Airplane 'Photo Op' Angers 9/11 Witnesses

[Cyrus]

People who don't know airplanes don't know airplanes and people who know airplanes know airplanes. People who know airplanes would recognize that one from 10 miles (from the right angle) and people who don't would never recognize it. Being able to read the words isn't really part of the equation.

You would think Americans would know something as basic, Iconic and special as Air Force One... (Shame on you if you don't know).

Every time it flies over campus I give it a salute. Its def. NOT any ole 747 when it flies by - it is impressive.

And Marine One for that matter...

There is a very good history channel episode soley on AF-1. It's fantastic.

 

[russ_watters]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wTyI9xqy7U

Awesome.

 

[berkeman]

I'm a Lead in a couple different ERTs. If I weren't briefed on this, or didn't get an e-mail notification (or didn't see a wide-spread notification on the nightly news) beforehand, I could have well have ordered an evacuation of my zone based on a visual report. No BS or amateur Monday Morning Quarterbacking. This was a failure to communicate, which could have gotten my ERT folks hurt, or the people we protect hurt. This stupidity needs to be dealt with in the AARs, and hopefully will.

Quit bickering. People could have been hurt because of the negligence of some of our leaders. Those leaders are accountable. This will hopefully not happen again.

 

[Pengwuino]

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?

Sorry, I did not realize that they were in an approach path. Nor did I realize that we shoot down hijacked 747s these days. I must have missed that memo.

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WHOOPS! So, I'm guessing that the photo won't even be used now.

Great video, rootX!

 

[Astronuc]

Recriminations fly after NYC jet flyover photo op
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090428/ap_on_re_us/us_low_flying_plane

Some pictures from a distance. The cell phone image looks eerily like the images from the WTC attacks.

NEW YORK – It was supposed to be a photo op that captured images of an Air Force One plane with a majestic Statue of Liberty in the background. Instead, it turned into a public relations nightmare that led to recriminations from the president and mayor and prompted thousands other to ask, "What were they thinking?"

Just before the workday began on Monday, an airliner and supersonic fighter jet zoomed past the lower Manhattan skyline. Within minutes, startled financial workers streamed out of their offices, fearing a nightmarish replay of Sept. 11.

For a half-hour, the Boeing 747 and F-16 jet circled the Statue of Liberty and the Financial District near the World Trade Center site. Offices evacuated. Dispatchers were inundated with calls. Witnesses thought the planes were flying dangerously low.
. . . .

It was carried out by the Defense Department with little warning, infuriating New York officials and putting the White House on the defense. Even Mayor Michael Bloomberg didn't know about it, and he later called it "insensitive" to fly so near the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
. . . .

 

[JasonRox]

Cyrus is so brave.

 

[OAQfirst]

Panic is an irrational thing, but it still annoys me when I see people do it because they know it is irrational and can't stop themselves from being irrational. I was a guy who ignored the weekly fire alarms in my dorm, always caused by some jackass overcookign his pizza at 2:00 am. I don't get worried without a reason and seeing other people panick is not a reason for me to panic. I would not have had to see this plane with my own eyes to not panic. I'm not a sheep or a fish.

I don't understand how you apply this comparison. I get similar disturbances in my apartment building and respond pretty much as you did. I'm sure many people in those office buildings also get similar alarms, bomb threats, or other nonsense. But a report of a low-flying plane is entirely different from some movement in the brush that sends a herd running their tails off. Most people do not have your level of discipline and reasoning; their panic is understandable. Not just for terrorist attacks, but also mechanical failures. I would be out the door, a little panicky, but more for the possibility that a plane has failed. It doesn't have to hit my building to be a risk to mine; the two towers brought down two other buildings. I'm not sticking around.

Lion is to wind in the brush as low-flying plane is to photo-op? Not exactly the reasoning that comes to most people's minds, I'm sure.

 

[OAQfirst]

You would think Americans would know something as basic, Iconic and special as Air Force One... (Shame on you if you don't know).

Every time it flies over campus I give it a salute. Its def. NOT any ole 747 when it flies by - it is impressive.

And Marine One for that matter...

There is a very good history channel episode soley on AF-1. It's fantastic.

As it whizzes by a skyscraper, even for some distance, will people have the opportunity to recognize it as AF1? How about the angle? If I look out the office window and just catch a glimpse of a jet flying by, I won't necessarily know it's AF1. In that situation, I'm gone! Could anyone blame me?

 

[DaveC426913]

People who know airplanes would recognize that one from 10 miles (from the right angle) and people who don't would never recognize it. Being able to read the words isn't really part of the equation.

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

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

Low-flying airplanes in New York airspace are a bad thing. So what if they overreact? Worst thing that happens is they look sheepish. (Granted, there's a potential for accidents and people getting hurt, but remember that it is individuals who decide to run for cover, not a group consensus.)

(This isn't aimed at you specifiaclly Russ, simply the proponents of this line of argument.)

Panic is an irrational thing, but it still annoys me when I see people do it because they know it is irrational and can't stop themselves from being irrational. I was a guy who ignored the weekly fire alarms in my dorm, always caused by some jackass overcookign his pizza at 2:00 am. I don't get worried without a reason and seeing other people panick is not a reason for me to panic. I would not have had to see this plane with my own eyes to not panic. I'm not a sheep or a fish.

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.

I'm a Lead in a couple different ERTs. If I weren't briefed on this, or didn't get an e-mail notification (or didn't see a wide-spread notification on the nightly news) beforehand, I could have well have ordered an evacuation of my zone based on a visual report. No BS or amateur Monday Morning Quarterbacking. This was a failure to communicate, which could have gotten my ERT folks hurt, or the people we protect hurt. This stupidity needs to be dealt with in the AARs, and hopefully will.

Quit bickering. People could have been hurt because of the negligence of some of our leaders. Those leaders are accountable. This will hopefully not happen again.

I kindof assume they weighed the consequences of making the event public. If the public had known, some nuts proably would have tried to cash in on the publicity. Injuries could have been worse.

On the other hand, one wonders if the flay-by was merely a cover story for some sort of security drill/test.

 

[turbo]

On the other hand, one wonders if the flay-by was merely a cover story for some sort of security drill/test.

No need to use AF1 for any kind of drill. The military has all kinds of planes that could have been used.

 

[LowlyPion]

As it whizzes by a skyscraper, even for some distance, will people have the opportunity to recognize it as AF1? How about the angle? If I look out the office window and just catch a glimpse of a jet flying by, I won't necessarily know it's AF1. In that situation, I'm gone! Could anyone blame me?

Let's not over-dramatize it too much.

It's not like the plane was ever that low to the ground. It was never at window level over the city. I've seen the videos and it was clearly flying hundreds of feet above the tops of the skyscrapers in mid-town. As to rushing out of the buildings into the streets ... geez, I'm not so sure that's the best place to be, even if you did think it was Osama joy-riding around in Obama's plane.

 

[DaveC426913]

No need to use AF1 for any kind of drill. The military has all kinds of planes that could have been used.

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?

 

[OAQfirst]

Let's not over-dramatize it too much.

It's not like the plane was ever that low to the ground. It was never at window level over the city. I've seen the videos and it was clearly flying hundreds of feet above the tops of the skyscrapers in mid-town. As to rushing out of the buildings into the streets ... geez, I'm not so sure that's the best place to be, even if you did think it was Osama joy-riding around in Obama's plane.

Not over-dramatized at all. Did you see the pic in Astronuc's post? It was flying around for half an hour. There's no easy way to gauge where that plane is and it doesn't even matter. It's not like there's a set distance to the ground the plane has to be for it to be a perceived risk. It was close enough to scare the bejeezus out of a lot of people and for good reason.

 

[DaveC426913]

As to rushing out of the buildings into the streets ... geez, I'm not so sure that's the best place to be...

In the street, rather than in a building, is sure the place I'd rather be if I'm in New York and there are both large commercial jets and fighter jets flying low over the city. In the street I have freedom of movement. I'm not trapped.

I think one of things that's happening here is that it's easy to assume people were "panicking". (Running does not, in and of itself, equal panicking.) It is very easy to judge a scene en mass and from afar and decide people were being irrational.

 

[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.