So which is more troubling...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Coming from an "open minded tolerant" liberal...that is hilarious.

Why? Isn't the very definition of an opinion something you believe more than the alternative? Is it possible to have a low opinion of your own opinions? That isn't mutually exclusive of being open minded (which means you are willing to listen and consider alternatives when presented which in no way means you don't like your own opinions).

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

As to the first quote, you extrapoltated from that that I was arguing that we should have secure airspace everywhere in the country (and then invented a mysterious claim that there is a central database holding information for every flight in the country). So yes, that is a perfect example of what I am saying. No, I was not aware the plane did not need a flight plan. No, that does not change the fact that the plane should have been detected flying at under 500 feet over Manhattan (which almost ensures it will hit something), nor that the plane should have been even more detectable given the distress signal it issued..

Let's go over this again, limiting it to the simplest aspects of your comments without assuming any of the facts that are implicit in your comments but which you choose to disreagrd. The plane "should have been detected" means that it should have been on radar, correct? Ok. And then you said you would expect "them", which menas NORAD according to your other comments (but I am sure you'll tell me if I am wrong) to respond "immediately." And by respond I assumed youmeant somethign other than sit up in their chairs and dictate a memo. I assumed you meant that "they" should do something meaningful that might prevent the plane from colliding with a building. so then we ask, can this be achieved? No. It can't. LEt's say you are at 1,500 feet on a course parallel with the upper east side going at about 100 mph and you decide to ram a 500 foot tall aprtment building. How long will it take you to dive into the building? How far away would "they" have to keep planes from buildings n order to allow enough time for detection, information processing and a meaningful intervention? Even if a flight plan was filed, how would NORAD even know that it had not been followed? a central database is one possibility, but of course that was just silly me folloiwing my school of thought and putting words in your mouth. So how esle would NORAD find out? and if it is n't some sort of central database, tell me how long it would take for this information to move to NORAD from some other unidentified 'agency' that you referred to. Will this be longer than it takes to dive from altitufde into a building? Only if you keep all planes somewhere around Phildeplhia when they want to fly by Manhattan. WHat am I misrepresetning here? ANd, really, who is more in lawyer mode? (whatever that means)

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

As to the second quote, it wasn't a plane in distress "near" Manhattan. It was a plane in distress over Manhattan flying at under 500 feet. If Norad can't recognize that as being a threat, we are in real trouble (meaning my second option for reasons to be concerned would be the more troubling aspect). Ironically, your second quote directly counters your assertions that I am attempting to claim we should have nationwide secure airspace.

I will first admit that I orignially presumed that you thought most of our urban areas were as important to protect as NYC. This, I will admit, springs from my personal bias as I live and work in neither NYC or DC, nor have I visited either city countless times. So I agree that given your clarification, and putting aside whether it is a reasonable position, I iwll limit the discussion to NYC and DC. I am sure that taking out LA's tallest building, or the Golden Gate Bridge, or one of CHicago's tallest buildings is of little consequence as long as we can hang on to NYC and DC. (This reminds me of those novelty maps that show the subject city in great detail and everything else as being little and uninteresting, but I digress.)

You are the one that pointed out that the Lidle plane issued a distress signal. You tell me what import that has. I simply point out that if anythign it makes it even less likely that the flight would be a terrorist flight and so, if one is in the chain of command deciding whether to risk shooting the plane down (along with the attendnat colateral damage) how would this information that you presented help?

The real point is that ANY plane flying with in many miles of manhattan constitutes a threat. So what? What is NORAD or anyone else supposed to DO about it?

You do like the last word, so go ahead and take it. I am sure no one else is eve reading at this point.

BTW, I think Rocky meant that he thought you had an unduly inflated or exaggerated sense of the relative worth of your opinions. Somehow I suspect you knew that.

[UtahDan]

This thread is very entertaining. Some people just have a remarkably difficult time admitting they might be wrong.

My father has been an educator most of his adult life and has said from time to time that he never worries about kids having too much hubris because life invariably takes us all down a peg or two. Maybe he is wrong.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Let's go over this again, limiting it to the simplest aspects of your comments without assuming any of the facts that are implicit in your comments but which you choose to disreagrd. The plane "should have been detected" means that it should have been on radar, correct? Ok. And then you said you would expect "them", which menas NORAD according to your other comments (but I am sure you'll tell me if I am wrong) to respond "immediately." And by respond I assumed youmeant somethign other than sit up in their chairs and dictate a memo. I assumed you meant that "they" should do something meaningful that might prevent the plane from colliding with a building. so then we ask, can this be achieved? No. It can't. LEt's say you are at 1,500 feet on a course parallel with the upper east side going at about 100 mph and you decide to ram a 500 foot tall aprtment building. How long will it take you to dive into the building? How far away would "they" have to keep planes from buildings n order to allow enough time for detection, information processing and a meaningful intervention? Even if a flight plan was filed, how would NORAD even know that it had not been followed? a central database is one possibility, but of course that was just silly me folloiwing my school of thought and putting words in your mouth. So how esle would NORAD find out? and if it is n't some sort of central database, tell me how long it would take for this information to move to NORAD from some other unidentified 'agency' that you referred to. Will this be longer than it takes to dive from altitufde into a building? Only if you keep all planes somewhere around Phildeplhia when they want to fly by Manhattan. WHat am I misrepresetning here? ANd, really, who is more in lawyer mode? (whatever that means)

First of all, if you are limiting it to the most simple portion of my argument, you missed the actual argument entirely (not surprising, given the other avenues your arguments have taken here). The most simple issue involved not what NORAD would do once notified but rather why they apparently weren't notified at all. The others who should have been monitoring air traffic in the region include the FAA and/or air traffic control along with military outposts. This is not the equivalent of "one central database" but rather is many databases with overlapping jurisdictions. I am surprised NORAD was not notified by anyone. How long would it take to move information from an agency to NORAD? Well, electronic communcation is immediate, so I imagine not long (perhaps, immediately?).

Once notified, YOU then contemplate what should have happened. I don't know what should have happened once notified, which, by the way, is tangential to my concern that NORAD wasn't actually aware of the plane flying at such a low altitude over such an important target. Being aware is the first step to a response. If we don't have that step, it doesn't really matter what step 2 is. Do they have AA guns on buildings? Fighters nearby? Other intercept devices? I don't know. I imagine they have a decent plan given recent events. That plan can't be enacted without knowledge of a threat.

Originally Posted by creekster

I will first admit that I orignially presumed that you thought most of our urban areas were as important to protect as NYC. This, I will admit, springs from my personal bias as I live and work in neither NYC or DC, nor have I visited either city countless times. So I agree that given your clarification, and putting aside whether it is a reasonable position, I iwll limit the discussion to NYC and DC. I am sure that taking out LA's tallest building, or the Golden Gate Bridge, or one of CHicago's tallest buildings is of little consequence as long as we can hang on to NYC and DC. (This reminds me of those novelty maps that show the subject city in great detail and everything else as being little and uninteresting, but I digress.)

Interesting comment given you appear to be arguing that all targets are equally unimportant to protect. I recognize great security is costly (something you have also noted here). I also recognize it isn't practical for most of the nation (something you have also recognized here). Some cities do deserve special attention. Would you question DC is one such place? In your facetious response, you didn't provide an answer to whether either should have additional protection. Given that one is our political capital and one is our economic capital, I think some additional protection is warranted (not to mention both are more likely terrorist targets to begin with). Do you actually disagree, or are you just trying to be argumentative?

Originally Posted by creekster

You are the one that pointed out that the Lidle plane issued a distress signal. You tell me what import that has. I simply point out that if anythign it makes it even less likely that the flight would be a terrorist flight and so, if one is in the chain of command deciding whether to risk shooting the plane down (along with the attendnat colateral damage) how would this information that you presented help?

This has already been answered multiple times (dare I hope you will actually pay attention to my repeated answer here?). The plane issued a distress signal. That should make it easier to find. NORAD still didn't find it. Alarming.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by creekster

Let's go over this again, limiting it to the simplest aspects of your comments without assuming any of the facts that are implicit in your comments but which you choose to disreagrd. The plane "should have been detected" means that it should have been on radar, correct? Ok. And then you said you would expect "them", which menas NORAD according to your other comments (but I am sure you'll tell me if I am wrong) to respond "immediately." And by respond I assumed youmeant somethign other than sit up in their chairs and dictate a memo. I assumed you meant that "they" should do something meaningful that might prevent the plane from colliding with a building. so then we ask, can this be achieved? No. It can't. LEt's say you are at 1,500 feet on a course parallel with the upper east side going at about 100 mph and you decide to ram a 500 foot tall aprtment building. How long will it take you to dive into the building? How far away would "they" have to keep planes from buildings n order to allow enough time for detection, information processing and a meaningful intervention? Even if a flight plan was filed, how would NORAD even know that it had not been followed? a central database is one possibility, but of course that was just silly me folloiwing my school of thought and putting words in your mouth. So how esle would NORAD find out? and if it is n't some sort of central database, tell me how long it would take for this information to move to NORAD from some other unidentified 'agency' that you referred to. Will this be longer than it takes to dive from altitufde into a building? Only if you keep all planes somewhere around Phildeplhia when they want to fly by Manhattan. WHat am I misrepresetning here? ANd, really, who is more in lawyer mode? (whatever that means)





I will first admit that I orignially presumed that you thought most of our urban areas were as important to protect as NYC. This, I will admit, springs from my personal bias as I live and work in neither NYC or DC, nor have I visited either city countless times. So I agree that given your clarification, and putting aside whether it is a reasonable position, I iwll limit the discussion to NYC and DC. I am sure that taking out LA's tallest building, or the Golden Gate Bridge, or one of CHicago's tallest buildings is of little consequence as long as we can hang on to NYC and DC. (This reminds me of those novelty maps that show the subject city in great detail and everything else as being little and uninteresting, but I digress.)

You are the one that pointed out that the Lidle plane issued a distress signal. You tell me what import that has. I simply point out that if anythign it makes it even less likely that the flight would be a terrorist flight and so, if one is in the chain of command deciding whether to risk shooting the plane down (along with the attendnat colateral damage) how would this information that you presented help?

The real point is that ANY plane flying with in many miles of manhattan constitutes a threat. So what? What is NORAD or anyone else supposed to DO about it?

You do like the last word, so go ahead and take it. I am sure no one else is eve reading at this point.

BTW, I think Rocky meant that he thought you had an unduly inflated or exaggerated sense of the relative worth of your opinions. Somehow I suspect you knew that.

You're wasting your time. Hoya will debate til' he's blue in the face regardless of how much you continually beat his ass. He's like the kid who keeps on touching the hot stove and never learns his lesson.

[Archaea]

Not to be a ninny, but do we know that NORAD received no information, or do we know that the chief of NORAD stated he first learned of the accident through commerical means?

What evidence do we have that NORAD did not receive an electronic report?

Hoya, do you believe Air Traffic Controllers able to trace all planes even in a confined air space?