the_dimwit said:I'd like to put my 2 cents in, if I may....
I've been reading the posts in this thread, and the discussion regarding the damage potential of a "small aircraft" is interesting. I was talking with my father one day a year or so ago, and he asked me what I thought about small, GA aircraft and the potential threat they posed. Naturally, I pointed to the FL incident in which the kid crashed into the building. "See? Little to no damage."
He pointed something fairly interesting out to me, though. It could (stress the word COULD) be possible to load a small (say 150 or 172) with explosives and cause quite a bit of damage and loss of life. My dad theorized that, if a pilot took off at a major airport, flying a C150 with max payload of C4 and crashed it into fully-fueled airliners parked at the ramp, the results might be surprising.
At first, I dismissed this theory as somewhat impossible. After all, how long would it take a GA aircraft to take off, circle around, and find a nice, neat row of commercial aircraft to plow right into? However, like another poster said, airplanes taking out skyscrapers was somewhat far-fetched at one time....
I wonder--is the reaction downtown overdone? (I work directly across the street from the Pentagon--can see it from my window as I type this.) I grant you, a C150 wouldn't do much structural damage to a building or bridge, but a little WMD in the mix would paint a very different scenario.
What do y'all think? Am I suffering from paranoia due to living in the DC Metro for too long (was here for 9/11)?
--Don
No, but I do think you need to remember that the threat is relative - a truck bomb is much more deadly and accurate, and easier to pull off. A tango could shoot up a mall, strap dynamite to himself, and introduce biological and chemical weapons in other ways - it would be to their advantage to have the dispersal undetected if possible.
The reaction of banning small planes due to the failure of the airport security simulation is like banning trucks rather than tightening our border security - it's a red herring and doesn't work to reduce the threat.
As far as this ADIZ crap, the feds have already shown that they won't shoot a plane down, which only increases the miniscule threat level. Since any terrorist bombing anything via a small plane is already breaking about 100 laws, why should it bother them to blast into the ADIZ and hit a target? There don't seem to be any consequences for doing so. The government whining is valid from one aspect - it forces them to show their hand to the tangos.
Last edited: