[Cali Coug]

Straying from the path of honest discussion once again.

Originally Posted by creekster

Perhaps you missd the point of the guy's comments. THe plane was within three miles of the white house beofre it was intercepted but the pilot was NOT TRYING to fly to the white house. THe plane was detected as it menadered around the DC area and was eventually intercpeted as it was on a course heading near the whitehouse. But if the pilot had intended to go to the white house he would have been able to make it. I actually thought this point was made pretty clearly in the comment but you seemed to have let it slip by.

That wasn't "the" point of his comments. It was "a" point of his comments. It was also built on pure speculation that he "would have" made it to the White House. I do know since the plane that hit the White House lawn in Clinton's presidency that there are several additional layers of security designed precisely to prevent small aircraft from reaching the White House. To say that the plane "would have" made it today is a baseless assumption.

Originally Posted by creekster

Furthermore, we do not have fighters or interceptors constantly in the sky that can simply be 'diverted' to intercept every aircraft that may stray from a lfight plan or which may appear to be going too close to a building. Typically they need to be scrambled, which is expensive and takes time. We can perhaps have them placed and prepared to protect a few targets, such as the capitol and whitehouse (although 'protect is overstating it) but it is too expensive and virtually impossible to protect all urban areas in a reasonable and timely way.

Who said we did have fighters or interceptors constantly in the sky? Only you have. Sure, scrambling fighters is expensive, but what layer of protection isn't? Who argued we should have the same layer of security for "all urban areas?" Again, only you. You appear to be intentionally misconstruing my arguments. Come out of lawyer mode and approach this more honestly. I have noted the exceptional importance of NYC. The situation would be more explainable in Omaha.

Originally Posted by creekster

I also don't understand the signifigance you seem to be placing in the fact that this plane issued a distress signal. Are you suggesting that a terrorist intent on ramming a building would ususlaly issue such a signal? THat seems rather silly. So if a plane does issue a signal then wouldn't you expect it NOT to be a terrorist, meaning the need for interception is lessened?

What is hard to understand? And when did I argue that terrorists would use a distress signal? Once again... it is something only you have articulated. I argued that the distress signal was issued, which should have brought attention to the aircraft before it crashed into a building. This is not to say that all aircraft that crash into buildings will issue such a signal. It is to say that, given the particular circumstances of this case, it is hard to understand how the plane went unnoticed.

Originally Posted by creekster

Finally, nothing in the commnets I posted said that NORAD had found the -plane in question. THe comments about finding and then losing a plane were referring to a separate incident off of the Bahamas where an F-4 ended up casuing the subhject of a search to crash as a result of being unable to lock onto the small plane with its own on-board radar system. An on-board radar contact is NOT the same thing as NORAD. These small planes are hard to see on radar, even if you are in a plane nearby and are tracking them specifically, they are hard to bring down realiably (forgetting for a mmoment about the potential for collateral damage when an F-16 starts shooting AIM-9 missiles at cessna's over NYC) and becasue of the speed and distances invovled it is virtually impsosible to ensure the safety of almost anything from a determined attack with a small plane without simply banning private aviation. As archaea said, air space security is a myth.

You are right. The comment did not expressly say NORAD found that plane.