On ZITs, been in LFPxx in a previous job when place was “under treat” by GreenPeace, they even landed once on the roof once and got inside installation with flags, only missed two doors for the control room 
there was a report (now unclassified?) that judged that GA aircraft or rockets are not a treat but a B737 would be…
Does not mean you can fly there as you wish, there is a huge fine and someone may decide you are a B747
“Sure, but historically military installations have not figured as terrorist attack targets.”
I can remember when flying hijacked airliners into skyscrapers historically had not figured as terrorist attack targets.
Maoraigh wrote
airliners into skyscrapers
Or C172s, but they do very little damage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_Cessna_172_crash Did delay my transatlantic flight for a good few hours, while all planes were grounded; the disruption and fear is far worse than the actual crash.
I remember being surprised in T E Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom that they were blowing up railway lines to terrorise the Ottomans, instead of for example cities. Disabling key infrastructure, or making the population afraid to use it, or destroying public trust, is very powerful.
I think we’re very lucky in GA that no-one has loaded a Skyhawk with fertiliser.
Maoraigh wrote:
I can remember when flying hijacked airliners into skyscrapers historically had not figured as terrorist attack targets.
With that reasoning we shouldn’t permit any GA flights at all. Come to think of it, we shouldn’t allow people to drive cars either.
Also, I wrote that “the terrorist strategy […] is to spread fear by attacking unsuspecting civilians.” Flying airliners into skyscrapers certainly falls into that category.
Maoraigh wrote:
I can remember when flying hijacked airliners into skyscrapers historically had not figured as terrorist attack targets.
Everything has to start sometime. Historically, hijacking airliners was not a terrorist attack target at all, and then the spread, and democratisation, of airline travel made it an attractive target. In terms of flying hijacked airliners into a city’s iconic high-rise structure (skyscraper for New York), I wish to stress that the 11 September 2001 event was not novel in this regard. The Air France 8969 hijackers had the same plan for Paris, only in this case the plane was stormed by the French GIGN at the fuel stop in Marseilles, and they never reached Paris.
lionel wrote:
Historically, hijacking airliners was not a terrorist attack target at all, and then the spread, and democratisation, of airline travel made it an attractive target
Hijacking has been a part of terrorism since the 1970ties when Black September happened. During that time, several hijacks took place, started by an EL AL Flight and the attack on an EL AL airplane, which got a number of terrorists in European custody which were then pressed free by a multiple hijack of 4 airplanes in a short time, (Pan Am, TWA, Swissair and BOAC) all of which got destroyed in Egypt (Pan Am) and Jordan (Dawson field)
What changed with 9-11 was the suicide aspect. Up to then, hijacks were always conducted in a way that the terrorists expected to survive it. Using airliners as weapons was new since the folied AF plot and did not succeed until 9-11.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Also, I wrote that “the terrorist strategy […] is to spread fear by attacking unsuspecting civilians.” Flying airliners into skyscrapers certainly falls into that category.
Yes. Terrorists strategy is to terrorize, to spread fear into populations by random attacks and waging war against civilians to pressure them and the states attacked to change their policy on their political goals or suffer the consequences. Terrorist organisations are not big enough to wage convenional warfare but they can reach their objective by attacks as 9-11 or similar. Nevertheless, 9-11 more or less also did away with “normal” hijackings as most passengers and crews these days in the memory of this won’t just sit there quietly and wait for a plane to land somewhere and negotiations beginning. So in a way, 9-11 pretty much stopped hijacking as a “conventional” means of terrorism.
Maoraigh wrote:
“Sure, but historically military installations have not figured as terrorist attack targets.”
I can remember when flying hijacked airliners into skyscrapers historically had not figured as terrorist attack targets.
I cant find that quoted post anymore, I think its been deleted. But would like to point out that the IRA actively attacked UK military personnel the world over during “the troubles” and it was only this last 10 years that soldiers have been allowed to wear uniforms again outside of military bases off duty.
Regards, SD..
@skydriller almost nothing is deleted on EuroGA. Only personal attacks and a few other “predictably inflammatory in certain specific countries” things. I think I did a count some time ago and it was of the order of 0.1%, and nearly all of that was from a very small number of “regulars” Nowadays it will be well below 0.1%.
To find a particular post (and this is same with google searches for an article containing specific words) just search for a phrase in quotes
“when flying hijacked airliners”
@Peter – I didnt say you deleted it…perhaps the original poster did? Maybe I just couldnt find it… 
In fact Edit: I have found it, I just couldnt find it right above my own last post…
