It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Possible Terrorist Scenario

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 10:43 AM
link   
lupe and i discussed the possibility of using planes to attack terrorist targets way before sep11th. principally this came up as part of our anti-anti-ballistic missile arguements. so, here's another, possibly predictive, idea for you.

why not target cruise liners rather than tower blocks? seriously, the big target in america (aside from the pentagon again) would seem to be the empire state building. i'm sure there are similar targets elsewhere. but, any nation with such a target is going to be well aware of that possibility. furthermore, interceptor aircraft are generally closer to these land-based targets than sea-faring liners, allowing for a faster response time.

to attack a liner you need an aircraft crew, similar to sep11th, and one individual on a cruise ship of your choice. add two GPS systems and a means of communication and you're in business. similar casualty rate (1500 / plane) as compared to the WTC.

my only small concern is the increased difficulty of hitting the target due to reduced size.

the really difficult question is, how do you defend against such an action. any thoughts?

- qo.




posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 09:03 PM
link   
NO WAY. There isn't any point.



posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I don't think you COULD sink it like that.

During WWII, the Japanese Zeros with kamakazi pilots hit several of our battleships and did not sink them (and they were loaded with bombs.

Cruise ships are MUCH larger than those battleships and have "unsinkable" features built in.

Besides, they haven't shown much interest in them. What they're interested in are targets with emotional significance to the US. They might hit the Lincoln memorial or one of the big ballparks or the Golden Gate Bridge (all of which have been targeted.) But cruise ships are off the mainland and wouldn't incite as much terror as a strike on the mainland.

...IMHO, of course.



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 06:02 AM
link   
no point? casualty rate is just as high, higher, probably, if your consider targets such as the golden gate bridge.

however, i see your point byrd, about the terror aspect. cruise ships just aren't the same as 'that bridge i use every day to go to work'. not overly convinced by your kamikaze comparison. a battleship is way different to a liner, and a 737 is much larger than a zero.

- qo.



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 11:42 PM
link   
There is no point because :

  • The piloting skills required would be that of an expert. Hitting a moving target in a sluggish plane is extremely hard.
  • No immediate media on site to witness the attack
  • Ships are much tougher than buildings. They are built to take punishment on the high seas.
  • And, how the hell would they find a ship in the ocean. Airliners only carry collision avoidance radar incapable of finding a surface target. You could argue of course that they would find ships near the coast, but that has the same(and more) problems as attacking a city.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Oh, there would definitely be a good reason to attack a cruise ship. You could kill thousands very easily if that was your goal... Mass casualties was not the intent of the 9/11 attacks... I'd like to respond to this quote.



why not target cruise liners rather than tower blocks? seriously, the big target in america (aside from the pentagon again) would seem to be the empire state building. i'm sure there are similar targets elsewhere. but, any nation with such a target is going to be well aware of that possibility. furthermore, interceptor aircraft are generally closer to these land-based targets than sea-faring liners, allowing for a faster response time.


This discussion brings up an interesting point about the 9/11 attacks... How were the targets chosen? Why? I feel the answer is strong evidence that our own corupt government actually planned and/or orchastracted the attacks...

If you look at terrorism in Isreal you don't generally see infastructure being attacked - mostly just mass casualties from insane suicide bombers. 9/11 was very different in that major national infastructure was targeted... The attack was designed to provoke fear and submission in the American public, investors, defense, and branches of govt. (congress, etc).

Trade Center - Financial
Pentagon - Military
White House - Government (or to make the govt. look like it was a target).

There are plenty of other targets in New York and the east coast that, in my opinion, would have been far more tramatic to the American sense of nationalism and pride. The Statue of Liberty, for instance, means a lot to a large number of Americans. What was attacked was deliberate and planned. It is important to remember, however, that if our government was behind the attack it was not the WHOLE government - only a select group with in it.

Attacking a cruise ship would make sense in Isreal but doesn't when your trying to fund a war over Opium and oil... We are being bent over and taking it hard... Ofcourse there is going to be another attack this summer - and then maybe a postponed election (hmmmmmm)? If that happens I think we all should start thinking about voting with an army rather than a pen... Or flee to a more safe country (if there is one).

Just my .02.




top topics
 
0

log in

join