Re: World Trade Center

["Stephen R. Wilcoxon" <wilcoxon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > Bad planning.  It's been known for a long time (since National Airport was
> > built?) that that meant planes would be overflying the Pentagon.  I'm
> > surprised a plane from Dulles was allowed to crash into the Pentagon with
> > what had already happened in New York though (one going into National could
> > easily have managed it but wouldn't have had as much fuel left).  I bet
> > a no-fly zone goes into effect over the Pentagon after this however.
> 
> From what I understand there was a no-fly zone up around the Pentagon from it
> 's construction...

Hadn't heard that.  If there is, it's not large enough to be meaningful (I
used to live around DC (in VA and MD at different times)) as planes
regularly fly close enough that a few seconds diversion would hit the
Pentagon.

> Perhaps they should put up an ADP (Active Defense Perimeter) around all major
> governmental postings. I am not just talking about two guys with a FIM92... I
> am talking M163's, HVM(T)'s and Chapparals, Rapiers. A FIM92 will not take do
> wn an airliner, but 100 rds of 20mm into the front aspect will, so will a
> missile with a 25kg warhead.

That may happen after this.

> I guess its time to get serious. I still think putting Air Marshals on planes
> again would be another excellent measure. (I see your knife and raise you two
> rounds of .45 JHP)

Air martials on all flights would be a great idea (not the random few they
used to be on (AFAIK there aren't any on any flights any more are there?)).

I like what I've heard about El-Al (sp?) (the Israeli airline) -- each
flight has what amounts to a sniper (eg take out terrorists holding
hostages) or two on board.