It was really close...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message

I think the Secret Service showed considerable restraint.

Because the "collateral damage" of shooting the plane down would have
been way higher than any damage inflicted by the plane itself. Simple
as that.

Theoretical.

A plane crashed into the white house lawn once already. If it had
disintegrated in midair and showered down somewhere, it wouldn't necessarily
inflict any higher damage than a Cessna plowing into the front of the White
House or some open assembly of people.

-c

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Very well said,
Sometimes we only see the part of history we chose to see. Lincoln
had
the entire Maryland State Legislature arrested and never charged with a
crime....just to keep them from voting for or against secession.
Numerous
newspaper owner/editors were arrested because they expressed the thought
that the Constitution allowed for secession..as a few northestern states
had
threathened many a time. I didn't agree with Lincoln throwing the
Constitution out of the window then, and I don't agree with doing it now
either.
Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having
all
of
the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal
Government.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers have been disgusted at us since
1861
.

Actually not. Some of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, wanted a
very limited federal government

Actually MOST wanted minimalist government. It wasn't until 1860 that the
trend reversed entirely. Prior ot that the only ones wanting BIG government
were the ones who were feeding at the trough.

and others wanted a federal government even
larger and more intrusive than what we have now.

Most noticably Hamilton and Clinton (George, not Bubba).

Don't forget also some of
the founding fathers wanted a monarchy.

Hamilton again, and they were not the majority and were pretty much of of
the "limelight" by 1800.

Patrick Henry wanted a theocracy, and by that, he was pretty much a "has
been" shortly after his "Give Me Liberty" speech.


The end result was a compromise but
the Jeffersonian minimalist have over the centuries been losing ground to
the bigger is better types.

It really took hold with Lincoln (a Hegelian) and then with Marx and the
"Progressives". People lapped it up thinking they were going to dig into the
deep pockets and the govt was more than happy to oblige.

"Sport Pilot" wrote in message
oups.com...
The plane was already 15 miles in a 30 mile zone when the F 16 took off
and was only 3 miles out when intercepted. If this was a terrorist
piloted airliner from Reagan National, takeing a northbound left turn
instead of right. The WH or capitol would be toast.

The F-16s weren't the only line of defense, just the first. There are also
patriot missile batteries and other SAM installations.

It turns out the first line of defense got the job done, and didn't even
kill anybody. I'm not exactly clear what failed except for the Cessna
pilot's navigational skill and the politicians' nerve.

On the other hand, we have the benefit of hindsite. All the people in the
capitol knew is that there was a red alert and that a plane appeared to be
coming directly at them despite rather obvious airspace closures. They
wouldn't have necessarily known whether it was a Cessna or a 747.
Personally, if I thought a 747 might be aimed at my building and mere miles
out, I'd run like hell too. I wouldn't run downstairs...that's where the
fuel leaks and the oxygen burns.

-c

gatt wrote:
Remember the Cessna that crashed into the White House lawn in 1994.
He
missed the WH.
The guy carrying the nuclear football was in the White House at the
time.

What I kind of wonder is, why was the guy with the nuclear football at
the White House if the president wasn't?

I guess it's just a quick run to the Blair House across the street
where President Clinton was staying, but..

Charles.
-N8385U

"Charles O'Rourke" wrote in message
ups.com...
gatt wrote:
Remember the Cessna that crashed into the White House lawn in 1994.
He
missed the WH.
The guy carrying the nuclear football was in the White House at the
time.

What I kind of wonder is, why was the guy with the nuclear football at
the White House if the president wasn't?

It's hard to maintain an erection with a guy holding a briefcase in the
corner...

I guess it's just a quick run to the Blair House across the street
where President Clinton was staying, but..

Or something like that.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:Yb5he.2075

3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

A baby buggy is just as good a tool.

Is there a precedent for baby buggies flying into the White House lawn or
into the Pentagon?

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:Yb5he.2075

3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

A baby buggy is just as good a tool.

Is there a precedent for baby buggies flying into the White House lawn or
into the Pentagon?

-c

They have been used in other countries and in an area that is off limits to
motor vehicles they would be a very efficient means of delivery.

"gatt" wrote in message
...
[...]
I wonder if there's a correlation between tightened security around
Washington DC and the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon.

A correlation doesn't prove reason.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear and
well-defined reasons, and every certificated pilot knows it.

No, these reasons are neither good, nor clear, nor well defined.

To be fair, what they really weren't are "reasons". They are "clear" and
"well-defined". But a "reason" ought to have some "reasoning" behind it.
These don't.

Andrew,
You raise a very interesting question, and it has a very simple answer. No
matter what law was passed etc., there would never be "perfect" internal
security. But we would have alot less problems if our federal Gov. would
enforce immigration laws and protect our borders. Don't stop immigration
mind you but enforce rules already in place. How many of the 911 highjackers
would not have even been in this country if the Feds actually went and got
them and sent them back to from where they came?
So instead of enforcing laws that would have already been protecting us
just as much as anything else they can come up with, we get the Patriot Act
that gives the gov. way to much power. And we know they say "we are not
using this against Americans". Do you believe that? And if it's true, how
long will it be before some corrupt type does use it against Americans? Now
if the Patriot Act was written and it had "This law does not pertain to US
citizens". Then I could back it...maybe.
But our main concern should be , close the border to illegals, send home
everyone we catch. If we had done that before we would surely be alot better
off today. If Yabba Dabba Do can not get into this country, he can not blow
anything up in it. And yes, then we would have to deal with those who live
here legally and would do us harm. But that would be alot easier without
them having the ability to send recruits from abroad for reinforcements.
Oh and my home security is a loaded 9mm and various others! No alarms
needed here

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
Similarly, we could easily achieve perfect internal security in this
country. At what price, however?

- Andrew