manly.. Really illegal and really pitiful.

Lets bring our boys back home from all around the world and post them here to protect the US and for the love of god be at the ready. Regardlesss, you never shoot the hostage, not matter what more damage could happen if you don't.

That's just cowardly. You accept the price of freedom and if more damage happened on the ground that would have been far more preferable than US actually killing innocent US civilans with our own military ON PURPOSE!

"Lets bring our boys back home from all around the world and post them here to protect the US and for the love of god be at the ready."

Why bother when some message board tool is just going to call them "cowardly" and not want to let them "protect the US" as needed?

"Regardlesss, you never shoot the hostage, not matter what more damage could happen if you don't."

There is no "regardless" - there are consequences of action AND inaction. Your rules of chivalry are worthless when terrorist scumbags are going to kill the hostages AND thousands of others at the same time (as case in point that very day). You seem to live in a fantasy world not today's world. Commercial jets & passengers were being sacrificed to kill civilians en masse in public buildings as well as military targets. The question then, and now, was how far to let terrorists deliver a fully fueled missile they control.

If Ted were in charge we can expect no decisive defense apparently. Armchair quarterback Ted thinks it serves our nation better to let terrorist deliver their payload unhindered to ANY densely populated city & target of their choosing. In his world it's easy to play outraged loudmouth tossing the word "cowardly" around rather than being someone anyone could counts on for defense and ultimate sacrifice. Maybe he should show some respect & humility that others are willing to die to defend us. It's far too easy to sit at home & dare call others serving their country as "cowardly" from behind a keyboard. Spot the irony and cowardice in that.

Give it a break, Ted. There are times when it might be necessary for our military to kill innocent civilians to save hundreds or thousands of others. You are apparently the only person on the face of the planet who knows what the target was for Flight 93 other than the terrorists who commandeered the plane. Why didn't you tell the authorities directly after 9/11 exactly where Flight 93 was headed instead of waiting 10 years? No one knew what the exact target was. The Towers had already fallen and the Pentagon had been hit. The country was under attack. As horrible as it is to imagine, there are times when a civilian aircraft might need to be sacrificed to save countless others on the ground.

I'm of the opinion that once that aircraft came under the control of the terrorists it ceased to be a civilian aircraft, per se, but rather a guided missile that had hostages on board.

I don't kill if the target was to take out all 300 million of us. We don't shoot the innocent US civilians for any reason, we are not animals. Every single american (the real ones) would be brave enough to take the hit instead of shooting down the plane. The home of the free and brave are now plagued with people that wouldn't be willing to pay the price for freedom. it is an abomination.. Cowardly scum suckers that would shoot down a plane full of women and children to save their own skins.. Not much better than the terroists themselves..

GROW A SPINE!

So, what you're saying is that as long as terrorists take hostages, we should take no action against them?

Say, hypothetically, a hijacked plane with a nuke aboard heading for NY, or DC? The only possible moral option that you see is to allow a couple million people to die rather than to shoot down the plane? (I realize that's not the most realistic scenario in the world, but I'm using it to make a point. Discussions of the plusses and minuses of utilitarian philosophical ethical problems frequently hinge on marginal exemplar cases)

I appreciate your consistency is saying that it's more moral to allow great evil to be performed than to perform any degree of lesser evil yourself. It's essentially the same principle as pacifists hold - that evil most not be opposed. But I think your position is unrealistic.

(and, lest I be pounced upon by the philosophers amongst us, I'm aware that Ted isn't making a utilitarian argument; he's making a generally Kantian argument, and I'm countering with a utilitarian hypothetical)

You can take any action you want against hijackers, you just cant kill the hostage to do it. It's called common human decency.

It called respecting freedoms and rights.

You don't blow up the bank to get the robbers and disregard the innocent lives inside.

And that is exactly why argument by analogy generally doesnt work. We are pretty clearly not talking about bank robbery.

Got it - terrorists must not be opposed.

Terrorist can be opposed all day long.

Shooting the hostage is not acceptable behaviour though.

If shooting one hostage will save 20 others from certain death, that's acceptable.

O.K. I must be ignorant, but I'm frankly shocked that this dilemma even happened. It simply never occurred to me that some of these planes aren't always at a state of immediate readiness.

Some, but not all. They were likely fueled, ready for flight, but the weapons are stored.

Different time. Back then it was probably considered more dangerous to leave munitions readied on the aircraft. After all, who would attack us on our own soil?

OhJoy-2623976,

They cut back on armed interceptors after the Cold War ended (due to the cost). The thought was that if someone sent fighters and bombers to the USA there would be plenty of time before they got to us.

This was a different kind of war that no one thought of.

They were from Andrews Air Force base i believe. You are flying over a large dense ly populated area, not some New Mexico Proving Ground. You do not want to accidently drop a munition on DC do you? Its not just putting them on, its also arming them.

Thanks for the explanations. Presumably, now some are kept armed and some aren't.

Still, concern for the safety of civilian population is one thing. COST, no. Not considering the fact that guys who work for Haliburton, Blackwater, etc., get paid more than people who wear a uniform. And paid with taxpayers' money at that. But that's a whole other ball of yarn.

No Rob you are an idiot. It does take time to arm an F16 just as any other combat vehicle, be it a Humvee with a .50 caliber gun to a tank, to a helicopter, to a plane. They are not stored loaded for bear.

All the years we have had B-52's loaded with nukes fueled up, engines warm and flight crews on stand-by, but NOBODY ever thought to keep a few armed jets on the tarmac in Washington?

It just goes to show one of two things, either the top military brass are complete morons incapable of covering their own tails (the only thing that they are good at), OR, this pilot is just remembering that day a little (maybe a lot) differently than it actually happened.

It just goes to show one of two things...

Or it could mean that you know absolutely nothing about how the military works and why it does things that way it does. There are undoubtedly valid reasons for handling the aircraft the way that they are handled of which you are completely unaware.

All the years we have had B-52's loaded with nukes fueled up, engines warm and flight crews on stand-by, 

We haven't done that since about 1991

Irene while I agree with your opinion you kind of ruined the whole mood of this article.

sigh... you had to bring in the politics

Remember this in 2012 - the Republicans want to cut soldiers benefits and not CEOs - who you are going to vote for says alot.

Silence!!! (I kill you!)

Remembering the heros of 9/11 is what this article is about you morons. Take the political garbage to another blog please!!

Yep, deserves the best, that's why they're treated soo well when they get back, lousy benefits, stop loss etc... nice. we spent billions on the toys and hardware but put very little thought in the welfare of the very people without whom those things would be very expensive paperweights...

Again with the politics!

Please stop...

"Obongo"? Really? 'NorCal Resident' you (anonymously) refer to the elected President of the United States as "Obongo"?

Wow, aren't you special? You must be awfully proud of yourself. Were we to ask your family and friends about you, given your manner of self-expression, ...would they express pride in you?

When we become adults we typically outgrow the need for juvenile playground insults. We normally will learn that such insults, while intended to diminish the subject actually only diminish us in the eyes of others; as you have so well demonstrated for us.

When/if that maturity finally does come, it will also bring with it a more developed 'moral compass', not only governing appropriate discourse but allowing consequent feelings of shame for inappropriate discourse.

Robert, it kind of makes arguing with people a waste of time when your opponent's political argument is based upon the fact the president is African American. It does, however, nicely illustrate the ignorance of tea party advocates when their benighted ravings are reduced to nothing more than immature insults or the order of "obongo". In any case, I think it's safe to say NorCal's comments say more about him than they do about the topic.

Thanks for the reinforcement, 'Sailcat'. I should probably have just let that slide. I along with most in the US the past couple of years have heard so many inappropriate and offensive insults thrown around it has almost become commonplace.

But 'NorCalResident's insult is beyond the pale; over the line. When an insult makes even the reader blush with shame, it's hard to ignore and leave unchallenged.

Whether one voted for Mr. Obama, or for Mr. McCain, there is no excuse for vile insults directed at the president of the United States who is - like it or not or for better or worse - the elected leader of our country.

If one cannot respect the occupant, at least show respect for the office (and demonstrate respect for oneself by using acceptable rhetoric and discourse).

We (Americans) have lost our way. This sort of divisiveness, demonstrated too often in our rhetoric, is destroying what we have built AND is undermining our potential. We need to find our way back to civility or The United States of America will be doomed to the ashcan of history.

Well said, Robert. You are taking the high road, here.

Yes... its courageous to kill innocent civilians to prevent property damage of evacuated DC buildings.. Got it, um no..

Ted clearly you don't "get it". The thought was, based on at the time increasing evidence, that the plane was going down like it or not so those civilians on-board were already dead men flying.

The target wasn't certain so the evacuated building only being at risk part is only your speculation. What was known at the time was that the planes & passengers were being sacrificed to kill civilians en masse in public buildings as well as military targets. THAT's what was known when those Guardsman's planes were scrambled and en route.

The question then was how far to let terrorists deliver the fully fueled missile they were controlling. If you think it serves our nation better to let them deliver that unhindered to ANY densely populated city, where a lot of other civilians live including at our nation's capitol, or any target of their choosing then It's a good thing you're just playing convenient idealist rather than being someone we count on for defense. Idealists sit at home & are not charged with making such tough decisions as to how to defend out airspace and do so with the least amount of collateral damage. Again there was no saving the passengers once infiltrated by terrorists w/weapons - sad but it is the hard truth....and a brave group of passengers on Flight 93 knew that and sacrificed themselves and these fighter pilots would have as well. Yes, they are courageous and deserve due respect for that willingness to sacrifice - you're out of line.

It doesn't matter what the target was. We should never kill innocent US civilians for any reason even to save a 1000X more. We're not animals. That's one fine example of how the people of americans aren't americans anymore, the home of the pansies that aren't willing to die for freedom anymore.

Dispicable.

People need to learn what freedom means and some morals. I not talking right wing religious morals just simple common sense humanity. You never shoot the hostage you take the hit..

Typical attitude for the typical worthless american. Shoot the innocent so I don't have to pay a price.. Cowards.

Ordinary people taking extraordinary action. Makes one proud of our neighbors and friends.

Then there are the mindless plebes like David here, dutifully driving a tired talking point straight into the ground.

We should all celebrate the brave folks who came to bat for their fellow citizens and their country, and mourn the tragic senseless loss of innocents on this anniversary.

Tearing at old wounds is the definition of a mindless action.

There are more fighters on alert today than there were on 9/11, but by no means does every base have fully armed fighters standing by.

I sat in on a meeting that day in which a munitions supervisor asked our maintenance commander (a fighter pilot) if he wanted HEI (high explosive incendiary ammunition). He thought about it a moment and said, "No, I can take down a jet liner with TP (target practice ammunition, lead bullets)." It was a truly chilling moment.

So we keep the wapons stored for a "real terrorist attack'?

One Boomer simple, we can't ever do that.

And your point, exactly, is what? You can mind meld with Wikipedia and come up with a post that barely graces the subject matter?

Kamikaze literally means "divine wind". I think that would have been far more accurate as applied to these heroes than to the Japanese that attacked our ships.

Engines can't explode?

Nor fuel?

It was a Kinetic Kamikaze mission ;)

Swell the fuel isn't stored IN the engines any more than gas is stored in your car's engine, matter of fact most cars the gas tank is at the opposite end of the vehicle and contrary to movies, shooting it doesn't make it explode, just causes it to leak.

Way to turn into an anti-Obama rant...are the democrats the ones who raped that girl in Iraq and murdered her family? Are the democrats the ones who tortured prisoners and took pictures laughing? Those are the only people destroying the military.

"I MUST SUPPORT THE MILITARY AND ANYTHING RUSH LIMBAUGH SAYS...BAA...BAA"

I don't know if those soldiers were democrats or republicans, do you ?

Rob your stupidity is showing again. Tell you what, grab a rifle and go walk a few patrols before you comment on the US Military again you useless piece of $hit living on the freedoms others pay their lives to guarantee for you.

There hasn't been a military operation where people died fighting for OUR freedoms in a long long long time. Some argue WWII some argue you have to go way farther back than that since hawaii wasn't a us state. Regardless, the price for freedom is having to deal with other peoples freedoms, even if they are the minority. like the innocent people on the plane, instead we think that it's okay to shoot them down to save evacuated "buildings". Even if it was heading to a fully populated city with an improvised nuclear device we should be appauled at the idea that the US government thinks its okay to purposely kill innocent people regardless of the potential additional loss of life.

We've lost the concept of american freedom and right and wrong. We've lost bravery and the true cost of freedom. We're now afraid of paying the price. I would rather have had the jet crash directly into my forehead than give the order to shoot down a plane full of innocent people.

It is trully appauling that us citzens wouldn't be willing to let the plane crash into, say congress, instead of killing innocents.

Personally, I would have rather seen the terrorist actually get those that were responsible for their anger rather than take it out on innocent people in the towers and on the plane. At least if the hit government buildings they would have hit the targets of their anger instead of killing completely innocent (hands clean) people. I most certaintly don't think we have any right to shoot the hostage to stop the hijacker.. That's sad and it realy disturbs me that people think its brave.

"I would rather have had the jet crash directly into my forehead than give the order to shoot down a plane full of innocent people."

Fortunately the passengers on flight 93 understood the dire consequences of doing nothing better than you ever will.

"Personally, I would have rather seen the terrorist actually get those that were responsible for their anger rather than take it out on innocent people in the towers and on the plane."

Well isn't that nice for you "personally". Too bad they didn't ask you what you wanted before they killed thousands. Get over yourself and your unrealistic expectations and unfair critiques of the decisions & job of defense others are willing to do for you.

"That's sad and it realy disturbs me that people think its brave."

What's sad is your repeated "I would have rather" nonsense. It happened and hard decisions had to be made - zero consequeces are the luxury of no realistic person on how to deal with an attack on/over our soil.

What iread from your reply is.. Kill innocent people so I don't have to pay the price for freedom. Its cowardly and unamerican. We all have to pay the price. its not just if youre in the military. I understand you want to run and hide and tuck and have the government kill women and childen on the plane rather that be a man and take the hit.

Its appualing the cowardice the populous have... Grow a pair.

He also said that Iraq had WMDs. And you believe anything he says, why?

And forget Dick, he's an even bigger liar.

Mike...WTF?

It is sad how it turned out. But I'm glad that the two F-16 pilots didn't have to followo through. I know that they would have done it without hesitation.

They weren't being sent as it was something they chose to do...

I am probably going to regret this, but just how do you figure, Nashville Bill? Because it is an all volunteer force? What kind of logic gets you to "they chose to do"?

God, I hate armchair quarterbacks!! Here's a news flash--I was one of the ones in the air the day after 9/11, and we all would have done the same thing. Just about anybody in uniform would be willing to sacrifice themselves if it meant stopping an attack on the White House. NOBODY ordered these pilots on a Kamikaze mission--nobody had to.

If you're not willing to sacrifice yourself to defend your country, then don't consider joining the military.

Alan well said. IF you have the balls to join the Military, then you know you may sacrifice yourself for the defense of others. Too bad those others don't ever appreciate the sacrifices you make, even if you live through it.

And your proof is?

Hate to sound crass but when an aircraft hits the ground at 500+MPH it is called, believe it or not, A CRASH YOU ASS! What do you mean "didn't just crash" what else did it do barrel rolls and cartwheels. A whole lot of people died that day if all anyone can add is hate then please STFU!

MIKE: The place for idiotic conspiracy stories is sitting around with your drunken friends, reliving your glory days and boasting how you're going to get those Muslim aholes.

This public forum is a place for intelligent, meaningful discussions based on facts, and NOT for paranoid tin-foil hat wearing, Budweiser guzzling morons.

Mike,

You're probably the type who would believe aliens came down and attacked us on 9/11, and go on about that, and then when someone explains to you that aliens didn't, and call you a nutter, you wouldn't believe them, and then call them a liar.

and now truthers are now known as the Tea Party

If in my mind the threat was absolutely clear, I would have, of course also taking into the consideration there was the remotest possibility I could possibly survive if my timing was right. But as an afterthought, I probably would have to say I would have done it anyway.

People in the military know the risks. When the sign up they sign up knowing they may likely die. So yes, while I don't think they WANT to die, I do think most any military person would be willing to lay down their own lives for the lives of the people they protect.

This doesn't mean they wouldn't rather find another way. Sometimes, there is no other way. And most military men and women know and accept that. Most a lot easier than your typical person.

As has been my experience.

Ever heard of a rightful military order? Given an order, they must obey... I would say they could probably take down the jet without killing themselves.

I have a funny feeling every military man or women, especially those who have been in combat would say with heartfelt belief they would rather be unemployed, but when called the overwhelming majority - and I do mean overwhelming - do their jobs and do it damn well. From an old Swab Jockey THANK YOU.

For those of you who have not paid your dues as these folks have, no matter what anyone says I do not feel you have the right to speak ill of any of them - their political leaders YES but not them.

Boomer again well said. Most people in the Military took take their oath of service very seriously and would die to protect others, even strangers. I did for myself, and I saw many "conscientious objectors" excused from deployment, and had to wonder "Why do you think you have been shooting at man shaped targets if not to shoot people if the need arose?"

And Brother, welcome home and thank you!

Jen, it's a "legal" order. You have to obey a legal order. You're are supposed to obey an illegal order and protest it.

I don't think anyone would've ordered these flyers to ram Flight 93, mostly because they wouldn't have to.

It is not a legal order. A real soldier would never take out a plane full of innocent civilians without just cause. Unless a civilian fires upon a military base the military has no police powers, even then they have no police powers but they can fire back.

This was plane full of innocent people, women, children.. No man would ever follow that order, he'd rather go to the brig.. Cowards shoot hotages. Freedom isn't free poeple, no matter what the cost those people had a right to live to their last breath and most certaintly only animals take that breath away, our government shouldn't be filled with a bunch of animals. No matter the consequences of the potential crash, we should have been willing tosuffer along side of the innocent victims instead of shoot those innocent children down so my child doesn't die.

I never saw so many cowards.. Those people on that plane, fought for there lives and instead we talk about how it would have been the right thing to do to shoot them down! Makes my stomach sick to hear it.

Really? Who stated that, Tom? When?

I just TOLD you when!! The who was a prosecutor of one of the terrorists at trial.

Simply google" Flight 93 shot down!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgjWU6jXrdc

93 wasn't shot down. Could orders have been given to shoot it down? Of course! But that doesn't mean it was.

Where are you people getting this BS from? Point me to the truth or STFU.

The order was given to be shoot it down. But did Dick and Rummy know if the F-16s had minimal armaments at that time?

are you discounting the cell phone recording of those last few minutes?
Let me guess... that was staged. right. tell the families on the other end of the phones that.

Pisshaw.

@Tom in NH-294381

I just TOLD you when!! The who was a prosecutor of one of the terrorists at trial.

Simply google" Flight 93 shot down!

That's right, just Google: Apollo hoax, Aliens, Elvis' Brain, Government Brainwashing. You'll find all the answers you want that way! Why didn't we think of that before?

Realy tom? The imprint of a jet body and wings in the ground does not support that a jet crashed intact? Wacko, you insult our intelligence, and make yourself appear stupid. Look at the footage of the crash site right after the crash being played over and over this weekend-it clearly shows a huge impression in the ground that resembles the front profile of an aircraft body and wings.

Read all of the accounts and articles above-our military and government do not even have armed fighters ready because we were so complacent. Do you really think they are organized and ruthless enough to plan all of this? Too much X-files!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sadly like the Police, no one cares about the Military until they need them, and afterwards they are quick to forget.

The government doesn't own CEO's they own the military. Something needs to be cut and the dems won't cut out PBS or planned parenthood, those are far more important programs than supporting the troops to them..

Let's see, we can trim the US military budget which, according to the CIA's own website is larger than the military budgets of the rest of the world combined or we can lop off the tiny amount of funding that goes to PBS which (thankfully) doesn't align its views with Ted's insane ravings. Hmmm...tough choice, that.

Well, we have a $350B cut inbound to be divvied up amongst the intel community, DoD and Homeland Security. And depending on whether the Super Committee can come to an agreement, more harsh cuts to follow.

My organization has already been told to plan for a 20% manpower reduction. There will, of course, be no reduction in workload.

I agree, but in hindsight...... no one prior to 9/11 could have even imagine that we would be attacked in such a manner.

duuug, that isnt true. There was in fact intelligence that would could well be attacked " by hijacked planes used as missiles" Condi Rice made the same statement you did to the 911 Commission, then had to retract it the next day. The USAF also practiced against such an eventuality!

Thats what we have NORAD for IDIOT. You are not expecting to be attacked from within.

Ya, with GW in chargehow could that be??

Why don't we have 24/7 aircraft to protect the whole country? Answer $$$$$

You Teabaggers willing to pay for that? A fully armed fighter wing with pilots on 24 hour alert, security to stand guard in front of armed planes, and the risk of explosions with bombs and jet fuel in close proximity?

It has been obvious since 9/11 that our leadership never learned the lesson of Pearl Harbor. American servicemembers were violating the rules by breaking out munitions and weapons to fight back where they could. The rules at the time did not allow for defense and our military assets were lined up like targets in a shooting gallery.

There were, and are, in every sector of the U.S. fully armed fighters standing by with alert crews. The National Guard squadron to which this story refers was not among those alert crews. They were ordered into the air to augment the scrambled fighters. They also had a shorter flight-time to target. Imagine if you will, the number of radar targets that were either unaccounted for, or potentially terrorist controlled. The military needed as many assets in the air a possible.

Flight 93 had disabled its transponder; unlike a bus, it doesn't have FLT 93 painted on its fuselage. Simply look at the flight routes on the map that the airline puts in the seat-backs. Most of the eastern seaboard is covered in lines. Any of these inbound aircraft could have been compromised. Post 9/11, any aircraft that deviates from its assigned route and/or fails to respond to air traffic control finds itself escorted by a couple of interceptors. That wasn't the case pre-9/11. Additionally, at the time of the incident, DC was a possible target, likely the prime one; but, the evidence was just as plausible for any other highly populated building/area.

The proof that the U.S. military was operating optimally during that crisis is that despite the panic and carnage no aircraft was accidentally shot down.

tim mcveigh was a muslim? who knew?

And I doubt anyone is "screaming" that "not all muslims are terrorists" because its pretty obvious that you are wrong. There are a billion muslims or so, its obvious to anyone who isn't a moron that they aren't all terrrorists.

Finally! We get to hear from a REAL muslim insider -- I'm so sick of those muslim-come-latelys like Muhammed Ali and that Barack guy who wears the nice suits bragging about how one time they went to this Mosque and everybody was really nice and stuff... What A Crock! People are ALWAYS nice to wannabees until they go away.. jeez...

It's cool to know how exactly alike all the muslims are, but I think you're confused about who's doing all the screeming --- the foreigners in all those UTube clips yelling and setting fire to things, well, that's their own stuff they're wrecking, which makes them terrorists and morons too. You can tell they're in good with their friends and family, though, cause if you hand a camera to some random person they'll just run away with the camera. Only someone who loves you and cares about you would spend all that time videotaping you wrecking your own stuff and then show it to the whole world. <hah!>

Oh, and one other thing -- Americans are willing to KILL to save innocent lives, and we'll do it even if they're virgins...

<evil grin>

AC

Actually , I remeber full, well, many Muslims in foriegn lands bawling their eyes out (particularly Iran). They knew what would happen as a result too.

The only ones I saw cheering were a bunch of the Pals, and Arafat quashed it quick. I remember him genuinely stumbling his words in disbelief at the events that transpired that day. Also, if you had any real knowledge, they are only jumping up and down when the cameras are on.

Once again I need to stress the importance of knowing the difference between a Muslim and a radicle...not ALL Muslims are terrorists...they are unfortunate to have a lot of nutjobs who twist their bible into something they can use to justify when they commit murder...

There are bad people in every religion. Fortunately the good outweigh the bad, but we tend to believe the opposite.

Please, there is enough hate going around...lets not add to it.

I mean, don't you get tired of it all?

Very true, not all Muslim are terrorists (I have a few Muslim friends) HOWEVER almost ALL terrorists are Muslim. That is the same as saying all African-American's are not robbers but on the other side most are or all Hispanics are not illegal but many are.

Maybe we as a people need to develop a tolerance for other cultures, learn about them before judging, and gain some acceptance. Though I do get tired of the prompts on the phone, "Please press 1 for English, 2 for Spanish." If you want to be a citizen here learn the damn language.

Extremist muslims are the problem, much as extremist christians are a problem here-don't paint everyone with the same brush.

LOL.. There are lots of "americans" here that instead of letting the people on the plane have a fighting chance would have shot a plane full of innocent women and children down just to save their own skins.. Sickening.

Actually, they'd have shot it down to save an unknown amount of damage to the United States, more so than to save themselves.

I get that you believe it to be a cut and dried ethical scenario, but not everyone (indeed, not most people) see it that way.

That's the cost of freedom and preserving rights. you don't kill innocent human beings to get the bad guys, you kill the bad guys. If you can't kill the bad guys clean you let the hostage have a fighting chance. It is never right to kill innocent hostages just because. The rights of an individual DO trump the rights of 300+ million people.

I think you and are aren't going to agee here (I never did agree with any Kantian with whom I've had an argument about ethics). So I shall apologize for the snark, and bow put. And we can each go about being certain that the other is wrong, but without taking up more Newsvine posts to do so

That's assuming you don't pass out after ramming the plane. As they said, to bail out before hitting the plane does not ensure hitting the plane. Also, there is a second or two delay while the charges go off to eject the pilot - blow the glass... then "rocket" launch out of the cockpit.

Yup...not dangerous...Sunday stroll.

Ramming a plane is different then the Kamikazees. They were trying to sink aircraft carriers and battleships. Huge difference then the Luftwaffe.

I agree, dangerous sure, but the risk would be pretty damn low they would have to die. Those seats shoot out almost as fast as an airbag.

Risky, sure. But by no means impossible. This story really over rates the whole thing. Besides, it's all hypothetical, nothing like that happened at all.

Just another 'me' story about 9/11.