Questions on VFR sectionals and TACs

In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601XL Builder
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
wrote:

They could have killed and injured far more with a simple bomb.


Or a baseball bat

No, that wouldn't work 'cause there isn't enough room to swing a
bat in a Tokyo subway.



Ok, good point, how about a knife. I don't remember how many people the
group that committed the attacks had involved but if you had just handed
each of three or four people a combat knife and had them run around the
subway station sticking folks you probably would have had just as large or
larger body count.

A knife could have caused more casualties.

There were 5 attackers in separate cars and 5 getaway drivers.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic is a troll writes:

WE elected? I think WE is too big a number. Trolls living under
bridges in France don't vote in US elections.

Trying to make witty jokes will not fix the problem.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Maxwell writes:

Oh yeah, of coarse your are right. Politics are just as simple as flying a
sim.

You get exactly what you vote for (or what you fail to vote for). No amount
of ill-considered, sophomoric wit will change that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

writes:

Dispensing air born chemical or biological weapons takes a fair amount
of sophistication in both the substance and the dispensing mechanism
to cause any significant damage.

The point is that dispersing it with your own explosive device or dispersing
it with the aid of a missile from an intercepting fighter jet both accomplish
the same objective.

And what if the aircraft were loaded with radioactive material. The risk
actually isn't any higher than it is with CBW agents, but since radioactivity
persists longer and is thus better at generating public hysteria, it could be
effective where CBW is not. And shooting down an aircraft would be great for
spreading it around. Nobody would die from the direct effects, but the
ensuing panic would do a great deal of damage.

In this case, the use of an airplane makes more sense, because it gets better
media coverage and awareness, and since the actual danger presented by the
scenario is very small, a terrorists would have to depend on media
sensationalism to accomplish the task. A car bomb wouldn't do that because it
just wouldn't get as much media attention, especially before the fact. People
might not even notice radioactivity unless they explicitly checked for it, and
it's highly unlikely that they'd be sickened or killed by it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Ok, good point, how about a knife. I don't remember how many people the
group that committed the attacks had involved but if you had just handed
each of three or four people a combat knife and had them run around the
subway station sticking folks you probably would have had just as large or
larger body count.

A gun works even better, and those are plentiful in the USA.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

How would you know? You lack any form of social skills, can't keep a job,
and demonstrate neither humor nor wit of any kind.

Thanks for the learned opinion. I'll forward it to the NSA and FBI- I'm sure
they'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject.

Viperdoc writes:

How would you know? You lack any form of social skills, can't keep a job,
and demonstrate neither humor nor wit of any kind.

It saddens me a bit that you are prepared to sacrifice your own democracy in
exchange for cheap shots at others. I suppose it's true that if the water is
brought to a boil slowly, the frog dies without realizing what's happening.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Viperdoc writes:

Thanks for the learned opinion. I'll forward it to the NSA and FBI- I'm sure
they'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject.

They've already read it here. Just hope that the FAA isn't reading this
newsgroup as well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Dispensing air born chemical or biological weapons takes a fair amount
of sophistication in both the substance and the dispensing mechanism
to cause any significant damage.

The point is that dispersing it with your own explosive device or dispersing
it with the aid of a missile from an intercepting fighter jet both accomplish
the same objective.

The point is it would be an ineffective delivery system and wouldn't
accomplish anything.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.