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

[Ron]

..




.........stood down on 9/11?





..

[Yeff]

On 7 Jan 2004 10:41:23 -0800, Ron wrote:

> .
>
>
>
>
> ........stood down on 9/11?

Wheels-up party post-IG.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Michael Williamson]

Ron wrote:

> ........stood down on 9/11?


It wasn't, so the question is non-sensical. Do you
have a coherent, thought out question to ask, or
would that be beyond your capabilities?

Mike

[C Knowles]

We weren't.
Curt

"Ron" > wrote in message
m...
>
> ........stood down on 9/11?
>
>
>
>
>
> .

[BUFDRVR]

>.......stood down on 9/11?

Damn, no one told me. I was at work! Us bomber guys always seem to be the last
to know about the good deals ;)


BUFDRVR

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

[Gene Storey]

"Ron" > wrote
> .
> ........stood down on 9/11?

You're off a few years. The Air Defense Command went out of
business in 1978 (I was there). When the F-106 was retired, there was no
priority to continental air defense. It basically became an FAA
air traffic control system.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:hE0Lb.9457$6l1.3782@okepread03...
> "Ron" > wrote
> > .
> > ........stood down on 9/11?
>
> You're off a few years. The Air Defense Command went out of
> business in 1978 (I was there). When the F-106 was retired, there was no
> priority to continental air defense. It basically became an FAA
> air traffic control system.

Weren't you just a sperm back then?

[Gene Storey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote
>
> "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> news:hE0Lb.9457$6l1.3782@okepread03...
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > .
> > > ........stood down on 9/11?
> >
> > You're off a few years. The Air Defense Command went out of
> > business in 1978 (I was there). When the F-106 was retired, there was no
> > priority to continental air defense. It basically became an FAA
> > air traffic control system.
>
> Weren't you just a sperm back then?

Nope. Fully erect.

[Mike Marron]

> (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>>Ron wrote:

>>.......stood down on 9/11?

>Damn, no one told me. I was at work! Us bomber guys always seem to be the last
>to know about the good deals ;)

The original poster asked a reasonable question and I was hoping
that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
reasonable answer by now. Since I am not in the military I can only
speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
BIG time!

Don't get me wrong, I realize that after the wall came down in 1989
the USAF didn't have fighters sitting at the ready all over the U.S.
pre-armed with missiles and pilots just waiting to shoot down domestic
airliners that have been hijacked by "Islamic ****s" ($1 to Juvat).

Having said that, to this day I too am confounded by the apparent
ineptness of the USAF (and especially the American intelligence
community) both of whom utterly failed to prevent the apocalyptic
death and destruction of 9/11.

Nowadays, when we're told of F-16's and -15's flying CAP over
major U.S. cities post-9/11 -- the first thing that springs to mind is
the old adage, "Closing the barn door after the horse has gotten
out..."

[OXMORON1]

Mike Marron noted and asked:
>The original poster asked a reasonable question and I was hoping
>that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
>reasonable answer by now. Since I am not in the military I can only
>speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
>BIG time!

How could the USAF or USN be held responsible for dropping the ball?
The intelligence community as a whole bears responsibility in individual areas.
It is not necessarily the function of military intelligence to cover domestic
and other intelligence areas.
Military intelligence applies to military functions, not the goings on of
people running around in Florida taking flying lessons or infiltrating the
national borders. Those areas were not in the jurisdiction of military
intelligence at the time.
The military drawdown after the collapse of the threats of the earlier cold war
were not the fault of military intelligence. You can't keep constant air
patrols without money and people.
The a/c on 9/11 did not penetrate US airspace from outside the country. They
were launched and taken over within our borders.

oxmoron1
MFE

[David Hartung]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >.......stood down on 9/11?
>
> Damn, no one told me. I was at work! Us bomber guys always seem to be the
last
> to know about the good deals ;)
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

Got any "D" model time?

[Mike Marron]

> (OXMORON1) wrote:
>>Mike Marron noted and asked:

>>The original poster asked a reasonable question and I was hoping
>>that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
>>reasonable answer by now. Since I am not in the military I can only
>>speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
>>BIG time!

>How could the USAF or USN be held responsible for dropping the ball?
>The intelligence community as a whole bears responsibility in individual areas.
>It is not necessarily the function of military intelligence to cover domestic
>and other intelligence areas.
>Military intelligence applies to military functions, not the goings on of
>people running around in Florida taking flying lessons or infiltrating the
>national borders. Those areas were not in the jurisdiction of military
>intelligence at the time.
>The military drawdown after the collapse of the threats of the earlier cold war
>were not the fault of military intelligence. You can't keep constant air
>patrols without money and people.
>The a/c on 9/11 did not penetrate US airspace from outside the country. They
>were launched and taken over within our borders.

Nothing new here, I'm afraid.

[Gene Storey]

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

"David Hartung" > wrote
>
> Got any "D" model time?

[David Hartung]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >>Ron wrote:
>
> >>.......stood down on 9/11?
>
> >Damn, no one told me. I was at work! Us bomber guys always seem to be the
last
> >to know about the good deals ;)
>
> The original poster asked a reasonable question and I was hoping
> that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
> reasonable answer by now. Since I am not in the military I can only
> speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
> BIG time!

How do you figure?

[Pete]

"Mike Marron" > wrote
>
> The original poster asked a reasonable question

Reasonable? As written, this troll is more along the lines of "When did you
stop beating your wife?"

> and I was hoping
> that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
> reasonable answer by now. Since I am not in the military I can only
> speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
> BIG time!

Really. So what should have been done differently? How could the USAF have
prevented it? Feel free to use any of the available timelines depicting the
morning of 9/11.

Pete

[Gene Storey]

"Pete" > wrote
>
> Really. So what should have been done differently?

New York should have AAA and SAM batteries, like most third world
countries. There should be no way an airplane can enter New York City
at high speed that isn't identified. Any aircraft at the speeds given, at such
a low altitude should be splashed before they enter a center of commerce.

I would have NYC ringed by Patriot batteries, and anything above 250 knots
that isn't on a flight plan should be terminated. Error on the side of those on the
ground.

[C Knowles]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >>Ron wrote:
>
> >>.......stood down on 9/11?
>
> The original poster asked a reasonable question and I was hoping
> that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
> reasonable answer by now. Since I am not in the military I can only
> speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
> BIG time!
>

Sorry, but the poster asked 1. a dumb question, or, 2. one designed to start
a flame war.

The USAF was not "stood down". Non-essential missions were put on hold until
things were sorted out but I can assure you essential missions were flown. I
was in a KC-10 orbiting over LAX that evening, refueling the CAP, the same
as all over the U.S.

As far as dropping the ball (if that's what he meant), others have already
provided an answer.

Curt

[OXMORON1]

Mike Marron wrote:
>Nothing new here, I'm afraid.
>

Of course not, you have heard the same stuff for months.
You admitted that you had not been in the military and apparently you don't
understand anything about how the division of responsibility of the various
parts of the government for parts of "intelligence"
I'm not claiming that the military intelligence community might have possibly
picked up something by accident but it was not their responsibilty to be
actively looking for internal intelligence not involving military personel or
related activities.
The whole intelligence community was screwed up and the only good that I see
from 9/11 is posibly the system will be cleaned up in the future.
All the intelligence information in the world can not prevent a small group of
dedicated individuals from doing their thing every time.

oxmoron1
MFE

[Mike Marron]

>"Pete" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote

>>The original poster asked a reasonable question

>Reasonable? As written, this troll is more along the lines of "When did you
>stop beating your wife?"

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?"

>>and I was hoping
>>that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
>>reasonable answer by now. Since I am not in the military I can only
>>speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
>>BIG time!

>Really. So what should have been done differently? How could the USAF have
>prevented it? Feel free to use any of the available timelines depicting the
>morning of 9/11.

I'm the one asking the questions, here. You have to take into
consideration my other comments (not merely the one paragraph
above to which you've responded).

Once again, I said:

************************************************** *******************

The original poster asked a reasonable question and I was hoping
that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
reasonable answer by now. Since I am not in the military I can only
speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
BIG time!

Don't get me wrong, I realize that after the wall came down in 1989
the USAF didn't have fighters sitting at the ready all over the U.S.
pre-armed with missiles and pilots just waiting to shoot down domestic
airliners that have been hijacked by "Islamic ****s" ($1 to Juvat).

Having said that, to this day I too am confounded by the apparent
ineptness of the USAF (and especially the American intelligence
community) both of whom utterly failed to prevent the apocalyptic
death and destruction of 9/11.

Nowadays, when we're told of F-16's and -15's flying CAP over
major U.S. cities post-9/11 -- the first thing that springs to mind is
the old adage, "Closing the barn door after the horse has gotten
out..."

************************************************** ******************

[BUFDRVR]

>Got any "D" model time?

Nope, only H model.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>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.


BUFDRVR

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

[Mike Marron]

> (OXMORON1) wrote:

[snip]

>The whole intelligence community was screwed up and the only good that I see
>from 9/11 is posibly the system will be cleaned up in the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the USAF an integral part of the
intelligence community? If yes, then doesn't the USAF share the
blame for 9/11?

[BUFDRVR]

>New York should have AAA and SAM batteries, like most third world
>countries. There should be no way an airplane can enter New York City
>at high speed that isn't identified. Any aircraft at the speeds given, at
>such
>a low altitude should be splashed before they enter a center of commerce.
>
>I would have NYC ringed by Patriot batteries, and anything above 250 knots
>that isn't on a flight plan should be terminated. Error on the side of those
>on the
>ground.

Using this criteria, I would have been shot down in the Spring of '97 (I think
??) due to no fault of my own, or anyone on my jet.


BUFDRVR

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

[Pete]

"Mike Marron" > wrote

>
> I'm the one asking the questions, here. You have to take into
> consideration my other comments (not merely the one paragraph
> above to which you've responded).
>
> Once again, I said:
>
> ************************************************** *******************
>
> The original poster asked a reasonable question and I was hoping
> that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
> reasonable answer by now. Since I am not in the military I can only
> speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
> BIG time!
>
> Don't get me wrong, I realize that after the wall came down in 1989
> the USAF didn't have fighters sitting at the ready all over the U.S.
> pre-armed with missiles and pilots just waiting to shoot down domestic
> airliners that have been hijacked by "Islamic ****s" ($1 to Juvat).
>
> Having said that, to this day I too am confounded by the apparent
> ineptness of the USAF (and especially the American intelligence
> community) both of whom utterly failed to prevent the apocalyptic
> death and destruction of 9/11.
>
> Nowadays, when we're told of F-16's and -15's flying CAP over
> major U.S. cities post-9/11 -- the first thing that springs to mind is
> the old adage, "Closing the barn door after the horse has gotten
> out..."
>
> ************************************************** ******************

It appears that you believe the USAF "dropped the ball", and "utterly failed
to prevent the apocalyptic death and destruction of 9/11."

Again..I ask: How so?

Pete
I saw no 'question' in your original post.

[OXMORON1]

Mike came back with:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the USAF an integral part of the
>intelligence community? If yes, then doesn't the USAF share the
>blame for 9/11?

Yes the USAF has a place within the intelligence community, but they/it is
primarily tasked with intelligence matters concerning air warfare.
Before you snap back, IIRC the FBI,CIA, INS and Dept of the Treasury are
primarily concerned with areas from which the attack came.
Also under your accusation the Coast Guard Aux., Army, Navy, Air Force Reserve,
National Guard screwed up, so did Barney Fife and the officer responsible for
intelligence in the Talequah. OK PD.
Under your reasoning, I am responsible for the outcome in the Unpleasantness
during the SEA wargames. And no, I was not an intelligence type, just your
ordinary navigator, but one bomb might have missed the Command Staff of the
Vietnamese Freedom Loving Good Guys.
Enough of your urinating contest Mike, I'm gong to the house.

oxmoron1
Under your

[Mike Marron]

>"Pete" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>I'm the one asking the questions, here. You have to take into
>>consideration my other comments (not merely the one paragraph
>>above to which you've responded).

>>Once again, I said:

>> ************************************************** *******************
>>
>> The original poster asked a reasonable question and I was hoping
>> that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
>> reasonable answer by now. Since I am not in the military I can only
>> speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
>> BIG time!
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I realize that after the wall came down in 1989
>> the USAF didn't have fighters sitting at the ready all over the U.S.
>> pre-armed with missiles and pilots just waiting to shoot down domestic
>> airliners that have been hijacked by "Islamic ****s" ($1 to Juvat).
>>
>> Having said that, to this day I too am confounded by the apparent
>> ineptness of the USAF (and especially the American intelligence
>> community) both of whom utterly failed to prevent the apocalyptic
>> death and destruction of 9/11.
>>
>> Nowadays, when we're told of F-16's and -15's flying CAP over
>> major U.S. cities post-9/11 -- the first thing that springs to mind is
>> the old adage, "Closing the barn door after the horse has gotten
>> out..."
>>
>> ************************************************** ******************

>It appears that you believe the USAF "dropped the ball", and "utterly failed
>to prevent the apocalyptic death and destruction of 9/11."

Correct. Also note in my second paragraph above that I cut the
USAF some slack. And as you will note in my third paragraph above,
I also believe that the various U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA,
FBI, etc.) were equally as negligent, inept, incompetent, etc.

>Again..I ask: How so?

Quite simply, the USAF is in the business of defending the good
ol' U.S. of A. The USAF, in addition to the USN, Army and Marine
Corps along with the various civilian intelligence and national
security agencies completely and totally failed to defend the
good ol' U.S. of A. on 11 Sept, 2001. Or, are you implying that
the USAF is exempt from sharing any blame for 9/11?

[Bob McKellar]

Gene Storey wrote:

> "Pete" > wrote
> >
> > Really. So what should have been done differently?
>
> New York should have AAA and SAM batteries, like most third world
> countries. There should be no way an airplane can enter New York City
> at high speed that isn't identified. Any aircraft at the speeds given, at such
> a low altitude should be splashed before they enter a center of commerce.
>
> I would have NYC ringed by Patriot batteries, and anything above 250 knots
> that isn't on a flight plan should be terminated. Error on the side of those on the
> ground.

Unfortunately, your post is dated January 2004. I seem to have misplaced your post from
early 2001 detailing the specific threat and making your recommendations, along with the
budgetary implications. Of course, you also advocated similar precautions for ALL large
US cities, didn't you? I am sure the congressional delegations from states such as
Illinois and California would have had some input.

Could you favor us with a copy of your pre 9/11 prescriptions?

Bob McKellar

[Allen Epps]

>
>
> > "Pete" > wrote
> > >
> > > Really. So what should have been done differently?
> >
> > New York should have AAA and SAM batteries, like most third world
> > countries. There should be no way an airplane can enter New York City
> > at high speed that isn't identified. Any aircraft at the speeds given, at
> > such
> > a low altitude should be splashed before they enter a center of commerce.
> >
> > I would have NYC ringed by Patriot batteries, and anything above 250 knots
> > that isn't on a flight plan should be terminated. Error on the side of
> > those on the
> > ground.
>
Hmmmm, Afraid all the Nike sites were sold.... Bad idea then, bad idea
now.

Pugs

[Mike Marron]

>OXMORON1 wrote:
>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the USAF an integral part of the
>>intelligence community? If yes, then doesn't the USAF share the
>>blame for 9/11?

>Yes the USAF has a place within the intelligence community, but they/it is
>primarily tasked with intelligence matters concerning air warfare.

Don't look now, but since 9/11 the USAF has been flying CAP over
American cities. Now, why do you s'pose that is?

>Before you snap back, IIRC the FBI,CIA, INS and Dept of the Treasury are
>primarily concerned with areas from which the attack came.

So, the USAF is exempt from any blame whatsoever for the 9/11 attacks?

>Also under your accusation the Coast Guard Aux., Army, Navy, Air Force Reserve,
>National Guard screwed up, so did Barney Fife and the officer responsible for
>intelligence in the Talequah. OK PD.
>Under your reasoning, I am responsible for the outcome in the Unpleasantness
>during the SEA wargames. And no, I was not an intelligence type, just your
>ordinary navigator, but one bomb might have missed the Command Staff of the
>Vietnamese Freedom Loving Good Guys.

You can continue to misconstrue what I wrote and put words in my
mouth, but my contention is simply that the USAF, along with the
various civilian U.S. intelligence agencies, dropped the ball BIG time
on 9/11.

>Enough of your urinating contest Mike, I'm gong to the house.

Huh? You consider THIS is ****ing contest??! Better remove those
rose-colored AF glasses before you get home lest you miss the
mark and pee all over the wife's camode!

[David Hartung]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:2y1Lb.9463$6l1.3157@okepread03...
> Anyone with D model time, is long retired, or dead.

Guess I dated myself, huh?

43MMS
Anderson AFB
1977-78

[David Hartung]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:zE1Lb.9465$6l1.4352@okepread03...
> "Pete" > wrote
> >
> > Really. So what should have been done differently?
>
> New York should have AAA and SAM batteries, like most third world
> countries. There should be no way an airplane can enter New York City
> at high speed that isn't identified. Any aircraft at the speeds given, at
such
> a low altitude should be splashed before they enter a center of commerce.
>
> I would have NYC ringed by Patriot batteries, and anything above 250 knots
> that isn't on a flight plan should be terminated. Error on the side of
those on the
> ground.

In the pre 911 world, how would you have justified such draconian actions?

[David Hartung]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Got any "D" model time?
>
> Nope, only H model.

I got to look inside an H one time, it was at Giant Sword 1977. I imagine
they have changed some.

[Pete]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Pete" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
> >>I'm the one asking the questions, here. You have to take into
> >>consideration my other comments (not merely the one paragraph
> >>above to which you've responded).
>
> >>Once again, I said:
>
> >> ************************************************** *******************
> >>
> >> The original poster asked a reasonable question and I was hoping
> >> that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
> >> reasonable answer by now. Since I am not in the military I can only
> >> speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
> >> BIG time!
> >>
> >> Don't get me wrong, I realize that after the wall came down in 1989
> >> the USAF didn't have fighters sitting at the ready all over the U.S.
> >> pre-armed with missiles and pilots just waiting to shoot down domestic
> >> airliners that have been hijacked by "Islamic ****s" ($1 to Juvat).
> >>
> >> Having said that, to this day I too am confounded by the apparent
> >> ineptness of the USAF (and especially the American intelligence
> >> community) both of whom utterly failed to prevent the apocalyptic
> >> death and destruction of 9/11.
> >>
> >> Nowadays, when we're told of F-16's and -15's flying CAP over
> >> major U.S. cities post-9/11 -- the first thing that springs to mind is
> >> the old adage, "Closing the barn door after the horse has gotten
> >> out..."
> >>
> >> ************************************************** ******************
>
> >It appears that you believe the USAF "dropped the ball", and "utterly
failed
> >to prevent the apocalyptic death and destruction of 9/11."
>
> Correct. Also note in my second paragraph above that I cut the
> USAF some slack. And as you will note in my third paragraph above,
> I also believe that the various U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA,
> FBI, etc.) were equally as negligent, inept, incompetent, etc.
>
> >Again..I ask: How so?
>
> Quite simply, the USAF is in the business of defending the good
> ol' U.S. of A. The USAF, in addition to the USN, Army and Marine
> Corps along with the various civilian intelligence and national
> security agencies completely and totally failed to defend the
> good ol' U.S. of A. on 11 Sept, 2001. Or, are you implying that
> the USAF is exempt from sharing any blame for 9/11?

This being an aviation forum, what the CIA, NSA, Army, FBI, etc, etc, did or
did not do is irrelevant. The original troll asked specifically about the
USAF. In your initial reply, you singled out the USAF for 'ineptness'. Yes,
you included 'the American intelligence community', but you specifically
pointed to the Air Force as well.

Still you have not outlined the ways in which you think the USAF 'dropped
the ball'.

Absent any specific ideas in which you believe that the USAF could or should
have done anything differently on that morning, one can only presume that
you are merely dribbling out the side of your mouth.

Pete

[Chad Irby]

In article <zE1Lb.9465$6l1.4352@okepread03>,
"Gene Storey" > wrote:

> I would have NYC ringed by Patriot batteries, and anything above 250 knots
> that isn't on a flight plan should be terminated. Error on the side of those
> on the
> ground.

....and then they'd hit Washington and Los Angeles and San Francisco and
Dallas and New Orleans and Chicago and Detroit and Philadelphia and
Miami and Boston and Denver and Seattle and Atlanta and...

Well.

In reality, you'd have to buy a few thousand Patriot batteries, enlist a
few hundred thousand people to man them 24/7, and then the bad guys
would do something else to kill people.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Mike Marron]

>"Pete" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Or, are you implying that the USAF is exempt from sharing any blame for 9/11?

>This being an aviation forum, what the CIA, NSA, Army, FBI, etc, etc, did or
>did not do is irrelevant.

Actually, your sentence above is "irrelevant" since it has absolutely
nothing to do with my question.

>The original troll asked specifically about the USAF.

Agreed.

>In your initial reply, you singled out the USAF for 'ineptness'. Yes,
>you included 'the American intelligence community', but you specifically
>pointed to the Air Force as well.

Correct.

>Still you have not outlined the ways in which you think the USAF 'dropped
>the ball'.

And you still haven't answered my question. One more time, are you
saying that the USAF is exempt from sharing any blame for 9/11?

Please answer with a simple "yea" or "nay" right here -->____________

>Absent any specific ideas in which you believe that the USAF could or should
>have done anything differently on that morning, one can only presume that
>you are merely dribbling out the side of your mouth.

Now you're the one whose trolling.

[Pete]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Pete" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>

You made the statement first, Mikey. Back it up.

Pete

[Mike Marron]

>"Pete" > wrote:

>You made the statement first, Mikey. Back it up.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yep. Most definitely a troll.

[C.D.Damron]

Show up at my door and ask a question like that, dumbass.

"Ron" > wrote in message
m...

[Pete]

"Mike Marron" > wrote
> >"Pete" > wrote:
>
> >You made the statement first, Mikey. Back it up.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Yep. Most definitely a troll.

Oh goodie! Can I go in your killfile now? Pretty please??

Pete

"... it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11 BIG time!"
--Mike Marron, 2004

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Mike Marron wrote:

>>"Pete" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>I'm the one asking the questions, here. You have to take into
>>>consideration my other comments (not merely the one paragraph
>>>above to which you've responded).
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>Once again, I said:
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>************************************************** *******************
>>>
>>>The original poster asked a reasonable question and I was hoping
>>>that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
>>>reasonable answer by now. Since I am not in the military I can only
>>>speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
>>>BIG time!
>>>
>>>Don't get me wrong, I realize that after the wall came down in 1989
>>>the USAF didn't have fighters sitting at the ready all over the U.S.
>>>pre-armed with missiles and pilots just waiting to shoot down domestic
>>>airliners that have been hijacked by "Islamic ****s" ($1 to Juvat).
>>>
>>>Having said that, to this day I too am confounded by the apparent
>>>ineptness of the USAF (and especially the American intelligence
>>>community) both of whom utterly failed to prevent the apocalyptic
>>>death and destruction of 9/11.
>>>
>>>Nowadays, when we're told of F-16's and -15's flying CAP over
>>>major U.S. cities post-9/11 -- the first thing that springs to mind is
>>>the old adage, "Closing the barn door after the horse has gotten
>>>out..."
>>>
>>>************************************************** ******************
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>It appears that you believe the USAF "dropped the ball", and "utterly failed
>>to prevent the apocalyptic death and destruction of 9/11."
>>
>>
>
>Correct. Also note in my second paragraph above that I cut the
>USAF some slack. And as you will note in my third paragraph above,
>I also believe that the various U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA,
>FBI, etc.) were equally as negligent, inept, incompetent, etc.
>
>
>
>>Again..I ask: How so?
>>
>>
>
>Quite simply, the USAF is in the business of defending the good
>ol' U.S. of A. The USAF, in addition to the USN, Army and Marine
>Corps along with the various civilian intelligence and national
>security agencies completely and totally failed to defend the
>good ol' U.S. of A. on 11 Sept, 2001. Or, are you implying that
>the USAF is exempt from sharing any blame for 9/11?
>
>
>

Question: Your are in charge of the air force in 2001. What would you
have done to prevent 9/11 from occuring?

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Mike Marron > writes:
>>OXMORON1 wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the USAF an integral part of the
>>>intelligence community? If yes, then doesn't the USAF share the
>>>blame for 9/11?
>
>>Yes the USAF has a place within the intelligence community, but they/it is
>>primarily tasked with intelligence matters concerning air warfare.
>
> Don't look now, but since 9/11 the USAF has been flying CAP over
> American cities. Now, why do you s'pose that is?

As a sop to the fears of the General Public, and most of the
politicians, who have a hard time understanding stuff like "Realistic
Threat Assessment", but do understand that they feel better if the can
"See that Something is Being Done."

The likelihod of the next large-scale terrorist attack mirriring the
last one is very, very small.
>
>>Before you snap back, IIRC the FBI,CIA, INS and Dept of the Treasury are
>>primarily concerned with areas from which the attack came.
>
> So, the USAF is exempt from any blame whatsoever for the 9/11 attacks?

Until the moment that the first airplane flew into the WTC, it was
just another hijacking. The airplane was going to land somewhere, and
it would get dealt with on the ground. Up to that point, hijackings
had been done for publicity, and to try to gain some sort of lever to
pry some concession from somebody.

>>Also under your accusation the Coast Guard Aux., Army, Navy, Air Force Reserve,
>>National Guard screwed up, so did Barney Fife and the officer responsible for
>>intelligence in the Talequah. OK PD.
>>Under your reasoning, I am responsible for the outcome in the Unpleasantness
>>during the SEA wargames. And no, I was not an intelligence type, just your
>>ordinary navigator, but one bomb might have missed the Command Staff of the
>>Vietnamese Freedom Loving Good Guys.
>
> You can continue to misconstrue what I wrote and put words in my
> mouth, but my contention is simply that the USAF, along with the
> various civilian U.S. intelligence agencies, dropped the ball BIG time
> on 9/11.

You can say that about anything that takes us by surprise. And
something else will, in the future, as well. Unforunately, it's one
of the misfortunes of the Intelligence Biz. The Hell's Angels motto
pretty much sums it up: "When we do right, nobody hears about it.
WHen we do wrong, everybody hears about it."

There's plenty of blame to go around, I'll agree with that - but in
order to create teh sort of fully integrated monitoring system
required to ensure that nobody plots anything nefarious again...
Well, truth to tell, I wouldn't want to like in tht sort of society.
Stalin, and Saddam come close, but the plots got cooked up anyway, and
the only thing that suffered was the normal folks. Not a good
trade-off, to my mind.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Clark" <stillnospam@me> wrote in message
...
>
> Have you seen the Brett Farve commercial about telling people what they
> should have done?
>

It's Favre.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"David Hartung" > wrote:

> "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> news:zE1Lb.9465$6l1.4352@okepread03...

> > I would have NYC ringed by Patriot batteries, and anything above
> > 250 knots that isn't on a flight plan should be terminated. Error
> > on the side of those on the ground.
>
> In the pre 911 world, how would you have justified such draconian actions?

In the pre 9/11 world, the folks who are griping about why we didn't
stop the attacks would have been *screaming* about the "useless expense"
of those combat air patrols.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[[email protected]]

Chad Irby > wrote:

>
>In the pre 9/11 world, the folks who are griping about why we didn't
>stop the attacks would have been *screaming* about the "useless expense"
>of those combat air patrols.


Of course!...most people need something to bitch about after
all...
--

-Gord.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In the pre 9/11 world, the folks who are griping about why we didn't
> >stop the attacks would have been *screaming* about the "useless expense"
> >of those combat air patrols.
>
> Of course!...most people need something to bitch about after
> all...

Hell, I've known adult humans - I'm not calling them "grown-ups" - who
would look you straight in the eye and tell you, seriously, that the
United States doesn't need a military, period.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[mg]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Pete" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:


> And you still haven't answered my question. One more time, are you
> saying that the USAF is exempt from sharing any blame for 9/11?


I will answer it. Absolutely the Air Force is blameless. The USAF does not
(did not) defend the US from its own civilian airliners. Duh! It was a
failure of the INS, FBI, FAA and other organizations who allowed the
situation to develop. To blame the Air Force is like blaming the fire
department for not stopping an arsonist. It was there to put the fire out
(endless CAP mission ever since), but it could not have prevented it. Or
why not blame the Army for not having a AAA battery stationed in NY or DC.
Or why not blame the Navy for not having a ship on the Potomac or in NY
harbor that could have prevented it.

In what far fetched way could the USAF have prevented 9/11?

[Mike Marron]

> Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>> So, the USAF is exempt from any blame whatsoever for the 9/11 attacks?

>Have you seen the Brett Farve commercial about telling people what they
>should have done?

Uhh, no.

>Do you see any similarity between your comments and "monday
>morning quarterbacking"?

Again, my answer is "no." Answering a question with a question is a
transparent method of dodging the original question. Furthur, this has
nothing to do with any "monday morning quarterbacking." Even after
the event more than two years later, what happened on 9/11 is still to
this day almost impossible to comprehend. AFAIK, nobody knew
what was about to happen back on Sept. 11, 2001, but that's the
whole point! In my ever-so-humble opinion, ALL branches of the
military INCLUDING our beloved USAF and also our so-called
"intelligence" communities quite frankly dropped the ball BIG
time, just like I said. Granted, the stunning victories by our
military and intelligence communities in Afghanistan and also in the
more recent "Shock & Awe" campaign in Iraq is fantastic news,
but this good news will forever be tempered by the thousands
who died during the WTC and Pentagon attacks on 9/11.

[Mike Marron]

>"mg" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>And you still haven't answered my question. One more time, are you
>>saying that the USAF is exempt from sharing any blame for 9/11?

>I will answer it. Absolutely the Air Force is blameless.

Fine. But I couldn't possibly disagree more.

>The USAF does not (did not) defend the US from its own civilian airliners. Duh!

You can bet your sweet bippy that the USAF is shadowing some U.S.
airliners NOW.

>It was a failure of the INS, FBI, FAA and other organizations who allowed the
>situation to develop.

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

>To blame the Air Force is like blaming the fire department for not stopping
>an arsonist.

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

>It was there to put the fire out (endless CAP mission ever since),
>but it could not have prevented it.

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

>Or why not blame the Army for not having a AAA battery stationed in NY or DC.
>Or why not blame the Navy for not having a ship on the Potomac or in NY
>harbor that could have prevented it.

Actually, you're absolutely right. Why not blame the Army or Navy?

>In what far fetched way could the USAF have prevented 9/11?

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

[[email protected]]

Chad Irby > wrote:

>
>Hell, I've known adult humans - I'm not calling them "grown-ups" - who
>would look you straight in the eye and tell you, seriously, that the
>United States doesn't need a military, period.

That'd be funny if it didn't reveal how little some people know
about human nature. As good as it might sound if we all were to
stick flowers in our hair and feed each other grapes while we
lolled around on some sunny warm beach in the tropics it wouldn't
be long till someone took offense at someone for popping a
slightly over-ripe grape in his mouth, snarled at her, was
snarled at in turn by some tough who had a letch for her, etc etc
etc..

The human animal has a competitive streak that cannot be
suppressed without making us inhuman, therefore we'll always need
armed forces, always. We need that competition, without it we
aren't human.
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

> Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:

[snip]

>Question: Your are in charge of the air force in 2001. What would you
>have done to prevent 9/11 from occuring?

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

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>"mg" > wrote:
>
>>In what far fetched way could the USAF have prevented 9/11?
>
>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.
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

> "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?

[Buzzer]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 05:30:45 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>AFAIK, nobody knew
>what was about to happen back on Sept. 11, 2001, but that's the
>whole point!

“The Man Who Knew”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/synopsis.html

[Charles Gray]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 05:30:45 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>> Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>> So, the USAF is exempt from any blame whatsoever for the 9/11 attacks?
>
>>Have you seen the Brett Farve commercial about telling people what they
>>should have done?
>
>Uhh, no.
>
>>Do you see any similarity between your comments and "monday
>>morning quarterbacking"?
>
>Again, my answer is "no." Answering a question with a question is a
>transparent method of dodging the original question. Furthur, this has
>nothing to do with any "monday morning quarterbacking." Even after
>the event more than two years later, what happened on 9/11 is still to
>this day almost impossible to comprehend. AFAIK, nobody knew
>what was about to happen back on Sept. 11, 2001, but that's the
>whole point! In my ever-so-humble opinion, ALL branches of the
>military INCLUDING our beloved USAF and also our so-called
>"intelligence" communities quite frankly dropped the ball BIG
>time, just like I said. Granted, the stunning victories by our
>military and intelligence communities in Afghanistan and also in the
>more recent "Shock & Awe" campaign in Iraq is fantastic news,
>but this good news will forever be tempered by the thousands
>who died during the WTC and Pentagon attacks on 9/11.
>
>
I tend to ask these questions a lot of you sorts, and get stunning
silence in return, but we'll try again.

How did the Air force "Drop the ball?". Specifically, how did it
drop the ball.
Are you stating that there should have been armed CAP around New
York, with orders to shoot down airliners?
Do you have any idea of just how many THOUSAND leads involving
potential attacks on the U.S. move through the intelligence community?
Seperating the dross from teh chaff is a full time job and it is not
always successful.
Also, can you explain why the USAF should have gotten involved ina
federal crime? Pre-9/11 they had some peripheral involvement, but
nothing like the direct linkage you seem to imagine.
Yes, up until 9/11, hijackings went like this.
Arabic/Japanese/White fellow stands up and shouts, "This plane is
going to Havana, Senors!". The pilots smile and nod, and the
stewardesses work to keep everyone calm. If some lunatic wants to
charge the hijackers, they'll try to dissuade him.
Why?
Because before 9/11 you were a HELL of a lot more likely to survive
if you cooperated. The hijackers generally had requrests, and wanted
to make a political statement-- body count was not hte main objective.
The reason-- the ONLY reason for the revolt on the last airliner was
that the timeing was off just enough for the passengers to find out
that this was NOT a typical hijacking. You'll note, the plane
crashed-- if it had been a typical hijacking, we'd all be wondering
why they did such a suicidal thing.
Than there's the matter of timing-- the air force doesn't know
there's going to be a hijacking, because if they did, the hijackers
would have been seized at the airports.
When the first plane hits, they *still* don't know there's a
hijacking, because most everyone thought it was a crash. When the
SECOND plane hit, they knew something was up, and quickly ordered
every plane down. Now what? You're looking for potential enemy
planes, but you CANNOT simply give a blanket shootdown order until you
give the friendlies a chance to land.
In any case, the USAF wasn't even involved in this until the planes
were inthe air, so if any dropped the ball, it was the FBI/CIA...but
there's one final point.

Bad guys are smart. Bin Laden is a very Smart SOB, and he has
people who are not afraid to die for him. He's not an idiot like
Hussein, more's the pity.
There is a desire in any nation, but I think it's especially
prevalent in the U.S. to assume that any failure means "We screwed
up." because then once you figure out what YOU did wrong, the problems
solved.
In reality, Al Qaeda located a blind spot, and exploited it. They
were smart, and scored one on us. It's much more comforting to say
that they were idiots who only succeeded through dint of OUR blindness
than to admit that yes, we are fighting some fairly bright and scary
people.

[Charles Gray]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 06:23:07 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>> Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Question: Your are in charge of the air force in 2001. What would you
>>have done to prevent 9/11 from occuring?
>
>Pre-9/11 Intelligence or *today's* beefed up Intelligence and Homeland
>Security?
Obviously Pre-9/11, Mike.
If we could enlist prophets into the Air Force, avoiding 9/11's
wouldn't be very diffucult. Unfortunately, intelligence people do not
have such an advantage.

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron


>
>So, the USAF is exempt from any blame whatsoever for the 9/11 attacks?
>

The USAF has no internal U.S. combat function in time of peace. If you MUST
place blame do it elsewhere.

If you are suggesting once the attacks were underway the USAF could stop them
you really do need to explain how.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron

In my ever-so-humble opinion, ALL branches of the
>military INCLUDING our beloved USAF and also our so-called
>"intelligence" communities quite frankly dropped the ball BIG
>time, just like I said.

I suggest you read up on the Air Force's missions. Start with the definition
of strategic intel.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 1/7/2004 6:52 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>"Pete" > wrote:
>>>"Mike Marron" > wrote
>
>>>The original poster asked a reasonable question
>
>>Reasonable? As written, this troll is more along the lines of "When did you
>>stop beating your wife?"
>
>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.

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.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 1/8/2004 12:55 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> "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?
>
Marion, no need to stoop to tarver's level.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ragnar]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > (OXMORON1) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >The whole intelligence community was screwed up and the only good that I
see
> >from 9/11 is posibly the system will be cleaned up in the future.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the USAF an integral part of the
> intelligence community? If yes, then doesn't the USAF share the
> blame for 9/11?

The USAF intel community has very little, if any, resources directed at
domestic terrorism. You see, the USAF generally concerns itself with the
activities of foreign military forces. Its mostly the FBIs job to hunt down
terrorists in the USA.

Get a clue before you run around blaming everyone in sight.

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Charles Gray wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 06:23:07 GMT, Mike Marron >
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>>Question: Your are in charge of the air force in 2001. What would you
>>>have done to prevent 9/11 from occuring?
>>>
>>>
>>Pre-9/11 Intelligence or *today's* beefed up Intelligence and Homeland
>>Security?
>>
>>
> Obviously Pre-9/11, Mike.
> If we could enlist prophets into the Air Force, avoiding 9/11's
>wouldn't be very diffucult. Unfortunately, intelligence people do not
>have such an advantage.
>
>

Yes, pre 9/11. And you are in charge of the Air Force. What would you
do on 9/11. You have control of the Air Force and whatever intelligence
is available from the FBI, CIA, etc. How do you stop those planes from
hitting their targets?

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

B2431 wrote:
>
> >From: Mike Marron
> >Date: 1/7/2004 6:52 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >>"Pete" > wrote:
> >>>"Mike Marron" > wrote
> >
> >>>The original poster asked a reasonable question
> >
> >>Reasonable? As written, this troll is more along the lines of "When did you
> >>stop beating your wife?"
> >
> >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...)

> 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.

[BUFDRVR]

>I got to look inside an H one time, it was at Giant Sword 1977. I imagine
>they have changed some.
>

You would notice only minor changes.


BUFDRVR

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

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> >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...

[tscottme]

Gene Storey > wrote in message
news:zE1Lb.9465$6l1.4352@okepread03...
> "Pete" > wrote
> >
> > Really. So what should have been done differently?
>
> New York should have AAA and SAM batteries, like most third world
> countries. There should be no way an airplane can enter New York City
> at high speed that isn't identified. Any aircraft at the speeds
given, at such
> a low altitude should be splashed before they enter a center of
commerce.
>
> I would have NYC ringed by Patriot batteries, and anything above 250
knots
> that isn't on a flight plan should be terminated. Error on the side
of those on the
> ground.
>

How many Star Trek conventions have you attended?

--

Scott
--------
The French, God bless them, are finally joining the war against Islamic
extremism. Their targets, which will now confront the full force of
l'état, are schoolgirls who wear Muslim head scarves in French public
schools.
Wall Street Journal

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Clark" <stillnospam@me> wrote in message
...
>
> I think you miss the point, but that's just me...
>

Nope, got the point, and your joke. I just wanted to correct the spelling.

[tscottme]

Mike Marron > wrote in message
...

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

A preemptive strike on the United terminal at Boston Logan?

You haven't been frequenting the space shuttle news group asking why
Rockwell didn't make the thing out of titanium have you?

--

Scott
--------
The French, God bless them, are finally joining the war against Islamic
extremism. Their targets, which will now confront the full force of
l'état, are schoolgirls who wear Muslim head scarves in French public
schools.
Wall Street Journal

[tscottme]

Mark and Kim Smith > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Question: Your are in charge of the air force in 2001. What would you
> have done to prevent 9/11 from occuring?
>

He would get in his time machine and travel back before the birth of
Muhammed and create a religion that worships afternoon naps.

--

Scott
--------
The French, God bless them, are finally joining the war against Islamic
extremism. Their targets, which will now confront the full force of
l'état, are schoolgirls who wear Muslim head scarves in French public
schools.
Wall Street Journal

[Gene Storey]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> >New York should have AAA and SAM batteries, like most third world
> >countries. There should be no way an airplane can enter New York City
> >at high speed that isn't identified. Any aircraft at the speeds given, at
> >such
> >a low altitude should be splashed before they enter a center of commerce.
> >
> >I would have NYC ringed by Patriot batteries, and anything above 250 knots
> >that isn't on a flight plan should be terminated. Error on the side of those
> >on the
> >ground.
>
> Using this criteria, I would have been shot down in the Spring of '97 (I think
> ??) due to no fault of my own, or anyone on my jet.

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.

"If it flies, it dies" -- Motto of ADA

[Gene Storey]

"Chad Irby" > wrote
>
> Hell, I've known adult humans - I'm not calling them "grown-ups" - who
> would look you straight in the eye and tell you, seriously, that the
> United States doesn't need a military, period.

If it wasn't for an oil based society, they would be believable. But we need
all the Nukes and Forces we can muster to keep the oil fields and the sea lanes
open. Thus, until we harness fusion, we are stuck with the MIC (military
industrial complex) as a cornerstone of our economy.

The middle east, Europe, and Asia are important to us, only in the way they
are dependant on the same energy sources. Our relation to them, is as a
competitor, and a threat to keep them from interfering with our oil reserves.

[Gene Storey]

"Chad Irby" > wrote
>
> In reality, you'd have to buy a few thousand Patriot batteries, enlist a
> few hundred thousand people to man them 24/7, and then the bad guys
> would do something else to kill people.

Patriot batteries don't require many people.

You either man the fire department, or you don't. Just think if we didn't
have fire departments because they were just too expensive.

Is losing an economic center cheaper than manning a defense?

[Gene Storey]

"tscottme" > wrote
>
> How many Star Trek conventions have you attended?

None. But I have assists in 4 Mig kills in one afternoon, so
I can appreciate a quality Air Defense.

[Gene Storey]

"tscottme" > wrote
> Mark and Kim Smith > wrote
> >
> > Question: Your are in charge of the air force in 2001. What would you
> > have done to prevent 9/11 from occuring?
> >
>
> He would get in his time machine and travel back before the birth of
> Muhammed and create a religion that worships afternoon naps.

I wouldn't have trusted the FAA to defend the centers of commerce and government.

[Eugene Styer]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message news:<zE1Lb.9465$6l1.4352@okepread03>...
> "Pete" > wrote
> >
> > Really. So what should have been done differently?
>
> New York should have AAA and SAM batteries, like most third world
> countries. There should be no way an airplane can enter New York City
> at high speed that isn't identified. Any aircraft at the speeds given, at such
> a low altitude should be splashed before they enter a center of commerce.
>
> I would have NYC ringed by Patriot batteries, and anything above 250 knots
> that isn't on a flight plan should be terminated. Error on the side of those on the
> ground.

Do you remember KAL 007? The Soviets did pretty much exactly what you
have in mind - they shot down an airline that was off-route and had
entered their airspace. And that wasn't even in a area with several
major airports - with the number of flights coming into NY
(occasionally with emergencies) each day, are you going to risk
shooting down the wrong plane?

Eugene Styer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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. Control of space surveillance assets transferred to
SAC, and ADC communications assets transferred to AFCC.

ADC was inactivated at that time only as a major USAF command, Aerospace
Defense Command continued to function as a US specified command.


>
> When the F-106 was retired, there was no
> priority to continental air defense. It basically became an FAA
> air traffic control system.
>

Downsizing of continental air defense began long before the retirement of
the F-106. In fact, it began not long after the introduction of the F-106.
Very little of that air defense system became part of the FAA. The NOTIP
project demonstrated that SAGE wasn't a very good system for ATC. Some
radar sites were joint-use, that was about it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> The original poster asked a reasonable question and I was hoping
> that someone such as yourself on active duty would've provided a
> reasonable answer by now.
>

The original poster was a mindless troll. His question, far from
reasonable, cannot be answered as it assumes something to be true that is
not.


>
> Since I am not in the military I can only
> speculate but it's obvious that the USAF dropped the ball on 9/11
> BIG time!
>

How so?


>
> Don't get me wrong, I realize that after the wall came down in 1989
> the USAF didn't have fighters sitting at the ready all over the U.S.
> pre-armed with missiles and pilots just waiting to shoot down domestic
> airliners that have been hijacked by "Islamic ****s" ($1 to Juvat).
>

Nor did the USAF have fighters sitting at the ready all over the U.S.
pre-armed with missiles and pilots just waiting to shoot down domestic
airliners before the wall was opened in 1989.


>
> Having said that, to this day I too am confounded by the apparent
> ineptness of the USAF (and especially the American intelligence
> community) both of whom utterly failed to prevent the apocalyptic
> death and destruction of 9/11.
>

What was the USAF failure with regard to 9/11?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:2y1Lb.9463$6l1.3157@okepread03...
>
> Anyone with D model time, is long retired, or dead.
>

The last B-52Ds were retired in 1983. It wouldn't surprise me to find a few
colonels or generals or some senior NCOs still on active duty with B-52D
experience.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:zE1Lb.9465$6l1.4352@okepread03...
>
> New York should have AAA and SAM batteries, like most third world
> countries.
>

It did. The Skysweeper AAA batteries were phased out in the fifties with
the introduction of Nike SAM batteries, which lasted until 1974.


>
> There should be no way an airplane can enter New York City
> at high speed that isn't identified. Any aircraft at the speeds given, at
such
> a low altitude should be splashed before they enter a center of commerce.
>

What about aircraft approaching New York from points within the US?


>
> I would have NYC ringed by Patriot batteries, and anything above 250 knots
> that isn't on a flight plan should be terminated.
>

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


>
> Error on the side of those on the ground.
>

Because the lives of those on the ground are more valuable than the lives of
those in the airplane?

[Mike Marron]

>Buzzer > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>AFAIK, nobody knew what was about to happen back on Sept. 11, 2001,
>>but that's the whole point!

>“The Man Who Knew”
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/synopsis.html

Fascinating stuff, thanks for the link.

I recall a watching a TV interview featuring Murray Weiss, author of
the book, "The Man Who Warned America: The Life and Death of
John O'Neill, the FBI's Embattled Counterterror Warrior."

I will definitely read THIS book!

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds.

-- Albert Einstein

[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
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!

[Chad Irby]

In article <AbcLb.9516$6l1.3658@okepread03>,
"Gene Storey" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote
> >
> > Hell, I've known adult humans - I'm not calling them "grown-ups" - who
> > would look you straight in the eye and tell you, seriously, that the
> > United States doesn't need a military, period.
>
> If it wasn't for an oil based society, they would be believable. But
> we need all the Nukes and Forces we can muster to keep the oil fields
> and the sea lanes open. Thus, until we harness fusion, we are stuck
> with the MIC (military industrial complex) as a cornerstone of our
> economy.

If you repaced oil with a Magical Energy Source, there'd be some other
resource someone would want, and that wouldn't come anywhere near
removing the military threat. If you removed oil from the whole Middle
East equation, you'd still have a bunch of Muslims who think that the
best way to fix their social problems is to kill everyone who's not a
Muslim. And a bunch of Chechens who hate Russians. And a bunch of
(insert group name here) who hate (insert other group name here).

War, while often about resources, is also about non-material things.
And the people who want to kill Americans the most don't want to kill us
because we buy oil from their countries...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article <kecLb.9517$6l1.5172@okepread03>,
"Gene Storey" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote
> >
> > In reality, you'd have to buy a few thousand Patriot batteries, enlist a
> > few hundred thousand people to man them 24/7, and then the bad guys
> > would do something else to kill people.
>
> Patriot batteries don't require many people.

A 16-man crew, times four (24/7/365), plus support staff. Per battery.

> You either man the fire department, or you don't. Just think if we didn't
> have fire departments because they were just too expensive.
>
> Is losing an economic center cheaper than manning a defense?

Define "lose an economic center." A plane crashing into a building?
Then yes, it's much cheaper. A Patriot battery costs upwards of $200
million, for the hardware alone.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"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. Control of space surveillance assets transferred to
> SAC, and ADC communications assets transferred to AFCC.
>
> ADC was inactivated at that time only as a major USAF command, Aerospace
> Defense Command continued to function as a US specified command.

I am pleased that we in ADC continued to exist through the 70s.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > (OXMORON1) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >The whole intelligence community was screwed up and the only good that I
see
> >from 9/11 is posibly the system will be cleaned up in the future.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the USAF an integral part of the
> intelligence community? If yes, then doesn't the USAF share the
> blame for 9/11?

To understand what happened you would have to look at how the intellegence
community was partitioned by congress after Nixon. You see, 'ol tricky dick
got the idea that the CIA would be useful to punish his internal enemies.
The CIA was not supposed to operate inside the US and so the pieces of the
intellegence community were ordered not to talk to eah other. A gaping hole
just waiting for 9-11.

[Mike Marron]

> (B2431) wrote:
>>Mike Marron
>>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>>>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?

>Marion, no need to stoop to tarver's level.

Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.


>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mike Marron]

>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!

[Dave Holford]

Mike Marron wrote:
>

>
> >In what far fetched way could the USAF have prevented 9/11?
>
> A preemptive strike, perhaps? Recall the Israeli attack on the Osiraq
> nuclear powerplant near Baghdad back in 1981.





On where - Florida where they were taking pilot training?


Dave

[Dave Holford]

Gene Storey wrote:
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote
> >
> > Hell, I've known adult humans - I'm not calling them "grown-ups" - who
> > would look you straight in the eye and tell you, seriously, that the
> > United States doesn't need a military, period.
>
> If it wasn't for an oil based society, they would be believable. But we need
> all the Nukes and Forces we can muster to keep the oil fields and the sea lanes
> open. Thus, until we harness fusion, we are stuck with the MIC (military
> industrial complex) as a cornerstone of our economy.
>
> The middle east, Europe, and Asia are important to us, only in the way they
> are dependant on the same energy sources. Our relation to them, is as a
> competitor, and a threat to keep them from interfering with our oil reserves.




I like that closing line "our oil reserves"

Dave

[Mike Marron]

>Dave Holford wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

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

>On where - Florida where they were taking pilot training?

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[David Hartung]

"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]

"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.

[BUFDRVR]

>> >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"

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 1/8/2004 12:38 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Dave Holford wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>A preemptive strike, perhaps? Recall the Israeli attack on the Osiraq
>>>nuclear powerplant near Baghdad back in 1981.
>
>>On where - Florida where they were taking pilot training?
>
>Of course not. A preemptive strike "wherever terrorists hide, or run,
>or plan" (e.g: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, etc. etc...)
>

Marion, all you have proved is that you can make an accusation such as "the
USAF is responsible for 9/11" without providing a shred of proof that this was
the case. You have admitted not having a clue how the USAF operates. You have
ignored repeated requests for your opinion how the USAF was responsible and now
come up with a lame brained suggestion we should have bombed Afghanistan which
had not yet committed an offense to the USA.

Next time you decide to accuse any person, group or organization of anything
you should at least have a well thought out theory why.

In this case all you have done is offend those of us who served and make
yourself look like a fool.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 1/8/2004 11:43 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> (B2431) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron
>>>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>>>>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?
>
>>Marion, no need to stoop to tarver's level.
>
>Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
>all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
>things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
>retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
>self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.
>
>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity. You
have. That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
argument to begin with.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>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

[Mike Marron]

> (B2431) wrote:
>>From: Mike Marron wrote:

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

>Marion, all you have proved is that [blah blah blah...]

Just curious Dan "B2431," what is YOUR last name?

[Gene Storey]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> > Error on the side of those on the ground.
>
> Because the lives of those on the ground are more valuable than the lives of
> those in the airplane?

Because the guys on the ground don't have the same kinetic energy to kill
and bring down centers of commerce.

[Mike Marron]

> (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?

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>> Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Question: Your are in charge of the air force in 2001. What would you
>>have done to prevent 9/11 from occuring?
>
>Pre-9/11 Intelligence or *today's* beefed up Intelligence and Homeland
>Security?

You're reading comprehension is slipping there Marion, to
'prevent something which has happened' you 'must' use the
conditions existing at that time son.

Could this comprehension problem have been the cause of your
'bare ass in public' errors awhile ago WRT your embarrassing
confusion between AoA and AoI?
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

(B2431) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
>>all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
>>things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
>>retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
>>self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.

>Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
>never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
>You have.

As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?

>That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
>argument to begin with.

I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?

[Mike Marron]

> "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.

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 1/8/2004 6:22 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
>>>all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
>>>things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
>>>retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
>>>self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.
>
>>Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
>>never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
>>You have.
>
>As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
>hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
>"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?
>
>>That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
>>argument to begin with.
>
>I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
>between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?
>

I sure do and name calling and insults ahve no place in a debate.

You are dismissed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mary Shafer]

On 08 Jan 2004 22:33:39 GMT, (B2431) wrote:


> 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.

Everyone seems to think this, but it's not true. Parents can give
their minor children alcohol legally. Maybe not everywhere in the US,
but in a fairly large part of it.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[JSH5176]

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

[JSH5176]

It was Written.,,,

>In my ever-so-humble opinion, ALL branches of the
>>military INCLUDING our beloved USAF and also our so-called
>>"intelligence" communities quite frankly dropped the ball BIG
>>time, just like I said.

Well if you think the AF dropped the ball here's your option,, everytime a
commercial aircraft takes off, it gets an AF escort, weapons free of course.
Then anytime we lose contact with an airliner or they go off course, they get
downed. Oh and just to add to it, your family is on board when it happens!
We all know that nothing like that's ever going to happen for more reasons
than i care to get into here.

Jim
SAC COP
78-88

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>>> >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.

I'm a bit unclear on one thing, was the 0.50 quartet replaced
by the m61 on all the B52s and then, subsequently, removed from
service in the early 90s?


Regards...

[Mike Marron]

> (B2431) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
>>all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
>>things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
>>retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
>>self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.

>Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
>never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
>You have.

>>As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
>>hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
>>"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?

>That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
>argument to begin with.

>>I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
>>between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?

>I sure do and name calling and insults ahve no place in a debate.

First, who said anything about having a "debate?" Second, there
ya' go again with the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou crap.
Now, let's quickly review some of YOUR namecalling and insults
in this thread alone:

1) Misspelling my last name while keeping yours a secret.
2) Accusing my Father and his friends of being criminals.
3) Calling my Father and his friends fools.
4) Calling fighter pilots the second biggest BS artists in the world.
5) Accusing me of having no idea what the USAF's job is.

I'll say it slow, one more time, so even YOU can understand, Mr. Dan
B2431....

POT.



KETTLE.




BLACK.


(In other words, glass houses, stones, that kind of thing.)


Comprende?

[Mike Marron]

>Mary Shafer > wrote:
>> (B2431) wrote:

>>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.

>Everyone seems to think this, but it's not true. Parents can give
>their minor children alcohol legally. Maybe not everywhere in the US,
>but in a fairly large part of it.

Hiya Mary. I didn't get into the details with B2421 because it simply
isn't worth my time arguing with a humorless old prude/killjoy, but
suffice to say that we mostly got tastes of wine at the dinner table
and only on special occasions such as Thanksgiving and Christmas,
etc. No big deal. Sheesh!

Of course, after we turned 18 (I think the legal drinking age is now
21) we were pretty much on our own in this regard, but you get the
picture. ;)

[B2431]

>From: Mary Shafer
>Date: 1/8/2004 7:13 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 08 Jan 2004 22:33:39 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>Everyone seems to think this, but it's not true. Parents can give
>their minor children alcohol legally. Maybe not everywhere in the US,
>but in a fairly large part of it.
>
>Mary
>
>--
True, but only at home.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tex Houston]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> (BUFDRVR) wrote in
> :
>
> >>> >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.
>
> I'm a bit unclear on one thing, was the 0.50 quartet replaced
> by the m61 on all the B52s and then, subsequently, removed from
> service in the early 90s?
>
>
> Regards...

I've copied two paragraphs from Joe Baugher's website and these only apply
to the B-52H.

The defensive tail armament was changed. The quartet of 0.50-inch machine
guns carried by earlier versions was replaced by a single General Electric
M61 20-mm six-barreled rotary cannon. The maximum firing rate was 4000
rounds per minute. The magazine carried 1242 rounds of ammunition. The
Emerson AN/ASG-21 fire control system was installed as standard. The gunner
was still seated in the main crew compartment forward of the wing leading
edge, sitting in an upward-firing rearward-facing ejector seat beside the
electronic warfare officer.

In October of 1991, the gunner's station was removed as an economy measure,
reducing the crew complement to only five. The gunner's ejector seat was,
however, retained, and can now be occupied by an instructor or flight
examiner who often goes along on training missions. The M61A1 Vulcan 20-mm
cannon in the tail was taken out during 1991-94 and the gun opening was
covered over by a perforated plate, although the wiring and instruments
associated with the gun were all retained so that the gun could in principle
be reinstalled, although there are no longer any trained gunners available
to operate it.

Tex Houston

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron

>Hiya Mary. I didn't get into the details with B2421 because it simply
>isn't worth my time arguing with a humorless old prude/killjoy, but
>suffice to say that we mostly got tastes of wine at the dinner table
>and only on special occasions such as Thanksgiving and Christmas,
>etc. No big deal. Sheesh!
>
You said you drank beer with your father's buddies.

Assuming you turned 20, you said you spent your first 20 years on ADC bases,
when the last ROs left ADC in the early 1970s then the odds are you were
drinking beer illegally. With very few exceptions the nation wide drinking age
was 21. The exceptions were states like Illinois that allowed 3.2 beer at 18.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

>I've copied two paragraphs from Joe Baugher's website and these only apply
>to the B-52H.

Hmm, according to my books on the BUFF, the 20mm cannon was a "stock item" on
the H model.


BUFDRVR

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

[Tex Houston]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >I've copied two paragraphs from Joe Baugher's website and these only
apply
> >to the B-52H.
>
> Hmm, according to my books on the BUFF, the 20mm cannon was a "stock item"
on
> the H model.
>
>
> BUFDRVR


You want to reread that first paragraph which reads "The defensive tail
armament was changed. The quartet of 0.50-inch machine
guns carried by earlier versions was replaced by a single General Electric
M61 20-mm six-barreled rotary cannon. "

It says the .50s were used on EARLIER versions. My experience was with Ds
and Gs. The 20mm was only on the H which is what my message said.

Tex Houston

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron

>> (B2431) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
>>>all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
>>>things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
>>>retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
>>>self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.
>
>>Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
>>never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
>>You have.
>
>>>As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
>>>hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
>>>"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?
>
>>That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
>>argument to begin with.
>
>>>I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
>>>between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?
>
>>I sure do and name calling and insults ahve no place in a debate.
>
>First, who said anything about having a "debate?" Second, there
>ya' go again with the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou crap.
>Now, let's quickly review some of YOUR namecalling and insults
>in this thread alone:
>
>1) Misspelling my last name while keeping yours a secret.

It was a typo which I have since corrected and I apologize for.

>2) Accusing my Father and his friends of being criminals.

I said they committed criminal acts which is a fact. You misread what I said.
It is against regs to take unauthorized people on launch trucks, to the
flightline etc. That makes it a criminal act.

>3) Calling my Father and his friends fools.

I said entrusting their life support equipment to an unqualified person is a
foolish act. I stand by that. One foolish act does not make a person a fool.
Again you misread what I said. Once I got issued anything on which my life
depended I would not let any unauthorized person, especially a child, touch it.

>4) Calling fighter pilots the second biggest BS artists in the world.

I said they are the second greatest BS artists when swapping stories. Again,
you got it wrong. Watch a group of fighter pilots trying to out lie each other
over beer and you will see what I meant. In any event if they ever told you
anything about the Air Force mission it is very obvious you have forgotten it.

>5) Accusing me of having no idea what the USAF's job is.

I stand by that. It is an opinion and was given as such.

>I'll say it slow, one more time, so even YOU can understand, Mr. Dan
>B2431....
>
>POT.
>
>
>
>KETTLE.
>
>
>
>
>BLACK.
>
>
>(In other words, glass houses, stones, that kind of thing.)
>
>
>Comprende?
>
None of what I said was a personal insult or attack against you. I am sorry you
don't see the difference. Please note you just called me a "santimonious
hypocrite." Please note I have never attacked you presonally or called you
names.

I have, however, said you seem to have no comprehension what the Air Force
mission is, how it conducts the mission and suggested you go review such. I
have also said your 20 years as a dependent (base brat) does not compare with
those of us who have actually served. I have also said you have made an
accusation that the USAF was responsible for 9/11 and you have yet to produce a
theory to explain why you said that. I have also said that your assertion that
the USAF was responsible for 9/11 was offensive to those who have served. None
of this was a personal insult or attack.

It appears to me you have no way to back up your accusations and you seem to
think calling me names and accusing me of things I haven't done is an
appropriate way for adults to debate.

Once again I say either give us a realistic theory as to why you accuse the
USAF of being responsible for 9/11 or apologize to all you have offended and
retract it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>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

[Pete]

"Mike Marron" > wrote
>
> Comprende?

20+ posts in this thread, and still no information as to why you think the
USAF 'dropped the ball on 9/11 BIG TIME!"

Pete

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Tex Houston wrote:

>"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>>I've copied two paragraphs from Joe Baugher's website and these only
>>>
>>>
>apply
>
>
>>>to the B-52H.
>>>
>>>
>>Hmm, according to my books on the BUFF, the 20mm cannon was a "stock item"
>>
>>
>on
>
>
>>the H model.
>>
>>
>>BUFDRVR
>>
>>
>
>
>You want to reread that first paragraph which reads "The defensive tail
>armament was changed. The quartet of 0.50-inch machine
>guns carried by earlier versions was replaced by a single General Electric
>M61 20-mm six-barreled rotary cannon. "
>
>It says the .50s were used on EARLIER versions. My experience was with Ds
>and Gs. The 20mm was only on the H which is what my message said.
>
>Tex Houston
>
>
>

Is a tail gun necessary on a B52? Has one ever been used as a defensive
measure in recent times?

Also, refresh my memory, it was a B52 that Slim Pickens was dropped from
in the movie ( as per BUFDRVR's signature )?? It's been a long time
since I saw the flick. And as more of a side note, was BUFDRVR's H
model built before or after the movie came out?

[Mike Marron]

> (B2431) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
>>all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
>>things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
>>retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
>>self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.

>Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
>never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
>You have.

>>As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
>>hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
>>"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?

>That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
>argument to begin with.

>>I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
>>between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?

>I sure do and name calling and insults ahve no place in a debate.

>>First, who said anything about having a "debate?" Second, there
>>ya' go again with the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou crap.
>>Now, let's quickly review some of YOUR namecalling and insults
>>in this thread alone:

>>1) Misspelling my last name while keeping yours a secret.

>It was a typo which I have since corrected and I apologize for.

Gee Dan, I thought you "dismissed" me? Guess not, huh? In any
event, apologies accepted but I'm still wondering why you're so
secretive when it comes to revealing your FULL name? Whattsup
with THAT?? Afterall, you're retired and all so who cares?

>>2) Accusing my Father and his friends of being criminals.

>I said they committed criminal acts which is a fact. You misread what I said.
>It is against regs to take unauthorized people on launch trucks, to the
>flightline etc. That makes it a criminal act.

Whatever. ISTR you accusing another poster of "confessing to a felony"
and now here you are accusing my father and his friends of comitting
"criminal acts." Now, I don't know what you job in the military was
specifically, but you're deluding yourself if you think that you've
impressed anyone here with your superficial knowledge of the law.

>>3) Calling my Father and his friends fools.

>I said entrusting their life support equipment to an unqualified person is a
>foolish act. I stand by that. One foolish act does not make a person a fool.
>Again you misread what I said. Once I got issued anything on which my life
>depended I would not let any unauthorized person, especially a child, touch it.

He did not entrust me or any other unqualified person to his life
support equipment. Thems YOUR words, not mine. There's a
HUGE difference between allowing your 9 or 10 year old son to simply
ride along in the launch truck along with all your equipment as
opposed to "entrusting your life support equipment to an unqualified
person." Now, I realize you're retired and all, but you really do need
to get a life. I mean GET A LIFE!!

>>4) Calling fighter pilots the second biggest BS artists in the world.

>I said they are the second greatest BS artists when swapping stories. Again,
>you got it wrong. Watch a group of fighter pilots trying to out lie each other
>over beer and you will see what I meant. In any event if they ever told you
>anything about the Air Force mission it is very obvious you have forgotten it.

See above. You just love to argue for the sake of arguing, huh?

>>5) Accusing me of having no idea what the USAF's job is.

>I stand by that. It is an opinion and was given as such.

Exactly. Just like it is my opinion that the USAF is partly to blame
for not preventing the WTC/Pentagon terrorist attacks. I'm not the
only person who shares that opinion in this country, BTW.

>>I'll say it slow, one more time, so even YOU can understand, Mr. Dan
>>B2431....

>>POT.



>>KETTLE.




>>BLACK.


>>(In other words, glass houses, stones, that kind of thing.)


>>Comprende?

>None of what I said was a personal insult or attack against you.

Riiiiight.

>I am sorry you don't see the difference.

Riiiiiiiiight.

>Please note you just called me a "santimonious hypocrite." Please note
>I have never attacked you presonally or called you names.

You can attempt to spin it anyway you wish, but accusing my Dad of
"committing criminal and/or foolish acts" and me of "having no idea
what the USAF's job is" constitutes personal attacks in my book.

>I have, however, said you seem to have no comprehension what the Air Force
>mission is, how it conducts the mission and suggested you go review such. I
>have also said your 20 years as a dependent (base brat) does not compare with
>those of us who have actually served. I have also said you have made an
>accusation that the USAF was responsible for 9/11 and you have yet to produce a
>theory to explain why you said that. I have also said that your assertion that
>the USAF was responsible for 9/11 was offensive to those who have served. None
>of this was a personal insult or attack.

And you seem to have no comprehension what it's like to stand on
the firing line for more than 12, long, agonizing months just waiting
and wondering if your Dad has been shot down or killed in some
steaming ******** SEA jungle....or taken prisoner....or WTF??!!

>It appears to me you have no way to back up your accusations and you seem to
>think calling me names and accusing me of things I haven't done is an
>appropriate way for adults to debate.

First, I'm not obligated to defend my opinions to YOU. Second, if you
haven't noticed, I'm not interesting in having any "debate" with YOU.
Anyone like YOU whose willing to sit and argue with someone like
TARVER (of all people!) on the internet month after month after month
is obviously someone who simply loves to argue for the sake of
arguing. Ya' just can't win with guys like YOU, so thanks but no
thanks! Feel free to go back to swapping drivel over "pitot tubes"
and such with good ol' Tarv.

>Once again I say either give us a realistic theory as to why you accuse the
>USAF of being responsible for 9/11 or apologize to all you have offended and
>retract it.

Again, thanks but no thanks. (Please see my response to Dweezil
below...)

>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Retired and perhaps a bit too much free time on your hands?

***

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!

***

[Tex Houston]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Is a tail gun necessary on a B52? Has one ever been used as a defensive
> measure in recent times?
>
> Also, refresh my memory, it was a B52 that Slim Pickens was dropped from
> in the movie ( as per BUFDRVR's signature )?? It's been a long time
> since I saw the flick. And as more of a side note, was BUFDRVR's H
> model built before or after the movie came out?

The guns were used in North Vietnam 1972. After gunners were removed from
crew (1991) the guns were gradually removed but only the guns. Remainder of
firecontrol system retained. See my earlier messages, same subject line.

Read the book never saw the movie. Do not know when it came out. As I
remember the book, not a bit of it was like real life as I encounterd in the
SAC Alert Force where I spent years and years.

Tex

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:vhlLb.9549$6l1.6504@okepread03...
>
> Because the guys on the ground don't have the same kinetic energy to kill
> and bring down centers of commerce.
>

?

[John Keeney]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"mg" > wrote:
>
> >To blame the Air Force is like blaming the fire department for not
stopping
> >an arsonist.
>
> Poor analogy. The Air Force is not entirely to blame for what happened
> to 9/11, but it's not absolutely blameless either.

Actually the fire department likely has a bigger role in stopping arsonist
that the Air Force in investigating potential terrorist threats. In many
areas the fire department is responsible for criminal investigation of
arson and if it is a repeat offender they should have caught him last time.

> >It was there to put the fire out (endless CAP mission ever since),
> >but it could not have prevented it.
>
> Given better intelligence, the USAF could have easily prevented it.

Yes, but the Air Force is not tasked with intelligence analyst of
that nature. Rarely they'll be tasked with some of the gathering that
requires their technical assets but in those cases they are more
likely than not to have no idea why they are acquiring it.

> >Or why not blame the Army for not having a AAA battery stationed in NY or
DC.
> >Or why not blame the Navy for not having a ship on the Potomac or in NY
> >harbor that could have prevented it.
>
> Actually, you're absolutely right. Why not blame the Army or Navy?

Because they too, are not very involved in that area.
Well, actually, army & navy special forces might be involved if
requested by civilian agencies.

> >In what far fetched way could the USAF have prevented 9/11?
>
> A preemptive strike, perhaps? Recall the Israeli attack on the Osiraq
> nuclear powerplant near Baghdad back in 1981.

Yes, with better intelligence the USAF could have preemptively targeted
Ossama. But the Air Force would not have gathered the intelligence,
the Air Force would not have analyzed the intelligence and the Air
Force wouldn't have decided it sufficient to act upon.

You are aware that the Army, Navy and Air Force are not allowed
to launch preemptive strikes on their own?

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron

>
>> (B2431) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
>>>all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
>>>things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
>>>retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
>>>self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.
>
>>Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
>>never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
>>You have.
>
>>>As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
>>>hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
>>>"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?
>
>>That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
>>argument to begin with.
>
>>>I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
>>>between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?
>
>>I sure do and name calling and insults ahve no place in a debate.
>
>>>First, who said anything about having a "debate?" Second, there
>>>ya' go again with the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou crap.
>>>Now, let's quickly review some of YOUR namecalling and insults
>>>in this thread alone:
>
>>>1) Misspelling my last name while keeping yours a secret.
>
>>It was a typo which I have since corrected and I apologize for.
>
>Gee Dan, I thought you "dismissed" me? Guess not, huh? In any
>event, apologies accepted but I'm still wondering why you're so
>secretive when it comes to revealing your FULL name? Whattsup
>with THAT?? Afterall, you're retired and all so who cares?
>
I like my privacy and that of my family.

>>>2) Accusing my Father and his friends of being criminals.
>
>>I said they committed criminal acts which is a fact. You misread what I
>said.
>>It is against regs to take unauthorized people on launch trucks, to the
>>flightline etc. That makes it a criminal act.
>
>Whatever. ISTR you accusing another poster of "confessing to a felony"
>and now here you are accusing my father and his friends of comitting
>"criminal acts." Now, I don't know what you job in the military was
>specifically, but you're deluding yourself if you think that you've
>impressed anyone here with your superficial knowledge of the law.

As I said before and you don't quote here you were talking about your father
taking you out in a launch truck and I said that violated regs, the same regs
that applied to me, and was therefore a criminal act. If your father came
aboard any truck I was driving on the flightline and brought you along I would
drive the both of you off the line to the nearest cop shack no matter what rank
your father was. If in fact you were in the "tower" of any airbase and NOT
accompanied by your father, assuming he had written authorrization to be there
or was himself escorted, someone was committing a crime. Ref AFR 207-1
>
>>>3) Calling my Father and his friends fools.
>
>>I said entrusting their life support equipment to an unqualified person is a
>>foolish act. I stand by that. One foolish act does not make a person a fool.
>>Again you misread what I said. Once I got issued anything on which my life
>>depended I would not let any unauthorized person, especially a child, touch
>it.
>
>He did not entrust me or any other unqualified person to his life
>support equipment. Thems YOUR words, not mine. There's a
>HUGE difference between allowing your 9 or 10 year old son to simply
>ride along in the launch truck along with all your equipment as
>opposed to "entrusting your life support equipment to an unqualified
>person." Now, I realize you're retired and all, but you really do need
>to get a life. I mean GET A LIFE!!

You said you handled their parachutes and helmet bags. That's life support
equipment.

>
>>>4) Calling fighter pilots the second biggest BS artists in the world.
>
>>I said they are the second greatest BS artists when swapping stories. Again,
>>you got it wrong. Watch a group of fighter pilots trying to out lie each
>other
>>over beer and you will see what I meant. In any event if they ever told you
>>anything about the Air Force mission it is very obvious you have forgotten
>it.
>
>See above. You just love to argue for the sake of arguing, huh?

Looking in a mirror?

>
>>>5) Accusing me of having no idea what the USAF's job is.
>
>>I stand by that. It is an opinion and was given as such.
>
>Exactly. Just like it is my opinion that the USAF is partly to blame
>for not preventing the WTC/Pentagon terrorist attacks. I'm not the
>only person who shares that opinion in this country, BTW.

But ALL the other people have come up with theories and/or supposed evidence to
support their claims. You refuse to do anything beyond accuse an entire branch
of dereliction of duty.

>>>I'll say it slow, one more time, so even YOU can understand, Mr. Dan
>>>B2431....
>
>>>POT.
>
>
>
>>>KETTLE.
>
>
>
>
>>>BLACK.
>
>
>>>(In other words, glass houses, stones, that kind of thing.)
>
>
>>>Comprende?
>
>>None of what I said was a personal insult or attack against you.
>
>Riiiiight.
>
>>I am sorry you don't see the difference.
>
>Riiiiiiiiight.
>
>>Please note you just called me a "santimonious hypocrite." Please note
>>I have never attacked you presonally or called you names.
>
>You can attempt to spin it anyway you wish, but accusing my Dad of
>"committing criminal and/or foolish acts" and me of "having no idea
>what the USAF's job is" constitutes personal attacks in my book.

But they are true. If they aren't sue me for libel and let the courts decide.
>
>>I have, however, said you seem to have no comprehension what the Air Force
>>mission is, how it conducts the mission and suggested you go review such. I
>>have also said your 20 years as a dependent (base brat) does not compare
>with
>>those of us who have actually served. I have also said you have made an
>>accusation that the USAF was responsible for 9/11 and you have yet to
>produce a
>>theory to explain why you said that. I have also said that your assertion
>that
>>the USAF was responsible for 9/11 was offensive to those who have served.
>None
>>of this was a personal insult or attack.
>
>And you seem to have no comprehension what it's like to stand on
>the firing line for more than 12, long, agonizing months just waiting
>and wondering if your Dad has been shot down or killed in some
>steaming ******** SEA jungle....or taken prisoner....or WTF??!!

What firing line? And what has that to do with this discussion? You are right,
I never had to wait for a relative in combat. I WAS the relative in combat.
>
>>It appears to me you have no way to back up your accusations and you seem to
>>think calling me names and accusing me of things I haven't done is an
>>appropriate way for adults to debate.
>
>First, I'm not obligated to defend my opinions to YOU.

Actually you ARE obligated to defend your vile accusation or retract it.

Second, if you
>haven't noticed, I'm not interesting in having any "debate" with YOU.
>Anyone like YOU whose willing to sit and argue with someone like
>TARVER (of all people!) on the internet month after month after month

And you are behaving exactly like tarver by making an accusation like you did
when you blamed the USAF for 9/11 and making no attempt to back that up despite
several people besides me asking.
>is obviously someone who simply loves to argue for the sake of
>arguing. Ya' just can't win with guys like YOU, so thanks but no
>thanks! Feel free to go back to swapping drivel over "pitot tubes"
>and such with good ol' Tarv.
>
>>Once again I say either give us a realistic theory as to why you accuse the
>>USAF of being responsible for 9/11 or apologize to all you have offended and
>>retract it.
>
>Again, thanks but no thanks. (Please see my response to Dweezil
>below...)
>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Retired and perhaps a bit too much free time on your hands?
>
>***
>
>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!
>
>***
>
If you won't explain to me, and based on your vast knowledge of the Air Force
mission, tell the rest of this NG how the USAF caused 9/11.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John Keeney]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (BUFDRVR) wrote in
> > :
> >
> > >>> >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.
> >
> > I'm a bit unclear on one thing, was the 0.50 quartet replaced
> > by the m61 on all the B52s and then, subsequently, removed from
> > service in the early 90s?
> >
> >
> > Regards...
>
> I've copied two paragraphs from Joe Baugher's website and these only apply
> to the B-52H.

Which might leave a false impression.

> The defensive tail armament was changed. The quartet of 0.50-inch machine

Yes it was changed, but it was changed with the change in construction
model:
all B-52s before the B-52H had the quad 50 installation and the H model
factory
installation was changed to the 20mm Vulcan.
The previous models were not retrofitted with the Vulcan.

> guns carried by earlier versions was replaced by a single General Electric
> M61 20-mm six-barreled rotary cannon. The maximum firing rate was 4000
> rounds per minute. The magazine carried 1242 rounds of ammunition. The
> Emerson AN/ASG-21 fire control system was installed as standard. The
gunner
> was still seated in the main crew compartment forward of the wing leading
> edge, sitting in an upward-firing rearward-facing ejector seat beside the
> electronic warfare officer.

It was with the G model (continuing through the H) that the gunner was moved
up with the rest of the crew.

> In October of 1991, the gunner's station was removed as an economy
measure,
> reducing the crew complement to only five. The gunner's ejector seat was,
> however, retained, and can now be occupied by an instructor or flight
> examiner who often goes along on training missions.

Before the gunner moved up front he was isolated in the tail with his guns
and
back there I don't believe he had an ejector seat: just blow the cover off
and
fall out the back. Of course by '91 all that was left in the active
inventory were
the G & H. The D's outlasted the Bs, C, Es & Fs but were gone too by about
'83.

> The M61A1 Vulcan 20-mm
> cannon in the tail was taken out during 1991-94 and the gun opening was
> covered over by a perforated plate, although the wiring and instruments
> associated with the gun were all retained so that the gun could in
principle
> be reinstalled, although there are no longer any trained gunners available
> to operate it.
>
> Tex Houston

[John Keeney]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is a tail gun necessary on a B52? Has one ever been used as a defensive
> measure in recent times?

The USAF's answer is obviously "no" since they have removed.
To the best I know the last time it was used in anger was over Vietnam.

> Also, refresh my memory, it was a B52 that Slim Pickens was dropped from
> in the movie ( as per BUFDRVR's signature )??

Yes, Slim Pickens was the pilot of a B-52 in "Dr. Strangelove"
(or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"),
I can't tell you off hand what model it was supposed to be.

> It's been a long time since I saw the flick.

Me too. I may have a copy, perhaps I'll watch it this weekend...

> And as more of a side note, was BUFDRVR's H
> model built before or after the movie came out?

Before, depending on which particular airframe, by one to
three years I'ld say (I'm not real clear on when the movie came
out).

[B2431]

>From: "John Keeney"
>Date: 1/9/2004 12:57 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Is a tail gun necessary on a B52? Has one ever been used as a defensive
>> measure in recent times?
>
>The USAF's answer is obviously "no" since they have removed.
>To the best I know the last time it was used in anger was over Vietnam.
>
>> Also, refresh my memory, it was a B52 that Slim Pickens was dropped from
>> in the movie ( as per BUFDRVR's signature )??
>
>Yes, Slim Pickens was the pilot of a B-52 in "Dr. Strangelove"
>(or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"),
>I can't tell you off hand what model it was supposed to be.
>
>> It's been a long time since I saw the flick.
>
>Me too. I may have a copy, perhaps I'll watch it this weekend...
>
All I remember is it was a tall tail.

Good flick.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Pete"
>Date: 1/8/2004 9:32 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Mike Marron" > wrote
>>
>> Comprende?
>
>20+ posts in this thread, and still no information as to why you think the
>USAF 'dropped the ball on 9/11 BIG TIME!"
>
>Pete
>
You won't get one from him. He's convinced he doesn't have to back it up and
now he's convinced I am attacking him.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "John Keeney"
>Date: 1/8/2004 11:57 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>> >"mg" > wrote:
>>
>> >To blame the Air Force is like blaming the fire department for not
>stopping
>> >an arsonist.
>>
>> Poor analogy. The Air Force is not entirely to blame for what happened
>> to 9/11, but it's not absolutely blameless either.
>
>Actually the fire department likely has a bigger role in stopping arsonist
>that the Air Force in investigating potential terrorist threats. In many
>areas the fire department is responsible for criminal investigation of
>arson and if it is a repeat offender they should have caught him last time.
>
>> >It was there to put the fire out (endless CAP mission ever since),
>> >but it could not have prevented it.
>>
>> Given better intelligence, the USAF could have easily prevented it.
>
>Yes, but the Air Force is not tasked with intelligence analyst of
>that nature. Rarely they'll be tasked with some of the gathering that
>requires their technical assets but in those cases they are more
>likely than not to have no idea why they are acquiring it.
>
>> >Or why not blame the Army for not having a AAA battery stationed in NY or
>DC.
>> >Or why not blame the Navy for not having a ship on the Potomac or in NY
>> >harbor that could have prevented it.
>>
>> Actually, you're absolutely right. Why not blame the Army or Navy?
>
>Because they too, are not very involved in that area.
>Well, actually, army & navy special forces might be involved if
>requested by civilian agencies.
>
>> >In what far fetched way could the USAF have prevented 9/11?
>>
>> A preemptive strike, perhaps? Recall the Israeli attack on the Osiraq
>> nuclear powerplant near Baghdad back in 1981.
>
>Yes, with better intelligence the USAF could have preemptively targeted
>Ossama. But the Air Force would not have gathered the intelligence,
>the Air Force would not have analyzed the intelligence and the Air
>Force wouldn't have decided it sufficient to act upon.
>
>You are aware that the Army, Navy and Air Force are not allowed
>to launch preemptive strikes on their own?
>
Several of us have attempted to talk rationally to marron.

Several of us have asked him to explain just how the USAF was responsible in
whole or in part for 9/11 or retract the accusation. He refuses to do either.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[OXMORON1]

Mark asked:
>Also, refresh my memory, it was a B52 that Slim Pickens was dropped from
>in the movie ( as per BUFDRVR's signature )?? It's been a long time
>since I saw the flick. And as more of a side note, was BUFDRVR's H
>model built before or after the movie came out?

IIRC the rmovie elease date was late '63 or early '64. The movie really P.O'd
my ROTC instructor, "If they are going to put the '52 in the movies, they ought
to make the interior correct!"
The USAF didn't cooperate with the movie company very muchm if at all. Sat in
the enclosed portion of the drive-inm ate popcorn, drank a beer or three,
damned near choked from laughing so much.
Finally got my Dad to watch it twenty years later. He thought General Ripper
was a perfect match for his squadron CO in 1944.

oxmoron1
The movie also convinced me to do what it took to stay out of SAC. Sorry
Buffdrvr, but wvwn MAC was more attractive to me then.

[David Hartung]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Mike Marron
>
> >Hiya Mary. I didn't get into the details with B2421 because it simply
> >isn't worth my time arguing with a humorless old prude/killjoy, but
> >suffice to say that we mostly got tastes of wine at the dinner table
> >and only on special occasions such as Thanksgiving and Christmas,
> >etc. No big deal. Sheesh!
> >
> You said you drank beer with your father's buddies.
>
> Assuming you turned 20, you said you spent your first 20 years on ADC
bases,
> when the last ROs left ADC in the early 1970s then the odds are you were
> drinking beer illegally. With very few exceptions the nation wide drinking
age
> was 21. The exceptions were states like Illinois that allowed 3.2 beer at
18.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I was able to legally purchase beer
at the age of 18, and Mississippi did not sell 3.2 stuff.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are aware that the Army, Navy and Air Force are not allowed
> to launch preemptive strikes on their own?
>

Probably not.

[Mike Marron]

>"John Keeney" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

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

>Yes, with better intelligence the USAF could have preemptively targeted
>Ossama.

Right. Of course, I said exactly that right from the get go!

>But the Air Force would not have gathered the intelligence,
>the Air Force would not have analyzed the intelligence and the Air
>Force wouldn't have decided it sufficient to act upon.

Wrong. The Prez may have the final decision whether or not to
act, but in conjunction with other military services and national
agencies, Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(ISR) specialists are heavily involved with counterterrorism
operations.

[Mary Shafer]

On 09 Jan 2004 02:55:22 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

> >From: Mike Marron
>
> >Hiya Mary. I didn't get into the details with B2421 because it simply
> >isn't worth my time arguing with a humorless old prude/killjoy, but
> >suffice to say that we mostly got tastes of wine at the dinner table
> >and only on special occasions such as Thanksgiving and Christmas,
> >etc. No big deal. Sheesh!
> >
> You said you drank beer with your father's buddies.
>
> Assuming you turned 20, you said you spent your first 20 years on ADC bases,
> when the last ROs left ADC in the early 1970s then the odds are you were
> drinking beer illegally. With very few exceptions the nation wide drinking age
> was 21. The exceptions were states like Illinois that allowed 3.2 beer at 18.

Kids can be given alcoholic beverages in non-public settings with
their parents' consent in over half the states. I believe he said his
father was present, too.

That means he wasn't doing it illegally.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On 09 Jan 2004 02:48:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

> >From: Mary Shafer
> >Date: 1/8/2004 7:13 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 08 Jan 2004 22:33:39 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Everyone seems to think this, but it's not true. Parents can give
> >their minor children alcohol legally. Maybe not everywhere in the US,
> >but in a fairly large part of it.

> True, but only at home.

Nope. In most states, it's in "a non-public place". In some, it's
anywhere. In a few, it's only in a home, whose home not specified.
Granted, there are a couple of states where it's a relative's home,
but even that is more places than just "at home", implying the kid's
and parent's home.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[BUFDRVR]

>You want to reread that first paragraph which reads "The defensive tail
>armament was changed. The quartet of 0.50-inch machine
>guns carried by earlier versions was replaced by a single General Electric
>M61 20-mm six-barreled rotary cannon. "

Ahh, I see. I read it to infer that the replacement was made post production.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>Is a tail gun necessary on a B52?

No, at least in my opinion. If you ever get a bandit close enough to your jet
to use a 20mm cannon, many things have gone wrong from the OCA push to the
AWACS coverage.

>Has one ever been used as a defensive
>measure in recent times?

This is debateable. According to several books and official Air Force history,
yes it was used successfully twice during Linebacker II. According to a few
books, including the latest; "11 Days of Christmas", the two supposed
shootdowns were probably F-4s diving away from BUFF friendly fire. Our own Ed
Rasimus who shared those same skys that December doubts they were real kills as
well.

>Also, refresh my memory, it was a B52 that Slim Pickens was dropped from
>in the movie ( as per BUFDRVR's signature )??

Sure was....yaaahoooo...

>And as more of a side note, was BUFDRVR's H
>model built before or after the movie came out?

Before. The movie was made in early 1963 and released over Christmas 1963.
There's a scene in the movie where our hero, Slim Pickins, is reading the
contents of the survival kit and says; "shoot a fella could have a good time in
Vegas with stuff". If you watch closely, the word "Vegas" is dubbed in and Slim
actually says "Dallas". This was changed prior to the movies release due to the
shooting of JFK in Dallas in November '63.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>Yes, Slim Pickens was the pilot of a B-52 in "Dr. Strangelove"
>(or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"),
>I can't tell you off hand what model it was supposed to be.

Its a "Chameleon" BUFF. In one scene its a G, the next an H and the next a
"Tall Tale".


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>All I remember is it was a tall tail.

In a few scenes, yes it was, but its a G and H in some as well.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>He thought General Ripper...<snip>

That's General Jack D. Ripper to those of us who love him ;)




BUFDRVR

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

[Mark and Kim Smith]

BUFDRVR wrote:

>>Yes, Slim Pickens was the pilot of a B-52 in "Dr. Strangelove"
>>(or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"),
>>I can't tell you off hand what model it was supposed to be.
>>
>>
>
>Its a "Chameleon" BUFF. In one scene its a G, the next an H and the next a
>"Tall Tale".
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"
>
Would that be the "I" model?? Or do we skip the "I" and go to "J" so no
one thinks it's a "T"?? ( Huh? )

[Mark and Kim Smith]

BUFDRVR wrote:

>>Is a tail gun necessary on a B52?
>>
>>
>
>No, at least in my opinion. If you ever get a bandit close enough to your jet
>to use a 20mm cannon, many things have gone wrong from the OCA push to the
>AWACS coverage.
>

That was my thought. It seemed to me in recent times ( Gulf I and II,
Afghanistan ), by the time the B52, B2 and B1 were running multiple
missions, the skies were mostly already ours. Chances of anything small
getting close was minimal.

>
>
>
>>Has one ever been used as a defensive
>>measure in recent times?
>>
>>
>
>This is debateable. According to several books and official Air Force history,
>yes it was used successfully twice during Linebacker II. According to a few
>books, including the latest; "11 Days of Christmas", the two supposed
>shootdowns were probably F-4s diving away from BUFF friendly fire. Our own Ed
>Rasimus who shared those same skys that December doubts they were real kills as
>well.
>
>
>
>>Also, refresh my memory, it was a B52 that Slim Pickens was dropped from
>>in the movie ( as per BUFDRVR's signature )??
>>
>>
>
>Sure was....yaaahoooo...
>
>
>
>>And as more of a side note, was BUFDRVR's H
>>model built before or after the movie came out?
>>
>>
>
>Before. The movie was made in early 1963 and released over Christmas 1963.
>There's a scene in the movie where our hero, Slim Pickins, is reading the
>contents of the survival kit and says; "shoot a fella could have a good time in
>Vegas with stuff". If you watch closely, the word "Vegas" is dubbed in and Slim
>actually says "Dallas". This was changed prior to the movies release due to the
>shooting of JFK in Dallas in November '63.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"
>

See, now I'm going to have to rent that this weekend! Hopefully it can
be found!

[Glenn Dowdy]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Yes, Slim Pickens was the pilot of a B-52 in "Dr. Strangelove"
> >(or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"),
> >I can't tell you off hand what model it was supposed to be.
>
> Its a "Chameleon" BUFF. In one scene its a G, the next an H and the next
a
> "Tall Tale".
>
Sounds like something from Dale Brown.

Glenn D.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:

> BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> >"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if
> >it harelips everyone on Bear Creek"
>
> See, now I'm going to have to rent that this weekend! Hopefully it can
> be found!

You could just buy a copy. They're less than $20 on DVD.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Michael Kelly]

B2431 wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Dan,

Taking civilians out onto an active flightline is no crime so long as
they are properly supervised. Anyone with escort privilege on their
line badge can do it. We take wives, girlfriends, children and friends
out all the time, even post 9/11. As long as the person escorting keeps
the civilians out of the way there's no problem. The crime occurs if
they are left unsupervised.


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

Agreed, but its not an entirely bad thing for jr. to see what daddy does
as long as he is kept out of everybody's way.

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

Michael Kelly
Bone Maintainer

[Krztalizer]

>
>>>Is a tail gun necessary on a B52?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, at least in my opinion. If you ever get a bandit close enough to your
>jet
>>to use a 20mm cannon, many things have gone wrong from the OCA push to the
>>AWACS coverage.

Geoffrey de Havilland just smiled, somewhere.

G

[Tex Houston]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Yes, Slim Pickens was the pilot of a B-52 in "Dr. Strangelove"
> >(or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"),
> >I can't tell you off hand what model it was supposed to be.
>
> Its a "Chameleon" BUFF. In one scene its a G, the next an H and the next
a
> "Tall Tale".
>
>
> BUFDRVR

I think the whole movie was a "Tall Tale" even the tall tailed bird.

Tex

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Would that be the "I" model?? Or do we skip the "I" and go to "J" so no
> one thinks it's a "T"?? ( Huh? )
>

I and O are generally skipped so as not to be confused with 1 and 0.

[B2431]

>From: Michael Kelly
>Date: 1/9/2004 6:02 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>B2431 wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Dan,
>
> Taking civilians out onto an active flightline is no crime so long as
>they are properly supervised. Anyone with escort privilege on their
>line badge can do it. We take wives, girlfriends, children and friends
>out all the time, even post 9/11. As long as the person escorting keeps
>the civilians out of the way there's no problem. The crime occurs if
>they are left unsupervised.

Which is what would have happened once the escort climbed into the cockpit. The
father had no business expecting the launch truck driver to continue the
escort. I had escort authority but that doesn't mean you can ask me to baby sit
your child while you go fly.

I don't know about where you are, but on all the TAC, MAC, USAFE, AFSOC base I
was on the flightline was off limits to sight seeing. Further, an excorted
individual needs to have a need to be on the flightline. If memory serves the
ADC ramp at Langley AFB was a resticted area which, among other things, means
no sight seeing. If the ADC base marron's father was stationed at the same regs
apply.

I have seen wives in line trucks and have had them promptly escorted off line.
If you want to show your dependants your aircraft take them to an open house
not the line. They don't belong there.

I don't know what they retitled the AFR-207 series to, but I suggest you review
them and their base apendices.

One thing not addressed so far was marron claims to have been there at 10 years
old. Are you aware that a 10 year old is still developing and should not be
exposed to the radiation and nose of the flightline for exactly the same reason
pregnant women aren't allowed online. If in fact what he said is true I
personally would consider it child abuse. My opinon.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Security Manager, mobility, Avionics on UH-1P, HH-3, HH-53, UH-60A, MH-60G,
C-118, AC-130, HC-130, WC-130, C-131, KC-135, WC-135 ,T-29, T-33, T-39, F-4E
and a few other goodies I'd rather not go into.

[B2431]

>From: (B2431)


Correction

>I don't know what they retitled the AFR-207 series to, but I suggest you
>review
>them and their base apendices.
>
Make that base suplements.
>
Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 08 Jan 2004 22:33:39 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Everyone seems to think this, but it's not true. Parents can give
> their minor children alcohol legally. Maybe not everywhere in the US,
> but in a fairly large part of it.

In California it is legal for a parent to give alcohol to their minor
children. I consider it to be a good idea, as children of non-drinking
parents are statistically the most likely to be victims of alcohol poisoning
in college.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 09 Jan 2004 02:48:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
> > >From: Mary Shafer
> > >Date: 1/8/2004 7:13 PM Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >On 08 Jan 2004 22:33:39 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >Everyone seems to think this, but it's not true. Parents can give
> > >their minor children alcohol legally. Maybe not everywhere in the US,
> > >but in a fairly large part of it.
>
> > True, but only at home.
>
> Nope. In most states, it's in "a non-public place". In some, it's
> anywhere. In a few, it's only in a home, whose home not specified.
> Granted, there are a couple of states where it's a relative's home,
> but even that is more places than just "at home", implying the kid's
> and parent's home.

It is legal for parents to give children wine in public places in
California, but it is seldom practiced outside of very pricey resturants. I
was not only drinking on Chanute at 17, but also in town in Texas and
Illinois both. Most places will serve minors, if they are not too
squirreley.

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
> >
>
>
>>Would that be the "I" model?? Or do we skip the "I" and go to "J" so no
>>one thinks it's a "T"?? ( Huh? )
>>
>>
>>
>
>I and O are generally skipped so as not to be confused with 1 and 0.
>
>
>

Yup, same with pre and post war Schwinn bikes.

So we'll call the "Chameleon" BUFF a "J" model! Ha!

[John Keeney]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "John Keeney"
> >Date: 1/9/2004 12:57 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Is a tail gun necessary on a B52? Has one ever been used as a
defensive
> >> measure in recent times?
> >
> >The USAF's answer is obviously "no" since they have removed.
> >To the best I know the last time it was used in anger was over Vietnam.
> >
> >> Also, refresh my memory, it was a B52 that Slim Pickens was dropped
from
> >> in the movie ( as per BUFDRVR's signature )??
> >
> >Yes, Slim Pickens was the pilot of a B-52 in "Dr. Strangelove"
> >(or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"),
> >I can't tell you off hand what model it was supposed to be.
> >
> >> It's been a long time since I saw the flick.
> >
> >Me too. I may have a copy, perhaps I'll watch it this weekend...
> >
> All I remember is it was a tall tail.

That's my impression, but I haven't seen it for a long time now
and it was at best a plastic model (was there a real take-off scene?)

> Good flick.

Indeed.
A cult classic with the bomber crews back in the days of SAC.
I wonder if the maker of that "antiwar film" found it at all ironic?
A friend who was a BUFF BN tells me they were forbidden to
watch it when it first came out, so they all made a point of
seeing it in town.

[John Keeney]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Yes, Slim Pickens was the pilot of a B-52 in "Dr. Strangelove"
> >(or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"),
> >I can't tell you off hand what model it was supposed to be.
>
> Its a "Chameleon" BUFF. In one scene its a G, the next an H and the next
a
> "Tall Tale".

It's been too long since I've seen it, what were the details that
determined the types?

[John Keeney]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
> BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> >>Yes, Slim Pickens was the pilot of a B-52 in "Dr. Strangelove"
> >>(or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"),
> >>I can't tell you off hand what model it was supposed to be.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Its a "Chameleon" BUFF. In one scene its a G, the next an H and the next
a
> >"Tall Tale".
> >
> >
> >BUFDRVR
> >
> >"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> >everyone on Bear Creek"
> >
> Would that be the "I" model?? Or do we skip the "I" and go to "J" so no
> one thinks it's a "T"?? ( Huh? )

At least it wasn't the Navy's B-52N.

[BUFDRVR]

>> "Tall Tale".
>>
>>
>> BUFDRVR
>
>I think the whole movie was a "Tall Tale" even the tall tailed bird.

LOL...damn Tex, you're the only that pointed out my error, I'm a little
surprised.

tail
tail
tail

Never mind, this never worked in 3rd grade.....


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>> All I remember is it was a tall tail.
>
>That's my impression, but I haven't seen it for a long time now
>and it was at best a plastic model (was there a real take-off scene?)
>

Most of the "flying scenes" during the movie are a plastic model with the song;
"When Johhny Comes Marching Home" in the back ground, however in the beginning
there are actual scenes of BUFFs doing A/R. Pretty good footage at that.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>It's been too long since I've seen it, what were the details that
>determined the types?

Short tail with no engine cowling raps = G
Short tail with engine cowling raps = H
Tall Tail = B/C/D/E/F...I can't tell these apart externally.


BUFDRVR

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

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 09 Jan 2004 02:48:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> >
> > > >From: Mary Shafer
> > > >Date: 1/8/2004 7:13 PM Central Standard Time
> > > >Message-id: >
> > > >
> > > >On 08 Jan 2004 22:33:39 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> 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.
> > > >
> > > >Everyone seems to think this, but it's not true. Parents can give
> > > >their minor children alcohol legally. Maybe not everywhere in the
US,
> > > >but in a fairly large part of it.
> >
> > > True, but only at home.
> >
> > Nope. In most states, it's in "a non-public place". In some, it's
> > anywhere. In a few, it's only in a home, whose home not specified.
> > Granted, there are a couple of states where it's a relative's home,
> > but even that is more places than just "at home", implying the kid's
> > and parent's home.
>
> It is legal for parents to give children wine in public places in
> California, but it is seldom practiced outside of very pricey resturants.
I
> was not only drinking on Chanute at 17, but also in town in Texas and
> Illinois both. Most places will serve minors, if they are not too
> squirreley.
>
It was my 21st birthday and 3 of us from USNTC went down to the
Mecca on sailor main in San Diego to celebrate. The waitress carded
us all and with one look at my Montana DL, broke into a rousing rendition
of "Happy Birthday." :-( (1961)

[Gene Storey]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
>
> ...however in the beginning there are actual scenes of BUFFs
> doing A/R. Pretty good footage at that.

I always wondered if they were checking the boom limits or
something, and then finally the boomer got scared and did a
disconnect. "She was all over the bed."

Actually, it was designed to go with the music which was
"Try a Little Tenderness" while the tanker gave up some of its
"precious bodily fluids"...

[Mike Marron]

> (B2431) spewed forth:

>I don't know what they retitled the AFR-207 series to, but I suggest you
>review them and their base apendices.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And then he hired an infinite number of monkeys to write:

>Correction

>Make that base suplements.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


CLASSIC!

As I told you Danny boy, you're deluding yourself if you think that
you're impressing anyone here with your superficial knowledge of
law: military OR civil.

Lemme give ya' a clue: when suggesting that folks review base
apendices[sic] and/or base suplements[sic] it might be a good
idea if you first learned how to spell the subjects that you're
oh-so-officiously "suggesting" everyone else to review. LMAO!

>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Dave Holford]

Mike Marron wrote:
>
> >Dave Holford wrote:
> >>Mike Marron wrote:
>
> >>A preemptive strike, perhaps? Recall the Israeli attack on the Osiraq
> >>nuclear powerplant near Baghdad back in 1981.
>
> >On where - Florida where they were taking pilot training?
>
> Of course not. A preemptive strike "wherever terrorists hide, or run,
> or plan" (e.g: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, etc. etc...)


etc. etc.....

Just how many "preemptive" stikes did you have in mind? and how many
'innocent civilians' did you propose executing in the process?

And how would this have stopped the terrorists who were all legal
residents of the U.S. prior to 9/11?


Dave

[Tex Houston]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
> It's been too long since I've seen it, what were the details that
> determined the types?
>
>
Although bufdrvr answered your question, if you are interested in more
detail about B-52 models and service see the series of articles at:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b52.html where you will find that it is an
amazing aircraft.

Regards,

Tex Houston

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 09 Jan 2004 02:48:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> > >
> > > > >From: Mary Shafer
> > > > >Date: 1/8/2004 7:13 PM Central Standard Time
> > > > >Message-id: >
> > > > >
> > > > >On 08 Jan 2004 22:33:39 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >Everyone seems to think this, but it's not true. Parents can give
> > > > >their minor children alcohol legally. Maybe not everywhere in the
US,
> > > > >but in a fairly large part of it.
> > >
> > > > True, but only at home.
> > >
> > > Nope. In most states, it's in "a non-public place". In some, it's
> > > anywhere. In a few, it's only in a home, whose home not specified.
> > > Granted, there are a couple of states where it's a relative's home,
> > > but even that is more places than just "at home", implying the kid's
> > > and parent's home.
> >
> > It is legal for parents to give children wine in public places in
> > California, but it is seldom practiced outside of very pricey
resturants. I
> > was not only drinking on Chanute at 17, but also in town in Texas and
> > Illinois both. Most places will serve minors, if they are not too
> > squirreley.
> >
> It was my 21st birthday and 3 of us from USNTC went down to the
> Mecca on sailor main in San Diego to celebrate. The waitress carded
> us all and with one look at my Montana DL, broke into a rousing rendition
> of "Happy Birthday." :-( (1961)

It is surprising that sailors would get carded there. :)

[Mike Marron]

> (B2431) wrote:
>>Michael Kelly wrote:

>>Dan,

>>Taking civilians out onto an active flightline is no crime so long as
>>they are properly supervised. Anyone with escort privilege on their
>>line badge can do it. We take wives, girlfriends, children and friends
>>out all the time, even post 9/11. As long as the person escorting keeps
>>the civilians out of the way there's no problem. The crime occurs if
>>they are left unsupervised.

>Which is what would have happened once the escort climbed into the cockpit. The
>father had no business expecting the launch truck driver to continue the
>escort. I had escort authority but that doesn't mean you can ask me to baby sit
>your child while you go fly.

>I don't know about where you are, but on all the TAC, MAC, USAFE, AFSOC base I
>was on the flightline was off limits to sight seeing. Further, an excorted
>individual needs to have a need to be on the flightline. If memory serves the
>ADC ramp at Langley AFB was a resticted area which, among other things, means
>no sight seeing. If the ADC base marron's father was stationed at the same regs
>apply.

>I have seen wives in line trucks and have had them promptly escorted off line.
>If you want to show your dependants your aircraft take them to an open house
>not the line. They don't belong there.

>I don't know what they retitled the AFR-207 series to, but I suggest you review
>them and their base apendices.

>One thing not addressed so far was marron claims to have been there at 10 years
>old. Are you aware that a 10 year old is still developing and should not be
>exposed to the radiation and nose of the flightline for exactly the same reason
>pregnant women aren't allowed online. If in fact what he said is true I
>personally would consider it child abuse. My opinon.

As if I you aren't already wrapped around the axle enough, now that
I think about it, I believe that I was actually only 8 or 9 years of
age (ohmigod!) back when I rode in that launch truck. And just to send
you furthur in paroxysms, here's some more incidents of "child abuse"
that my terrible ol' man was "guilty" of:

Allowing my uncle to fly the F-101 simulator from the front seat while
I was sitting in RO's seat fiddling around with the radar scope and
mind boggling array of buttons, knobs and switches.

Landing the A-1E at Lincoln, NE municipal airport and taxiing it
right up to the terminal and then hoisting my brothers and me up
on the wing so as to give us a peek inside the cockpit before he
went off to war (damn, that sucker was HUGE!) And BTW, this
particular incident occurred when I was even younger than I was
when I rode in the launch truck. Oh the shame!! The horror!!!

Back to the Voodoo days, his signature to his sons while screaming
around in the base traffic pattern was to dip his left wing once to
port then snapping back to wings level then rolling left again and
immediately rolling right and back to level (e.g: wings dipped left,
left-right) Just curious, Big Dan, how many AF rules & regs was he
guilty of busting when he did that? Hehe...

>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

>Security Manager,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, you were just an SP (e.g: AF cop?) Now that explains a LOT!
Reminds me of the time some pompous jackass SP who was publically
chewing out a mechanic at the front gate simply for having a bit of
grease on his uniform.

Witnessing this, Dad unhesitantly threw the 64' Ford Galaxy 500
station wagon into park, got out of the car and walked over to the cop
and commenced to tear the SP a new one.

Can't remember exactly what he said, but it had something to do with
the mechanic's job of ensuring that the multi-million dollar jets that
he flew were airworthy while the lowly cop's job was to simply stand
there waving cars on through.

In other words, now I see why, for the most part, he despised
cops,...especially asshole cops like YOU.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"John Keeney" > wrote:

> At least it wasn't the Navy's B-52N.

....the catapult launches were spectacular, but kicking the whole ship
backwards fifty yards was annoying the crew...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>In other words, now I see why, for the most part, he despised
>cops,...especially asshole cops like YOU.
>
>

Mike...serious question sir...you don't have any children do
you?...at least none that you can have an influence on?...
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "John Keeney" > wrote:
>
>> At least it wasn't the Navy's B-52N.
>
>...the catapult launches were spectacular, but kicking the whole ship
>backwards fifty yards was annoying the crew...

....plus I still think that the engineering that must have gone
into that wing folding joint must have been horrendous not to
mention worrying in use.
--

-Gord.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "John Keeney" > wrote:
> >
> >> At least it wasn't the Navy's B-52N.
> >
> >...the catapult launches were spectacular, but kicking the whole ship
> >backwards fifty yards was annoying the crew...
>
> ...plus I still think that the engineering that must have gone
> into that wing folding joint must have been horrendous not to
> mention worrying in use.

Well, after those two guys got caught in the accordion folds of the
Model I B-52N, the telescoping wings of the Model II were a big
improvement. Although they did have a tendency to push Tomcats over
the side if you accidentally activated them without checking clearances.

The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[[email protected]]

Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > "John Keeney" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> At least it wasn't the Navy's B-52N.
>> >
>> >...the catapult launches were spectacular, but kicking the whole ship
>> >backwards fifty yards was annoying the crew...
>>
>> ...plus I still think that the engineering that must have gone
>> into that wing folding joint must have been horrendous not to
>> mention worrying in use.
>
>Well, after those two guys got caught in the accordion folds of the
>Model I B-52N, the telescoping wings of the Model II were a big
>improvement. Although they did have a tendency to push Tomcats over
>the side if you accidentally activated them without checking clearances.
>
>The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
>problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
>and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
>occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.

I'd continue but I'm too weak with laughter...
--

-Gord.

[B2431]

>rom: Mike Marron
>
>
>So, you were just an SP (e.g: AF cop?) Now that explains a LOT!
>Reminds me of the time some pompous jackass SP who was publically
>chewing out a mechanic at the front gate simply for having a bit of
>grease on his uniform.
>
>Witnessing this, Dad unhesitantly threw the 64' Ford Galaxy 500
>station wagon into park, got out of the car and walked over to the cop
>and commenced to tear the SP a new one.
>
>Can't remember exactly what he said, but it had something to do with
>the mechanic's job of ensuring that the multi-million dollar jets that
>he flew were airworthy while the lowly cop's job was to simply stand
>there waving cars on through.
>
>In other words, now I see why, for the most part, he despised
>cops,...especially asshole cops like YOU.
>
I was an SP augmentee in 1975. That's as close as I ever got to being a cop. On
the other hand a security manager is an additional duty assigned to at least
one NCO in a unit. Since I was in aircraft maintenance that meant I had to be
familiar with flightline regs and was expected to enforce them which I did
before and after my stint a security manager.

Even if I believed half of the stories you have told us you would have to be in
your fifties at least. Time for you to act your age.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>Date: 1/10/2004 3:27 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>In other words, now I see why, for the most part, he despised
>>cops,...especially asshole cops like YOU.
>>
>>
>
>Mike...serious question sir...you don't have any children do
>you?...at least none that you can have an influence on?...
>--
>
>-Gord.
>
God, I hope not.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mike Marron]

(B2431) wrote:

>Even if I believed half of the stories you have told us you would have to be in
>your fifties at least. Time for you to act your age.

If I'm in my fifties then you must be in your eighties! And what
right do you have to tell people to grow up when you haven't
done so yourself?

>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mike Marron]

>Dave Holford wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

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

>On where - Florida where they were taking pilot training?

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

>etc. etc.....

>Just how many "preemptive" stikes did you have in mind? and how many
>'innocent civilians' did you propose executing in the process?

>And how would this have stopped the terrorists who were all legal
>residents of the U.S. prior to 9/11?

I answered your questions and you predictably come back with three
more insincere, smartass questions. Now, allow me to ask you a
SERIOUS question, if I may.

Do you believe that anything, anything at all, could have been done to
prevent the apocalyptic 9/11 attacks that killed more than THREE
THOUSAND innocent Americans and changed the world as we know
it forever?

Think about it....

[B2431]

>From: Chad Irby
>Date: 1/10/2004 4:13 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > "John Keeney" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> At least it wasn't the Navy's B-52N.
>> >
>> >...the catapult launches were spectacular, but kicking the whole ship
>> >backwards fifty yards was annoying the crew...
>>
>> ...plus I still think that the engineering that must have gone
>> into that wing folding joint must have been horrendous not to
>> mention worrying in use.
>
>Well, after those two guys got caught in the accordion folds of the
>Model I B-52N, the telescoping wings of the Model II were a big
>improvement. Although they did have a tendency to push Tomcats over
>the side if you accidentally activated them without checking clearances.
>
>The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
>problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
>and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
>occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>

It didn't help that the boats could only carry one or two.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

(B2431) wrote:
>
>>Even if I believed half of the stories you have told us you would have to be in
>>your fifties at least. Time for you to act your age.
>
>If I'm in my fifties then you must be in your eighties! And what
>right do you have to tell people to grow up when you haven't
>done so yourself?
>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
Mike, most of the people here are ex military and as such pretty
well know that you're telling 'stories' about travelling around
on a crew bus, climbing up on your dad's a/c wing to look inside,
watching him make that 'Buck Rogers' takeoff and vert. climb from
the tower etc. Don't you feel the least bit embarrassed? I'd
never show my face in public if I was ever foolish enough to do
that, but then, perhaps that's the answer?
--

-Gord.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >From: Chad Irby
> >Date: 1/10/2004 4:13 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> > "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
> >
> >> Chad Irby > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > "John Keeney" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> At least it wasn't the Navy's B-52N.
> >> >
> >> >...the catapult launches were spectacular, but kicking the whole ship
> >> >backwards fifty yards was annoying the crew...
> >>
> >> ...plus I still think that the engineering that must have gone
> >> into that wing folding joint must have been horrendous not to
> >> mention worrying in use.
> >
> >Well, after those two guys got caught in the accordion folds of the
> >Model I B-52N, the telescoping wings of the Model II were a big
> >improvement. Although they did have a tendency to push Tomcats over
> >the side if you accidentally activated them without checking clearances.
> >
> >The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
> >problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
> >and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
> >occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.
>
> It didn't help that the boats could only carry one or two.

Well, the whole "Squadron Freighter" companion ship concept just didn't
work out, since the cranes they built to move the planes from the
carrier's flight deck were severely underpowered, and the companion
ships were too slow to keep up during flight ops.

Not to mention having to armor the bows of the carriers to protect the
ships in case of a catapult failure.

Although I have to admit that the followon project - the Ultra Large COD
Aircraft - was showing some promise when the Defense Department had to
cancel the program to redesign the planes as land-based freighters.
They worked out quite nicely as the C-5 Galaxy once they fixed the
landing gear and removed the arresting hooks.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Mike Marron]

>Dave Holford wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

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

>On where - Florida where they were taking pilot training?

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

>etc. etc.....

>Just how many "preemptive" stikes did you have in mind? and how many
>'innocent civilians' did you propose executing in the process?

>And how would this have stopped the terrorists who were all legal
>residents of the U.S. prior to 9/11?

I answered your questions and you predictably come back with three
more insincere, smartass questions. Now, allow me to ask you a
SERIOUS question, if I may.

Do you believe that anything, anything at all, could have been done to
prevent the apocalyptic 9/11 attacks that killed more than THREE
THOUSAND innocent Americans and changed the world as we know
it forever?

Think about it....

[OXMORON1]

BUFDRVR wrote:
>That's General Jack D. Ripper to those of us who love him ;)

My Dad knew him when he was a new LTC just back from B-24 tour. Nobody loved
him and when he got sent to A-20 and transitioned into A-26's, he thought he
was a FIGHTER PILOT! He went to B-36s after the war. The rest of the story
came out in the movie, precious bodily fluids and all that :-) Even his wife
called him Feneral or Sir
Oxmoron1
I think his illegitimate son was a Flight Examiner in 22AF circa 1969!

[John Keeney]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >It's been too long since I've seen it, what were the details that
> >determined the types?
>
> Short tail with no engine cowling raps = G
> Short tail with engine cowling raps = H

OK, I was hoping for something more esoteric: G's & H's I can identify
if I can see the tail & engines.

> Tall Tail = B/C/D/E/F...I can't tell these apart externally.

[John Keeney]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >> "Tall Tale".
> >>
> >>
> >> BUFDRVR
> >
> >I think the whole movie was a "Tall Tale" even the tall tailed bird.
>
> LOL...damn Tex, you're the only that pointed out my error, I'm a little
> surprised.
>
> tail
> tail
> tail
>
> Never mind, this never worked in 3rd grade.....

I assumed it was just a cleaver pun.

[BUFDRVR]

>I assumed it was just a cleaver pun.
>

Nope, distracted typing....


BUFDRVR

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

[Mike Marron]

>Dave Holford wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

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

>On where - Florida where they were taking pilot training?

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

>etc. etc.....

>Just how many "preemptive" stikes did you have in mind? and how many
>'innocent civilians' did you propose executing in the process?

>And how would this have stopped the terrorists who were all legal
>residents of the U.S. prior to 9/11?

>>I answered your questions and you predictably come back with three
>>more insincere, smartass questions. Now, allow me to ask you a
>>SERIOUS question, if I may.

>>Do you believe that anything, anything at all, could have been done to
>>prevent the apocalyptic 9/11 attacks that killed more than THREE
>>THOUSAND innocent Americans and changed the world as we know
>>it forever?

>>Think about it....

>It doesn't take much thought.

>Precisely the things that are being done now to prevent a repeat.

Thank you. I rest my case.

[JSH5176]

Someone wrote,,

>So, you were just an SP (e.g: AF cop?) Now that explains a LOT!
>>Reminds me of the time some pompous jackass SP who was publically
>>chewing out a mechanic at the front gate simply for having a bit of
>>grease on his uniform.

Now I don't know what world you come from, but i can assure you that a greasy
uniform on a maitenance troop was the last thing any cops that i worked with
would ever worry about. Dan may not have been a "full blown" SP, but i was for
10 yrs in SAC. I've sen uniforms on mechanics that were so black they didn't
even look like uniforms and not once did any SP that I ever HEARD of got bent
because of that. Now on the other hand, you enter the restricted area or
violate a no lone zone and you'd have a whole new definition oh hurt!!!

Jim
SAC COP
78-88

[Dave Holford]

Mike Marron wrote:
>
> Thank you. I rest my case.

I'm so relieved!

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:18:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"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.
>
Yep, and they should have prevented that ENRON thing too. :-)

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 01:02:11 GMT, Mike Marron > wrote:

>> (OXMORON1) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>The whole intelligence community was screwed up and the only good that I see
>>from 9/11 is posibly the system will be cleaned up in the future.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the USAF an integral part of the
>intelligence community? If yes, then doesn't the USAF share the
>blame for 9/11?
>
>
The USAF is NOT, rpt NOT an integral part of the intelligence community.

Buy a clue

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:38:41 GMT, Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Dave Holford wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>A preemptive strike, perhaps? Recall the Israeli attack on the Osiraq
>>>nuclear powerplant near Baghdad back in 1981.
>
>>On where - Florida where they were taking pilot training?
>
>Of course not. A preemptive strike "wherever terrorists hide, or run,
>or plan" (e.g: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, etc. etc...)
>
>
Oh, now I get it, we should have killed every Moslem in the world!!
And Germany, France and the UK because terrorist cells existed
in those countries!!

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:22:09 GMT, Mike Marron > wrote:

(B2431) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
>>>all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
>>>things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
>>>retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
>>>self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.
>
>>Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
>>never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
>>You have.
>
>As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
>hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
>"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?
>
>>That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
>>argument to begin with.
>
>I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
>between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?
>
Your opinion in this matter is so juvenile and patently wrong
that it does not rise to the level of intelligent discourse. Please
go away.

Al Minyard

[Pete]

"Chad Irby" > wrote
>
> The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
> problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
> and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
> occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.

Apparently, waveoffs were also an 'intersting' experience.

Pete

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Pete" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote
> >
> > The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
> > problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
> > and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
> > occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.
>
> Apparently, waveoffs were also an 'intersting' experience.

Well, they weren't so much "waveoffs' as "waveoh****s!"

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[B2431]

>From: "Pete"
>Date: 1/11/2004 8:37 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote
>>
>> The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
>> problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
>> and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
>> occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.
>
>Apparently, waveoffs were also an 'intersting' experience.
>
>Pete
>
There was the unfortunate incident where a wave off of a B-52N resulted in
cooking 3 men on the vulture's walk and blowing over 20 more off of the deck.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Pete" > wrote:
>
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote
>> >
>> > The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
>> > problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
>> > and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
>> > occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.
>>
>> Apparently, waveoffs were also an 'intersting' experience.
>
>Well, they weren't so much "waveoffs' as "waveoh****s!"

Closely followed by "D U C K ! !" delivered at 150 db
--

-Gord.

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 01:43:48 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:
>
>>>> >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.
>
> I'm a bit unclear on one thing, was the 0.50 quartet replaced
> by the m61 on all the B52s and then, subsequently, removed from
> service in the early 90s?
>
>
> Regards...

Different threat profiles.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 09 Jan 2004 03:24:02 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>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

Or the Naval version "now this is no shi*"

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

>All I remember is it was a tall tail.
>
>Good flick.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Me too, but I can't remember her name :-))

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:33:54 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "John Keeney" > wrote:
>>
>>> At least it wasn't the Navy's B-52N.
>>
>>...the catapult launches were spectacular, but kicking the whole ship
>>backwards fifty yards was annoying the crew...
>
>...plus I still think that the engineering that must have gone
>into that wing folding joint must have been horrendous not to
>mention worrying in use.

What was really worrying was the hinge in the fuselage so it would
fit on an elevator. :-)

Al Minyard

[Michael Williamson]

Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:

> I'm a bit unclear on one thing, was the 0.50 quartet replaced
> by the m61 on all the B52s and then, subsequently, removed from
> service in the early 90s?


The gatling gun only appeared on the H model- other B-52 models
continued to carry the 4 x .50 installation until their retirement
(unless some G's stayed around long enough to have them removed),
IIRC.

The gun installation was finally removed due to the changed
threat, which presumably would no longer be from enemy aircraft
closing to within the range and field of fire of the removed
gun.

Mike

[Laurence Doering]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:13:03 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > "John Keeney" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> At least it wasn't the Navy's B-52N.
>> >
>> >...the catapult launches were spectacular, but kicking the whole ship
>> >backwards fifty yards was annoying the crew...
>>
>> ...plus I still think that the engineering that must have gone
>> into that wing folding joint must have been horrendous not to
>> mention worrying in use.
>
> Well, after those two guys got caught in the accordion folds of the
> Model I B-52N, the telescoping wings of the Model II were a big
> improvement. Although they did have a tendency to push Tomcats over
> the side if you accidentally activated them without checking clearances.

Are you sure about that? My sources say the B-52Ns that actually
made it into the fleet had more or less conventional folding wings,
with the hinges just outboard of the inner engine pylons.

The real bitch was designing a hydraulic system that was capable
of folding the starboard wing 90 degrees quickly enough so the
wing would clear the carrier's island a split second after the
B-52N caught the three wire.

I don't think they ever did work all the bugs out of the system,
especially since it had to unfold the wing just as quickly to
save the aircraft in the event of a bolter. Forces caused by
gyroscopic precession of the rotating parts of the #7 and #8
engines (which tended to twist the pod off its pylon) as the
wing folded were also a problem.


ljd