|Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2002 - 8:24 pm: |
I know what you mean Blackjack. I work jsut south of main Chicago with both airports traffic always screaming through the air. After they shut down national air-space it certainly was eeriely calm out there. I watch the jets every now and then and I notice the landing patterns seem to be different...that might be, ahem, placebo effect though.
|Posted on Tuesday, May 28, 2002 - 9:27 am: |
DC air defense had better be improved now. I remember a few years ago that some guy crashed his plane in the White House back yard. We all wondered why the surface-to-air missile batteries didn't pop out of the White House roof and deal with it.
|Posted on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 11:35 pm: |
Oh, I live about 2 miles from the Pentagon, for what it's worth, and worked directly in the final approach path for National. It was EERIE when there were no planes coming and going, except for the occaional fighters...
|Posted on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 11:34 pm: |
Well, National (I REFUSE to call it "Reagan National") has always been a security/safety hazard. For those of you who've never seen it, it's smack-dab in between Arlington and Alexandria, literaly spitting distance from the Pentagon and nestled among a munch of high-rise office buildings. It's something of a thrill ride on approach.
The difference between Dulles and National is that a plane leaving Dulles would take a few minutes to reach DC. A plane leaving National is IN DC by the time it clears the strip.
|Posted on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 10:15 pm: |
i'm sorry mr. wormy but i believe your theory about the post 9/11 air space around D.C. is slighty inaccurate... do you remember after the attack and all air traffic was grounded for awhile... well i live just over an hour outside of D.C., even though i don't think it got much tv coverage, during the grounding period there was very regular fighter jet patrols making their rounds... i could walk out my front door and be able to see and hear them flying around... are you saying that they were incapable of responding to that threat?... even if they were all the way out near my house most of their missiles could make that 60 mile trip .... you are right about it being an effective tool but only if we don't know or believe it could happen... i think the airport was shut down for that extended period to give us people in the "local" area a sense of security (albiet false)... IAD (Dulles) is pretty damn close to the capitol too, even with regan national shut down someone could still have hijacked a plane (post 9/11) from there and attempt to hit the white house... so why not shut IAD down also?
|Posted on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 4:58 pm: |
The White House does have a air defence system. Early warning radar and agents that will go up on the roof and target the plane with stinger missiles. It not a Top Secret either it has been widely reported.
If a huge jet was coming in at a steep angle of attack (like on the petagon)what they do? Blow it up and its debris would still take out the target even if an agent got a direct missile hit on the cockpit.
Thats why Washington's airport was shut down for so long after 9/11. If a plane was hijacked there shortly after takeoff the plane could be over the white house before the Air Force could be notified let alone scramble a plane to intercept it.
Kamakazi attacks are nearly impossible to defend against. In WWII every aircraft carrier in the pacific was equipped with radar, and on the alert because they knew they would be attacked. They were also equipped with powerful anti-aircraft guns of all sizes and had escort ships with even more awesome arrays of guns. They were moving targets too. Most of those planes they had so much trouble with were tiny one seat propeller driven fighter planes, not a jumbo jet with enough fuel on board to equal the destructive power of a small nuke. Don't kid yourself this is a very effective weapon.
|Posted on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 4:52 pm: |
I wonder what makes someone a "terrorism expert"; especially, if he's an American civilian?