If the plane was a crop duster that's a different story, perhaps. It wasn't. Even then -- a ground vehicle by not being noticed while releasing it's slow-acting agents -- can be much more effective. It can get closer to crowds.
Air releases are not that effective -- the evil Iraqis who sprayed the Kurds had to make many passes -- the stuff blows away from the targets too easily.
The Germans in WWI has similar problems with ground releases -- the wind changes and the chlorine and mustard gases was back on top of them. Proximity and confined spaces are ideals for chemical and biological weapons. Airborne is not the way.
We were secured by folks like you, and still are, eh? Exmine every grandmother up the waz at airports, but keep the borders open. I'm not happy at all that folks with that rare combination of hubris and chicken-little-ism still run too much of domestic security. Bureacratic inertia and grinding procedureal indignities punctuated by knee-jerk panic.
"Oh really?"
Yes, really.
"Air releases are not that effective -- the evil Iraqis who sprayed the Kurds had to make many passes -- the stuff blows away from the targets too easily."
So let me get this straight, as your example for the ineffectiveness of aerial chemical weapons disbursement, you use one of the largest mass murders with chemical weapons in history. You were talking about common sense...
If you think that a Cessna flying toward the white house 13 miles inside a 16 mile radius no-fly zone poses no danger, then you're a bleeping idiot. Oh, wait, you probably don't like to be on the receiving end of the arrogant name-calling you have peppered this thread with.