105 shells wouldn't have been able to take a jet liner down? Dozens of minutes to arm the plane? :huh:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44459345/ns/us_news-9_11_ten_years_later/#.Tmq3FOxLNac
QuoteKamikaze: F-16 pilots planned to ram Flight 93
Pilots scrambled to intercept wayward plane so quickly there was no time to arm their jets
msnbc.com
updated 9/9/2011 4:17:05 PM ET
When the pilots of the 121st Fighter Squadron of the D.C. Air National Guard got the order to intercept Flight 93, the hijacked jet speeding toward the nation's capital, they figured there was a decent chance they would not come back alive.
That's because the F-16 jets they were rushing to get airborne were largely unarmed, recalls one of the pilots, then-Lt. Heather Penney, leaving them one option to take out the wayward plane: a kamikaze mission.
"We wouldn't be shooting it down. We would be ramming the aircraft, because we didn't have weapons on board to be able to shoot the airplane down," Penney told C-SPAN.
In the days before Sept. 11, there were no armed aircraft standing guard in Washington, D.C., ready to scramble at the first sign of trouble.
And with a Boeing 757 aircraft speeding in the direction of Washington, D.C., Penney and her commanding officer, Col. Marc Sasseville, couldn't wait the dozens of minutes it was going to take to properly arm their respective jets.
"It was decided that Sass and I would take off first, even though we knew we would end up having to take off before our aircraft were armed," Penney, among the first generation of American female fighter pilots, said to C-SPAN.
Penney said each jet had 105 lead-nosed bullets on board, but little more.
"As we were putting on our flight gear ... Sass looked at me and said, 'I'll ram the cockpit.' And I had made the decision that I would take the tail off the aircraft," Penney recalled.
Both pilots thought about whether they would have enough time to eject before impact.
"I was hoping to do both at the same time," Sasseville told the Washington Post. "It probably wasn't going to work, but that's what I was hoping."
Penney, a rookie fight pilot, worried about missing her target.
"You only got one chance. You don't want to eject and then miss. You've got to be able to stick with it the whole way," she said.
The pilots chose their impact spots in order to minimize the debris field on the ground. A plane with no nose and no tail would likely fall straight out of the sky, its forward momentum halted, Penney said.
"The people on Flight 93 were heroes, but they were going to die no matter what," she said. "My concern was how do I minimize collateral damage on the ground."
As it turned out, Sasseville and Penney never intercepted Flight 93. The passengers of that doomed plane made sure they didn't have to.
For more on this story, watch C-SPAN's interview with Penney and read the Washington Post's account of that day.
It's cute how the government is slowly admitting in stages like this that it took out Flight 93. A couple of weeks ago we heard Bush say that he gave the order to shoot down airliners if they threatened targets in DC. I don't think I'd heard that before.
Great, our pilots have been taking lessons from the Russians.
I don't know much about shooting down jet liners, but the tale sounds a little tall. They weren't even going to try shooting it before they rammed it? :huh:
P.S.: If they wanted to limit ground damage, again, wouldn't shooting one plane town be preferable to crashing three?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 10, 2011, 02:29:56 AM
I don't know much about shooting down jet liners, but the tale sounds a little tall. They weren't even going to try shooting it before they rammed it? :huh:
P.S.: If they wanted to limit ground damage, again, wouldn't shooting one plane town be preferable to crashing three?
I couldn't live in a one plane town. I'd suffocate. I'm a big city boy.
As i remember it, was the planes closest to Flight 93 only armed with inert training ammo for their 20mm guns as they were returning from a training mission. They wasn't sure that the few hundred inert rounds they had left was enough to bring down the the plane so a ramming attack was ordered as an option...
I have a hard time imagining that a hundred rounds wouldn't tear a wing off, inert or not.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 10, 2011, 03:32:26 AM
I have a hard time imagining that a hundred rounds wouldn't tear a wing off, inert or not.
A hundred rounds is a 1 second burst with a 20mm Vulcan gun, so you only got one change to hit the plane and at the same time do enough structural damage to bring down the plane, not as easy as it sounds...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 10, 2011, 03:41:03 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 10, 2011, 03:32:26 AM
I have a hard time imagining that a hundred rounds wouldn't tear a wing off, inert or not.
A hundred rounds is a 1 second burst with a 20mm Vulcan gun, so you only got one change to hit the plane and at the same time do enough structural damage to bring down the plane, not as easy as it sounds...
Isn't that past the point where rate of fire becomes counterproductive?
It's not easy to bring down a big multi-engine plane with gunfire. The number of bombers that came back from Germany looking like Swiss cheese comes to mind.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 10, 2011, 03:46:29 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 10, 2011, 03:41:03 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 10, 2011, 03:32:26 AM
I have a hard time imagining that a hundred rounds wouldn't tear a wing off, inert or not.
A hundred rounds is a 1 second burst with a 20mm Vulcan gun, so you only got one change to hit the plane and at the same time do enough structural damage to bring down the plane, not as easy as it sounds...
Isn't that past the point where rate of fire becomes counterproductive?
Well, normally would you carry around 600 rounds with the Vulcan gun, usually incendiary and HE rounds in order to do max damage with a short burst, as you only can expect the target to be in your sights for a split second, also remember on board guns on air crafts are secondary armament these days...
Couldn't pilot of a jet fighter eject a few seconds before impact and thus vastly increase his chance for survival? Or would the aircraft veer off course then?
I'm no combat pilot or anything, but I don't really see why they would need to directly tear a wing off or cause the fuselage to come apart or whatever. This is a 757 we're talking about, not a B-17. They're not really built for the possibility of a bunch of bullets hitting them (from what I understand, airliners can be surprisingly tough, but they're still not "combat" aircraft). A hundred rounds each seems like it would be plenty to at least cause catastrophic damage to one of the two engines hanging off of that thing, which in turn seems like it would probably damage the wing as well when it came all apart. The "kamikaze option" seems like it should be more of a fallback in case they both missed with their 100 rounds.
I dunno. This rum is tasting really good right now though. Pecan Street from P-ville, baby.
Quote from: Zanza on September 10, 2011, 04:23:52 AM
Couldn't pilot of a jet fighter eject a few seconds before impact and thus vastly increase his chance for survival? Or would the aircraft veer off course then?
Not sure, I don't think that Japanese style ramming attacks has ever really been tested with modern jets...
Quote from: Zanza on September 10, 2011, 04:23:52 AM
Couldn't pilot of a jet fighter eject a few seconds before impact and thus vastly increase his chance for survival? Or would the aircraft veer off course then?
Well, it might slightly increase his chance of survival.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 10, 2011, 04:27:46 AM
I'm no combat pilot or anything, but I don't really see why they would need to directly tear a wing off or cause the fuselage to come apart or whatever. This is a 757 we're talking about, not a B-17. They're not really built for the possibility of a bunch of bullets hitting them (from what I understand, airliners can be surprisingly tough, but they're still not "combat" aircraft). A hundred rounds each seems like it would be plenty to at least cause catastrophic damage to one of the two engines hanging off of that thing, which in turn seems like it would probably damage the wing as well when it came all apart. The "kamikaze option" seems like it should be more of a fallback in case they both missed with their 100 rounds.
I dunno. This rum is tasting really good right now though. Pecan Street from P-ville, baby.
Even civilian planes have lots of redundancies etc for safety reasons. Big parts of a plane are just non-essential stuff like aluminum sheets and passengers. Many accidents in the past illustrate the kind of beating a passenger jet can take and still keep flying. There are certainly critical points but you have to hit them.
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 05:29:26 AM
Even civilian planes have lots of redundancies etc for safety reasons. Big parts of a plane are just non-essential stuff like aluminum sheets and passengers. Many accidents in the past illustrate the kind of beating a passenger jet can take and still keep flying. There are certainly critical points but you have to hit them.
Critical points? You mean like the engines?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 10, 2011, 05:42:04 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 05:29:26 AM
Even civilian planes have lots of redundancies etc for safety reasons. Big parts of a plane are just non-essential stuff like aluminum sheets and passengers. Many accidents in the past illustrate the kind of beating a passenger jet can take and still keep flying. There are certainly critical points but you have to hit them.
Critical points? You mean like the engines?
I'm thinking bases of the wings. Taking off a wing is good. Taking out an engine in fairly useless.
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 05:45:42 AM
I'm thinking bases of the wings. Taking off a wing is good. Taking out an engine in fairly useless.
:mellow:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 10, 2011, 05:46:45 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 05:45:42 AM
I'm thinking bases of the wings. Taking off a wing is good. Taking out an engine in fairly useless.
:mellow:
OK what did I say?
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 05:47:40 AM
OK what did I say?
The engine is not going to be peacefully turning itself off. It's going to be having a bunch of metal hitting it and it's probably going to violently come apart. The engine is attached to a wing (that presumably has a bunch of gas in it, so an explosion of any type there seems like it would be bad for the airplane). Even in a best case scenario (for the airplane), if it doesn't tear itself all up and the wing is miraculously unharmed, we're still talking about an untrained "flight crew" trying to fly a plane with a now destroyed engine. I don't know how easy a 757 is to fly with one engine, but it can't be the same as if it had two intact ones, right? It's not going to just fall out of the sky, but it can't be as easy as when the thing was intact.
e: With F-16s now trying to ram it I guess. vOv
Hey here's a bird taking out a 757 engine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tLF-3d3PJk It seems to actually keep flying pretty well, although that might have something to do with the flight crew and the fact that it was "only" a bird, which is pretty...er...soft...compared to any sort of 20mm ammo, I would think, and didn't cause shit to fly around and come off and such. That pilot is really chill though the whole thing. Nice. Sounds like they were really taxing the remaining engine though.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 10, 2011, 05:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 05:47:40 AM
OK what did I say?
The engine is not going to be peacefully turning itself off. It's going to be having a bunch of metal hitting it and it's probably going to violently come apart. The engine is attached to a wing (that presumably has a bunch of gas in it, so an explosion of any type there seems like it would be bad for the airplane). Even in a best case scenario (for the airplane), if it doesn't tear itself all up and the wing is miraculously unharmed, we're still talking about an untrained "flight crew" trying to fly a plane with a now destroyed engine.
e: With F-16s now trying to ram it I guess. vOv
Yes, if you're lucky the engine could self-destruct in a violent enough way to take out the wing. I don't think it's extremely likely though. As you know the engine hangs suspended from the underside of the wing and positioned a bit forward of it. Seems to me that violent engine failure causing structural failure of the wing is anything but a foregone conclusion.
Of course anything that makes it harder for the Mohamedan flight crew to pilot the plane is good, but I am guessing that failure of an engine is one of the most standard problems encountered in simulator training.
A wing is critical in a way that an engine simply is not.
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 06:14:24 AM
Yes, if you're lucky the engine could self-destruct in a violent enough way to take out the wing. I don't think it's extremely likely though. As you know the engine hangs suspended from the underside of the wing and positioned a bit forward of it.
Even if it doesn't take the wing out and doesn't explode and all that, due to design or luck or whatever, they've at least taken out an engine, right? There's at least going to be this big chunk of useless smoking metal hanging off the wing slowing everything down and causing problems for the bad guys and buying time for the good guys. Seems like you've done something useful with your 100 training rounds of 20mm. And shit, if the other F-16 can shoot up the second engine, again, even without it blowing up or whatever.....fuck yeah, that 757 is going to be gliding, instead of flying a couple hundred miles to D.C. or wherever.
Quote
Of course anything that makes it harder for the Mohamedan flight crew to pilot the plane is good, but I am guessing that failure of an engine is one of the most standard problems encountered in simulator training.
Well sure, engine failure is something you train for in flight school almost from the beginning. Of course they also, at least in my experience, don't teach you to just keep flying, but to find the nearest safe place to land.
QuoteA wing is critical in a way that an engine simply is not.
A wing is very important, of course I'm not going to deny this, but if you need to fly anywhere aside from the immediate area, and are kind of in a hurry because you're a douchebag terrorist and are on the clock, an engine can be pretty important. I don't know if 100 rounds of (practice?) 20mm ammo is enough to take a wing off, but if it isn't, why not at least go for an engine or two? Shitty practice ammo can fuck up a turbofan at least as well as a bird, I would think. Do they even really have "shitty" 20mm ammo?
Isn't there a way to target the gas tank? I mean, when those things crash they tend to blow up big. I guess it's because of the volatile fuel. So I'd aim for that.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2011, 06:44:15 AM
Isn't there a way to target the gas tank? I mean, when those things crash they tend to blow up big. I guess it's because of the volatile fuel. So I'd aim for that.
There is gas in the wings, but you need to cause it to explode.
Putting all 100 rounds into the cockpit and killing the guys flying the plane would work really well too, but I imagine that wouldn't be the easiest thing to do. Ugh it's 7am.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 10, 2011, 06:41:22 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 06:14:24 AM
Yes, if you're lucky the engine could self-destruct in a violent enough way to take out the wing. I don't think it's extremely likely though. As you know the engine hangs suspended from the underside of the wing and positioned a bit forward of it.
Even if it doesn't take the wing out and doesn't explode and all that, due to design or luck or whatever, they've at least taken out an engine, right? There's at least going to be this big chunk of useless smoking metal hanging off the wing slowing everything down and causing problems for the bad guys and buying time for the good guys. Seems like you've done something useful with your 100 training rounds of 20mm. And shit, if the other F-16 can shoot up the second engine, again, even without it blowing up or whatever.....fuck yeah, that 757 is going to be gliding, instead of flying a couple hundred miles to D.C. or wherever.
Quote
Of course anything that makes it harder for the Mohamedan flight crew to pilot the plane is good, but I am guessing that failure of an engine is one of the most standard problems encountered in simulator training.
Well sure, engine failure is something you train for in flight school almost from the beginning. Of course they also, at least in my experience, don't teach you to just keep flying, but to find the nearest safe place to land.
QuoteA wing is critical in a way that an engine simply is not.
A wing is very important, of course I'm not going to deny this, but if you need to fly anywhere aside from the immediate area, and are kind of in a hurry because you're a douchebag terrorist and are on the clock, an engine can be pretty important. I don't know if 100 rounds of (practice?) 20mm ammo is enough to take a wing off, but if it isn't, why not at least go for an engine or two? Shitty practice ammo can fuck up a turbofan at least as well as a bird, I would think. Do they even really have "shitty" 20mm ammo?
I don't think we disagree on much.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 10, 2011, 06:47:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2011, 06:44:15 AM
Isn't there a way to target the gas tank? I mean, when those things crash they tend to blow up big. I guess it's because of the volatile fuel. So I'd aim for that.
There is gas in the wings, but you need to cause it to explode.
Putting all 100 rounds into the cockpit and killing the guys flying the plane would work really well too, but I imagine that wouldn't be the easiest thing to do. Ugh it's 7am.
Yeah I thought of the cockpit too but as you say it may not be as easy to target (or maybe it is I'm not a fighter pilot). The pilot(s) are not huge targets and the cockpit is full of reduntant gadgets. It wouldn't automatically put them out of action, even though it does appear pretty likely.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 10, 2011, 02:29:56 AM
I don't know much about shooting down jet liners, but the tale sounds a little tall. They weren't even going to try shooting it before they rammed it? :huh:
P.S.: If they wanted to limit ground damage, again, wouldn't shooting one plane town be preferable to crashing three?
Those planes had no ammo or missiles. It would've taken over an hour to arm them. CONUS hadn't kept armed flights ready to scramble since the mid 80s.
Doesn't anybody read these articles that are posted?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2011, 08:02:23 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 10, 2011, 02:29:56 AM
I don't know much about shooting down jet liners, but the tale sounds a little tall. They weren't even going to try shooting it before they rammed it? :huh:
P.S.: If they wanted to limit ground damage, again, wouldn't shooting one plane town be preferable to crashing three?
Those planes had no ammo or missiles. It would've taken over an hour to arm them. CONUS hadn't kept armed flights ready to scramble since the mid 80s.
Doesn't anybody read these articles that are posted?
Indeed, classic Languish; the issue is unarmed fighter planes, the discussion turns to redundant systems of thrust and structural integrity of commercial airliners. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2011, 08:14:58 PM
It's cute how the government is slowly admitting in stages like this that it took out Flight 93. A couple of weeks ago we heard Bush say that he gave the order to shoot down airliners if they threatened targets in DC. I don't think I'd heard that before.
I've been hearing that orders were issued to take down planes if necessary since 2001 I believe.
The truth is we were in no position to execute any such orders in time, as the article mentions planes weren't at a true state of readiness for this kind of thing. Now we have SAM batteries around DC and fighter jets in the sky 24/7.
Quote from: Warspite on September 10, 2011, 08:09:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2011, 08:02:23 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 10, 2011, 02:29:56 AM
I don't know much about shooting down jet liners, but the tale sounds a little tall. They weren't even going to try shooting it before they rammed it? :huh:
P.S.: If they wanted to limit ground damage, again, wouldn't shooting one plane town be preferable to crashing three?
Those planes had no ammo or missiles. It would've taken over an hour to arm them. CONUS hadn't kept armed flights ready to scramble since the mid 80s.
Doesn't anybody read these articles that are posted?
Indeed, classic Languish; the issue is unarmed fighter planes, the discussion turns to redundant systems of thrust and structural integrity of commercial airliners. :lol:
According to the article they had 105 rounds of crap ammo.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 10, 2011, 05:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 05:47:40 AM
OK what did I say?
The engine is not going to be peacefully turning itself off. It's going to be having a bunch of metal hitting it and it's probably going to violently come apart. The engine is attached to a wing (that presumably has a bunch of gas in it, so an explosion of any type there seems like it would be bad for the airplane). Even in a best case scenario (for the airplane), if it doesn't tear itself all up and the wing is miraculously unharmed, we're still talking about an untrained "flight crew" trying to fly a plane with a now destroyed engine. I don't know how easy a 757 is to fly with one engine, but it can't be the same as if it had two intact ones, right? It's not going to just fall out of the sky, but it can't be as easy as when the thing was intact.
e: With F-16s now trying to ram it I guess. vOv
Hey here's a bird taking out a 757 engine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tLF-3d3PJk It seems to actually keep flying pretty well, although that might have something to do with the flight crew and the fact that it was "only" a bird, which is pretty...er...soft...compared to any sort of 20mm ammo, I would think, and didn't cause shit to fly around and come off and such. That pilot is really chill though the whole thing. Nice. Sounds like they were really taxing the remaining engine though.
MBM, commercial aircraft go through thousands of birds a year. When a bird takes out an engine it is probably more of a flukey occurance as opposed to evidence that commerical airlines are especially delicate.
I don't know much about the capabilities of military aircraft, but if you have a 1 second burst of inert metal that is being fired from a moving aircraft at another moving aircraft, it seems likely that a) it is a challenge to pick that one spot to guarantee bringing down the aircraft, and b) you are assured of putting that 1 second burst directly on target.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2011, 08:02:23 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 10, 2011, 02:29:56 AM
I don't know much about shooting down jet liners, but the tale sounds a little tall. They weren't even going to try shooting it before they rammed it? :huh:
P.S.: If they wanted to limit ground damage, again, wouldn't shooting one plane town be preferable to crashing three?
Those planes had no ammo or missiles. It would've taken over an hour to arm them. CONUS hadn't kept armed flights ready to scramble since the mid 80s.
Doesn't anybody read these articles that are posted?
I was a little disturbed by that. I know it's expensive to keep planes on high rediness, but it is the DC area. It's sort of important.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2011, 08:02:23 AM
I don't know much about shooting down jet liners, but the tale sounds a little tall. They weren't even going to try shooting it before they rammed it? :huh:
Why does it take so long?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 10, 2011, 09:24:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2011, 08:02:23 AM
I don't know much about shooting down jet liners, but the tale sounds a little tall. They weren't even going to try shooting it before they rammed it? :huh:
Why does it take so long?
Have to finish the game of WoW first.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 10, 2011, 08:12:39 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2011, 08:14:58 PM
It's cute how the government is slowly admitting in stages like this that it took out Flight 93. A couple of weeks ago we heard Bush say that he gave the order to shoot down airliners if they threatened targets in DC. I don't think I'd heard that before.
I've been hearing that orders were issued to take down planes if necessary since 2001 I believe.
People who listen have.
Cal has tits on the brain.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2011, 08:02:23 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 10, 2011, 02:29:56 AM
I don't know much about shooting down jet liners, but the tale sounds a little tall. They weren't even going to try shooting it before they rammed it? :huh:
P.S.: If they wanted to limit ground damage, again, wouldn't shooting one plane town be preferable to crashing three?
Those planes had no ammo or missiles. It would've taken over an hour to arm them. CONUS hadn't kept armed flights ready to scramble since the mid 80s.
Doesn't anybody read these articles that are posted?
I was tired. -_- Also, I would like to take the opportunity to shift some of the blame onto Tim. He said they had shells in his post, and I missed the heavy qualification in this article. I mean, that would still be worth a shot, but yeah.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 10, 2011, 09:24:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2011, 08:02:23 AM
I don't know much about shooting down jet liners, but the tale sounds a little tall. They weren't even going to try shooting it before they rammed it? :huh:
Why does it take so long?
It's the military. The ammo is probably locked up tight somewhere not near the planes.
The United 93 movie is on TV right now. When talking about ROE they (AF officer on the ground) asked about permission to ram with their unarmed planes.
The movie was totally OK I thought, btw. Hadn't seen it before.
Man they sure made a big thing of pointing out (at the end of the movie) that no fighters were anywhere near it and that shooting it down was therefore not a possibility.
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 05:15:35 PM
The United 93 movie is on TV right now. When talking about ROE they (AF officer on the ground) asked about permission to ram with their unarmed planes.
Is that the one where every other shot is of mothers holding children?
Or was that one of the made-for-TV movies?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 10, 2011, 08:07:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 05:15:35 PM
The United 93 movie is on TV right now. When talking about ROE they (AF officer on the ground) asked about permission to ram with their unarmed planes.
Is that the one where every other shot is of mothers holding children?
Or was that one of the made-for-TV movies?
I never watched it. The GOP sent me an unsolicited DVD of back in 2004. I thought that a little crass.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 10, 2011, 08:07:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 05:15:35 PM
The United 93 movie is on TV right now. When talking about ROE they (AF officer on the ground) asked about permission to ram with their unarmed planes.
Is that the one where every other shot is of mothers holding children?
Or was that one of the made-for-TV movies?
Didn't see any children.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2011, 08:35:36 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 10, 2011, 08:07:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 05:15:35 PM
The United 93 movie is on TV right now. When talking about ROE they (AF officer on the ground) asked about permission to ram with their unarmed planes.
Is that the one where every other shot is of mothers holding children?
Or was that one of the made-for-TV movies?
I never watched it. The GOP sent me an unsolicited DVD of back in 2004. I thought that a little crass.
I got the one about evil towelheads overseas.
They originally were sending out VHSs of Rambo III left over from the 1992 campaign, but those didn't work as good in 2004.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 10, 2011, 08:12:39 AM
I've been hearing that orders were issued to take down planes if necessary since 2001 I believe.
:yes:
Perhaps Caliga finally cleaned out the wax in his ears.