On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:45:14 -0400, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:

Are the airliners prevented from flying within the TFR? If not, can
someone explain why not? It wasn't a lightplane that caused the
collaps of the WTC.

The argument (laughable) is that air carriers have gone through a more
rigorous security procedure and aren't a problem.

So the government security forces feel that it's lightplanes that are
the problem? Let's review the terror strikes of the lightplanes over
the last few years: One sadly depressed kid flies a Cessna 152 (I
think it was a 152, perhaps it was a 172) into a building in Florida.
Results? One crumpled airplane and the building was slightly damaged.
No fire but the kid got very dead. In Italy a pilot seemingly
incapacitated, manages to crash into a highrise in his lightplane. I
think this time there may have been a fire, but again only the pilot
died. Perhaps this doesn't qualify as the pilot was supposedly ill
and unable to properly guide the airplane. The problem is, it
wandered about a good bit before it took a bead on the highrise.
Maybe a deliberate attack, maybe not.

Now let's review the record of airliners hijacked and used as guided
bombs. Hmmm, three times this resulted in horrific casualties and a
fouth time the entire airliner and all it's passengers were lost in a
crash in a field. Body count? About 3,000 people.

So does the presidential TFR protect against such further attacks with
airliners? It does not, they continue to fly. Instead it protects
against lightplanes.

It doesn't seem to matter to them that ***IF***, the big IF, a
terrorist managed to procure a small airplane and pack it with
explosives, they would not be turned away by a TFR. TFR's only catch
the innocent, albeit uninformed, citizen.

Corky Scott