Pilot runs out of fuel waiting for security clearance

In article ,
Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

Paul Baechler wrote:

They don't demonstrate that there's no interest in using aircraft;
general aviation was non-existent in Lebanon in 1981, and is for all
practical purposes non-existent in Saudi Arabia. You can't reasonably
argue that failure to use a non-obtainable weapon is evidence that
there's no interest in using it.

I'm not trying to make the above argument. Where and why did
you get the impression I had?

It's the argument you're effectively making when you drag the foreign
bombings in.

The point is, this is a group which has demonstrated an interest
in using car and truck bombs.

It's a group which has demonstrated a willingness to use truck bombs
when aircraft aren't available. If you limit your argument to al-Qaida
attacks within the US they used commercial airliners (i.e., airplanes)
50% of the time (assuming both WTC attacks were made by al-Qaida).

--
Paul Baechler

"Paul Baechler" wrote in message
news
It's a group which has demonstrated a willingness to use truck bombs
when aircraft aren't available. If you limit your argument to al-Qaida
attacks within the US they used commercial airliners (i.e., airplanes)
50% of the time (assuming both WTC attacks were made by al-Qaida).

Even using your own screwed up logic, 50% of the attacks in the US were done
using something OTHER than airplanes. Seems to me, by your own line of
reasoning, trucks should be subject to at least as much restrictions as
airplanes.

In article , "Casey Wilson"
wrote:

Aren't they? How close can you get a vehicle to the White House or
Capitol
buildings?

right next to them.

Maybe the radius isn't 30 miles, but the restrictions are
reasonably equivalent.

not hardly.

On the local military base, you can't park even a
motorcycle within 200 feet of any building.

what FPCON is that base operating at?

--
Bob Noel

I feel your pain!

Denny

"Casey Wilson" wrote in Let me tell ya, that's a real
pain to have to walk that extra distance to gym too.

"Judah" wrote in message ...
Because the security measures were implemented at the terminals before the
passengers and crew board the planes.

Bull****. Airline security is still a massive joke. It's still set up to prevent the
"hijack to Cuba" scenario and doesn't really protect much against that.

Aren't they? How close can you get a vehicle to the White House or Capitol
buildings? Maybe the radius isn't 30 miles, but the restrictions are
reasonably equivalent. On the local military base, you can't park even a
motorcycle within 200 feet of any building. Let me tell ya, that's a real
pain to have to walk that extra distance to gym too.

They try to keep trucks about four blocks away, but they don't do a very good
job. If someone is determined to die for the cause they can certainly do there
by the time the Keystone Capitol Cops chase them down (got caught in a
traffic jam last year when some happless office furniture delivery truck managed
to blunder through the "no truck" zone. He'd have blown off the Senate wing if
he had a mind too...

You can still drive right up to the House/Senate office buildings. You can bet about
2 blocks from the White House itself.

Sidney

You are reading too much media hype.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:32:22 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli

----clip----

Why do you believe that someone bent on harm would be dutifully
activating their transponder and squawking 1200, flying a plane
with a large primary radar footprint, or flying in a manner which
would make them straightforward to

************* intercept in less than 10 minutes?*************

Impossible in todays world with the ROE in effect and status and
location of Interceptors.

I spent 15 years intercepting 'unknown' aircraft and we sat on 5
minute alert 7/24.

Todays aircraft have been cut back from 9/11 status and are unable to
react soonest and in no way can meet your "10 minutes"

Sorry about that.


Big John

Big John wrote in message . ..
Sidney

You are reading too much media hype.

Big John,

I think you're misreading my post.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:32:22 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli

----clip----

Why do you believe that someone bent on harm would be dutifully
activating their transponder and squawking 1200, flying a plane
with a large primary radar footprint, or flying in a manner which
would make them straightforward to

************* intercept in less than 10 minutes?*************

Impossible in todays world with the ROE in effect and status and
location of Interceptors.


That was my SWAG.

No need to be sorry; you just helped me make my point.

Sydney

Sidney

Sorry bout that.

Measured once and cut twice.............................or some such.

Big John


On 18 Jul 2003 22:07:21 -0700, (Snowbird)
wrote:

Big John wrote in message . ..
Sidney

You are reading too much media hype.

Big John,

I think you're misreading my post.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:32:22 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli

----clip----

Why do you believe that someone bent on harm would be dutifully
activating their transponder and squawking 1200, flying a plane
with a large primary radar footprint, or flying in a manner which
would make them straightforward to

************* intercept in less than 10 minutes?*************

Impossible in todays world with the ROE in effect and status and
location of Interceptors.


That was my SWAG.

No need to be sorry; you just helped me make my point.

Sydney