Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Chicago Air Force?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    9,084

    Chicago Air Force?

    May 15, 2005
    "While the Cessna 150 was "threatening" Washington, D.C., Chicago Mayor..."We need the same protection as Washington, D.C.," Daley said, and he means F-16s..."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,653
    Very cute of these guys to use quotes around "threatening." If some terrorist managed to slam a Cessna 150 with a couple of humdred pounds of explosive aboard (don't know it's exact load carrying capacity) into the Capitol or the White House, they would be screaming for the heads of everyone comcerned.

    General aviation can continue to flourish without the right to fly over critical areas.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    72
    I agree. Maybe they could station them at Meigs Field since it's so close to the "downtown area"...

    #-o


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Bean Counter
    I agree. Maybe they could station them at Meigs Field since it's so close to the "downtown area"...

    #-o

    Yeah... too bad he erased Meigs Field in the dead of night. I mean what's more important, defence of the city or running paths and concert venues? Maybe we'll get some missile batteries on the lake front and put the F-16s at Palwaukee and St. Charles instead.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Jpax2003
    Maybe we'll get some missile batteries on the lake front and put the F-16s at Palwaukee and St. Charles instead.
    F-16s??????????????????????????????? If we're actually going to try to protect a place, let's get some REAL plane in there! F-18's all the way!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,358
    I thought United Airlines was the Chicago Air Force ( ops: sorry Candy).

    I can see an increasing amount of one-upmanship from various mayors around the nation now. "If Chicago gets two F-16s, New York should get three F-18s".

    Of course the only people that will be affected will be the poor folks trying to do traffic reports or just fly their private planes. And the terrorists will just go get a ship or a truck and blow that up (I suspect terrorists read the newspaper and the internet too). #-o
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by Sammy
    Very cute of these guys to use quotes around "threatening." If some terrorist managed to slam a Cessna 150 with a couple of humdred pounds of explosive aboard (don't know it's exact load carrying capacity) into the Capitol or the White House, they would be screaming for the heads of everyone comcerned.

    General aviation can continue to flourish without the right to fly over critical areas.
    Uh, somebody already did slam a Cessna into the White House.
    Boyer, in his interview with CNN, pointed out a 1994 suicide attempt, when a Cessna 152 crashed onto the grounds of the White House. Damage to the building was negligible. In other words, a Cessna 150 or 152 just doesn't pose that much of a threat to the seat of government.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,440
    But that's not really a relevant example. That particular Cessna was loaded only with a pilot. Add a couple hundred pounds of explosives and I'm sure that some serious damage could be done. Not sure how much, but enough to kill a few folks. As Sammy pointed out, had it gotten through and actually done something, everyone would be saying "how could you be so stupid to not shoot it down".

    Darned if you do, darned if you don't....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by pghnative
    But that's not really a relevant example. That particular Cessna was loaded only with a pilot. Add a couple hundred pounds of explosives and I'm sure that some serious damage could be done. Not sure how much, but enough to kill a few folks. As Sammy pointed out, had it gotten through and actually done something, everyone would be saying "how could you be so stupid to not shoot it down".

    Darned if you do, darned if you don't....
    In terms of likelihood, consider that each of the large aircraft of the previous strikes was loaded with several thousand (tens of thousands in some cases) pounds of explosive fuel. Scale that down to a two-passenger non-cargo plane and you'll see the point. It would have done more damage if they'd shot it down over D.C.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    589
    The cessna did destroy a rather nice tree, that had happily made oxygen for us all for many years.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,643

    Re: Chicago Air Force?

    Quote Originally Posted by PatKelley
    Quote Originally Posted by Sammy
    Very cute of these guys to use quotes around "threatening." If some terrorist managed to slam a Cessna 150 with a couple of humdred pounds of explosive aboard (don't know it's exact load carrying capacity) into the Capitol or the White House, they would be screaming for the heads of everyone comcerned.

    General aviation can continue to flourish without the right to fly over critical areas.
    Uh, somebody already did slam a Cessna into the White House.
    Boyer, in his interview with CNN, pointed out a 1994 suicide attempt, when a Cessna 152 crashed onto the grounds of the White House. Damage to the building was negligible. In other words, a Cessna 150 or 152 just doesn't pose that much of a threat to the seat of government.
    Then there was this guy who tried to commandeer a DC-9 and fly it into the White House. He never got off the ground though.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Sammy
    Very cute of these guys to use quotes around "threatening." If some terrorist managed to slam a Cessna 150 with a couple of humdred pounds of explosive aboard (don't know it's exact load carrying capacity) into the Capitol or the White House, they would be screaming for the heads of everyone comcerned.

    General aviation can continue to flourish without the right to fly over critical areas.
    Two people and a full load of fuel (around 24 gallons) and the airplane is over gross weight.

    Cessna 150's don't carry much and they'll only do around 100 mph.

    Remember that Cessna 172 that a kid flew into a building into Florida?
    Didn't do much damage at all.

    I'll never forgive Daley for what he did to Meigs Field. Pity I never had the chance to fly into that airport except with Microsoft Flight Simulator.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    746
    Aren't the local US Air National Guards under the control of the state governor until seconded to the National Command in times of emergency?

    Why doesn't the Governor simply set up standing air patrols? 8)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviousman
    Why doesn't the Governor simply set up standing air patrols? 8)
    Because that would be horrendously expensive. It would be cheaper and less wear and tear on machinery and men to have them standing by ready to fly at a moments notice. Which is probably what he wants.

    Isn't the Air National Guard funded by the state? Or does the DOD pick up the tab? Either way, sounds like he wants protection on someone else's dime.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,440
    Quote Originally Posted by PatKelley
    Quote Originally Posted by pghnative
    But that's not really a relevant example. That particular Cessna was loaded only with a pilot. Add a couple hundred pounds of explosives and I'm sure that some serious damage could be done. Not sure how much, but enough to kill a few folks. As Sammy pointed out, had it gotten through and actually done something, everyone would be saying "how could you be so stupid to not shoot it down".

    Darned if you do, darned if you don't....
    In terms of likelihood, consider that each of the large aircraft of the previous strikes was loaded with several thousand (tens of thousands in some cases) pounds of explosive fuel. Scale that down to a two-passenger non-cargo plane and you'll see the point. It would have done more damage if they'd shot it down over D.C.
    I don't understand your point. Are you saying that a couple hundred pounds of explosives would cause insignificant damage? Or that if it had gotten through, crashed into the Washington monument, exploded 200 lbs of C4, and killed 3 tourists, that the newpapers wouldn't be screaming "you stupid fools".

Similar Threads

  1. bolide near Chicago
    By blueshift in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-May-10, 11:18 PM
  2. Chicago in June......
    By Lost Johnny in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2006-May-29, 12:32 AM
  3. The Chicago Comet
    By TheGalaxyTrio in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2004-Aug-24, 04:11 AM
  4. Chicago fire
    By chris l. in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2002-May-22, 05:00 AM
  5. Centrifugal force is really inertia and not a force!
    By ljbrs in forum Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 2002-Apr-06, 04:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •