The 9/11 suicide mission of Lt. Heather Penney...

They didn't know it at the time, but Todd Beamer and his fellow stalwarts on Flight 93 saved the life of one woman intent on taking theirs--Kamikaze style. Ten years later, the Washington Post broke the story (in its "Lifestyle" section, of course):

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.

When they ordered her to scramble, did anyone know whether or not Penney was pregnant? And if she was, did they ask her little baby if he was willing to die on his mother's suicide mission?

Did Penney have children waiting for her to come home and cuddle? Was her husband babysitting, or do our armed forces require female combat pilots to be single and childless?

What a barbaric nation we have become! Lt. Penney's willingness to give up her life in defense of others is commendable. But the officers, commander in chief, and nation that placed this woman in harm's way are despicable cowards who care more about appearing sufficiently progressive than they care about protecting the aged, feeble, children, unborn babies, and women.

Looking back on that terrible day, now-Major Penney says, “I genuinely believed that was going to be the last time I took off. If we did it right, this would be it.”

The manly men of flight 93 died. And now, a decade later, Major Penney is a single mother of two daughters. That's the world as it should be.

Almost.

(TB, w/thanks to Eric and Gene V.)

Comments

The Air Force does not require female combat pilots to be single and childless.

Of course when I joined the service there was no such thing.

That's sick, honestly sickening.

A remarkable story. This should have come out in the 9-11 investigation much earlier. Some other scandals (besides telling a young woman to go kill herself to defend you):

1. It would have taken an hour to get any US aircraft armed and ready to defend Washington DC.

2. There was NO plan for how to defend Washington DC on short notice.

3. The Air Force did not ask the woman pilot to volunteer for the kamikaze mission-- she was just commanded to do it. The Japanese kamikazes were all volunteers, with no pressure to volunteer and with lots of time to think about the decision.

4. The impromptu plan was for one fighter to crash into the cockpit and one into the tail, rather than one to crash into the cockpit and the other the wing, or, clearly best of all, one to crash into the cockpit and the other to crash into the cockpit too if the first one didn't bring down the jetliner.

5. The woman pilot had never "scrambled" a fighter before, taking off without doing 1/2 hour of pre-flight checks.

6. It seems nobody was punished for items 1-5.

The reporter could have gotten lots of things wrong, of course, but...

Here's another link to the story: http://goo.gl/a8wpd

“Lucky, you’re coming with me,” barked Col. Marc Sasseville.

This is absolutely terrible.

I hope this shows my brothers in Christ the need for men to join the military if for no other reason than to avoid our sisters having to cover our shame in yet another area of life.

And yes, I put my life where my mouth is: I applied and was rejected based on my medical history. Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life. But not my will but Yours, Lord.

Wouldn't a suicide mission that will, in fact, kill others, be utilitarianism? In other words, if she were to have done what she had done, would she not have purposely killed "innocent" folk in the process? I understand the argument would be, "Well, if the plane had kept going it would have killed far more people." But wouldn't that be an example of doing evil that good may come? This is not a loaded question as I'm genuinely interested in hearing and learning from others who may very well have a more mature understanding of this. The same could be asked of the bombs of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Thank you in advance.

>In other words, if she were to have done what she had done, would she not have purposely killed "innocent" folk in the process?

Setting aside the other factors I believe that is incorrect. She would have been purposely destroying an enemy aircraft (it had been ours but had been captured and was being used by the enemy). If the Japanese had seized an American destroyer and began to use it against the US Navy it most certainly would be fired upon even if US personnel were still on board. Those personnel would not be the purposeful target, the Japanese ship and crew would be although obviously the American crew would suffer from such targetting. So I would not describe that as utilitarian.

Add new comment