Airplane 'Photo Op' Angers 9/11 Witnesses

[lisab]

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.

Well, I guess you'd be one of those who died on the upper floors of World Trade Center's South Tower, then.

 

[russ_watters]

Why bother posting if this is really all you have to say?

- Warren

Lol, warren, I think you miss the point of "general discussion" and this thread! The entire point is people expressing opinions about the how/why, good/bad, right/wrong of the event. For this story, the reaction to the event is most of the story, so my comments were about the reaction to the event.

 

[chroot]

The entire point is people expressing opinions about the how/why, good/bad, right/wrong of the event.

Please supply the abstract of a peer-reviewed journal article supporting your position with at least a 95% confidence interval.



- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I guess you'd be one of those who died on the upper floors of World Trade Center's South Tower, then.

You mean one of the everyone who died in the upper floors? That's an important part of the point here that has been lost: panic didn't save anyone on 9/11. Virtually everyone who worked above the crash site of the first building died and virtually everyone who worked below lived. People did not even have time to take panic'd actions on 911. Even if they were right (in either case) about this being a terrorist attack, panic'd action still isn't a useful response.

I'll be more blunt: panic is never an appropriate response to a crisis.
[edit] And I'll go further to say that this is an important lesson that should be used in disaster preparedness training and public relations - for the specific purpose of combatting the response people had.

 

[russ_watters]

Please supply the abstract of a peer-reviewed journal article supporting your position with at least a 95% confidence interval.



- Warren

I think you should reread what you just quoted because you missed an important word in that sentence.

[edit] Meh, or just follow your own directive before saying I should follow it.

 

[OAQfirst]

Then please explain exactly what you meant by this in post 71

Back up a few and:

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?

Based on their reactions, no. After a few minutes, they did not make that conclusion. Instead, they evacuated, they called 911, they took off.

 

[chroot]

You know, I guess I used to hold the elitist position that most people (excluding myself, of course) are "dumb," but I can't help noticing that our collective instincts have served us well enough to make us the world's most prolific and intelligent species. However contrary our instincts may seem to our rational thinking, they are probably deserve more credit for our successes.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Meh, or just follow your own directive before saying I should follow it.

Um... that was a joke...

- Warren

 

[mheslep]

Photoshop would have been cheaper, eh? :tongue2:

And more to the point:

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not a sheep.

I think you doth protest too much. I think you're trying to convince yourself that you're superior to the rest of the world, whom you deem to be idiots.

 

[lisab]

You mean one of the everyone who died in the upper floors? That's an important part of the point here that has been lost: panic didn't save anyone on 9/11. Virtually everyone who worked above the crash site of the first building died and virtually everyone who worked below lived. People did not even have time to take panic'd actions on 911. Even if they were right (in either case) about this being a terrorist attack, panic'd action still isn't a useful response.

I'll be more blunt: panic is never an appropriate response to a crisis.
[edit] And I'll go further to say that this is an important lesson that should be used in disaster preparedness training and public relations - for the specific purpose of combatting the response people had.

I'm not advocating panic, lol! But I applaud your denunciation of panicking :rofl:.

I said the South Tower...it was the second one hit. Lots of folks who died in the second tower knew a plane had hit the first tower but stayed at their desks, even though there was ample time to evacuate. Perhaps they were thinking, I'm not leaving...I'm not a sheep.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not advocating panic, lol! But I applaud your denunciation of panicking :rofl:.

I said the South Tower...it was the second one hit. Lots of folks who died in the second tower knew a plane had hit the first tower but stayed at their desks, even though there was ample time to evacuate. Perhaps they were thinking, I'm not leaving...I'm not a sheep.

That's kinda like comparing sitting in your home watching tv while your neighbours house is on fire to sitting and watching tv when you hear the fire engine pass your house.

 

[Cyrus]

I think you doth protest too much. I think you're trying to convince yourself that you're superior to the rest of the world, whom you deem to be idiots.

Dave, seriously. "superior to the rest of the world"....?

 

[JasonRox]

Dave, seriously. "superior to the rest of the world"....?

So, you're saying if you met me, and then I pulled a switch blade out and put it right to your face that you'd be thinking... "It's Jason. He's showing me the switch blade. That's all. Friendly guy."

I would not let a friend put a switch blade to my face even if he is really just showing it. He's crossing my boundaries clearly.

That's exactly what happened in NYC. The photo-op crossed the boundaries of the city.

Before that 9/11 it would be fine, but now the boundaries have expanded.

Note: I'm not saying panicking is justified at all. Showing concern is OBVIOUSLY justified.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, you're saying if you met me, and then I pulled a switch blade out and put it right to your face that you'd be thinking... "It's Jason. He's showing me the switch blade. That's all. Friendly guy."

I have no idea where this is coming from. I think you missed the thread. I'm telling Russ that his derision towards people's behviour is a sign that he's trying to convince himself that he's superior to those he deems sheep. I find this to be a very common attiude in this day and age, similar to how we get our 30 second "news bytes" and assume we have enough information to pass judgement as if we were there.

Dave, seriously. "superior to the rest of the world"....?

Sorry.

Superior all the "sheep" that live in downtown New York.

 

[Cyrus]

So, you're saying if you met me, and then I pulled a switch blade out and put it right to your face that you'd be thinking... "It's Jason. He's showing me the switch blade. That's all. Friendly guy."

I would not let a friend put a switch blade to my face even if he is really just showing it. He's crossing my boundaries clearly.

That's exactly what happened in NYC. The photo-op crossed the boundaries of the city.

Before that 9/11 it would be fine, but now the boundaries have expanded.

Note: I'm not saying panicking is justified at all. Showing concern is OBVIOUSLY justified.

...um..........okay? I don't even know how to reply to this because it's that outlandish.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you doth protest too much. I think you're trying to convince yourself that you're superior to the rest of the world, whom you deem to be idiots.

Rest of the world? Please. I don't know if I'm better than 75% or better than 90% but I can give you plenty of facts that unequivocably show that I'm much, much better than average. But that really isn't relelvant here - I'm not the one who made this personal, I just responded when personally attacked. My point has nothing to do with me. These people acted stupidly regardless of if I would also be stupid.

Please note: while plenty of people here are willing to make claims about how I or cyrus would behave, we've shown more courtesy. I've never said you or anyone else would panic/be stupid. I really don't know and it isn't relelvant to this thread. I do, however, know myself better than I know you, so I'll speak only to how I would act. You should do the same.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not advocating panic, lol! But I applaud your denunciation of panicking :rofl:.

I said the South Tower...it was the second one hit. Lots of folks who died in the second tower knew a plane had hit the first tower but stayed at their desks, even though there was ample time to evacuate. Perhaps they were thinking, I'm not leaving...I'm not a sheep.

Sorry, I missed the south tower part. In that case, your example is utterly irrelevant as Ape pointed out (I assumed north tower because at least that would have had some relevance). His example doesn't even go far enough, though: if you're hearing a siren (or actually looking at a burning building) you can be pretty sure there is a fire, even if the fire doesn't affect you. In the case we're discussing, there was no fire. This is more akin to running for the exit and calling 911 as soon as you get the first whiff of smoke. I've already used that in the example of what happened repeatedly in my dorm. But it is also a little silly to make such an exactly wrong comparison of one situation where people react to a plane that is flying around in circles and another where they react to one that has already crashed.

To put a finer point on it: if the building next to mine is belching flames and thick black smoke, yeah, I'm evacuating. Not in a panic, though (and for the most part, that evactuation was pretty orderly).

 

[DaveC426913]

Please note: while plenty of people here are willing to make claims about how I or cyrus would behave, we've shown more courtesy. I've never said you or anyone else...

You are the one making statements about how you would behave. You opened the door to discussion about it.

The reason you haven't said anything about how I or anyone else would behave is not out of any "courtesy" on your part but because that wasn't laid on the table by I or anyone else.

 

[russ_watters]

You are the one making statements about how you would behave. You opened the door to discussion about it.

The reason you haven't said anything about how I or anyone else would behave is not out of any "courtesy" on your part but because that wasn't laid on the table by I or anyone else.

Please reread: I'm making statements about how *I* would behave, but not making statements about how *you* would behave. Ie, my first statement about how *I* would behave was in post 35 in response to a statement by OAQfirst about how *he* would behave. My response did not include a personal criticism of him or, in fact, any comment at all about how he would behave. I don't know him so I can't say anything about it.

I can say how I would behave (even if I'm wrong) - I at least know myself. You can't make statements about how I would behave. You don't know me at all.

 

[Phrak]

Let's play Airliner Over New York.

You have evidence of an airliner that could be targeted to ram into your building.

You have 10 seconds to obtain the correct answer.

Calculate that odds, given the evidence, that it would kill you if it hit your building. Calculate the odds you could break a hip taking egress from the building. Calculate the risk to your job standing if you take-off. Calculate the ratio risk/life. Obtain the correct course of action.

---------------------------

As you all might figure intelligently, conscious rational thought has nothing to do with a response to potential danger, or we'd all die pondering.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let's play Airliner Over New York.

You have evidence of an airliner that could be targeted to ram into your building.

You have 10 seconds to obtain the correct answer.

Calculate that odds, given the evidence, that it would kill you if it hit your building. Calculate the odds you could break a hip taking egress from the building. Calculating the risk to your job standing if you take-off. Calculate the ratio risk/life. Obtain the correct course of action.

---------------------------

As you all might figure intelligently, conscious rational thought has nothing to do with a response to potential danger, or we'd all die pondering.

Well, this is actually playing right into Russ' point.

Taking that logic as far as you do results in us all curling up in fetal positions under our beds.

(I am soooo fickle...)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Let's play Airliner Over New York.

You have evidence of an airliner that could be targeted to ram into your building.

You have 10 seconds to obtain the correct answer.

Calculate that odds, given the evidence, that it would kill you if it hit your building. Calculate the odds you could break a hip taking egress from the building. Calculating the risk to your job standing if you take-off. Calculate the ratio risk/life. Obtain the correct course of action.

---------------------------

As you all might figure intelligently, conscious rational thought has nothing to do with a response to potential danger, or we'd all die pondering.

That's assuming that a plane will be hitting your building in ten seconds in which case it seems like your best option is probably kissing your *** goodbye.

Also consider that evacuating buildings just in case and putting large numbers of people on the street will result in slowed emergency response to any actual target that gets hit endangering more lives.
It may be a likely and common response but that does not at all make it even mildly reasonable. In a place that has already suffered a major terrorist attack you might expect better preparedness for dealing with these situations as opposed to panic and outrage over the "insensitivity" of it all.

 

[JasonRox]

Rest of the world? Please. I don't know if I'm better than 75% or better than 90% but I can give you plenty of facts that unequivocably show that I'm much, much better than average. But that really isn't relelvant here - I'm not the one who made this personal, I just responded when personally attacked. My point has nothing to do with me. These people acted stupidly regardless of if I would also be stupid.

Please note: while plenty of people here are willing to make claims about how I or cyrus would behave, we've shown more courtesy. I've never said you or anyone else would panic/be stupid. I really don't know and it isn't relelvant to this thread. I do, however, know myself better than I know you, so I'll speak only to how I would act. You should do the same.

I have no idea how you would act. I'm not saying you'd panic either.

But I'd be surprised to hear you wouldn't have a care in the world of something being drastically different.

 

[OmCheeto]

If you worked in the Nymex building and had your head buried in your workstation when someone yelled "Oh my god there's a 747 flying 100 feet off the ground outside, and there's an F-16 chasing it!" you would have panicked like a little schoolgirl, just like everyone else.

I'm with you. Slide down that fire escape and get the hell out of there.

The 9/11 survivors did the same thing.

If you're wrong, you're a sissy. If you're right, you're the only survivor.

In either event, you can point a middle finger at anyone who messes with you, which is much better than being worm food.

 

[Phrak]

That's assuming that a plane will be hitting your building in ten seconds in which case it seems like your best option is probably kissing your *** goodbye.

Also consider that evacuating buildings just in case and putting large numbers of people on the street will result in slowed emergency response to any actual target that gets hit endangering more lives.
It may be a likely and common response but that does not at all make it even mildly reasonable. In a place that has already suffered a major terrorist attack you might expect better preparedness for dealing with these situations as opposed to panic and outrage over the "insensitivity" of it all.

These people in most cases have considered another airliner attack, and what they would do if the evidence presented itself. The response of each is the combined total of their considerations.

I expected someone would call me on the 10 second number. You have 10 seconds to get the right answer and not git potentially kilt. :) I was keeping it simple. Include the time-to-potential-impact in your calculations.

 

[OAQfirst]

Please reread: I'm making statements about how *I* would behave, but not making statements about how *you* would behave. Ie, my first statement about how *I* would behave was in post 35 in response to a statement by OAQfirst about how *he* would behave. My response did not include a personal criticism of him or, in fact, any comment at all about how he would behave. I don't know him so I can't say anything about it.

I can say how I would behave (even if I'm wrong) - I at least know myself. You can't make statements about how I would behave. You don't know me at all.

"No personal criticism." Can I tack that over your descriptions of thousands of New Yorkers as being "stupid" for behaving exactly how I would have?

 

[mgb_phys]

A number of 'web news' sites are reporting a leaked memo claiming that the federal genii in charge of the stunt alerted New York authorities but ordered them not to publicize it. The memo claims they were aware that it would cause panic but for 'security reasons' it was secret.
It also claims the President knew nothing about the flight which was organized by White House Office of Military Affairs to have some pretty pictures for it's new calender. It also cost a fortune - presumably photoshopping the plane onto stock pictures would be dishonest.

 

[WhoWee]

A number of 'web news' sites are reporting a leaked memo claiming that the federal genii in charge of the stunt alerted New York authorities but ordered them not to publicize it. The memo claims they were aware that it would cause panic but for 'security reasons' it was secret.
It also claims the President knew nothing about the flight which was organized by White House Office of Military Affairs to have some pretty pictures for it's new calender. It also cost a fortune - presumably photoshopping the plane onto stock pictures would be dishonest.

It's probably standard procedure not to announce the flight plan of AF-1...should have made an exception...or at least discussed it first.

 

[DaveC426913]

organized by White House Office of Military Affairs to have some pretty pictures for it's new calender.

Boy is that ever going to backfire. Everytime someone sees that pic in the calendar they're going to remember the day New York was terrorized by ... Washington.

 

[mgb_phys]

Boy is that ever going to backfire. Everytime someone sees that pic in the calendar they're going to remember the day New York was terrorized by ... Washington.

You can picture the thinking in that sort of department.

1, They use an old stock photo of New York which includes the twin towers.
2, They take new photos with AF1 but then black out the plane in the photos for security reasons.
3, They print the calendar but then classify it because it shows AF1


The BBC did something similairly daft a few years ago.
I had new channel identifier adverts with a hot air balloon flying over famous British monuments/countryside.
As a public disclosure statement it admitted that because of restricted airspace one of the shots was CGI.
The public response of course was - what? How much did you spend flying a balloon all over the UK with helicopters photographing it when it could all have been done in photoshop in an hour by an intern!

 

[LowlyPion]

White House aide resigns over NYC flyover
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 15 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The White House official who authorized a $328,835 photo-op of Air Force One soaring above New York City resigned Friday just weeks after the flyover sparked panicked workers to rush into the streets and flashbacks to Sept. 11. Louis Caldera said the controversy had "made it impossible for me to effectively lead the White House Military Office," which is responsible for presidential aircraft.

"Moreover, it has become a distraction in the important work you are doing as president," Caldera wrote in his resignation letter to President Barack Obama.

An internal White House investigation found missed messages and portrayed an out-of-the-loop Caldera, clearly the administration's fall guy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090508/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_low_flying_plane;_ylt=AkyQoiW1Bwii.CLwjDsbSHeyFz4D

 

[LowlyPion]

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090508/capt.e1a42a451c7641928d174728b2df949b.obama_low_flying_plane_wx108.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=LrY5aGbHIw3DCd9DmU6OSw--

The picture that cost him his job.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090508/capt.e1a42a451c7641928d174728b2df949b.obama_low_flying_plane_wx108.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=LrY5aGbHIw3DCd9DmU6OSw--

The picture that cost him his job.

At least it is a nice picture. It would really suck to get fired for a blurry one.

 

[Astronuc]

Note the reflection from the glass toward the top right.

They could have done it on any Sunday.

And the issue was security? The president wasn't on the plane.

Were they worried someone is going to shoot it down?