Can anyone explain what TFR's are supposed to do?

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

John Harlow ) wrote:

As Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrated, there is no way to protect the
President
or anyone else against a determined and possibly suicidal attacker. There
will always be people who are willing to take great risks to get close to
the President, although no one has made a serious attempt since Gerald
Ford.

Which president did Gerald Ford attempt to kill (besides himself, of
course)?

LOL! Very astute of you...


--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Ron Natalie wrote:
Ross Richardson wrote:

It makes the American public and media feel good that something is being
done. The other benefit is that the TFR tells everyone where the
President every minute. (Oh, unless they put one up for mis information)

The American public doesn't know the TFR's exist.

Well, this member of the British public, who has a sister in Vancouver,
has observed much US moronitude over the last couple of years and is now
most unlikely even to bother to compare the cost of flying to SEA and
crossing the border by land with that of flying directly to YVR.

As for Chicago ... I recently bought a recording by the Chicago Symphony
Orchestra and the young violinist, Rachel Barton; but ISTR the mayor did
something unholy down at the waterfront ...

I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
protect the President and/or whatever else?

Yes, that's the general idea. Of course, what they really do is
protect the career of the bureaucrat who might otherwise have made the
decision to abolish them as unnecessary and perhaps hazardous to the
president's health. (Is it really smart to draw a circle around him
wherever he goes, the way my mouse does to the cursor when I'm trying
to find it?)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
protect the President and/or whatever else?



It was explained to me as follows: those responsible for security assess
all possible threats and create plans to mitigate each one. Regardless of
our opinions, small planes are indeed a threat and the easy thing to do was
to restrict their activity within a certain distance. They are considered a
greater threat than large commercial planes (to the mobile president) for
reasons I will not go into here. GA is an easy target for restrictions
because of GA's limited political and financial clout and the extreme ease
of clearing the area of GA aircraft.

Claiming that a truck bomb or suicide bomber can be a larger threat is
besides the point. Each separate threat has a plan to deal with it. GA is
dealt with by TFRs. Other threats are dealt with in other ways.

Peter

It was explained to me as follows: those responsible for security assess
all possible threats and create plans to mitigate each one. Regardless of
our opinions, small planes are indeed a threat and the easy thing to do
was
to restrict their activity within a certain distance. They are considered
a
greater threat than large commercial planes (to the mobile president) for
reasons I will not go into here. GA is an easy target for restrictions
because of GA's limited political and financial clout and the extreme ease
of clearing the area of GA aircraft.

Claiming that a truck bomb or suicide bomber can be a larger threat is
besides the point. Each separate threat has a plan to deal with it. GA
is
dealt with by TFRs. Other threats are dealt with in other ways.


Finally a reasonable explanation without whining about how we are
specifically targeted. The ONLY way to deal with this is to vote in an
administration which doesn't **** off the entire world and incite everyone
to target us.

"John Harlow" wrote in message


The ONLY way to deal with this is to vote in
an administration which doesn't **** off the entire world and incite
everyone to target us.

Which administration would that be?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

The ONLY way to deal with this is to vote in
an administration which doesn't **** off the entire world and incite
everyone to target us.

Which administration would that be?

http://www.lp.org/

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
|
| As Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrated, there is no way to protect the
President
| or anyone else against a determined and possibly suicidal attacker.
There
| will always be people who are willing to take great risks to get close
to
| the President, although no one has made a serious attempt since Gerald
Ford.
|
| Excuse me? Hinkley managed to get a bullet into Ronald Reagan and
turned
| James Brady into a candidate for national vegetable.
|

Can you believe it? (Well, I suppose Mr. Drescher can. -- He probably
figures I have trouble dressing myself in the morning.) I forgot about
President Reagan.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
| I haven't figured out why TFR's exist. How are they supposed to
| protect the President and/or whatever else?
|
| That's the general principle.
|
| Does the Secret Service and the FAA really think that just having a
| "no flight activity" within an imaginary circle sixty miles across
| will really stop a determined assailant?
|
| The FAA ain't running the circus. I suspect that the Secret Service
| feels that by keeping all (or at least) most friendly traffic out of the
| area, it makes it easier to spot the unfriendlies.
|

The trouble with that theory is, what can the Secret Service do about it?
They *might* shove the President under a desk or something. But does anyone
seriously believe that the Secret Service (or anyone else) would risk the
political fallout from shooting down an innocent airplane?