Feds warn of small airplane terror threats

bfergie10

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
64
Location
Salem, VA
Display Name

Display name:
B. Ferguson
WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI and the Homeland Security Department are warning about small airplane terror threats just days before the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, but authorities say there is no credible or specific information about a plot.
So if they have no credible or specific information, then what are they trying to say?

On a related note, I would like to issue a warning that any mini-van or SUV with a stick-figure family on the back window could be a terrorist threat. I have no credible or specific information however.
 
So how does one respond to such outstanding security work by TSA?
 
I still plan to take a viagra and then demand an "enhanced pat-down" the next time I go to work :lol:
 
Theory: The warnings like this to the US citizens are actually covert operations against terrorists. It may PO us bigtime however every time one of these idiotic warnings pop up, some terrorist somewhere at their computer or tv chokes to death on their pizza and beer when they're caught off guard and start laughing hysterically.


Small planes a threat? Just because they're way up high in the sky doesn't actually make them small.
By my count the score to date stands at: Airliners: 3+1. Uhaul: 1. Scapegoats, um, GA: 0.
 
Theory: The warnings like this to the US citizens are actually covert operations against terrorists. It may PO us bigtime however every time one of these idiotic warnings pop up, some terrorist somewhere at their computer or tv chokes to death on their pizza and beer when they're caught off guard and start laughing hysterically.


Small planes a threat? Just because they're way up high in the sky doesn't actually make them small.
By my count the score to date stands at: Airliners: 3+1. Uhaul: 1. Scapegoats, um, GA: 0.
I heard that there a bunch of terrorists getting into a bunch of RVs and planning overhead breaks above major airports! They expect to cause mayhem and destruction to our entire ATC system!!!! :D:D:D
 
Ummmm...sir.....How can Al-Qaida threaten the US in any way when A-Q has been wiped out by having their #1 and #2 leaders killed every ten days?

Just askin'

I like how the evidence the threat is real is that after 9/11 crop dusters were grounded. Not that crop dusters were ever used...

Might as well add the same about airliners, huh?
 
I wish "journalists" still applied brain cells when they type. How is it that we normal uneducated folk can come up with these basic credibility questions and they don't even ask, they just print.
 
"Al Qaeda and its affiliates have maintained an interest in obtaining aviation training, particularly on small aircraft, and in recruiting Western individuals for training in Europe or the United States, although we do not have current, credible information or intelligence of an imminent attack being planned,"

The "homeland security" industry (not just the government agency with that label) is a self-perpetuating scare machine. It's purpose is to dream up "threats," propagate fear, and then provide "responses" -- most of which cost plenty.
 
The "homeland security" industry (not just the government agency with that label) is a self-perpetuating scare machine. It's purpose is to dream up "threats," propagate fear, and then provide "responses" -- most of which cost plenty.


Correct. All in order to keep themselves in existence, and growing like all government agencies. The more they create the perceived need, the larger and more powerful the agency can become. The media is just a beneficial accomplice, and the sheeple eat it up.
 
I wish "journalists" still applied brain cells when they type. How is it that we normal uneducated folk can come up with these basic credibility questions and they don't even ask, they just print.

Journalism is not about reporting and investigating and informing the public. It's about sensationalism, fearmongering and ratings. Making stuff up is far more effective than the truth.

Which will ramp your ratings through the roof and get the public all freaked out:
1. 20,000 GA airplanes minded their own business today and didn't have a problem and they're going to do it again tomorrow.
2. AAIIGGHH!!! GA is out to murder us all. They're out of control and untrackable and flown by terrorists like the ones that rammed airliners into buildings.


The score still stands.
 
Correct. All in order to keep themselves in existence, and growing like all government agencies. The more they create the perceived need, the larger and more powerful the agency can become. The media is just a beneficial accomplice, and the sheeple eat it up.

I took some post-grad classes in "Homeland security" paid for by my then-employer.

I dared disagree with a proposed "threat delivery options" as physically impossible.

(The scenario was a widely-known nerve toxin flown into a packed stadium by a "Cessna')

The outrage from the instructor and the lemming "of course the professor is right!" students was palpable -- how dare I question the creativity, commitment, and ability of America's enemies?

It didn't matter I had decades in uniform preparing to fight America's enemies and have a son in uniform doing the same.

I had questioned orthodoxy, and was thereafter a heretic.
 
Just to be the devil's advocate here, everyone likes to bring up the Ryder truck in comparison to an airplane but the truck was filled with explosives. Running an empty truck into a building wouldn't cause much damage either. :target:
 
Just to be the devil's advocate here, everyone likes to bring up the Ryder truck in comparison to an airplane but the truck was filled with explosives. Running an empty truck into a building wouldn't cause much damage either. :target:

Very true however the fearmongering attitude is that an empty CE150 with a single pilot and half a tank of fuel is the equivalent of a low yield thermonuclear bomb.

And to this very day there are still NO restrictions on ryder or uhaul trucks which has been proven in OKC that they can do massive amounts of damage to a building while a small GA plane can mostly break out a window. Yet they are unrestricted and we are getting our butts handed to us.
 
Just to be the devil's advocate here, everyone likes to bring up the Ryder truck in comparison to an airplane but the truck was filled with explosives. Running an empty truck into a building wouldn't cause much damage either. :target:

Running a Ryder truck into a crowd of people would kill many. Some geezer killed about 9 people somewhere in California without even trying (pushed the wrong pedal).

Running an empty Ryder truck into a building would cause a lot more damage and likely more fatalities than the January 5 2002 attack.
 
Very true however the fearmongering attitude is that an empty CE150 with a single pilot and half a tank of fuel is the equivalent of a low yield thermonuclear bomb.
Actually the warning is about small airplane loaded with explosives, not just empty small planes.

The alert said terrorists have considered renting private planes and loading them with explosives.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-aviation-warning-20110904,0,2611243.story

I can obviously understand why we want to defend aviation and general aviation in particular, but I think we sometimes go overboard in our zeal by misquoting the other side and discounting their theories as ridiculous. Anything is possible, although not probable.
 
I still plan to take a viagra and then demand an "enhanced pat-down" the next time I go to work :lol:

anxiety.png
 
Actually the warning is about small airplane loaded with explosives, not just empty small planes.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-aviation-warning-20110904,0,2611243.story

I can obviously understand why we want to defend aviation and general aviation in particular, but I think we sometimes go overboard in our zeal by misquoting the other side and discounting their theories as ridiculous. Anything is possible, although not probable.

It would be better to have terrorists load 172's with explosives than Ryder trucks - they would not be able to carry nearly as much or penetrate a building as well resulting in less damage and a much lower casualty count.

Flying a small aircraft into a crowded stadium could kill dozens. But it would be a "one shot" deal. Unlike driving through the crowds with a car / truck / suv when the game is over.
 
Anything is possible, although not probable.

Yet there are no restrictions on uhaul/ryder trucks which have actually been used for this specific purpose. Nor are there restrictions on trucks, suv's cars, semi-trucks - all of which can easily carry far more explosives than a GA plane could ever hope to. Even when the ground vehicles are empty, the rigid structure and mass will deliver far more damaging energy into the target.

Fair's fair.
 
Yet there are no restrictions on uhaul/ryder trucks which have actually been used for this specific purpose. Nor are there restrictions on trucks, suv's cars, semi-trucks - all of which can easily carry far more explosives than a GA plane could ever hope to. Even when the ground vehicles are empty, the rigid structure and mass will deliver far more damaging energy into the target.

Fair's fair.
Since I'm not a trucker I wouldn't be familiar with any restrictions or inspections. However, I know that there are many barriers in place which were not there prior to the Oklahoma City bombing. For a while afterwards there were barricades so that you couldn't park next to the FSS at Centennial Airport (which is not even there any more). Prior to Oklahoma City there was a parking area under the tower which is not utilized any more. I was recently in DC driving around with someone who had spent some time there in the 1970s. He commented on how many of the streets were changed and blocked off.
 
Running a Ryder truck into a crowd of people would kill many. Some geezer killed about 9 people somewhere in California without even trying (pushed the wrong pedal).

That was in Santa Monica, where they want to shut down the airport, because it is dangerous. Funny, they didn't close off the roads.

Since I'm not a trucker I wouldn't be familiar with any restrictions or inspections. However, I know that there are many barriers in place which were not there prior to the Oklahoma City bombing. For a while afterwards there were barricades so that you couldn't park next to the FSS at Centennial Airport (which is not even there any more). Prior to Oklahoma City there was a parking area under the tower which is not utilized any more. I was recently in DC driving around with someone who had spent some time there in the 1970s. He commented on how many of the streets were changed and blocked off.

Pretty much all federal buildings have bollards in front, so no one can drive a car/truck onto the sidewalk, and they will shoo you away if you try to park there. The only real effect of all that is to discourage an attack by a Timothy McVeigh-type, one who wishes to survive the attack. A truck load of (name favorite easily-synthesized explosive here) can still be easily detonated within good killing range of most federal buildings.

Of course, none of that really means much of anything, does it? Terrorists are not particularly interested in blowing up only government-owned facilities, when they can blow up, like, other stuff where people are. Or drive cars through a crowd. Or any one of hundreds of other seemingly-random events which tug at our fear-strings because we did not expect that particular item of ugliness.

Which is the whole point.

Most of the "fear" and "terror" experienced by most Americans is generated by the fear-mongers in the government - mostly, bureaucrats charged with "protecting" us, acting (as every bureaucrat will do) in their (the bureaucrats', not the public's) best interest.

So the terrorists win, again - and do so by doing pretty much nothing.
 
I took some post-grad classes in "Homeland security" paid for by my then-employer.

I dared disagree with a proposed "threat delivery options" as physically impossible.

(The scenario was a widely-known nerve toxin flown into a packed stadium by a "Cessna')

The outrage from the instructor and the lemming "of course the professor is right!" students was palpable -- how dare I question the creativity, commitment, and ability of America's enemies?

It didn't matter I had decades in uniform preparing to fight America's enemies and have a son in uniform doing the same.

I had questioned orthodoxy, and was thereafter a heretic.

As I've mentioned elsewhere in POA, I'm taking a course in Aviation Security (I'm the only non-aviation student and like others here, I've spent my career with DOD & FAA but as a civilian). First day of class the instructor puts the statement on the board "Are we safer?" and goes around the room asking each of the students for an answer. Every single one of them answers Yes or No. He gets to me and my response is "What is your definition of 'safer' and please put the question into a context".

The other students didn't understand but he did. But he was trying to make a point and I wasn't playing.

I can't decide if I want to stay in the class or not. But the trivia tidbits are lots of fun.
 
Most of the "fear" and "terror" experienced by most Americans is generated by the fear-mongers in the government - mostly, bureaucrats charged with "protecting" us, acting (as every bureaucrat will do) in their (the bureaucrats', not the public's) best interest.
I would argue that some of that is true but it's not only the government. The public buys into it in a big way, in fact if the leaders thought the idea was unpopular they wouldn't do it.

I think it's interesting that people try to defend GA by using the argument that trucks and truck drivers are not restricted in the same way. Would it be better if they were? Then it would be "fair".
 
As I've mentioned elsewhere in POA, I'm taking a course in Aviation Security (I'm the only non-aviation student and like others here, I've spent my career with DOD & FAA but as a civilian). First day of class the instructor puts the statement on the board "Are we safer?" and goes around the room asking each of the students for an answer. Every single one of them answers Yes or No. He gets to me and my response is "What is your definition of 'safer' and please put the question into a context".

The other students didn't understand but he did. But he was trying to make a point and I wasn't playing.

I can't decide if I want to stay in the class or not. But the trivia tidbits are lots of fun.

Here's a question for the aviation security course instructor and students...

Can any of them figure out an attack mechanism objective using light GA aircraft that couldn't be done quicker, cheaper, easier by some other means?
 
Last edited:
Here's a question for the aviation security course instructor and students...

Can any of them figure out an attack mechanism using light GA aircraft that couldn't be done quicker, cheaper, easier by some other means?

Great! I'll use it next opportunity. 'Specially if the TSA folks show up again.
 
Here's a question for the aviation security course instructor and students...

Can any of them figure out an attack mechanism using light GA aircraft that couldn't be done quicker, cheaper, easier by some other means?

Arial spraying of bio/chem agents...
 
I think it's interesting that people try to defend GA by using the argument that trucks and truck drivers are not restricted in the same way. Would it be better if they were? Then it would be "fair".

The argument is against making G.A. the Bogey man just because it is an easy target that many people see as toys for rich people.

The argument is that attacking G.A. is just more security theater to make people think that the government is "doing something". Just like referring to the portion of an airport behind the passenger screening as a "sterile area" when all of the people that have the real access to the aircraft sitting on the ramp go through minimal / no screening.

The argument is that attacking G.A. is just a way to generate sound bites and win votes without actually having to do something substantial.

The argument is that attacking G.A. is a way to divert attention from real problems.

I'll stop here before I go off into Sierra Zulu land.
 
The argument is against making G.A. the Bogey man just because it is an easy target that many people see as toys for rich people.

The argument is that attacking G.A. is just more security theater to make people think that the government is "doing something". Just like referring to the portion of an airport behind the passenger screening as a "sterile area" when all of the people that have the real access to the aircraft sitting on the ramp go through minimal / no screening.

The argument is that attacking G.A. is just a way to generate sound bites and win votes without actually having to do something substantial.

The argument is that attacking G.A. is a way to divert attention from real problems.

I'll stop here before I go off into Sierra Zulu land.
I don't really think the general public cares that much about GA one way or the other but making arguments that sound like, "They're picking on us!" doesn't help, especially when we make up straw men like the empty 152.
 
Arial spraying of bio/chem agents...

Planes are efficient for spraying roadless areas that can't be reached quickly and efficiently with cars and trucks, i.e., plowed fields. For contaminating people, road vehicles would be more efficient, because people tend to be concentrated in areas with a high density of streets and roads. Trying to use a plane for that purpose would be especially difficult in urban areas with a lot of buildings, because they would force the use of a higher altitude, which could cause the sprayed agents to be substantially diluted by the time they reached the ground. (I assume that ag pilots don't fly so low for their health!)

I think the reason bureacrats like to focus on GA is because we're a small minority of the population, so the political consequences of draconian measures are a lot less than they would be if they were applied to automobile drivers, for example.
 
Last edited:
Since I'm not a trucker I wouldn't be familiar with any restrictions or inspections. However, I know that there are many barriers in place which were not there prior to the Oklahoma City bombing. For a while afterwards there were barricades so that you couldn't park next to the FSS at Centennial Airport (which is not even there any more). Prior to Oklahoma City there was a parking area under the tower which is not utilized any more. I was recently in DC driving around with someone who had spent some time there in the 1970s. He commented on how many of the streets were changed and blocked off.

That's nice IF the terrorists are going after gov't buildings and gov't workers in political locations like NYC or DC. If they're going after the population to really mess us up, there's not a lot of restrictions.
As an example: Wednesday I was in downtown Denver late at night doing photography. There was a big ryder moving truck parked next to one of the big apartment type buildings on 15th street (that really cool one with all the lights on the side - I think it's an apartment building) where there is quite a bit of social night life going on. I'm assuming the truck was going to sit there all night since it was already 11pm. Dining room chairs, a sofa and boxes of clothes inside? Or packed solid with a fertilizer/diesel fuel bomb? If that thing went boom at 2am or 8am the next morning...but no worries, that kind of thing simply can't ever happen...
 
That's nice IF the terrorists are going after gov't buildings and gov't workers in political locations like NYC or DC. If they're going after the population to really mess us up, there's not a lot of restrictions.
As an example: Wednesday I was in downtown Denver late at night doing photography. There was a big ryder moving truck parked next to one of the big apartment type buildings on 15th street (that really cool one with all the lights on the side - I think it's an apartment building) where there is quite a bit of social night life going on. I'm assuming the truck was going to sit there all night since it was already 11pm. Dining room chairs, a sofa and boxes of clothes inside? Or packed solid with a fertilizer/diesel fuel bomb? If that thing went boom at 2am or 8am the next morning...but no worries, that kind of thing simply can't ever happen...

Not an apartment building but an office complex. Best part? They don't have to worry about putting up the Christmas lights every year!

And you were in Denver & didn't let anyone know? You let a chance for another CO-POA lunch/dinner go by? Tsk tsk tsk.
 
Arial spraying of bio/chem agents...


First, which "bio/chem" agents would those be?

(Hint, it's not like the movies)

Second, once you've identified those, do you have the expertise to alter the spray mechanism to provide the required pattern for max effect?

Third, you finally make/procure such agents -- you have to transport them to the airport undetected, load the airplane undetected, fly a ag plane over the target area undetected, and commence a-sprayin...

Wouldn't it be easier to just skip the whole airplane part and distribute using the truck you used to transport to the airfield?
 
Arial spraying of bio/chem agents...

I worded my question poorly. I didn't mean to ask about method, but rather objective.

What's your objective in hypothetically attempting to spray a bio/chem agent?
 
Not an apartment building but an office complex. Best part? They don't have to worry about putting up the Christmas lights every year!

Close enough. I'm not a city person so I can't tell the difference between buildings just like city people can't tell one sand dune from another. Just set the timer for 9am instead of 2am and the point is still valid.

And you were in Denver & didn't let anyone know? You let a chance for another CO-POA lunch/dinner go by? Tsk tsk tsk.

Eh. That's just the way it is. Extremely few people know which state I am in from one minute to the next much less any specific location at a specific time. One day I was in south central UT, four days later I'm in Denver and I don't have a clue where I'll be tomorrow.


Just for fun, this is the neat looking building I mentioned:
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8698.jpg
    IMG_8698.jpg
    126.4 KB · Views: 19
I think the problem with saying, "That's stupid, it could never happen!" is that implausible things have happened in the past and people were blamed for it. Once burned, twice shy.

I think most of the restrictions are ineffective and it would be nice if they went away. But saying that GA can't possibly be any kind of threat is like hiding your head in the sand. It would be better to say, "Yes, bad things can happen, but we are taking X measures to help prevent it. On the other hand you can't protect against everything."
 
That was in Santa Monica, where they want to shut down the airport, because it is dangerous. Funny, they didn't close off the roads.



Pretty much all federal buildings have bollards in front, so no one can drive a car/truck onto the sidewalk, and they will shoo you away if you try to park there. The only real effect of all that is to discourage an attack by a Timothy McVeigh-type, one who wishes to survive the attack. A truck load of (name favorite easily-synthesized explosive here) can still be easily detonated within good killing range of most federal buildings.

Of course, none of that really means much of anything, does it? Terrorists are not particularly interested in blowing up only government-owned facilities, when they can blow up, like, other stuff where people are. Or drive cars through a crowd. Or any one of hundreds of other seemingly-random events which tug at our fear-strings because we did not expect that particular item of ugliness.

Which is the whole point.

Most of the "fear" and "terror" experienced by most Americans is generated by the fear-mongers in the government - mostly, bureaucrats charged with "protecting" us, acting (as every bureaucrat will do) in their (the bureaucrats', not the public's) best interest.

So the terrorists win, again - and do so by doing pretty much nothing.
Spike's exactly right. Basically, the terrorists have simply handed yet another tool to politicians - so now it's even easier to guarantee reelection.

This was a fairly good episode about the phsychology of it all - I recommend it:

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201108191000

Bruce Schneier is excellent.
 
As I've mentioned elsewhere in POA, I'm taking a course in Aviation Security (I'm the only non-aviation student and like others here, I've spent my career with DOD & FAA but as a civilian).

Sounds like another example of "education" that isn't.

Who's paying for the class?
 
Just for fun, this is the neat looking building I mentioned:

That's the old "Power and Light" building downtown. Covered in lights in the days when electricity was still a novelty. Pretty at night now. They replace some of the white bulbs at Christmas sometimes with red and green.

Did you notice the large non-descript building right next door to the north? That's the "Denver Main" Qwest/CenturyLink Telco Central Office for downtown and the "Terminal Annex". Lots of fiber optics under the street you were standing on. ;) If you ever get an intercept message with the tag "303-1-T" at the end when placing a call out of Denver, the problem is in that building. ;) MCI/Verizon's main fiber feeds are out near DIA at their "Denver Junction" facility. Cutely named since their fiber follows the rail line out there.

Old photos of Larimer street look like modern photos of some areas of developing nations today. All the cabling was on poles above ground downtown. Can't hardly see the buildings for all the wiring with the Power building and the Phone buildings both there.

The streets down there in that area were all named for the group of Kansas City "fathers" of Denver who moved here and started battling with Central City for the State Capitol location. "Upper" Downtown at the other end is all named for Civil War Generals with the addition of "Lincoln" of course.

The modern exception is "Market" street in Lower Downtown which originally had one of their names on it, but when he became the town drunk and sat under "his" streetsigns and told folks (loudly and often) that it was *his* street, the city fathers were embarrassed and renamed the street to get him to go away.

Fun stuff, Denver's history. A couple blocks from the building you were at was the red-light district. The infamous Mattie Silks ran brothels that stretched out over half the State.

There was an underground tunnel from that area over to the other end of Downtown near the Brown Palace hotel so the politicians and power-mongers of the day could travel to the red-light district unseen.

The stuff those old buildings have seen. There was an article recently here that praised the folks who fought the steel high rise building trend along the 16th Street Mall to keep the old architecture in the late 70s and on into the construction of the walking mall in the 80s. Much of Denver's 1800's mining rush character and history would have been lost if the high rises had won out.
 
Back
Top