It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


MIHOP v. LIHOP - why 3-Mile Island rules out LIHOP

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:54 AM
Speaking as somebody who was on the ground, 11miles from TMI in March of 1979, I can tell you a lot (more than I want to) about TMI. I fish in it's shadow all summer!
There are no visible emplacements capable of knocking down an aircraft- They may have a few Stingers or other shoulder-fired AA missiles, but nothing big.
Their gate defense is a joke- just National Guard occasionally, or even Pa State Police, but mostly in-house security only. That security force is constantly under fire from the local news for falling asleep on the job.
I will agree from having toured the plant several times, as well as local news propaganda assurances, that the reactor core buildings could easily withstand a plane crash. I mean, they would have to... TMI is directly in line with Harrisburg International's takeoff/landing path. How's that for intelligent civil engineering?
Any organized group of clowns with a commercial jet and a few box cutters could easily cause damage to TMI, but probably nothing catastrophic.
Just my opinion.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:00 PM
First of all, as has been mentioned, a plane striking a nuclear power plant wouldn't have much of an effect. Power plants are some of the strongest built structures in the country and are able to withstand a direct plane strike (as was shown by a post-9/11 study by the NRC source)

Second of all, the purpose of the attacks were to attack iconic American structures, the WTC as a symbol of America's wealth and the Pentagon as a symbol of America's military. Three Mile Island isn't iconic enough and wouldn't sadden and demoralize the population as much as the other targets would. In fact, there are a large amount of people who dislike Nuclear Power Plants in the US, so there would even be a fairly large amount of people who might even be indifferent to the attacks.

Third of all, what 'protection' are you talking about? There was no real protection for an air attack in place in 2001. Remember that Reagan National Airport sits right next door to the pentagon, so shooting down 'suspected' hijacking planes wouldn't be a great idea. Also keep in mind that in the 90's a plane crashed directly on the White House lawn. So, what is this 'protection' you speak of that supposedly occurs 'normally'?

Fourth of all, please illustrate how the flight route of flight 77 went anywhere near Three Mile Island.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:04 PM

And as for 3 mile island:

Probably the middle building, but where exactly on it?

See the two round structures with domed roofs? They are the reactor cores. The one at top is the famous unit 1, next to the dormant cooling towers. Unit 2 is active, and is oriented right below Unit 1. Coincidentally, Unit 1 is now supposedly deviod of any fissionable material, so that would just be an uninformed embarrassment to crash a plane into.

[edit on 17/9/07 by cbianchi513]

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Speakeasy1981
Also keep in mind that in the 90's a plane crashed directly on the White House lawn.

Yes. So we were lied to again by the elite higher ups. Remember..."no one could fathom using planes as missles". Yeah right, it happened on your own damn lawn but you couldn't fathom it?

Sorry for the derail.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:25 PM
A few nuke plant facts

Sleeping on the job will get you fired. No second chance
Covering for someone breaking any rule will get you put in jail
A drunk driving ticket will get you fired
A domestic violence charge will get you fired
a beer can in your car in sight of security will get you turned back
cell phones don't work in or near nuke plants
refusing any request or demand by security will get you fired
you can be strip searched at any time anywhere
Guards train weekly in and under the water at both local plants

I'll add a few more facts as I think them up. Don't bother to disagree with any of them because you would be wrong and I will not bother to respond just to keep you entertained. Questions about the above can be answered l as best Ron (my neighbor) will help me answer.


posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:37 PM
Your all missing the biggest point of terrism. Terrorism is not about killing the most people its about causing fear and terror.

Please look up the what it means.

Terrorism in the modern sense[1] is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or utterly disregard the safety of non-combatants. Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:21 PM
Your geography is faulty - Flight 77 did not come with several hundred
miles of TMI (which is several miles south of Harrisburg PA). I suggest
you consult a map before making any more idiotic statements.

Below is path of Flight 77

Which as you can see is nowhere near Pennsylvania.

I used to live near TMI and passed it on regular basis - the area around
it is heavily wooded with steep ridges near the river.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by thedman

I used to live near TMI and passed it on regular basis - the area around
it is heavily wooded with steep ridges near the river.

What are you talking about??? Did you live there in the 1800's? Granted, there is only one main access causeway onto the island from route 441, but it is not heavily wooded by any means, and the steep ridges near the river don't begin till south of Felton, quite a ways downriver. There is a railroad track that runs there, and several boat access ramps within 1-2 miles. I don't know- it may have been different years ago, but that's how it is now.
There is also a steam fired generation plant on Brunner Island about 1 mile south downriver. This also would have been a good infrastructure target of opportunity.
I don't know if Flight 77 passed overhead, I'm still looking in the Patriot-News (our local rag) website, but I seem to remember some kind of stink about that years back. Could be baseless, as nothing too exciting happens around here, and the Patriot tends to exaggerate to make the Harrisburg area seem more relevant than it really is.
I would definitely say though, that TMI has (to the eye) poor security, and is very vulnerable. Maybe that's what they want us lowly civilians to think though.

[edit on 17/9/07 by cbianchi513]

[edit on 17/9/07 by cbianchi513]

[edit on 17/9/07 by cbianchi513]

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:24 PM

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer
A suitably large impact at 3 Mile Island could have made large parts of the northern USA uninhabitable for the rest of humanity's existence.

Now if that isn't REAL terror I don't know what is!

[edit on 17-9-2007 by franzbeckenbauer]

Can't disagree with this because something like that may preclude the end game anyway, with the elites heading undergound and taking their ball with them.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:32 PM
The talk of what would happen if a nuclear reactor was hit by a plane has been nuclear fear mongering at it's best.

There was a German study of their nuclear power plants, and what would happen if a passenger plane was flown into one at high speed. The absolute worst case scenario would have been something on the scale of Chernobyl. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Chernobyl certainly didn't make large portions of Europe uninhabitable for any long period of time. There has been an increase in certain types of cancer in the area IMMEDIATELY AROUND Chernobyl, but it is by no means uninhabitable.

If we're going to talk about nuclear power plants and what might happen, let's at least try to have a tiny bit of understanding, and not just run around screaming about how evil anything nuclear is, or how horrible radiation is.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:55 AM
As many have already said, there's nothing to suggest that flying a plane into a nuclear facility would cause a great swath of the nation to become uninhabitable or kill thousands of people.

The Twin Towers were full of tens of thousands of people on 9/11. I'd say that's a pretty big target.

In terms of the LIHOP scenario, this was an operation that was planned out for years. If you're devoted to a plan that involves your life ending, you're probably not going to deviate too far from it.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:36 AM
Granted its been a number of years since lived in area - checking maps
and pictures of site only access for large aircraft would be from west
coming from York County or the north from Harrisburg down the river.
The 4 massive cooling towers (the big circular objects) would block
access into the plant proper. The towers would shred the plane before
it could strike the reactor domes. Few years back there was an experiment where old F4 aircraft was strapped to rocket sled and
fired at concrete slab representing a containment structure. The plane
wound up as confetti, the concrete slab barely scratched .

Also I posted map of Flight 77 path showing that it was never anywhere
near TMI or any other reactor site . Bringing up TMI was simply a scare

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:37 AM
pure speculation sir.

considering the 1993 bombing had a man on the inside with the FBI, i would have to say it is likely that they knew what the target was.

you have to consider that smashing a plane into a nuclear reactor would be considered a nuclear attack, and face nuclear retaliation also.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:43 PM
It seems that the real question is "Did the terrorists want maximum casualties, or national symbols that hit near and dear to most Americans?"

From what I've read on this thread, the latter does seem the most likely.

What I really like, however, is that everyone seems agreed on the idea that the gov't is to blaim, and that the mainstream story is BS.

Maybe there is still some hope for this nation...

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:48 PM
i hear this alot. However you have to think which benefits the government most.

Making the Attack or allowing the attack.

I think allowing the attack would be the right choice because we do not leave a paper trail of evidence.

Which American Citizen would make this happen. I cant think of any that would do a tragedy like this for the sake of the American dollar.

Whats worth more?

The stock or 3K people paying income tax weekly?

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:06 PM
Order Code RS21131
Updated August 8, 2007
Nuclear Power Plants:
Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack

Mark Holt and Anthony Andrews
Specialists in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Vulnerability from Air Attack. Nuclear power plants were designed to withstand hurricanes, earthquakes, and other extreme events. But deliberate attacks by large airliners loaded with fuel, such as those that crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, were not analyzed when design requirements for today’s reactors were determined. A taped interview shown September 10, 2002, on Arab TV station al-Jazeera, which contains a statement that Al Qaeda initially planned to include a nuclear plant in its 2001 attack sites, intensified concern about aircraft crashes.

In light of the possibility that an air attack might penetrate the containment building of a nuclear plant, some interest groups have suggested that such an event could be followed by a meltdown and widespread radiation exposure. Nuclear industry spokespersons have countered by pointing out that relatively small, low-lying nuclear
power plants are difficult targets for attack, and have argued that penetration of the containment is unlikely, and that even if such penetration occurred it probably would not reach the reactor vessel. They suggest that a sustained fire, such as that which melted the steel support structures in the World Trade Center buildings, would be impossible unless an attacking plane penetrated the containment completely, including its fuel-bearing wings. According to former NRC Chairman Nils Diaz, NRC studies “confirm that the likelihood of both damaging the reactor core and releasing radioactivity that could affect public health and safety is low.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 12:38 AM
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer

Umm ya, they could know about the targets from numerous intercepts and wiretaps of them talking about the targets. So your whole communication with the terrorist requirement fails your theory there.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Griff
Yes. So we were lied to again by the elite higher ups. Remember..."no one could fathom using planes as missles"...

LOL I recall reading about this very subject in a book on terrorism while doing research for a high school term paper in the late 1980s...

Interesting thread overall...

But, I do happen to subscribe to the LIHOP school, but to a limited extent. I think the possibility that the Bush admin, or least senior members of it, were aware that something was happening. I doubt they had much in the way of specific planning, just a hunch that some form of airliner terror strike was coming. And I have no idea how a nuclear reactor precludes that. The author is either giving too much, or too little, credit to our fearless gov't officials...

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in