Posted on 05/13/2005 2:03:47 AM PDT by LukeSW
Fine, how were our security people suppose to confirm that was the case? Stip out extras to add capability. Did the have a full tank, or only enough to reach DC - one way trip? Or may be even the much talked about 'suitcase nuke' Too many what ifs to ignore.Add to that the symbolism of a strike even w/o explosives.
'If you aren't going to bother to learn how to read the instruments, then shame on you.'
haha
Improbable like the TWIN TOWERS being brought down?
It is this kind of thinking that allowed 911 to happen in the first place.
My wife, with her patented cynicism amplifier, suggested that the plane was a deliberate test of the security procedures, and that the pilot will slip quietly into obscurity after a bit of show coverage.
I agree with you. This journalist doesn't know anything about physics, yet he makes himself an authority, as journalists seem to do on everything, nowadays.
You forgot the suitcase nuke. It could carry one of those, too.
Those supposed "suitcase nukes" are more sci-fiction than real. They weigh several hundred pounds.
They didn't know what this plane was gonna do... but the point is, they judged the situation correctly in this case. It's not an easy call.
Big terrorist attacks don't bring this country down, piddly vandalistic ones wouldn't either, And that's good news, because eventually, something will happen again that's real. It can't be prevented. Many many good people will try, and often succeed in stopping, deterring and foiling attacks. They will also have to deal with a lot of scares that aren't really attacks. Myself, I pray for their continued wisdom and luck. I'll not fire the lot of them and change all the protocols because a couple of people looked funny running on TV.
It's not explosives that scare the Secret Service, it's a WMD type attack.
Suppose that plane was carrying a pea size sample of radioactive Cesium 137 along with say 10lbs of explosives to disperse it. The WH and the surrounding area could be walled off for 30 years.
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,53110,00.html
If a relatively tiny "dirty bomb" -- one containing only ten pounds of TNT and pea-sized amount of cesium-137 -- were detonated in Washington, federation scientists recently told Congress, "The initial passing of the radioactive cloud would be relatively harmless, and no one would have to evacuate immediately."
"However," the scientists continued, "residents of an area of about five city blocks ... would have a one-in-a-thousand chance of getting cancer. A swath about one mile long covering an area of forty city blocks would exceed EPA contamination limits, with remaining residents having a one-in-ten thousand chance of getting cancer. If decontamination were not possible, these areas would have to be abandoned for decades."
As cesium-137 "cools" from its radioactive to its normal state, the isotope emits gamma radiation, waves of ultra-high electromagnetic energy. These rays, while not as toxic as the heavier, alpha particle emitted by uranium, travel further, and are extremely difficult to contain. Only concrete, steel or lead can keep gamma radiation in check.
What's worse, cesium is the most "reactive" metal there is -- in nature, cesium's always found combined with another element. So the isotope becomes easily attached to roofing materials, concrete, and soil, said Fritz Steinhausler, who led the International Atomic Energy Agency's environmental assessment of the disaster at Chernobyl.
"The Russians tried to clean it up for years, and they eventually gave up. It just wasn't economically viable," said Steinhausler, who's currently a physics professor and visiting scholar at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation.
Most of us have a FAR higher chance of getting cancer, tomorrow, than that.
"A semi-truck, or even an SUV both would be able to carry myuch more of that bad stuff, and to disperse it equally well -- or better. Get some common sense."
Well, you couldn't be more wrong. A ground vehicle would disperse either an explosion or chemical agents far worse than an aircraft, regardless of scale. The one's lacking common sense on this thread are you and anyone who agrees with you. I am definitely glad you are not in charge of my security.
Maybe so, but face it, if the scenario I described happened, NOONE would be in the WH for years. It would have to be literally removed and replaced. As might dozens of other nearby buildings. Not to mention the panic across the nation and damage to the economy. Of course, the WH and DC is mainly a symbolic target.Yet symbolism seems to be important to the Islamofascists.
If terrorists really want to do damage they don't need a plane. A suicide bomber would walk into Grand Central, or Times Square and contaminate the most expensive Real Estate in the US.
Of course they can. So live the best you can.
Most airplanes that fly at 100 knots are either Cessna 150s or some form of comparably light aircraft.
Our Government is predicated on the idea that no man is divine or irreplaceable.
Great article! Thank you for posting it.
The author is a man after my own heart.
Except for one thing: It should have been shot down.
Fool? Um, the only thing that a 150 has in common with a 767 is that it flies better than a Camaro.
And it has been proven that a 767 DOES, in fact, a warplane make.
Every anthrax scare since 911 is the height of fantasy and paranoia.
Let's say, for a moment, that it WAS filled with anthrax. What would have been the proper response, and what would have happened to the anthrax if that had been the response.
I worry about anthrax even LESS than I worry about getting struck by lightning. It is not a WMD and not very effective, relative to the cost and risk of doing any real damage. Has the number of people killed in anthrax attacks in the us since 911 hit double digits yet? And of those who were killed, how many were under 60?
Beckwith, my friend, your argument proves too much. Today, yes today, you or anyone else can drive any vehicle within 100 yards of the White House and disperse much more c-4, a heavier dirty bomb, much more biological agents, and much more chemical agents than can a measly little Cessna 150. No one is going to ask you to identify yourself on the radio and no one is going to check the contents of your vehicle.
The pilots made a dumb mistake. NORAD realized that it was probably just that. The F-16 pilots didn't overreact. The point of the article and my commentary is that the entire bureaucracy, news media, and the manipulable, gullible folks swayed by the official PARANOIA who see danger in every little airplane need to wise up. We may be at war with terrorists, but unless there are other indicia of a genuine threat, there is no need to by paranoid. Cautious yes, paranoid no.
SUICIDE BOMBER!
An aircraft can get past barriers that a truck cannot. A truck cannot drive through the whitehouse door. A plane can.
It doesn't even have to be a bomb. It can be a pilot and 200 pounds of C4. 200 pounds of C4 would make a BIG explosion.
Why bother with a cesna. How close can a car or truck get. Heck, a YUGO can carry more weight than a cesna 150, and get plenty close enough to do anything the cesna could. And it would not be detected until it was already attempting to get on the grounds.
Sheesh...
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.