Clownburner 0 #26 July 17, 2003 He's got nothing to fear from terrorists. They love him, since he's done more to erode freedom in this country than any other single factor in the last 200 years. Edit: Oh, and it makes a good example to have a president that's so afraid of a 182 he needs an exclusion zone bigger than delaware when he's on vacation. Way to demonstrate we're not afraid of terrorists!7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TitaniumLegs 8 #27 July 17, 2003 QuoteI agree that a FAST, armed plane could be dangerous. But a twin otter or 182 is not fast nor armed. Every plane is armed, or have you not heard the term "Fox 4"? The trick is for it to work, you have to be faster than your target or able to sneak up on where you know it's going to be. Tough to do when AWACs is watching. (>o|-< If you don't believe me, ask me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #28 July 17, 2003 QuoteClinton used to shut down entire military bases in Washington just to play golf. He cheats at golf too. That affected skydiving operations how?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #29 July 17, 2003 QuoteIt's called Security and is extended to every President, whether you like them or not. Considering the dangerous climate we all live in now, it is much more necessary. Sorry if that interferes with your skydiving. Why not try to come out to Jumptown during the days your dz is shut down. Talk to folks at Skydive Space Center in Titusville, Fl. They get shut down often due to activities at Kennedy Space Center. Chris Security is extended to all Presidents, but only one has had a 30 mile exclusion zone. It's the price of living in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" NOT.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #30 July 17, 2003 QuoteQuote30 miles is just a ridiculously large area. Actually its not. An armed, fast aircraft could close that distance quickly to attack AirForce1. That is why the grounding occurs. The fighter escorts (and I'm sure accompanying AWACS) need a little bit of space to differentiate friend from foe. So the armed, fast aircraft will obey the grounding rules? Rubbish. This rule is just a feel-good response that puts us little people in our place.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #31 July 17, 2003 Quote>An armed, fast aircraft could close that distance quickly to attack AirForce1. And an AMRAAM launched from that armed, fast aircraft outside that 30 mile radius could down Air Force 1 in under 45 seconds. The 30 mile radius, like most nice round numbers, is a SWAG. 45 sec is plenty of time for AF1's countermeasures to avoid/disable an AMRAAM. 5 seconds may not be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tsalnukt 1 #32 July 17, 2003 Does any have information on other DZ's that have been shut down due to the pres coming to town. in the past? Clinton? Reagan? The other Bush? Ford? I worked for the airlines. I know all about the hassles with national. There are obvious risks involved with a large international airport next to the nations capital. We are not trying to be secretive about it. We will tell them when we are flying and where we are flying to and what is going on. If we start flying at his house then by all means, shoot us down. Between ATC, the AWACS and all the other people watching us, they should be able to keep track of a twin otter flying around in a circle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #33 July 17, 2003 QuoteSecurity is extended to all Presidents, but only one has had a 30 mile exclusion zone. We've also only have had 1 President since 9/11. Our lives are all different now, get used to it. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #34 July 17, 2003 QuoteSo the armed, fast aircraft will obey the grounding rules? Rubbish. This rule is just a feel-good response that puts us little people in our place. ha ha ha LMFAO You actually thought that I think bad guys follow the rules? No the area insures there are fewer planes for the Airfoce/Secret Service to watch over. Its much easier to determine a badguy when he is the only one crossing the 30 mile zone. but if you have 2 jump planes, and 15 private planes flying in a populated area... which one is the bad guy? Is there a bad guy? How do you know before its too late? If you have less than a minute to determine this and there is extra traffic in the area, innocent folks are gonna get shot down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #35 July 17, 2003 If someone's got a plane capable of launching air to air missiles, and they're shooting at air force one from more than 30 miles away, we've got much bigger issues to deal with. The 30 mile zone is not protecting the president from credible threats. It protects him from us. Raise your hand if you plan to kill the president. Well, we're the ones being kept away. I believe that if our country cant protect its president in a way that we can all realistically live with, then he shouldnt travel. He's got camp david. Oh, and camp david doesnt have a 30 mile restiction around it. It goes up to 10 miles when he's there, 5 when he's not. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #36 July 17, 2003 You really think AWACS has a problem figuring out who the bad guy is when all the good guys are flying on flight plans/clearances? But you are right. They do it to make their jobs easier. Well, I say make their jobs harder and let us fly. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #37 July 17, 2003 QuoteBut you are right. They do it to make their jobs easier. Well, I say make their jobs harder and let us fly. ha ha ha Shit I forgot you all have parachutes! If they mistake you for a bad guy, make sure everyone gets out before the missiles hit! That would be cool to watch from freefall/canopy! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clownburner 0 #38 July 17, 2003 QuoteWe've also only have had 1 President since 9/11. Our lives are all different now, get used to it. Be careful with this line of reasoning - this sort of thing has been used to justify all kinds of trampling on our civil and consitutional rights, and in the past that same kind of reasoning was used to justify large numbers of atrocities perpetrated on citizens all over the world. Most of the 'security' measures justified in that way actually do nothing to improve security but instead are in place to serve another agenda. Things aren't really different now; we just got a wake up call to the way things actually always have been. It's up to us if we're going to let terrorists change our way of life and degrade our individual freedoms. If we do, they've already won.7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #39 July 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteSecurity is extended to all Presidents, but only one has had a 30 mile exclusion zone. We've also only have had 1 President since 9/11. Our lives are all different now, get used to it. Chris 1998 figures: Motor vehicle deaths - 43,501 Accidental falls - 16,274 Accidental drowning - 3,964 Fires and flames - 3,255 Medical complications - 3,228 Inhalation and ingestion of objects - 3,515 Each of these individually caused more deaths than 9/11. Why haven't our lives changed to fix that? And these numbers are typical for every year!!!! I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything about terrorism, but I'm not willing to give up freedom for a statistically insignificant threat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #40 July 17, 2003 QuoteHow often does this happen to them? I just think that it is bullshit. With Radar and radios nad all kinds of other stuff they have to watch all the air traffic how can they be afraid of an airplane that flies around in circles all day? What is it that they fear? How much further will it go????? It isn't fear, it's the arrogance of power. This might sound like ass kissing, but they might want to try talking to papa sr. He's made a couple dives with the Golden Knights and his grandaughters have both made tandems. Maybe George Sr. can tell the SS to knock it the fuck off. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #41 July 17, 2003 >45 sec is plenty of time for AF1's countermeasures to avoid/disable >an AMRAAM. 5 seconds may not be. So how about 35 seconds? That would allow a 20 mile radius, and would allow a DZ to continue employing people on days the president is there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #42 July 17, 2003 Since everyone here knows everything about how security works for the Gov't I'll make this my last post since I'm just telling you things you already know. Don't confuse security measures set up since 911 with Presidential security. Overall security measures have been raised due to the events of 911 but tell me one thing you can't do now that you couldn't do before that day? I'm not talking about nail clippers and the sort, I mean REAL curtails on your freedom or constitutional rights. There isn't one. In case most of you have forgotten and I assume some of you have because you haven't been there, but we are at WAR right now and have been since 911. In times of WAR certain security measures are instituted for the greater good. If you ever have the chance, sit down with someone who grew up during the world wars and ask then if the security measures now are better or worse and what it was like then. Presidential Security on the other hand will always have precedance especially in time of WAR. With the cold hard reality that we are at WAR on several fronts right now, the safety of the president is elevated even higher. If you have trouble understanding that or refuse to believe that the Presidents safety(any president) is important then you are living in a unrealistic world and will never be happy. When they say you can't fly commercial any more and skydiving is banned and only military A/C are allowed to fly and you need to get travel permits to travel to different cities or states then you can start complaining about curtails on personal freedoms and constitutional rights. Bitch about it all you want, blame it on whom ever is in office, write your congressman. Bottom line is it won't change as long as it comes to matters of National Security. Thank you for your time and have a nice day"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #43 July 17, 2003 QuoteI'm not saying we shouldn't do anything about terrorism, but I'm not willing to give up freedom for a statistically insignificant threat. "Statistically insignificant threat?" Are you kidding? The only reason we "only" lost 3000 is because we were extremely lucky. I like to think that maybe God had mercy. There are also continuous threats being made to this day by various terrorist groups. That day was a mass murder of epic proportions. The rest of your stats are accidents. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #44 July 17, 2003 QuoteOverall security measures have been raised due to the events of 911 but tell me one thing you can't do now that you couldn't do before that day? Several tourists in Philadelphia have been detained and had their film confiscated for taking pictures of the Ben Franklin bridge and/or Independence Mall. I would say detention and confiscation curtails your freedom. QuoteWhen they say you can't fly commercial any more and skydiving is banned and only military A/C are allowed to fly and you need to get travel permits to travel to different cities or states then you can start complaining about curtails on personal freedoms and constitutional rights. Then it's too late. Like the war on terrorism, I prefer to be pre-emptive when protecting my individual rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #45 July 17, 2003 Quote"Statistically insignificant threat?" Are you kidding? The only reason we "only" lost 3000 is because we were extremely lucky. I like to think that maybe God had mercy. There are also continuous threats being made to this day by various terrorist groups. That day was a mass murder of epic proportions. The rest of your stats are accidents. I agree, and what I said sounds cold but I don't mean it to be. What I mean is that I'm not going to allow the irrational fear of a terrorist killing me change my life anymore than I would let the fear of falling in the bathtub. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #46 July 17, 2003 Quote>45 sec is plenty of time for AF1's countermeasures to avoid/disable >an AMRAAM. 5 seconds may not be. So how about 35 seconds? That would allow a 20 mile radius, and would allow a DZ to continue employing people on days the president is there. Its not my call. If you have had a high speed canopy malfunction I'm sure you understand what can be done in an emergency situation a few seconds. A lot of double checks/confirmations can take place in the 10 seconds you want to cut out. There is no cut and dry answer. You just have to balance the two crappy consequences. Personally I don't want to take any chances with the pres getting knocked off. Then Chenney would be top dog... If ya think we have everyone pissed off now, just imagine what it would be like then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #47 July 17, 2003 QuoteQuote....I'm not willing to give up freedom for a statistically insignificant threat. "Statistically insignificant threat?" Are you kidding?... Chris, you are confusing Statistically insignificant with Emotionally significant. 3000 unexpected deaths due to any one cause in a country this size is very statistically insignificant. However to their families and loved ones it is very emotionally significant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #48 July 17, 2003 QuoteI agree, and what I said sounds cold but I don't mean it to be. What I mean is that I'm not going to allow the irrational fear of a terrorist killing me change my life anymore than I would let the fear of falling in the bathtub. Thanks for clarifying that. I totally agree. I'm not changing my life either. However, I do agree with some of the inconveniences we have had to deal with since 9/11. I find going through an airport a complete pain in the ass now, but I know it is necessary. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #49 July 17, 2003 >Personally I don't want to take any chances with the pres getting >knocked off. That's like saying "I don't want to take any chances of dying when I jump." You can't do it. You can minimize some threats, but that's about it. There are quite a few ways to kill someone, even someone as well protected as the president. Forgive me if I don't go into them. >Then Chenney would be top dog... If ya think we have everyone > pissed off now, just imagine what it would be like then. What would have to happen for Powell to be top dog? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #50 July 17, 2003 QuoteForgive me if I don't go into them. Don't want to see those black helicopters again, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
