[pa mom]

Is anyone else annoyed that the press keeps pointing out how small it is, with the unspoken assumption that it could do little damage?

What if the thing was carrying a little ebola, or a nuke?

[Dead Dog]

Immediately after 911 the media was pushing for a ban of light aircraft, since they could be used for a 911 type attack.

They are useless as a battering ram, and have slightly better payload then a wheel barrel. If a Cessna 150 is a weapon, a 1969 Olds 88 is a WMD.

[keepingtrack]

If it was carrying those things, I doubt it would have flown back to the airport; probably would have flown low to the ground so that when shot down it would distribute its contents over a wide area. Any pilot really bent on crashing into the White House would plan on possibly being shot down before reaching the target, IMO.

[flashbunny]

A nuke?

Heck, I doubt a two seat cessna like that could carry a pilot and a 'suitcase' nuke. The payload is very small.

And ebola? Do you have any idea how that is spread or did you just list the first disease that popped in your head?

[bootless]

Well, I think a nuke would bring a 150 well over its gross weight, but bio and chem weapons are light. A 150 is really little, light and slow.

[cake_crumb]

"Is anyone else annoyed that the press keeps pointing out how small it is, with the unspoken assumption that it could do little damage?"

Well, look how little damage the microscopic plane that insane Florida kid rammed into the side of a building caused.

Yep, that concrete doesn't even have a scratch on it.

[Jotmo]

A compact car could carry a LOT more weight of whatever dangerous material you wanted to use than this little airplane. And, you could drive it VERY close to your target without raising any suspicions or alarms.

Using a small aircraft for a mass terror attack makes little to no sense at all in light of the damage you could do with a far more accessible, everyday vehicle.