My apologies re the cross-posting, it was Rauni who started it.

A bit of context: Where this came from, was a thread on soc.men,
where it was asserted by another poster ( Neither Rauni nor
myself ), that " orders were given on 9/11 to *keep US fighters
on the ground ", so that they could not intercept, in the
military sense, ie- identify, and destroy, any aircraft that
refused to veer away from suicide targets.

I disputed the claim of " orders were given ", and somewhere
in there, Rauni jumped in, to hector me about the precise
" definition " of interception, in this case, and context.

My point was that an interception mission flown on 9/11 would
necessarily have included armament on the fighter aircraft, and
that shooting down an airliner was a real possibility. Such
that the peacetime definition of " interception ", limited to
merely acquiring and identifying an aircraft, wasn't definitive
in the 9/11 context.

At this point, she can't let go of it, and makes another factual
howler, right below...

Rauni ) writes:
On 15 Sep 2003 13:54:38 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

No problem. Look up " interceptors " in USAF procurement, and start
from there...

ROTFLOL this is *too* funny you are taking your definition of
interception from the *name* of a missile?

The " interceptors " in question ( F-102, F-104, F-106, etc. ) were
*manned aircraft*, not " missiles "...

HTH.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.