(Washington Post) F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11

Late in the morning of the Tuesday that changed everything, Lt. Heather “Lucky” Penney was on a runway at Andrews Air Force Base and ready to fly. She had her hand on the throttle of an F-16 and she had her orders: Bring down United Airlines Flight 93. The day’s fourth hijacked airliner seemed to be hurtling toward Washington. Penney, one of the first two combat pilots in the air that morning, was told to stop it.

The one thing she didn’t have as she roared into the crystalline sky was live ammunition. Or missiles. Or anything at all to throw at a hostile aircraft.

Except her own plane. So that was the plan…

Read it all.


Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, Defense, National Security, Military, History, Terrorism, Women

9 comments on “(Washington Post) F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11

  1. Br. Michael says:

    Here is the interview: http://www.c-span.org/Events/September-11th-Interview-Major-Heather-Penney-Fighter-Pilot/10737423885/

    Play the complete file.

    Her father was a fighter pilot in Vietnam. She’s the real deal.

  2. MatthewM says:

    Br. Michael, thanks for the link.
    A real living Kara “Starbuck” Thrace (new Battlestar Galactica Reference). This is one real woman that should be a role model for all females.
    Of course the misogynist crowd doesn’t think or believe woman would be any good in combat or make good fighter pilots. The ‘weaker’ sex need protecting. It’s a shame little girls are brainwashed into believing the ‘frailty myth’. I’d fly and fight beside her any day.
    God Bless her and her service!

  3. Chris Molter says:

    #2, yes, it HAS to be misogyny. Couldn’t be anything else, right? A page from the gay lobby’s playbook right there. Nicely done.

  4. Capt. Father Warren says:

    Thanks Fr. Kendall for posting this. Helps to cleanse my mind of this pollution from the NYT


    A new low, even for this fellow.

  5. MatthewM says:

    Chris Molter wrote:
    “A page from the gay lobby’s playbook right there”

    What ARE you talking about?
    Me thinks you need help dude.

  6. Creedal Episcopalian says:

    #5: What misogynist crowd?

    Mr. Molter is correct. But the lobby is not just gay, it is made of people who despise our [christian] culture, and want to wreck it in order to impose something else. What the replacement for christian culture would inevitably be is not something i like to contemplate.
    Feminism, homosexuality, and pan-sexualism are tools being used against Christianity, which anyone who has read scripture must admit is greatly concerned with sexuality. Calling completely moral people misogynistic is one of the Alinski-ite weapons in the left’s playbook.
    The actual myth is that “little girls are brainwashed “.

  7. evan miller says:

    I know several women in the army and navy who are excellent officers. That said, I strongly object to women serving in combat units and integrated into any units with men. It is simply disasterous for the maintenance of good order and discipline. The advocacy for women in all roles in the military is driven solely by political correctness and a feminist agenda, and is utterly unconcerned with military necessity or effectivness.

    LTC (Ret.)

  8. Cennydd13 says:

    I served with several women officers during my USAF career, and none were pilots……nor did they want to be. There are many roles for women officers, and they are specialists in many career fields, such as weapons controllers, radar operations officers……including those who serve aboard AWACS aircraft, and fighter pilots. As a father, I wouldn’t have wanted my daughter to serve in combat, but I certainly would’ve understood if she wanted to fly tactical transports like a C-130 or C-17 in a support role. Unfortunately, tactical air support often involves combat, as we’ve seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, where women pilots have been killed.

  9. Chris Molter says:

    #5, Labelling anyone who thinks women should not be in combat misogynists is patently silly (especially since there are quite a few women in that group. Must be them self-hatin’ women!). It precisely mirrors the gay lobby’s tactic of smearing anyone who may have principled, logical reasons for opposing them as “haters” or “homophobes”, thereby poisoning any chance of rational discourse from the get-go. There are plenty of reasons to oppose putting women in combat that have absolutely NOTHING to do with misogyny. Although I suppose that could depend on how broadly you want to define “misogyny” (much like “homophobe” used as code for “anyone who opposes the normalization of homosexuality for any reason whatsoever).