Whoa - I would have loved to have seen that.

http://tinyurl.com/ltrj4d

Captain Marvel of Woodstock wrote:
Whoa - I would have loved to have seen that.

http://tinyurl.com/ltrj4d


It's always nice when jet jockeys in the military disregard the risks to
which they expose civilians with their "show-off" antics. It's no wonder
you would have loved to have been there.

I'm sure the plane in the photo was not as close to the building as a
telephoto lens makes it appear, but...had anything untoward happened,
the plane could have plowed into the structure and killed a lot of people.

Sometimes down at Virginia Beach you see navy pilots doing that sort of
stuff, but they are doing it for flight practice, and over the water,
not in the airspace in between the hotels.

Perhaps you should head over to Afghanistan so you can get your
vicarious kicks from the military's bombing of "suspected" terrorist
residences that turn out to have held no targets but innocent civilians.
I'm sure the sight of burned, broken, and roasted bodies would turn you
on, eh?

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:17:53 -0400, H the K
wrote:

It's always nice when jet jockeys in the military disregard the risks to
which they expose civilians with their "show-off" antics. It's no wonder
you would have loved to have been there.

You didn't read the article - again - did you?

It was authorized.

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:17:53 -0400, H the K
wrote:

It's always nice when jet jockeys in the military disregard the risks to
which they expose civilians with their "show-off" antics. It's no wonder
you would have loved to have been there.

You didn't read the article - again - did you?

It was authorized.


Of course it was "authorized." So what? It was still stupid and risky to
civilian populations.

"It was authorized."

What a wonderful, typically military excuse.

From an imaginary news story...


And the post-crash investigation revealed a part built by the
lowest-cost bidder failed at a critical moment, causing the pilot to
lose control of the aircraft just before it crashed into an apartment
building. Twenty-three men, women and children on the fourth and fifth
floor of that apartment building died in the mishap."

A spokesperson for the military said the accident was tragic, but
noted that "the flight was authorized."



Note that I am not saying the military should avoid dangerous flights,
or building fly-bys, or whatever. All manner of training is important to
military aviators. But there is training and there is stupidity, and
flying that close to an apartment building for the purpose of "showing
off" is stupidity. If building fly-by training is necessary, it should
be done on a relatively deserted part of a military base, or in the
desert. You know, where a lot of people aren't exposed to the risk.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:37:51 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Note that I am not saying the military should avoid dangerous flights,
or building fly-bys, or whatever. All manner of training is important to
military aviators. But there is training and there is stupidity, and
flying that close to an apartment building for the purpose of "showing
off" is stup

Close to the building? It looks like the camera was far from the
scene, and used a very long lens. With the flattened perspective the
plane could fair distance, a couple of hundred feet or more, from the
building.

Casady

Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:37:51 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Note that I am not saying the military should avoid dangerous flights,
or building fly-bys, or whatever. All manner of training is important to
military aviators. But there is training and there is stupidity, and
flying that close to an apartment building for the purpose of "showing
off" is stup

Close to the building? It looks like the camera was far from the
scene, and used a very long lens. With the flattened perspective the
plane could fair distance, a couple of hundred feet or more, from the
building.

Casady

Indeed, I mentioned that, but...we don't really know, do we?

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:17:53 -0400, H the K
wrote:


You didn't read the article - again - did you?

It was authorized.

He's just WAFA. Why don't you **** can him? Or at least don't quote him!

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:22:55 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:17:53 -0400, H the K
wrote:

It's always nice when jet jockeys in the military disregard the risks to
which they expose civilians with their "show-off" antics. It's no wonder
you would have loved to have been there.

You didn't read the article - again - did you?

It was authorized.

He gotcha, Tom!
--

John H

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Captain Marvel of Woodstock wrote:
Whoa - I would have loved to have seen that.

http://tinyurl.com/ltrj4d


It's always nice when jet jockeys in the military disregard the risks to
which they expose civilians with their "show-off" antics. It's no wonder
you would have loved to have been there.

I'm sure the plane in the photo was not as close to the building as a
telephoto lens makes it appear, but...had anything untoward happened, the
plane could have plowed into the structure and killed a lot of people.

Sometimes down at Virginia Beach you see navy pilots doing that sort of
stuff, but they are doing it for flight practice, and over the water, not
in the airspace in between the hotels.

Perhaps you should head over to Afghanistan so you can get your vicarious
kicks from the military's bombing of "suspected" terrorist residences that
turn out to have held no targets but innocent civilians.
I'm sure the sight of burned, broken, and roasted bodies would turn you
on, eh?

Another one in the **** can. plonk

H the K wrote:
Captain Marvel of Woodstock wrote:
Whoa - I would have loved to have seen that.

http://tinyurl.com/ltrj4d


It's always nice when jet jockeys in the military disregard the risks to
which they expose civilians with their "show-off" antics. It's no wonder
you would have loved to have been there.

I'm sure the plane in the photo was not as close to the building as a
telephoto lens makes it appear, but...had anything untoward happened,
the plane could have plowed into the structure and killed a lot of people.

Sometimes down at Virginia Beach you see navy pilots doing that sort of
stuff, but they are doing it for flight practice, and over the water,
not in the airspace in between the hotels.

Perhaps you should head over to Afghanistan so you can get your
vicarious kicks from the military's bombing of "suspected" terrorist
residences that turn out to have held no targets but innocent civilians.
I'm sure the sight of burned, broken, and roasted bodies would turn you
on, eh?


So AF1 with F16's in tow was OK in NYC? You really define yourself, WAFA.