Quote:
Originally posted by Sir_Tainly:
Pilot training is no great issue here, essentially the bombers only had to take control of the plane at the last minute, the pilots could be forced to fly to a location under the impression they would not be killed if they complied, and then the terrorist could fly the plane into the building. Essentially piltoing is only difficult on take off / landing and in adverse conditions, flying in good weather into a building is a low order skill. Navigating however is trickier
|
I agree (I'm a pilot myself) anybody can fly a plane in calm conditions. Spend a few hours on MS-Flight Simulator on hard settings and that would give you the knowledge required. As far as navigating. Again, FS is the perfect training tool. It offers great scenery of the Downtown NY area. You can easily practice crashing into the WTO towers.
Now, if I'm not mistaking, some of those planes were coming from Newark... which would have put them on climb path. For those planes originating close to NY, I think that an experience pilot was on board flying the plane. Which leaves two scenarios open: 1- an accomplice pilot (because of the time factor involved) or 2- a highjack at Take-off (come in the cockpit, kill the pilots, take control of the plane).
Personnally, I don't believe that any non-accomplice pilots could've done this. You know that if you don't listen to a highjacker, you're dead... you know that if you crash into a building you, your passenger and countless of innocent people would die. So, if you're going to die, why not just slam the throttle to the dash in the last run and ditch the plane into the ocean (river or what ever it is that's beside Manhattan). The fact that they didn't do that lead me to the two scenarios outline previously. The pilots where either dead or one of them was an accomplice.
Another interesting fact is that all flights originated from the East coast going to the West Coast. That would make perfect sense. You get a plane with LOTS of gaz... slam the throttle to the dash right before impact and that would give you a much bigger explosion that a plane that's almost empty.
Now, as to the motif of these attack. There can be many: anything from anti-US demonstration, to proving that the US is not untoucheable, while passing to anti-WTO demonstration. The bottom line is that someone wanted to make a point and did one: piss the US off.
Now, what's gonna happen, hard to say. The logical way to respond would be for the US to go and attack a "perpertrator". However, at this time, there isn't much info as to who would have done it. For the US to appear strong, some might suggest an attack within the next 48-72 hours. Most likely, this kind of retaliation would be blind.
My personnal opinion as to what Mr. Bush should do: commit. They (terrorist organisations) commited an act of war towards the US. IMO, the US should be entitled to a counter attack. I don't think that you should target only the perpetrators. Go after ALL terrorists organisation. The US government has a good idea as to where to find the bad guys. Take them all out. Send a message: "You have F***** up and we will gladly remove you from the face of this earth." When I say "remove", I mean remove! Use a couple 5-10 cruise missiles per target. Nice and swift. Don't waste your time targeting one group, take them all out. Do one tomorrow, 3 more in 5 days, 50 other in 6 months and 2 the next day. This is guerrilla, you fight quick, you fight strong and you fight when the other doesn't want you to fight.
Make it simple, you have anything to do with terrorism, you will suffer the consequences. Americans and Western nations have to think in Black and White to combat terrorism. That's not the way we are thinking. To blindly say that this is a cowardly act is showing that you don't understand your ennemy. To them, there's no grey... there's only black and white. They like it thought when you think in grey... that's what allows them to strike.
I know, I'm harsh... but I'm damn effective.