White House Evacuated [Update- reason still not clear, evacuation over, people return inside]

Fox News Alert

[William McKinley]

More to come?

[Dog]

One would think .. especially after 9/11 that pilots would know better then to fly near the WH

You would be suprised of how clueless some people really are. Last week when that plane flew near DC....the pilot didn't know he did anything wrong when they questioned him.

[Getsmart64]

"If this was ever a threat would they ever realy have time to evacuate or scamble a fighter"


We have fighters in the air 24 hours a day now....

[PBRSTREETGANG]

I remember the first reports of 911.A small single engine plane colides with WTC.

The first report I received on 9/11 (after I heard the explosion) was from a coworker in the office next to mine who said he was facing the WTC and had seen a large commercial jet fly into the tower. No one really believed him at first.

[Mo1]

Pretty sad that some are so dang clueless

[Dog]

But those fighters could be out of position.

[w1andsodidwe]

One of these days when something really happens, we're going to be immune to these events :(

I guess then we should just pretend that 911 never happened and just put our head back in the sand. Yeah that will work. Vote for a demoncRAT for president and you shall get your wish.

[eastforker]

I know thats true,still,3-5 minutes is not very much time to react And shooting down a plane that may or may not be hostile over a residential area is one hell of a decision.

[Getsmart64]

True....but we do hope someone in charge of those fighters has it figured out how they can put a fighter in any position within minutes...let's hope so eh?

[eastforker]

I was here on FR that morning,the first reports from the media before we got pictures was a small single engine plane.

[Getsmart64]

I wouldn't want to be the one that makes that decision...

[eastforker]

I am no fighter jockey but I understand they can lock on target a hundred miles out or so and missles do fly prety fast but still ,3-5 minutes isn't much time.

[Flipyaforreal]

"Michael Jackson's private jet flying low and fast enroute out of the country? "

LOL! What, no "low speed jet chase for crazy celebs in trouble"?

[snopercod]

I really didn't think the </sarcasm> tag was necessary, but apparently I assumed too much.

Once again, the government is bent on criminalizing what used to be normal activity - flying from point A to point B in one's own aircraft. Osama must be smiling right now, because his plan to end freedom in America is unfolding just as he pictured it would.

In a quest to "do something" (even if it's wrong), the government creates these absurd and pointless airspace restrictions (to protect themselves, of course - they're more important than us.), and apply them to a class of people who have never hurt anyone, but don't have enough political clout to fight back.

The much more likely-to-be-dangerous 18-wheelers carrying uninspected cargo containers go about their business any where and any time they please. (The teamsters wouldn't tolerate any restrictions on those sorts of things, you know.)

And God forbid that the government restrict automobiles. The AAA, AARP, ACLU, and everybody else would go berzerk! That would be restricting freedom in America.

But it's OK to restrict pilots - you can't trust them. They're far too independent, you know, and should be reined in. Besides, they're just a bunch of rich playboys anyway, right?

So the government scrambles fighter jets to "save" the White House several times a week - isn't it over 1200 times now? Then the news bloviates about the "security threat" and "something should be done", and "how much is this costing?" The obedient American sheeple all nod their heads and bleat in unison "SAVE US! SAVE US!

Has anyone seen a terrorist using a small plane as a suicide bomb? No, they use cars and trucks instead. There is a reason for that.

Small aircraft don't have enough kinetic energy (a term which is beyond most of the Sheeple) to do any damage on their own (witness that moron who flew his Cessna into the BofA building and is simply splatted like a bug on a windshield). And they can't carry enough explosives to do much damage, either. Those that care to actually learn something about this might be interested to know that the senior airline captain with more hours at the controls of a 747 than any other living man says the same. Safe ... Or Free?

"But they can carry anthrax!" Has it occurred to anybody that it's almost impossible to distribute anthrax or chemical weapons that way? The stuff just wafts up into the atmosphere and dissipates. But facts are not relevant any more, apparently.

BTW, there is a good chance here that air traffic control iteslf vectored the aircraft into the ADIZ - it happens all the time. Think I'm kidding about that? Cleared to be Busted

[snopercod]

I wish these idiots would wake up and stop violating the Washington ADIZ

Many times, ATC vectors them into it. See my latest rant, above.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

I know. What I'm saying is that the person in my office who saw the first plane hit the building told us what type of plane it was, but no one here was ready to process that information, because to do so would be to immediately admit that it was a terrorist attack. Everyone kept saying that it must have been a private jet and that the pilot experienced a heart attack or some other malady...as we stared at the black smoke pouring out of the gaping hole in the WTC.

[aynrandfreak]

From Al-Muhajiroun: (radical Islamist group in UK)

PRESS RELEASE DATED 14TH NOVEMBER 2003 - It is entirely understandable why Muslims and non-Muslims will be demonstrating on the 20th of November 2003 when the Pharaoh of today, George Bush, comes to London in his state visit to Tony Blair, his partner in crime. The list of reasons to demonstrate includes atrocities committed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Palestine, the call to stop further aggression in Iraq, the call to stop the funding of the pirate State of Israel and the call for the punishment of Bush and Blair for their many and continuing crimes. However, this time around many Islamic Movements will not be demonstrating due to the overriding grave and very real threat of an operation, similar to 9/11, against the US President in light of the various specific warnings and threats which have been made by Sheikh Usama Bin laden and Al-Qaa'eda in their press releases against the US and UK. With this in mind we, Al-Muhajiroun, urge those within the Muslim community to be responsible and not to encourage Muslims to demonstrate on the 20th of November 2003, which might thereby make Muslims part of a target if any operation does take place. It is a responsibility upon the heads of all Islamic Movements to warn Muslims of this danger and the wise people among non-Muslims will no doubt do the same. In particulúar we remind those secular bodies such as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the Islamic Society of Britain (ISB) not to demonstrate and not to ask any Muslims to demonstrate in light of the risks recognised by all responsible bodies. The UK government's security measures are therefore wise considering the hatred held for George Bush across the world for the heinous crimes committed by his fascist regime (together with the dictator Blair) in Afghanistan and now in Iraq. Although Muslims in Britain have a covenant of Security and are therefore not allowed to target anyone in the UK, the same evidently does not apply for Muslims from abroad or who do not have such a covenant, as was transparent on 9/11. In addition we must ensure that Muslims stay away from any high risk targets in general, such as the Israeli and US embassies, which would appear to be higher on the list of potential targets. Finally, we would like to emphasise that regardless of the high and real risks involved, it is not allowed (i.e. Prohibited) for any Muslims to participate in any demonstrations organised by non-Muslims, be they MP's, communists, anarchists or socialists, such as those demonstrations which are in fact due to take place on the day in question.

[snopercod]

Wow. Glad you're OK. Was the fire electrical or furnace-related?

Just remember, sheetrock builds character.

[snopercod]

You're living in a fantasy world. What is it that you think a small plane can do to the White House?

[eastforker]

Alot of us here just prior to 911 felt something big was about to happen.Many of us feel that same way again and any report of anything out of the ordinary gives one an erie feeling in the gut knowing there is very little chance of stopping a determined maniac that wishes to do harm to us.

[William McKinley]

If you were being sarcastic, it did not come through and even with you saying it was meant that way it is still hard to see.

Once again, the government is bent on criminalizing what used to be normal activity

Obviously something you take as a given, but most people do not, which probably explains a lot about why there is a disconnect between what you are trying to say and how everyone else takes it.

Osama must be smiling right now, because his plan to end freedom in America is unfolding just as he pictured it would.

I am pretty damned free. I suggest whatever gulag you live in, you move from.

In a quest to "do something" (even if it's wrong), the government creates these absurd and pointless airspace restrictions (to protect themselves, of course - they're more important than us.),

Let's look at two aspects to events- consequence and frequency- to determine if these restrictions are pointless and to determine if the class warfare elements of your point (attacking 'elitism') have merit.

Consequence. If a small plane crashes into Joe Schmoe's house, killing him, then it is a family tragedy. There will be a local response which will try to contain any fire and to help clean up the crash site. If a small plane crashes into the White House, it can and will throw the entire nation into a bit of chaos, especially if it killed any major government official. The costs of rebuilding would be hundreds, if not thousands, of times higher. There would be a need to do investigations costing hundreds, if not thousands, of times more to ensure that this isn't an attempt to bring down the country. It would provide fodder for conspiracy theorists and for opportunist politicians to exploit the issue. The difference in consequence is huge.

And frequency: a small plane will crash into my house only as an accident. The White House would be hit not only with accidents, but also by those who want to make a statement or make an attack. The frequency would clearly be higher.

So attempts to say "they are treating themselves differently" should be met with "yes, and it is right they do so because the risk is greater and the consequences higher".