Airplane 'Photo Op' Angers 9/11 Witnesses

  • Thread starter Thread starter LowlyPion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Airplane
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a recent incident involving a Boeing airplane flying low over lower Manhattan, which was part of a U.S. government-approved publicity operation. Participants express their reactions to the event, particularly in relation to its timing and the memories it evokes of the September 11 attacks. The conversation includes perspectives on public safety, government communication, and the appropriateness of such maneuvers in a post-9/11 context.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express outrage over the low flyby, arguing it was unnecessary and poorly communicated, recalling the trauma of 9/11.
  • Others differentiate between the planned photo-op and the emergency landing of a plane in the Hudson, suggesting the latter was a life-saving action while the former was not.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of adequate warnings to the public, with some noting that even city officials were unaware of the operation.
  • Some participants criticize those who reacted with fear, suggesting that the presence of military escort should have alleviated concerns about safety.
  • There are discussions about the purpose of the flight, with some questioning the rationale behind the operation and suggesting alternatives like using Photoshop for the imagery.
  • Participants share personal anecdotes and reactions, highlighting the emotional impact of the event on those who witnessed it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the appropriateness of the flyby and the reactions it provoked. While some believe it was a reckless decision that caused unnecessary panic, others argue that the public's fear is irrational given the context of the military escort. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about public perception and the effectiveness of government communication. The emotional responses to the flyby are influenced by the historical context of 9/11, which complicates the evaluation of the incident.

  • #121
JasonRox said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #123
lisab said:
I'm not advocating panic, lol! But I applaud your denunciation of panicking :smile:.

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).
 
  • #124
russ_watters said:
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...
:confused:
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.:mad:
 
  • #125
DaveC426913 said:
:confused:
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.:mad:
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.
 
  • #126
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #127
Phrak said:
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...):biggrin:
 
  • #128
Phrak said:
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.
 
  • #129
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #130
chroot said:
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.
 
  • #131
TheStatutoryApe said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #132
russ_watters said:
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?
 
  • #133
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 calendar. It also cost a fortune - presumably photoshopping the plane onto stock pictures would be dishonest.
 
  • #134
mgb_phys said:
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 calendar. 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.
 
  • #135
mgb_phys said:
organized by White House Office of Military Affairs to have some pretty pictures for it's new calendar.
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.
 
  • #136
DaveC426913 said:
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!
 
Last edited:
  • #137
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #138
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #139
LowlyPion said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #140
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?
 
  • #141
Astronuc said:
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?

Well ... the light streak they can just Photoshop out.

Oh wait. They could have just Photoshopped it all to begin with.

My guess is that it is standard operation not to announce any flights of Air Force One. Like any practice, exceptions inevitably arise.

Hence Caldera went to the White House, and all he ends up with is a light streaked picture.
 
  • #142
I did hear it reported that the schedule for AF1 is always kept secret whether POTUS is on the plane or not.