This isn't fuel it's a high altitude test dump of a fire plane. It's been outfitted with a chemical solution in its tank.

Here’s another one for you, hopefully not a dupe!

At this very moment, the largest high-altitude rescue attempt in American History is going on near this same location on Mt. Hood. It involves several Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters and dozens of rescue climbers and volunteers, all searching for 3 climbers who became trapped during the severe storms of this past week. The video above dates from 4 years ago.

Godspeed, and come home safe.

*1*
I read the article on scrambling. Note that the article itself states that scrambling is MUCH more common AFTER 9/11:
"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

Same article:
" "We considered it at that time to be a possible hijacking," air traffic manager Glenn Michael said.

The FAA notified NORAD 15 minutes later; three minutes after that, NORAD was told United Airlines Flight 175 had been hijacked. (Note: later sources say 18 minutes.)

The first two military interceptors, Air Force F-15 Eagles from Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts, scrambled airborne at 8:52 a.m., too late to do anything about the second jet heading for the Trade Center or a third heading toward the Pentagon. "

The Norad site doesn't convince me of anything malevolent - they screwed up, or didn't hurry (which, in itself, is a kind of screw up in this situation).

The fact that entire squadrons of planes weren't scrambled isn't a big shock - oh no, they didn't scramble from 'the most logical base.'

Generally speaking, you only have a pair of jets ready to go, and not necessarily at all bases. They sent up the first available planes. It's not like the jetliners can shoot back; sending up more jets wouldn't serve much purpose.

As for the tiresome, "oooh, they only flew at 25% of top speed," three things:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2, 900 mph at low altitude; Mach 2.5, 1,650 mph at high altitude (1,450 km/h / 2,655 km/h)
2. with the afterburner on, a jet fighter will shred jetfuel like a grunt about to be deployed to Iraq will drink booze
3. max range of planes is based on full fuel load; we don't know (A) if the planes had fuel fueld loads, and (B) the pilots didn't know how far they would be chasing the jetliners! (note that article about Stewart has a running theme: escorts kept swapping out b/c of need to refuel!)

*2*
Debris spread: depends on how you crash. 'Lawn dart', or skid?
I really don't see what hte issue is? Do they believe there should be a larger or smaller debris field in the case of a shoot-down?

You suggest that an 8 mile spread should be a cause for concern. After reading the claims, I started to wonder if an 8 mile spread wouldn't be more consistent with a shoot-down than a regular crash, but concluded that either is possible.

Here'a 1km debris field crash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981

That satisfies me that it's entirely possible.

Wiki has several lists - if you're not happy with that example, you can scour some more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters#Air_disasters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:In-flight_airliner_structural_failures

I really don't see any evidence to convince me not to think it came down through the efforts of the people onboard.

*****
This "wanttoknow" site is rather awkwardly designed; I can't tell if the documents are supposed to support or refute their claims. I mean, if the information is hidden there's a cover-up. The screw-ups are pretty well known, though. And they stem from the fact that US Intel had a 50+ year mission to make sure that there would be "no more Pearl Harbors," which was modified to "no atomic Pearl Harbors".

Their mission had not fundamentally shifted until after 9/11.
*****

*3*
And as for the President not being evacuated?
Yes, I can explain that, and I'll go beyond incompetence/panic.
Before doing that, I'll just explain what the incompetence argument means: you're dealing with an Administration which had a YEAR to plan for what to do in Iraq. They could've prepared more troops - there was no rush! - and handily had a robust force in place to secure all those weapons caches that the IEDs are coming from, not to mention to prevent the initial looting and all the other chaos.

Argument #2:
Dubya could've said, "sorry kids, gotta go." But he sat there like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming 18-wheeler.

Yeah, his agents could've been like, "go go go", but this isn't Red Alert 2 (great game, btw), but real life. If the C-in-C is staying put - and he's sitting in front of TV cameras - you're putting your career on the line if you're going to dart in and drag him out.

It was up to Dubya to move, and he didn't.

Besides, if you want to talk fighter escort, it would be likelier for the local Air National Guard to scramble to protect him than another site in the country, so you've got an additional layer of security right there, although I admit that's little more than idle speculation over classified security protocols.

Man, fisking takes forever.

btw, sterling comment as usual, deathcow.

omg that's CRAZY! just total chaos. as fas as mexican buses go-- it's those high altitude switchbacks coupled with buses with no maintenance and bad brakes that get ya everytime.