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

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

Fine. But I couldn't possibly disagree more.


What should the USAF have done differently?



Doubtful even the military brass in the Pentagon would agree with that
statement and would readily accept some of the blame for 9/11.


What part of the blame would they readily accept?



Poor analogy. The Air Force is not entirely to blame for what happened
to 9/11, but it's not absolutely blameless either.


What did the Air Force do wrong that contributed to 9/11?



Given better intelligence, the USAF could have easily prevented it.


How?



A preemptive strike, perhaps?


On what? Boeing?

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

Pre-9/11 Intelligence or *today's* beefed up Intelligence and Homeland
Security?


Pre-9/11. Today's beefed up intelligence and the Department of Homeland
Security did not exist prior to 9/11.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:e0cLb.9514$6l1.7223@okepread03...

Well, I just pulled 250 knots out of my ass. Maybe there's a better
number.
But yes, I would kill anything aimed at Manhattan that was tagged hostile
by
the ADA Battery. We are pretty much accustomed to Friendly Fire deaths
now, and what the hell, you would get a possible purple heart, or get to
play with a real live parachute.


Well, it's a good thing that you're not in charge of air defense.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:e0cLb.9514$6l1.7223@okepread03...

Well, I just pulled 250 knots out of my ass. Maybe there's a better
number.
But yes, I would kill anything aimed at Manhattan that was tagged
hostile by
the ADA Battery. We are pretty much accustomed to Friendly Fire deaths
now, and what the hell, you would get a possible purple heart, or get to
play with a real live parachute.


Well, it's a good thing that you're not in charge of air defense.

A padded cell is a good palce for Mr. Storey to go.

"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
...

Of course not. A preemptive strike "wherever terrorists hide, or run,
or plan" (e.g: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, etc. etc...)


Right. Kill all the terrorists before they can commit terror. Yup, that's
what the Air Force shoulda done.

Mike Marron wrote:

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

A preemptive strike, perhaps? Recall the Israeli attack on the Osiraq
nuclear powerplant near Baghdad back in 1981.

Christ! am I ever glad that you aren't in any position of power
Mr Marron.

Spoken like the true Canuck wussy that you are. Whattsa' matter Gordo,
jealous because when the doctors performed exploratory surgery in your
lower groin area looking for testicles they couldn't find any?


That the best you can do dingleberry? snort

Go read up on aerodynamics and get back to us.
--

-Gord.

"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?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:hE0Lb.9457$6l1.3782@okepread03...

You're off a few years. The Air Defense Command went out of
business in 1978 (I was there).


Air Defense Command became Aerospace Defense Command in 1968.

As a USAF major command, ADC was inactivated in 1979 and control of USAF
interceptor units and air surveillance radars and control centers was
transferred to TAC.

If I recall, it was called ADTAC.

Anyone with D model time, is long retired, or dead.


Not true. There a few "tall tail" guys around. They're all O-6 or above.

Or E-9...

Very good, bad on my part to exclude our gunners.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"