Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!!
AERO-NEWS Network ^ | May 13, 2005 | Kevin R.C. "Hognose" O'Brien

Posted on 05/13/2005 2:03:47 AM PDT by LukeSW

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-178 next last
To: konaice
How much anthrax can a Cessna 150 carry?

About 50 pounds or so if there are two people on board. How much more for a c-174, oh say 300Lbs if there are two people on board with it.
101 posted on 05/13/2005 6:59:04 AM PDT by Danae ( Anál nathrach, orth' bháis's bethad, do chél dénmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog

You are right in a way. Not that my suggestion doesn't make any sense -- for it is the most effective of sugestions on how to make things safer right quick. But some limited restrictions on airspaces exist for good reasons -- like heavies in landing, or active target ranges or experimental facilities, etc.


102 posted on 05/13/2005 7:01:54 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: LukeSW

Hognose should keep his nose out of it


103 posted on 05/13/2005 7:03:24 AM PDT by woofie (Ok, you try driving without any wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Okay carry such thinking to its logical conclusion -- no one should be able to enter the Beltway without crossing a one-mile wide free-fire border zone naked. No vehicles except those fully searched by complete disassembly and re-assembly and microscopically examined. Afterall someone could backpack in a nuke, literally, in a backpack on their back. Or some A-cup woman could have a D-cup bra full of anthrax. Or some dirty bomb bolted onto a Mac Truck transmission.


104 posted on 05/13/2005 7:07:52 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK

Thanks for the ping!


105 posted on 05/13/2005 7:12:02 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Why should the Runaway Bride be fined at all? People wander off, grooms and brides-to-be scoot away in the days right before --

They leave a Dear John letter and pack a suitcase. They don't make it look like they were abducted on a jog.

106 posted on 05/13/2005 7:33:48 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: toddlintown
What might have happened if the plane had started dumping the stuff all over the area?

If that would have happened, the Bush critics would have been all over security for not having shot down the plane.

That's the way it is with Bush critics. Shoot at him if he moves right. Shoot at him if he moves left. And shoot at him if he holds to the center.

Bush is always, always, always wrong, no matter what he does and no matter when he does it.

Which, in a way, frees him from criticism. Criticism of everything is, essentially, criticism of nothing.

107 posted on 05/13/2005 7:38:13 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Why should the Runaway Bride be fined at all?

Mainl because she staged her disappearance to look like it was not planned. Normally when people disappear of their own accord, they take some clothing and their wallet and their car keys with them. Had she done that, there would not have been a huge manhunt for her.

108 posted on 05/13/2005 7:40:13 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: LukeSW
Seems to me that the whole incident was excellent rehearsal for possible real terrorist attacks. No pretend alarm this time. The article makes no sense to me since it is based on the hindsight of knowing the plane was flown by a dumb a--pilot and not a dedicated jihadist. An innocent appearing vehicle or plane would certainly be used for destruction rather than large attention getting ones. Since 9/11 the security procedures and regulations have been fraught with 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. Security for our country must necessarily be cautionary because there won't be a second chance once disaster has struck.
109 posted on 05/13/2005 7:42:36 AM PDT by mountainfolk (God bless President George Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeSW
Nice informative article.

I appreciate your posting it.

110 posted on 05/13/2005 7:44:44 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; HairOfTheDog

Normally don't leave clothing, wallet and car keys? People who waltz off aren't behaving normally. I wonder if there are any statistics -- I'd imagine a lot of such waltzing off isn't reported officially and when reported not looked into that deeply. There's no law that says when someone pops off on walk-about that they have to take A, B and C.


111 posted on 05/13/2005 8:36:43 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: bvw
There's no law that says when someone pops off on walk-about that they have to take A, B and C.

Yeah, but she planned ahead to make it look like she had been kidnapped by purchasing a bus ticket.

Normally I'd agree with you. But given how she waltzed off, coupled with her initial claim that she had been kidnapped, indicates that she wished to give the impression when she left that she had been taken against her will.

112 posted on 05/13/2005 8:39:36 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: bvw

She wanted people to think she'd been abducted and potentially raped and murdered. I'm not out for her blood, and I didn't follow the many threads on it, but it's not malice to have cold feet, it's malice to make everyone believe you are the victim of an abduction.


113 posted on 05/13/2005 8:43:45 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog; dirtboy

Good arguments. A case for a jury, cross-exmination and supeona, perhaps. But it's mens re. A thing of the mind. And she was a highly confused person, not in so much control of that mind.


114 posted on 05/13/2005 8:56:17 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
And I wonder what his reaction would have been if security personnel didn't "overreact" and we found out too late that the improbable terror weapon was filled with something like anthrax (which is a very real possibility). Some people are just never satisfied; you take precautions against a catastrophe and you are being silly, don't take precautions and a catastrophe happens and you are at incompetent.

The security personnel in this situation acted very reasonably and should be commended, not ridiculed.

Exactly.

What would people be saying right now if a Cessna, packed with explosives, even a small amount set to detonate on impact, slammed into the White house? It probably wouldn't destroy it or harm the President (who knows) but the symbolic value would embolden our enemy and perhaps encourage other attacks.

I don't believe we overreacted at all. Warning flares were fired and the plane landed...no charges filed.

Protocol prevailed, this time.

~Corey

115 posted on 05/13/2005 8:56:36 AM PDT by corlorde (Without the home of the brave, there would be no land of the free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LukeSW
A Cessna 150 does not a warplane make.

By itself - not much. However, how much C4 explosive could such a plane carry? I understand approximately 500 pounds worth. A 500 pound bomb makes for one heck of an explosion - ask those in Iraq.

116 posted on 05/13/2005 8:57:31 AM PDT by Godzilla (History teaches us that we never learn from history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw

I bet she settles and pays something voluntarily. I doubt they'd actually charge her or have any jury trial.


117 posted on 05/13/2005 8:58:49 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

Right.

Also, think about the symbolism if a plane, any plane, slammed into the WH. Jihadi would be cheering in the streets, screaming: "See! The leader of the infidels can be hit! Hit them hard!"


118 posted on 05/13/2005 9:00:02 AM PDT by corlorde (Without the home of the brave, there would be no land of the free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

500 pound payload doesn't include pilots and fuel. Two pilots and full fuel and you're overloaded. These little training planes are constantly running light as possible to stay within weight and balance limits.


119 posted on 05/13/2005 9:00:50 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: frankiep

'The security personnel in this situation acted very reasonably and should be commended, not ridiculed.'

Read the last paragraph again. I think the security guys he is ridiculing are the executive protection type squirreling their charges out of the Congress. Why is anthrax in the open less of a threat than anthrax smashed up against a govt building?


120 posted on 05/13/2005 9:05:31 AM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-178 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson