Adam, You're right about the cold war and no defenses for the Pentagon. It probably still has a Russian nuke with it's address on it. But other things have changed.
My daughter goes to college in Washington, DC. For a time after 9/11, new air defense batteries were visible around the Pentagon. Now, there are grassy berms hiding whatever might be on the other side. ;-) (And if you doubt they are on the US Capital, just do a Google Map and look at the ariel photos...funny how that roof is a featureless gray blob.) The problem with air defenses for the Pentagon is that it is along the flight path into Regan National Airport, about 1 mile from touchdown. Commercial jets landing there fly down the Potomac River right past the Pentagon. That's why they announce "no getting out of your seats" for the first 30 minutes out of Regan or last 30 minutes into Regan. I expect there is an air marshal licensed to use deadly force on most flights. Regards, Bob S. On 7/25/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Two things. > > 1. Airliners are bloody easy to fly. Easier than a wee little Cessna. > They have massive computer assistance and are purposly built to be very > forgiving. Play around some with MS Flight Simulator and you'll see just > how easy it is to fly an airliner (MSFS is quite accurate and is used > for basic flight training). Not that the actually difficult parts of > flying is takeoff and landing, neither of which the 9/11 attackers > attempted. In addition, the Pentagon attack actually missed, the > aircraft actually hit early and only the shallow angle of attack allowed > it to keep going into the pentagon, a higher angle of attack would have > resulted in a complete miss. > > 2. The Pentagon depends entirely on the Capitol Area air defenses. It > has no integral defenses apart from structural strength. This is due to > the cold war, where it was assumed that the Pentagon was dead if war > broke out. > > The Capitol Air defenses allow airliners through and don't look > particularly closely at them (or at least didn't prior to 9/11). Which > is stupid since at least two major authors (Tom Clancy and Dale Brown) > succesfully postulated attacks that were similar in many regards to 9/11 > well prior to 9/11 (Clancy's Debt of Honor and Brown's Storming Heaven), > Clancy's was even on the Capitol itself. > > -Adam > > > frank theriault wrote: > > On 7/25/06, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>Which part do you consider bullshit? What the man proposes to teach, > >>or the university defending his right to teach it? Personally, I > >>think freedom of speech must encompass ideas that the mainstream > >>considers repugnant. > > > > > > Right you are, Bob! > > > > For one thing, at university, they call them "professors" for a > > reason. To profess is merely to affirm a belief. At a post-secondary > > level, the assumption is that students are at a level that they can > > research the professors affirmations and form their own opinions as to > > whether the professor is right or wrong. > > > > Up to the end of high school we have "teachers". To teach is to > > impart knowledge. The distinction between teachers and professors is > > an important one. > > > > This guy in Wisconson may (or may not be) a nutbar, but I defend his > > right to lecture whatever he wants. Moreso, I defend his university's > > right to pay him and have him lecture there. The fact that tax > > dollars go to that university does not give the taxpayers or the > > legislature the right to demand that the guy gets sacked. At most, it > > gives them the right to pull those tax dollars out of the place, but > > then 90% or more of the students will be harmed due to (what's > > portrayed as) the rantings of this loonie. > > > > The other thing, of course, is that perhaps, just perhaps, if someone > > actually sat in on this guy's course and read the materials, he might > > have a few accurate things to say, and he might have evidence to back > > up his assertions. Stranger things have happened. It's hard to judge > > based on a newspaper article - and a biased one, at that. > > > > I've got to admit, I always wondered how it is that the Pentagon isn't > > one of the best defended buildings in the world, with all the latest > > detection devices and radar and defences. I've always thought it a > > bit strange that something as complex and difficult to pilot as a > > modern airliner, flown by a rank amateur, managed to get through those > > defences and score a direct hit. I'm not saying this guy's right, but > > it makes one wonder. > > > > cheers, > > frank > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
