Why was the USAF.....................

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
B2431 wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Of course you're correct. Let's disregard the manner in which the
question was asked (the original poster asked, "Why was the USAF stood
down on 9/11?") and simply ask instead something along the lines of;
"Why was the USAF unable to prevent 9/11?"

The orignal poster has no idea of what standing down means.

That's true. While much of my service was overseas,
the only time I can recall a one-day "stand down" was
in 1969, during a well-organized civilian "Moratorium
Against the (VN) War" - and it only applied to TAC.
(Evidently, they were concerned that the demonstration
would be considerably larger than it actually was...)

I agreed that the original poster either A) had no idea what "standing
down" means, or B) was simply trolling. Hence, my suggestion above
to restate the question so as to have a more meaningful and productive
discussion as opposed to the usual trolling and massive amounts of
wasted bandwidth mudslinging.

Your suggestion that the USAF was somehow at fault for 9/11 is offensive and it
shows you have no idea what the USAF's job is.

Agreed.

After spending the first 20 years of my life on ADC bases I grew
accustomed to the sound of afterburners blasting off all day
and night and the even louder concussions of sonic booms.
As a young kid, I rode in those dark blue Air Force panel trucks on
the flightline with Dad and his RO's carrying their chutes, kneeboards
and helmet bags. I sat in the tower and listened to his radio
conversations and watched until my neck was sore as my ol' man
roared down the runway at Kingsley Field and pulled straight
up 'till he was clean out of sight. Hell, I've even drank beer with
him and his pilot buds and a few of the wise old maintenance types
whom he fondly referred to as "Zebras." In other words, I have a
pretty damn good idea of what the USAF's job is and to imply
otherwise is offensive not only to me, but also the USAF. The purpose
of this NG is to discuss all-things-military aviation, and that is all
I am attempting to do. Anyone who knows me, or either of my two
older brothers (not to mention my younger sister and my
Mother, of course!) knows just how much we honor and respect
the military and especially the USAF. If my remarks concerning
9/11 happen to offend you, I sincerely apologize. However, I remain
convinced that the USAF was at least partly to blame for 9/11. Not
unlike pre-Dec 7, 1941, the pre-Sept. 11, 2001 USAF (USAAF in
'41) had become complacent and both the Japs AND those Islamic
****s ($1 to Juvat) simply caught us all napping on the job, so
to speak. Like it or not, the horrific results of both surprise
attacks at Pearl Harbor and NYC/Washington DC speak for
themselves. But that's just my opinion, you're entitled to yours, of
course. Nice day!

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

I agreed that the original poster either A) had no idea what "standing
down" means, or B) was simply trolling.

There's a recurring idea in the conspiracy whacko world that we actually
*did* "stand down" our interceptor planes on 9/11/2001. Apparently,
some folks had this weird idea that we normally ran *lots* of
interceptor flights all over the US, for, well, some reason or another,
and that we *didn't* do so on 9/11 to make sure no trigger-happy pilots
accidentally shot down those four airliners.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

I agreed that the original poster either A) had no idea what "standing
down" means, or B) was simply trolling.

There's a recurring idea in the conspiracy whacko world that we actually
*did* "stand down" our interceptor planes on 9/11/2001. Apparently,
some folks had this weird idea that we normally ran *lots* of
interceptor flights all over the US, for, well, some reason or another,
and that we *didn't* do so on 9/11 to make sure no trigger-happy pilots
accidentally shot down those four airliners.

Yeah, we've all heard those wacko 9/11 conspiracy theories and
I strongly suspect the original poster/troll was guilty of "B" above.
Nevertheless, this has been a very, uh, "interesting" discussion,
indeed!

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

I agreed that the original poster either A) had no idea what "standing
down" means, or B) was simply trolling. Hence, my suggestion above
to restate the question so as to have a more meaningful and productive
discussion as opposed to the usual trolling and massive amounts of
wasted bandwidth mudslinging.


He wasn't interested in a meaningful and productive discussion. Isn't that
obvious? He posted just the one message.



After spending the first 20 years of my life on ADC bases I grew
accustomed to the sound of afterburners blasting off all day
and night and the even louder concussions of sonic booms.


Which proves it's possible to spend 20 years on USAF installations without
learning anything about USAF operations.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
B2431 wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Of course you're correct. Let's disregard the manner in which the
question was asked (the original poster asked, "Why was the USAF stood
down on 9/11?") and simply ask instead something along the lines of;
"Why was the USAF unable to prevent 9/11?"

The orignal poster has no idea of what standing down means.

That's true. While much of my service was overseas,
the only time I can recall a one-day "stand down" was
in 1969, during a well-organized civilian "Moratorium
Against the (VN) War" - and it only applied to TAC.
(Evidently, they were concerned that the demonstration
would be considerably larger than it actually was...)

I agreed that the original poster either A) had no idea what "standing
down" means, or B) was simply trolling. Hence, my suggestion above
to restate the question so as to have a more meaningful and productive
discussion as opposed to the usual trolling and massive amounts of
wasted bandwidth mudslinging.

Your suggestion that the USAF was somehow at fault for 9/11 is offensive
and it
shows you have no idea what the USAF's job is.

Agreed.

After spending the first 20 years of my life on ADC bases I grew
accustomed to the sound of afterburners blasting off all day
and night and the even louder concussions of sonic booms.
As a young kid, I rode in those dark blue Air Force panel trucks on
the flightline with Dad and his RO's carrying their chutes, kneeboards
and helmet bags.

If I recall, there were three interceptors which used "ROs", the F89, F94, &
F101. Just out of curiosity, which one did your Dad fly?

Did Your dad ever fly out of Portland?

"David Hartung" wrote:

If I recall, there were three interceptors which used "ROs", the F89, F94, &
F101. Just out of curiosity, which one did your Dad fly?

F-101B.

Did Your dad ever fly out of Portland?

I really don't know. We were based in Klamath Falls (Kingsley Field)
Oregon from the time he returned home from SEA 'till 1969-70.

From: Mike Marron


Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
B2431 wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Of course you're correct. Let's disregard the manner in which the
question was asked (the original poster asked, "Why was the USAF stood
down on 9/11?") and simply ask instead something along the lines of;
"Why was the USAF unable to prevent 9/11?"

The orignal poster has no idea of what standing down means.

That's true. While much of my service was overseas,
the only time I can recall a one-day "stand down" was
in 1969, during a well-organized civilian "Moratorium
Against the (VN) War" - and it only applied to TAC.
(Evidently, they were concerned that the demonstration
would be considerably larger than it actually was...)

I agreed that the original poster either A) had no idea what "standing
down" means, or B) was simply trolling. Hence, my suggestion above
to restate the question so as to have a more meaningful and productive
discussion as opposed to the usual trolling and massive amounts of
wasted bandwidth mudslinging.

Your suggestion that the USAF was somehow at fault for 9/11 is offensive
and it
shows you have no idea what the USAF's job is.

Agreed.

After spending the first 20 years of my life on ADC bases I grew
accustomed to the sound of afterburners blasting off all day
and night and the even louder concussions of sonic booms.
As a young kid, I rode in those dark blue Air Force panel trucks on

snip a long story.

And you expect your experiences as a base brat to trump those of us who
actually served? It is evident you learned nothing about how the USAF
functions.

Marron, I will let you in on a little secret your father committed a crime by
taking you on the flightline in a launch truck. He and his buddies committed a
crime by giving you beer as a minor. He and his buddies were fools for letting
an unqualified person handle their life support equipment.

One more thing: fighter pilots are the second biggest BS artists in the world
when it comes to swapping stories.

I'm sorry if I come across as attacking your father. Unfortunately he wasn't
the first nor will he be the last to take a child where he doesn't belong.

The flightline, squadron ops, base ops, life support etc are not playgrounds
for children.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote:

And you expect your experiences as a base brat to trump those of us who
actually served? It is evident you learned nothing about how the USAF
functions.

Let's just hope and pray the USAF never ever "functions" again like it
did back on Sept 11, 2001.

Marron, I will let you in on a little secret your father committed a crime by
taking you on the flightline in a launch truck. He and his buddies committed a
crime by giving you beer as a minor. He and his buddies were fools for letting
an unqualified person handle their life support equipment.

One more thing: fighter pilots are the second biggest BS artists in the world
when it comes to swapping stories.

I'm sorry if I come across as attacking your father. Unfortunately he wasn't
the first nor will he be the last to take a child where he doesn't belong.

The flightline, squadron ops, base ops, life support etc are not playgrounds
for children.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hilarious! Just curious, if fighter pilots are the second biggest BS
artists in the world, whose the first biggest?

It Was Asked,,,
Just curious, if fighter pilots are the second biggest BS
artists in the world, whose the first biggest?

THAT is simple,, The SP's take that honor hands down, not even the Marines can
come close to a bunch of AF cops!!

Jim
SAC COP
78-88

From: (JSH5176)
Date: 1/8/2004 7:14 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

It Was Asked,,,
Just curious, if fighter pilots are the second biggest BS
artists in the world, whose the first biggest?

THAT is simple,, The SP's take that honor hands down, not even the Marines
can
come close to a bunch of AF cops!!

Jim
SAC COP
78-88


Close g

If marron had remained civil and had asked that I would have answered "everyone
else." g

There I wuz, me and Ike, that's General Eisenhower to you,............

Just substitute the name for the war you choose to BS about. It is generally
assumed anything following "there I was" or "this is the honest to God's truth"
is pure BS.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired