Air Force One Flyby Causes Brief Panic In NYC 898
pdclarry writes "A Boeing 747 that serves as an Air Force One backup and two F-16 fighters escorting it caused a brief panic among office workers at the World Financial Center in lower Manhattan this morning, as large numbers evacuated the buildings. The incident was also spurred evacuations in Jersey City across the Hudson River from Manhattan."
We are a bunch (Score:3, Insightful)
"HOLY COW! Here comes a plane flying near our wonderful New York City! It looks like it is going to hit a building! We better run for it!"
Come on!
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Funny)
Alert. Unafraid citizen. Sanitize... SANITIZE!
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
How many people here would stay somewhere if they thought they were reasonably likely to die there?
There are low flying planes all the time. It's not a reason to panic, and no reasonable person would believe they were likely to die there. Instead, we have unreasonable people panicing over an unreasonable fear. You're still more likely to be eaten by a shark than you are to die in another plane crashing into a building.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
There are low flying planes all the time. They're just not normally flanked by a pair of F-15s over Manhatten.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it a good thing the fighters were there?
Shouldn't people be more worried about low flying planes without them?
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like when you walk into a Tube station and see ten of the Met's finest standing there. In theory you ought to feel safer, but in practice you wonder what's happening that you don't know about.
Until it becomes the norm for planes to be flanked by fighters, seeing them is just going to make people worried.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Funny)
It's like when you walk into a Tube station and see ten of the Met's finest standing there. In theory you ought to feel safer, but in practice you wonder what's happening that you don't know about.
See, I had this image of a bunch of guys dressed like the Three Tenors standing around in a subway, and couldn't figure out why that would make someone feel safe...
I guess the Met [police.uk] makes more sense than the Met [metoperafamily.org].
Re:We are a bunch (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't it a good thing the fighters were there?
Planes that are flying where they're supposed to be are not usually flanked by military fighter jets. Planes that are acting erratically or dangerously often are, as in that incident with the stolen Cessna just three weeks ago. It's really not that much of a stretch, is it?
Shouldn't people be more worried about low flying planes without them?
Why's that, exactly? Unless our fighters are now equipped with disintegrator cannons or tractor beams, there's not a lot they could do once an airliner is zooming around low over Manhattan. It's a little late by then.
Look, I understand that it's currently fashionable to laugh in the face of danger and leave cowardly details like emergency preparedness to the fascist warmongers and their bleating sheeple. But this whole incident could all have been avoided with a little communication, and I really have a hard time blaming the folks in NY for acting exactly like they did.
Land of the Brave... (Score:5, Funny)
"When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned around and fled,
Brave, brave brave, brave Sir Robin"
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Funny)
747s don't fly at that altitude, in circles, around lower Manhattan. Ever.
Evidence shows, though, that it does happen.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Funny)
F-16s, not F-15s. Why does this matter so much?
We've sold F-16s to just about everyone. There's no guarantee they are ours.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Well it could have... you know... been intercepted *over* Manhattan. I'm given to understand that there are more than a few airports in an 100 mile radius of NYC.
If you'd worked in or near the financial district during or after 9/11, you'd probably forgive them for being a little concerned. I'd say that their real-life experience with suspicious jetliners has been distinctly negative to-date.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Interesting)
There are low flying planes all the time. It's not a reason to panic, and no reasonable person would believe they were likely to die there.
Easy to say when you weren't looking the plane dead in the eye coming straight at your building. While low flying planes may be "normal," this plane was in restricted airspace, was flying extremely irregularly, and was tailed by a fighter jet. That's anything but "normal." You have seconds to react to something like this. I'm rather happy I evacuated, anything else would have been foolish.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're still more likely to be eaten by a shark than you are to die in another plane crashing into a building.
My god, you're right, sharks could crash planes into buildings and then eat us!
Re:We are a bunch (Score:4, Insightful)
2 complaints...
1st: Architects don't design buildings for strength... They design buildings for art and function. Civil engineers design a building for the loads applied to it.
2nd: In no way do civil engineers design for plane impact loads. I'm not saying a building wasn't designed to handle loads that a plane might put on a building, but the lateral loads that a civil engineer takes into account are wind and seismic loads. But like I said, a plane is more likely to inflict less load than a typical earthquake. However, sustained fire damage is what brought down the twin towers, not the direct force of the planes.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Put yourself in their shoes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Put yourself in their shoes (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately for people who experienced the collapse of the WTC towers first hand, low flying planes crashing into buildings is something that could reasonably happen, and one could argue that it is not sane to wait and see if an unusually low flying plane is actually going to crash into a building before taking steps to save one's life.
As a New Yorker, I'd like to reaffirm this. After watching first-hand both planes hit the Twin Towers and both towers collapsing, yes, I feel a bit skittish when planes fly very low overhead. Not only did we have 9/11, but we've had a plane recently splash-land into the Hudson, as well as a number of both larger and smaller craft crash into buildings or into a river. It happens rarely, when planes fly low on purpose it usually evokes the same reactions from other New Yorkers, they pause and look up, wondering if it's suppose to be where it is, or if its going to crash.
Most comments here quick point out how stupid and unreasonable this is. Yes, by definition, it is unreasonable. It's a deep survival instinct that kicks in until the higher reasoning thoughts point out that it's ok and to go about your business. I also experienced the Loma Prieta earthquake growing up near San Francisco, along with countless smaller tremors. When I moved to NYC, for the first year my mind would go into a momentary panic when ever I felt the rumble of the subway going by. Again, it was stupid and unreasonable, but there's a reason its there. Someday, when planes stop crashing into buildings here in the city, enough time will go by and New Yorkers will stop freaking out, and reason will prevail. Someday...
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
I wasn't in much personal danger on 9/11 (merely took the Path under the WTC), but I'll tell you that it really *SUCKED* to wait in line for hours and hours to catch a ferry across the Hudson without any means to contact my family (cell service was impossible to get).
Next time that shit happens, I'm first in line at the ferry (excepting the elderly, the very young, and the preggers).
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Funny)
The last time a jetliner flew very low, didn't it end up in the Hudson? Didn't ferry service stop immediately?
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Funny)
Aw crap. Forgot about that one.
s/last time/second-to-last time
Re:We are a bunch (Score:4, Funny)
Next time that shit happens, I'm first in line at the ferry (excepting the elderly, the very young, and the preggers).
Note to self:
Bribe someone to do a flyby.
Target the ferry.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You've never tried texting on New Year's Eve. Many of those texts don't go through for hours.
FWIW: I work for T-Mobile in an engineering capacity. I know of what I speak.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Funny)
A ferry is a boat, it's used to cross water.
:)
Last time I checked, I wasn't Jesus, so I don't think I could have walked home.
FYI, the tunnels were closed too, and I'd have needed to walk about 20 miles out of my way to cross using a bridge.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
it was a 747 flying at under 1,000 feet with two military escorts. If I saw that, and I worked where the bulk of the 9/11 dead are still buried I'd feel some panic as well.
It's pathetic how many on here are making fun of these people. Just to give you an idea of how low that is, 1,000 feet is roughly 1/2 the total height of the WTC twin towers.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Were the planes holding hands? I would hazard to guess that "two military planes escorting a third" would look fairly similar to "two military planes in close pursuit of a third", particularly to the untrained eye, Sherlock.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Informative)
I hope more people read this. A fighter plane escort means two things:
- the authorities know the plane is there
- the decision to shoot it down has not been taken
All of this means in turn that the situation is considered to be under control.
I'm worried when I hear fighter jets screaming above my head at full after-burner - it means they're in a hurry. I'm worried when I see a lone jet plane on a path that is clearly not a regular flight path - it means it either is in trouble, or trying to get into trouble.
But a jet escorted by a fighter plane is not part of any of those scenarios. Unless someone completely fucks up, and then we're right back into the territory of paranoia and irrational risk assessment.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:4, Funny)
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
"of fuckin' wussy people."
- 3 planeloads of people let 5 men armed with hand tools take over airplanes - because that's what they've been told to do. As soon as the 4th planeload of people find out how they've been lied to, they take action and save many more lives.
- Hundreds of students cower under desks waiting be rescued from 1 man with 2 handguns, and the only person to do ANYTHING is an octogenarian who gets killed for his efforts to protect the strong, healthy, 18-22 year old "adults" hiding in fear. The most played interview is of a young man who was simply waiting to die. He is called "heroic".
- A man starts shooting in an immigrant center, and police take 45 minutes to enter the building, while people hide like scared rabbits waiting to be rescued. The police state that their response time was irrelevant - the victims would have died anyway.
Oh yes, we have reached the point where helplessness is considered noble, where former soldiers are considered security risks because the government trained them to kill, and the people whose "job" it is to protect us simply shrug their shoulders and pick up the bodies.
Wussies doesn't really cover it.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Interesting)
For posts like this, +5 just isn't high enough.
Makes me wish for a logarithmic mod scale....
Re:We are a bunch (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people become terrified upon entering situations where both death and helplessness are present, like being fired at by an individual with a gun when you have none. This is nothing to be ashamed of, this is just being human. You might be a superman capable of charging across the room and kung-fuing the gun out of a madman's hand, and I'm glad for you that you are, but don't heap disdain on those that have frozen in such situations.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing to be ashamed of
Nor is it anything to be proud of or held as an example of heroic behaviour.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is where you have to decide if you're going to pull up your pants and do something or cower in fear.
The reason 9/11 happened isn't because of the bravery of skill or cleverness of the hijackers, it's because of the institutionalized cowardice we've mandated in most 'civilized' countries in response to this. "Just do what they say, keep your head down, and let the professionals take care of it." The only thing that really changed after 9/11 was that we saw that perhaps the authorities won't get there in time, and maybe, just maybe, you can't trust hostage-takers for your welfare.
This institutionalized cowardice shows itself in other ways. People who refuse to fly after 9/11, even though it's arguably safer than before. Not because of the new 'security' measures, but because people know that if the hijackers succeed there's a good chance they'll all die, and so they'll do whatever it takes to keep that from happening. And of course the terrorists know that, and plane hijackings just aren't in vogue anymore.
Another way this institutionalized cowardice shows is people who just don't have the balls to say to themselves and their neighbours, their fellow hostages, "There's only one of him, only 9 (or 15 or 30) bullets in that gun, and if we storm him he won't be able to reload. Sure, one or more of us could die, but we aren't going to sit back and let fear and the threat of violence rule our lives."
Of course, bravery and stupidity can be easily mistaken. No sense rushing a squad of guys carrying automatics, but a single guy with a semi-auto pistol? That's not an unreasonable goal for 5 or 10 determined individuals. A few guys with box cutters? Why would you even wait?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason 9/11 happened isn't because of the bravery of skill or cleverness of the hijackers, it's because of the institutionalized cowardice we've mandated in most 'civilized' countries in response to this.
Except hijacked planes being crashed into buildings had never happened before. In every previous hijacking, the pilots flew the plane to $island_nation and all the passengers got home safely. People "weren't brave" because it would have been stupid, leading to deaths that would not have happened otherwise. The hijacked plane where the passengers learned what was happening is a prime example of what will happen in the future, since the passengers will remember the one time when it wasn't just a bunch of pett
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
like being fired at by an individual with a gun when you have none.
I think you may have just hit upon the problem. The guys who wish to do you harm have more power than the defenders.
CCW probably would have taken care of most of these issues. If even 10% of the populace were trained to carry concealed weapons, many of these atrocities could have been "crazy person kills two, gets shot down by four bystanders." Now, I realise that carrying weapons onto flying sardine cans is a different type of crazy, but assuming that it were allowed, rather than one covert lawman on th
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
A man starts shooting in an immigrant center, and police take 45 minutes to enter the building, while people hide like scared rabbits waiting to be rescued. The police state that their response time was irrelevant - the victims would have died anyway.
With all due respect, I live in this town and the media hasn't reported that story fairly or accurately. Are you familiar with the fog of war? Nobody knows what's going on. All the police knew at the time is that they've arrived on scene and no shots are being fired. They have contact with the receptionist up front (the true heroine that day) and some people hiding in the basement. None of the people they had contact with could see the shooter -- all they knew was that the shots had ceased.
The working assumption at first was that they were dealing with a hostage situation. You may recall that this is what the media reported. Now if you think you are dealing with a hostage situation are you going to go charging in and risk further loss of life or are you going to try and establish contact with the hostage-taker while getting the rest of your units in place and ready to go in? Within ten minutes they had the shooters information and were attempting to contact him. When they eventually found his cell phone (abandoned in his vehicle as I recall) it had a series of missed calls from the police on it.
When they couldn't establish contact they decided to go into the building. They deployed the SWAT team and a robot from the bomb squad. Clearing the building took another 30-45 minutes, during which time the victims were being taken out. The folks in the basement were advised to barricade the door and remain in contact. As their cell phone batteries died they switched off and called from another phone. Further complicating this was the language barrier -- the building in question was an immigrant center and many of the victims didn't speak English.
Every local police officer I've spoken with says that they are trained for active shooter scenarios. If shots were still being fired when they arrived they would have gone in. It would have been messy (the suspect had body armor and patrolmen don't have the weapons or training to deal with that) but they would have gone in nonetheless. Since they didn't hear shots they proceeded with caution rather than risk running up the body count further. Does this really seem unreasonable to you?
Oh yes, we have reached the point where helplessness is considered noble
You'll brook no argument from me on this point. "Just wait for the police, don't try to do anything yourself, you might get hurt" The arguments against gun-ownership are particularly insulting in this regard. I just wanted to correct you on the Binghamton shooting. As I said, I live in this area and I feel that our police agencies handled the matter as well as could be expected with the information that they had at the time. Will they learn a few lessons from this and refine their procedures? Probably. Do they deserve our scorn for how they responded to this incident? No, IMHO, they don't.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You missed the point - it's about culture, not individuals. I was pointing out that, when a bunch of individuals were given saw what was actually happening, they took action. The others didn't because we have been telling plane passengers for 50 years "Don't resist - we will come and rescue you". I don't blame the occupants of the other 3 airplanes - I pity them, because I'm sure they would have reacted the same way as the others did had they not been so indoctrinated.
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Informative)
"those people" hated us (any western country not just the USA) long before Bush.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because we all know that terrorists like to do some sightseeing before crashing their plane.
Moron.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Planes have gone down in populated neighborhoods before without massive loss of life. Certainly nothing on the scale of the twin towers coming down, which is what you'd be trying to prevent by shooting the thing down to begin with....
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We are a bunch (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's pretty terrible that we as a nation are this scared by such events.
It's amazing how much people live in fear these days.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not "amazing" that people live in fear. It's REQUIRED. Anyone not living in fear is being thoroughly unpatriotic.
Remember, if you've checked the "Democrat" box, you must fear Conservatives, Pedophiles, Rednecks, and Terrorists. If you've checked the "Republican" box, you have to fear Liberals, Gays, Foreigners, and Terrorists. Either way you have to support more surveillance and less individual rights.
Face it - rational risk assessment is unAmerican in the 21st century. If you're not afraid, then you can't be bullied and herded efficiently... and we can't have that.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't check either box... and the only people I'm afraid of are the people that did.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up.
The framers left a framework that could be used to keep gov't in line. But many of us cede our brains to some other person or organization, and by not thinking for ourselves we waive our chance to lodge our opinion. And we lose.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Funny)
I fear authoritarians, opportunistic politicians, and bad financial planning. Also stupid people.
Since this is Slashdot, sometimes I fear reading the article.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Informative)
While I appreciate your point, fact is, there wasn't a 747 involved in 9/11.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor fighters - if there were, there would not have BEEN 9/11 as we now know it.
To paraphrase from Tom Clancy's book Executive Orders: .
200 tons of aluminium, fibreglass and fuel doesn't just stop
If the planes had been shot down, they would have hit something. Maybe more buildings than two individual planes could.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Funny)
2500 people have been eaten by sharks while in a tall building? Do you have a source for that?
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And how often do jet-liners fly around Manhattan at 1/2 the height of the WTC towers? You realise that is how low Air Force 1.2 was flying, right?
Any idiot with a memory and a little willingness to live will trade 2 hours of their work day on a one-off event to make sure they don't die.
Risk of death (since this is quite similar to what happened 8 years ago) vs. missing an hour or two of work. Most reasonably intelligent people would scram, just in case. By the way you and others evaluate risk, man I'd sure love to play some poker against you some time. I could make a killing! You'll be thinking: "He's only ever taken all of my chips once, and even though he's playing almost exactly like he did last time, there's no way he's going to do the same thing to me this time, I'll just keep betting even though I have no good cards." Ka-ching! What are the odds anyway, right? AmIright?
Flip the situation around, if it HAD been another hijacked plane, and it HAD flown into a building and the people HADN'T evacuated because they didn't want to be seen as wussies, then you same people would be talking about how such idiots they were, they had all this evidence, I mean it was almost EXACTLY LIKE last time, any idiot would know to evacuate, blah blah blah.
You people are childish. When an event has only ever happened once, and something that appears to be very similar is happening again in the same area, the rational response is to protect yourself. The only protection against a plane crashing into a building is: *drumroll* Evacuating!
My question is, why the hell were they flying so low? They HAD to have known this would cause a scare!
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Interesting)
My question is, why the hell were they flying so low? They HAD to have known this would cause a scare!
I remember last summer feeling a huge rattling in my office building in Newport News, VA, to look out the window to see a 747 with a US flag painted across its tail pass by just a few hundred feet above. (This was also notable, because I'm pretty certain that the building is in restricted airspace)
This repeated two or three times more. Apparently it's normal for Air Force 1 to fly at ridiculously low altitudes (below radar?)
AFAIK, the only 747s operated by the US Government with that paint scheme are operated as Air Force 1.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably not if it was painted like Air Force One...
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
By the time you can tell that it is/isn't Air Force One, it's probably too late.
Re:Wow.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Funny)
It's pretty terrible that we as a nation are this scared by such events.
Yes, everyone knows that the real threat is from Mooninites attempting to blow up highway overpasses around Boston...
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty terrible that we as a nation are this scared by such events.
It's not a nation scared by such events, it's a couple hundred thousand people who work within a few blocks of where - in case you missed it - two low-flying planes hit a prominent local building, killing several thousand and leaving a huge hole in the ground.
It's amazing how much people live in fear these days.
The entrance to the train station which these people use everyday is part of the above mentioned hole. The only thing amazing is that you would have a hard time seeing why they might be "scared by such events".
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a very real threat and people are justifiably concerned.
Brett
No there isn't. It's one of those once-in-a-lifetime events. I could be worried about an elevator car falling 20 stories and killing me in the fall, or being hit by lightning. Either of those are more likely than a repeat of 9/11. Vigilance against threat is one thing. To focus on one event to the point where it affects your work is excessive. There's no reason to worry specifically that any random jet is going to crash in to your building. That's just fearmongering.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No there isn't. It's one of those once-in-a-lifetime events. I could be worried about an elevator car falling 20 stories and killing me in the fall, or being hit by lightning
Would you stand in a field during a thunderstorm?
I'm not worried about the single aircraft being escorted by fighters. I'd be worried because last time... there were two.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No kidding. The ONLY reason the 9/11 hijackings worked was that it had never been done before. Every previous hijacking was only to get money, or to exchange hostages for political detainees or pizza and beer or even just a "free" ride to $foo, or whatever the hijackers wanted. It was never about using the aircraft as weapons.
Israeli intelligence was sent to warn US officials several days in advance and they ignored the warnings. They simply didn't believe that such a thing would be attempted.
The passengers
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, the odds are very, very low... but
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, I work downtown on the edge of Battery Park on the 7th floor of this building (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=eXt&q=17%20state%20street%20new%20york%2C%20ny&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl ) and saw the whole thing. Here is what was seen by me as an uninformed observer:
A *really* low flying plane is flying over New York Harbor. The airspace there is very restricted, and you will see helicopters, very light planes like cessna's and the occasional vintage warbird during fleetweek flying below building level, generally at a low speed conducive to sightseeing, but most planes and specifically commercial planes stay way up in the sky. It is EXTRAORDINARY to see a large jet that looks like a 747 anywhere in the vicinity of New York Harbor at an elevation below 3000 ft, let alone 1000 feet. It also appeared to be going full speed. When was the last time a low flying plane at full speed was seen in NY flying below the height of skyscrapers? Oh... yeah...
Anyway... just as the thundering sound of the engines was heard, confirming audibly that this is NOT a normal event, what do I see trailing behind it... a fighter jet. At this point the oh shit circuit in your brain automatically triggers.
The plane comes in and just past my building does a hard bank that no normal 747 on regular business would ever do and from my vantage point appears momentarily to be making a bee line for the tallest building in NJ, 30 Hudson St which is owned by Goldman Sachs, an iconic investment bank that has taken TARP money and a highly likely target, which also houses my old coworkers whom I am still friends with. Again- "oh shit." I apparently only saw the last iteration of the passes it made because it immediately went off into the distance and appeared to be headed to Newark airport, tailed by two fighter jets.
So yeah I think a plane crashing into my building is just going to be a once in a lifetime event too, until I see a 747 buzzing my building at full speed less than 200 yards away tailed by fighter jets. This came without warning, and even if people were warned, the pilot was making some cowboy moves- a friend of mine said it looked like the plane came within 100 feet of the Goldman building. If on any given day you have stared down the nose of a 747 heading at your building at 300+ mph, and didn't have a glimpse of fear because "that will never happen again," I would say there is something wrong with you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm currently being taught by an instructor who was a member of PAPPA(Police Organization Providing Peer Assistance), and was at the pit a couple of weeks after. Members of the NYPD and FDNY who post/read here know what I'm talking about. One of the things he repeatedly relates to those of us in class is that for every member of the NYPD that was at the meetings, and every member of the FDNY who didn't go realize how much stress, and PTSD has come up from the event.
The issue is for all those people still w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because you do not think a terrorist will takeover a plane and crash it does not mean you do not have a drunk pilot or a suicidal pilot or maybe a disabled plane. You also have to take into account that 9/11 happened in New York.
That would be why the jets are there. I'm fairly certain that they'd have disabled the jet *long* before it got to NYC if they were off-course, had no permission to take off, etc. After all, 9/11 happened in NYC. Thus, if a jet's flying along happily, being followed by 2 F-16s, there's not likely to be an issue. It'd only be a situation if the jets were doing manuvers, or if the plane was acting funny. And about 10 seconds observation would let you tell that.
So yes, either the people overreacted, were dumba
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look Boss (Score:5, Funny)
Da Plane, Da Plane...
Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
-Building tall buildings underground, instead of above.
-Requiring high altitudes for all planes, military or civilian, and producing auto-shoot auto-aim turrets around the ciy with no warning shots.
- Include parashoots as standard emergency materials for skyscrapers?
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
-Building tall buildings underground, instead of above.
They're a coffin if there's a fire on the ground floor and you're on floor -50? Flooding and water damage? More work to displace 50 stories of earth, rock and shale than 50 stories of air?
-Requiring high altitudes for all planes, military or civilian
I think these are in place. Last time I saw a flight map for a city, there were huge no fly circles around it. I'm not a pilot but I think that's been around for a while.
producing auto-shoot auto-aim turrets around the ciy with no warning shots.
Is this a joke?
Include parashoots as standard emergency materials for skyscrapers?
There are no easy exits from a skyscraper nor should there be. This wouldn't have saved many lives ... if any at all. People would be too scared to jump until absolutely sure the planes are going to hit them.
I do not think these people were overreacting. Although I feel that their fears were statistically misplaced, I more than likely would have opted to "take a brisk walk in the park" upon seeing that uncommon event out my window.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
They're a coffin if there's a fire on the ground floor and you're on floor -50?
I wonder... if there was a fire on the ground floor, would you even care if you're on floor -50?
The smoke and hot air will go up and out. I suppose the fire could burn down to that level but that would probably take a long time and firewalls between floors could probably prevent most of the spread.
There might be a problem with water used to fight the fire, but then you probably would already have sump pumps to take care of ground water that is probably already seeping in.
I suppose if you had any number of these deep buildings that you'd interconnect them below ground level and have escape routes that don't require going straight up.
The only thing I wouldn't like would be the lack of sunlight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
-Requiring high altitudes for all planes, military or civilian
I think these are in place. Last time I saw a flight map for a city, there were huge no fly circles around it. I'm not a pilot but I think that's been around for a while.
Unless that city was Washington DC, you're interpreting that map wrong. No-fly zones, officially called prohibited airspace, are not very common and when present are usually quite small. You were probably looking at class B or C airspace, which is open to flight to all aircraft, as long as they are in contact with air traffic control.
The applicable regulations for minimum altitude (paraphrased, I don't have them memorized) basically say that in sparsely populated areas, you must have 500 ft of separa
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
-Building tall buildings underground, instead of above.
Great idea, then everyone can be basement dwellers.
(chants) One of us! One of us!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Listen people: if you're alive, one day, you're going to die. You can take steps to live longer (eat healthy, wear a seatbelt, don't drink cyanide, etc), but worrying about every plane that flies over your house is not one of them.
Take heart in knowing that you're more likely to be struck and killed by a train while worriedly searching the sky for an airplane thousands of feet up.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
It's one thing to be nervous when a plane flies by. It's entirely another thing to evacuate multiple buildings when a plane flies by.
We are a nation of overreactors. When we see a bag someone has left on a bench, we have to evacuate 4 square miles and call in the bomb squad. When someone shows up at the gate at an airport without his boarding pass, we evacuate the airport, ground all the planes, and search the whole place.
It pays to be cautious, but there's a vast middle ground between doing nothing and panicking over every little thing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Performance art (Score:4, Funny)
This was performance art by the Obama administration, the better to show people what paranoid idiots they are.
It wasn't Air Force One. (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't Air Force One. It was the president's backup plane. It would only become Air Force One if something happen to the real Air Force One.
Actually, Air Force One is only takes the tail number Air Force One if the president is actually on board. Otherwise it goes by it's actual tail number.
Not an over-reaction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Planes don't fly low here anymore. Its not allowed. Certainly not 747s. For the people that were here Sept 11, 2001(I was one of the many)....its very upsetting, disturbing....to look up and see a plane that low and near. So don't jump to conclusions about people over-reacting. Its a real thing for New Yorkers and others in the area.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the hell is this modded troll? It's the fucking truth. A low-flying plane is not a problem, it happens all the time. A low-flying plane, escorted by a fighter, is not one either.
And for those who panic at the sight of a low-flying jet - I suggest moving out of a major city into the boonies. Otherwise, you're not going to lead anything remotely resembling a productive life.
Except this is the first time this has happened in the designated no-fly zone in New York City since at least 9/11/01, and possibly the first time ever with a jumbo jet and a fighter escort. Even if everyone in the city skipped work every time this happened, they'd have missed, at most, one day per ten years.
Perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
People should stop being so godamn insensitive? I mean, a lot of these people either worked in or around the WTC when it was hit. A lot of them lost family and friends in those buildings. There's ALWAYS going to be a sense of fear instilled in these people because of 9/11. It's not that they haven't gone on with their lives, it's not that they harp on the subject, it's that these people witnessed the greatest terrorist event in the history of the United States. If you think you wouldn't be so concerned about a Jet colliding with your building, either killing you, forcing you to jump from 70 stories up, or coming down on top of you, I suggest you think about the horrible realities that September 11th brought to that city and its people, and hwo you'd feel if someone close to you died so senselessy and terribly.
i worked at the world trade center until 9/11/01 (Score:4, Insightful)
and oh look: a bumper crop of smug slashdot comments calling lower manhattan office workers panicky fear-addled fools
bonus comment: its better to stay inside the building [slashdot.org]. and this is actually modded up (facepalm)
let's just break it down for you world-weary heart-heavy wise men:
if you saw airplanes flying into office towers on 9/11, then the sight of a 747 a few hundred feet off the ground, nearly clipping office towers in lower manhattan, followed by an f-16, this just might persude you to leave the area as well. but naaah... clearly its low-iq hysteria, right?
you may now continue your overly judgmental certitude in your rural basements, safe in your knowledge that all reactions you disprove of are nothing more than irrational fear. you of course are immune to this. when it comes the federal government's wiretapping policies, copyright laws, and anti-pornography crusade, rather than prudent moves to dispel these unwise ideas, the proper reaction is panty-twisting pronouncements of the end of democracy and western liberal ideals. right?
truly, you are all level-headed fountains of wisdom of the ways of humankind. not in any way hypocritical asses
where oh where would we all be without your insightful words? hmmm. maybe with a little less self-serving and smug condescension? naaah
look: an anti-pornography law! whine and moan about the end of western civilization. nothing fear-addled there
blind overly judgmental hypocrites. that's all i see
xoxoxoxox
Complaining about wrong thing here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it possible that people are complaining about the wrong thing here? Sure, the discussion about whether to run or not is interesting, but how about whether people should have been informed or not?
Given that there were memos sent to numerous organisations, and yet the information was not disseminated at the will of Obama, isn't there a more pressing question here?
Like, why would the president want to scare the crap out of southern manhattan? It's not a huge stretch to assume that flying a 747 low over Manhattan would scare people...
Re:Complaining about wrong thing here? (Score:5, Informative)
"Fire!" in a movie theater? (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on other comments, my opinion will clearly be unpopular. But how is this not akin to shouting "fire!" in a movie theater? Lower Manhattan is full of people who lived through 9/11, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a low-flying 747 being escorted by a fighter jet would send up warning flags for those people. Add to that the fact that a lot of people stuck it out in the Twin Towers expecting to be rescued (and in doing so, died), and it makes some sense that people would high-tail it out of a tall building in the vicinity. Given all of that, I think it's rather small to dismiss a bunch of people who reacted to this today as wusses.
This wasn't a criminal act, it wasn't an act of terror. It was an insensitive and stupid act. Seems to me a little extra thought could have come up with a better solution than doing this that DOESN'T run the risk of sending a lot of people into a panic?
Besides, isn't this what Photoshop is for?
It was for a PHOTO SHOOT???!!! (Score:3, Informative)
CNN Story
Lack of Communication (Score:5, Informative)
According to CNN, the FAA and Air Force informed the NYPD and the NY Mayors office that this was going to happen, but the staff at both didn't think it would be necessary to 1) inform the public, or 2) inform the Mayor himself(!).
No wonder NYC is a mess :)
(not sure why the initial version of this was posted anonymously)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds silly, but is it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Disrupting the structural integrity of the 747 so it became lots of little pieces of 747 would greatly lessen the damage it could do to a building. The engines and other large chunks might cause a few people to have a very bad day but the building would be fine.
Re:Wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
A plane is being escorted by F-16s. And this causes hundreds of people to flee for their lives by making a mad dash out of their building? There's being careful, then there's being an overly paranoid idiot. I'm pretty sure that if the jets are there, you'd be safer *in a building* rather than where all the explodey shrapnel can get to you.
A low flying 747 flying low near manhattan being pursued by F-16s. Definitely no reason to be alarmed! After all, if they fired missiles at the potentially hijacked plane it would explode completely like in the movies. There definitely wouldn't be any large, flaming fragments of the plane to crash in to buildings, potentially trapping those inside. You're right, definitely much safer in buildings.
Re:Wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
And this causes hundreds of people to flee for their lives by making a mad dash out of their building?
No, it gives a bunch of folks the excuse to drop their work, run outside, have a cigarette, grab a hot dog, a beer, another hot dog, more beer . . .
Re:What an irresponsible move! (Score:5, Informative)
From the NYT article:
The Police Department confirmed that it had been notified about the event but said it had been barred from alerting the public. âoeThe flight of a VC-25 aircraft and F-16 fighters this morning was authorized by the F.A.A. for the vicinity of the Statue of Liberty with directives to local authorities not to disclose information about it but to direct any inquiries to the F.A.A. Air Traffic Security Coordinator,â the Police Department said in a statement. The mayor criticized the secrecy around the flyover. The e-mail notification âoedid have the normal language of saying this is sensitive information, should be distributed on a need-to-know basis, that they did not plan to have any publicity about it, which I think is ridiculous and just poor judgment,â Mr. Bloomberg said.
Too lazy to remove the smartquotes, but you get the idea.
Re:Overreacting, but not very bright to do (Score:4, Interesting)