[LukeSW]

As I have commented elsewhere, the sorry spectacle was pure, unadulterated PARANOIA. This author puts things in a bit of perspective and represents the views of many of us in the aerospace industry

By the way, one of the clearest lessons potential terrorists could take from the events in D.C. would be how easy it is to create a mass diversion to set the stage for a real attack: In other words, get everyone hyperventilating and running around like idiots over a small airplane, dashing into the subways and tunnels of D.C. and then ....

[An American Patriot]

”HEY, MR. “AUTHORITY,” CHECK THIS OUT!!

RESOURCE CENTER—National Terror Alert (NTARC)

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/readyguide/suitcasenuke.htm

A suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb is a very compact and portable nuclear weapon and could have the dimensions of 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters or 24 x 16 x 8 inches. The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions.

The Pu-239 weighs 10.5 kg and is 10.1 cm across. It doesn't take much more than a single critical mass to cause significant explosions ranging from 10-20 tons. These types of weapons can also be as big as two footlockers.

The warhead of a suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb consists of a tube with two pieces of uranium, which, when rammed together, would cause a blast. Some sort of firing unit and a device that would need to be decoded to cause detonation may be included in the "suitcase."

Another portable weapon is a "backpack" bomb. The Soviet nuclear backpack system was made in the 1960s for use against NATO targets in time of war and consists of three "coffee can-sized" aluminum canisters in a bag. All three must be connected to make a single unit in order to explode. The detonator is about 6 inches long. It has a 3-to-5 kiloton yield, depending on the efficiency of the explosion. It's kept powered during storage by a battery line connected to the canisters.

And I loved this one: "You just can't do a lot of damage with 2,000 lbs unless it's all explosives.”

DUH!!! Give this wing-nut a cigar, please.

What do you think, that someone bent of wreaking havoc and decimation would have loaded in a plane Mr. “Know-it-all,” daisies or marshmallows?

Give me a break!

I’m not a pilot (though I worked on planes—big mothers—for 3 years while in the AF) and likewise, I am not an expert on explosives, though I did see the results of a single 500 lb bomb while in Nam—not very pretty.

Wonder what our genius Luke (who BTW, seems to have disappeared) would have to opine about the [probable] results of a Cessna loaded with 1500 lbs of Semtex traveling at the rate of speed of (oh, say maybe 150 knots in a sharp dive) and impacting a building? Might make for a pretty big bang?

[auboy]

I heard (in one report) that the pilots were not on instruments, but were flying by sight. I have a question for those of you who are pilots, especially small plane pilots. How many cities between Eastern PA and NC look like Washington, DC from the air?

I have flown over DC and looked down (in a commercial jet) and Washington's distinct circular design was very apparent. Of course, my view was from a higher altitude than most small planes fly, I would imagine. I just find it hard to believe one could not recognize DC in the distance, especially on a clear day.

[aShepard]

They should have shot the plane out of the sky.

Maybe that would teach other pilots to learn to turn on their radios, and to keep away from Washington.

[Lockbar]

(a) The plane was not shot down, it was escorted to a safe landing (as it should be)

(b) The pilots were not charged with a crime, they just got real embarrassed (as they should be)

(c) The plane could have contained lots of dangerous chemicals. Why wouldn't anybody think terrorists couldn't use a very small plane to do a nasty job?

(d) I agree that this event with the small plane could be a diversion from a larger attack, but you have to react to what you see in front of you at that moment. If somebody is running towards me with a knife, I'm not to going to spend time looking over my shoulder to see if another guy is also attacking me with a knife from behind. I have to first take care of the threat that is known, and in front of me.

[MisterRepublican]

Had that little plane been packed full of high explosive or a biological warfare agent, would the nitwits who are criticizing the governments reaction to a threat be happier? Had it succeeded in crashing into the Capitol or the White House and killing hundreds of people, the same nitwits would now be complaining about the lax security that allowed it to happen.

Paranoia. Yeah, right. Even after after 3000 people died horrible deaths on Sept. 11, 2001, some FOOLS refuse to take terrorism and our efforts to prevent it seriously.

If this article represents the "views of many of us in the aerospace industry", then SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!!

[Lazamataz]

This is an excellent article.

[arasina]

Excuse me, but this isn't the first time unadulterated PARANOIA has occurred at The White House. (And this time the reaction has a very reasonable precedent...can you say 9/11/01?)

White House Intruder's Gun Was Empty

"It was the latest in a string of security problems during the Clinton presidency, including a small plane crashing on the White House grounds and a man firing at the front of the mansion with a semiautomatic rifle."

[HairOfTheDog]

The writer is too hyper to be logical.

[Ditter]

Yeah! Ain't hindsight great?

[woofie]

Hognose should keep his nose out of it

[mountainfolk]

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.

[george wythe]

Nice informative article.

I appreciate your posting it.

[Godzilla]

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.

[PISANO]

Cessna 150 make it an improbable terror weapon

Improbable like the TWIN TOWERS being brought down?

It is this kind of thinking that allowed 911 to happen in the first place.

[js1138]

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.

[finnman69]

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.

[djreece]

A lot of the current security nonsense has come about because of the physical and even moral cowardice of our current crop of national leaders. If we are "a nation of laws, not of men," why are some men so demanding of special protection?

Our Government is predicated on the idea that no man is divine or irreplaceable.

Great article! Thank you for posting it.

[RobRoy]

The author is a man after my own heart.

Except for one thing: It should have been shot down.

[righttackle44]

"In other words, get everyone hyperventilating and running around like idiots over a small airplane, dashing into the subways and tunnels of D.C. and then ...."

By the way. Do the people in charge call this a plan of some kind, this running and hyperventilating?

It looked like a Godzilla drill.

[billbears]

Personally I think it was one of most ironic and sadly funny things I have ever seen. All the billions upon billions of dollars wasted on Homeland Security and the War on Some Terror to make us all 'feel' safe and it's brought crashing down by a wandering Cessna. Think we can get that money back to the citizens of the respective states?