Posted on 09/11/2001 11:00:12 AM PDT by abigail2
Expert: Terrorists Chose West Coast Flights for Fuel Load
Hugh Sprunt, a columnist and analyst for NewsMax.com, reports the following:
One little technical tidbit that I haven't seen anyone mention in the media yet (possible newshook) -- the aircraft involved appear to have all been aircraft leaving the East coast for the West coast this morning. One likely reason for this uniform selection is that the coast-to-coast flights would have a relatively full load of fuel on the planes -- that would mean more "bang for your buck" when the plane is crashed into the WTC Towers, The Pentagon, Camp David (apparently a miss), etc., since they would have relatively full tanks for he coast to coast flight (as opposed to a similar sized plane flying with a full load of passengers on a relatively short haul flight along the East coast, etc.).
The United flight that crashed 80 miles from Pittsburgh was probably intended to be used to crash into one of the builds attacked or another building. Since the flight crew would have heard what was going on over their radio (company radio if not normal A/C radios), that plane likely crashed because the crew knew they had nothing to lose and there was a battle in the cockpit for control of the plane that resulted in the plane's crashing.
The President is aboard one of the two 747-200B's that can serve as "Air Force 1" now. I know something about those planes as well (aerial refueling capability, extra oil supply for each of the four engines -- planes can stay airborne 72=96 hours with aerial refueling. The US has likely bumped up to DefCon 3 or so (state of military alert) from the normal DefCon 5.
Also -- policy decision: presumably if another highjacked plane is targeted on the White House or some other public structure where the loss of life could be high -- though WH has been evacuated apparently -- any US fighter aircraft on patrol in the area would be instructed to shoot down the airliner before it reached the target building, killing everyone on board the plane but saving lives overall.
That might not be the case if the target was, say, the Washington Monument or some similar structure since there would not be that much additional loss of life in that case. . .
It is possible (though I don't think likely yet) that they will transfer the President to one of the NECAP aircraft (National Emergency Airborne Command Post -- the acronym is not perfect). One reason that I do not think they will do this (today anyway) is that the NECAP aircraft have been in a reduced state of readiness for some time now (due to the easing of world tensions, etc., ho-ho!).
I'm not sure what the correct story is at this point.
And I imagine we'll be hearing in the next few days that WE shot it down.
Also, The World Trade Center was suppose to withstand the crash of a 747; hence, the bigger planes.
Its been known (NBC did a story 6-8 months ago, I cannot remember the exact date of the story) that Logan Airport's security is some of the WORST in the nation. What I want to hear is the explanation as to why three of these flights originated from Boston and how these people smuggled so many terrorists on board.
There is going to be Hell to pay!!
Its been known (NBC did a story 6-8 months ago, I cannot remember the exact date of the story) that Logan Airport's security is some of the WORST in the nation. What I want to hear is the explanation as to why two of these flights originated from Boston and how these people got on board.
There is going to be Hell to pay!!
I believe the tanks are always filled to capacity, to keep condensation from forming inside the tanks.
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.