Airplane 'Photo Op' Angers 9/11 Witnesses

[WhoWee]

What a stupid thread. A CRASH LANDING (or more accurately, ditching the aircraft) is NOT the same as a photo-op. I mean, really? Does that need to be explained?



You probably did miss the memo since you don't work that high in the government. Since 9/11, I believe the commander at NORAD even has the authorization to shoot down a suspected hijacked aircraft. The President has ALWAYS had the authority to shoot down an aircraft in US airspace.

No

and

Fighters trailing an airliner over NYC would imply (on first look) that something is wrong. If you're standing on the street in NYC, chances are your view would be obstructed...it's possible only a shadow would be visible. I doubt if a fighter (converging on an airliner) would shoot it down OVER the city (would cause more damage), they'd have to chase it to sea or helplessly watch it hit a single structure.

 

[OAQfirst]

Wow. It's hard not to be worried (at the time) seeing this. You can hear some guy yelling, "Oh my God!" in the back near the end.

 

[LowlyPion]

Wow. It's hard not to be worried (at the time) seeing this. You can hear some guy yelling, "Oh my God!" in the back near the end.

Look. I can see people were worried. And I thought from the beginning they should have made a public announcement, to maybe make it a media event to have people come out and wave to it even. Or do it at a time like a weekend. They make movies in New York a lot, and this could have been made into an opportunity to gawk instead of an opportunity for the politicians to act all pompous about it.

Not being from New York though I think I must also admit that I think the world does not revolve around these people, and they should maybe pull back a little on their narcissism, in immediately thinking everything is about them. It's not.

It was a photo op. It wasn't well handled. Get over it New York.

 

[OAQfirst]

This is not narcissism. There was no vanity or self-absorption. Heck, I don't even see your point. They were scared. I find it hard to connect fear with narcissism where people see what looks very much like what they experienced when thousands of their friends and relatives died after a most cowardly attack for BS reasons. Their reaction makes sense and is understandable.

 

[chemisttree]

...They make movies in New York a lot, and this could have been made into an opportunity to gawk instead of an opportunity for the politicians to act all pompous about it.

There's certainly a lot of that going around, wouldn't you agree?

Right... I'm sure they make unannounced (to the public) movies involving low-flying aircraft being chased by a fighter jet all the time in NYC.

The FAA announced the low flying flight plan, and even acknowledged it might cause some 'public concern', but required all of the notified agencies to keep it quiet and not release it to the public.

An FAA spokesman has said the flyover "was approved and coordinated with everyone," with notifications made to the New York City Police Department, the mayor's office, the New Jersey State Police, and other agencies.

However, a confidential security memo that went out last week by the FAA's Air Traffic System Operations Security office -- while acknowledging "the possibility of public concern regarding Department of Defense aircraft flying at low levels," instructed that all information about the flight be kept confidential and not be released to the public or media.

"The information in this document is considered FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, and should only be shared with persons with a need to know," the memo declared.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/air_force_one_photo_op_over_ny.html

Even Obama was furious (good for you Barry!) when he heard about it. Clearly this was not cleared with Obama or Press Sec. Gibbs (apparently).

I'm sure heads have rolled... and deservedly so.

 

[rootX]

Wow. It's hard not to be worried (at the time) seeing this. You can hear some guy yelling, "Oh my God!" in the back near the end.

I loved the comments!

OH MY GOD! The economy is ruined because this plane is flying so low! = (

damn liberals...
no respect for our Country.

 

[WhoWee]

Not being from New York though I think I must also admit that I think the world does not revolve around these people, and they should maybe pull back a little on their narcissism, in immediately thinking everything is about them. It's not.

It was a photo op. It wasn't well handled. Get over it New York.

They thought they were under attack...AGAIN. Until you walk a mile in their shoes...give them the benefit of the doubt...please.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps I'm missing something but how does that change anything?

"It's Air Force One so everything's OK."

If it is Air Force One, you can be reasonably sure it wasn't hijacked.

Low-flying airplanes in New York airspace are a bad thing.

Not inherrently, no - it happens thousands of times a day.

What constitutes panic though? As above, running for cover has only an up side.

And it is always easy in hind-sight to decide that it was unwarranted.

Not of you're the boss who just lost $10,000 because his employees just spent an hour outside not working.

In either case, I'm not a big fan of the 'better stupid than sorry' argument.

It was flying around for half an hour.

Good point - how long were the two planes in "NY airspace" on 9/11? Wouldn't even a relatively dumb person conclude after just a couple of minutes of flying around that the plane wasn't trying to fly into the Empire State Building?

 

[signerror]

Even Obama was furious (good for you Barry!) when he heard about it. Clearly this was not cleared with Obama or Press Sec. Gibbs (apparently).

You have no knowledge of this. He only claims he never knew of it: for all we know he signed off on it, then pushed the blame off onto his scapegoats when it blew up in his face. (This is hardly a stretch. Who would call him on it?) In the absence of anything verifiable, we really should be completely agnostic about this point. In particular we shouldn't be repeating the President's personal assertions as fact - they are just PR.

Really, have we learned nothing from history? Have we not just gone through eight years of scandal after scandal, were the recurring theme was politicians denying knowledge of or involvement in bad decisions they personally made, and pushing the responsibility and blame on their underlings?

 

[russ_watters]

Your statement assumes you know somethinmg about the goals of the event.

I'm not intending to speculate on what kind of event, merely that photo-op seems a stupid reason for an event that they must have known would cause a ruckus.

Assume their motivation for going through with whatever it was is strong enough to warrant the back-lash they must have expected.

So, what could they have been trying to accomplish that they felt was worth scaring shell-shocked New Yorkers and making national news?

You give PR people waaaaay too much credit.

 

[DaveC426913]

You give PR people waaaaay too much credit.

PR people? no, I'm suggesting it wasn't PR people responsible.

 

[DaveC426913]

In either case, I'm not a big fan of the 'better stupid than sorry' argument.

Again, it's easy to judge the appropriate reaction
1] from your armchair
2] after the fact

And again, like "panic", what do you define as "stupid"? Both are highly subjective and highly dependent on constantly-changing, perceived events. Yet you (y'all) would pretend that they are both objectively definable and quantitatively definable in-the-moment.

Good point - how long were the two planes in "NY airspace" on 9/11? Wouldn't even a relatively dumb person conclude after just a couple of minutes of flying around that the plane wasn't trying to fly into the Empire State Building?

What everyone keeps forgetting is that prior to September 11th, it simply had never occurred to anyone to think that anyone would use a commerical jet liner as a missile to take down a building.

It is no longer dependable to judge how much danger we're in by comparing it to what we're used to. That's why 9/11 was a game-changer. If we learned nothing else from it, we learned that we won't know how next we will be hit.

 

[Cyrus]

Again, it's easy to judge the appropriate reaction
1] from your armchair
2] after the fact



What everyone keeps forgetting is that prior to September 11th, it simply had never occurred to anyone to think that anyone would use a commerical jet liner as a missile to take down a building.

It is no longer dependable to judge how much danger we're in by comparing it to what we're used to. That's why 9/11 was a game-changer. If we learned nothing else from it, we learned that we won't know how next we will be hit.

This is why I love the Israelis. They constantly get bombed and they don't panic half as much as we do. If you thought we were under attack, do you think the best thing to do would be to get on the streets and start running?

 

[DaveC426913]

This is why I love the Israelis. They constantly get bombed and they don't panic half as much as we do. If you thought we were under attack, do you think the best thing to do would be to get on the streets and start running?

The best thing to do would be to get out of the building I was in, yes.

You see, in the example you use, the Israelis know the nature, direction and type of attack they're faced with.

It is folly to make this comparison. They are not the same at all.

 

[OAQfirst]

Good point - how long were the two planes in "NY airspace" on 9/11? Wouldn't even a relatively dumb person conclude after just a couple of minutes of flying around that the plane wasn't trying to fly into the Empire State Building?

Just what is a relatively dumb person supposed to conclude about a plane flying around there for half an hour? This does not happen thousands of times a day. There doesn't appear to be anything ordinary about this flight anyway, judging entirely by public reaction. They could tell quite easily, by little measure of intelligence, that there was something unusual about this, as also did the FAA's Air Traffic System Operations Security office according to their own memo.

 

[DaveC426913]

a plane flying around there for half an hour? This does not happen thousands of times a day.

Agreed. I meant to mention this. I would bet money that the Manhattan core is far enough from a regular flight path for people to notice changes in the routine.

 

[russ_watters]

Just what is a relatively dumb person supposed to conclude about a plane flying around there for half an hour?

Just what I said: that it isn't trying to find the Empire State Building - that after a half hour it isn't in imminent danger of crashing into anything.

This does not happen thousands of times a day.

One plane flying around for half an hour or a thousand for 5 minutes apiece - whatever. Either way, these do not represent the type of thing that happened on 9/11.

Agreed. I meant to mention this. I would bet money that the Manhattan core is far enough from a regular flight path for people to notice changes in the routine.

Dunno, but in Philly, the planes often fly close enough to read the names off the skyscrapers with the naked eye and fly directly over a stadium complex where they could kill thousands just by dropping the nose (that condition exists in New York too).

 

[russ_watters]

PR people? no, I'm suggesting it wasn't PR people responsible.

Right: by arguing that PR people are smart enough they would realize it was a bad idea.

 

[Cyrus]

The best thing to do would be to get out of the building I was in, yes.

You see, in the example you use, the Israelis know the nature, direction and type of attack they're faced with.

It is folly to make this comparison. They are not the same at all.

I'm talking about the people that were running in the streets. I'd like to know what exactly they thought they would accomplish by doing this. This is probably one of the worst things you can have, a large crowd of people who are not thinking straight running over people that fall and potentially killing them.

As for the Israelis, no they don't. Come on Dave, they don't get memos from Hamas about the next rocket attack.

 

[russ_watters]

And again, like "panic", what do you define as "stupid"?

Yes.

What everyone keeps forgetting is that prior to September 11th, it simply had never occurred to anyone to think that anyone would use a commerical jet liner as a missile to take down a building.

That's just plain wrong. When I saw it on TV, my first thought was that the terrorists had read Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor", where a rogue foreign pilot flies a 747 into the Capital building.

It is no longer dependable to judge how much danger we're in by comparing it to what we're used to. That's why 9/11 was a game-changer. If we learned nothing else from it, we learned that we won't know how next we will be hit.

[Il]Logic like this leads to people curled up in the fetal position under the stairs in their basements for days on end. It is an argument in favor of mental breakdown.

 

[OAQfirst]

Just what I said: that it isn't trying to find the Empire State Building - that after a half hour it isn't in imminent danger of crashing into anything.

Ahem. Well, it's a good thing then that the average New Yorker isn't a relatively dumb person then because they apparently didn't reach that conclusion.

One plane flying around for half an hour or a thousand for 5 minutes apiece - whatever. Either way, these do not represent the type of thing that happened on 9/11.

Not that 9/11 set a standard for terrorist attack behaviors, right?

 

[russ_watters]

Ahem. Well, it's a good thing then that the average New Yorker isn't a relatively dumb person then because they apparently didn't reach that conclusion.

What conclusion did they reach?

Not that 9/11 set a standard for terrorist attack behaviors, right?

I'm not sure what you are suggesting - are you suggesting that a plane intent on flying into a building would first circle for half an hour before doing it?

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes.

Your answer is tantamount to reserving your opinion to play it out however it suits you.

That's just plain wrong. When I saw it on TV, my first thought was that the terrorists had read Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor", where a rogue foreign pilot flies a 747 into the Capital building.

Yah well, James Bond foiled an attempt to wipe out humans on Earth in Moonraker ,but most of us distinguish between fantastical fiction and real-life events.

[Il]Logic like this leads to people curled up in the fetal position under the stairs in their basements for days on end. It is an argument in favor of mental breakdown.

No, it's an argument in favour of no longer being complacent in our towers (ivory or otherwise) and in favour of ensuring we have a place to go when fighter jets chase airliners over the Manhattan skyline.


There's really no point in arguing this point much further. As I've said: anyone can judge after-the-fact from their armchair. Talk's cheap.

 

[Cyrus]

XZ6NaAgP_ik&feature=related[/youtub...rmine it was AF-1, and go about his buisness.

 

[OAQfirst]

What conclusion did they reach?

I'm not sure what you are suggesting - are you suggesting that a plane intent on flying into a building would first circle for half an hour before doing it?

*blinks*

Are you suggesting that the public reaction of fear and upset is... well... nonexistent? I mean, I watched a few videos of this flight and judging by the comments and the, "OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD!" coffee table chit chat in the background, I'd say they decided that it didn't quite look right.

They're not mind readers. All they know is something isn't right and they're not in a good position to spell out possibilities. Maybe there's a struggle in the cockpit and someone is trying to keep the plane in flight. Who can guess what is going on. But you just can not expect people to have no concerns about a low-flying plane in their city that sticks out like this. It was not an ordinary event. They know their sky well enough to see that, and they didn't know what was going on, as demonstrated by the calls to emergency services. They're not going to spend some time in thought on terrorist tactics or just why it hasn't taken the plunge yet; their minds were probably front and center on reaction. I know mine would be.

 

[rootX]

This is why I love the Israelis. They constantly get bombed and they don't panic half as much as we do.

Different environment.

I don't see any way to prove that Israelis panic less.

But, I agree that here people were irrational and they could have hurt themselves.

I'm talking about the people that were running in the streets. I'd like to know what exactly they thought they would accomplish by doing this. This is probably one of the worst things you can have, a large crowd of people who are not thinking straight running over people that fall and potentially killing them.

I see this similar to (Mecca) stampedes. I guess that can't be avoided (these irrational false panics).

 

[Cyrus]

Different environment.

I don't see any way to prove that Israelis panic less.

But, I agree that here people were irrational and they could have hurt themselves.



I see this similar to (Mecca) stampedes. I guess that can't be avoided (these irrational false panics).

What's a Mecca stampede? I never even heard about this until just now.

 

[turbo]

Cy, were people "running in the streets" as you claim, or did they exit their buildings and try to figure out what was going on? The former sounds radical and extreme. The latter sounds pretty smart to me. How many people were killed in the stampede?

 

[Cyrus]

Cy, were people "running in the streets" as you claim, or did they exit their buildings and try to figure out what was going on? The former sounds radical and extreme. The latter sounds pretty smart to me. How many people were killed in the stampede?

yKKrlboqD5w[/youtube] I never sa...ople on what that airplane is - jesus christ.

 

[chroot]

None of this discussion about clear, rational thought addresses a point I made previously. Imagine you're working at the Nymex, your head buried in your workstation, when someone yells down the hall There's a 747 flying really low, headed this way, and an F-16 chasing it -- RUN!.

Here's the simple fact: You would all run. You would be stupid not to. You don't have time to think about whether or not the guy who yelled knows a Cessna from a Boeing. You don't have time to think about what kinds of flight patterns might simply be photo ops. You don't have time to think about what kinds of markings might be on the plane, or what they mean about how easily it could be hijacked.

You run, because that guy might be right, you haven't yet gathered any of your own evidence, and cynicism could cost you your life.

Once you're outside and the adrenaline rush is over, you might be mentally acute enough to put together the story, see the plane doing lazy circles around the island, and relax. That didn't stop you from running along with all your coworkers, who prompted others to run, who prompted others to run.

In this situation, 1% of the people had all the information, and some of them were not smart enough to put it all together. They sparked a panic among the other 99% which had few facts, but knew well enough not to sit around and wait for a crash.

Panics spread like wildfire, with or without reference to facts -- and that should have been expected by the people who planned this flight. Those YouTube videos of mass pranks serve as evidence of just how self-reinforcing panics are.

- Warren

 

[rootX]

What's a Mecca stampede? I never even heard about this until just now.

(That's not one word)

It looks pretty scary place to me maybe because everyone wears same color and looks like hell lot of people. It would be pretty bad if someone shouts fire/bomb in these like places. And there have been many incidents where lots of people killed from stampedes (not all occurred at Mecca though).
Mecca one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1203108.stmLet's say large number of people were gathered in here and this airplane comes. I am sure it would have devastating if everyone started running.

 

[chroot]

But you just can not expect people to have no concerns about a low-flying plane in their city that sticks out like this. It was not an ordinary event. They know their sky well enough to see that, and they didn't know what was going on, as demonstrated by the calls to emergency services.

Well said. "Unusual events" involving 747s are not the sort of things that New Yorkers wish to be subjected to anymore. I can't blame them.

- Warren

 

[turbo]

I'm talking about the people that were running in the streets. I'd like to know what exactly they thought they would accomplish by doing this. This is probably one of the worst things you can have, a large crowd of people who are not thinking straight running over people that fall and potentially killing them.

People weren't running in the streets, as you claimed. They were taking prudent steps to ensure that they weren't trapped in high-rises, and they should be applauded for that, not belittled. I didn't make this up. How many people were killed in the stampede? How many people were injured? Got a number? How about zero?

 

[Cyrus]

None of this discussion about clear, rational thought addresses a point I made previously. Imagine you're working at the Nymex, your head buried in your workstation, when someone yells down the hall There's a 747 flying really low, headed this way, and an F-16 chasing it -- RUN!.

Here's the simple fact: You would all run. You would be stupid not to. You don't have time to think about whether or not the guy who yelled knows a Cessna from a Boeing. You don't have time to think about what kinds of flight patterns might simply be photo ops. You don't have time to think about what kinds of markings might be on the plane, or what they mean about how easily it could be hijacked.

You run, because that guy might be right, you haven't yet gathered any of your own evidence, and cynicism could cost you your life.

Once you're outside and the adrenaline rush is over, you might be mentally acute enough to put together the story, see the plane doing lazy circles around the island, and relax. That didn't stop you from running along with all your coworkers, who prompted others to run, who prompted others to run.

In this situation, 1% of the people had all the information, and some of them were not smart enough to put it all together. They sparked a panic among the other 99% which had few facts, but knew well enough not to sit around and wait for a crash.

Panics spread like wildfire, with or without reference to facts -- and that should have been expected by the people who planned this flight. Those YouTube videos of mass pranks serve as evidence of just how self-reinforcing panics are.

- Warren

Please don't make assumptions about what I would and wouldn't do, thanks.

 

[Cyrus]

People weren't running in the streets, as you claimed. They were taking prudent steps to ensure that they weren't trapped in high-rises, and they should be applauded for that, not belittled. I didn't make this up. How many people were killed in the stampede? How many people were injured? Got a number? How about zero?

You'd make a good politician.

 

[chroot]

Edit: I also hate how STUPID the media is calling this an "Air Force One Look-a-like". It's not a 'look-a-like'. IT IS Air Force One.

Speaking of stupid... the aircraft use the "Air Force One" call sign only when they're carrying the president. In that sense, the aircraft was not Air Force One.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

Speaking of stupid... the aircraft use the "Air Force One" call sign only when they're carrying the president. In that sense, the aircraft was not Air Force One.

- Warren

Yes, you are correct it is AF-1 when the president is inside. Thank's for nitpicking.

 

[chroot]

Please don't make assumptions about what I would and wouldn't do, thanks.

Your argument seems to be "people should be smarter, or less easily startled, because then these kinds of panics wouldn't happen." This is a fine argument, but one that does not apply to reality -- governments cannot magically make their citizens smarter or less easily startled.

Instead, shouldn't governments relate to their citizens as they actually are -- sometimes imperfect, frail, fearful, irrational?

Really, Cyrus, let me just ask you this:

Do you think governments have a responsibility to relate to their citizens as they actually are, or only as if they were much better educated and poised than they actually are?

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Yes, you are correct it is AF-1 when the president is inside. Thank's for nitpicking.

You're one of the best nitpickers I've ever witnessed, Cyrus. I'm simply your protege.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

Your argument seems to be "people should be smarter, or less easily startled, because then these kinds of panics wouldn't happen." This is a fine argument, but one that does not apply to reality -- governments cannot magically make their citizens smarter or less easily startled.

Let's think about this for a second, rationally, Warren. After 9-11, don't you think it would be wise of the government agencies to have some form of a warning system that could alarm the city if something was about to happen. Something that could send out text messages, electronic phone calls, or news flashes\radio announcements that would give general warning about a particular area about to be hit?

That SAME system, could send out messages that said, "The airplane is AF-1, please forgive us for the inconvenience".

Instead, shouldn't governments relate to their citizens as they actually are -- sometimes imperfect, frail, fearful, irrational?

I think the government should tread its citizens like adults and educate them specifically so these things don't happen. Telling them ridiculous things like http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/11/emergency.supplies/" is absurd.

I don't understand why you find it so hard to believe that some people wouldn't simply run out of a building just because others are. I'll tell you right now if I looked out my window and saw an airplane being escourted by an F-16 I would look to see how the F-16 is flying around the airplane because I've seen them intercept an actual aircraft before. I know what they do in real life, and that in the video wasn't it. So, no, I wouldn't "run like a school girl" out of the office. Maybe you would, that's your own prerogative. And that goes back to the government's responsibility of giving out information so people will know what to look for in a real life scenario of something going wrong.

I would appreciate it if you stopped telling me to "shut the hell up", and "speaking of stupid..." I have extended you more respect than this...please do the same.

 

[Cyrus]

You're one of the best nitpickers I've ever witnessed, Cyrus. I'm simply your protege.

- Warren

I love you too, warren.

 

[Phrak]

None of this discussion about clear, rational thought addresses a point I made previously. Imagine you're working at the Nymex, your head buried in your workstation, when someone yells down the hall There's a 747 flying really low, headed this way, and an F-16 chasing it -- RUN!.

I think that sums it up. Given the available information, for many, the intelligent action is flight. The cost of flight is a half hour of work.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes.

Your answer is tantamount to reserving your opinion to play it out whenver and however it suits you.

That's just plain wrong. When I saw it on TV, my first thought was that the terrorists had read Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor", where a rogue foreign pilot flies a 747 into the Capital building.

Yah well, James Bond foiled an attempt to wipe out humans on Earth in Moonraker ,but most of us distinguish between fantastical fiction and real-life events.

[Il]Logic like this leads to people curled up in the fetal position under the stairs in their basements for days on end. It is an argument in favor of mental breakdown.

No, it's an argument in favour of no longer being complacent in our towers (ivory or otherwise) and in favour of ensuring we have a place to go when fighter jets chase airliners over the Manhattan skyline.


There's really no point in arguing this point much further. As I've said: anyone can judge after-the-fact from their armchair. Talk's cheap.

 

[chroot]

That SAME system, which could send out messages that said, "The airplane is AF-1, please forgive us for the inconvenience".

Say, like the EAS? The one that was not used?

I think the government should tread its citizens like adults and educate them specifically so these things don't happen.

Okay, great. Unfortunately, no such education has occurred, or has worked. I ask you again:

Should the government relate to its citizens as they actually are, or as if they have had some kind of education that has never been offered, or has not worked?

because I've seen them intercept an actual aircraft before.

That puts you into an incredibly small minority. Should the government relate to its citizens as though they all share your experience and education, or should they relate to them as they actually are?

So, no, I wouldn't "run like a school girl" out of the office.

This has nothing to do with you, an individual. Please answer my questions about the stance you feel that governments should take towards their citizens.

- Warren

 

[Phrak]

(That's not one word)

It looks pretty scary place to me maybe because everyone wears same color and looks like hell lot of people. It would be pretty bad if someone shouts fire/bomb in these like places. And there have been many incidents where lots of people killed from stampedes (not all occurred at Mecca though).
Mecca one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1203108.stm


Let's say large number of people were gathered in here and this airplane comes. I am sure it would have devastating if everyone started running.

I thought it was common knowledge.

Sometimes they trample each other to death trying to get closer to the 'holy' meteor hide inside the big, holy box in the middle. Sometimes they trample each other getting to and from the holy box.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1135316.html"

 

[OAQfirst]

And that goes back to the government's responsibility of giving out information so people will know what to look for in a real life scenario of something going wrong.

On that note, is this information available? And is there risk of terrorists exploiting it? Because I, too, would like to know what to look for. I have some ideas, but I'm sure to be wrong more often than not.

Side note: Shortly after 9/11, feds went to Hollywood writers to see what terrorist scenarios they could conjure up as a discovery process; what possibilities exist that they never thought of. So, I guess the government doesn't always know, either. Thus, I hope any such information would today be much more reliable assuming that they've studied terrorism sufficiently since.

 

[Cyrus]

I thought it was common knowledge.

Sometimes they trample each other to death trying to get closer to the 'holy' meteor hide inside the big holy box in the middle. Sometimes they trample each other getting to and from the holy meteor.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1135316.html"

Wow, I had no idea that they did that! I thought they did that prayer on their carpets in a circle and walked around it. I didn't know they trample each other!

 

[russ_watters]

Your answer is tantamount to reserving your opinion to play it out however it suits you.

You missed the humor, Dave. The response was: panic=stupid.

I'm most certainly not one to be wishy-washy about my opinions. I am quite stronly opinionated.

Yah well, James Bond foiled an attempt to wipe out humans on Earth in Moonraker ,but most of us distinguish between fantastical fiction and real-life events.

Um hm. So you're saying that one who read Debt of Honor and considered it as far fetched as Moonraker would have - in the 20/20 hindsight - been correct? In any case, you said: "it simply had never occurred to anyone to think that anyone would use a commerical jet liner as a missile to take down a building" and that is still quite clearly wrong. Clearly it occurred to Tom Clancy and clearly fans of his (ie, me) put a lot of stock in the realism of his scenarios. It is worth noting that the government and military also put a lot of stock in his scenarios: they pay him for exactly that type of thinking. Too bad they just weren't paying attention this time.

 

[russ_watters]

*blinks*

Are you suggesting that the public reaction of fear and upset is... well... nonexistent? I mean, I watched a few videos of this flight and judging by the comments and the, "OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD!" coffee table chit chat in the background, I'd say they decided that it didn't quite look right.

Now you're just not following the argument. I know there was panic. I'm arguing the panic was stupid/wrong. You said:

Ahem. Well, it's a good thing then that the average New Yorker isn't a relatively dumb person then because they apparently didn't reach that conclusion. [the conclusion that there was no threat]

But that's the point: they reached the conclusion that there was a threat and they did it because they were stupid/irrational!

They're not mind readers. All they know is something isn't right and they're not in a good position to spell out possibilities.

Agreed. In my logic, that equates to stupid because:

Maybe there's a struggle in the cockpit and someone is trying to keep the plane in flight. Who can guess what is going on.

...that is irrational.

But you just can not expect people to have no concerns about a low-flying plane in their city that sticks out like this. It was not an ordinary event. They know their sky well enough to see that, and they didn't know what was going on, as demonstrated by the calls to emergency services. They're not going to spend some time in thought on terrorist tactics or just why it hasn't taken the plunge yet; their minds were probably front and center on reaction. I know mine would be.

I agree that this was not an ordinary event. I agree that we can expect people to react this way. I'm simply saying that these people were stupid and I don't have a lot of patience for stupidity.

 

[russ_watters]

None of this discussion about clear, rational thought addresses a point I made previously. Imagine you're working at the Nymex, your head buried in your workstation, when someone yells down the hall There's a 747 flying really low, headed this way, and an F-16 chasing it -- RUN!.

Here's the simple fact: You would all run.

Actually, I did respond to that before, but here it is again: No, warren, I wouldn't run. I don't run when I hear a fire alarm, I don't run when I hear a car backfire, and I wouldn't run if I heard someone say those words you put in italics. I'm not a sheep.

Furthermore, that video of the Japanese comedy show proves that not everyone is a sheep. Maybe it is only 1%, but I'm quite certain I am in that 1%.

You would be stupid not to. You don't have time to think about whether or not the guy who yelled knows a Cessna from a Boeing.

Hurry! Buy now! This sale won't last!

Just because you don't have time to figure out if there is a threat doesn't mean you should assume there is. That's basically the definition of gullibility.