Die Hard 1 was bad enough, Die Hard 2 finished it for me.
All those planes waiting in the air with no contact, no way to get on the ground, no communications.
Dulles airport is surrounded by other airports only minutes away by air. The plot just didn’t make sense.
Richmond ,Reagan, BWI, Andrews, Pax River, any of which could have had communications with planes and all but Reagan could have handled a plane of any size. The whole plot was BS and I sure get tired of watching Willis in a bloody torn wife-beater T shirt.
I guess other people dont mind crappy plots and Willis in his T-shirt, They watch this garbage.
The first one was fairly innovative in concept, and fun (not exactly powerful) in its execution, but the director, John McTiernan, is a terrific action director.
The second one was the execrable Renny Harlin. See "Cutthroat Island" and his magnum opus of crap "Cliffhanger." I'm amazed he got work for as long as he did.
Actually they could have communicated with the crews from any plane sitting on the field. That said, I liked the movies.
I was only a teenager when 2 came out and I could work out that gaping plot hole out. DH1 was better.
I never had any real problem with Die Hard 1 as it was a fairly decent run of the mill action flick.
Die Hard 2, OTOH, was puerile for exactly the reasons you explain. A disaster threat which was completely impossible was far to gaping a plot hole for me to stomach.